Finding God through Faith and Reason - How Can You Prove Gods Existence? Part 3

[BeatMasterPhil]

My last response got a little long and wanted to add a thank you for the discussion. It is always great to have a discussion with someone that is level-headed, which you don't find to many of them out here on the interwebs. This discussion definitely helps me to strengthen and diversify my knowledge and hopefully strengthen any convictions that are confirmed through it. Thanks :)

[BeatMasterPhil]

....continued...

Something about that sounds awfully familiar. Didn't someone say all that and say it more poetically a long time ago?

"In the beginning was the Word

and the Word was *with God,

and the Word *was God.

He was in the beginning with God.

All things came to be through him,

And without him nothing came to be."

But I don't think Hawking realized he was paraphrasing that.

[BeatMasterPhil]

Thought this way funny. Mike Flynn: So according to Hawking, there was a beginning; and in the beginning was the Law and the Law was all there was; and without the Law nothing came to be. And the Law was an immaterial being that was pure λογοϛ. And this Law gave form to the void of pure potency, prime matter.

[BeatMasterPhil]

It seems like the statements that were made are ones that cannot be physically proven and most can't think of any ways that it could ever be proven. Yet we have metaphysics that has given many reasonable answers to the being of the world and the beginning of the universe yet it seems others want to try their hardest to fight the other way since they can't accept that there is a necessary being. Even by using unreasonable statements compared to the metaphysical reasoning and statements.

[BeatMasterPhil]

It just doesn't seem reasonable to use something that is "something" to show that something came from nothing. Gravity comes from something and would not exist with a true nothing (that which there is no such thing as). So I'm not seeing the connection between gravity and coming from nothing. It also seems weird that other physicists and colleagues are having a hard time accepting a good portion of the statements.

[BeatMasterPhil]

He moves into metaphysics when he starts making statements about “nothing” and “creation” and “the universe creating itself.” The statement: “Because there is a law such as gravity, the Universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the Universe exists, why we exist.” If he says that the universe came from nothing, then there is no reason to bring in gravity since gravity is a real something.

[BeatMasterPhil]

I am also still trying to figure out how you can bring gravity in this as a proof, since gravity is of this world and would not exist in nothing, or "that which there is no such thing."

[BeatMasterPhil]

Is very interesting in how it is argued that something can come from nothing and just spontaneously happened. It seems like how Hawking looks and uses gravity as an example is a little far-fetched, but I will have to read the book to get exactly what he is saying. Because I wouldn't think that someone can reasonably say that gravity comes from nothing, gravity is contingent upon something else, or at least how I understand gravity. But I digress, enough for one day! Have a great night, sunset!

[sunset261]

@BeatMasterPhil actually I don't think it's very far-fetched. Gravity is a lot more complex than most people think. It's more than "things go down" gravity is actually caused by the curvature of spacetime. Things like black holes which suck in all light are results of massive spacetime curvature. In addition to Hawking and Barren also listen to the lecture "a universe from nothing" by lawrence krauss. Agreed, good night to you too.

[BeatMasterPhil]

@sunset261 From what I am gathering, it seems that Hawking isn't really saying that something came from absolute nothing, not nothing, but absolute nothing. The main statement seems to say that the universe came from something, which is believable but still doesn't explain how those somethings came from absolutely nothing or, "that which there is no such thing as." As has been mentioned, it seems that when Hawking moves from physics to metaphysics there are some unreasonable statements made.

[sunset261]

@BeatMasterPhil where exactly does he move from physics to metaphysics, or say any unreasonable statements?

[BeatMasterPhil]

@sunset261 It also seems that Dr. Hawkings is completely rejecting the principle of metapyphics that: "From nothing only nothing comes". He may be able to show how a universe has "unfolded" by a law of gravity or something, but that still doesn't get to beginning in how something came from nothing as he is stating that the universe had a distinct beginning. It just seems like he is trying to solve a metaphysical problem by using physics, which seems could get one in trouble.

[sunset261]

@BeatMasterPhil what? metaphysics is philosophy, not science. There is no such thing as a metaphysical problem. Philosophy as Hawking states, does not keep up with modern scientific discoveries.

[BeatMasterPhil]

@sunset261 You got it, exactly. Hawkings moves from physics to metaphysics (philosophy) and tries to use physics to solve philosophical problems. Which is why some of the statements come out sounding pretty unreasonable and absurd. That is not to say that physics and science are bad, they are both very good. But both science and philosophy must solve their own problems reasonably and then come to a reasonable harmony between both. That is the amazing thing about faith and reason is the harmony.

[sunset261]

@BeatMasterPhil What there is abosolutely NO harmony between reason and faith. In fact, they are polar opposites. In one you come to conclusions based on evidence and rational thinking and in the other you come to conclusion based on nothing!

