What is your favorite proof for God?

[jdwood983]

Wow - have you read a history book? The Catholic Church stifled everything from science, to literature to art; the period know today as the Dark Ages was the height of the Church’s power - no coincidence. Additionally, mathematics, literature and science were thriving in the middle east amongst the “heathens”. .

Actually, what you say is quite false. The reason we had a “dark ages” was because of barbaric tribes (such as the Huns, Ostrogoths, Visigoths, etc) that were constantly attacking the center of the civilized world: Rome. If it weren’t for the Catholic Church being able to defend itself with words and blows, all of our history would have been lost.
If people were accurate with this claim of the Church hold society back, then why is that so much science and literature was created between the 1000’s and 1200’s (the “height” of the “dark ages”)? I heavily recommend checking out this site for a more indepth look at your erroneous statement.

I also disagree that there’s lessoning of reason; in fact, reason is becoming more and more popular - at the expense of religious superstition and mythology

I also recommend picking up Dr Anthony Rizzi’s The Science Before Science. In the first few pages, he actually says that science is losing its ability for reasoning.

. It’s not that people with a more naturalistic perspective believe “anything goes”, but our concepts of morality and ethics stem from a combination of instinct and thought about how an action or deed may adversely affect others or society as a whole, rather than arbitrary and baseless rules such that make sex or nudity evil, birth control sinful or shellfish an “abomination” while condoning slavery and praising ignorance.

You may want to check a psychology and/or sociology book. Instincts do not bring morals to anyone–in fact, I would venture to even say that they’re the complete opposite of each other.
The Church has never said that sex or nudity is evil, it has only said that it is for a husband and wife and that otherwise is sinful. To Catholics (and some other Christians as well as Muslims) birth control = murder, since “Thou Shalt Not Kill” is clearly on the God-given list of Commandments, it’s clear that it is sinful.
Shellfish being an abomination comes from the Old Law that Jesus fulfilled. By his Death & Resurrection, we are no longer bound to the Mosaic Law that Jews are still bound. Thus, shellfish is not an abomination to Christians.
You may also want to read this article about the position of the Catholic Church and slavery. You’ll be surprised to read that the Catholic Church does oppose slavery, despite the Bible containing people with slaves

I’d recommend revisiting some history books as a good place to start before making such blatantly false assertions in the future

You may want to do the same as well as reading a few psychology/sociology books.

 

[donsnow]

You still do not know where I stand. Other posts on other threads could help should you ever get curious.

Why can’t you plainly state where you stand, instead of all the shifting about?

 

[donsnow]

Alright, well first off we’ve already discussed here previously that the bible is flawed, inaccurate and it’s existence isn’t enough to prove it’s validity or accuracy. That said, there is a LOT of “bad” in the laws of god; killing disobedient children, those who work on Sunday, endorsement of slavery, the view of rape and blood sacrifice to name a few.

Bottom line, even if the god of the bible did exist, he would in no way, shape or form be worth of worship based on his bloodlust, insecurity, pettiness, ignorance, jealousy and general mismanagement of his supposed “creation”. He’s a fascist tyrant, comparable to a Saddam Hussein or Adolf Hitler (the latter of which was endorsed by the Catholic church and motivated against the Jews by his faith in Jesus mind you). If anyone disagrees with that assessment, I’d love to know why and/or how.

I disagree.
Because, who is the creature to judge the Creator?
All the things you write about God and His Church could be said about the governments of earth and science and economics, just as well. As a matter of fact, I wonder if you’re exercising what psychologists call ‘projection’? Projection is putting your own issues on somebody or something else. Jesus called it, “Judge not, lest you be so judged.”

 

[vjtorley]

Proveit312

This is a thread about the existence of God, not about Biblical morality. Belief in the former does not logically imply belief in the latter. If you really don’t like the Bible, try Platonism, or Cicero’s philosophy if you prefer.

