God is the creator of the universe, that is inferentially certain on intelligent thinking grounded on logic and facts.
I look forward to exchange thoughts with posters here on this idea, that God as creator of the universe is inferentially certain, on intelligent thinking grounded on logic and facts.
I had already met some posters here, but they have taken off; and my thread on How certain are we that God exists, has been closed down.
I don’t know why.
Wanted: new posters who are interested to talk on intelligent thinking grounded on logic and facts on my submission, namely, God creator of the universe exists, that is certain inferentially from intelligent thinking grounded on logic and facts.
I do not doubt that from well before Aquinas the proofs for the existence of God has been at the heart of Catholic philosophy.
The inference from the complexity of nature seems to me the best prof of a creator. The analogy of finding a watch on a deserted island infers the presence of man, so the complexity of scientific discoveries of the elements that underlie the nature of matter is enough to infer at least to the highest level of probability of the existence of an external creator. According to Karl Popper it is then up to others to find the failure of this hypothesis to disprove it.
I wish them all good luck.
That is a probabalistic argument, so it is actually a lesser proof than the cosmological argument. (Especially Aquinas’ cosmological argument which proves not only the existence of God, but that God is necessary to keep the world in existence from moment to moment.)
You’re previous thread had ended as being a monolog about how atheist think. Atheism is a prohibited topic in these forums and discussions on it invariably result in thread closure.
To avoid the same fate for this thread I would suggest not concentrating on atheism. Instead present your argument, the supporting information for your argument, and defense to objections that others bring. It also helps to avoid using phrases that might be perceived as insults.
You are talking about general ideas that man fashions from his experience of facts.
Facts for the purpose of identifying something to exist outside our mind must be specified with circumstances like when, where, how, for what end or to what end, by whom or what, but first there must be a thing or a person involved in acting or operating as the subject agent in the stage of objective reality.
The universe began to exist 13.7 billion years ago, that is a fact; but that anything with a beginning has a cause, that is the general idea filtered from all facts of things we know to not have existed before but are now existing.
So, from facts we attain general ideas and then we apply these general ideas on facts again, other facts or new facts or facts in new circumstances, and arrive at the existence of another fact; like from the fact of a cadaver we arrive at the fact of a killing under foul circumstances, by applying the general idea that something that existed previously and now no longer, must have either self-extinguish itself, or on reaching its scheduled span of time duration it stops existing. or it is done in by another thing or person.
Now, man’s thinking must always be founded on his experience of facts.
That is why I always find atheist scientists to suffer the self-inflicted phobia or taboo of no longer thinking on their experience of facts, when they come to the point of the Big Bang, and they will declare with empty words a paragraph like the following:
A common question that is asked when considering a Creation point in time is What is before the Big Bang?''. This type is question is meaningless or without context since time was created with the Big Bang. It is similar to askingWhat is north of the North Pole?’’. The question itself can not be phrased in a meaningful way.*
*Although the words are from seemingly a writer not any to my impression hard core atheist, he also for being into science and philosophy of science has to trot out also words like the above, otherwise he might lose his job in a socalled academically non-sectarian university.
Ask the guy what he means by meaningless and what by meaningful, and tell him what lies north of the North Pole, answer: more direction farther north continuing from the point of the North Pole – what is wrong with that answer, that it is meaningless?
Meaningless? My buttocks, you have a meaningless brain!
That is a testimony to the general mood of academics nowadays, they stop thinking when it gets them closer to intelligent thinking grounded on logic and facts, closer to the existence of God as creator of the universe.
I am treading on dangerous grounds here, but as I am doing intelligent thinking grounded on logic and facts, I will take to saying my idea of what is possibility and what is probability.
First, we are going to talk in the realm of the mind, prescinding for the time being from the realm of objective reality outside our mind.
The concept of possibility of a thing existing is that it does not contain any self-contradictory sub-concepts. like for example an existing-nonexisting quadruped, or a simultaneously square-circle; but the first example is more impossible than the second example, for the corners of a very minute sub-atomic square can be already for macroscopic purposes from the part of man in practice already a circle.
Probability is the measure, again in our mind, of what likelihood there is outside our mind on meeting the existence of something in objective reality that corresponds to a possible concept of that thing which we have speculated on in our mind.
For example, it is possible to imagine in our mind that as I or you sit in a bench in a public park, a pebble will land on our head; so we take to sitting in a bench in a public park, will it happen that sooner or later a pebble will land on our head?
Certainly, when we sit long long hours in a bench under an open sky, in a public park on a holiday in spring with a lot of people in particular kids loitering in the park.
So, lesson here is that a possible thing or event or say fact can and will occur when circumstances are such that favor its occurrence.
Now, there is no such probability of the universe coming to existence because it has already come to existence, and science testifies to that, the universe has a beginning some 13.7 billion years ago.
What about whether a coin you toss up will land heads?
Of course it will land heads up several times when you toss it several times.
That has to do with an event that has happened already and will happen again.
What about that the universe will come into existence in our imagination that it has not yet come into existence?
