What is your favorite proof for God?

[rvilbig]

And, if God is truly omniscient in the general sense I was taught as a Catholic (knowing all things, past, present, and future) he cannot create anything which has genuine free will-- which implies the power to think of something which God has not thought of.

Saint Augustine readily answers your question:

“It does not follow, therefore, that the order of causes, known for certain though it is in the foreknowing mind of God, brings it about that there is no power in our will, since our choices themselves have an important place in the order of causes” (Saint Augustine, City of God, Book V, Chapter 9, paragraph 17).

Let me know if you have any other questions.

-Ryan Vilbig
ryan.vilbig@gmail.com

 

[Abu]

greylorn
if God is truly omniscient in the general sense I was taught as a Catholic (knowing all things, past, present, and future) he cannot create anything which has genuine free will-- which implies the power to think of something which God has not thought of.

An obvious oxymoron by definition, since God is also omnipotent.

 

[greylorn]

Saint Augustine readily answers your question:

“It does not follow, therefore, that the order of causes, known for certain though it is in the foreknowing mind of God, brings it about that there is no power in our will, since our choices themselves have an important place in the order of causes” (Saint Augustine, City of God, Book V, Chapter 9, paragraph 17).

Let me know if you have any other questions.

-Ryan Vilbig
ryan.vilbig@gmail.com

I did not ask a question. I made a statement. Augustine’s ramblings are not relevant to anything I’ve written.

Since I posted no question to you in the first place, but you pretended otherwise, I would have to be really, really stupid to actually ask you anything and expect a cogent reply. Thank you anyway.

 

[donsnow]

It appears to me, that Science, by its self-imposed limitations of falsifiability; to repeat an experiment or procedure and get the same results by other scientists; and its material outlook; has limited itself from any discussion of God. Who is not falsified; Who is not anyone’s experiment and Whose procedures are known in His word; and is Who is spirit as well as the flesh and blood of His son come in the flesh, Jesus the Christ.

Scientific protocol, then, moves Science from the discussion of God. Why then, do those who claim to have scientific basis, bring Science to this table?

 

[rvilbig]

Just wondering what is your favorite proof for god and why? Personaly I like St. Thomas Aquinas’ first one, All things in motion are put in motion by a first mover, becuse when I apply this proof to my prayer life or any question about faith or morals it leads me to a deeper understanding. What about you?

Here’s another proof I came up with.

In quantum mechanics, all outcomes are probabilistic. To find the combined probability of two or more outcomes, one must use the probability multiplication rule for independent events (ignoring the EPR paradox for simplicity). For example, measurement of an electron has a 50% probability of being spin up in the direction of the z axis, and a 50% probability of being spin down. Same with the x and y axis. Any combination of N repeated experiments will have the probability:

(1/2)^N

Since the universe has actualized innumerable instances of wavefunction collapses (for example, actualizations of either spin up or spin down), the probability that we should observe the universe that we do in fact observe is essentially zero. Since the likelihood of the current universe is so exceedingly small, we must postulate a miracle worker to have achieved something of such low probability. This miracle worker all people understand to be God.

-Ryan Vilbig
ryan.vilbig@gmail.com

 

[Call_Me_V]

Here’s another proof I came up with.

In quantum mechanics, all outcomes are probabilistic. To find the combined probability of two or more outcomes, one must use the probability multiplication rule for independent events (ignoring the EPR paradox for simplicity). For example, measurement of an electron has a 50% probability of being spin up in the direction of the z axis, and a 50% probability of being spin down. Same with the x and y axis. Any combination of N repeated experiments will have the probability:

(1/2)^N

Since the universe has actualized innumerable instances of wavefunction collapses (for example, actualizations of either spin up or spin down), the probability that we should observe the universe that we do in fact observe is essentially zero. Since the likelihood of the current universe is so exceedingly small, we must postulate a miracle worker to have achieved something of such low probability. This miracle worker all people understand to be God.

But that would have been the case for any Universe. Any combination of wavefunction collapses would have had an end result that was extremely unlikely.

Here’s an analogy. Imagine a deck filled with, say, one quadrillion cards. Now imagine someone pulls a random card out of the deck, say, number 3178. Should he then conclude, “My God, the chances of me pulling out card number 3178 was one in a quadrillion! Someone must have rigged the deck in order for me to get a result that unlikely!” ? Of course not. That particular card may have been unlikely, but it was no more or less likely than any other possibility. If he had drawn card number 53820 instead of 3178, that number would have been just as unlikely. In fact, under his flawed logic, any card that he drew would have been one in a quadrillion, and therefore any card he drew would have been proof that the deck was rigged. We can see the flaw in his logic, and we see that so long as he was going to draw a card, any card he drew would have been no more or less likely than any other card, therefore, there’s no reason to conclude that the deck is rigged.

