My proof for God. Critiques please.

[coolduude]

Gas particles were put in motion at the moment of creation and have been moving since. It's not like they were static at one point then began moving on their own (like you propose). Also, gas particles and the universe are two totally different things that cannot (IMHO) be compared in that way.

[buffalo]

Originally Posted by Zatzat

God isn't necessary, that's my point. You don't know what, if anything, was the first mover, so what-ever it is, if anything, you call God?

From the Catechism:

34 The world, and man, attest that they contain within themselves neither their first principle nor their final end, but rather that they participate in Being itself, which alone is without origin or end. Thus, in different ways, man can come to know that there exists a reality which is the first cause and final end of all things, a reality "that everyone calls God".10


You could call Him the FSM, but I am not sure it would stick.

[Moonstruck888]

Originally Posted by buffalo

1. The Divine Attributes are really identical among themselves and with the Divine Essence. (De fide.) The Attributes of the Divine Being
2. God is absolutely perfect. (De fide.)
3. God is actually infinite in every perfection. (De fide.)
4. God is absolutely simple. (De fide.)
5. There is only One God. (De fide.)
6. The One God is, in the ontological sense, The True God. (De fide.)
7. God possesses an infinite power of cognition. (De fide.)
8. God is absolute Veracity. (De fide.)
9. God is absolutely faithful. (De fide.)
10. God is absolute ontological Goodness in Himself and in relation to others. (De fide.)
11. God is absolute Moral Goodness or Holiness. (De fide.) D 1782.
12. God is absolute Benignity. (De fide.) D1782.
13. God is absolute Beauty. D1782.
14. God is absolutely immutable. (De fide.)
15. God is eternal. (De fide.)
16. God is immense or absolutely immeasurable. (De fide.)
17. God is everywhere present in created space. (De fide.) The Attributes of the Divine Life
18. God's knowledge is infinite. (De fide.)
19. God's knowledge is purely and simply actual.
20. God's knowledge is subsistent
21. God's knowledge is comprehensive
22. God's knowledge is independent of extra-divine things
23. The primary and formal object of the Divine Cognition is God Himself. (Scientia contemplationis)
24. God knows all that is merely possible by the knowledge of simple intelligence (scientia simplicis intelligentiae). (De fide.)
25. God knows all real things in the past, the present and the future (Scientia visionis). (De fide.)
26. By knowledge of vision (scientia visionis) God also foresees the free acts of the rational creatures with infallible certainty. (De fide.)
27. God also knows the conditioned future free actions with infallible certainty (Scientia futuribilium). (Sent. communis.)
28. God's Divine will is infinite. (De fide.)
29. God loves Himself of necessity, but loves and wills the creation of extra-Divine things, on the other hand, with freedom. (De fide.)
30. God is almighty. (De fide.)
31. God is the Lord of the heavens and of the earth. (De fide.) D 1782.
32. God is infinitely just. (De fide.)
33. God is infinitely merciful. (De fide.)

Right. You've proven that you can string a sentence together that contains the word God along with the verb etre, followed by an adjective.

That's all you've proven.

[buffalo]

Originally Posted by Moonstruck888

Right. You've proven that you can string a sentence together that contains the word God along with the verb etre, followed by an adjective.

That's all you've proven.

You claimed we do not know anything about God. I showed you the Church does.

[Zatzat]

Originally Posted by buffalo

You claimed we do not know anything about God. I showed you the Church does.

If God is real, I'm confident that she is nothing like the God of Abraham. The Church knows nor more about this invisible God that lives in an invisible Kingdom than I do.

[buffalo]

Originally Posted by Zatzat

If God is real, I'm confident that she is nothing like the God of Abraham. The Church knows nor more about this invisible God that lives in an invisible Kingdom than I do.

Willing to share?

[JohnAlexander]

Originally Posted by coolduude

Before I show my proof for God, I just want to say that I'm building on the Kalam argument. This isn't an original argument, just my expansion on a pre-existent one.

1) The past is finite
2) There was a point when the universe did not exist
3) Something had to create the universe
4) That something is God

Therefore,
5) God exists.

!

Your proof is very weak and does not work.

1. The past is finite.
Where is the proof for this? Although current scientific theory has our universe beginning at the big bang it does not follow that there was nothing before the big bang. It is quite possible that there was another universe that existed, expanded, contracted then went through the whole cycle again and again.

2. There was a point when the universe did not exist
It may be true for our universe but again it is possible for other universes to have existed prior to ours. It is of course impossible to know anything about prior universes. Scientifically speaking it makes no sense to speculate about prior universes because there is no way to test for them but philosophically you can conjecture that they existed.

3. Something had to create the universe.
If the universe is just a part of a never ending series of universes then why does it need to be created?

Since the first three points are not proven then any conclusions drawn from those suppositions are not proven.


I think before anyone tries to prove the existence of God they must define just what they mean by the word "proof".

If you mean "convince" then your arguments do not have to make any sense as long as they work. A very good proof in this sense is love. Children who are loved genuinely by their parents are very rarely skeptical about the existence of God. In this sense love proves to them that God exists.

If you are looking for a mathematical proof or a scientific proof then you will have to do much better than your proof.

[MindOverMatter2]

Originally Posted by Moonstruck888

Right. You've proven that you can string a sentence together that contains the word God along with the verb etre, followed by an adjective.

That's all you've proven.

