Author Topic: Science Has Found Proof of the Existence of God!  (Read 691 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Gwaredd Thomas

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 259
  • Reputation: +84/-16
  • Gender: Male
Science Has Found Proof of the Existence of God!
« on: November 18, 2017, 06:32:20 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • This is very compelling evidence, as even atheist and agnostic have come to believe in a Creator. These are well worth the watch even though they are from a "Christian" channel. But it doesn't matter since the words used are the scientists own.

    In the first video, there is a sound drop-out but you can still read the words. These are in HD.

    Science Has Found Proof of the Existence of God!


    Jesus Christ Is Real! ARCHAEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE Found By Scientists!


    Dduw bendithia chi! 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁷󠁬󠁳󠁿

    Offline cassini

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1289
    • Reputation: +646/-69
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Science Has Found Proof of the Existence of God!
    « Reply #1 on: November 21, 2017, 01:52:37 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0


  • Science has found proof of God in the Big Bang?

    First of all we have to know why 'science' 'proves' there was a Big Bang?

    Hubble interpreted red-shifts in the light of distant galaxies as an expanding universe. They then assumed by extrapolation that an initial explosion must have caused this expansion.

    Had any of them Read Copernicus's book they would have seen him speculate that if the universe was geocentric then it would expand like a carnival swing ride.

    So the Big Bang theory as portrayed today proves nothing, certainly not the Trinity.

    ‘Let us suppose, for the sake of argument, that we can refer “not improperly” to the initial singularity [the Big Bang] as an act of creation. What conclusions can we draw from it? That a Creator exists? Suppose still, for the sake of argument, that this, too, is conceded. The problem now is twofold. Is this creator theologically relevant? Can this creator serve the purpose of faith?
    My answer to the first question is decidedly negative. A creator proved by [Big Bang] cosmology is a cosmological agent that has none of the properties a believer attributes to God. Even supposing one can consistently say the cosmological creator is beyond space and time, this creature cannot be understood as a person or as the Word made flesh or as the Son of God come down to the world in order to save mankind. Pascal rightly referred to this latter Creator as the “God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, not of philosophers and scientists. To believe that cosmology proves the existence of a creator and then to attribute to this creator the properties of the Creation as a person is to make an illegitimate inference, to commit a category fallacy. My answer to the second question is also negative. Suppose we can grant what my answer to the first question intends to deny. That is, suppose we can understand the God of [Big Bang] cosmologists as the God of theologians and believers. Such a God cannot (and should not) serve the purpose of faith, because, being a God proved by cosmology he [or it] should be at the mercy of cosmology. Like any other scientific discipline that, to use Pope John Paul II’s words, proceeds with “methodological seriously,” cosmology is always revisable. It might then happen that a creator proved on the basis of a theory will be refuted when that theory is refuted. Can the God of believers be exposed to the risk of such an inconsistent enterprise as science?’[1]



    [1] Marcello Pera: The god of theologians and the god of astronomers, as found in The Cambridge Companion to Galileo, Cambridge University Press, 1998, pp.378, 379.

    Science cannot prove God exists. If it did then faith would be unnecessary.

    Yes, we can KNOW God exists by reason alone. Probably the only 'proofs' of God's existence known to man were those who witnessed Jesus's miracles. 









    Offline Clemens Maria

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 852
    • Reputation: +611/-60
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Science Has Found Proof of the Existence of God!
    « Reply #2 on: November 21, 2017, 04:01:23 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0

  • Yes, we can KNOW God exists by reason alone. Probably the only 'proofs' of God's existence known to man were those who witnessed Jesus's miracles.
    Yes we have St Thomas’ 5 proofs (which are undeniable by men of good will) and yet many still do not believe or at least they act as if it did not matter.

    But he said: No, father Abraham: but if one went to them from the dead, they will do penance. 
    And he said to him: If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they believe, if one rise again from the dead.  Luke 16:30-31

    Offline Gwaredd Thomas

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 259
    • Reputation: +84/-16
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Science Has Found Proof of the Existence of God!
    « Reply #3 on: November 21, 2017, 06:48:27 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0

  • Science has found proof of God in the Big Bang?

