What is your favorite proof for God?

[paduard]

So you agree that its not a “being” or “thing” and is thus not a reality?

Yes, it is not a reality in the sense that it is not a ‘being’ or a ‘thing’ as you have drawn it.

 

[greylorn]

I don’t think that is possible, since God has infinite worth. Perhaps you misunderstand my position.

Probably not, having once held it myself. Upon developing my current God concept, I hold Him in much higher esteem than before.

For an infinite God to create the universe is as easy as for you to breathe. For a Creator who had no idea how to create a universe when he set himself the task is far more difficult, and for me, far more impressive.

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?

Again and again. Then some more. I’ve never received a coherent answer, just meaningless and contradictory verbiage.

Fair enough. It is your choice to believe what you wish. We can all thank God for that.

Perhaps, but that is a belief. However, we know for certain that we can thank the soldiers of the United States who fought and died, first to secure those freedoms, then to protect them.

Unfortunately, they will be short lived,. We’ve given most of them up to politicians in return for bowls of porridge, and the rest are in the process of being seized in the name of social justice, a Christian euphemism for hard core big government socialism. IMO, of course.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Yes, it is not a reality in the sense that it is not a ‘being’ or a ‘thing’ as you have drawn it.

Would you agree that its not a reality in any sense of the word reality, accept perhaps that there is in fact a “word” called nothing in reality?

 

[paduard]

Would you agree that its not a reality in any sense of the word reality, accept perhaps that there is in fact a “word” called nothing in reality?

I would agree in the sense I understand where you seem to be going. However as God is Eternal, His Knowledge would include every Potential and, like your exception, for us this could be called a reality. Best I can do from your script.

 

[greylorn]

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.

The law was discovered, not “coined.” Your attempt to trivialize its importance with inappropriate language says more about you than the law.

Because of the law’s importance, it has been tested and retested more times than any principle of physics except the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, by modern scientists with extremely precise equipment. It applies to closed systems because physics is an honest science, well aware that within an open thermodynamic system, the law probably applies but cannot be verified.

Your comments about an “exchange rate” are nonsense. Where did you get that silly drivel from? Please don’t tell me that you made it up, unless you did.

 

[sinnerdexter]

@Ignatias20

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

And some will respond:

That’s a jolly good idea, we’ll stick with that.

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 (atoms) come from, we don’t know. We’re working on it.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

So in answer to your original question of where did it all (atoms) come from, we don’t know. We’re working on it.

If physical reality breaks down at the singularity, then the cause of the universe cannot be physical. Unless of course you agree with hawking’s version of the big bang.

 

[antunesaa]

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.

Hi Greylorn

I don’t think Cardinal Newman’s citation is a “proof”. It’s more like a warning, stating essentially that (the Christian) God is impervious to any deductive effort. The “abstruse argument”, as you say, is not really an argument but rather a metaphor. This is my interpretation of his words, and I certainly would not accept them as a rigorous proof of anything. As a metaphor, it is powerful and simple; but, of course, it breaks down when you really descend into the details. (By the way, I forgot to state that the supremum must be at least as large as any element of the set .)

 

[alec3000]

I would have to say that my personal favorite is the argument from desire. For those of you who are unfamiliar with this argument, let me recapitulate. The human person has a deep longing for happiness and possesses a void that nothing on this earth can fill. Every need we observe in this life has an object that fulfills it (for hunger there is food; for emotional needs, a loving family and friendship). Since our interminable longing can be fulfilled by nothing physical, logically, this must mean that the end of this desire is non-physical and can only point to God, or Infinite Happiness.

This is the most convincing argument for me because it shows that God and religion are not brute facts but things deeply tied to our human experience. It also strongly connects to existentialism because it shows the horrifying absurdity of a godless universe–
without God, we have a false desire planted inside us for which there is no answer, a problem for which there never will be a solution. We then become a race of schizophrenics, psychologically disordered humans with false and unhealthy desires. We are duped into thinking there is something greater than ourselves, and happiness becomes both an opiate and a facade.

Some people think this is a weak argument, but I think what they mean is that it is much more dependent on our human experience than on logic. Otherwise, I can’t imagine how it would be a weak argument. When studying eternal and divine ideas, philosophy should take the human person as its starting point. If this is true, then wouldn’t the argument from desire actually be the strongest argument for God, in a certain sense?

P.S. Those who say this is a “weaker” argument than St. Thomas Aquinas’ famous Five Proofs are being somewhat inconsistent–they criticize the logic of this argument as “weak” when the proofs they support use the same kind of logical method, which is inductive reasoning. (Ex. In our experience, all things tend towards perfection; therefore, there must be an infinite degree of perfection: God). I am not saying inductive reasoning is unreasonable, but does this make sense to anyone?

