What is your favorite proof for God?

[DysonSphere]

You seem devoid of normal reason, and joy of discovery. Here is an interview with a former atheist.

I know Einstein did not think hell exists. I do not think Flew accepts that hell exists. I don’t know how important Flew finds the question of God. Einstein found the question of God’s actions in the world (understanding “God” as Spinoza’s God, these would be the natural laws) the most interesting and, with this understanding, so do I.

I do not agree with either Einstein’s or Flew’s theology. My preferred speculative theology is somewhat unique, and is closest to Leibniz’s or Freeman Dyson’s.

As a last note, I do not know if my reasoning is normal or not, but your assertion that I lack joy in discovery is unkind and untrue. I simply enjoy certain kinds of discovery (about the universe, its invisible forces, its invariant laws) more interesting than others (existence of God, heaven, hell). I understand that others legitimately find the question of God, heaven and hell far more interesting than about chemistry in space.

 

[donsnow]

In the last half of the 25th chapter of Matthew, while prophesying what He will say and to whom He will say it, Jesus says, “…cast into the lake of fire, reserved for the devil and his angels.”

Underlining my emphasis. This states clearly that the lake of fire was never meant for people; that we may safely infer the only people who go there are the ones holding on to Satan or holding on to one of his angels. Works just the opposite for Heaven, we only get there in the company of Jesus Christ.

So, once I read that fine print and thought on it, it reaffirms God’s Justice, in my heart.

 

[DysonSphere]

Also, thanks to Abu, I’ll be adding a “signature”.

---

"I neither affirm nor deny the immortality of man. I see no reason for believing it, but, on the other hand, I have no means of disproving it. I have no a priori objections to the doctrine. No man who has to deal daily and hourly with nature can trouble himself about a priori difficulties. Give me such evidence as would justify me in believing in anything else, and I will believe that. Why should I not? It is not half so wonderful as the conservation of force or the indestructibility of matter… " - Thomas Huxley

 

[Abu]

DysonSphere
I do not know if my reasoning is normal or not, but your assertion that I lack joy in discovery is unkind and untrue. I simply enjoy certain kinds of discovery (about the universe, its invisible forces, its invariant laws) more interesting than others (existence of God, heaven, hell)

Unkind? Rather factual, meant to get a reaction, not meant to be “unkind”. You affirm that you have limited your horizon, because you ignore the fact that if you have discovered there are “invariant laws” there must be a lawgiver.
If there are “invisible forces” there must be a prime mover of those forces.

Your Thomas Huxley, who invented the term “agnostic”, seemed to think a little about other matters, on occasion: “The moral progress of society depends not on imitating the cosmic process (i.e. the evolutionary struggle for survival) but on combating it.” (Evolution and Ethics and Other Essays, New York, 1914, p 37). Further, with your pre-occupation with the chemistry of space, it seems strange that you seem to ignore the fact that science itself arose in Christian Europe and nowhere else – because of the doctrine of the Catholic Church. It is a strange “speculative theology” that can ignore that fact.

“I now believe that the universe was brought into existence by an infinite Intelligence,” Flew affirms. "I believe that this universe’s intricate laws manifest what scientists have called the Mind of God. I believe that life and reproduction originate in a divine Source.
“Why do I believe this, given that I expounded and defended atheism for more than half a century? The short answer is this: this is the world picture, as I see it that has emerged from modern science. Science spotlights three dimensions of nature that point to God. The first is the fact that nature obeys laws. The second is the dimension of life, of intelligently organized and purpose-driven beings, which arose from matter. The third is the very existence of nature.” (Antony Flew, There Is a God, 2007, pp. 88-89).

 

[greylorn]

This was written by an Ex-Atheist - his proof of the existence of God!

Ex- Atheist NDE

Good story, Not the usual and customary NDE, which seems a good thing.

Note that it adds to the considerable body of even better empirical evidence for the post-death continuance of human consciousness, but does not prove the existence of God.

