What is your favorite proof for God?

[greylorn]

, wasn’t it not Christ who said, if you have two garments give one to your neighbour?
Perhaps I am mistaken. I will look it up.

I doubt that. More likely I’ll read a lot more nonsense from you, before you actually look up and quote chapter and verse.

Even if you don’t find that dubious quote in the NT, PM me your address. I’ll mail you some of my old skivvies, C.O.D.,.

 

[JohnDamian]

I doubt that. More likely I’ll read a lot more nonsense from you, before you actually look up and quote chapter and verse.

Even if you don’t find that dubious quote in the NT, PM me your address. I’ll mail you some of my old skivvies, C.O.D.,.

That “dubious quote” is from the Gospel of Luke; although it was not Christ who said it but John the Baptist. Chapter 3.

And; it more specifically advocates those who have two giving to** those who have none**.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

You appear to be getting your science from the History Channel, and haven’t even gotten that straight. Maybe if you record all their episodes and replay them while asleep?

And I suppose you get your science from a guru of sorts. I suggest you find a real scientist who doesn’t confuse their philosophical agendas with the principles of science.

Energy does not have a beginning. The First Law of Thermodynamics makes it clear that energy cannot be created or destroyed.

Given that the object of science is physics, and not metaphysics, the first law of thermodynamics makes it clear that nothing “physical” (ruled by the laws of physics) can create or destroy energy, since when they define these rules they define them in reference to physical reality alone. The law of thermodynamics is not a metaphysical law. You are assuming that the laws of physics are absolute, universal, and synonymous to that which is ultimate reality. This is a philosophical belief on your part and perhaps the part of many scientists who confuse their meta-naturalistic beliefs with real science. There is no scientific evidence to support their beliefs.

Now tell me, after repeating the TV mantras a few times…

Suppose that there is an infinitely dense point, which you mantra as a “singularity”, which was not physical. How does it become physical?

Something non-physical (that which is not ruled by the laws of physics) created it.

Do you have even the slightest clue what a “singularity” is, or what the word means?

It doesn’t mean something physical, but you wouldn’t know that since you are only interested in your own confused agenda. Only metaphysical laws are absolute.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

The key here are the words “in my view” your view is so heavily influenced by religion it has become nothing but a religious view…

.

Your view is heavily influence by false and distorted knowledge.

You confuse hypothesis for theories and you make claims about history that is mostly exaggerations and distortion about what really happened. I feel sorry about anybody who is folly enough to take you seriously.

you are a excellent example of being blinded by the light, you are so blind you can’t see anything other than the light.

You are an excellent example of somebody who has been blinded by meta-naturalism posing as scientific knowledge.

Theories change, the idea of the big bang has been a problem for many scientist from day one, it asserts a singularity, a sign to some that a theory has problems.

A singularity is a problem only if you hold to a particular philosophical world view; mainly naturalism.

I have no problem if people can find a legitimate way of removing the singularity. But most people are attempting this purely on the basis that the alternative is unacceptable to philosophical naturalism. Its no surprise to me that most of these so called theories (hypothesis) cannot even be validated empirically. They assert something outside of the universe; out of reach of being falsified.

many people are working ways to avoid that singularity. You attraction to it is because it conforms to the religious idea of creation, this feeling of it having to be right due to creation is just a religious bias, nothing more…

Its irrelevant why I am attracted to it. I could be attracted to the idea that 2+2 = 4, but this does not in anyway remove the legitimacy of the fact that 2+2 does equal 4. The scientific evidence points to a singularity. If the singularity was nothing more than an assertion you wouldn’t have people working so hard to remove it. I am merely pointing out that a singularity necessarily involves a non-physical element. Now if you know of a valid “theory” that disproves the singularity, well that’s just fine.

My ego? You are arguing that the big bang has to be right, what do you base that on other than your own desperate need for confirmation of your own religious views…

Again you are distorting what I have been saying. It seems to me that you don’t really know what you are talking about. I don’t know much either, but at least I can determine the difference between a hypothesis and a theory.

Why because it helps you proselytize? Why should anyone be willing to admit anything to support religion other than the people who believe? Why should anyone stick their neck out for religion when religion is so reluctant to support anything that does not support it…

If scientists are willing to point to the scientific evidence which they believe supports their atheism, then the theist has a legitimate right to point to scientific evidence which they believe supports theism. And if the scientific atheist is honest, they will accept that the real evidence at this point in time points to a singularity; an absolute beginning of what we understand to be physical. Now they can argue that perhaps one day some theory will come along which will remove the singularity. That’s fine, so long as they are willing to accept that the singularity could be here to stay for good, and that the metaphysical consequences of this being the case is supernatural in proportion.

