What is your favorite proof for God?

[ManOnFire]

There are only 2 choices for the atheist scientist regarding the beginning of Time, both of which are flawed. Some claim to believe in a beginning of time, others claim Time always miraculously existed. SO which is it?

1. The atheist who believes in a godless beginning of time: An object in motion remains in motion unless acted upon by an outside force, so, if “everything in the universe” was standing still, waiting for time to begin, then a non-time something that existed Infinitesimally must have acted upon time to start it. If this non-time something exists infinitesimally, then there is either no chance of a beginning of time, or this non-time something negates EJ’s belief that the mass of the universe is finite. Either way science is impotent to know “all.” “We just haven’t discovered it yet” is invalid.
2. The atheist who believes there was no beginning of time, that time has always miraculously existed:
   Those who believe science can explain “all” have a faulty belief system, and are therefore believing on faith. ALL= ALL. “ALL” does not equal “ALL minus one” (the beginning of time). Again, Science is impotent to know “all.” God was first (Who created God?) answers the question.

Every atheist scientist must subscribe to one of the two choices above regarding an explanation for the beginning of time. It’s too easy for those who feel uncomfortable in deciding between the two to become child-like and ego-protective. Few people ask for the atheist scientists to examine their consciences and simply not make excusus like “We haven’t learned that yet” when learning the infinity of time and space is simply not possible. A real scientist and philosopher does not free willingly become too egoprotective and bigotted to admit that the INFINITY of time and space is unknowable by it’s very nature.

It’s peculiar how atheist scientists believe in miracles.

 

[donsnow]

Well said, thank you!

I assure you that I will never do that.

And, I wonder if you are not confusing my personal ideas with those of scientists, one of which I am not. I’ve only read the books and done some science. No Ph.d. I don’t own any scientists. None of those with whom I’ve had the privilege of working share my notion of interpreting the physical universe in the context of God’s personally inscribed Bible, because they didn’t believe or give a hoot about God.

Personally, I would love to have artistists, philosophers, religionists, plumbers, mechanics, professional armpit-hair removers, and anyone with a curious mind join the potentially magnificent project of interpreting the universe as a Bible.

The only requirements are intellectual honesty, curiosity, and a willingness to accept the consequences of unanticipated discoveries. Care to join the discourse?

Thanks for the invite. As far as I know, people in the Holy Roman Catholic Church have been doing that, for almost 2,000 years, now. I’ll stay where I know what’s going on.

 

[donsnow]

When physicists finally accepted that the Universe had a beginning (although this is not accepted by some), one said (with creative additions by myself): “we thought that we really had arrived at the unexplored summit of a mountain only to find some religious people, philosophers, and artists, who had been there for centuries, chatting quietly”.

Thank you

 

[Call_Me_V]

Sigh. You basically reposted the same thing that you said earlier, so you’re clearly desperate for a little recognition, so I’ll go against my better judgement and give it to you. Where to start?

There are only 2 choices for the atheist scientist regarding the beginning of Time, both of which are flawed. Some claim to believe in a beginning of time, others claim Time always miraculously existed. SO which is it?

While I don’t believe that time stretches back to infinite, I don’t think that those who do claim that it is “miraculous”.

1. The atheist who believes in a godless beginning of time: An object in motion remains in motion unless acted upon by an outside force, so, if “everything in the universe” was standing still, waiting for time to begin, then a non-time something that existed Infinitesimally must have acted upon time to start it.

I don’t know of any atheistic theory of the origins of the Universe that says “everything in the universe” was just sitting around doing nothing until something acted upon it. Could you please direct me towards an atheist who promotes such a view?

Either way science is impotent to know “all.”

Yes, it’s pretty widely acknowledged that many, many things will always be beyond our understanding. Do you think that atheists don’t know this?

“We just haven’t discovered it yet” is invalid.

I’m curious, why? I’m tempted to write a rebuttal, but before I do, I want to make sure that I’m understanding you properly. Are you saying that if science is at a loss to explain something, then we should conclude “God did it”? Or am I misunderstanding you?

1. The atheist who believes there was no beginning of time, that time has always miraculously existed:

Again, no atheist that I’ve ever heard of has claimed that time exists miraculously. You and I seem to be talking to completely different atheists. Could you please link to an atheist that claims that time has “miraculously” existed? Thanks.