Like other NDE feedback, it shows that there is a peculiar mental state which shows up near death, for some people. This particular story is the poorest of that available, for the experiences described were entirely in the mind of the describer. They have no relationship to objective reality, however important they may have been to the individual.

The Pam Reynolds brain surgery evidence is much better, for the information she described while under anesthesia actually occurred. (Dimwit atheists still find ways to explain it away.)

I’m not suggesting that there is a credible atheist explanation for this category of evidence, only that it has no causal or logical relationship to belief in the God defined by contemporary religions.

If every atheist in the world suddenly had an NDE of some sort and came back awed and converted to the belief that an omnipotent, omniscient God created the universe and man, according to Christian teaching, they would be the same fools as they already are. Why?

There is no relationship between that evidence and the theory which religionists want it to support.

 

[DysonSphere]

Unkind? Rather factual, meant to get a reaction, not meant to be “unkind”. You affirm that you have limited your horizon, because you ignore the fact that if you have discovered there are “invariant laws” there must be a lawgiver.

First, I do not see that this necessarily follows: that invariant laws, so termed, require a law-giver. If they do, then I suppose one exists, but that seems a matter for philosophers and theologians; when they reach a consensus, I’ll be happy to review it and likely accept it.

Second, I have limited my horizons, maybe because I lack great intelligence. I do take great joy in discovery, however. If you think this is not so, you are welcome to those thoughts, but I’d prefer not to read them.

Finally, I do find it interesting that much of modern science has arisen in western Europe, though some historians say that much of it arose also in India and North Africa, and that Greek philosophy has been the great cause for science, and Catholic theology a great enemy. I do not accept this entirely, but because of these divergent views, and the lack of time or interest to look into them very carefully at this time in my life, but would very-much like to consider more carefully the history of science.

Currently, I’ve only read two books on the subject. A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom (both volumes) by White, and How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization by Woods.

When I have more time and interest, I will likely read more on the topic.

---

"I neither affirm nor deny the immortality of man. I see no reason for believing it, but, on the other hand, I have no means of disproving it. I have no a priori objections to the doctrine. No man who has to deal daily and hourly with nature can trouble himself about a priori difficulties. Give me such evidence as would justify me in believing in anything else, and I will believe that. Why should I not? It is not half so wonderful as the conservation of force or the indestructibility of matter… " - Thomas Huxley
Reply With Quote

 

[Abu]

DysonSphere
I do find it interesting that much of modern science has arisen in western Europe, though some historians say that much of it arose also in India and North Africa, and that Greek philosophy has been the great cause for science, and Catholic theology a great enemy. I do not accept this entirely, but because of these divergent views, and the lack of time or interest to look into them very carefully at this time in my life, but would very-much like to consider more carefully the history of science. I’ve only read two books on the subject. A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom (both volumes) by White, How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization by Woods.

I heartily commend you for reading Dr Woods’ book – his case is very solid, unlike White’s (1896).

You may be interested in recalling that the denigration of the Church’s role in the development of science had been prevalent until the early twentieth century when historian Pierre Duhem underlined the Church’s crucial role and more and more historians have recognised this fact. (How The Catholic Church Built Western Civilization, Thomas E Woods Jr., Regnery Publishing, 2005, p 75).

I repeat that for the Arabs, while their translations of ancient Greek classics led to their dissemination in the Western world in the twelfth century, a profound development for Western intellectual history, any contributions of Muslim scientists “typically occurred in spite of Islam rather than because of it.” You may have missed the facts: that science arose nowhere else, anyone who fabricates that is untrustworthy. I cover precisely this in outline, with references, in posts #212, 246. Another Catholic development – the university – played a pivotal role in the rise of modern science, as did several priests. A highly acclaimed recent work is What’s So Great About Christianity, by Dinesh D’Souza, Regnery, 2007. He cites also numerous world-class scientists who reject naturalism and materialism and are theists or Christians.

Apart from Dr Rodney Stark’s The Victory of Reason, and For the Glory of God, I see that he has also Discovering God: The Origins Of The Great Religions And The Evolution Of Belief, Paperback - December 2008.