    First of all we have to know why 'science' 'proves' there was a Big Bang?

    Hubble interpreted red-shifts in the light of distant galaxies as an expanding universe. They then assumed by extrapolation that an initial explosion must have caused this expansion.

    Had any of them Read Copernicus's book they would have seen him speculate that if the universe was geocentric then it would expand like a carnival swing ride.

    So the Big Bang theory as portrayed today proves nothing, certainly not the Trinity.

    ‘Let us suppose, for the sake of argument, that we can refer “not improperly” to the initial singularity [the Big Bang] as an act of creation. What conclusions can we draw from it? That a Creator exists? Suppose still, for the sake of argument, that this, too, is conceded. The problem now is twofold. Is this creator theologically relevant? Can this creator serve the purpose of faith?
    My answer to the first question is decidedly negative. A creator proved by [Big Bang] cosmology is a cosmological agent that has none of the properties a believer attributes to God. Even supposing one can consistently say the cosmological creator is beyond space and time, this creature cannot be understood as a person or as the Word made flesh or as the Son of God come down to the world in order to save mankind. Pascal rightly referred to this latter Creator as the “God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, not of philosophers and scientists. To believe that cosmology proves the existence of a creator and then to attribute to this creator the properties of the Creation as a person is to make an illegitimate inference, to commit a category fallacy. My answer to the second question is also negative. Suppose we can grant what my answer to the first question intends to deny. That is, suppose we can understand the God of [Big Bang] cosmologists as the God of theologians and believers. Such a God cannot (and should not) serve the purpose of faith, because, being a God proved by cosmology he [or it] should be at the mercy of cosmology. Like any other scientific discipline that, to use Pope John Paul II’s words, proceeds with “methodological seriously,” cosmology is always revisable. It might then happen that a creator proved on the basis of a theory will be refuted when that theory is refuted. Can the God of believers be exposed to the risk of such an inconsistent enterprise as science?’[1]



    [1] Marcello Pera: The god of theologians and the god of astronomers, as found in The Cambridge Companion to Galileo, Cambridge University Press, 1998, pp.378, 379.

    Science cannot prove God exists. If it did then faith would be unnecessary.

    Yes, we can KNOW God exists by reason alone. Probably the only 'proofs' of God's existence known to man were those who witnessed Jesus's miracles.
    "So the Big Bang theory as portrayed today proves nothing, certainly not the Trinity."

    I believe you missed the whole point. While the so-called "Big Bang" theory was mentioned, if you go back and listen closely, you will find that at the end of the day, many of the scientists concluded that the universe was not the result of some "Big Bang"--which some scientists use as a pejorative term--but rather that the universe was created from nothing.

    As far as the Trinity is concerned, the objective was not to engage in theological debate but to explain the origins of the universe. Therefore your comment about the Trinity is rather out of place.
    Dduw bendithia chi! 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁷󠁬󠁳󠁿

    Offline Gwaredd Thomas

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 259
    • Reputation: +84/-16
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Science Has Found Proof of the Existence of God!
    « Reply #4 on: November 21, 2017, 07:05:32 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Yes we have St Thomas’ 5 proofs (which are undeniable by men of good will) and yet many still do not believe or at least they act as if it did not matter.

    But he said: No, father Abraham: but if one went to them from the dead, they will do penance.
    And he said to him: If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they believe, if one rise again from the dead.  Luke 16:30-31
    "Yes, we can KNOW God exists by reason alone".

    Well, that's a given, if one is Catholic. But what about the scoffers who look to science for all answers? The important point to be gained from this film is not St. Thomas' proofs but to try and educated people that what they thought they believed for decades is no longer tenable.

    Did you ever once consider the possible effect a film like this might just lead someone, somewhere to embrace the Faith? Most people, even most Catholics have never even heard of Thomas' five proofs. Therefore, a film like this is indeed important from the standpoint that while 'we' may not look favourably on some of the terms employed, nevertheless, may have a great impact on others.

