What is your favorite proof for God?

[Call_Me_V]

You’re assuming that God did not intend sediments to form as they did in order to prove that God could not have intended sediments to form as they did.

The existence of the natural processes that formed those sediments is not disputed. Do you dispute them? The existence of God, however, is disuputed, and is what you claim to prove. You cannot invoke the fact that God formed the sediments unless you first prove that God exists, and that he formed the sediments. Thus, your proof for God’s existence depends on having already established the existence of a God, and thus doesn’t work. If the existence of God is not assumed from the beginning, then there is no reason to believe that any agent influenced the sediments, and thus, the sediments become a direct counterexample to the claim that only a designer could could form things in patterns. In order for you to argue that God formed those sediments, you first have to prove that He exists, then you can claim that he formed the sediments. Do you disagree? Do you think that you should be able to use the fact that God formed the sediments without establishing God’s existence first?

You assume your own conclusion.

I do not. I asked you to back up your conclusion. Back up the conclusion that something can’t form in a certain order unless a being chooses to order it that way.

I don’t.

Yes you do. You assume that in order for something to be arranged a certain way, something must have arranged it that way. You’re assuming that individuals making choices is the only thing that affects the Universe.

I ask the question: The universe exists, so what works here? The answer I found is that if I want to survive and be a part of something that survives after I die, I should join the Catholic Church. That’s evolution baby.

So you joined the Catholic Church because it promises an afterlife? Pascal’s wager?

V

 

[antunesaa]

It is also possible that natural processes could determine how they were ordered.

Hey, be careful, because if you ascribe too much direction to “natural processes” you essentially get purposeful actions of nature and — congratulations: you have described your brand new god!

 

[antunesaa]

That’s a good point, you’re correct.

Either way, I think that we can all agree that it is fallacious to claim that the number of members of a religion is in any way indicative of the truth of that religion.

V

I think we might leave this argument out of the discussion, yes. However, I think we should not leave the more general omnipresence of religion in human history out of the discussion. Perhaps this discussion is really a discussion of the omnipresence of God in human history.

 

[rvilbig]

The existence of the natural processes that formed those sediments is not disputed. Do you dispute them? The existence of God, however, is disuputed, and is what you claim to prove. You cannot invoke the fact that God formed the sediments unless you first prove that God exists, and that he formed the sediments. Thus, your proof for God’s existence depends on having already established the existence of a God, and thus doesn’t work. If the existence of God is not assumed from the beginning, then there is no reason to believe that any agent influenced the sediments, and thus, the sediments become a direct counterexample to the claim that only a designer could could form things in patterns. In order for you to argue that God formed those sediments, you first have to prove that He exists, then you can claim that he formed the sediments. Do you disagree? Do you think that you should be able to use the fact that God formed the sediments without establishing God’s existence first?

Yes you do. You assume that in order for something to be arranged a certain way, something must have arranged it that way. You’re assuming that individuals making choices is the only thing that affects the Universe.

So you joined the Catholic Church because it promises an afterlife? Pascal’s wager?

V

Well when you present the straw-man version of my argument it sounds pretty weak, doesn’t it, V? I’m going to give you some words, and you just meditate on them, okay:

In our universe, one of the natural processes is quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics permits numerous outcomes, but only one may be selected from the multiple potential outcomes. Something selects these outcomes, at every instant in every place in the universe. Now this agent of selection is known to pagans as the god of chance or the god of randomness (or perhaps, strife). “For as I walked around looking carefully at your shrines, I even discovered an altar inscribed, ‘To an Unknown God.’ What therefore you unknowingly worship, I proclaim to you. The God who made the world and all that is in it, the Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in sanctuaries made by human hands, nor is he served by human hands because he needs anything. Rather it is he who gives to everyone life and breath and everything.” (Acts 17:23-25)

Meditate on that for a while, okay.

Now regarding the science of sediments, there are numerous processes that are involved. Hydrogen bonds suspended the particles as they traveled. Gravity of course brought the sediments down, and water pressure (Force/area) compacted these particles into layers. One of these processes (hydrogen bonding) is stochastic (non-deterministic from (name removed by moderator)ut variables), and two (gravity, water pressure) are deterministic. Now they way to think about these different processes is that they are like a composer working with a key and a time signature. The time signature is constant (deterministic), whereas the key allows for improvisation (stochastic). Thus by improvising hydrogen bonds over long period of time and distant, God gave the pattern of sediments that we observe was given to them. Are you beginning to understand how God is immanent in His creation? This is the same reason why the weather can only be predicted in percentages: the outcomes of quantum mechanics cannot be known in advance and innumerable instances of these outcomes have a significant effect over time.