Anyways, that’s my take on God’s existence. I hope this post wasn’t too lengthy.
God bless!

 

[sinnerdexter]

If physical reality breaks down at the singularity, then the cause of the universe cannot be physical. Unless of course you agree with hawking’s version of the big bang.

Physical reality doesn’t “break down”. In fact, that’s just gibberish.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Physical reality doesn’t “break down”. In fact, that’s just gibberish.

What ever happens, it cannot be explained in a physical sense. You cannot intelligibly speak of a physical cause existing in a singularity.

 

[lamp15]

When I have a cold, I dont need to see the bacteria, I see the symptoms that result from the bacteria creating the cold to know that the bacteria is there. So is the ressurection of Jesus, do i need to see Him ressurect to believe, or see the masses of followers of His time that believed it.

 

[sinnerdexter]

What ever happens, it cannot be explained in a physical sense. You cannot intelligibly speak of a physical cause existing in a singularity.

We can’t explain it yet, that doesn’t mean we can’t/won’t understand it.

 

[sinnerdexter]

What ever happens, it cannot be explained in a physical sense. You cannot intelligibly speak of a physical cause existing in a singularity.

Well, look at it this way. Using the Newtonian representation of gravity you can come up with a formula for earth’s gravity of F = GMm/r^2. Now if you go to r=0, you get infinite gravity – a singularity! OMG THERE’S A SINGULARITY AT THE CENTER OF EARTH!!! Or not. It just means the equation doesn’t work in that range. In this example, the error is that the above equation only works so long as you are outside the sphere of mass, and as you go deeper you have to subtract from Earth’s mass whatever mass is outside your radius. Thus, using the proper equations, earth’s gravity at the center of earth is zero.

If your equation gives you a singularity, it almost certainly means your equation is wrong not that there’s an infinite point sitting there in reality.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Well, look at it this way. Using the Newtonian representation of gravity you can come up with a formula for earth’s gravity of F = GMm/r^2. Now if you go to r=0, you get infinite gravity – a singularity! OMG THERE’S A SINGULARITY AT THE CENTER OF EARTH!!! Or not. It just means the equation doesn’t work in that range. In this example, the error is that the above equation only works so long as you are outside the sphere of mass, and as you go deeper you have to subtract from Earth’s mass whatever mass is outside your radius. Thus, using the proper equations, earth’s gravity at the center of earth is zero.

If your equation gives you a singularity, it almost certainly means your equation is wrong not that there’s an infinite point sitting there in reality.

This is a false comparison which ignores contextual consideration. There is not a singularity at the centre of the earth. There is a central point, which is the smallest possible ontological point before you cease to speak about something quantitative. The central point of the earth, is not zero in ontological terms. It is the smallest possible quantity before zero=nothing. To speak of a physical centre is not to speak of a physical nothing. The centre necessarily takes up space. The big-bang event includes space/time/energy, and extends from an infinitely dense point. That point is not physical. You are no-longer speaking about a spatial physical dimension, since no quantitative thing can exist without a quantitative measurable dimension. There is no physical definable quantity in an infinite point. That’s why physics breaks down at that point, simply because the object of empirical science fails to exist. Does this mean that singularities are probably false. No, in the context of the big-bang, there is good reason to think this to be the case accept to preserve a universal physics, since the implication is that the universe either came out nothing, or it came out of that which cannot be understood in physical terms; hence a naturalistic bias. This is not acceptable to those who want to understand reality in purely physical terms; and thus they conclude that physical reality cannot have proceeded from an infinitely dense point in actual reality, as that would imply a reality larger than what a physical explanation can provide.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

We can’t explain it yet, that doesn’t mean we can’t/won’t understand it.

You cannot explain, in physical terms, how or why a physical universe extends from an infinitely dense point unless you can prove that the universe does not in fact extend from an infinitely dense point. The evidence appears to suggest otherwise.

 

[Andy_III]

Probably not, having once held it myself. Upon developing my current God concept, I hold Him in much higher esteem than before.

For an infinite God to create the universe is as easy as for you to breathe. For a Creator who had no idea how to create a universe when he set himself the task is far more difficult, and for me, far more impressive.

And creates a far unhappier universe… But seriously, just because you claim to have held a belief equivalent to mine does not mean we had the same opinion as to the worth of our Creator. I have no need for a plucky god who can overcome tremendous obstacles with its puny abilities. Nor do I think such a thing is very realistic.

