What is your favorite proof for God?

[Andy_III]

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

What can I say? The Catholic Church is made up of sinners. This is why you can’t take your childhood teacher’s teaching as if it is genuinely the Church’s teaching. It takes some digging and real research work, which you seem well suited to. I understand you’ve been hurt by members of the Church, but that does not mean the Church is bad or wrong.

 

[Liinus]

My favorite argument is a modification of the argument from beauty. What is truely marvelous is that we have the facility or faculty to appreciate beauty. One can see if we lived in a purely materialistic universe and given that intelligent beings evolved that they would have to have the facility to reason and think and to solve problems, etc. But their existence and prosperity would not depend on their appreciation of beauty. Only a loving Creator could account for the fact that we do indeed appreciate beauty. He gave it to us to lead us to Him of course but He also gave it to us for our own pleasure to make us happy, to help make a difficult life more tolerable.

 

[greylorn]

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:

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.

1. 
   Kindly clarify the exact question you are proposing in the last paragraph. For example, what do you mean by “time X?”
   
   I see no reason for #6 to be true. I hope that it is not, for if so, my entire theory goes belly-up.
   
   #2 — I’m uncertain on this. It is impossible to construct a closed system within the universe, except in theory. (Although perhaps cold, stable atoms may be examples of them.) Yet, we regard the 2nd law as perfectly applicable to thermodynamic systems. (Try to get a patent on an energy generator or perpetual motion machine!)
   
   Then, we don’t know the dimensions or quantity of energy in the universe. It could be infinite in extent, with either a finite or infinite amount of energy. It could be bounded, which would limit the amount of energy it could hold. I’ve heard of a state called, “finite but unbounded,” but have no idea what that means, much less how it might apply to this. I’m sure that a modern mathematician could construct a model which is infinite but bounded, further confounding these speculations.
   
   I’ve generalized my ideas such that they ought to work under any of these geometries if they prove to work at all.
   
   #5 — But we can’t get there from here.
   
   Good conversation! I’ll do my best by it.

 

[greylorn]

What can I say? The Catholic Church is made up of sinners. This is why you can’t take your childhood teacher’s teaching as if it is genuinely the Church’s teaching. It takes some digging and real research work, which you seem well suited to. I understand you’ve been hurt by members of the Church, but that does not mean the Church is bad or wrong.

It would be rather childish of me to form my opinions about the Church from the beatings I received as a child, from a few kids who were Catholics, or from the churlish attitude of various nits who happen also to be Catholic. My opinions about the Church depend entirely upon what it does and what it teaches, and by what it does not do. The Church does not teach or encourage intemperate or malicious behavior.

However, I find a difference between the theoretical Church and the practical Church. It is the same with science. Lots of clowns (philosophers mostly, because real scientists have better things to do) describe how science works and what it is-- i.e. theoretical “science.” But I did twenty years of it with good men and fools, and know that practical science does not operate at all like it is formally promoted.

Being a pragmatist whenever applicable, I must regard the true teachings of the Church as the body of beliefs which its members have actually been taught by the Church. (CAF postings are representative of these teachings.) Concepts known only to highly educated theologians do not represent the real Church, in my opinion.

 

[Pitcharan]

Well do tell if you happen to hear an answer from the Church on what you submitted.

As I mentioned in my post the CC already approved it and you already saw the condensed theological reviews posted. For a short summary of the explanation you can check out this post: forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=7100720&postcount=18

 

[Andy_III]

Kindly clarify the exact question you are proposing in the last paragraph. For example, what do you mean by “time X?”

#5 assumes that processes are always going on which would increase entropy. If we observe after these processes have gone on for an infinite length of time, then entropy must be at maximum (i.e., the universe is at equilibrium).

If we claim that there were no processes going on before some arbitrary time (what I called time X), then you could observe non-equilibrium states finite (and bounded) lengths of time after time X. If there is a time X, we could make a new time scale in which we labeled it 0, sort of an absolute zero for time. I think the only way to claim that there were no processes would be to say there was at least one closed system in the universe which opened at time X (or time zero if your prefer).

Since #1 assumes that the energy in the universe is finite, regardless of its extent, the rest of my statements are only concerning a universe with finite energy.