So, yes, getting this combination of wavefunction collapses was extraordinarily unlikely. But it is no more or less likely than any other potential combination of wavefunction collapses, therefore, just like we should not conclude that the deck is rigged, we should also not conclude that the Universe is “rigged”, as it were.

V

 

[DysonSphere]

But that would have been the case for any Universe. Any combination of wavefunction collapses would have had an end result that was extremely unlikely.

Using the analogy of drawing the deck, if I had a deck of 1 billion cards, numbered 1 to a billion, and drew:

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8… all the way to 1 billion, I could claim that the probability of the cards being in this order is the same as any other (which is true), and conclude that the cards were perfectly randomized and just happened to end up this way (and this is suspect).

The parameters in our universe seem to be ordered, much like the parameters of a snowflake. It suggests to some the existence of a god, the denial of which requires invocation of pure chance. To me it suggests an underlying but possibly equally godless structure or mechanism that has determined these parameters.

To accept that this universe is the product of pure chance, given the unlikeliness of this configuration compared to many other less patterned possible configurations, I would need strong evidence: a good and comprehensive understanding of the randomization.

 

[rvilbig]

But that would have been the case for any Universe. Any combination of wavefunction collapses would have had an end result that was extremely unlikely.

That’s the point. Because of quantum mechanics, every imaginable universe is improbable, necessitating some Being who can actualize the improbable. That’s why it’s a proof. Now conceivably there could be another universe in which different quantum outcomes were actualized (God could have chosen different cards in a different universe, to use your analogy), but then God would have created multiple improbable universes, making his creativity all the more miraculous.

At the same time, you bring up a good point. If we dwell for too long on how lucky we are to live in this beautiful and improbable universe, we may be distracted from the sublime contemplation of God. As Saint John of the Cross wrote: “[W]hen people pray in a beautiful site, they should endeavor to be interiorly with God and forget the place, as though they were not there at all, for when they wander about looking for delight and gratification from a particular site they are searching for sensory recreation and spiritual instability more than for spiritual tranquility” (Collected Works of St. John of Cross, page 342).

You will remain in my prayers, V.

-Ryan Vilbig
ryan.vilbig@gmail.com

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Point taken: God is the Absolute Miracle of the typical theists (a set that includes me).

Ah…God is the absolute miracle? Miracles are potential possibilities, not necessary realities. God performs miracles; he is not a miracle.

 

[Andy_III]

Reply 1 of 2

Andy III,
Amino acids are extremely reactive chemicals. They glom onto any reactive chemical within range, like oxygen, only briefly found in an unbound, state.

A peptide (short-chain protein) synthesizer builds proteins one amino acid at a time, by adding amino acids to a vat containing the protein being constructed.

Protein molecules are so reactive that they must be protected by the installation of a non-reactive chemical “cap” at each end. Before a new amino acid is added to the proteins, they must be uncapped. This can be chemically difficult. One of the chemicals used in this process is trifluoroacetic acid (TFA), a chemical so nasty that one thousandths of a drop of it spilled on your body will bring you unforgettable pain.

Of course, TFA is also a highly reactive chemical which is therefore not found in nature. It is not used in protein synthesis because it is cheap, safe, or easy to handle. Fluid transfer lines in peptide synthesizers must be frequently replaced, because TFA and the other nasty chemicals involved regard non-reactive teflon as a new kind of lunch.

After the new protein is completed, it must be chemically capped. As the protein becomes longer, the process gets uglier. I propose that, based upon what we know scientifically about protein synthesis, no similar process could have occurred in nature even one single time.

In other words, engineering (i.e. functional rather than theoretical) science informs us that proteins cannot be created by natural processes. (I note that your story did not mention the tricky little details involved in molecular construction.)

Continued…

Fascinating. I had no idea working with proteins was so difficult. I may need to look into this further at some point. I was trying to argue that just because something is very unlikely doesn’t mean that it never happens, but that if it did happen and copied itself, you’d see a lot of it. I imagined it to be similar to how a laser beam can be generated from an “impossible” transistion of electron states.

 

[Andy_III]

Your hand-waving description, seemingly derived from the History Channel or a pop-science magazine, conjures up nucleotides (the components of DNA) from thin air. That is not how chemicals actually get made.

Not the first time I’ve been accused of writing popular science material. This came from my (very limited) knowledge of biology and chemistry. It was fun writing it nonetheless. Thank you for your cogent reply.

If a number of different nucleotides do appear, and form a segment akin to DNA/RNA, so what? DNA molecules cannot do anything by themselves. They must be decoded by other chemical mechanisms, which are found within the cell.

I was going for a line of reasoning that the encoded symbols and decoding mechanism worked off primitive forms of each other to create more complex versions. Not very convincing, but I thought at least reasonable, which is what you asked for.

Exactly what “definition” says that I must create my beliefs from my own knowledge?

