What is your favorite proof for God?

[budgie2]

Maybe I will, but before I do I’m just wondering how anyone is going to go about proving the resurrection without resorting to theological and scriptural arguments? I’m agnostic in reality, perhaps with a tendency to the complete lack of belief, so to avoid any miscommuncations I will just say I don’t believe in God. With that in mind, I reject any theological or scriptural arguments for obvious reasons.

A detailed discussion regarding the Resurrection, with what kind of evidence? Empirical?

For a while I didn’t believe in the Resurrection. If Christ lived 2000 years ago how can I prove he exists? However, I prayed for proof like doubting Thomas and it’s alright to have doubts. Then I had a spiritual experience on Corpus Christi and I felt a cross on my back, I had a pain in my chest and I had pains in my hands and feet. I felt Jesus loved me and he was alive, not dead as he was resurrected. I also knew that Jesus was really present in the Eucharist and he was alive in the Eucharist. If you pray for proof you might not have the same experience but Christ will reveal himself to you.

True story and pass it on.

 

[greylorn]

Yes, I agree. Perhaps something was lost in the distillation, or perhaps the difficulties were in the original text. In any case, it is difficult even to speak of God’s thoughts because we tend to think in temporal terms when describing thoughts. Terms like new thought, chain of thought, etc. all imply change - something which God does not and cannot do. It is not logically possible for God to be outside of time and to change.

This old post slipped through the cracks of irrelevancies. It deserved an earlier reply.

Logic depends upon premises, called hypotheses in mathematics, or theories in science. In religion, the same premises are called truths. But they are all the same kind of thing— ideas which men invented.

The only interesting thought is innovative thought, the invention of ideas previously unknown, or the discovery of concepts previously undiscovered. Such thought involves change.

Those humans who are respected as great “thinkers” are those who thought of new ideas which others had not. Genuine thought requires change. The ideas of great thinkers all brought changes to human thought, which proceeded to action.

Thought is not the regurgitation of previously memorized information, or guessing the right box on a multiple-choice exam. IBM’s “Big Blue” chess playing program incorporates the thoughts of humans who created it, without ever having a thought of its own. True thought, whether for man or God, is the same. It is the invention or discovery of that which is previously unknown.

An entity which knows everything cannot have a creative thought. If God knows everything, God cannot have a creative thought.

The only interesting facet of human behavior is the occasional ability of some of us to have creative thoughts, sometimes, and maybe just relatively “creative” because we did not know that someone else already thought of it.

Creative thought differentiates man from animals.

Do you really want to define God as an entity incapable of the only characteristic which separates man from monkeys?

Human beings who cannot think, who cannot have even the most rudimentary creative thought, are informally known as idiots, or retards. The desire of religionists to constrain the Creator of the Universe to the level of human imbecility never ceases to amaze me.

I can only explain it in terms of the crab-bucket principle, the innate human desire to bring everyone to their own level, even their God.

 

[greylorn]

Christ also admonishes us to not bury our talents. And by the way, in Biblical taxonomy, you’re a lost sheep; not a pig. So keep reading the parables of the Old and New Testament; you’ll figure things out in a jiffy.

An Anglican clergyman named Samuel Clarke actually argued that one Divine Attribute implies all the rest. Since Cardinal Newman appreciated this argument I’ll share my version of it here:

If God has an imagination → God has a mind.
If God has a mind → God has reason.
If God has reason → God has order.
If God has order → God has justice.
If God has justice → God has righteousness.
If God has righteousness → God has mercy.
If God has mercy → God has love.
If God has love → God includes three relations: A Lover, the Beloved, and Their Love.

Thus we have arrived at a Trinitarian understanding of God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Furthermore, Newman advises the following in approaching an argument such as this: “To feel the true force of an argument like this, …] we must not hurry on and force a series of deductions, which, if they are to be realized, must distil like dew into our minds, and form themselves spontaneously there, by a calm contemplation and gradual understanding of their premises” (Grammar of Assent, page 314)

Greylorn, also realize that “proofs” for the existence of God are limited. Cardinal Newman compares it to the convergence of calculus: “We know that a regular polygon, inscribed in a circle, its sides being continually diminished, tends to become that circle, as its limit; but it vanishes before it has coincided with the circle, so that its tendency to be the circle, though ever nearer fulfillment, never in fact gets beyond a tendency. In like manner, the conclusion in a real or concrete question is foreseen and predicted rather than actually attained; foreseen in the number and direction of accumulated premises, which all converge to it, and as the result of their combination, approach it more nearly than any assignable difference, yet do not touch it logically (though only not touching it), on account of the nature of its subject matter, and the delicate and implicit character of at least part of the reasonings on which it depends” (ibid, page 320-21)

Anselm’s one, Aquinas’ five, Kant’s one, and the numerous modern ones from QM and evolution, all converge on the existence of God, but never will get you there in actuality. So, if you want to understand the Triune God, go to confession regularly and receive communion frequently, and you will participate in the Divine life of God in actuality, rather than merely speculating about it.

