Curt's Invitation - Prove God Exists!

What in the universe is eternal? What have we seen that would lead you to such a conclusion?

What primarily leads me to this conclusion is the extreme difficulty of plausibly explaining a first cause:) When in doubt, always choose the theory that seems most reasonable.
It's also because I don't think it is possible for matter/energy to suddenly become non-matter/non-energy or the other way around(anyone who has studied the more advanced aspects of physics may feel free to correct me on this one). To me the most logical origin of The Big Band would be a previous universe folding in on itself, as it has sometimes been suggested will happen with this universe at some point as well. But really there is no way to know for certain what was before the Big Bang, it's just that I find the eternal universe concept more plausible than the first-cause/unmoved mover. Mainly because the introduction of an unmoved mover/first cause creates all kinds of problems when it comes to defining the nature of this original creator.
 
Corlindale
The time must have a beginning since the very definition of time implys "source" and "result" (first, second, etc until this very moment).
But then we can (hypothetically) go "back through time" to the very FIRST "event".
It doesn't matter what it was - we still can get there.

I'm not sure I follow your logic on this one. I don't think the concept of time necessarily means that it must have a clearly defined being or indeed end. I do think that is may well be a part of human nature to think of time in a more linear way, with a clearly discernible beginning and end, simply because our own lives have such a clear beginning and end.

Aren't theist somewhat familiar with the idea of eternity, though? Aren't the faithful supposed to receive eternal rewards and the heretics eternal punishment? If time must have a beginning, wouldn't it also be necessary for it to have and ending, and how does that fit with the eternal kingdom of God? And if eternity can stretch forever forwards in time, why not forever backwards in time?

Some cultures and religions are more used to thinking about time as cyclical, without any clear beginning or end, but only various stages of destruction and renewal, being repeated for all eternity. While I do not subscribe to the religious interprenations of this perception of time, it seems somewhat akin to the way I envision the state of the universe.
 
Corlindale
All that you said can be summarized that you are trying to apply physics to God - which is wrong as was mentioned many times before.
God doesn't have to "fit" into physics - even would the science discover everything possible.

Well, I think that was the point of my distinction between objective and subjective truths. If God cannot be proven by science, then there is no way the concept of God can be communicated to others, and then religion and belief is an entirely subjective matter - between God and the individual believer.
 
And time IS linear because you can't anything in the past under normal physics.

Well, I might have used the wrong word with "cyclical". I meant that I think the universe may well move in cycles, contracting and expanding, but that does not mean that the same universe will reappear over and over again. So in another sense I guess I consider time linear, just without any start or ending on that line.
 
civ2 said:
Corlindale
All that you said can be summarized that you are trying to apply physics to God - which is wrong as was mentioned many times before.
God doesn't have to "fit" into physics - even would the science discover everything possible.

by David Hume:
If a well-ordered natural world requires a special designer, then God's mind (being so well-ordered) also requires a special designer. And then this designer would likewise need a designer, and so on ad infinitum. We could respond by resting content with an inexplicably self-ordered divine mind; but then why not rest content with an inexplicably self-ordered natural world?
 
I rejected the "argument from design" pretty much as soon as I heard the obvious rebuttal, which was not long after I heard the argument in the first place. In my view, both God and the uniuverse itself (although not in its current structure) are self-existing and eternal.
 
Why do I believe in a God? Thats the question I ask when the Holy Spirit touched my heart after my fender bender accident two years ago. For me, my belief in God lies on a personal and spiritual experiences. For me I have a desire for God. The desire for God is written in the human heart, because I feel man is created by God and for God. Thus God never ceases to draw man to himself (Catechism of the Catholic Church, ¶ 27). That would also explain why I felt a tug from the Holy Spirit. I feel that through God will I find the truth and happyness and thus gives me a thirst of aquiering knowlage and curiosity.

I could never prove that God exists nor even describe my experiances because each experiances is different from one person to another. St. Thomas Aquinas provided the arguments for the existance of God which I fully agree with the Doctor of the Church.

St. Thomas Aquinas said:
1. The "unmoved mover" argument. We know that there is motion in the world; whatever is in motion is moved by another thing; this other thing also must be moved by something; to avoid an infinite regression, we must posit a "first mover," which is God.
2. The "nothing is caused by itself" argument. For example, a table is brought into being by a carpenter, who is caused by his parents. Again, we cannot go on to infinity, so there must be a first cause, which is God.
3. The cosmological argument. All physical things, even mountains, boulders, and rivers, come into being and go out of existence, no matter how long they last. Therefore, since time is infinite, there must be some time at which none of these things existed. But if there were nothing at that point in time, how could there be anything at all now, since nothing cannot cause anything? Thus, there must always have been at least one necessary thing that is eternal, which is God.
4. Objects in the world have differing degrees of qualities such as goodness. But speaking of more or less goodness makes sense only by comparison with what is the maximum goodness, which is God.
5. The teleological argument (argument from design). Things in the world move toward goals, just as the arrow does not move toward its goal except by the archer's directing it. Thus, there must be an intelligent designer who directs all things to their goals, and this is God.