HA! I see how honest you really are now. If somebody gives you a definition that doesn't suit your critique, you claim that its just a string of words.

[coolduude]

Ok I reformulated it. Let me know how I did this time

1) The past is finite (see post #1 for the backup)
2) The universe, therefore, is created. It is a contingent being.
3) The universe was created by God.

4) Therefore, God exists.
___________________________________

In my original post, I couldn't reinforce the 3rd premise. So here's the proof for it:
"A being whose essence is to exist is called a necessary being. The universe contains only contingent beings. God would be the only necessary being—if God existed. Does he? Does a necessary being exist? Here is the proof that it does. Dependent beings cannot cause themselves. They are dependent on their causes. If there is no independent being, then the whole chain of dependent beings is dependent on nothing and could not exist. But they do exist. Therefore there is an independent being."




Now before everyone takes apart my argument, let me just say that all I'm trying to prove here is the existence of a neccesary being, not the Christian God. That can be worked out later

[coolduude]

bump

[JohnDamian]

Originally Posted by coolduude

Now before everyone takes apart my argument, let me just say that all I'm trying to prove here is the existence of a neccesary being, not the Christian God. That can be worked out later

I am afraid I do not see what you are trying to do.... This appears just a rehash of the standard argument for contingency* - I cannot see any difference other than this is a gross simplification.

What's new here?

[coolduude]

Originally Posted by JohnDamian

I am afraid I do not see what you are trying to do.... This appears just a rehash of the standard argument for contingency* - I cannot see any difference other than this is a gross simplification.

What's new here?

Well you're correct- it's a reworking of the contingency argument. I figure that by simplyfing (sp) the argument it gets harder to deny it. I mean if the premisies are very simple, it gets much harder to deny each of the premises. I hope that makes sense!

[Dancelittleewok]

Originally Posted by JohnAlexander

Your proof is very weak and does not work.

1. The past is finite.
Where is the proof for this? Although current scientific theory has our universe beginning at the big bang it does not follow that there was nothing before the big bang. It is quite possible that there was another universe that existed, expanded, contracted then went through the whole cycle again and again.

If that's the case, then both arguments are drawing from an argument of silence and can both be considered equally valid.

2. There was a point when the universe did not exist
It may be true for our universe but again it is possible for other universes to have existed prior to ours. It is of course impossible to know anything about prior universes. Scientifically speaking it makes no sense to speculate about prior universes because there is no way to test for them but philosophically you can conjecture that they existed.

This begs the question if those prior universe had a beginning as well or didn't exist.

3. Something had to create the universe.
If the universe is just a part of a never ending series of universes then why does it need to be created?

If it is a part of universe of a never ending series of universes (or events), then the this universe must be contingent and therefore finite since its existence is contingent on other events. Whether this process continues ad infinitum, it doesn't change that the universes are intrinsically finite and dependent on previous events, whether they happen for a looooooooooooong time or not.

Since the first three points are not proven then any conclusions drawn from those suppositions are not proven.

Ok.

I think before anyone tries to prove the existence of God they must define just what they mean by the word "proof".

Agreed.

If you mean "convince" then your arguments do not have to make any sense as long as they work. A very good proof in this sense is love. Children who are loved genuinely by their parents are very rarely skeptical about the existence of God. In this sense love proves to them that God exists.

I doubt that this argument would work with abused children and adults.

If you are looking for a mathematical proof or a scientific proof then you will have to do much better than your proof.

His proof is primary philosophical.

[Lazy8]

Is there no end to all of this? Just kidding.

First of all, according to modern physics, time and space are inter-related. According to quantum physics, the universe is finite, as there is a finite amount of particals, even at the sub-atomic level.

There was some discussion about not being able to traverse infinity. In truth, infinity is NOT a number, it is an abstract concept. Furthermore, there are actually different levels of infinity, referred to by thier "cardinality". For instance, the set of natural numbers has the same cardinality as the set of integers, or even the set of rational numbers (fractions). The proof for such things is based on the idea that one can generate a mapping from one set of numbers to another. So we can have infinite, and discrete. According to quantum mechanics, the universe is finite and discrete. But the set of real numbers, for example, is of an ever higher level of infinity, or cardinality. A consequence of this is that the probability of picking any one number in the real number line between 0 and 1 is zero.

I think of God as infinite (and of the highest cardinality), and of our finite existense as having zero probability, except for Gods decision to deliberately create our universe, and thus us. To God, our finite existense is very small, and thus well within His capacity to comprehend fully. We, on the other hand, are unable to fully comprehend God. God is NOT bound time, dimension, space, or any known laws. As God is the creator of our universe, and our universe is relatively simple to Him, WE are bound by all laws created by HIM.

Theoretical physicist and Catholics have one thing in common. We both realize that we have to accept the concept of mysteries, i.e., there are somethings that we can never know. God does not have such limitations. To say that God is great is an understatement. How great He is is truly beyond our realm of comprehension.

When someone ask me for proof of God, I say look around. God gave us all a good home that we call Earth. From this, It's now what we make of it. We are suppose to be Gods children - His family. We have to realize this, and start acting like His family. If we did, then there would not be much suffering, or injustice in this world.

God bless.

[zamboni]

I accept what I see on this webpage as one proof that all of the OP's assertions are true.
http://www.causeofgood.org/Gold/Eden-FirstTimeEver.html
May God bless you, too.