Those who believe science can explain “all” have a faulty belief system, and are therefore believing on faith. ALL= ALL. “ALL” does not equal “ALL minus one” (the beginning of time). Again, Science is impotent to know “all.”

You’re most likely correct, science will likely not ever know everything. I really don’t see how that’s relevant, however.

God was first (Who created God?) answers the question.

God is one possible answer. So is the Flying Spaghetti Monster. The problem is that none of them are particularly good answers. We shouldn’t just wildly accept whatever answer we like best.

It’s too easy for those who feel uncomfortable in deciding between the two to become child-like and ego-protective. Few people ask for the atheist scientists to examine their consciences and simply not make excusus like “We haven’t learned that yet” when learning the infinity of time and space is simply not possible.

Wow. Lots of insults there. I’m curious, why is being honest and admitting “we don’t know, we hope to know in the future, but we may never know”, why is that “child-like and ego-protective”? It seems like simple humility to me.

A real scientist and philosopher does not free willingly become too egoprotective and bigotted to admit that the INFINITY of time and space is unknowable by it’s very nature.

That doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t do our best to try and understand everything we can about the Universe, does it?

It’s peculiar how atheist scientists believe in miracles.

None of the ones that I’ve met do. Could you link to an atheist who does believe in miracles? Thanks.

There are naturalistic theories that try to explain the origins of the Universe non-theistically, though no theory of cosmic origins, even the God theory, has managed to win over enough supporters to claim victory.

Your post seems very angry. Has an atheist treated you badly in your life? If so, try to keep in mind that they are not representative of all atheists, and we’re not all as evil as that person/those people.

V

 

[Andy_III]

Personally, I would love to have artistists, philosophers, religionists, plumbers, mechanics, professional armpit-hair removers, and anyone with a curious mind join the potentially magnificent project of interpreting the universe as a Bible.

The only requirements are intellectual honesty, curiosity, and a willingness to accept the consequences of unanticipated discoveries. Care to join the discourse?

I would like to. The universe does have objective truth. For example, you can “read” from the universe that it is a bad idea to jump off a cliff without an adequate means of accelerating away from (or at least orthogonal to) the Earth. Reminds me of “The Pragmatics of Patriotism” by Robert Heinlein and his definition of morality.

 

[greylorn]

That would be a great achievement. There is an effort initiated, I think, 400 hundred years ago — the Pontifical Academy of Sciences — which tries to do a related thing. Recently one of the meetings brought together physicists and other scientists (religious and not religious) to discuss things like creation and evolution. There’s even a book on that. If you’re not aware of that, you might want to check here:

vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_academies/acdscien/own/documents/rc_acdsci_doc_190999_publications_it.html#acta

Thanks. I’d actually heard about the PAS on a documentary channel that I keep tuned in while working. Found no indication that they had accomplished anything. 400 years ago the church burned Giordano Bruno at the stake, and 40 years later forced Galileo to retract his ideas or vacation in the Inquisitorial hotel, so you might want to bump that 400-year timeline a few centuries or more forward.

Considering the way humans work, would it not be a surprise if a group of establishment scientists getting together to drink fine Barolo wine and eat pizza had actually accomplished anything?

Small working groups are fine for technological developments, but so far as I know, no significant scientific or philosophical ideas have been birthed by committees.

As best I can tell, those shmoozing but probably well-intentioned good old boys have yet to figure out that their disparate fundamental beliefs about the beginnings of things are functionally identical, and thus the source of the split between religion and science.

I’ve a lot of books on my reading pile, plus a difficult one on my writing pile. Thanks for the reference anyway. But if you know of something the PAS has actually done by way of new ideas, please let me know.

There was an excellent symposium on the subject of creation/evolution, a Wistar Institute Symposium featuring engineers, mathematicians, and biologists. It was so embarrassing to Darwinists that despite high demand, the proceedings have never been republished. But they did not get around to actually discussing the nitty-gritty of creation, which was off-topic.

Speaking of which…

 

[greylorn]

When physicists finally accepted that the Universe had a beginning (although this is not accepted by some), one said (with creative additions by myself): “we thought that we really had arrived at the unexplored summit of a mountain only to find some religious people, philosophers, and artists, who had been there for centuries, chatting quietly”.

