What is your favorite proof for God?

  • Thread starter Thread starter jpk1313
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
my favorite proof for God is the nature all around me.

1 romans:
19 Because that which is known of God is manifest among them, for God did manifest [it] to them,
20 for the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world, by the things made being understood, are plainly seen, both His eternal power and Godhead – to their being inexcusable

the answer to every secret of God can be found in nature. i believe that is where He can be most plainly seen.
 
MindOverMatter2 said:
40.png
greylorn:
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.
Click to expand...
Why?
Click to expand...
I’ll assume that you meant to ask, ‘why not?’

Fuzzy Wuzzy was a bear.
Fuzzy Wuzzy had no hair.
Fuzzy Wuzzy wasn’t fuzzy, was he?

In other words, it would not be the law of conservation of energy anymore, would it?
 
greylorn said:
I’ll assume that you meant to ask, ‘why not?’

Fuzzy Wuzzy was a bear.
Fuzzy Wuzzy had no hair.
Fuzzy Wuzzy wasn’t fuzzy, was he?

In other words, it would not be the law of conservation of energy anymore, would
Click to expand...
It depends on the context in which the law was formulated. Given that the context is founded upon the scientific principle, I can safely say that the intention of the scientist is not to formulate or prove a metaphysical absolute. It is impossible for scientist to know whether or not God can create or destroy energy, simply because the context of their research concerns physical reality by itself, absent of any concern about what God can or cannot do. And of course a good scientist would know that they cannot say anything about the powers of a non-physical God, since a non-physical God is obviously not bound by the laws of physics. This is brutally evident in the fact that, in the first place, we are talking about a being who is non-physical in nature. Thus a scientist can only say that, in the context of physical reality, nothing that is physical reality can destroy or create energy.

The law is understood relative to physical reality since it is stated in those terms alone and therefore does no include nor has any bearing on the abilities or powers of unmeasurable entities that are not bound by physical laws. Thus unless you are willing to say that God is physical (which is not the God that I believe in) your objection is meaningless and contextually bias.

But I guess you are far to arrogant to see that.

Good luck fuzzy wuzzy!👋.
 
sinnerdexter said:
Depending on how you do the math, the energy of the universe is zero.
Click to expand...
…
Subject: More on the proof of the exixtance of God

QUOTE=sinnerdexter;6961921]Depending on how you do the math, the energy of the universe is zero. This was the private message sent to me.

This poster was sent a private message by a poster but that private message was brief and said that the energy of the universe is zero…it all depends on how you do the math it said.
If that poster would post on this thread a bit more of a clarification I would appreciate it.
  • I think he was talking about my statement regarding the origin of matter and energy we now observe in our universe. Someone introduced the unproven theory that all the energy and matter was once contained within an immeasurable “point” without dimensions. Cosmologists invented a word for that point…it is called “singularity”. It has no volume to be sure. It further stated that this point was the forerunner or precursor of all the energy and matter that was expelled by the Big Bang. I hope this is understandable to the reader.
Then along came Ignatias20 who asked where that energy that was in the immeasurable “singularity” came from. Obviously that point, “singularity”, had to exist at a time BEFORE the Big Bang AND Before there was any primordial universe.
**That was a time at which there was nothing except possibly a spirit **because there was no matter nor energy before that thing called singularity was produced.

** This poster is trying to justify an improvable concept as are the mathematicians. The secret is that I was attempting to cause someone to offer the existence of the Spirit of God as the “Cause” for the proposed events that preceded the led up to what we call our universe. Perhaps my logic is not congruent with the logic of the proponents of “singularity”.**

Please remeber the Title of this thread is “What is your favorite proof of the existance of God?” I once had a physics prof who worked with Oppenheimer in the building of the first Atomic Bomb. That prof said he was just a “Dabbler”. So I too am a Dabbler as are all of us!

🙂 🙂 😉 😉 😉 😉
 
Poster mindovermatter has a very good post. Part of it was:
“It depends on the context in which the law was formulated. Given that the context is founded upon the scientific principle, I can safely say that the intention of the scientist is not to formulate or prove a metaphysical absolute. It is impossible for scientist to know whether or not God can create or destroy energy, simply because the context of their research concerns physical reality by itself, absent of any concern about what God can or cannot do. And of course a good scientist would know that they cannot say anything about the powers of a non-physical God, since a non-physical God is obviously not bound by the laws of physics. This is brutally evident in the fact that, in the first place, we are talking about a being who is non-physical in nature. Thus a scientist can only say that, in the context of physical reality, nothing that is physical reality can destroy or create energy.”

Of course I agree with his contention that the scientist cannot comment upon the metaphysical nor a spiritual God who is not bound by the laws of physics.