In any case, your arguments against Christianity are badly flawed. There are dozens of articles refuting your claim that the Church has held back science and civilization. See angelfire.com/linux/vjtorley/whybelieve3.html and also angelfire.com/linux/vjtorley/whybelieve7.html#church-good .

By the way, the Church never taught that the Earth is flat.

On Biblical morality, please see the articles here:

angelfire.com/linux/vjtorley/whybelieve6.html#bible-morality

On Biblical atrocities, please see here:

angelfire.com/linux/vjtorley/whybelieve6.html#bible-atrocities

On abortion, please see here:

angelfire.com/linux/vjtorley/whybelieve9.html#life-issues

and scroll down to the section on Abortion and embryo destruction.

Happy hunting.

 

[Janet_S]

Wow - have you read a history book? The Catholic Church stifled everything from science, to literature to art; the period know today as the Dark Ages was the height of the Church’s power - no coincidence. Additionally, mathematics, literature and science were thriving in the middle east amongst the “heathens”. I also disagree that there’s lessoning of reason; in fact, reason is becoming more and more popular - at the expense of religious superstition and mythology. It’s not that people with a more naturalistic perspective believe “anything goes”, but our concepts of morality and ethics stem from a combination of instinct and thought about how an action or deed may adversely affect others or society as a whole, rather than arbitrary and baseless rules such that make sex or nudity evil, birth control sinful or shellfish an “abomination” while condoning slavery and praising ignorance. I’d recommend revisiting some history books as a good place to start before making such blatantly false assertions in the future.

How many history books have you read? Not all support your conclusions, so it’s wise to consider the source.

The predominant philosophy of our time is moral relativism, and that is a philosophy void of reason. If you don’t believe that, you don’t understand the meaning of “reason,” at least from a philosophical point of view.

 

[Janet_S]

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?

Did anyone mention Cardinal John Henry Newman’s ideas?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Henry_Newman

In 1870 he put forth his Grammar of Assent, the most closely reasoned of his works, in which the case for religious belief is maintained by arguments differing somewhat from those commonly used by Roman Catholic theologians of the time

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grammar_of_Assent

The Grammar was an apologia for faith. Newman was concerned with defending faith as a legitimate product of rational human activity–that assent is not contrary to human nature. He wrote this book against the background of British Empiricism which restricted the strength and legitimacy of assent to the evidence presented for it. John Locke, David Hume and John Stuart Mill, a contemporary of Newman, were the primary Empiricists that Newman was engaged with philosophically.

The Grammar is divided into two sections that ask and answer the following questions: can I believe what I don’t understand? and, can I believe what cannot be absolutely proved? The first part of the Grammar is entitled “Assent and Apprehension”, which deals with believing what you don’t understand. The second part is entitled “Assent and Inference” and it addresses the issue of believing what cannot be absolutely proven

 

[Janet_S]

These are some videos by Dr. Stephen Hicks, Professor of Philosophy at Rockford College, explaing both sides of the common arguments:

youtube.com/user/CEEChannel#p/c/484D9CA827ED0850

 

[greylorn]

Why can’t you plainly state where you stand, instead of all the shifting about?

I follow the teachings of The Church of Physical Theology, Ltd. Does that help?

All my comments come from a set of ideas known to the few who have studied them as Beon Theory. There is no common word or existing belief system into which these ideas fit, at least not as a whole. The scientists and engineers with whom I’ve worked and who did not read my writings thought I was a religious nut; those who actually read my stuff became the first supporters of my ideas. Religious people tend to regard me as an atheist, which I’m not. So, I can’t offer you a handy pigeonhole.

I believe that the interesting aspects of our universe are created, but that the various bibles and writings of man which men claim to be divinely inspired are of no value in understanding anything. They were all written by men, then declared, by guess who, to be inspired by God. In their description of God they are as consistent as B.O’s description of his personal beliefs.

There is one and only one Bible which, if there is a God, is absolutely certain to have been written by that God. That is the physical universe. The meaning and purpose of existence is written in every atom, photon, and galactic cluster— in every bacterium, virus, living animal and T-Rex fossil.

