My proof of God's existence

[Snarf]

From part of the book I'm writing:

The most effective springboard for proving God’s existence lies in perhaps the oldest attempt thereof, that of Aristotle’s Prime Mover. Restated, Aristotle declared that ever motion is the consequence of prior motions, a sort of ancient precursor to the Law of Conservation of Energy. Because infinity is an irrational concept, it is preposterous to think of each motion as being the result of an infinite number of prior motions. Therefore, there must have been a first motion instigated by a first mover, itself being unmoved. Aristotle called this prime mover Theos, a root surviving in English words such as theology.

Despite its simplicity, the Prime Mover theory has its faults. The appellations of “theos” (God) or “mover” imply sentience and awareness within the First Cause, whereas the raw principles of the “proof” include no insight into the nature of the Prime Mover, much less firm ground for such anthropomorphisms. The atheist camp could rightly affirm that the universe in its present state could very well be no different from the theistic model than if the prime mover were simply an alarm clock or some other such automaton. To insist that a God exists as an actual intelligent force simply because reality exists is to deny the possibility that the universe exists sans God, and this is a grave logical trespass. To prove that there is a prime mover does nothing to prove that there is an intelligent force behind creation.

However, augmenting the ontological discussion of God’s existence is possible with insights into modern cosmology. Physics dictates that the universe has been expanding as three extended spatial dimension and one extended time dimension for roughly the past thirteen billion years. Prior to expansion (the big bang), the universe existed as an incomprehensibly small (roughly Planck size, or 10^-37 meters) particle with an incomprehensibly high density. To speak of time before the bang, exemplia gratia twenty billion years ago, is devoid of meaning as there had yet to be a dimension of time with which such a period could be measured.

However, this runs into a glaring deficiency of the scientific consensus. We can rationally infer what happened after the bang (ATB) down to fractions of a second on the order of 10^-39, but to go further to a time before the bang results in a static particle devoid of any time at all. Consequently, although we can measure from a certain point that can be deemed “the beginning”, it is scientifically inconceivable to suggest that the beginning actually comprised a moment in time. This is because the flow of time is inversely proportional to density, and at its earliest stage time would virtually not flow at all. Consequently, we can potentially speak of events after the bang by trillionths of trillionths of trillionths (et cetera) of a second, but at time=0 the theory collapses. This does not render the big bang theory obsolete; it is virtually irreplaceable modern physics. However, it does imply that the bang was propagated by a force that transcends time and, implicitly, the laws of science themselves.

However, there is some speculation in M-theory that this is not a problem, as it could happen on the scale of once in a trillion or so years a universe could be formed by an interaction with another self-contained universe (known as a brane). Time=0 would be the time of collision of one brane with that of our universe, and so the calamity is avoided. However, should this theory be correct (and it is at this point purely speculation), this would only push further back the order of creation. Older branes only necessitate an older transcendental force.
Does this insight prove that there is an all-loving, all-knowing creator? In short, it does not. However, to establish that there is a force beyond time and knowable science renders it perfectly rational to suppose that such a God could exist. To define this force falls squarely to the realm of religion, and each one is obligated to supply its own evidences for why this force should be thought of in conformity with each religion’s respective deity.

[hierochloe]

Nice. So you're writing a book. Is it all on this type of stuff?

Edited October 7, 2005 by hierochloe

[Didacus]

[quote name='Snarf' date='Oct 7 2005, 05:49 AM']From part of the book I'm writing:

[snip]

  To define this force falls squarely to the realm of religion, and each one is obligated to supply its own evidences for why this force should be thought of in conformity with each religion’s respective deity.
[right][snapback]749329[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Your statements are very well formulated, however, if you would welcome some constructive criticism:

Atheist will argue that the realm out of science'
s reach is the realm of philosophy, not of religion, and that religion at best is but a simple 'sector' of philosophy. To jump so quickly to religion is analogeous to Aristotle jumping to the conclusion of intelligent force being behind the initial mover, since religion underscores belief in the 'higher power'.

In essence, your statement is a re-statement of Aristotle's thinking within a modern physical model. I fail to see what more this modern model brings to light other than new context; aka, I fail to see which new argument you add to Aristotl's logic. Please elaborate.

On a side note, have you refered to St. Thomas Aquinas reformulation of Aristotle's logic? It would be well worth the reading and reference.



Are you familiar or knowledgeable with the theory of chaos and the laws of thermodynamics? If so, I could elaborate my own 'prrof of God' on those two principals and you can tear into them and let me know if my logic is faulty?

[Cre8d4Youth]

Ok, I'm not as formulated, well spoken or anywhere near as thought out as this, but I ran across the following verse one day...and I know it sounds odd but it held "proof" for me.

[b]Isaiah 40:22[/b]
He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in.

I figure at the time Isaiah was written ppl were not aware of the earth as a sphere (or circle). So in my childlike way I said to myself, "Self, this proves Divine ispiration of the Scriptures!" I know, no where near as smart sounding as Snarf's post! LOL

Short of it is, I don't need proof to be hardcore, I have my life, I kno where He is within it, and where He "proved" Himself for me.