Finally a link to support your point…
of course it is a link to a site that grossly distorts and down plays the role of the church in suppressing new idea and tries to show that a geocentric universe is just as good as the sun being at the center of the solar system and tries to smooth over the the conflict between the two systems. One made real sense the other was a complex bunch of excuses arbitrarily put together to try and keep the idea of a stationary Earth in place… fail…

This is just your assertion distorting information that my link provided. You can ignore it if you like, but this just shows how venomously opposed you are to the idea that you could be wrong. Pride is a killer of intelligence

 

[Aboveallbereal]

Beauty is truth and truth is beauty. That is all you know on earth and all you need to know.

Keats paraphrased and the proof of God not that God needs proof.

 

[sinnerdexter]

.
The scientific evidence points to a singularity.

What scientific evidence points to a singularity?

 

[Andy_III]

If you put your comic books down and pay even a little bit of attention, you might discover that the term “social justice” is used by people who intend to take your money, your property, and your rights…

with the intention of giving your money and property to someone who does not have as much of either as you do…

and throwing whatever rights you might have into the nearest biffy, while collecting a generous brokerage fee for themselves.

As for disconnecting the intentions of any church from the actions of its members— nonsense! Muslims blow people up because Islam rewards them for doing so. Catholics follow their Church’s teachings. Few religionists have the guts to take their beliefs to the extreme levels of what is taught, but always, what the few do is what is taught, and it is done with the approval of the gutless passives who pay their tithes.

The Church has been promoting “social justice” for centuries, inviting the rich give up their wealth in behalf of the poor. (“It is easier for a rich man to get to heaven…”) I’ve been waiting for the Pope to get that ball rolling by melting down a few gold chalices, or selling off its cache of books long hidden from outside scholars, but it could be that the Church is wisely hedging its bets against the inevitable economic consequences of its teachings.

Christ spoke plainly to the responsibility of man towards his fellows, and always made it clear that doing something for your neighbor was a voluntary, man to man, kind of thing. He did not advocate that governments steal one man’s money and give it to another, minus the brokerage fee.

I’m glad we agree. The term has been used by others, that is what I have been saying. Voluntary giving is a world apart from government takeover (brokerage fees or not, but I haven’t seen any examples of not). That is one main difference between the Church’s teaching on the matter and the hijacked use of the term. I am not denying the existence of either use of the term.

Melting gold chalice’s would not eliminate the poor. We will always have the poor. It would however make it more difficult to properly honor the Second Person of the Trinity in the form of wine. Holding a gold cup doesn’t make you rich. A person who fills a gold cup and gives it to someone else to drink is usually called a servant, not a rich person.

 

[greylorn]

That “dubious quote” is from the Gospel of Luke; although it was not Christ who said it but John the Baptist. Chapter 3.

And; it more specifically advocates those who have two giving to** those who have none**.

Chapter and verse is always helpful, not just to me, but to others who have better things to do with their time than kill an hour of it looking for a biblical quote.

I have given away more money and goods in my lifetime than I currently have. But I am clearly a poor Christian, because I’ve never given away a garment. Unlike Bill Clinton, who sold his underwear, I use mine for grease rags.

 

[greylorn]

I’m glad we agree. The term has been used by others, that is what I have been saying. Voluntary giving is a world apart from government takeover (brokerage fees or not, but I haven’t seen any examples of not). That is one main difference between the Church’s teaching on the matter and the hijacked use of the term. I am not denying the existence of either use of the term.

Melting gold chalice’s would not eliminate the poor. We will always have the poor. It would however make it more difficult to properly honor the Second Person of the Trinity in the form of wine. Holding a gold cup doesn’t make you rich. A person who fills a gold cup and gives it to someone else to drink is usually called a servant, not a rich person.

You were doing okay until second paragraph, where your mind went significantly sideways.

Nothing will eliminate the poor. Being poor is the consequence of being lazy, stupid, or both. As Christ said, “The poor will always be with us…” Unstated was, ‘use the oil to give me a decent foot rub, I’ve been walking around this crummy planet all day trying to teach the nits, and my feet hurt. I need an honest foot massage, not a social message. Delivering that stuff is my job, and you ain’t qualified!’

Incidentally, I’ve filled the glasses (gold cups are hard to keep track of in this society) of many a friend, and others, with good wine for them to drink. I was neither their servant nor rich. In turn, others have filled my glass. Some were rich, none were servants— unless we include our filthy government.

 

[greylorn]

And I suppose you get your science from a guru of sorts. I suggest you find a real scientist who doesn’t confuse their philosophical agendas with the principles of science.