I applaud your interest in science. It will only lead you to God. Never give up on learning and you will surely find what you’re searching for.

-Ryan Vilbig
ryan.vilbig@gmail.com

 

[Abu]

Living Tradition of The Roman Theological Forum is an excellent site from which to engage with reality.
rtforum.org/lt/lt117.html
“….it is a basic assumption of many, probably most, modern empirical scientists that physical nature is a closed system ultimately explainable in terms only of itself, but this assumption is not essential to the findings and structure of modern science. Secondly, it is reasonable for an empirical science which as such is based strictly upon the observation and statistical recording of natural recurrences, not to be able to recognize within its own field of competence divine interventions or even interventions caused by free human decisions. But that does not entitle empirical scientists to exclude divine or human interventions that are observable in other fields of science, such as the fields of history, philosophy, and theology. Nor is an empirical scientist justified in limiting certified knowledge to the data of the empirical sciences and in thus excluding his need to acknowledge the results of other sciences. Hence, what comes particularly into focus at this point is the difference between simply not finding divine interventions within the special fields of empirical science and declaring, as an empirical scientist, that no such divine interventions have taken place or are even possible. The fact is that every empirical scientist is living in a larger world of reality and reasonably needs to fit his specialized knowledge into the knowledge of the larger world."

 

[Call_Me_V]

In our universe, one of the natural processes is quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics permits numerous outcomes, but only one may be selected from the multiple potential outcomes. Something selects these outcomes, at every instant in every place in the universe.

And that is where I call BS. What evidence do you have that something selects each outcome? Have you observed God while he makes this choice, perhaps?

Since the rest of what you argued is based on your preexisting belief that an individual agent is responsible for each of these choices, I won’t respond to those until you justify your belief that every outcome that occurs must be chosen by someone.

I applaud your interest in science. It will only lead you to God. Never give up on learning and you will surely find what you’re searching for.

Thanks for the praise, although science really isn’t my subject at all, it was the study of history that destroyed my faith…

V

 

[rvilbig]

And that is where I call BS. What evidence do you have that something selects each outcome? Have you observed God while he makes this choice, perhaps?

Since the rest of what you argued is based on your preexisting belief that an individual agent is responsible for each of these choices, I won’t respond to those until you justify your belief that every outcome that occurs must be chosen by someone.

Thanks for the praise, although science really isn’t my subject at all, it was the study of history that destroyed my faith…

V

Here’s how Cardinal Newman reasoned that everything has a cause (or a selector of quantum outcomes, so to speak): “The assent which we give to the proposition, as a first principle, that nothing happens without a cause, is derived, in the first instance, from what we know of ourselves ; and we argue analogically from what is within us to what is external to us. One of the first experiences of an infant is that of his willing and doing; and, as time goes on, one of the first temptations of the boy is to bring home to himself the fact of his sovereign arbitrary power, though it be at the price of waywardness, mischievousness, and disobedience. And when his parents, as antagonists of this wilfulness, begin to restrain him, and to bring his mind and conduct into shape, then he has a second series of experiences of cause and effect, and that upon a principle or rule. Thus the notion of causation is one of the first lessons which he learns from experience, that experience limiting it to agents possessed of intelligence and will." (Grammar of Assent, page 66). So in quantum mechanics, when we observe one outcome and not another, we naturally understand that it has a cause, which is proper to only agents with intelligence and will.

The history of the Catholic Church is awe-inspiring. I highly recommend William Carroll’s History of Christendom series. I’ve only been able to read the first volume, but others have assured me that it is consistently good.

-Ryan Vilbig
ryan.vilbig@gmail.com

 

[rvilbig]

Have you observed God while he makes this choice, perhaps?

Oh, have I ever observed God making a choice. Certainly not directly, but I did see two complete semicircle rainbows next to each other on Friday. Made my day. It was quite beautiful.