I see no reason for #6 to be true. I hope that it is not, for if so, my entire theory goes belly-up.

Only in a universe with finite energy, but yes. If entropy in steadily increasing for an unbounded amount of time, the result is that entropy is unbounded. #6 follows from the rest (if it were polished up a bit to provide more rigor).

#2 — I’m uncertain on this. It is impossible to construct a closed system within the universe, except in theory. (Although perhaps cold, stable atoms may be examples of them.) Yet, we regard the 2nd law as perfectly applicable to thermodynamic systems. (Try to get a patent on an energy generator or perpetual motion machine!)

#2 says that the universe itself is a closed system. That is just saying that we can’t expect an extra energy to flow in from some other place (not created but moved) into our universe. In your posts, you seem to indicate that you don’t believe any energy was coming in or going out of the universe either by creation, destruction, or movement from outside the universe.

Then, we don’t know the dimensions or quantity of energy in the universe. It could be infinite in extent, with either a finite or infinite amount of energy. It could be bounded, which would limit the amount of energy it could hold. I’ve heard of a state called, “finite but unbounded,” but have no idea what that means, much less how it might apply to this. I’m sure that a modern mathematician could construct a model which is infinite but bounded, further confounding these speculations.

Only if he was “modern” enough to redefine how math works!

Certainly you’ve helped me here. I had missed the case where the energy in the universe is infinite. If there is infinite energy, we’d never run out of higher ordered energy, and we no longer have to be worried about the heat death of the universe. It might get a little warm, but we could always construct better air conditioners and insulation.

I’ve generalized my ideas such that they ought to work under any of these geometries if they prove to work at all.

Great, that’s smart. You never know what new discoveries are around the corner. That’s why the Church doesn’t teach a literal 6 day creation or even flooding of the “whole” world. That doesn’t stop people from trying to, however.

#5 — But we can’t get there from here.

The key was to take a finite amount of energy (#1), and show that if its entropy increases (#2 & #3) (not just staying the same (#4)) over an unbounded period of time, entropy must be at its maximum. Infinity overwhelms any finite value. #5 is really an if-then. #6 says the if-part is true (from the premise) and the consequences of the then-part of #5.

Good conversation! I’ll do my best by it.

Thanks, I appreciate your thoughts on the matter.

 

[RKO]

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.

Thank you, brother for your very Christian correction. I’ll try to live my life in such a way to make you proud of me from here on out…

 

[Liinus]

I thought the title of this thread was clear. Yet some have turned it into a " personal " fued of some kind. I question the sincerity of these types of " debates." The point should always be to enlighten. Some however prefer not to enlighten, their purpose seems to be to " win " a debate. But to win a debate is not the same thing as to arrive at the truth. And to lead to the truth is what Catholic Answers should be all about. Once you realize you are dealing not with a sincere truth seaker but an " intellectual " heckler debate should stop.

 

[greylorn]

#5 assumes that processes are always going on which would increase entropy. If we observe after these processes have gone on for an infinite length of time, then entropy must be at maximum (i.e., the universe is at equilibrium).

If we claim that there were no processes going on before some arbitrary time (what I called time X), then you could observe non-equilibrium states finite (and bounded) lengths of time after time X. If there is a time X, we could make a new time scale in which we labeled it 0, sort of an absolute zero for time. I think the only way to claim that there were no processes would be to say there was at least one closed system in the universe which opened at time X (or time zero if your prefer).

Since #1 assumes that the energy in the universe is finite, regardless of its extent, the rest of my statements are only concerning a universe with finite energy.

Only in a universe with finite energy, but yes. If entropy in steadily increasing for an unbounded amount of time, the result is that entropy is unbounded. #6 follows from the rest (if it were polished up a bit to provide more rigor).

#2 says that the universe itself is a closed system. That is just saying that we can’t expect an extra energy to flow in from some other place (not created but moved) into our universe. In your posts, you seem to indicate that you don’t believe any energy was coming in or going out of the universe either by creation, destruction, or movement from outside the universe.

Only if he was “modern” enough to redefine how math works!