    Incidentally, there is no need to quote scripture as I'm rather familiar with it. Nevertheless, your point is well taken. You're right, some will never believe because of the hardness of their hearts. However, many will, therefore, we need to pray for their conversion.
    Dduw bendithia chi! 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁷󠁬󠁳󠁿


    Offline Clemens Maria

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 852
    • Reputation: +611/-60
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Science Has Found Proof of the Existence of God!
    « Reply #5 on: November 21, 2017, 07:36:55 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Yes, I hope the material will help and yes, I will pray for the conversion of sinners.

    Offline Gwaredd Thomas

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 259
    • Reputation: +84/-16
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Science Has Found Proof of the Existence of God!
    « Reply #6 on: November 21, 2017, 08:17:26 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Yes, I hope the material will help and yes, I will pray for the conversion of sinners.
    Wonderful. God love you!
    Dduw bendithia chi! 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁷󠁬󠁳󠁿

    Online Neil Obstat

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 15658
    • Reputation: +7687/-410
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Science Has Found Proof of the Existence of God!
    « Reply #7 on: November 21, 2017, 10:47:47 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0

  • Science Has Found Proof of the Existence of God!


    .
    Minute 9:45 -- It all brings us to one question: The Universe... Is the earth flat?
    .
    And 11:20 -- Someone behind the scenes designed and created the Universe with a Flat Earth!
    .
    .--. .-.-.- ... .-.-.- ..-. --- .-. - .... . -.- .. -. --. -.. --- -- --..-- - .... . .--. --- .-- . .-. .- -. -.. -....- -....- .--- ..- ... - -.- .. -.. -.. .. -. --. .-.-.


    Offline cassini

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1289
    • Reputation: +646/-69
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Science Has Found Proof of the Existence of God!
    « Reply #8 on: November 22, 2017, 06:40:06 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • "So the Big Bang theory as portrayed today proves nothing, certainly not the Trinity."

    I believe you missed the whole point. While the so-called "Big Bang" theory was mentioned, if you go back and listen closely, you will find that at the end of the day, many of the scientists concluded that the universe was not the result of some "Big Bang"--which some scientists use as a pejorative term--but rather that the universe was created from nothing.

    As far as the Trinity is concerned, the objective was not to engage in theological debate but to explain the origins of the universe. Therefore your comment about the Trinity is rather out of place.

    'but rather that the universe was created from nothing.'

    Yes, but that does not mean there exists a Creator in science;

    ‘Then in the sixties [Hawking’s] work on “black holes” proved that, contrary to all received scientific wisdom, matter could go from something to nothing. But if matter could disappear, it was only a short step to theories that the opposite was true, and that the universe as we know it, in all its beauty and complexity, had emerged not from the mind of a Creator God, but from nothing.’ --- The Universe (Catholic newspaper), September 16, 2001.

    ‘One point to note is that there is no problem in principle with creating matter from a vacuum. Matter is just another form of energy, and can be produced if the energy input is balanced by something else. For the universe that “something else” could be negative energy in the gravitational field. If this were the case creating the universe would be like digging a hole – you’d have a pile of dirt (visible matter) balanced by a hole (gravitational field). The progress is miraculous only if you ignore the hole and insist the matter appeared “from nothing.”’---R.M. Hazen & J. Trefil: Science Matters, Cassel, 1993, p.155.

    The point I am making is do not rely on 'modern' science to promote the Catholic faith. All you do is give credibility to 'science.' Remember it was 'science' that claimed the universe is heliocentric, then that their solar system evolved, then that the universe is 15 billion years old and that all life on earth evolved. These 'scientific' claims led to BILLIONS dismissing the Scriptures as myth and that there is no need for a Creator, in spite of the dogma that God can be known from the things that are made by simple reason alone. But along came science and took over human reason WITHIN the Church especially when it came to popes.




    Offline Gwaredd Thomas

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 259
    • Reputation: +84/-16
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Science Has Found Proof of the Existence of God!
    « Reply #9 on: November 22, 2017, 07:44:59 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • .
    Minute 9:45 -- It all brings us to one question: The Universe... Is the earth flat?
    .
    And 11:20 -- Someone behind the scenes designed and created the Universe with a Flat Earth!
    .
    "The Universe... Is the earth flat"?