Again and again. Then some more. I’ve never received a coherent answer, just meaningless and contradictory verbiage.

Here’s another post that claims to quote a version of the catechism:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=6981151&postcount=5

Seems pretty straightforward to me.

Perhaps, but that is a belief. However, we know for certain that we can thank the soldiers of the United States who fought and died, first to secure those freedoms, then to protect them.

Unfortunately, they will be short lived,. We’ve given most of them up to politicians in return for bowls of porridge, and the rest are in the process of being seized in the name of social justice, a Christian euphemism for hard core big government socialism. IMO, of course.

Social justice is a term, not a euphemism, and is a good thing. Socialism is a bad thing, and the radical Marxists have hijacked the term and are trying to use it to mean something else so they can sell Christians a bill of goods. The Church is against socialism, since it’s end result is to reduce everyone to misery and poverty.

I agree that too many have sought bowls of porridge and are responsible for the not very free country we have today. Part of the problem is that a large segment of the population no longer knows what freedom means. Another word that has taken on a different meaning to suit some evil purpose.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Part of the problem is that a large segment of the population no longer knows what freedom means. Another word that has taken on a different meaning to suit some evil purpose.

Freedom is love, and love necessitates a particular kind of behaviour which is incompatible with an economy that competes with the objects of human necessities, and puts profit before the dignity and well being of human life. What ever the Church is against, it certainly cannot be against love, and thus cannot be for the kind of economy, or so called freedom, that America embraces.

 

[sinnerdexter]

This is a false comparison which ignores contextual consideration. There is not a singularity at the centre of the earth. There is a central point, which is the smallest possible ontological point before you cease to speak about something quantitative. The central point of the earth, is not zero in ontological terms. It is the smallest possible quantity before zero=nothing. To speak of a physical centre is not to speak of a physical nothing. The centre necessarily takes up space. The big-bang event includes space/time/energy, and extends from an infinitely dense point. That point is not physical. You are no-longer speaking about a spatial physical dimension, since no quantitative thing can exist without a quantitative measurable dimension. There is no physical definable quantity in an infinite point. That’s why physics breaks down at that point, simply because the object of empirical science fails to exist.

Well you got that right: I misused an equation and got a singularity. Is there a singularity there? Does physics break down? No, I just misused an equation.
MindOverMatter2;6996317:

Does this mean that singularities are probably false. No, in the context of the big-bang, there is good reason to think this to be the case accept to preserve a universal physics, since the implication is that the universe either came out nothing, or it came out of that which cannot be understood in physical terms

; hence a naturalistic bias.

This is a false dichotomy. Instead of correcting you, I shall let you try again. If you are unable to figure out a correct dichotomy, please tell me and I will give you the answer.

This is not acceptable to those who want to understand reality in purely physical terms; and thus they conclude that physical reality cannot have proceeded from an infinitely dense point in actual reality, as that would imply a reality larger than what a physical explanation can provide.

Well good thing that there is no reason to expect that we should explain the universe from an infinitely dense point. In fact, that suggestion doesn’t even make sense.

In any case, we can describe an infinitely large reality, infinitely large in several senses of the word. So is larger than that?

 

[Andy_III]

The law was discovered, not “coined.” Your attempt to trivialize its importance with inappropriate language says more about you than the law.

I was merely trying to emphasize that it was “invented by men”, and that science is about learning how the universe works through experimentation. To the extent that the experimentation matches reality at any given time is the extent to which its findings are true.

Because of the law’s importance, it has been tested and retested more times than any principle of physics except the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, by modern scientists with extremely precise equipment. It applies to closed systems because physics is an honest science, well aware that within an open thermodynamic system, the law probably applies but cannot be verified.

Right, it cannot be verified in the universe, whether it is a closed or an open system. At least, not without a device capable of measuring the total energy of the universe, if there is such a quantity.

Your comments about an “exchange rate” are nonsense. Where did you get that silly drivel from? Please don’t tell me that you made it up, unless you did.

Actually I didn’t make it up, I found it in an article that I read mainly because of its relevance to this thread. I would not place any credibility in its claims (they claimed to be able to make it rain with a black box and that perpetual motion machines were possible), but I was presenting alternate views on the issue. They brought up the (valid) idea that there are different forms of energy (work, heat, etc.) and that the law in question relies on the ability to exchange one form for another at a particular rate based on units of measurement.

I don’t think it matters much whether energy can be created/destroyed or not as far as the topic at hand is concerned. God still created the universe (possibly including massive amounts of energy). This does not contradict physics in any way, it cannot. If it did, physics (once learning about it) would have to change to accomodate the new data.