The Ultimate Evidence of God

S

Shibolet

Guest
The Ultimate Evidence of God

In 1922 the Theory of the big bang was the gift Science needed to break up with Aristotle that the universe was infinite. It was the gift of a Theist, George Lemaitre: The universe did have its beginning.

Now, the point is to demonstrate what or who caused the universe to begin because from the logical point of view, the universe could not have caused itself to exist. Simply because being the universe composed of matter and matter cannot cause itself to exist, the Primal Cause has ultimately become obvious.

Now, to all atheists, I have the following message: I am ready to give you the benefit of the doubt and probably even my word that I am ready to change my views about the uiverse if there is one that believes the universe caused itself to exist. If the answer stands the screening of Logic, my proposal is as good as gold that I'll be no longer a theist.
 
Didn't you post this exact same challenge a few months back, Shib? It is not possible to debate the point with you because you insist you use logic to come to your conclusions, and your version of 'logic' is not comparable to any form of logic I have ever been taught.
 
Gordian Knot said:
Didn't you post this exact same challenge a few months back, Shib? It is not possible to debate the point with you because you insist you use logic to come to your conclusions, and your version of 'logic' is not comparable to any form of logic I have ever been taught.
Click to expand...

not again...
 
wil said:
Since we don't know how something happens...we simply make something up and that proves it?
Click to expand...

Do you have any kind of training with the works of Logic? Some times it is possible to know what has happened through the medium of Logic. For instance, evidences for the existence of God. As you know, I hope, syllogisms are a good method to come to a logical conclusion. Here is what I mean:

1. First premise: The universe is composed of matter;
2. Second premise: Matter cannot cause itself to exist;
3. Resultant premise: Therefore, the universe was caused to exist.

Now, the Agent that caused the universe to exist must have acted from outside the universe as it did not exist yet. I like to call It the Primal Cause. Now, how is it possible to find an evidence for the Primal Cause? Another syllogism:

1. First premise: According to the concept of Causality, the universe cannot be composed of only caused elements.
2. Second premise: Every caused element implies a cause.
3. Resultant premise: Therefore, the Primal Cause is by necessity obvious.
 
Gordian Knot said:
Didn't you post this exact same challenge a few months back, Shib? It is not possible to debate the point with you because you insist you use logic to come to your conclusions, and your version of 'logic' is not comparable to any form of logic I have ever been taught.
Click to expand...

I think you are talking about the post on the atheistic dilemma if I don't make a mistake.
 
The argument put forward is well known, it's one of Aquinas' Five Proofs' of the existence of God.

Now bearing in mind that scholarship accepts that Aquinas' logic in argument is flawless, and yet not one of the Five Proofs, nor even the more than two dozen similarly logical arguments, clinches it, then it's unlikely that this thread will succeed where logical has so far failed.

Added to that, the God of whom Aquinas writes, as he himself was at pains to point out, is not the 'God of the Philosophers' that is put forward by such logical conundrums. Aquinas' God is the God of Christian Revelation.

Added to that, despite all we know about the Big Bang, what scholarship asserts is that in that very first nano-moment, the Laws of Nature are the product of the event, not the cause, because 'before' the event there was nothing.

And to say that if we know nothing then God is the answer sounds like a very 'thin' God indeed.
 
qudos Thomas...

yes it appears in thousands of years one thing remains the same....for some no proof is enough and for others no proof is required.
 
Yeah it is more generic an article about his talk and his statement that no divine power was needed to create the universe. This part was the only section specifically about that:

He closed by outlining "M-theory," which is based partly on ideas put forward years ago by another famed physicist, Caltech’s Richard Feynman. Hawking sees that theory as the only big idea that really explains what he has observed.

M-theory posits that multiple universes are created out of nothing, Hawking explained, with many possible histories and many possible states of existence. In only a few of these states would life be possible, and in fewer still could something like humanity exist. Hawking mentioned that he felt fortunate to be living in this state of existence.

He has made more expanded statements. Will try and find one of them when I have a moment.
 
I did not read the quotation from Thomas as a statement of the universes divine origins, but I can't speak for him of course.
 
A Cup Of Tea said:
I did not read the quotation from Thomas as a statement of the universes divine origins, but I can't speak for him of course.
Click to expand...
No, that would be a statement of faith, not fact.

Simply that 'The Ultimate Evidence of God' is itself flawed, as God is not within the purview of the physical sciences. Physics cannot and will never 'explain' God, nor will the empirical sciences render God redundant.

I do wish people would get the point. If you think one can prove or disprove God through science, then one really doesn't understand the Abrahamic idea of God.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top