Snarf, your from Noblesville too? Do you go to Our Lady of Grace?

[Didacus]

Hey Snarf... got your name from the Thunder Cats right?

[Nathan]

I generally use the "First Mover" theory when discussing God with atheists -- culled from Aquinas, who culled from Aristotle -- but in a very basic way. Basically, everything that moves must be moved by something -- a soccer ball is moved by a foot, a tree branch by the wind. Now, when the universe came into being -- the universally-accepted "Big Bang" -- there had to be something [i]behind[/i] it, moving it into happening (because things don't move by themselves). And that "First Mover" was God.

[Cow of Shame]

[quote name='Cre8d4Youth' date='Oct 7 2005, 08:17 AM']
[b]Isaiah 40:22[/b]
He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in.

I figure at the time Isaiah was written ppl were not aware of the earth as a sphere (or circle).  So in my childlike way I said to myself, "Self, this proves Divine ispiration of the Scriptures!" 
[right][snapback]749370[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


A circle is not the same as a sphere. I think all flat-earth beliefs had the earth as a circle, not a square or triangle. Unfortunately, I don't think this passage is proving what you're hoping it would.

[White Knight]

Good theroy, however I think the issue of "Complex Living Forms in Unversial Existance" is one of the best arugements to date to go against Atheists and while prooving a Divine Intelliegent Designer created everything.

[Nathan]

I also like Aquinas' ideas regarding human governance as a proof of God. The way we human beings are able to more or less keep the world together and not fall into anarchy is pretty amazing, if you think about it.

[Aloysius]

[quote name='Cow of Shame' date='Oct 7 2005, 12:39 PM']A circle is not the same as a sphere.  I think all flat-earth beliefs had the earth as a circle, not a square or triangle.  Unfortunately, I don't think this passage is proving what you're hoping it would.
[right][snapback]749552[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
besides, no one really [i]believed[/i] the earth to be flat.

anyone who actually found that as something to wonder about ("what is the shape of the earth?") was generally someone who investigated it. like the ancient greeks. they investigated it and discovered it must be round.

there weren't really people saying "no, I believe it is a flat earth". those people didn't necessarily believe anything about the shape of the earth. to us living in high (and crumbling) western society, this seems odd... how could someone not have an answer to such a basic question?, we wonder... well the fact is: they really didn't even ask the question. it didn't pop into their minds... it didn't matter to them.

it especially didn't matter to the nomadic jewish people or later to the people of the nation of Israel who were charged with guarding the Law.

Most people lived their lives on a planet earth that was strong beneath their feet. If you had asked them, they might have said there's probably an edge to the world or something because they didn't think it went on infinitely, but it wasn't something that concerned them so much that they would form an actual [i]belief[/i] about it.

And when it did concern people that much, they asked and investigated and figured out it must be round.

Then that idiot Columbus told the greatest minds of his days "Asia is just right over that small stretch of water! I can make it!"

and the people of his day told him "dude, you'll never make it. we calculated the circumfrance of this spherical earth and it's way too far!"

if columbus hadn't been one lucky sob for catching a continent in between the two places, he would have died somewhere in the Pacific Ocean.

anyway, what was this topic about again? lol... oh yeah, God. yeah, He exists. That was a pretty good expansion of the unmoveable mover proof, Snarf.

[White Knight]

Good Post. Aloysius

Edited October 7, 2005 by White Knight

[Cow of Shame]

[quote name='Aloysius' date='Oct 7 2005, 02:25 PM']besides, no one really [i]believed[/i] the earth to be flat.
[right][snapback]749697[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

How do we know? I was taught that man originally thought that you could sail off the edge of the world....

[Aloysius]

you were taught that in the American school system that still hasn't gotten over a tiny little lie perpetuated by the protestants over incoming irish catholic immigrants.

they wanted to make it seem like the old world was ignorant and America was so much gretaer. they told the story that Columbus somehow broke through all that previous ignorance, that everyone told him he'd fall off the edge of the world.

it was a bit of a distortion from the truth. the people in europe that objected to his trip told him the earth was larger than columbus had calculated, and that he'd never make it all the way accross to asia. they were right if North America hadn't been here, but there's no way anyone could've known that by simple calculations.

they didn't think he'd sail off of the edge of the world. they thought he'd sail himself right into a grave at sea!

but ever since ancient greece men who asked the question found the world to be round. it was basically common knowledge at the time of Columbus.

get into the heart of a person of the age, no one really held some deep conviction in the earth being flat. some might have suspected it, but it is hardly plausible to say they [i]believed[/i] it. they were more concerned about themselves and their world to worry about such things. the people that did wory about such things only needed to do some simple calculations to figure out the earth must not be flat.

[Cow of Shame]

*shrug* ok.
if it was so 'easy' to determine that the earth was not flat, then even if the bible did state the earth was a sphere, should we be surprised?

[Aloysius]

I'm not arguing that the bible does say anything about whether the earth is a sphere or flat... it really doesn't especially if we're looking for the sacred author's intent...