Given that the object of science is physics, and not metaphysics, the first law of thermodynamics makes it clear that nothing “physical” (ruled by the laws of physics) can create or destroy energy, since when they define these rules they define them in reference to physical reality alone. The law of thermodynamics is not a metaphysical law. You are assuming that the laws of physics are absolute, universal, and synonymous to that which is ultimate reality. This is a philosophical belief on your part and perhaps the part of many scientists who confuse their meta-naturalistic beliefs with real science. There is no scientific evidence to support their beliefs.

Something non-physical (that which is not ruled by the laws of physics) created it.

It doesn’t mean something physical, but you wouldn’t know that since you are only interested in your own confused agenda. Only metaphysical laws are absolute.

There seems little point in responding to your comments. The neighborhood javelina have deeper insights.

For the benefit of other readers, and to gain even a little clarity in your own mind, list some of the “absolute metaphysical laws” to which you so knowingly allude.

 

[Abu]

Sinnerdexter #741
First it was the idea of a flat earth, then Catholic church hung it’s hat on the geocentric universe with crystal spheres, each time the Church had to back away when reality was shown to be drastically different and people were jailed, tortured and even killed as the Church tried to suppress the correct information in favor of the view the church supported.

This poster is another that knows nothing about Christ’s Church, and little about science. The flat earth rubbish is easily exposed and discounted.

See catholicleague.biz/rer.php?topic=Miscellaneous&id=120
Catholicism and Science by Rodney Stark (from Catalyst 9/2004)
“Popular lore, movies, and children’s stories hold that in 1492 Christopher Columbus proved the world is round and in the process defeated years of dogged opposition from the Roman Catholic Church, which insisted that the earth is flat. These tales are rooted in books like A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom, an influential reference by Andrew Dickson White, founder and first president of Cornell University. White claimed that even after Columbus’ return “the Church by its highest authority solemnly stumbled and persisted in going astray.”

“The trouble is, almost every word of White’s account of the Columbus story is a lie. All educated persons of Columbus’ day, very much including the Roman Catholic prelates, knew the earth was round. The Venerable Bede (c. 673-735) taught that the world was round, as did Bishop Virgilius of Salzburg (c. 720-784), Hildegard of Bingen (1098-1179), and Thomas Aquinas (c. 1224-74). All four ended up saints. Sphere was the title of the most popular medieval textbook on astronomy, written by the English scholastic John of Sacrobosco (c. 1200-1256). It informed that not only the earth but all heavenly bodies are spherical.”

Alfred North Whitehead, F.R.S., knew that Catholic theology was essential for the rise of science in the West, while stifled elsewhere. He explained: “The greatest contribution of medievalism to the scientific movement [was] the inexpugnable belief that …there is a secret, a secret which can be unveiled. How has this conviction been so vividly implanted in the European mind?..It must come from the medieval insistence on the rationality of God, conceived with the personal energy of Jehovah and with the rationality of a Greek philosopher. Every detail was supervised and ordered: the search into nature could only result in the vindication of the faith in rationality.” [E.L. Jones, 1987; *The Victory of Reason, Rodney Stark, Random House, 2005, p 22-23, p 15].

 

[MindOverMatter2]

There seems little point in responding to your comments. The neighborhood javelina have deeper insights.

For the benefit of other readers, and to gain even a little clarity in your own mind, list some of the “absolute metaphysical laws” to which you so knowingly allude.

Nice dodge. And since you don’t even want to attempt at given a response suggestive of a real-desire to learn something, I respectfully refuse to enlighten you. Go read a book on metaphysics.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Being poor is the consequence of being lazy, stupid, or both. ." .

You really are delusional if you think that this is true.

 

[colverpa]

Ah, but you’re mistaken; I’m absolutely open to any evidence that could support the god hypothesis; and yes, it IS a hypothesis, as it has yet to be sufficiently supported by evidence and most descriptions of god claim he’s not testable, therefore not falsifiable, and therefore no different that a magical invisible pink unicorn.

Getting back on point, there are things that would make me reconsider the existence of a personal god. Appearing to humanity should be an easy one. Prayer actually working would be another, particularly on, say, an amputee regrowing a limb. A positive correlation between belief and life span, morality, ethics, peace, charity, intelligence or anything else deemed positive or “good”. Perhaps if any of the holy books posessed knowledge impossible to be known at the time of their writings, rather than the reality that they contain countless historical and scientific errors, as well as being repeatedly self-contradictory. Yet none of these very reasonable requests have ever come close to being met; rather, each and every test or observation has failed miserably.