Happy hunting.

 

[DysonSphere]

Abu,

I respect the amount of research you have done to reach your conclusions. I do not share them (either the amount of research or the conclusions about history that you have reached).

I will, however, look more deeply into this issue in a few years. For now, the science is too interesting for me to divide my attention.

Thanks again for the recommendations; after a few years, I will probably return to them.

---

"I neither affirm nor deny the immortality of man. I see no reason for believing it, but, on the other hand, I have no means of disproving it. I have no a priori objections to the doctrine. No man who has to deal daily and hourly with nature can trouble himself about a priori difficulties. Give me such evidence as would justify me in believing in anything else, and I will believe that. Why should I not? It is not half so wonderful as the conservation of force or the indestructibility of matter… " - Thomas Huxley

 

[Andy_III]

The final reason is that I cannot understand why a good being would create an eternal torment for those who simply weren’t interested in finding out if it existed while they were alive. If I’m wrong in this assertion, and there exists such a place of eternal torment, then I suppose I will have made a terrible mistake. I’m willing to take that risk.

I hope this provides an alternative to your proposal; I can see why your argument would compel many people to make the search for god and afterlife their first priority. It helps me understand why people would want to go into theology in the first place.

Not really an alternative, it just adds one more probability to the mix. The probability Pk, that you might be able to increase your knowledge about the subject. Only if you have decided that this proability is zero and will be zero throughout your entire life, then I suppose you can let it go, but I think it would be unhealthy to have such a low opinion of yourself. In fact, I estimated that probability at 1, so I didn’t even mention it before.

Also, I did not say that God created hell to be an eternal torment. God allows us free will to choose what we want – to be with Him or without Him, for all eternity. This creates a separation (i.e., two places), but not necessarily torment. The torment comes in from knowing that God exists and that you can’t be with Him – because you chose not to! God loves us so much that He allows us to be apart from Him. This life is the time we are given to make that choice. All I’m saying is to use your time wisely.

 

[Andy_III]

Note that it adds to the considerable body of even better empirical evidence for the post-death continuance of human consciousness, but does not prove the existence of God.

Thanks, Greylorn, it is nice of you to help our friend DysonSphere (and other agnostics). Not all of us are as far along the journey as you and I are.

 

[DysonSphere]

Not really an alternative, it just adds one more probability to the mix. The probability Pk, that you might be able to increase your knowledge about the subject. Only if you have decided that this proability is zero and will be zero throughout your entire life, then I suppose you can let it go, but I think it would be unhealthy to have such a low opinion of yourself. In fact, I estimated that probability at 1, so I didn’t even mention it before.

So there’s Pk (possibility of knowledge) and Li(t) (level of interest, as a time-dependent function, bounded between zero (completely uninterested) and at least one). These may be combined (along with the initial estimation of Pg, the probability that God exists) to produce Pn (the probability that one will investigate whether God exists or not as a very serious portion of his or her time and energy). Currently, I estimate Pk to be very low and my Li(now) is also very low, though I estimate that when I am older Li(t) may increase substantially. However, for now, combining these gets us to near zero.

I think this is also relevant to the thread topic. Even if there is a valid and sound proof for God’s existence, the proof may be beyond people below a certain intelligence and/or education, and it may also be outside the range of interest others have. As such, even a valid and sound proof may be legitimately unconvincing to some.

In my case, at this time, it would require a consensus in academic philosophy in order for me to consider a simplified summary of the agreed-upon argument; I would likely accept it.

Also, I did not say that God created hell to be an eternal torment. God allows us free will to choose what we want – to be with Him or without Him, for all eternity. This creates a separation (i.e., two places), but not necessarily torment. The torment comes in from knowing that God exists and that you can’t be with Him – because you chose not to! God loves us so much that He allows us to be apart from Him. This life is the time we are given to make that choice. All I’m saying is to use your time wisely.