Hope this helps,

-Ryan Vilbig
ryan.vilbig@gmail.com

Alas, another neglected post, from early June. Sorry about that.

Let’s trash the chaff and get to your opening argument, which depends (trusting your quote) upon Cardinal Newman’s first propostion:

“If God has an imagination → God has a mind.”

Yep. And if God knows all things, God cannot have an imagination. Imagination requires the invention of that which is previously unknown.

If God is defined as omniscient, Cardinal Newman’s subsequent arguments fall into the intellectual rubbish pile.

Lest you get your own mind into a mental discombabulation over this simple, logical argument, kindly note that I prefer the idea of a created universe. Man-made beliefs such as omniscience and omnipotence are not necessary to such a concept, which should be evident from common knowledge.

 

[JDaniel]

Aquinas’ first proof is disproved by the simple concept of negative infinity. We use it in mathematics all the time, in the case of negative infinity, there need no be a first mover, particles of any description could have always existed.

Ancient:

Would you mind telling us what that negaive number might be? Since, to my knowledge, “infinity” is not signified by any number known to our language. We don’t need to know the word that represents it, just a number with a minus sign in front of it will do.

God bless,
jd

 

[Ignatias20]

Yes, yes. Why would so many go to a horrible death for something they didn’t truely believe?

I have talked to a few atheists over the years and this one can’t be answered by them.

“They agree that the entire universe is made of ATOMS, which are made of particles.
They agree that there is ENERGY in our universe. They start there with the atoms and energy already existing and all else follows they say.”

But ask them about the well established philosophical principle, “CAUSE AND EFFECT”

Ask them where the atoms came from. They get quiet.

Matter and energy didn’t magically appear, there had to be something or someone who created them.
The old Baltimore Catachism said," God created everthing seen and unseen."

 

[greylorn]

Yes, yes. Why would so many go to a horrible death for something they didn’t truely believe?

I have talked to a few atheists over the years and this one can’t be answered by them.

“They agree that the entire universe is made of ATOMS, which are made of particles.
They agree that there is ENERGY in our universe. They start there with the atoms and energy already existing and all else follows they say.”

But ask them about the well established philosophical principle, “CAUSE AND EFFECT”

Ask them where the atoms came from. They get quiet.

Matter and energy didn’t magically appear, there had to be something or someone who created them.
The old Baltimore Catachism said," God created everthing seen and unseen."

You must be arguing with some especially dimwitted atheists, or their cats. Any atheist worthy of his beliefs will tell you that matter was created in the Big Bang.

Now if you encounter an atheist with a mind, and if you knew a bit of physics, you could ask it to describe the nature of the Big Bang’s precursor. He will “explain” that it is a singularity. If you examine this bizarre concept thoroughly, you will find that “singularity” has no physical meaning, and is a word used by cosmologists to signify that the thing they are talking about cannot be mathematically described, but that it must have contained all the mass-energy in the universe plus the laws of physics or their precursors.

If you ask why, or what caused it to suddenly create a universe, they will have no answer for you. In whatever passes in them for mind, our cause-effect universe is an effect without a cause.

Then, if you do a little more thinking on this, you might realize that cosmology’s definition of the Big Bang’s precursor is functionally identical, or at the very least, remarkably similar to your own belief in God.

Kindly think about that awhile before replying. There are implications to these ideas.

 

[sinnerdexter]

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?

The Babel Fish Just saying.

 

[Andy_III]

Welcome back, long time no read! How’s the book coming?

Logic depends upon premises, called hypotheses in mathematics, or theories in science. In religion, the same premises are called truths. But they are all the same kind of thing— ideas which men invented.

You said this once before, and I didn’t accept it then either (I called it atheist dogma). By asserting that everything is invented by men, you are leaving out the possibility of God or objective truth.

Thought is not the regurgitation of previously memorized information, or guessing the right box on a multiple-choice exam. IBM’s “Big Blue” chess playing program incorporates the thoughts of humans who created it, without ever having a thought of its own. True thought, whether for man or God, is the same. It is the invention or discovery of that which is previously unknown.