Certainly you’ve helped me here. I had missed the case where the energy in the universe is infinite. If there is infinite energy, we’d never run out of higher ordered energy, and we no longer have to be worried about the heat death of the universe. It might get a little warm, but we could always construct better air conditioners and insulation.

Great, that’s smart. You never know what new discoveries are around the corner. That’s why the Church doesn’t teach a literal 6 day creation or even flooding of the “whole” world. That doesn’t stop people from trying to, however.

The key was to take a finite amount of energy (#1), and show that if its entropy increases (#2 & #3) (not just staying the same (#4)) over an unbounded period of time, entropy must be at its maximum. Infinity overwhelms any finite value. #5 is really an if-then. #6 says the if-part is true (from the premise) and the consequences of the then-part of #5.

Thanks, I appreciate your thoughts on the matter.

Andy,
I appreciate the clarifications, and they make perfect sense. I’d become so accustomed to thinking of energy in terms of my own notions about it that I’d never considered the perspectives you’ve offered. Back when I studied thermodynamics the issue of the quantity of energy was never discussed, I suspect because it was treated as a common term that appears in the equations of classical physics rather than an actual thing, or, as I regard it, “stuff.” I’ve never wondered how many ergs there are in the universe. Curious.

I’ve implicitly regarded energy as infinite in quantity and possibly extent, but contained within another space which I have no clue as to how to define. So, naturally, I argued with your statements. Do my ideas work if the amount and/or space of energy is finite? I honestly do not know.

At the moment I’m finishing my book and do not dare get engaged in this interesting subject. I’m hoping that we can work together on this issue when my job is done. It seems that you have solid ideas to contribute, and the physics implications of my material remains incomplete. Perhaps you’ll be the one to finish it.

To address minor points…

Your time X is what I’ve always thought of as T0. I assume no processes before T0. Also, I assume the existence of two independent closed systems prior to T0, (Yes, “prior to” makes no sense in that context.)

I think that if the energy-quantity and extent of the universe were both infinite, thermodynamic death could occur. I’m keeping an open mind on that, and the rest of these issues until the time comes to delve more deeply, perchance with your guidance.

Thanks for your insights on this.

 

[Andy_III]

Andy,
I appreciate the clarifications, and they make perfect sense. I’d become so accustomed to thinking of energy in terms of my own notions about it that I’d never considered the perspectives you’ve offered. Back when I studied thermodynamics the issue of the quantity of energy was never discussed, I suspect because it was treated as a common term that appears in the equations of classical physics rather than an actual thing, or, as I regard it, “stuff.” I’ve never wondered how many ergs there are in the universe. Curious.

I’ve implicitly regarded energy as infinite in quantity and possibly extent, but contained within another space which I have no clue as to how to define. So, naturally, I argued with your statements. Do my ideas work if the amount and/or space of energy is finite? I honestly do not know.

At the moment I’m finishing my book and do not dare get engaged in this interesting subject. I’m hoping that we can work together on this issue when my job is done. It seems that you have solid ideas to contribute, and the physics implications of my material remains incomplete. Perhaps you’ll be the one to finish it.

Thank you for your thoughts and help. I understand you have work to do, so I’ll be patient if you take a long time to reply. Thank you for your patience with me.

To address minor points…

Your time X is what I’ve always thought of as T0. I assume no processes before T0. Also, I assume the existence of two independent closed systems prior to T0, (Yes, “prior to” makes no sense in that context.)

I think that if the energy-quantity and extent of the universe were both infinite, thermodynamic death could occur. I’m keeping an open mind on that, and the rest of these issues until the time comes to delve more deeply, perchance with your guidance.

Thanks for your insights on this.

Yes, T0 is an appropriate name. I didn’t know what to call it, but knew it would be significant enough to need a name.

Two systems? Hmm, that does help with how no processes could occur before T0. So we have two closed systems, separated by a perfect thermodynamic barrier, each system being at equilibrium (so there are no processes), but at different levels (of what? temperature? energy? is there a difference?).

Then at T0, the barrier must be partially or completely compromised, allowing flow between the systems causing processes to happen, which could result in the (local to one system) increase in entropy.

This begs the question, what affected the barrier?