    WHAT!? Who said anything about a flat earth? I won't be trolled on this issue.
    Dduw bendithia chi! 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁷󠁬󠁳󠁿

    Offline Mithrandylan

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3152
    • Reputation: +3848/-157
    • Gender: Male
      • The Trad Forum
    Re: Science Has Found Proof of the Existence of God!
    « Reply #10 on: November 22, 2017, 10:02:21 AM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!0
  • "Yes, we can KNOW God exists by reason alone".

    Well, that's a given, if one is Catholic. But what about the scoffers who look to science for all answers? The important point to be gained from this film is not St. Thomas' proofs but to try and educated people that what they thought they believed for decades is no longer tenable.

    Did you ever once consider the possible effect a film like this might just lead someone, somewhere to embrace the Faith? Most people, even most Catholics have never even heard of Thomas' five proofs. Therefore, a film like this is indeed important from the standpoint that while 'we' may not look favourably on some of the terms employed, nevertheless, may have a great impact on others.

    Incidentally, there is no need to quote scripture as I'm rather familiar with it. Nevertheless, your point is well taken. You're right, some will never believe because of the hardness of their hearts. However, many will, therefore, we need to pray for their conversion.
    .
    Gwaredd,
    I didn't' reply but I read your "losing the faith" thread.  I didn't reply because it sounded to me that a better way to phrase the problem was that you were "out of touch with" (or perhaps never in touch with) the philosophical foundations of theism.  And I think your reply here shows that.
    .
    Science certainly can point to God, but not as powerfully as philosophy.  The reason is that science comes after philosophy.  I mean this logically.  The very existence of any natural science presupposes (that is, it depends upon) certain truths which science is unable, of its very nature, to prove.  These are metaphysical truths, certain axioms about the very nature of radical and ontological reality as such.  They include (for instance) the fact that things exist, the principle of non-contradiction (i.e., that a thing cannot both be and not be at once), the fact that change or motion "is a thing" (which science purports to measure), and at least the theoretical possibility of causality (though as we know, many scientists today will attempt to cast doubt on this).  Without these philosophical presuppositions, there is no science.  They all come before science.  And science is incoherent without granting them as true.
    .
    None of these things have anything at all to do with religion as such.  That's why we find the ancient Greeks discussing them, despite the fact that their religious views were not only wrong, but were highly primitive, imaginative, and anthropomorphic.  
    .
    One of the greatest mistakes of Christian philosophers and apologists (including Catholic ones) today is that they've given away the store to materialism.  They've ceded science's ultimate blunder, mainly, the idea that the only real knowledge that can be had is empirical knowledge.  Of course, empirical knowledge can't even prove this claim, so it's a non-starter, but that hasn't stopped loads of Christian apologists from making ultimately failing arguments against atheism because they are content to argue God as a probability rather than to demonstrate his metaphysical necessity.  You can prove God, not as a hypothesis which is more likely than any other, but as a necessary logical conclusion given a certain set of non-religious philosophical premises.  That is what St. Thomas did-- so his proofs are not "good for Catholics", they're good for atheists.  They're good for people who wouldn't give religion the time of day, because they don't rely on religion in the slightest to make their case.  They rely on the philosophical axioms mentioned above-- non-contradiction, the fact of change, and the rest.  
    .
    What I would recommend is looking into Dr. Ed Feser.  He is a contemporary Thomistic philosopher.  He talks about this all the time-- the fact that St. Thomas' proofs (which are really Aristotle's proofs perfected) have never been overcome; not by philosophy, and certainly not by science.  He has several books (and a blog). I would recommend The Last Superstition especially, since it is entirely devoted to exactly what we're talking about here: how neither philosophy nor science has ever answered St. Thomas's completely nonreligious arguments for the existence of God, and that atheism has made strawmen out of those arguments and not engaged what they actually say.  I actually think all Catholics should read that book, because there is a very noticeable popular misunderstanding even among Catholics about what these arguments actually say.  For instance, the argument from motion is not that God had to "push over the first domino," and the argument from cause is not that an infinite regress is impossible (because it isn't, depending on the type of causality we're considering), the argument from design is not that "things look complicated so they must have been designed by a higher intelligence", etc.
    .
    Anyways, I'm glad that you think that these videos are useful.  I think that modern science does have some very interesting things to say about the existence of God, and those arguments do have their place, but their place is entirely subordinate to philosophical arguments for the existence of God from reason.  Because at best, a scientific argument for God can only prove that he's likely as a percentage, which can never overcome atheism, since there's always the real possibility that God doesn't exist.  The Aristotelian-Thomist proofs avoid this dilemma completely: if their premises are true, then God exists as a matter of logical demonstration, not merely as the most likely hypothesis among several.