So, why hadn’t they opened their private little chat room?

 

[greylorn]

Yes, I think this happens a lot actually. You can get actionable truth either by trusting or by hard work (like science). Neither way is guaranteed, since you have to choose who/what to trust and you have to choose what basis to start from.

IMO this is easy and obvious.

Trust the only Bible certain to have been written by God— the physical universe itself.

Start with logical, philosophical ideas, and compare them to this true and certain Bible. Relegate those which compare poorly, to the bin of questionable beliefs, however widely accepted and cherished they may be.

 

[edgarddb]

I am not as smart as our chemist here, however God has proven to me his excistence in several ways.
First and foremost by His gift of an unshackingly faith He has granted me.
Secondly by his many little Miracles that happened in my life. Perhaps the most interesting one is as follows: I have served as a EXTRA ORDINARY MINISTER OF THE EUCHARIST since 1977. A few years ago either at Chrismas or Easter we usely double up on Lay Minister to serve at both ends of the Chapel. A lot of extra Communion Host had been also been Consecrated for the expected usual overflow of annual Catholics.
When I returned my Ciborium to the Tabernacle I noticed one flat, wide Ciborium had already been placed in the Tabernacle so I put mine on top of the one there.
I was about ready to lock the Tabernacle when a soft moaning caught my attention. I looked around began to lock up, when the moaning became louder. Then looking around again, my eyes fell in the Tabernacle and to my surprise I saw a half moon Host that got caught sticking under the lid of the bottom Ciborium. I quicly removed my Ciborium, lifted the lid of the offending vessel, straightened out the offended host , said" AM SORRY LORD" and returned everything back were it belonged and locked up. I kept this to myself for along timem and treasured it in my heart.
For those that have faith, no Miracles are needed.
For those without faith the many wonders God has wrought are not convincing. ed

 

[Andy_III]

So, why hadn’t they opened their private little chat room?

That private little chat room is open to “all who have ears to hear and eyes to see”.

 

[Andy_III]

IMO this is easy and obvious.

Trust the only Bible certain to have been written by God— the physical universe itself.

Start with logical, philosophical ideas, and compare them to this true and certain Bible. Relegate those which compare poorly, to the bin of questionable beliefs, however widely accepted and cherished they may be.

It still leads to the Catholic Church and the Trinity, it is just a longer route. Much like scientists are free to start their work wherever they like, you don’t have to believe all the peer reviewed journals and prior body of work. If objective truth comes from it, I’d say it was a good thing.

 

[antunesaa]

So, why hadn’t they opened their private little chat room?

Of the many things they can be accused of, being closed isn’t one of them. Look at the variegated religious traditions, depictions of the beginning of the world, philosophical systems, etc. The problem with the chat room wasn’t closeness; if anything it was the Babel syndrome. (By the way, don’t you think the Babel Tower is one of the most powerful metaphors of the whole Bible? It goes to the heart of human nature and applies to all times.)

 

[greylorn]

Of the many things they can be accused of, being closed isn’t one of them. Look at the variegated religious traditions, depictions of the beginning of the world, philosophical systems, etc. The problem with the chat room wasn’t closeness; if anything it was the Babel syndrome. (By the way, don’t you think the Babel Tower is one of the most powerful metaphors of the whole Bible? It goes to the heart of human nature and applies to all times.)

Way back at the beginning of time when I had my conflict between science and the Church, I looked around. I consulted a Catholic theologian. I checked out other belief systems, and I did not find squat. Or, perhaps, that’s exactly what I found. No one told me then about the PAS, or the proceedings of its meetings. I propose that this was because there were no such proceedings, no results, and no chat room.

So, okay, you want to divert the discussion to Babel, which I interpret as a metaphor for Babylon, where in captivity a few Hebrews were exposed to alternative philosophical thought, which they cleverly and wisely adapted to their beliefs.

(You are aware that Genesis was written by Jews during the captivity, at least two, one living north, the other in the south of Babylon?) Since I learned this from Catholic scholars, you must be aware of it.

As you say, the Babel metaphor goes to the heart and applies to all times, but perhaps not as you mean. I propose that it simply shows how people in religious or political power will co-opt the ideas of intelligent men and propose them as their own.