That is essentially a piece of fictional thinking in our mind for entertainment purpose only, because the factual reality is that the universe has already started existing.
All such questions against reality are just trips into fictions for entertaining ourselves.
Now, the big question, what is the probability of there being a kingdom of God where the saved souls go to when they die the death?
That is not philosophy anymore, but theology which is thinking founded on faith in divine revelation, paging Linus2.
On philosophy alone we know that God as creator of the universe exists and He created the universe, that is why the universe is existing.
Here are some useful criteria (courtesy of Bill Vallicella) on the persuasiveness of arguments:
[A] deductive argument is probative just in case it is (i) valid in point of logical form, (ii) possesses true premises, and (iii) is free of informal fallacy. We can then say that an argument is normatively persuasive for a person if and only if it is both probative and has premises that can be accepted, without any breach of epistemic propriety, by the person in question. If the premises of a probative argument would be accepted by any reasonable person, I will call such an argument demonstrative. (“Has the ontological argument been refuted?”)
By “inferentially certain,” I take you to mean that there exists a demonstrative argument with the conclusion “God is the creator of the universe.” The best way to decide this would be for you to present the argument, in valid logical form, so that it may be assessed whether the premises are compelling. (You may, of course, offer support for the premises.)
I am a woman not a sir. All the post links are just theories and ideas. None of them are provable at all. One can see that creation has design and order which means that someone else must have designed it. We say God, you are trying not to. Just because your google search brought them up doesn’t make them facts, just ideas and theories. People like yourself want God to be proven on your so called term which will change with the wind. Which reminds me, how do you know if wind exists? Can’t “see” wind, don’t know where it starts or comes from. Maybe you need to ponder how you know if wind exists and you might come up with your own answer.
QUOTE=robwar;12088575 ]I am a woman not a sir. All the post links are just theories and ideas. None of them are provable at all. One can see that creation has design and order which means that someone else must have designed it. We say God, you are trying not to. Just because your google search brought them up doesn’t make them facts, just ideas and theories. People like yourself want God to be proven on your so called term which will change with the wind. Which reminds me, how do you know if wind exists? Can’t “see” wind, don’t know where it starts or comes from. Maybe you need to ponder how you know if wind exists and you might come up with your own answer. /QUOTE ]
Apologies for mistaking you for a guy, no offense intended.
You see, ma’am, that is a tall order you have imposed upon yourself to point out to me and prove it that there are only theories and not facts in the links I bring up as examples of what are facts, or that the universe having a beginning is a fact of science.
And you will reply with the similar charge against me, prove to you that the links I bring up are into facts and not theories.
That is a silly way to settle our differences, if any at all.
We should strike a reconciliation tack, because we are both assumedly into intelligent thinking grounded on logic and facts.
So, you bring up theories and I brought up what are facts.
And my contention is that intelligent thinking is done grounding oneself on logic working on facts.
Perhaps your contention is that intelligent thinking is done by grounding yourself on logic and theories.
But wait, what is your whole point in alleging that my google links are into theories and not into facts?
Let us look at your paragraph above, and see that it has several points.
I am a woman not a sir.
All the post links are just theories and ideas.
None of them are provable at all.
One can see that creation has design and order which means that someone else must have designed it.
We say God, you are trying not to.
Just because your google search brought them up doesn’t make them facts, just ideas and theories.
People like yourself want God to be proven on your so called term which will change with the wind.
Which reminds me, how do you know if wind exists?
Can’t “see” wind, don’t know where it starts or comes from.
Maybe you need to ponder how you know if wind exists and you might come up with your own answer.
Dear ma’am, as the topic is “Wanted: posters to talk on intelligent thinking grounded on logic and facts,” I will invite you to just choose one point in the above paragraph from you, for us to exchange thoughts on, of course in connection with the OP of the thread.
Design and order prove nothing. I have seen magnificent and complex designs formed only by running water. Your belief in a God, my belief in a God are products of faith…and quite often faith in what other human beings have said.
You may not see wind…just add a little smoke and you will. You can also clearly see the results of its existence. In all my years I have not seen a single thing that I could attribute only to a god of some sort.
Logic does not suffice. For it lacks content. Apparently, you may desire reason which contains content. Logic and reason both deal with rules of thought, but former fails in regard to content, while the latter embraces it.
Content considers the subjective condition of reason in regard to perspective. And this standpoint of perspective is conditioned on habit and requires law to bind such to objectivity and thus understand with the right questions which obtain understanding.
The concept of questioning as a link to understanding- excellently embraces prayer. By prayer we become partners with the fundamental perspective that giveth light.
In order to more fully understand this, you would have to question me, and that would be reasonable, for thereby you obtain content. And that is my point. You need to question the reality, and thus content is obtained. For we cannot create our own meaning, meaning is always received.
God is the creator of the universe, that is inferentially certain on intelligent thinking grounded on pure logic which is independent of any facts. It has to be like this since fact by definition is an inexplicable thing that is indisputably the case otherwise our logic is biased by the fact. Is there any fact from God perspective or that is just our limitation?
DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.