    ETA: Here's Dr. Feser's blog to get your feet wet: http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/
    More Catholic Discussion: http://thetradforum.com


    Offline Gwaredd Thomas

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 259
    • Reputation: +84/-16
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Science Has Found Proof of the Existence of God!
    « Reply #11 on: November 22, 2017, 10:18:30 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • .
    Gwaredd,
    I didn't' reply but I read your "losing the faith" thread.  I didn't reply because it sounded to me that a better way to phrase the problem was that you were "out of touch with" (or perhaps never in touch with) the philosophical foundations of theism.  And I think your reply here shows that.
    .
    Science certainly can point to God, but not as powerfully as philosophy.  The reason is that science comes after philosophy.  I mean this logically.  The very existence of any natural science presupposes (that is, it depends upon) certain truths which science is unable, of its very nature, to prove.  These are metaphysical truths, certain axioms about the very nature of radical and ontological reality as such.  They include (for instance) the fact that things exist, the principle of non-contradiction (i.e., that a thing cannot both be and not be at once), the fact that change or motion "is a thing" (which science purports to measure), and at least the theoretical possibility of causality (though as we know, many scientists today will attempt to cast doubt on this).  Without these philosophical presuppositions, there is no science.  They all come before science.  And science is incoherent without granting them as true.
    .
    None of these things have anything at all to do with religion as such.  That's why we find the ancient Greeks discussing them, despite the fact that their religious views were not only wrong, but were highly primitive, imaginative, and anthropomorphic.  
    .
    One of the greatest mistakes of Christian philosophers and apologists (including Catholic ones) today is that they've given away the store to materialism.  They've ceded science's ultimate blunder, mainly, the idea that the only real knowledge that can be had is empirical knowledge.  Of course, empirical knowledge can't even prove this claim, so it's a non-starter, but that hasn't stopped loads of Christian apologists from making ultimately failing arguments against atheism because they are content to argue God as a probability rather than to demonstrate his metaphysical necessity.  You can prove God, not as a hypothesis which is more likely than any other, but as a necessary logical conclusion given a certain set of non-religious philosophical premises.  That is what St. Thomas did-- so his proofs are not "good for Catholics", they're good for atheists.  They're good for people who wouldn't give religion the time of day, because they don't rely on religion in the slightest to make their case.  They rely on the philosophical axioms mentioned above-- non-contradiction, the fact of change, and the rest.  
    .
    What I would recommend is looking into Dr. Ed Feser.  He is a contemporary Thomistic philosopher.  He talks about this all the time-- the fact that St. Thomas' proofs (which are really Aristotle's proofs perfected) have never been overcome; not by philosophy, and certainly not by science.  He has several books (and a blog). I would recommend The Last Superstition especially, since it is entirely devoted to exactly what we're talking about here: how neither philosophy nor science has ever answered St. Thomas's completely nonreligious arguments for the existence of God, and that atheism has made strawmen out of those arguments and not engaged what they actually say.  I actually think all Catholics should read that book, because there is a very noticeable popular misunderstanding even among Catholics about what these arguments actually say.  For instance, the argument from motion is not that God had to "push over the first domino," and the argument from cause is not that an infinite regress is impossible (because it isn't, depending on the type of causality we're considering), the argument from design is not that "things look complicated so they must have been designed by a higher intelligence", etc.
    .
    Anyways, I'm glad that you think that these videos are useful.  I think that modern science does have some very interesting things to say about the existence of God, and those arguments do have their place, but their place is entirely subordinate to philosophical arguments for the existence of God from reason.  Because at best, a scientific argument for God can only prove that he's likely as a percentage, which can never overcome atheism, since there's always the real possibility that God doesn't exist.  The Aristotelian-Thomist proofs avoid this dilemma completely: if their premises are true, then God exists as a matter of logical demonstration, not merely as the most likely hypothesis among several.