In that case, I choose to be with God in Heaven if God exists and if Heaven exists, and if the traditional teachings about both are at least somewhat accurate. This will be my eternal choice, given the premises.

---

"I neither affirm nor deny the immortality of man. I see no reason for believing it, but, on the other hand, I have no means of disproving it. I have no a priori objections to the doctrine. No man who has to deal daily and hourly with nature can trouble himself about a priori difficulties. Give me such evidence as would justify me in believing in anything else, and I will believe that. Why should I not? It is not half so wonderful as the conservation of force or the indestructibility of matter… " - Thomas Huxley

 

[DysonSphere]

The equation I would generate would be:

http://physics.ohio-state.edu/~pbrimmer/godprob.jpg

So for someone who really didn’t know if God exists but thought for some reason that it was a coin-flip (Pg = 0.5), and was very interested in the question Li(t) = 1, and determined that it is very likely (Pk = 1) to know that God exists, he would get Pn of about 1, or an almost 100% chance of looking into whether God exists. I would estimate that Pk = 0.01, will posit the best-case that Pg = 0.5 and my Li(now) = 0.1 (that’s about the amount of work-time in a 12 hour work day that I’d be willing to apply to this). Putting this together produces:

Pn = 2.489 x 10^-61, or very unlikely at this time. Pk could likely be scaled more kindly, likely as also a function of Li(t), but this is a weak estimate, and expresses my current hope in my coming up with a good answer. Others with a better knowledge-base I would have a far kinder estimate for (about 0.1%). Again, all this may change.

---

"I neither affirm nor deny the immortality of man. I see no reason for believing it, but, on the other hand, I have no means of disproving it. I have no a priori objections to the doctrine. No man who has to deal daily and hourly with nature can trouble himself about a priori difficulties. Give me such evidence as would justify me in believing in anything else, and I will believe that. Why should I not? It is not half so wonderful as the conservation of force or the indestructibility of matter… " - Thomas Huxley

 

[ProveIt312]

the death and resurrection of Christ! because He lives, we will live, too. Christ is God in history, God made man, and God made personal for our sake’s. humble, loving, gracious, and still almighty, just, and holy.

What’s your objective proof or evidence that this man actually existed, that these things really happened or any of these statements themselves are factual? If you can’t provide any of this, it’s not proof.

 

[Call_Me_V]

What’s your objective proof or evidence that this man actually existed, that these things really happened or any of these statements themselves are factual? If you can’t provide any of this, it’s not proof.

The evidence that Jesus actually existed is pretty thorough. You have the four gospels, the various epistles, and he’s mentioned twice by the historian Josephus. I might be leaving something out, I’m sure that if I am then someone else can add more.

V

 

[ProveIt312]

Proveit312:

You write:

“I don’t think I’m unreasonable at all; if an amputee prayed and regrew their limb, I’d be quite compelled to reconsider my position.”

Time to reconsider! Check this out:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracle_of_Calanda

If you want some more decent miracles, try these sites:

therealpresence.org/eucharst/mir/engl_mir.htm
therealpresence.org/eucharst/mir/english_pdf/Lanciano1.pdf
therealpresence.org/eucharst/mir/english_pdf/Lanciano2.pdf

St. Joseph of Cupertino:
messengersaintanthony.com/messaggero/pagina_articolo.asp?IDX=171IDRX=55