-Ryan Vilbig
ryan.vilbig@gmail.com

 

[Call_Me_V]

“The assent which we give to the proposition, as a first principle, that nothing happens without a cause, is derived, in the first instance, from what we know of ourselves ; and we argue analogically from what is within us to what is external to us. One of the first experiences of an infant is that of his willing and doing; and, as time goes on, one of the first temptations of the boy is to bring home to himself the fact of his sovereign arbitrary power, though it be at the price of waywardness, mischievousness, and disobedience. And when his parents, as antagonists of this wilfulness, begin to restrain him, and to bring his mind and conduct into shape, then he has a second series of experiences of cause and effect, and that upon a principle or rule. Thus the notion of causation is one of the first lessons which he learns from experience, that experience limiting it to agents possessed of intelligence and will." (Grammar of Assent, page 66). So in quantum mechanics, when we observe one outcome and not another, we naturally understand that it has a cause, which is proper to only agents with intelligence and will.

I might be misunderstanding him, so please correct me if I’m wrong. It seems to me that he’s saying that because the boy senses his own will, and the will of his parents, he comes to the conclusion that all causes are a result of an act of will? Am I understanding that correctly?

V

 

[Abu]

Call Me V
A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything – Friedrich Nietzsche

Even Friedrich Nietzsche (‘God is dead’) wrote: “Strictly speaking there is no such thing as science ‘without any presuppositions’… a philosophy, a ‘faith’, must always be there first, so that science can acquire a direction, a meaning, a limit, a method, a right to exist… It is still a metaphysical faith that underlines our faith in science.” (Genealogy of Morals III, 23-24).

Antony Flew, the most notorious atheist, now attests to reason and is now a deist.
“I now believe that the universe was brought into existence by an infinite Intelligence,” he 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.” (There Is a God, 2007, pp. 88-89).
The existence and nature of God can be proved by pure reason from: order and law in nature; motion and change; causality, and dependence.

 

[Call_Me_V]

Antony Flew, the most notorious atheist,

The most notorious atheist? The fact that that’s the title of his book doesn’t make it true. Prior to his deconversion, the vast majority of people had never heard of him. Had you?

now attests to reason and is now a deist.

Keep in mind that Flew later rejected his original reasons for converting to Deism (though he remained a deist, he just changed his arguments).

The existence and nature of God can be proved by pure reason from: order and law in nature; motion and change; causality, and dependence.

How do you know that order and the laws of nature are impossible without God? I’m afraid you’ll have to be more specific about what you mean when you say motion and change. And there are many different variations of the “First Cause” argument, please tell which one you find persuasive. Finally, what do you mean by dependence being evidence for God? I unfortunately can’t address your arguments until I fully understand them.

Thanks,
V

 

[rvilbig]

I might be misunderstanding him, so please correct me if I’m wrong. It seems to me that he’s saying that because the boy senses his own will, and the will of his parents, he comes to the conclusion that all causes are a result of an act of will? Am I understanding that correctly?

V

Yes, that’s right.

-Ryan Vilbig
ryan.vilbig@gmail.com

 

[Abu]

Call Me V
You may be unaware that Dr Benjamin Wiker and Dr Scott Hahn, co-authors of Answering The New Atheism, Dismantling Dawkins Case Against God, dedicated their demolition to Flew “for his academic integrity and intellectual fortitude in ‘following the evidence wherever it may lead…’ ”

Flew, an Oxford educated philosopher described by some as “legendary”, first announced his discovery of “a god” in 2004. Flew had been one of the 20th century’s leading proponents of the pure atheistic Darwinian doctrines that categorically reject any possibility of a creative divine being. His ideas paved the way for thinkers such as Richard Dawkins, the UK’s most virulent opponent of religious belief.

In his exclusive interview with Antony Flew Dr Benjamin Wiker uncovers why the world’s leading former atheist has rejected atheism.
tothesource.org/10_30_2007/10_30_2007.htm
The former atheist Antony Flew has come to a belief in God because he examined the mounting evidence of scientific and natural discoveries especially in the field of DNA, and adhered to the Socratic principle of following the evidence wherever it leads. His conclusion was that nothing else but a Supreme Intelligence could explain its own existence as well as the creation of the world.

Anthony Flew: “There were two factors in particular that were decisive. One was my growing empathy with the insight of Einstein and other noted scientists that there had to be an Intelligence behind the integrated complexity of the physical Universe. The second was my own insight that the integrated complexity of life itself – which is far more complex than the physical Universe – can only be explained in terms of an Intelligent Source. I believe that the origin of life and reproduction simply cannot be explained from a biological standpoint despite numerous efforts to do so.

