What is your favorite proof for God?

[JDaniel]

In general terms it is correct to say that the primary faculty of the intellect is sensible things. However; there is reason to believe that other things are not sensible (ie; from the senses); morality for example.

OK. Considering “morality.” You, I take it, are not of the persuasion that morality is that which filters into our brains strictly by that which we feel or see. Analogously, I see “rights” as that which one person accords another person precisely because it is reciprocated. Without at least two people, in the world, there are no rights.

But, morality. You don’t think we see how people treat other people, or, recognize how much disdain we have for pain, and determine, for ourselves, how we ought to act towards others? Another reciprocation of sorts?

There is nothing wrong with critical metaphysics; the problem starts when such reasoning is not a posteriori; ie-- when people just make things up.

Good point.

Our senses are physical; thus all sensible knowledge is physical knowledge. But not all our knowledge must be sensible knowledge; it might; for example be infused knowledge such as revelation; morality etc.

How could we demonstrate these kinds of knowledge, e.g., inductively?

God bless,
jd

 

[RKO]

I’ll tell you mine, and it’s pretty irrefutable.
My 22 year old daughter has had a hard year.
Last night she went out with friends. The short story is, even though she is a wonderful girl, she had too much too drink. She went back to a girlfriend’s apartment with a couple of other girls. Apparently somebody invited some single boys there, which, thank God made her uncomfortable. She called me to come get her. the apartment was in a city 30 miles away from me. She gave me half the directions, I left at 3 am to go get her. When I got close I called her at least 25 times, no answer.
While I could have freaked out, I made myself believe that some else happened.
Fast forward 3 hours later, she calls me and tells me she “went to sleep,” (She really is not a drinker, which is why she went to sleep.)
When she called me at 6am, I was equally panicked and furious.

Here’s the proof:

When she called me at 6, I knew she was ok, and very truly sorry for scaring me. My anger and fear melted and became love and forgiveness. Only humans are capable of a tiny fraction of God’s forgiveness. . Immediately after my conversation with her, and the subsequent relief, I thought about my own sins, My Father, and had a glimpse of what His love and mercy must be like. If he loves me half as much as I love my daughter, we’ll both be fine.

 

[RKO]

PS- I know that’s faith and not technically proof, but I don’t think I need proof much anymore.

 

[mangy_dog]

I believe God exist because of everything I can see, but also those things which I can’t see.

Scientist know that the universe is constantly growing because of what is called, “dark energy.” Dark energy can’t be seen, but we see its effect in the growing universe.

Jim

Interesting how scientific terminology gives names to the “unseen creative energy” and calls it dark energy.

Since no one has ever seen God and nothing we imagen can visualize God…He might as well be “dark energy” to my mind.

 

[colmcille1]

Hi all,
My favourite proof of God is reading between the lines of the fervent words posted by non-believers on these threads. It is a collective question for guidance back to Him. And I, for one, welcome them and invite them to share the journey with me.
God Bless,
Colmcille.

 

[JohnDamian]

JDaniel:

OK. Considering “morality.” You, I take it, are not of the persuasion that morality is that which filters into our brains strictly by that which we feel or see. Analogously, I see “rights” as that which one person accords another person precisely because it is reciprocated. Without at least two people, in the world, there are no rights.

But, morality. You don’t think we see how people treat other people, or, recognize how much disdain we have for pain, and determine, for ourselves, how we ought to act towards others? Another reciprocation of sorts?

Well rights are indeed given from person to person; wheras I would feel morality is inherant. At the least; I have seen no reason that it isn’t. Although that does propose a challenge to be resolved.

At the very least; I would believe that the majority of human knowlege is sensible; and a minute; if any is infused. But it does not follow from a majority (or a totality) that all knowlege must be sensible; even if all knowlege is sensible.

How could we demonstrate these kinds of knowledge, e.g., inductively?

I havent the foggiest idea.

 

[greylorn]

Greylorn:

You’re right about that. But, I seem to remember Tonto saying “Ugh” throughout the show! I always used to wonder how Tonto was going to make in that brave new world.