Actually, Deep Blue had two parts, like most chess playing programs. It has a heuristic function, carefully crafted by expert (human) knowledge, plus a “thinking” part that is based on look ahead from the current board state (probably some derivative of alpha-beta search). It’s thought is constrained totally within the chess domain, but it has the kind of change/thought you described.

An entity which knows everything cannot have a creative thought. If God knows everything, God cannot have a creative thought.

God has no thoughts at all, creative or otherwise, he need not to perform His function.

The only interesting facet of human behavior is the occasional ability of some of us to have creative thoughts, sometimes, and maybe just relatively “creative” because we did not know that someone else already thought of it.

Creative thought differentiates man from animals.

Do you really want to define God as an entity incapable of the only characteristic which separates man from monkeys?

Why do you measure God like a man/monkey? Are you trying to bring God to your own level? I believe God to be omniscient, omnipotent, and infinitely intelligent. He is outside of time, and therefore does not change.

Human beings who cannot think, who cannot have even the most rudimentary creative thought, are informally known as idiots, or retards. The desire of religionists to constrain the Creator of the Universe to the level of human imbecility never ceases to amaze me.

I’m not sure I understand you here. Are you trying to say that you are being more generous to God than the “religionists” by gifting Him with creative thought?

I can only explain it in terms of the crab-bucket principle, the innate human desire to bring everyone to their own level, even their God.

 

[sinnerdexter]

Miracle of the Sun- could 70,000 people be lying or insane?

False dichotomy AND irrelevant to whether or not one or more deities exist.

Saint’s (e.g. Padre Pio) bodies which have not decayed

Mummification is well-understood.

the fact that St. Anslem’s ontological argument was proven mathematically!

Really? Citation please.

 

[Ignatias20]

This is one of the better posts I have read so far. But it doesn’t go far enough.
Yes at least two of the atheists I talked to were dim-witted, but two were PhD
physisists. The minor of my Master’s degree from U of Texas, Austin in in physics.
So I am a “dabbler”. My friend who is a PhD in Astrophysics Minor from Harvard talks mostly
about exraterrestials and Black Holes. He can’t tell me where the atoms came from either.

A poster wrote, " Any atheist worthy of his beliefs will tell you that matter was created in the Big Bang.

Now if you encounter an atheist with a mind, and if you knew a bit of physics, you could ask it to describe the nature of the Big Bang’s precursor. He will “explain” that it is a singularity. If you examine this bizarre concept thoroughly, you will find that “singularity” has no physical meaning, and is a word used by cosmologists to signify that the thing they are talking about cannot be mathematically described, but that it must have contained all the mass-energy in the universe plus the laws of physics or their precursors.

If you ask why, or what caused it to suddenly create a universe, they will have no answer for you. In whatever passes in them for mind, our cause-effect universe is an effect without a cause."

So cosmologists coined the word “singularity” to describe the thing they are talking about that cannot be described mathematically - but contains ALL the mass-energy in the universe.

It is indicated that this “singularity” was the precusor of the Big Bang. Do they say what caused the singularity to change into the Big Bang?

Do they offer to explain hiw ALL the mass-energy was accumulated into the "singularity?

Where did the Energy in singulrity come from? Could it be that human cosmologists
are only stating an unproven Theory. We know that energy can be transformed into mass, and mass into energy. The ultimate question for the cosmologist might be: "If your “singularity” contained all the energy and mass in the present universe, then you will have to admit that said energy and mass came frome some where or something. Where did it come from?

 

[sinnerdexter]

Where did the Energy in singulrity come from?

What makes you think it came from somewhere?

 

[antunesaa]

Alas, another neglected post, from early June. Sorry about that.

…

If God is defined as omniscient, Cardinal Newman’s subsequent arguments fall into the intellectual rubbish pile.

Hi Greylorn

I’ve been a little astray from the forum, and probably will remain so in the near future. Still, it’s nice to have you and Andy III back to discussion. Anyway, I would not dismiss Cardinal Newman’s quasi-argument as decidedly as you do. The man is a first-rate thinker. His account of the limitations of human arguments for the existence of God is sublime:

“We know that a regular polygon, inscribed in a circle, its sides being continually diminished, tends to become that circle, as its limit; but it vanishes before it has coincided with the circle, so that its tendency to be the circle, though ever nearer fulfillment, never in fact gets beyond a tendency. In like manner, the conclusion in a real or concrete question is foreseen and predicted rather than actually attained; foreseen in the number and direction of accumulated premises, which all converge to it, and as the result of their combination, approach it more nearly than any assignable difference, yet do not touch it logically (though only not touching it), on account of the nature of its subject matter, and the delicate and implicit character of at least part of the reasoning on which it depends."