 

[greylorn]

It still leads to the Catholic Church and the Trinity, it is just a longer route. Much like scientists are free to start their work wherever they like, you don’t have to believe all the peer reviewed journals and prior body of work. If objective truth comes from it, I’d say it was a good thing.

Andy,
I appreciate your beliefs, but for me, the Catholic Church was a stepping stone on the way to objective truth. I found it a powerful and solid stepping stone, where I could remain safely, before jumping from it into the surrounding turbulence.

Out there, past the stepping stones of modern science (which kept disappearing beneath the water thanks to quantum effects, no doubt) I found only two Gods, not three. Disappointing. When a devout Catholic friend advised me that my logic did not support three Gods, I scrapped an entire chapter. Still looking. The peculiar symmetry of a triskelion appeals to me, and I have a feeling that it should have a more universal application. (Probably comes from my Catholic times.)

I can count the number of peer-reviewed journal articles that have contributed to my theories on the fingers of one hand, and still have one left with which to pick my nose. Those which I studied were referred to me by their authors, and were well out of mainstream. I even wrote one mainstream piece, to gain points for a couple of professors, (Yes, for, not from), but it was a trivial astronomy paper of no relevance.

 

[Andy_III]

Andy,
I appreciate your beliefs, but for me, the Catholic Church was a stepping stone on the way to objective truth. I found it a powerful and solid stepping stone, where I could remain safely, before jumping from it into the surrounding turbulence.

That’s okay, we’re just coming at things from different perspectives. Two people describing the same scene based on their observations can report something very different.

What you report as a stepping stone behind you today, could have in fact been a large rock island which you didn’t see all of before, and your end destination could be back on that rock. Or the waters may have in fact been just a large lake extending beyond the boundaries of sight within a continent.

 

[antunesaa]

Way back at the beginning of time when I had my conflict between science and the Church, I looked around. I consulted a Catholic theologian. I checked out other belief systems, and I did not find squat. Or, perhaps, that’s exactly what I found. No one told me then about the PAS, or the proceedings of its meetings. I propose that this was because there were no such proceedings, no results, and no chat room.

So, okay, you want to divert the discussion to Babel, which I interpret as a metaphor for Babylon, where in captivity a few Hebrews were exposed to alternative philosophical thought, which they cleverly and wisely adapted to their beliefs.

(You are aware that Genesis was written by Jews during the captivity, at least two, one living north, the other in the south of Babylon?) Since I learned this from Catholic scholars, you must be aware of it.

As you say, the Babel metaphor goes to the heart and applies to all times, but perhaps not as you mean. I propose that it simply shows how people in religious or political power will co-opt the ideas of intelligent men and propose them as their own.

I’d like to have more time today, but it happens that I’m leaving office now to go to the mass by the Tagus river celebrated by pope Benedict XVI.

I am not sure whether the interpretation of the Catholic scholars you mention is the default one, but I can offer my interpretation. The Babel story is powerful because it has evident as well as hidden meanings. The most evident one to me is a thorough condemnation of human pride. The tower symbolizes man’s struggle to attain Heaven on earth, even if under the pretext of reaching God.
The second, less evident meaning is, to me, the Fall. The builders of the tower, with their pride and presumptuousness, show abundantly their essentially flawed nature. They want to be eye to eye with God; they want to be their equals and understand Him; yet they do not understand their fellow builder.
The third meaning is prophetic: the Babel tower hints at God’s Second Person, Jesus. The numerous depictions by artists of the Babel tower strike bystanders by its utter imperfection. The tower is incomplete; the tower is wretched; the tower is chaotic. This points to the need for a New Alliance between God and men. Men grew prider and prider, meaner and meaner. The path to God cannot be completed through earthly means, as the tower attests. Jesus is needed so men can relate to God in a new way: not by building a tower, but by listening to a man.
When I was a kid I had this book with reproductions of paintings; one of them was about the Babel tower. I forgot all the others but the chaos of that vain construction of men never left me.
The whole Babel tower episode is beautiful, compelling, profound, and immensely powerful.

 

[avflf]

On a lighter note, this is my take on the story related in Genesis 11. Hope it makes sense.:twocents:

Up to this time mankind had been
United by language alone,
For in any other respect
Their unity had all but gone. (a)

Somehow, they all got together
On a plain, known then as Shinar, (b)
And while some of them lived nearby
Others had to come from afar.