I didn’t say create their beliefs. The only “create” part was when we were talking about “recreating their beliefs re-justified”. I meant that people’s knowledge conforms to their beliefs. If new knowledge comes in that is in conflict with a belief, the knowledge is either (1) discarded/ignored, or (2) used to modify the belief until it is not in conflict anymore.

Many years ago I was faced with a logical conflict between my Catholic beliefs and physics.

Interesting. I am not aware of any Church teaching that is in conflict with physics. Would you mind telling me what conflict you found?

 

[sulkow82]

Just wondering what is your favorite proof for god and why? Personaly I like St. Thomas Aquinas’ first one, All things in motion are put in motion by a first mover… What about you?

This is also my favorite. One time, I used this in a debate. The response I got was he had never heard of Newtonian physics as proof of God. I wonder if I should have told him that it was developed hundreds of years before Newton.

sulkow82 SFO

 

[Timothy17]

Re: What is your favorite proof for God?

The Church.

 

[Call_Me_V]

That’s the point. Because of quantum mechanics, every imaginable universe is improbable, necessitating some Being who can actualize the improbable. That’s why it’s a proof. Now conceivably there could be another universe in which different quantum outcomes were actualized (God could have chosen different cards in a different universe, to use your analogy), but then God would have created multiple improbable universes, making his creativity all the more miraculous.

So you’re saying that in my analogy, the man should conclude that the deck is rigged, simply because he drew a card that he had a one in a quadrillion chance of drawing? That no matter what card he drew, he should automatically assume, just by having drawn any card, that the deck is rigged?

V

 

[greylorn]

Using the analogy of drawing the deck, if I had a deck of 1 billion cards, numbered 1 to a billion, and drew:

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8… all the way to 1 billion, I could claim that the probability of the cards being in this order is the same as any other (which is true), and conclude that the cards were perfectly randomized and just happened to end up this way (and this is suspect).

The parameters in our universe seem to be ordered, much like the parameters of a snowflake. It suggests to some the existence of a god, the denial of which requires invocation of pure chance. To me it suggests an underlying but possibly equally godless structure or mechanism that has determined these parameters.

To accept that this universe is the product of pure chance, given the unlikeliness of this configuration compared to many other less patterned possible configurations, I would need strong evidence: a good and comprehensive understanding of the randomization.

Unlike many atheists who declare themselves to be agnostic, methinks you are genuine.

It is way too late at night to calculate the probability of a billion cards coming up in order, and besides, no one else is interested. I’m guessing that it would approximate at about 1 in 10 exp 100,000 on the friendly side.

Given your appreciation for honest arguments, you must have considered the odds for evolution by random mutations. So far as I can tell,they are way too ugly to calculate. (If only probabilities did not multiply, Darwinism would be so easy.) I’m guessing that it is safe to share your thoughts on this subject. ??

 

[greylorn]

Interesting. I am not aware of any Church teaching that is in conflict with physics. Would you mind telling me what conflict you found?

Few people have chosen to become aware of these tidbits of what I’d have thought to be common knowledge, assuming that it appears in HS physics classes and pop sci magazines.

I don’t mind repeating this since I consider it important. But I’m not interested is hearing any more declarations from dogma presented as arguments.

Energy is neither created nor destroyed. (First Law of Thermodynamics). There is no exception to this law such as, “except by God.” If energy (which is the stuff from which the universe appears to be composed) cannot be created, it cannot be created. God,therefore, did not create it and cannot destroy it.

It’s been awhile since first grade catechism, but to my best understanding the Church has not changed its dogma that God created all things from nothing.

The 3rd law of Thermodynamics which declares that a substance cannot be cooled to, or below the lower temperature limit of zero Kelvin, sets another limit as to what God can do.

These considerations do not imply non-existence of a Creator. They have not for me, so should not for anyone else. It does make it pretty clear that the old concept of an omnipotent creator was a very bad idea, and needs to be cleaned up.

Does it help to remember that the folks who invented that idea, and who approved it as a religious truth, also thought that the earth was flat and at the center of the universe. Given those limitations, their beliefs were doomed to be wrong.

In the presence of better information (e.g. Copernicus’ and Galileo’s observations, and the history of old bones and fossils), I’m guessing that the guys (Aquinas, Augustine, etc.) who invented these bad ideas would have been the first to correct them.

It is only their followers who refuse to correct their beliefs in the light of new evidence. I find this saddening.

 

[rvilbig]

So you’re saying that in my analogy, the man should conclude that the deck is rigged, simply because he drew a card that he had a one in a quadrillion chance of drawing? That no matter what card he drew, he should automatically assume, just by having drawn any card, that the deck is rigged?

V

Consider the following: To actualize the improbability of drawing a quadrillion cards in a certain order, it is necessary to find a human person, the most complicated entity in the universe, with a lot of free time to choose cards. Consider what that implies about the agent required to actualize something as improbable as our universe: He must be nothing less than a miracle worker.