[BeatMasterPhil]

@sunset261 Unfortunately that is the thinking of many in this day and age. Why would John Paul II release an entire encyclical entitled "Fides et Ratio" or Faith and Reason, where he shows the harmony that must be found between both or you run into trouble. I am actually in a Catholic Seminary in OH and our first 4 years out of 9 total to ordination (God willing) are spent studying and majoring in philosophy. If faith is opposite of reason why do we study reason non-religious Plato and Aristotle

[sunset261]

@BeatMasterPhil Your question is if faith is the opposite of reason, then why do you study plato and aristotle? I never said that one couldn't have both i'm just saying that you can't have use both together at the same time as reasoning relies on evidence where as faith relies on nothing.

[BeatMasterPhil]

@sunset261 I see what you are getting at. When you can show through reason the need for an existence of God; that is then faith and reason working together. Reason is in harmony with your faith in God. Reason and faith are not at odds or against eachother. Some might mention things that are pure revelation and faith. One of those such things are the belief of the Trinity, or 3 God's in one. But we go to reason, and reason cannot disprove this, so we see that reason is not against that belief.

[BeatMasterPhil]

@sunset261 Some are very surprised by this, but within the Catholic church, if something can be proved as unreasonable through reason and logic. If there is anything that reason says one thing and faith says another, that is not in Catholic church teaching. I know it is very surprising. Actually, when faith and reason are at odds is the doctrine of two-fold truth from the Averroes family in the 12th century. They would have times were faith said 1 thing and reason another, theyd "believe" both

[sunset261]

@BeatMasterPhil that's bull you can't hold two opposing viewpoints at the same time. The very denial of reason in the catholic church is clearly evident to most including myself when the pope does things like tell people that condoms will spread AIDS. Which is an outright lie. Same with their stance on homosexuality, that they need to be fixed or that there is something wrong with them.

[BeatMasterPhil]

@sunset261 Exactly, that's what I said, the Catholic church *does not* hold to Averroes' two-fold doctrine. The Catholic church believes that faith and reason *cannot* be opposed to eachother. Sorry if that wasn't evident. I don't know if I could see the Pope say directly that condoms spread AIDS. What I could believe is that the use of condoms can lead to increased sexual activity wit more partners, which can lead to the spread of AIDS. Like contraception can make it easier to cheat, etc.

[sunset261]

@BeatMasterPhil He actually did say that condoms would only make the AIDS epidemic in africa worse. No matter how many sexual partners, Condoms reduces the chance of getting AIDS by around 80 percent. Contraception could make it easier to cheat but so what? If a person was going to cheat in the first place, then their heart is not really in the relationship and would only see the child as a ball and chain.

[BeatMasterPhil]

@sunset261 You are starting to dig deeper now which is good. We start to see beyond the condom argument and see there is a disordering above this causing one to want to cheat and therefore use contraception (condom, etc.) Similar to having many of having many sexual partners. But I don't feel completely qualified yet to have a complete discussion on where some of the thoughts I would like to write could lead us. I don't want to shortchange myself or anyone. I got lots to learn :)

[BeatMasterPhil]

@sunset261 Remember when trying to get the complete idea of what the Pope was saying it is important to understand exactly what he is saying from beginning to end. I don't know if you saw the funny youtube video about "The Pope said we could have the condom." It is kind of funny and actually does a decent job of getting across what exactly he was getting at.

[sunset261]

@BeatMasterPhil The pope said condoms could only be justified in SOME cases such as male prostitutes. I can guarantee you that most people in Africa are not male prostitutes. He can't seem to admit that condoms can be morally justified period, for anybody because they greatly reduce the risk of AIDS, a life-threatening disease, by a substantial amount.

[BeatMasterPhil]

@sunset261 Just on the surface, it doesn't seem that condoms are going to solve the life-threatening disease of AIDS. As you alluded to with the cheating spouse, there is something deeper that needs to be looked at. I completely agree with the teaching on contraception, I have come to this via both my own experiences and through the reasoning of the church for the teaching. When you read exactly why contraception is immoral it is completely reasonable and makes sense. Which is what I like.

[sunset261]

@BeatMasterPhil Again though. no matter what, condoms reduce risk of AIDS by 80 percent and you're trying to tell me that that wouldn't greatly help the aids epidemic? Contraception is not immoral. Some people want to have sex without having children. Why shouldn't they?

[BeatMasterPhil]

@sunset261 I guess it just seems to me that there is/should be a better way to help the AIDS epidemic than a physical thing like a condom. It seems like more of a patch that could hopefully help the epidemic instead of diving in deeper to the problem. But then again, I guess you could get to the issue of the ends not justifying the means with the condom. One birth control, there is natural birth control that is super effective, that can be used if you can't support a child at this time.

[sunset261]

@BeatMasterPhil Well if you can invent a patch that reduces risk of AIDS then more power to you but as of right now, not having sex at all and having sex with a condom, are the best things that can be used to stunt the epidemic, and seeing as how having sex is a natural human desire, people aren't going to stop having sex so the best way to stunt the epidemic would be option number 2.