This is celestial music to my mathematical inclined ears. It captures the essence of the faith/reason complementarities. And, in a beautiful way, it also highlights the difficulties that mathematicians had over the centuries to define a limit. When they did it, they still had to define axioms (the mathematical equivalents to religious truths) to hold the beast firmly. The axiom of the supremum (stated for instance as “every non-empty and upper bounded set as a supremum”, where the supremum of a set is a number such that in any neighborhood of itself there is at least one element of the set) is the leap of faith that mathematicians perform to rigorously define a limit.

 

[Ignatias20]

What makes you think it came from somewhere?

What makes me think that if there is such a thing as singularity that the energy contained within came from somewhere?

Philosophy 101 delt with “Cause and Effect.” Does my questioner believe that an Effect doesn’t have to have a cause?

This discussion was directed toward “singularity”. It is said that before the Big Bang all of the energy and matter we find in today’s universe was in a dimensionless unmeasurable point - an infinitely small point. This is a theory by the way. Astronomers can only see so far back in time - they can’t see the Big Bang…so all this business about singularity is theoretical. That is my opinion.

My Harvard trained friend says that singularity exists in the center of black holes right now. He says the precursor of the Big Bang was singularity and a certain poster agrees with my friend I believe.

Think. Before the Big Bang occured ( if it did occur) then there was no matter nor energy except in that volumless point called singularity,i.e., it is said that all the energy and matter in our universe was contained within that infinitely small point which gave rise to the potential of the Big Bang.

This raises a problem. Chemists will ask today, “What keeps the like charged protons so close together in a nucleus when like charges repel?” The answer is nuclear glue.
Do cosmologists also have an equivalent of the chemist’s “nuclear glue”.

What we are talking about is beyond measurement or experimental science - it is only theoretical… conjecture. We cannot see back in time to the big bang much less back to before the big bang. So the average reader of CA will call this goble-DE gook.

Secretly, I was waiting for someone to admit that the precursor of the big bang was God.

Today my friend, a Priest with two PhD’s from Rome read some of this thread. He laughed and told me that the so-called singularity = God. ( His words.)

A step farther.The previous poster asked why I supposed that the energy in singularity had to come from somewhere. I ask where did singularity come from?

We know that energy can be transformed into matter, and visa versa. So, the question becomes “Where did the Energy come from?” Assume that here I am considering a point in time before the advent of the Big Bang and the hypothetical precursor of the Big Bang - singularity. Most rational humans will agree that if Energy was put into that squishy thing called singularity that energy had to coexist with singularity or before.

We get into the problem of the Beginning of the precursors of the universe. Common man says that time has no beginning nor end, it always was and will always be. That makes one think of infinity. An infinite time-line has no ends. I ask, "At what point did singularity find it’s way onto the time-line…if I may? The precursors of the components of the Big Bang obviously were not existing before time began ; if I may?

I could ask here, "Then assuming that God exists, did he go shopping for his angels or did He create them. Were the angels somewhere nearby to God and God thought it would be a good idea to use the angels for sending messages? I disagree with that!

If God was a Spirit and He is then mere man not being able to measure in a lab any Spirit is simply using conjecture when contemplating where the energy of singularity came from.

The bottom line is that light is measurable - it is a created thing. God could have easily created light. This light could have been transmuted into other forms of energy. This energy could have been changed into sub-atomic particles and thus, finally, into atoms, i.e., matter with all the properties of matter. So the energy came from God.

 

[Andy_III]

Secretly, I was waiting for someone to admit that the precursor of the big bang was God.

Today my friend, a Priest with two PhD’s from Rome read some of this thread. He laughed and told me that the so-called singularity = God. ( His words.)

I prefer to think of the singularity (which I believe “existed” for an infinitesimal amount of time) as the point where God touched the universe. I like the word picture it makes. I have no clue, nor am I qualified to guess how a being outside of time could interact with a temporal universe, let alone create one. It is a mystery that I can live with. Finding out the answer would be nice, but won’t fundamentally change who God is as He has been revealed to us. I have many more important areas of research to work on, much of it involves learning what others already know (knew).

 

[greylorn]

Welcome back, long time no read! How’s the book coming?