God bless,
jd

Jay Silverheels spoke perfect English, born to a Canadian Mohawk chief who probably spoke perfect English. He had no need nor use for “ugh.” The stereotype “Ugh,” came from other films which portrayed Indians as stupid, and with a poor command of English. “Tonto,” disappeared with the end of the Lone Ranger TV series in the late fifties, but Jay Silverheels fit into gringo society just fine, went on to make some differences in the world, including curtailing the portrayal of Indians as stupid, and stayed fully engaged with life until his death.

His success in TV came because he did not need to “act” the character he portrayed.

Incidentally, there is a famous Tonto quote, but it comes from a joke in which the Ranger and Tonto find themselves in a pickle. The Ranger says, “We seem to be surrounded by Indians!” Tonto’s reply: “What you mean, ‘we,’ Kemosaby?”

 

[greylorn]

Interesting how scientific terminology gives names to the “unseen creative energy” and calls it dark energy.

Since no one has ever seen God and nothing we imagen can visualize God…He might as well be “dark energy” to my mind.

Energy follows the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which is anti-creative. It declares that all forms of energy tend to return to their lowest possible (least interesting) level.

Interesting, how quickly the “mind” seizes upon tidbits of scientific data presented on a TV show, data about which it knows nothing, and transforms that data into quasi-religious drivel.

 

[greylorn]

I’ll tell you mine, and it’s pretty irrefutable.
My 22 year old daughter has had a hard year.
Last night she went out with friends. The short story is, even though she is a wonderful girl, she had too much too drink. She went back to a girlfriend’s apartment with a couple of other girls. Apparently somebody invited some single boys there, which, thank God made her uncomfortable. She called me to come get her. the apartment was in a city 30 miles away from me. She gave me half the directions, I left at 3 am to go get her. When I got close I called her at least 25 times, no answer.
While I could have freaked out, I made myself believe that some else happened.
Fast forward 3 hours later, she calls me and tells me she “went to sleep,” (She really is not a drinker, which is why she went to sleep.)
When she called me at 6am, I was equally panicked and furious.

Here’s the proof:

When she called me at 6, I knew she was ok, and very truly sorry for scaring me. My anger and fear melted and became love and forgiveness. Only humans are capable of a tiny fraction of God’s forgiveness. . Immediately after my conversation with her, and the subsequent relief, I thought about my own sins, My Father, and had a glimpse of what His love and mercy must be like. If he loves me half as much as I love my daughter, we’ll both be fine.

In case you’d not noticed, this is a philosophy forum. The CAF provides other places where personal stories and religious testimony are the welcome focus. Your “proof” is only for psychic phenomena, and not even one which psi researchers would care about.

 

[greylorn]

Just like you say a physical singularity is absurd, a rock impossible for God to lift is logically absurd.

Correct. However, those statements are not analogous to one another in any other respect. Each is absurd for entirely different reasons.

This is the distinction with the misconception of Omnipotence meaning “anything” vs “anything possible”. JohnDamian explained it well though. It doesn’t mean that now there’s some new restriction on God that wasn’t there before, but we come to understand what it implies better.

So let’s apply the law of non-contradiction which you put as “God being bound to logic”. He either is omnipotent or He isn’t, and an act isn’t going to take that away.

By the act of God making a rock so heavy he couldn’t move it, He “loses” His omnipotence. If God could do absolutely anything else (including creation from nothing) but can’t make that rock so heavy then, again, He’s no longer omnipotent.

My point was that God is not and cannot be omnipotent. Moreover, He does not need to be. Others have pointed this out.

Man could probably move a whole planet with massive rockets if the technology allowed it (oversimplifying of course), so I don’t see why the Creator of everything couldn’t do grander things.

This is true only if the Creator of the universe actually created stuff from which He constructed the universe. I propose otherwise.

Simple answer is yes, by an act of will God could move a galaxies. How? We have to anthropomorphize because that’s how we understand.

"What you mean, ‘we,’ Kemosaby? You are stuck with an anthropomorphic God because that is what you’ve been programmed to believe. I’ve chosen to abandon that belief in favor of a Creator who does not have a human body and a long white beard, who can be defined only in terms of physical and mathematical properties, and who cannot be understood by anthropomorphic analogies.

Imagine looking at your desk at a pen, and you want to move it. In our case we will to move it and set about doing it through our body, presumably the hand (as we’re not telekinetic) and proceed to move it. So imagine a galaxy being similarly small and easily manipulable to God, except there’s no arm to “mediate” and His will is immediately effected. Simplified explanation but hope it illustrates the point.