They met to discuss a matter
Which was affecting everyone…
It appears they were rather bored
As there was no work to be done.

They decided that to prevent
Precious time from passing them by
They should build a very big tower
That would, in the end, reach the sky. (c)

But God did not look too kindly
Upon this human odyssey; (d)
To Him it looked very much like
An assault on His privacy.

So, to safeguard His vast domain
And to keep it from mankind’s reach,
He sowed confusion amongst them
Through the confounding of their speech. (e)

When the plumber could no longer
The bricklayer’s words understand
They gave up on the whole project
And abandoned this cursed land. (f)

(But knowing the human spirit
There is no need to feel pity
For it wouldn’t have taken them long
To start on another city).

Then follows more generations
From Shem to our hero Abram,
Who came from the loins of Terah
With brothers Nahor and Haran. (g)

Abram’s wife, Sarai, was barren, (h)
As barren as the desert sand,
So Terah took them both and Lot
From Ur up to Canaan land. (i)

He probably had an idea
What a change in climate might do
To sort out Sarai’s sterile womb
So she’d bring forth a son or two.

References

(a) GEN. 11:1. Equality and thus singleness of purpose or unity must, by then, have gone out of the window, considering that father Noah had relegated his grandson Canaan and his descendants to the status of ‘servants of servants’ to his uncles and their progeny with his curse after the ‘nakedness’ incident in GEN. 9:31.
(b) GEN. 11:2.
(c) GEN. 11:4.
(d) GEN. 11:6.
(e) GEN. 11:7.
(f) GEN. 11:8.
(g) GEN. 11:26.
(h) GEN. 11:30.
(i) GEN. 11:31.

 

[antunesaa]

On a lighter note, this is my take on the story related in Genesis 11. Hope it makes sense.:twocents:

Up to this time mankind had been
United by language alone,
For in any other respect
Their unity had all but gone. (a)

Somehow, they all got together
On a plain, known then as Shinar, (b)
And while some of them lived nearby
Others had to come from afar.

They met to discuss a matter
Which was affecting everyone…
It appears they were rather bored
As there was no work to be done.

They decided that to prevent
Precious time from passing them by
They should build a very big tower
That would, in the end, reach the sky. (c)

But God did not look too kindly
Upon this human odyssey; (d)
To Him it looked very much like
An assault on His privacy.

So, to safeguard His vast domain
And to keep it from mankind’s reach,
He sowed confusion amongst them
Through the confounding of their speech. (e)

When the plumber could no longer
The bricklayer’s words understand
They gave up on the whole project
And abandoned this cursed land. (f)

(But knowing the human spirit
There is no need to feel pity
For it wouldn’t have taken them long
To start on another city).

Then follows more generations
From Shem to our hero Abram,
Who came from the loins of Terah
With brothers Nahor and Haran. (g)

Abram’s wife, Sarai, was barren, (h)
As barren as the desert sand,
So Terah took them both and Lot
From Ur up to Canaan land. (i)

He probably had an idea
What a change in climate might do
To sort out Sarai’s sterile womb
So she’d bring forth a son or two.

References

(a) GEN. 11:1. Equality and thus singleness of purpose or unity must, by then, have gone out of the window, considering that father Noah had relegated his grandson Canaan and his descendants to the status of ‘servants of servants’ to his uncles and their progeny with his curse after the ‘nakedness’ incident in GEN. 9:31.
(b) GEN. 11:2.
(c) GEN. 11:4.
(d) GEN. 11:6.
(e) GEN. 11:7.
(f) GEN. 11:8.
(g) GEN. 11:26.
(h) GEN. 11:30.
(i) GEN. 11:31.

Good, good. Some years ago I too wrote poetry - to my then girlfriend, now wife. Of course they’re buried in some forgotten ark, such was their ridiculousness.

 

[avflf]

Good, good. Some years ago I too wrote poetry - to my then girlfriend, now wife. Of course they’re buried in some forgotten ark, such was their ridiculousness.

Don’t sell yourself short. I bet they are good and she’ll always love them

 

[Shredderbeam]

Though I don’t accept it, I like Aquinas’s second argument (first cause).