Reply 1 to Post 676
I’ve been holed up finishing an especially difficult chapter. Two more to go before your question from Post 682 will be answered,

Two days ago I killed 2 hours with a detailed reply to this, wiped out in a lightening strike. This reply will be briefer.

You said this once before, and I didn’t accept it then either (I called it atheist dogma). By asserting that everything is invented by men, you are leaving out the possibility of God or objective truth.

I am certain that I never made such an assertion. That would have been stupid, and contrary to my understanding. Dig up the context and reexamine please, and pass it along if still confused.

You will notice a definite contradiction between your comment here, and this one below:

“God has no thoughts at all, creative or otherwise,..”

If God does not think, how can he invent?

Actually, Deep Blue had two parts, like most chess playing programs. It has a heuristic function, carefully crafted by expert (human) knowledge, plus a “thinking” part that is based on look ahead from the current board state (probably some derivative of alpha-beta search). It’s thought is constrained totally within the chess domain, but it has the kind of change/thought you described.

Not really. The final exam in my introductory computer course was to write a FORTRAN program to calculate, from a given board setup, all moves that would put the enemy king in check. While I certainly put thought into the code, the code itself did not “think.” It simply triggered millions of electronic relays, each performing a function similar to that of a common mousetrap. Mousetraps don’t think either.

By thought I mean creative, or innovative thought.

God has no thoughts at all, creative or otherwise, he need not to perform His function.

I think of God as more than a functionary. When you read my book, you too will have a much higher opinion of His worth. I promise.

Why do you measure God like a man/monkey? Are you trying to bring God to your own level? I believe God to be omniscient, omnipotent, and infinitely intelligent. He is outside of time, and therefore does not change.

I do believe that you should reread my stuff. While I’ve no interest in bringing God to my level, note please, that this is exactly what religion does with its “made in the image of God,” clause.

I admire your intellectual consistency. Most people faced with the logical contradiction between omniscience and thought develop goofy arguments in their attempt to have their God both ways. You have made a choice, in favor of omniscience.

I’m not sure I understand you here. Are you trying to say that you are being more generous to God than the “religionists” by gifting Him with creative thought?

I simply made a different choice than yours, in favor of a God Who thinks (creatively).

 

[greylorn]

Hi Greylorn

I’ve been a little astray from the forum, and probably will remain so in the near future. Still, it’s nice to have you and Andy III back to discussion. Anyway, I would not dismiss Cardinal Newman’s quasi-argument as decidedly as you do. The man is a first-rate thinker. His account of the limitations of human arguments for the existence of God is sublime:

“We know that a regular polygon, inscribed in a circle, its sides being continually diminished, tends to become that circle, as its limit; but it vanishes before it has coincided with the circle, so that its tendency to be the circle, though ever nearer fulfillment, never in fact gets beyond a tendency. In like manner, the conclusion in a real or concrete question is foreseen and predicted rather than actually attained; foreseen in the number and direction of accumulated premises, which all converge to it, and as the result of their combination, approach it more nearly than any assignable difference, yet do not touch it logically (though only not touching it), on account of the nature of its subject matter, and the delicate and implicit character of at least part of the reasoning on which it depends."

This is celestial music to my mathematical inclined ears. It captures the essence of the faith/reason complementarities. And, in a beautiful way, it also highlights the difficulties that mathematicians had over the centuries to define a limit. When they did it, they still had to define axioms (the mathematical equivalents to religious truths) to hold the beast firmly. The axiom of the supremum (stated for instance as “every non-empty and upper bounded set as a supremum”, where the supremum of a set is a number such that in any neighborhood of itself there is at least one element of the set) is the leap of faith that mathematicians perform to rigorously define a limit.

Antunesaa—
Before getting into this one, I think it important to point out that I have never proposed any proof for the existence of God. The existence of the God defined by Christianity cannot be proven, Newman has simply used an abstruse argument from geometrical calculus to prove that I am correct, but for different reasons.

Newman assumes that the God defined by Christianity must exist. Therefore his argument amounts to running a calculus theorem backwards to demonstrate that we cannot prove the truth of the axiom from which the theorem was originally derived.

(My personal distrust, and general dislike of intellectuals, arises from their tendency to obfuscate what they are actually saying, with oblique and arcane arguments,)

My conclusions about the nature of God are different from Newman’s. I became convinced years ago from studies of basic classical physics that an omnipotent God cannot have created the universe. I could not discard the concept of creation, however, having previously looked through a cheap science-kit microscope and watched cells divide. My solution came from asking, “Okay. Who did create the universe? And why?”