I’ve done telekinesis, as have others who do it much more effectively and reliably. I accept the concept that a “soul” can move matter, but have no clue as to how. The question is whether or not the Creator has sufficient power (P=E/t) to move a galaxy. I suspect not.

By an act of will He made the universe, by an act of will you and I exist, by an act of will every single proton, neutron, etc. (however small it all ultimately goes) are maintained in existence.

Here we differ. He certainly had better things to do than to make, for example, each of the 10exp80 protons in the universe. Henry Ford did not personally manufacture a single car. He figured out a way by which a small number of men, working repetitively on an assembly line, could make lots of cars, easily and cheaply. Surely the Creator had the wit to figure out a manufacturing process for subatomic particles.

Likewise, Henry Ford did not fix cars. That would have been a stupid waste of his time and skills. I figure that God, being extremely smart but not omniscient, made matter stable and self-creating so that He could do better things with His creative energies than work in a crummy maintenance job.

People tend to think of an absent God that just set up some chain reaction and let it go off on its own when in fact every single thing is all in place by His will. If anything ever stopped being in His “mind” it would immediately cease to be.

That is simply a belief which some people made up. There is no foundation for it. It does not appear in the Bible. Moreover, it goes against simple common sense.

The assembly line analogy works well here. Ford did not set up an assembly line and then go away. He tended to his business, and tweaked processes as needed. Or hired engineers to do the tweaking. His lines were as alive as any biological organism. Moreover, they did not “evolve” into modern lines and new plants making the autos of today. Engineers redesigned and rebuilt them. In all processes of assembly, intelligence stayed in control at various levels.

Ford did not need to know when every nut was being screwed onto a bolt. God does not need to know exactly how many carbon atoms are being manufactured in a given star.

 

[greylorn]

They key difference though is that you hold Him bound to laws like the conservation of energy while I hold that He is outside of those laws because He created them.

Yes, I regard God as bound by the Three Laws of Thermodynamics, only because He did not create them.

However, there are no laws of physics “like the conservation of energy,” or like the 2nd and 3rd laws of thermodynamics, so your analogy is false.

Other laws of physics are, to an extent arbitrary, and can be worked “outside of,” as you put it. But when man learns enough, we too may be able to work outside of those laws.

Consider the analogy of the Creator as a carpenter. The carpenter does not create the wood with which he works, but can shape it into a variety of forms— houses, furniture, toys, works of art, weapons, whatever. Once he puts a piece of wood into a particular form, he tends to be bound, when using it, by that form. The carpenter cannot effectively hunt deer by throwing chairs at them, and cannot comfortably sit on a bow and some arrows.

You come dangerously close to Stephen Hawkin claiming "Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist."

Bad thing to accuse me of. I’m not a Stephen Hawking fan, finding him wrong on almost everything. I don’t know that he said that the universe will create itself from nothing. If he did, he is a great nitwit, unless he cares to explain such an egregious violation of the first and second laws of thermodynamics in a single sentence. I seriously doubt that he would write that, and hope he did not.

I insist that all evidence from physics, biology, and microbiology points in the direction of a universe created by conscious intelligence. My theories propose the existence of such a being— quite a number of them, actually, and explain their origins. Kindly never accuse me of promoting an atheistic, nihilistic agenda.

I know you’ll resent that so here’s why: even if his premise is absolutely absurd, you’re both thus far not answering the same basic question:
WHY are the laws there in the first place?

This is an excellent question. You will find it answered in the book I’d best be getting back to writing.

Why something instead of nothing. Why order instead of chaos?

That, I do not and cannot explain. The only genuine miracle, IMO, is that anything whatsoever happens to exist. (Another excellent question. You are good at seeing the core issues of a subject, when you choose.)

Laws are necessary to hold order but the existence of the universe or its laws are not necessary in and of themselves. They don’t HAVE to be, yet they are. Why?

You are 3 for 3. I happily explain that one.

 

[Andy_III]

I’m just catching up with the thread. Greylorn’s been doing quite a bit of anthropomorphizing this morning. I have a question for you, Greylorn.

It sounds like you are trying to construct the logical consequences of a less-than-all-powerful-and-all-knowing god. In building this concept, you posit that the creator started with something (laws of the universe, some form of energy, some capacity for acquiring knowledge) and eventually learned to construct the universe we know today. Please correct me if I have gotten this part wrong.