[BeatMasterPhil]

@sunset261 Yes those could be 2 posed choices you list and actually, you are correct that we as human beings are not meant to stop having sex, but actually I would say that keeping sex in its proper place and order in the natural world would be a huge first step. If that is done in a large manner it seems that that could have a huge effect on the spread of AIDS. But now we would have to theorize on if we could even go in that direction with our sex drenched culture. Well, bed time for me.

[BeatMasterPhil]

Here actually seemed like a good start to discussing some of Stephen Hawking's book. I had heard that Fr. Robert Barren was a great guy to hear talk and also has done some good writing. So may have to read both Hawking and Fr. Barren soon.

[BeatMasterPhil]

It seems that in a basic sense that with the Quantum Theory, it says that something can come from nothing, but the explanation of how this can happen is not formed yet. It seems like that missing piece could be our uncaused cause (God). But we know that we will not find God in this world, since through reason we find him to have no potentiality (matter) and won't know God intimately through reason alone. We know God most intimately when we bring both reason and faith together. Interesting Stuff

[BeatMasterPhil]

I am understanding "nothing" as far I see. It is nothing like you say. It is the "nothing" that is beyond our comprehension. Beyond the nothing that we can conceive I guess one could say?

[sunset261]

6:10 What the fuck? you just jump there. You were fine with the whole time is not infinite thing but there is no logical connection between time being finite and time needing a creator. howabout this? something created time. To create is an action. Action by definition needs time to be present to occur. Therefore time existed before time? that is a contradiction therefore the opposite is true. Time was not created.

[BeatMasterPhil]

@sunset261 Time is brought into being by "something" outside of time and space, which is said to be God. Since exactly like you say, for creating time you need time to create. God does not "create" in how we think about creating. In the end, God comes down to being "BEing" itself. As it is necessary for BEing itself to exist before everything else can have being. Because if there was not something that was not brought into existence by anything else we would not exist, with is an absurdity.

[sunset261]

@BeatMasterPhil Again if your definition of god is that god is BEing than why even call it God in the first place. God as most understand it would a be an all powerful thing that actually has a personality and thinks and talks. Read stephens hawking's new book, which explains how a god is not required for the universe to come into being. But if your definition of god is simply BEing, don't call it God because then it carries all of the baggage that the word God has.

[BeatMasterPhil]

@sunset261 Sorry the jump to God being "BEing itself" was a bit much. Just going off the fact that there must be something that is not caused by anything else, sinse a beginningless and infinite universe is an impossibility, there must be "something" that exists out of its own necessity. Call it whatever you want, but since it is not caused by anything else one could reason that it is all-powerful, but you really don't need to get to that point to use reason to show that this existence exists.

[BeatMasterPhil]

@sunset261 When people get caught in the fact that God is "a thing that actually has a personality and think and talks" that can lead to trouble. Since if that was true He would not be the uncaused cause that is outside of all space and time. God is unlike anything we can conceive, that is what makes it so hard. We can use reason to show that "God" is necessary, but actually nailing down and describing God using things of this world is impossible.

[BeatMasterPhil]

@sunset261 That is where we get to the point where with time being finite there must be something outside and time and space that starts all. If it was inside of time and space it would then be required to be contingent upon something else to exist for it to exist. Call it whatever you want. But something that is the cause of all the come into existence, in the series and history of existence, many would call that God. But whatever you call it does not change what it is.

[sunset261]

@BeatMasterPhil No actually, the universe can come from nothing. due to laws such as gravity, I urge you to read the grand design by Stephen Hawkings in which he elaborates on this subject. the main things that you seem to not be grasping (i'm sorry if this sounds insulting to you) is the contradictions in things like :outside of space" or "before time" The thing is nothing isn't actually what most people think of as nothing. in empty space there are still things like quantum fields.

[BeatMasterPhil]

@sunset261 Don't worry I don't take any offense, I still have lots to learn and in fact I will never know it all. I find it is fascinating to be able to see how reasonable it is for God to exist. I still don't understand how something can come from nothing? It seems like it would still be contingent upon something. Because if it is something that needs nothing else to exist, then it would seem that that would be "God". Since it would start the chain of everything else's existence.

[sunset261]

@BeatMasterPhil even so if your definition of god is "whatever created in universe" then why not just call it, "the cause of the universe" instead of God with god you have to deal with things like the bible and various religious denominations. This video is referring specifically to the god of the bible. Even if the universe didn't create itself there is still no evidence to suggest that whatever caused it was the specific god of the bible.

[BeatMasterPhil]

@sunset261 You can call God, "the cause of the universe" and I would say that is a true and reasonable statement. I think it is easier for some to start with reason and show through logic that "the cause of the universe, that cannot be part of it" can and does exist; and many call this the name "God". Don't start by worrying with the Bible, reason through God's existence first if that is easier. Worry about the revelation through prophets and the Bible secondarily if that is easier.

[AlwaysSunni]

Whose voice is this? It sounds like this guy is explaining to a baby. Emphasizing too many words, laughing etc. It's kind of annoying.