 

[Andy_III]

Since the discussion of energy is off-topic, I moved this to a new thread titled “Could energy have always existed under the laws of thermodynamics?”.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=7149165

 

[greylorn]

Thank you for your thoughts and help. I understand you have work to do, so I’ll be patient if you take a long time to reply. Thank you for your patience with me.

Yes, T0 is an appropriate name. I didn’t know what to call it, but knew it would be significant enough to need a name.

Two systems? Hmm, that does help with how no processes could occur before T0. So we have two closed systems, separated by a perfect thermodynamic barrier, each system being at equilibrium (so there are no processes), but at different levels (of what? temperature? energy? is there a difference?).

Then at T0, the barrier must be partially or completely compromised, allowing flow between the systems causing processes to happen, which could result in the (local to one system) increase in entropy.

(I’ve copied this to your new thread.)

This begs the question, what affected the barrier?

Andy,
You would be absolutely devastating at “20 Questions.”

I don’t want to try to explain the nature of the two systems until my book is out. One of the systems needs a bit of leading-up-to. I’ve already tried that here on CAF with no success. I still hope to retain your interest until then, or near then, because I keep getting the feeling that you will have a definite contribution to offer. Whatever that may be, you’ll be certain to get points for it if you do your work after I’ve published. But if I include your contributions in my first book, people will consider them part of my idea package, despite crediting you.

The problems awaiting your solution are either too big for me, or, I’m burned out. Perhaps we can solve them together. Be patient. I believe that you will find it worth the wait.

Your analysis, incidentally, is right on. The problems awaiting your solution do not include the answer to your last question, “What affected the barrier?” It would be a nice bonus if they did.

My work does not eliminate the idea that the universe and our own existence began with a Miracle. We are already constrained to believe in either the Big Bang and random mutations (all miracles) or God (the ultimate Miracle). However, all of these are complex,j low-entropy miracles. All I’ve done differently is to hypothesize a creation process with high-entropy miracles.

Here’s an arcane and obscure clue to your next question. How did a quiz show contestant get the duck to come down?

 

[bluelake]

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?

That God has revealed Himself, to a wretch like me.
God has blessed me in many ways, which I am truly grateful.
God has chosen me from the foundation of the world to be His child.

God bless,
bluelake

Good question.

 

[bluelake]

Can you give me some evidence for his resurrection?

If God had to prove his existance he would be an idol.
We walk by faith, not sight.
Why don’t you ask Him to come into your heart. See what happens, you will be amazed.
He stands at the door of your heart, 24-7 Invite him in.

God bless you,
bluelake

 

[bluelake]

Can you give me some evidence for his resurrection?

Yes, read Gods word. You will find the answer concerning his resurrection in Mt.28
pray for help first, God will be there just for you.
He loves you with a everlasting love. No one will ever love like the Lord.

God bless,
bluelake

 

[theidler]

I actually really like the proof offered by Avicenna, a Muslim polymath and philosopher, concerning the Necessary Existent. Also, I hear Duns Scotus argument is apparently awe-inspiring, but I have not read it. I also really like St. Anselms ontological argument.

Personally though,I simply listen to the beating of my heart.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

bluelake

Why don’t you ask Him to come into your heart. See what happens, you will be amazed.
He stands at the door of your heart, 24-7 Invite him in.

 

[WinterLight]

I like Godel’s ontological argument, but only because the mathematics is interesting (there’s at least two approaches: you can use modal logic or, from my point of view, more interesting, you can use ultrafilters).

Such proofs, we must realize, while edifying for the faithful, are not necessarily convincing for the unbeliever. After all, it’s rarely a question of whether the argument is valid (the conclusion is true if the premises are true) but whether it is sound (are the premises indeed true?). Those who’ve hardened their heart will find no trouble in not accepting the premises.

 

[dandingo]

I’m officially renaming this thread the ‘Jesus Thread’ for two reasons. Because He is my favorite proof for the existence of God and because this thread has been resurrected from over a year’s slumber!

 

[Sacred_Heart_1]

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?

My favorite proof of God is the Holy Bible. It’s better than any other philosophical work. And it explains God in Truth, in his own Word. You can’t get that from St. Thomas Aquinas.