Could you explain your hypothesis on what the universe was like before the creator started its work? I gather it involves some form of energy always existing, and the laws of thermodynamics having always applied.

 

[greylorn]

I’m just catching up with the thread. Greylorn’s been doing quite a bit of anthropomorphizing this morning. I have a question for you, Greylorn.

What!? Me, anthropomorphize? Why, that word isn’t even in this spell checker!

It sounds like you are trying to construct the logical consequences of a less-than-all-powerful-and-all-knowing god. In building this concept, you posit that the creator started with something (laws of the universe, some form of energy, some capacity for acquiring knowledge) and eventually learned to construct the universe we know today. Please correct me if I have gotten this part wrong.

You’ve done quite well here. I appreciate it that you’ve taken the time and thought to actually read what I wrote. Here are small clarifications.

I’m not trying to construct the logical consequences of a logic and physics-limited Creator— I’ve already done that. Here, I’m only trying to explain a few of these consequences.

Yes, I posit that the Creator (Creators, actually) started with energy, and although bound by its laws (which are simply mathematical descriptors of how the stuff works), was able to develop intelligence and use it to create the universe.

Of course there is a bit more to it than that. For example, motivation, and the existence of mankind.

Could you explain your hypothesis on what the universe was like before the creator started its work? I gather it involves some form of energy always existing, and the laws of thermodynamics having always applied.

I could, but must decline to do so at this time. My book on the subject is a month from publication. After that, I’ll let it speak for me, and use this, or any available forum to answer questions from curious readers. I do not believe that you will have any, at least not at this basic level of inquiry. So, kindly be patient.

Your second statement is absolutely correct. From it, I suspect that you could figure out everything for yourself and probably do a better job of it than I. Otherwise, buy some soft shoes or fluffy slippers to wear when you kick yourself.

 

[JDaniel]

Jay Silverheels spoke perfect English, born to a Canadian Mohawk chief who probably spoke perfect English. He had no need nor use for “ugh.” The stereotype “Ugh,” came from other films which portrayed Indians as stupid, and with a poor command of English. “Tonto,” disappeared with the end of the Lone Ranger TV series in the late fifties, but Jay Silverheels fit into gringo society just fine, went on to make some differences in the world, including curtailing the portrayal of Indians as stupid, and stayed fully engaged with life until his death.

His success in TV came because he did not need to “act” the character he portrayed.

Incidentally, there is a famous Tonto quote, but it comes from a joke in which the Ranger and Tonto find themselves in a pickle. The Ranger says, “We seem to be surrounded by Indians!” Tonto’s reply: “What you mean, ‘we,’ Kemosaby?”

Interesting. thanks for the Jay Silverheels bio. Last time I watched an episode I was only 8 - 10 years old. I could have sworn he used to say “Ugh!” But, I do kind of remember him being fluent in the idiom. It’s fun to reminisce occasionally.

God bless,
jd

 

[thirdworld]

Doubting God is one of my biggest problems in day to day life. I have a mind that never stops thinking “what if…” “then this is that…and if that’s that then this has to be…” “if God exists why…” “how this be true if God exists…” etc. it’s kind of an obsession. The what ifs spring up at anytime during the day. I’ve prayed for firm hope and faith and I’m starting to accept that I’ll never get a personal letter signed from God Himself saying “I’m here, it’s true. Now worship Me.” and that I need to just believe and stop looking for reasons not to.

Some things that have convinced me God is real and present…

Morality-I have a very strong sense of “right” and “wrong” there are things that I just know are wrong and not always because society tells me so. If there are such universal rights and wrongs, then Who created it? How do I know the Holocaust was immoral, that oppressing the poor is evil, and abortion is cruel, heinous, and wrong? Because it’s against what’s good and what’s good is God. (It certainly isn’t humanity which is responsible for these wrongdoings)

The Universe-It’s simple and I’m sure a million people have stated it before. But the Universe had a beginning. Before the Universe was presumably nothing. Nothing does not just randomly turn into everything. And even if it did, how could nothing just burst into everything as “everything” just happens to be an extremely complex system of a system of a system. Even the cell of a plant is complex and sophisticated. That kind of thing just doesn’t happen by accident. I can’t use “nothing” and build a house with it. Unless of course I was God…you see where I’m going with this.