I contend that the proponents of singularity have used physical science to it’s limits by “introducing singularity” as a substitute for a Spiritaul-Metaphysical God.
 
greylorn said:
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.
Click to expand...
I understand how that goes, I’m dealing with the fallout of some storm damage myself.
greylorn said:
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?
Click to expand...
I never claimed that God invented anything, nor do I believe He did. Inventing involves change, God does not change.
greylorn said:
By thought I mean creative, or innovative thought.
Click to expand...
Okay.
greylorn said:
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.
Click to expand...
I don’t think that is possible, since God has infinite worth. Perhaps you misunderstand my position.
greylorn said:
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.
Click to expand...
I will reread (when I get a chance), but I do believe you have mistaken what the Church means by “made in the image and likeness of God”. Have you inquired from someone knowledgable of Church teaching what this phrase means?
greylorn said:
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 simply made a different choice than yours, in favor of a God Who thinks (creatively).
Click to expand...
Fair enough. It is your choice to believe what you wish. We can all thank God for that. 🙂
 
greylorn said:
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.
Click to expand...
This brings up some questions:
  1. What about being omnipotent is not compatible with creating the universe? It seems to me that omnipotence is required to create the universe from nothing.
  2. How can faith be obsolete? Even if you produced a “god” that could be measured and quantified, we would still need faith to believe that your logic is correct and that your initial assumptions are correct (including any that you borrowed from physics).
 
greylorn said:
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.
Click to expand...
greylorn said:
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.
Click to expand...
I’ve heard this one before, too. Remember that a law of physics is based on observation. This particular law was coined ca. 1850 IIRC, so there couldn’t have been much observation too many years before that, and certainly not at every place in the universe. This was largely based on assumptions made about “closed” systems and abstracted up to the universe at large. It also has a fundamental assumption that energy has an “exchange rate” to move between various types, such as kinetic energy and heat.

My point here is not to claim that this law isn’t true in some sense, just that we already have so many qualifiers on that law that we need not add a specific exception just for God.
 
Ignatias20 said:
…
Subject: More on the proof of the exixtance of God

QUOTE=sinnerdexter;6961921]Depending on how you do the math, the energy of the universe is zero.
Click to expand...
This was the private message sent to me.

This poster was sent a private message by a poster but that private message was brief and said that the energy of the universe is zero…it all depends on how you do the math it said.
If that poster would post on this thread a bit more of a clarification I would appreciate it.
  • I think he was talking about my statement regarding the origin of matter and energy we now observe in our universe. Someone introduced the unproven theory that all the energy and matter was once contained within an immeasurable “point” without dimensions. Cosmologists invented a word for that point…it is called “singularity”. It has no volume to be sure. It further stated that this point was the forerunner or precursor of all the energy and matter that was expelled by the Big Bang. I hope this is understandable to the reader.
Then along came Ignatias20 who asked where that energy that was in the immeasurable “singularity” came from. Obviously that point, “singularity”, had to exist at a time BEFORE the Big Bang AND Before there was any primordial universe.
**That was a time at which there was nothing except possibly a spirit **because there was no matter nor energy before that thing called singularity was produced.

** This poster is trying to justify an improvable concept as are the mathematicians. The secret is that I was attempting to cause someone to offer the existence of the Spirit of God as the “Cause” for the proposed events that preceded the led up to what we call our universe. Perhaps my logic is not congruent with the logic of the proponents of “singularity”.**

Please remeber the Title of this thread is “What is your favorite proof of the existance of God?” I once had a physics prof who worked with Oppenheimer in the building of the first Atomic Bomb. That prof said he was just a “Dabbler”. So I too am a Dabbler as are all of us!

🙂 🙂 😉 😉 😉 😉

A misconception, “singularity” was not thought up by cosmologists, it is a mathematical term for what happens to certain functions (in this case and most often it means f(x) = 1/x where x is 0), this in physics is taken to mean that the theory has broken down at that point as 0’s and infinities are taken to be not physical.

Ignatias20, I would suggest doing some investigations in how modern science is conducted. Someone didn’t just pitch up one day and say
Hey guys I think the universe started in a singularity
Click to expand...
And some will respond:
That’s a jolly good idea, we’ll stick with that.
Click to expand...
What happened was, there was some mathematical framework developed that modelled the currently observable universe, it make reliable, accurate, mathematical predictions about what we can and do observer, this model was then run backwards in time and it showed what is now known as the big bang theory of the universe. At t=0 it breaks down, we know it breaks down, discussion of the singularity will result in the response of “well we know it breaks down and we’re working on it”

So in answer to your original question of where did it all come from, we don’t know. We’re working on it.
 
First post on this forum; as suggested when I registered to introduce myself.

I like the Aquinas proofs.

Paduard
 
MindOverMatter2 said:
Sorry to have disturbed you. I will ask somebody else.
Click to expand...
No, you misunderstand. The point is that proof, empirical proof, for the existence of God lies at the level of consciousness. But we have to get beyond, or beneath if you will, the reasons why God must exist. God simply is. He is the reason for everything else. Far from being difficult to perceive, he is the most obvious thing there is.

On one level higher you might notice that you are conscious. Since you are conscious, there is existence. But that existence is something in addition to your consciousness. God is that existence. So when we say that God exists, we aren’t wrong, but it is more to the point to say that God is existence.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top