“‘To doubt is understandable,’ Fr. Giulio Berettoni, rector of the Shrine of St. Joseph of Cupertino in Osimo tells me ‘but it isn’t justifiable. If we take a serious look at the saint’s life from a historical point of view, then we see that we cannot question his ecstasies. There are numerous witness accounts. They began to be documented in 1628, and this continued until Joseph’s death in 1663, i.e. for 35 years. In certain periods, the phenomenon is recorded to have taken place more than once a day. It has been calculated that Joseph’s ‘ecstatic flights’ took place at least 1,000 to 1,500 times in his lifetime, perhaps even more, and that they were witnessed by thousands of people. They were the phenomenon of the century. They were so sensational and so public that they attracted attention from curious people from all walks of life, Italians and foreigners, believers and unbelievers, simple folk, but also scholars, scientists, priests, bishops and cardinals. They continued to occur in every situation, in whatever church in which the saint prayed or celebrated Mass. It is impossible to doubt such a sensational and public phenomenon which repeated itself over time. It is also worth noting that these events occurred in the seventeenth century, the time of the Inquisition. Amazing events, miracles and healings were labelled magic and the protagonists ended up undergoing a trial by the civil and religious Inquisition. In fact, St. Joseph of Cupertino underwent this very fate because of his ecstasies. But he was subjected to various trials without ever being condemned; final proof that these are sensational events, but also real, extraordinary and concrete facts.’”

See also therealpresence.org/archives/Miracles/Miracles_005.htm

Best wishes,

Vincent Torley

It’s amazing how people so readily accept anecdotal evidence hundreds of years old, yet reject scientific evidence for things like evolution or climate change that is happening and can be demonstrated RIGHT NOW. Convenient how none of these things happen today, or to more people at a time. It’s not that I’d reject any evidence provided, yet stories like this are no more reliable than stories of sea monsters told by Vikings or eyewitness accounts of UFO’s. Even when a large group of people see’s something unexplained, it doesn’t prove their conclusion (based on preexisting beliefs) is necessarily the correct one.

 

[ProveIt312]

Well, I’ve simply followed the evidence available that overwhelmingly points to the conclusion that there is no creator other than that of the laws of nature.

I’ve yet to run into any compelling argument against a creator of the laws of nature (and everything else), although I find new evidence to reaffirm my beliefs all the time. Just saw some new evidence on the history channel the other day.

Be careful when you speak of the laws of nature, because we don’t really know what they are entirely. We just guess and check, like we were taught in grade school. Right now we guess that energy cannot be created or destroyed (by humans or processes of nature that we know of). Newton developed a law of gravity, but it wasn’t the same one as the law of nature that governs the reality we’ve labelled gravity, but it was and is close enough for some of the things we do everyday. The “laws” we get from science are always subject to change based on evidence. To not believe in God (because of science) is to ignore all the evidence in favor of unrealistic and unscientific beliefs.

I have some questions, scientists may be working on these already:

Where did all the energy come from if it was not created? What is the sum total energy of the universe? Why is there that much and not more or less?

The answers can only tell us more about God and His creation.

ProveIt312, I’d like to hear what you believe.

If you’ve not found any evidence against a creator, you haven’t looked very hard. I’d recommend starting with “God: The Failed Hypothesis” by Victor Stenger and go from there.

As far as your questions, science is working on answering these and other questions that, yes, we do no yet know the answers to. But to fill that gap in knowledge with god is lazy; science has progressed mankind’s knowledge exponentially more in the past century than all religions have combined throughout their entire combined existence. I’m going with those that have discovered answers rather than invented them.

 

[Call_Me_V]

It’s amazing how people so readily accept anecdotal evidence hundreds of years old, yet reject scientific evidence for things like evolution or climate change that is happening and can be demonstrated RIGHT NOW.

Actually, many groups have claimed miracles in the here and now, and have enormous amounts of eyewitness testimony for them. I don’t believe them any more than you do, but miracle stories aren’t just a thing of the past, they still spread quite quickly even today.

V

 

[CatholicFireman]

Getting the thread back on track…

I have many favorites, a few of them are…

• Seeing my beautiful daughter each and every day
• Seeing my beautiful wife each and every day

What he said.

Aaaaand…

What He † said.

 

[Call_Me_V]

On topic, my favorite proof for God is William Lane Craig’s version of the Kalam Cosmological Argument. It is, in my opinion, the best attempt to prove the existence of God ever mustered.

V

 

[donsnow]

A poet’s comment:

I still think that God is the best proof for God. And, I think those that cannot see or hear Him in His creation are those who have eyes but don’t see and who have ears but don’t hear.