So, Newman’s arguments do not apply to my axioms, which are carefully designed to produce verifiable conclusions about the real world, and make faith obsolete.

 

[greylorn]

What makes me think that if there is such a thing as singularity that the energy contained within came from somewhere?

Philosophy 101 delt with “Cause and Effect.” Does my questioner believe that an Effect doesn’t have to have a cause?

This discussion was directed toward “singularity”. It is said that before the Big Bang all of the energy and matter we find in today’s universe was in a dimensionless unmeasurable point - an infinitely small point. This is a theory by the way. Astronomers can only see so far back in time - they can’t see the Big Bang…so all this business about singularity is theoretical. That is my opinion.

My Harvard trained friend says that singularity exists in the center of black holes right now. He says the precursor of the Big Bang was singularity and a certain poster agrees with my friend I believe.

Think. Before the Big Bang occured ( if it did occur) then there was no matter nor energy except in that volumless point called singularity,i.e., it is said that all the energy and matter in our universe was contained within that infinitely small point which gave rise to the potential of the Big Bang.

This raises a problem. Chemists will ask today, “What keeps the like charged protons so close together in a nucleus when like charges repel?” The answer is nuclear glue.
Do cosmologists also have an equivalent of the chemist’s “nuclear glue”.

What we are talking about is beyond measurement or experimental science - it is only theoretical… conjecture. We cannot see back in time to the big bang much less back to before the big bang. So the average reader of CA will call this goble-DE gook.

Secretly, I was waiting for someone to admit that the precursor of the big bang was God.

Today my friend, a Priest with two PhD’s from Rome read some of this thread. He laughed and told me that the so-called singularity = God. ( His words.)

A step farther.The previous poster asked why I supposed that the energy in singularity had to come from somewhere. I ask where did singularity come from?

We know that energy can be transformed into matter, and visa versa. So, the question becomes “Where did the Energy come from?” Assume that here I am considering a point in time before the advent of the Big Bang and the hypothetical precursor of the Big Bang - singularity. Most rational humans will agree that if Energy was put into that squishy thing called singularity that energy had to coexist with singularity or before.

We get into the problem of the Beginning of the precursors of the universe. Common man says that time has no beginning nor end, it always was and will always be. That makes one think of infinity. An infinite time-line has no ends. I ask, "At what point did singularity find it’s way onto the time-line…if I may? The precursors of the components of the Big Bang obviously were not existing before time began ; if I may?

I could ask here, "Then assuming that God exists, did he go shopping for his angels or did He create them. Were the angels somewhere nearby to God and God thought it would be a good idea to use the angels for sending messages? I disagree with that!

If God was a Spirit and He is then mere man not being able to measure in a lab any Spirit is simply using conjecture when contemplating where the energy of singularity came from.

The bottom line is that light is measurable - it is a created thing. God could have easily created light. This light could have been transmuted into other forms of energy. This energy could have been changed into sub-atomic particles and thus, finally, into atoms, i.e., matter with all the properties of matter. So the energy came from God.

You are clearly doing some serious critical thinking. As it becomes more serious, you may get to the point where you can appreciate the consequences of your own arguments.

At the moment, your mind appears to be bound up with its need for agreement. Consider your statements: "*Secretly, I was waiting for someone to admit that the precursor of the big bang was God.

Today my friend, a Priest with two PhD’s from Rome read some of this thread. He laughed and told me that the so-called singularity = God.*"

In several posts on CAF I pointed out that both God and the Big Bang’s precursor were “singularities,” and that the two concepts were functionally identical.

Gee. If I had Ph.D’s from Rome, I might have gotten some credit— along with my excommunication!

Admittedly, my ideas are not the same. I take into account the laws of physics, including the one that says that energy cannot be created or destroyed. You might want to use your excellent mind to fold that notion into your God concept.

Why? I see you talking about God and the laws of physics in the same post, which is admirable. However, you cannot pick and choose which laws of physics apply to your concept of God.

Specifically, you cannot do what so many posters do, which is to take the law of conservation of energy, that energy cannot be created or destroyed, and add, except by God to it.

Give this to your degreed friend to bite on, if you wish, but I suspect that you can do better with it on your own.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Specifically, you cannot do what so many posters do, which is to take the law of conservation of energy, that energy cannot be created or destroyed, and add, except by God to it.
.

Why?

 

[Chochy]

Love!

 

[sinnerdexter]

What makes me think that if there is such a thing as singularity that the energy contained within came from somewhere?

Depending on how you do the math, the energy of the universe is zero.