-Ryan Vilbig
ryan.vilbig@gmail.com

 

[greylorn]

Fascinating. I had no idea working with proteins was so difficult. I may need to look into this further at some point. I was trying to argue that just because something is very unlikely doesn’t mean that it never happens, but that if it did happen and copied itself, you’d see a lot of it. I imagined it to be similar to how a laser beam can be generated from an “impossible” transistion of electron states.

Nor did I before working with them.

We all prefer simple, hand-waving explanations that we can accept without understanding the core information behind them. It is to your credit that you accept the effect of real world complexity.

But, can you go from there to, at least, honest agnosticism about the silly teachings of Darwinists? If so, we might share interesting conversations.

The “impossible transition” you speak of came from the classical physics models of electron energy states. Physicists have known for about a century that classical physics does not apply to atomic or subatomic stuff, Lasers were actually invented based upon predictions from quantum physics.

There are such things as impossible energy states (see Pauli exclusion principle). The writer you may have obtained your information from is probably a poorly educated nitwit who confused impossible energy states with transitions between energy levels. I’d not recommend reading him again. There are a lot of confused people trying to interpret physics their way.

I know, because I am one of them.

 

[rvilbig]

Energy is neither created nor destroyed. (First Law of Thermodynamics). There is no exception to this law such as, “except by God.” If energy (which is the stuff from which the universe appears to be composed) cannot be created, it cannot be created. God,therefore, did not create it and cannot destroy it.

The error in your logic is that physical laws in general do not reveal their cause. For example, consider an object moving through space that becomes trapped in the orbit of a planet. After beginning its orbit, the satellite obeys Kepler’s 2nd law (i.e. conservation of equal area in equal time); however, nothing in this conservation law will reveal the origin of the satellite’s orbit. That is, Kepler’s 2nd law cannot tell you how the orbit began. (This parable was developed by my roommate, fyi).

John Henry Newman had some interesting insight on this question: "At length we go on to confuse causation with order; and, because we happen to have made a successful analysis of some complicated assemblage of phenomena, which experience has brought before us in the visible scene of things, and have reduced them to a tolerable dependence on each other, we call the ultimate points of this analysis, and the hypothetical facts in which the whole mass of phenomena is gathered up, by the name of causes, whereas they are really only the formula under which those phenomena are conveniently represented.” (Newman, Grammar of Assent, page 67).

Newman goes on to say that we all accept the notional proposition that causes require an intellect and will; in other words, the cause of conservation of energy is God’s will. I highly recommend Newman’s works to address the issues you’ve raised.

I will pray for your conversion to Roman Catholic orthodoxy.

-Ryan Vilbig
ryan.vilbig@gmail.com

 

[greylorn]

The error in your logic is that physical laws in general do not reveal their cause. For example, consider an object moving through space that becomes trapped in the orbit of a planet. After beginning its orbit, the satellite obeys Kepler’s 2nd law (i.e. conservation of equal area in equal time); however, nothing in this conservation law will reveal the origin of the satellite’s orbit. That is, Kepler’s 2nd law cannot tell you how the orbit began. (This parable was developed by my roommate, fyi).

John Henry Newman had some interesting insight on this question: "At length we go on to confuse causation with order; and, because we happen to have made a successful analysis of some complicated assemblage of phenomena, which experience has brought before us in the visible scene of things, and have reduced them to a tolerable dependence on each other, we call the ultimate points of this analysis, and the hypothetical facts in which the whole mass of phenomena is gathered up, by the name of causes, whereas they are really only the formula under which those phenomena are conveniently represented.” (Newman, Grammar of Assent, page 67).

Newman goes on to say that we all accept the notional proposition that causes require an intellect and will; in other words, the cause of conservation of energy is God’s will. I highly recommend Newman’s works to address the issues you’ve raised.

I will pray for your conversion to Roman Catholic orthodoxy.

-Ryan Vilbig
ryan.vilbig@gmail.com

Thank you for the irrelevant quotes and your knowledge of Kepler’s laws. Perhaps you could work up an argument which actually addresses anything I wrote. I doubt that you are capable of doing so. Try it as an exercise, and skip the quotes. Use whatever passes in you for mind, or forget the job.

How arrogant of you to presume to pray for me. That kind of smarmy statement, which I am certain will not translate into a nickel of personal expense on your part, or a moment of meditative consciousness, implies that you think that you know more than I do about the nature and purpose of fundamental reality.

Praying for someone without his request or permission is both arrogant and impertinent. You do not have my permission to pray for me, nor do you have my permission to lay a curse. You do have my okay to simply go away.

Better that you pray that the president of the U.S. give up communism. Even better, pray that the Church adapts its antiquated metaphysical beliefs to physical reality.