Eventhough I can provide book loads of proofs of God from previous Christian Theologians and Philosophers of the past. It still does not replace experiance. Its like in that hypothetical scenario where there is a person who never tasted salt in his life. I could tell him everything on how salt taste, but the person would never understand the taste of the salt unless I sprinkle some on his tounge.
 
by David Hume:

Quote:
If a well-ordered natural world requires a special designer, then God's mind (being so well-ordered) also requires a special designer. And then this designer would likewise need a designer, and so on ad infinitum. We could respond by resting content with an inexplicably self-ordered divine mind; but then why not rest content with an inexplicably self-ordered natural world?

__________________

How is "resting content" any more of an answer than accrediting God as creator? The problem still exists of how the materials/resources for this perfectly ordered natural world came about. And why would God have to be created?
 
CivGeneral: You rule! That essay by St. Aquinas was exactly what I was trying to find. :king:
 
After several millenia of fierce debate both AD and BC no one has been able to provide any direct evidence that God exists, neither has anyone prooved that he doesn't; so may I ask what makes you think in the next week or so someone is either going to make any case whatsoever or even anything you could remotely believe in? Or for that matter produce proof. Is it faith per chance :D

EDIT: Apologies to Corlindale for making that point again. I missed your post, why is probably a matter of laziness, suffice to say I really liked it.

I might as well put up a thread, prove free will exists, that'll get nowhere too.

Religion and non religion is personal and how or why you believe most often will make little impact on those who have not seen what you've seen.

I will say this though: I admire someone who likes a challenge.

Anyway perhaps a thread about proving God does not exist is in order Curt, then you can state your evidence :)
 
Prove to me that BEAUTY exists - A golden chance to silence those who would silence Curt Silbing!

Now I want to lay down some rules:

(1) I want something that could be evidence, not just anecdotes and personal imaginings of beauty.

(2) I don't want unproductive answers like: 'You have to see it for yourself'...That is copping out.

(3) I don't want the predictable 'Prove beauty doesn't exist' line. You are the believer, not me!

(4) If you think beauty is something in your personal mindspace...Share the insights with us!

(5) This thread is not about me or any particular artist, just go ahead and give evidence for us all.

I do not submit this as proof of anything. I suggest only that there are valid ways of thinking that are not scientific. Perhaps God exists there.
 
MobBoss said:
Your logic is flawed. You were not anymore a sperm than you were an egg waiting for a sperm.

Your humanization of a sperm is, well, for lack of a better word...silly.

So should I take that off my resume then? :(
 
Proof God exists? Spoken like a true agnostic, Curt. Half the point of religion is that, because we cannot truly and acurately PROVE that God exists, you must have faith. We can see his actions, read about how he has interacted with us in the past, and see how he interacts in our daily lives, but if you expect physical proof of a higher power, you're going to walk away dissappointed, because that is as loaded a question as when you girl asks "does this make me look fat?"
 
Veritass said:
(4) If you think beauty is something in your personal mindspace...Share the insights with us!
That's realy where your criticism falls apart, who says that Curt views beauty as anything other then the product of a human emotional reaction to certain stimuli?
 
puglover said:
What in the universe is eternal? What have we seen that would lead you to such a conclusion?

Even if our Universe isn't eternal, it could've been created by pure chance in a multi-verse that is (eternal).

Atlas14 said:
How is "resting content" any more of an answer than accrediting God as creator? The problem still exists of how the materials/resources for this perfectly ordered natural world came about. And why would God have to be created?

Either your position is:

1. Everything needs a creator
or
2. Some things do not require a creator

If your position is 1. then God also requires a creator.. who also requires a creator, etc.

If your position is 2. then the Universe doesn't necessarily require a creator.
 
Cheezy the Wiz said:
We can see his actions, read about how he has interacted with us in the past, and see how he interacts in our daily lives, but if you expect physical proof of a higher power, you're going to walk away dissappointed, because that is as loaded a question as when you girl asks "does this make me look fat?"

If God was interacting with the world, and we could see his actions, and see how he interacts in our everyday lives - that'd be proof right there!

So where is it?
 
Back
Top Bottom