The theories I’ve found within this remarkable living record define where I stand. A book which explains them is near completion.

 

[TenBobNote]

Around 1/3rd of the way down you will find the title “The Extreme Precision of Physical Constants”, this is one of my favorite arguments for the existence of God.

cosmicfingerprints.com/audio/newevidence.htm

 

[Abu]

jdwood983, Vjtorley,
Excellent posts #154, #157, respectively. Nothing like offering a few home truths.

ProveIt312
The Catholic Church stifled everything from science, to literature to art……I’d recommend revisiting some history books as a good place to start before making such blatantly false assertions in the future.

Lest some minds may be corrupted by the howlers above, let us look at the facts.

“The rise of science was not an extension of classical learning. It was the natural outgrowth of Christian doctrine: nature exists because it was created by God. In order to love and honor God, it is necessary to fully appreciate his handiwork. Because God is perfect, his handiwork functions in accord with immutable principles. By the full use of our God-given powers of reason and observation, it ought to be possible to discover these principles.

**“These were the crucial ideas that explain why science arose in Christian Europe and nowhere else.” **The Victory of Reason, Rodney Stark, Random House, 2005, p 22-23. My emphasis].

These are the reasons that explain the fact that the theology and philosophy of the Catholic Church motivated and enabled the flowering of science. As no other religious society had these crucial ideas, ALL others failed to spark scientific achievement. It is a classic example of cause and effect to produce a watershed in science.

Alfred North Whitehead, F.R.S. rejected the notion of a perfect and omnipotent God [alfrednorthwhitehead.wwwhubs.com/]](http://alfrednorthwhitehead.wwwhubs.com/]), but he 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.” **(My emphasis). [E.L. Jones, 1987; in Stark, op.cit., p 15].

See *Catholicism and Science *by Rodney Stark (from Catalyst 9/2004) at:
catholicleague.org/research/catholicism_and_science.htm

 

[Andy_III]

Sorry if this is off the topic du jour; I did not read the whole thread. So I’ll start by answering the OP.

Here’s a “proof” I just made up while reading this thread. Not sure it’s my favorite, I’m not even sure it is new.

We typically think of the universe in three dimensions. The least likely position to be “complicated” by God is to assume these three dimensions are infinite. There is also the notion of time as a dimension. Again, we can assume this is infinite in both directions, past and future, although we can only observe the single point in time which we are currently at. The past is indicated by observing evidence of past occurances that persist to the present. Now let us consider the law of entropy which states that entropy must decrease (not stay the same or decrease) as time goes in the future direction. This implies that in the infinite past there must be inifinite entropy. I submit that infinite entropy (or a limited universe in one or other dimensions) points to the existence of God (an infinite eternal being).

I am a scientist, and I whole heartedly believe in the existence of God. I do not necessarily believe every claim that “God did this or that” is true. In fact, to have God as far removed from you as you seem to want, you can believe that God did everything all at once long ago (Big Bang) and was smart enough to place all the matter in that infinitesimal point in the right places to generate the sun, earth, and other bodies so that Jupiter would appear to have a triple conjunction with Regulus at the conception of Jesus, conjoin with Venus (making it very bright) at the birth of Jesus, and have a solar and lunar eclipse over the Jerusalem area at the death of Jesus. Not to mention the 10 plauges of Egypt (all basically derived from a single cause and historical). For that one is interesting to note that the cause of the plagues (tectonic shifts/volcanic eruption) also caused the parting of the reed sea (not the Red Sea!). You might think that these “natural” events could disprove the existence of God, but then my question is: How did the Isrealites know where/when they could cross the sea?

There are many other historical, astrological, sociological, mathematical, and archaeological grounds for the events in the Bible that it would be unscientific to ignore all of it with a wave of the hand. Ignoring truth does not keep you from experiencing its effects.