“The difference between life and non-life, it became apparent to me, was ontological and not chemical. I think the origins of the laws of nature and of life and the Universe point clearly to an intelligent Source. The burden of proof is on those who argue to the contrary.

“It was empirical evidence, the evidence uncovered by the sciences. But it was a philosophical inference drawn from the evidence. Scientists as scientists cannot make these kinds of philosophical inferences. They have to speak as philosophers when they study the philosophical implications of empirical evidence. I would add that Dawkins is selective to the point of dishonesty when he cites the views of scientists on the philosophical implications of the scientific data.

“Two noted philosophers, one an agnostic (Anthony Kenny) and the other an atheist (Nagel), recently pointed out that Dawkins has failed to address three major issues that ground the rational case for God. As it happens, these are the very same issues that had driven me to accept the existence of a God: the laws of nature, life with its teleological organization and the existence of the Universe. Another relatively recent change in my philosophical views is my affirmation of the freedom of the will.”

 

[rvilbig]

I might be misunderstanding him, so please correct me if I’m wrong. It seems to me that he’s saying that because the boy senses his own will, and the will of his parents, he comes to the conclusion that all causes are a result of an act of will? Am I understanding that correctly?

V

V-
Think of it this way: Can you prove absolutely that anything in nature occurs without a cause initiated by a will? No, of course not. However, can you prove absolutely that something in nature occurs with a will initiating a cause? Yes, you can prove it to yourself right now by moving your arm around in the air. This is one of the first things you are ever aware of in your life. Now, you certainly realize that the matter of your body is directed by a principle that correlates your will to your actions. So when you observe action elsewhere in nature (weather, soil erosion, etc), isn’t it reasonable to wonder if there was a will that caused it? This will that permeates nature where multiple outcomes are potential is understood by the Christian to be God.

I’m trying to find a good quote about this concept, and this is the best one I can find at the moment: From Saint Thomas Aquinas’ Summa Theologica “God is said by some to be "the Nature Who makes nature.” This force intends the good and the preservation of the universe, for which alternate generation and corruption in things are requisite: and in this respect corruption and defect in things are natural, not indeed as regards the inclination of the form which is the principle of being and perfection, but as regards the inclination of matter which is allotted proportionately to its particular form according to the discretion of the universal agent.” (Summa, I.II Q.85, art. 6).

-Ryan Vilbig
ryan.vilbig@gmail.com

 

[Andy_III]

Either way, I think that we can all agree that it is fallacious to claim that the number of members of a religion is in any way indicative of the truth of that religion.

I agree, it is easy enough to see the truth of the Catholic Church’s teachings based on the evidence available to all who look for truth, even those predisposed against the Catholic Church. The number of followers is irrelevant in determining the truth of statements.

 

[Andy_III]

Interesting that you should say that. I was at a Father John Corapi talk yesterday

I was there, too. It was a great talk.

 

[Andy_III]

Thanks for the praise, although science really isn’t my subject at all, it was the study of history that destroyed my faith…

That is interesting, since studying history has brought a great many to the faith. What did you find that destroyed your faith?

 

[JulieAA]

Please explain something to me…anyone. If the earth has been around for 4.5 billion years: where are all of the bones???..would you not think that with all of the animals and humans who have died over all of those years, we would have countless bones that would have to have covered the earth and beyond using that theory? I can not even comprehend 4.5 millions of years X all of these bones!

 

[Call_Me_V]

Call Me V
You may be unaware that Dr Benjamin Wiker and Dr Scott Hahn, co-authors of Answering The New Atheism, Dismantling Dawkins Case Against God, dedicated their demolition to Flew “for his academic integrity and intellectual fortitude in ‘following the evidence wherever it may lead…’ ”

Flew, an Oxford educated philosopher described by some as “legendary”, first announced his discovery of “a god” in 2004. Flew had been one of the 20th century’s leading proponents of the pure atheistic Darwinian doctrines that categorically reject any possibility of a creative divine being. His ideas paved the way for thinkers such as Richard Dawkins, the UK’s most virulent opponent of religious belief.

In his exclusive interview with Antony Flew Dr Benjamin Wiker uncovers why the world’s leading former atheist has rejected atheism.
tothesource.org/10_30_2007/10_30_2007.htm
The former atheist Antony Flew has come to a belief in God because he examined the mounting evidence of scientific and natural discoveries especially in the field of DNA, and adhered to the Socratic principle of following the evidence wherever it leads. His conclusion was that nothing else but a Supreme Intelligence could explain its own existence as well as the creation of the world.