    ETA: Here's Dr. Feser's blog to get your feet wet: http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/
    You have written some interesting comments. However, you seem to imply that I'm some sort philosophical nincompoop. I have all five volumes of St. Thomas' Summa Theologica and over the years I have referred to them often on questions of Faith. I'm also aware of the fact that Augustine augmented his works on the writings of Aristotle by adding to them what Aristotle lacked. God always takes what is profane and makes it holy.

    My brief struggle with my Faith was just that brief. I no longer entertain any doubts. In discussions with my priest, he pointed out to me the experience of one going through what's commonly known as "a dark night of the soul" where everything seems lost and nothing makes any sense. It's somewhat akin to what Sister Lucy referred to as "diabolical disorientation". So there you have it. I'm over it and it's done. End of story.
    Dduw bendithia chi! 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁷󠁬󠁳󠁿

    Offline Mithrandylan

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3152
    • Reputation: +3848/-157
    • Gender: Male
      • The Trad Forum
    Re: Science Has Found Proof of the Existence of God!
    « Reply #12 on: November 22, 2017, 10:53:09 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Gwaredd,

    It was my mistake to make things personal-- I didn't mean to imply that, and I suppose I didn't need to start the way I did (by bringing up the earlier thread).  My apologies, and you're right-- "end of story."
    .
    I don't think you're a philosophical nincompoop.  I was replying mainly to your reply to Clemens Maria.  Clemens mentioned St. Thomas' proofs, and you replied that they were good for Catholics.  I took that to mean that you found something about St. Thomas' proofs to be insufficient for dealing with naturalists and materialists, so my reply was written in response to that impression that I got from your post.
    .
    But even that being said, I don't retract anything that I said regarding the superiority of philosophical proofs over scientific ones.  Now I'm speaking mainly for myself, and my own experience.  I think that we often need help in traversing what the older philosophers (like Aquinas) have to say.  One thing that's become crystallized for me over time (as I've read more and more Thomistic philosophers) is how scholasticism really has its own language.  Not Latin, I mean it presupposes familiarity with a very rich and intricate network of jargonic items terms and concepts which are totally unique to it (act and potency, the simultaneity of essentially ordered causal series vs. the chronology of accidentally ordered series, etc.).  Understanding those concepts and understanding how Aquinas and Aristotle view them is the foundation to the five proofs.  The five proofs themselves are merely summaries written in a textbook (keep in mind that that's what the Summa is: a textbook for seminarians), and they're emptied of all their force when they are approached without a really firm understanding of the concepts which support them.  This is, incidentally, why atheist philosophers, materialists, and Humean skeptics have so utterly failed to even engage Aristotle and Aquinas's arguments, because they are completely ignorant of those concepts.  So, when they attempt to engage them, they cannot help but erect strawmen because they fundamentally mistake the proofs as saying something that they just aren't saying.  This is an understanding that I personally lacked for quite a while, and it's really only been over the last three years or so that it's become clearer to me how completely avoidant atheists and the rest are of what Aristotle and Aquinas actually have to say.  We can actually grant the big bang, evolution, and all the rest if we want-- and St. Thomas' proofs would be completely undisturbed.  Completely.  Because nothing he has to say involves the universe having a beginning-- he even goes out of his way to say that it's stupid to presume the universe had a beginning when making a philosophical argument for God. 
    .
    Anyways, sorry if I come across as long-winded.  I myself am always personally very excited about the rich philosophical tradition we've inherited, and how it's something that really stands on its own, supported by the weight of reason.
    More Catholic Discussion: http://thetradforum.com

    Offline Gwaredd Thomas

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 259
    • Reputation: +84/-16
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Science Has Found Proof of the Existence of God!
    « Reply #13 on: November 22, 2017, 11:08:47 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Gwaredd,