And remember - the Catholic Church invented the laws of evidence and the scientific method, not to metion hospitals and many other good works based on the sound thinking they should be known for.

A few parting thoughts:
Condoms do not cure or prevent AIDS, but they do break down society and send the wrong message to young people. Abstinence and chastity would/does help prevent AIDS and other such diseases from becoming a problem. Also, Natural Family Planning is much more reliable and reversible than artificial birth control and does not require as many days of consectutive abstinence as most medical products do. Also, marriages in which NFP is used are an order of magnitude less likely to end in divorce. There are behaviors that are helpful to society and behaviors that are not. Statistics and scientific studies have borne out the teachings of the Church on these moral behaviors, but (vocal) people tend to ignore them in pursuit of what feels good today. Hedonism is not likely to produce a healthy long-term society. And there is a correlation between belief and longer life.
God does heal amputees - but doesn’t neccessarily grow their limbs back. If He did grow someone’s limb back, I doubt any atheists would start believing in God. After all, Jesus was raised from the dead (appearing to many witnesses) and that was not enough to convince some people - probably even some of the witnesses!

 

[cranster]

God does heal amputees - but doesn’t neccessarily grow their limbs back. If He did grow someone’s limb back, I doubt any atheists would start believing in God.

Once the limb is removed the staples eventually get removed and the incision eventually heals. I think this quote from an amputee sums it up, “Why doesn’t God heal amputee’s? because we aren’t sick!” God also gave us a brain, and we’ve come up with some pretty incredible technologies that enable amputees to live normal productive lives.

 

[jdwood983]

We typically think of the universe in three dimensions. The least likely position to be “complicated” by God is to assume these three dimensions are infinite. There is also the notion of time as a dimension. Again, we can assume this is infinite in both directions, past and future, although we can only observe the single point in time which we are currently at. The past is indicated by observing evidence of past occurances that persist to the present. Now let us consider the law of entropy which states that entropy must decrease (not stay the same or decrease) as time goes in the future direction. This implies that in the infinite past there must be inifinite entropy. I submit that infinite entropy (or a limited universe in one or other dimensions) points to the existence of God (an infinite eternal being).

As a scientist, I hope you made a mistake in typing this. The Second Law of Thermodynamics says the entropy always increases, which means that in the infinite past, entropy would have been zero.

 

[cranster]

As a scientist, I hope you made a mistake in typing this. The Second Law of Thermodynamics says the entropy always increases, which means that in the infinite past, entropy would have been zero.

There is no such thing as an infinite past. Not if you are going backwards from the present because infinity is unachievable.

 

[lemondiesel]

Wrong. Instead, read a physics book.

if physics believed matter could be created they would not have came up with “matter can neither be created nor destroyed” if it was created it means it can be destroyed. In a sense, the energy has always been, it was just transfered

dont tell me to read a physics book lol

 

[lemondiesel]

That is the physical universe. The meaning and purpose of existence is written in every atom, photon, and galactic cluster— in every bacterium, virus, living animal and T-Rex fossil.

The theories I’ve found within this remarkable living record define where I stand. A book which explains them is near completion.

are you talking about a fractal universe? if not my apologies, just trying to understand your post

 

[donsnow]

I follow the teachings of The Church of Physical Theology, Ltd. Does that help?

All my comments come from a set of ideas known to the few who have studied them as Beon Theory. There is no common word or existing belief system into which these ideas fit, at least not as a whole. The scientists and engineers with whom I’ve worked and who did not read my writings thought I was a religious nut; those who actually read my stuff became the first supporters of my ideas. Religious people tend to regard me as an atheist, which I’m not. So, I can’t offer you a handy pigeonhole.

I believe that the interesting aspects of our universe are created, but that the various bibles and writings of man which men claim to be divinely inspired are of no value in understanding anything. They were all written by men, then declared, by guess who, to be inspired by God. In their description of God they are as consistent as B.O’s description of his personal beliefs.