Simple Logic-I’m alive, I have a mind, I can think and feel. I know right from wrong. I can learn. I can come up with ideas and understand abstract concepts. These are things I know to be true while I can’t “see” it. I can’t see my thoughts in tangible form or my emotions. I can’t “see” my knowledge but I know it’s there. The same with God.

 

[mangy_dog]

Energy follows the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which is anti-creative. It declares that all forms of energy tend to return to their lowest possible (least interesting) level.

Interesting, how quickly the “mind” seizes upon tidbits of scientific data presented on a TV show, data about which it knows nothing, and transforms that data into quasi-religious drivel.

I will pray for your quasi-soul so that, once you’ve reached the pinnacle of scientific drivel you may fall over the edge of the earth and find that God is the maker of Heaven and earth and of all that is seen and unseen…including you.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Yes, I posit that the Creator (Creators, actually) started with energy, and although bound by its laws (which are simply mathematical descriptors of how the stuff works), was able to develop intelligence and use it to create the universe.

Can you please tell me why you keep promoting the laws of physics as if they are metaphysical absolutes? I assure you, there is nothing in science to suggest that the laws governing the nature of energy are not or cannot possibly be contingent rules put in place by an intelligent creator. Energy can conceivably be indestructible in sense that it cannot be destroyed by the physical properties or qualities of which it is comprised and yet at the same time be dependent on God for its existence. In other-words, nothing known by science can destroy or create energy; but that has nothing to say about things outside the domain of science. Its an inductive, not deductive, statement; and again it is a discriminative statement manufactured in the epistemological context of methodological naturalism. Thus the statement is contextually bias towards other types of knowledge or beings, rather than being the product of some kind of absolute objective knowledge about being.You merely assume that all is physical and absolute. Thus I don’t understand why you keep pushing this omnipotent energy fallacy as if its something known by empirical science when it clearly isn’t.

Thanks.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

I will pray for your quasi-soul so that, once you’ve reached the pinnacle of scientific drivel you may fall over the edge of the earth and find that God is the maker of Heaven and earth and of all that is seen and unseen…including you.

What he is promoting isn’t even science. Its merely his own Quasi-philosophical speculation pretending to be fact.

 

[greylorn]

I will pray for your quasi-soul so that, once you’ve reached the pinnacle of scientific drivel you may fall over the edge of the earth and find that God is the maker of Heaven and earth and of all that is seen and unseen…including you.

It is always heartwarming to receive a thoughtful comment from another devout Catholic.

 

[Andy_III]

I could, but must decline to do so at this time. My book on the subject is a month from publication. After that, I’ll let it speak for me, and use this, or any available forum to answer questions from curious readers. I do not believe that you will have any, at least not at this basic level of inquiry. So, kindly be patient.

Certainly. I wouldn’t want to to rewrite your book (or even its most interesting parts) here. I am looking for the answer to a different question:

Could you explain your hypothesis on what the universe was like before the creator started its work? I gather it involves some form of energy always existing, and the laws of thermodynamics having always applied.

Your second statement is absolutely correct. From it, I suspect that you could figure out everything for yourself and probably do a better job of it than I.

Actually, I’m trying to work backwards a bit to understand your explaination better. Here are some things that I think follow from that premise:

Premise: Energy has always existed and obeys the laws of thermodynamics (0-3).

1. 
   *]The total energy that makes up the universe is constant. (from 1st law)
   *]The entire universe represents a closed system. (2nd law does not apply otherwise)
   *]Energy must move from a higher ordered state to an equal or less ordered state (like heat). (from 2nd law)
   *]It is impossible to convert heat completely into work in a cyclic process. (Also from 2nd law)
   *]At any time not a finite length of time from the universe having some energy of higher order, the entire universe must be in the least ordered state (also called the heat death of the universe).
   *]Since energy has always existed, the universe must be a single uniform temperature that is derived by converting the total energy of the universe into heat.
   
   This is the problem I run into. I can only see one way around that problem, and that is to say that no processes (as defined by 2nd law) occurred until time X. But I can think of no reason for this to be true. Have you considered this line of reasoning? Could you help me out here? Perhaps I made an error in my (admittedly informal) steps.