    It was my mistake to make things personal-- I didn't mean to imply that, and I suppose I didn't need to start the way I did (by bringing up the earlier thread).  My apologies, and you're right-- "end of story."
    .
    I don't think you're a philosophical nincompoop.  I was replying mainly to your reply to Clemens Maria.  Clemens mentioned St. Thomas' proofs, and you replied that they were good for Catholics.  I took that to mean that you found something about St. Thomas' proofs to be insufficient for dealing with naturalists and materialists, so my reply was written in response to that impression that I got from your post.
    .
    But even that being said, I don't retract anything that I said regarding the superiority of philosophical proofs over scientific ones.  Now I'm speaking mainly for myself, and my own experience.  I think that we often need help in traversing what the older philosophers (like Aquinas) have to say.  One thing that's become crystallized for me over time (as I've read more and more Thomistic philosophers) is how scholasticism really has its own language.  Not Latin, I mean it presupposes familiarity with a very rich and intricate network of jargonic items terms and concepts which are totally unique to it (act and potency, the simultaneity of essentially ordered causal series vs. the chronology of accidentally ordered series, etc.).  Understanding those concepts and understanding how Aquinas and Aristotle view them is the foundation to the five proofs.  The five proofs themselves are merely summaries written in a textbook (keep in mind that that's what the Summa is: a textbook for seminarians), and they're emptied of all their force when they are approached without a really firm understanding of the concepts which support them.  This is, incidentally, why atheist philosophers, materialists, and Humean skeptics have so utterly failed to even engage Aristotle and Aquinas's arguments, because they are completely ignorant of those concepts.  So, when they attempt to engage them, they cannot help but erect strawmen because they fundamentally mistake the proofs as saying something that they just aren't saying.  This is an understanding that I personally lacked for quite a while, and it's really only been over the last three years or so that it's become clearer to me how completely avoidant atheists and the rest are of what Aristotle and Aquinas actually have to say.  We can actually grant the big bang, evolution, and all the rest if we want-- and St. Thomas' proofs would be completely undisturbed.  Completely.  Because nothing he has to say involves the universe having a beginning-- he even goes out of his way to say that it's stupid to presume the universe had a beginning when making a philosophical argument for God.  
    .
    Anyways, sorry if I come across as long-winded.  I myself am always personally very excited about the rich philosophical tradition we've inherited, and how it's something that really stands on its own, supported by the weight of reason.
    I agree wholeheartedly with you regarding the philosophical over the scientific. Since:

    "[if] science stands opposed to religion, it is not because of anything contained in either the premises or the conclusions of the great scientific theories. They do not mention a word about God. They do not treat of any faith beyond the one that they themselves demand. They compel no ritual beyond the usual rituals of academic life, and these involve nothing more than the worship of what is widely worshipped. Confident assertions by scientists that in the privacy of their chambers they have demonstrated that God does not exist have nothing to do with science, and even less to do with God's existence.

    "In all this, two influential ideas are at work. The first is that there is something answering to the name of science. The second is that something answering to the name of science offers sophisticated men and women a coherent vision of the universe. The second claim is false if the first claim is. And the first claim is false. Nothing answers to the name of science. And Nothing has no particular method either, beyond the immemorial dictates of common sense.

    "Like democracy or justice, science is a word exhausted by its examples. We have been vouchsafed four powerful and profound scientific theories since the great scientific revolution of the West was set in motion in the seventeenth century-Newtonian mechanics, James Clerk Maxwell's theory of the electromagnetic field, special and general relativity, and quantum mechanics. These are isolated miracles, great mountain peaks surrounded by a range of low, furry foothills. The theories that we possess are "magnificent, profound, difficult, sometimes phenomenally accurate," as the distinguished mathematician Roger Penrose has observed, but, as he at once adds, they also comprise a "tantalizingly inconsistent scheme of things."

    "On these and many other points as well, the great scientific theories have lapsed. The more sophisticated the theories, the more inadequate they are. This is a reason to cherish them. They have enlarged and not diminished our sense of the sublime.