There is one and only one Bible which, if there is a God, is absolutely certain to have been written by that God. That is the physical universe. The meaning and purpose of existence is written in every atom, photon, and galactic cluster— in every bacterium, virus, living animal and T-Rex fossil.

The theories I’ve found within this remarkable living record define where I stand. A book which explains them is near completion.

Thank you, greylorn,

No wonder I couldn’t place you. You’re unique.

Don

 

[greylorn]

Sorry if this is off the topic du jour; I did not read the whole thread. So I’ll start by answering the OP.

Here’s a “proof” I just made up while reading this thread. Not sure it’s my favorite, I’m not even sure it is new.

We typically think of the universe in three dimensions. The least likely position to be “complicated” by God is to assume these three dimensions are infinite. There is also the notion of time as a dimension. Again, we can assume this is infinite in both directions, past and future, although we can only observe the single point in time which we are currently at. The past is indicated by observing evidence of past occurances that persist to the present. Now let us consider the law of entropy which states that entropy must decrease (not stay the same or decrease) as time goes in the future direction. This implies that in the infinite past there must be inifinite entropy. I submit that infinite entropy (or a limited universe in one or other dimensions) points to the existence of God (an infinite eternal being).

What is your, ah, scientific field? Sociology? Or are you in, ah, Education Science, which would explain a lot?

There is no such thing as the “Law of Entropy.” There is something called the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, which defines the concept of entropy. According to this law, entropy increases with time (actually, with successive changes of one form of energy into another), You’ve gotten your concepts from an aftermarket physics book, like “Physics for Dummies.”

If you want to read that stuff, fine. Not advisable to treat it, or whatever incorrect understandings you’ve derived from it, as real physics.

Dimensions are like goal lines in football, and are inherently unbounded. That is different from infinite, and is a function of one’s frame of physical reference, and one’s frame of understanding. The goal line in Lambeau Field does not really extend past the confines of the planet into relativistic space-time. Referring to dimensions as “infinite” is redundant, irrelevant, hyperbole.

Your proof would be more interesting if you’d gotten your basic facts straight.

 

[greylorn]

are you talking about a fractal universe? if not my apologies, just trying to understand your post

It would appear that you’ve recently read some stuff about chaos theory, and want to imagine that it applies to intelligent purpose, which is what, IMO, defines all aspects of the universe except for the human mind.

You get points for trying, but chaos theory is essentially a study of randomly generated geometries. It is one of those interesting fields of study which describes, but fails to explain. I just try to explain, and find that fundamental principles are my most reliable foundation. Although it is mathematically interesting, and very handy for describing a large class of observable phenomena, there’s nothing fundamental about chaos theory.

You are forgiven for apologizing. Please, never, never apologize for asking an honest question.

The universe is digital, not fractal.

 

[greylorn]

if physics believed matter could be created they would not have came up with “matter can neither be created nor destroyed” if it was created it means it can be destroyed. In a sense, the energy has always been, it was just transfered

dont tell me to read a physics book lol

Your quote must have come from a 1920’s physics book, or a high school physics book.

In what I think is a stupid and ill-advised attempt to bring physics to the masses, high school and even Physics 1 (for non-scientists) courses at the university level simplify the subject, in a sorry attempt to bring it to a common level.

Kindly readjust your understanding. The First Law of Thermodynamics states (implicitly) that energy cannot be created or destroyed. It can be transformed from one form into another. For example, the kinetic energy of water falling through pipes in Hoover Dam turns generators, which transform the kinetic energy into electrical energy. You can transform this electrical energy back into motion (a power drill) or heat (electric ranges) or light. Matter is a form of energy. It can be converted to energy, and energy in turn can be converted into matter— but not with any household appliances.

Matter is created in stars (except for hydrogen, allegedly made in the absurd Big Bang). If reading is a struggle, you might at least watch the info channels.

There is a difference between “transferred” and transformed. Yeah, you need to read some books, but you’re not ready for physics books. You can get there. When you do, you can write your own arrogant posts.