I was a believer for the first half of my life. What led me away from belief was simply an objective interpretation of available evidence mixed with some critical thinking and honest reason. I’m not inspired by preconceived notions, biases, wants, hopes, fears or childhood indoctrination, but simply follow the evidence to the most reasonable conclusion. Absence of evidence is evidence of absence when there’s no evidence where there should be, and ultimately anything that can be asserted without sufficient evidence can just as easily dismissed.

I’m sure the personal “proof” listed by various people in here is very profound to the individual, but from an outside and objective perspective, the “proofs” listed are laughable and even a bit sad - I was hoping for some profound insight somewhere, yet all I’ve seen is the same hokey delusions of people seeing an elephant in the clouds and concluding it must really be an elephant.

it is easy to see that you really don think for yourself
but just regurgitate richard dawkins
i think that i could prove you worship him

 

[greylorn]

And I suppose you get your science from a guru of sorts. I suggest you find a real scientist who doesn’t confuse their philosophical agendas with the principles of science.

A university education, 30 years of work, and lots of study did the trick for me. Guru’s don’t know squat about physics. I guess that you know even less.

(Since your post was insulting and inconsiderate, expect fair return.)

Given that the object of science is physics, and not metaphysics, the first law of thermodynamics makes it clear that nothing “physical” (ruled by the laws of physics) can create or destroy energy, since when they define these rules they define them in reference to physical reality alone. The law of thermodynamics is not a metaphysical law. You are assuming that the laws of physics are absolute, universal, and synonymous to that which is ultimate reality. This is a philosophical belief on your part and perhaps the part of many scientists who confuse their meta-naturalistic beliefs with real science. There is no scientific evidence to support their beliefs.

Physics is about the study of things which interact with other physical things. The science began with the behavior of matter, and expanded to encompass other components of our universe as we learned that all were connected by a definable, but mysterious thing called “energy.” Today, it is fair to say that anything which interacts with matter is, by definition, “physical.” Electromagnetic radiation, magnetic fields, gravity— all things which none of us can see, touch, smell, or feel— are physical.

I appreciate that you will not understand a word of this. But, what can I expect from someone whose thoughts are so poorly founded that he needs to post them in bold print, as if they were important?

The words of Christ are printed in ordinary type sizes. They did not require a printed version of bellowing to be recognized as valuable.

Something non-physical (that which is not ruled by the laws of physics) created it.

Because the human brain is physical, if it harbors a “soul,” that soul is, by definition, physical.

Likewise, atoms are physical. If God can create atoms and organize them into a universe, God, by definition, is physical.

It doesn’t mean something physical, but you wouldn’t know that since you are only interested in your own confused agenda. Only metaphysical laws are absolute.

Well, yes, you’ve sure figured me out. Now would you kindly supply an example of an absolute metaphysical law? I request this because I find no evidence from your posts that, irrespective of your rudimentary ability to assemble words into sentences, you are worth one more try at conversation.

I will expect your example of an *absolute metaphysical law * to include zero physical components, including zero components which impinge upon or relate to any aspect of the physical universe. Lotsa luck!

 

[greylorn]

Nice dodge. And since you don’t even want to attempt at given a response suggestive of a real-desire to learn something, I respectfully refuse to enlighten you. Go read a book on metaphysics.

I suspect that the real reason for your refusal to enlighten me is either that you’ve never read a metaphysics book that you would admit to reading, for fear of being regarded as a nitwit, or that you’ve never read any metaphysical book.

Personally, I’ve read about thirty or forty. I did not keep count, as I don’t count passings of gas after a bean lunch.

I’ve also written such a book, but disguised it as fiction. It became a best seller in a couple of foreign translations. Two chapters have been widely excerpted and used in philosophy courses about the nature of consciousness.

In a month, my final metaphysics book will be published, undisguised.

I submit that you will not offer an example of an absolute metaphysical law because you do not know of any, and have simply made up the notion because it sounded really intelligent.

It doesn’t.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

A university education, 30 years of work, and lots of study did the trick for me. Guru’s don’t know squat about physics. I guess that you know even less.

I really hope that your right because it would be tremendously embarrassing if somebody who knows less than you proves that you have a faulty understanding of your own subject.