Anthony Flew: “There were two factors in particular that were decisive. One was my growing empathy with the insight of Einstein and other noted scientists that there had to be an Intelligence behind the integrated complexity of the physical Universe. The second was my own insight that the integrated complexity of life itself – which is far more complex than the physical Universe – can only be explained in terms of an Intelligent Source. I believe that the origin of life and reproduction simply cannot be explained from a biological standpoint despite numerous efforts to do so.

“The difference between life and non-life, it became apparent to me, was ontological and not chemical. I think the origins of the laws of nature and of life and the Universe point clearly to an intelligent Source. The burden of proof is on those who argue to the contrary.

“It was empirical evidence, the evidence uncovered by the sciences. But it was a philosophical inference drawn from the evidence. Scientists as scientists cannot make these kinds of philosophical inferences. They have to speak as philosophers when they study the philosophical implications of empirical evidence. I would add that Dawkins is selective to the point of dishonesty when he cites the views of scientists on the philosophical implications of the scientific data.

“Two noted philosophers, one an agnostic (Anthony Kenny) and the other an atheist (Nagel), recently pointed out that Dawkins has failed to address three major issues that ground the rational case for God. As it happens, these are the very same issues that had driven me to accept the existence of a God: the laws of nature, life with its teleological organization and the existence of the Universe. Another relatively recent change in my philosophical views is my affirmation of the freedom of the will.”

But Flew’s credentials are not the point. It’s the strength of his reasons for converting that matter. Provide the argument of his that you find most persuasive, and I’ll address it. (By the way, did you ever go into greater detail into the arguments that you listed before, like I’d asked? I haven’t seen your response to that, and I can’t address your arguments until I understand exactly what you’re arguing. Thanks!)

By the way, Dawkins is welcome to be as flawed in his arguments as he likes, I’ve never been a big fan of his. For some reason, everyone seems to think that we atheists were all converted by “The God Delusion”. The truth is, Dawkins is a popular level author, very few people in intellectual circles take him seriously (even the atheists).

That is interesting, since studying history has brought a great many to the faith. What did you find that destroyed your faith?

Long story. Partially, it was the realization that many of the events in the Old Testament are total BS, combined with the discovery that there were many religions which had far greater evidence for their claims then Christianity did, and thus, if I was going to choose a religion based on evidence, Christianity would not even come close to being the best evidenced. That’s a heavily abbreviated version, of my story, anyways.

Think of it this way: Can you prove absolutely that anything in nature occurs without a cause initiated by a will?

No. But saying that I can’t prove it didn’t originate with a will doesn’t mean I should assume that it did. That’s an argument from ignorance (link).

That’s like saying that because the only person I’ve ever watched die was from a gunshot, then I should assume that all deaths are caused by gunshots, which is silly.

Please explain something to me…anyone. If the earth has been around for 4.5 billion years: where are all of the bones???..would you not think that with all of the animals and humans who have died over all of those years, we would have countless bones that would have to have covered the earth and beyond using that theory? I can not even comprehend 4.5 millions of years X all of these bones!

I don’t understand the relevance… are you trying to argue for a young earth? If so, I don’t think that this is the best argument. My knowledge of biology is sub par, but I’m pretty sure that bones decompose after a while, unless they become fossilized. So the explanation for where all of the bones are is that they decomposed, just like everything else in the body.

V

 

[JulieAA]

I don’t understand the relevance… are you trying to argue for a young earth? If so, I don’t think that this is the best argument. My knowledge of biology is sub par, but I’m pretty sure that bones decompose after a while, unless they become fossilized. So the explanation for where all of the bones are is that they decomposed, just like everything else in the body.

Not sure about the “revelance” on this particular thread. I was just browsing through the “new posts” and came across this. No, the bones do not decompose over time. Some may argue otherwise, and that is ok. When you think of it though…4.5 billion years X every piece of life that existed and has died. There has to be bones…and not just at the bottom of the oceans as many have used as a provable scenario. Some bones may have fossilized over years, but what happened to the rest of them?
In 4.5 billion years, we would be buried knee-deep in them over the entire earth and beyond. I was just curious about your thoughts on that.