    "No scientific theory touches on the mysteries that the religious tradition addresses. A man asking why his days are short is not disposed to turn to algebraic quantum field theory for the answer. The answers that prominent scientific figures have offered are remarkable in their shallowness. The hypothesis that we are nothing more than cosmic accidents has been widely accepted by the scientific community. Figures as diverse as Bertrand Russell, Jacques Monod, Steven Weinberg, and Richard Dawkins have said it is so. It is an article of their faith, one advanced with the confidence of men convinced that nature has equipped them to face realities the rest of us cannot bear to contemplate. There is not the slightest reason to think this so.

    "While science has nothing of value to say on the great and aching questions of life, death, love, and meaning, what the religious traditions of mankind have said forms a coherent body of thought. The yearnings of the human soul are not in vain. There is a system of belief adequate to the complexity of experience. There is recompense for suffering. A principle beyond selfishness is at work in the cosmos. All will be well."

    ~David Berlinski
    The Devil's Delusion
    Dduw bendithia chi! 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁷󠁬󠁳󠁿

    Offline cassini

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1289
    • Reputation: +646/-69
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Science Has Found Proof of the Existence of God!
    « Reply #14 on: November 22, 2017, 11:12:27 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0

  • Well said Mithrandylan. I did not cop that Gwaredd was the writer of the thread 'losing the Faith.' I am happy Gwaredd that your worry was only temporary.

    For myself, I could never get into Thomism too deeply, I leave that to those blessed with a better understanding than mine. I prefer to deal with theology when it comes to creation for that is the only way we can understand the Creative act. Philosophy is the only route for initial conversion of naturalists I agree, but as I said that does not necessarily lead to the Trinity. And it is only the Trinity that leads to salvation, not the god or gods of others. Knowing there is a God is only the start.

    ‘If anyone does not confess that the world and all things which are contained in it, both spiritual and material, as regards their whole substance, have been produced by God from nothing, let him be anathema.’ --- Vatican I (D. 1805) As St. Thomas says: Creation does not mean the building up of a composite thing from pre-existing principles but it means that the composite is created so that it is brought into being at the same time with all its principles. (ST, I, Q 45, a 4, ad 2)

    And that is impossible with a 15 billion year evolution that is never finished.

    Which brings me back to the subject that one does not need to be a great thinker to figure out God is the Creator of all from the things He made. And that is why every tribe on earth from the very beginning knew there had to be a God or gods. But it seems from this video, man had to wait for science to show us nature itself could never have brought into being the world as witnessed by man today.

    But that video showed how 'science' took over from theology.

    Everything 'scientists discovered' already exists. This video offers a heretical 'planet' earth, and an evolution of everything. In it they offer the opinion that Jesus flung the stars out there and something must have 'MONKEYED WITH PHYSICS, CHEMISTRY and BIOLOGY.' That said it all, God merely overlooked evolution and every so often made nature do the impossible. In other words it made a myth out of the dogma above and of Genesis itself.

    The term ‘science’ is derived from the word scientia, which in its proper sense means knowledge. There are however four different ways man determines and accumulates knowledge. Beginning with the simplest source and rising to the highest level, these grades are, (1): knowledge of the building blocks of the world surmised through the senses, something even animals are capable of to an extent; (2): knowledge ascertained by observation and experiment, critically tested, systematised and brought under general principles. Called the empirical or inductive method, this is organised observation, the quest to find how things work, the search for information and laws, whether in its broad features or in its modern refinements; reserved of course to intelligent man. (3): knowledge acquired through philosophy, the search for causes through reason alone. Finally; (4): comprehension from theology, our understanding of things from both reason and the revelations of God, and how He relates to the universe and man. Theology is held by the Catholic Church as the Queen of all sciences, for if science is knowledge of things from their causes, theology is the highest grade of all thought since it traces its knowledge to the ultimate cause of all things, God. Theology is the study of God in the first place, and in a secondary manner the relationship of His creatures to Him. Theology is based on the revealed word (the Bible), and the Catholic Church is its mouthpiece. 

    In my next post I will show what could be called the theological account of creation over 6 days and not a 15 billion year old big bang evolution.
     

     

    Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16