This is the problem of some people who proudly claim to have studied science for so many years as if that’s the only means by which intelligent people can know things about reality. They are studying a specific context of reality (physical reality) and yet fail to have a clue about the context in which they make that study, and thus they inflate the context in to other orders of knowledge where it doesn’t belong. That’s not my fault, and I am sorry you feel so embarrassed. But quite frankly, studying science for 30 years gives no guarantee that you going to think rationally about the subject in reference to other forms of knowledge. Somebody can be methodical and practically knowledgeable about their particular subject, and yet fail to understand the fundamentals of that subject. You fail to understand that when laws, hypothesis, and theories, are formed, they are formed in the context of physical reality alone, and have no necessary objective consequence outside those boundaries set by by the conditions of that particular subject. Your desire to inflate physical law into a universal necessary expression of reality (meaning that all reality is governed by physical laws), is not a scientific claim; this is some kind of metaphysical naturalism. It is a philosophical claim that is not empirically or logically verifiable. Its simply a belief that some people have. Scientists have philosophical beliefs which they confuse with their scientific duties; and this is evident to anybody who is truly capable of critical thinking. Your position is epistemologically invalid.

Your refusal to accept this doesn’t change this fact.

(Since your post was insulting and inconsiderate, expect fair return.)

And your posts aren’t? Perhaps you are the cause for insult.

Physics is about the study of physical things which interact with other physical things.

Just making a quick correction here.

Electromagnetic radiation, magnetic fields, gravity— all things which none of us can see, touch, smell, or feel— are physical.

Your view is purely philosophical in nature. It is not empirical science. Its Behe science. Your right, I don’t have much knowledge about science, but most people know that we exist in a quantifiable universe, and those things such as electromagnetic radiation make up a quantifiable sum in a universe that is demonstrably finite in its dimensions. You are making a straw-man. These things have dimension. We have stumbled on phenomena that were by definition physical, as in, they are empirically measurable (they have dimension), and thus were necessarily included in the subject of physical phenomena.

Because the human brain is physical, if it harbours a “soul,” that soul is, by definition, physical.

The soul is certainly experienced. But it is not empirically detectable; it is not a physical dimension that can be measured. It is assumed to exist based upon pre-scientific knowledge.

Likewise, atoms are physical. If God can create atoms and organize them into a universe, God, by definition, is physical.

No. God is not by definition physical, since God is not empirically detectable. God has no dimension; at least not the God that I believe in. The God you’re are talking about is not in my view God. It is just a physical being among other physical beings that just so happens to exist and chooses to manipulate physical things which already existed. It behaves according to physical processes and laws. Perhaps it is a very powerful being. But that is not what defines God in my view. Your so called God is not the cause of all potentially dimensional reality; it is not the root of all qualities, and it is not at all clear why such a being should necessarily exist. There is no scientific or logical reason to think that your God need exist.

Also, I think that perhaps your God, as a quantifiable God with a definite physical dimension, is extremely vulnerable to Dawkins attack, his argument being that such a God, according to the laws of physics, would be far too complex to exist of its own accord and would require a simpler cause, given that intelligence is associated with physical complexity. Your argument would amount to an extremely complex physical being which has no reason for its own complexity. What say ye?

And as for metaphysics, I still think, if you are truly interested, that you should go to the library and find a book. Also get a hold of Edward fessers book (A Beginners Guide to Aquinas). but I don’t think you are interested.

 

[Liraco]

Energy does not have a beginning. The First Law of Thermodynamics makes it clear that energy cannot be created or destroyed.

Suppose that there is an infinitely dense point, which you mantra as a “singularity”, which was not physical. How does it become physical?

Do you have even the slightest clue what a “singularity” is, or what the word means?

I, for one, would appreciate your concise definition of a singularity as opposed to what the TV offers. Assuming the big bang is correct, then would the point where it all started be this singularity?

It almost sounds like equating this singularity to God and asking how something immaterial became material to bring about all this energy (which I’ll assume must have existed on its own from the very beginning because it can’t be created).

That’s why I ask for clarification on the matter (no pun intended).

 

[MindOverMatter2]

I suspect that the real reason for your refusal to enlighten me is either that you’ve never read a metaphysics book that you would admit to reading, for fear of being regarded as a nitwit, or that you’ve never read any metaphysical book.

Personally, I’ve read about thirty or forty. I did not keep count, as I don’t count passings of gas after a bean lunch.

I’ve also written such a book, but disguised it as fiction. It became a best seller in a couple of foreign translations. Two chapters have been widely excerpted and used in philosophy courses about the nature of consciousness.

In a month, my final metaphysics book will be published, undisguised.

.

Your arguments are not consistent with the claim that you have a proper understanding of metaphysics.

 

[Pitcharan]

Energy does not have a beginning.

This is said nowhere; it is your own statement and you thereby unwittingly acknowledge God, but are erroneously desribing Him as Energy

The First Law of Thermodynamics makes it clear that energy cannot be created or destroyed.

You are providing one more proof for God; since energy cannot be created or destroyed, all the energy which is there, must have formed mysteriously. Unravel the mystery and you will find the proof for God.