Five Ways to Recognize God's Existence - Revision history

Mxmsj: Text replacement - "--" to " — "

2022-12-10T10:04:07Z

Text replacement - "--" to " — "

Mxmsj: /* Thinking Depends on God */

2022-05-16T19:22:08Z

Thinking Depends on God

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:22, 16 May 2022
Line 82:		Line 82:
	:: Supposing there was no intelligence behind the universe, no creative mind. In that case, nobody designed my brain for the purpose of thinking. It is merely that when the atoms inside my skull happen, for physical or chemical reasons, to arrange themselves in a certain way, this gives me, as a by-product, the sensation I call thought. But, if so, how can I trust my own thinking to be true? It's like upsetting a milk jug and hoping that the way it splashes itself will give you a map of London. But if I can't trust my own thinking, of course I can't trust the arguments leading to Atheism, and therefore have no reason to be an Atheist, or anything else. Unless I believe in God, I cannot believe in thought: so I can never use thought to disbelieve in God.		:: Supposing there was no intelligence behind the universe, no creative mind. In that case, nobody designed my brain for the purpose of thinking. It is merely that when the atoms inside my skull happen, for physical or chemical reasons, to arrange themselves in a certain way, this gives me, as a by-product, the sensation I call thought. But, if so, how can I trust my own thinking to be true? It's like upsetting a milk jug and hoping that the way it splashes itself will give you a map of London. But if I can't trust my own thinking, of course I can't trust the arguments leading to Atheism, and therefore have no reason to be an Atheist, or anything else. Unless I believe in God, I cannot believe in thought: so I can never use thought to disbelieve in God.

	:::: ''The Case for Christianity'', 32.		:::: ''The Case for Christianity'', 32. In ''Mere Christianity''?

	== The Kalām argument ==		== The Kalām argument ==

Mxmsj: /* Thinking Depends on God */

2022-05-16T19:19:50Z

Thinking Depends on God

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:19, 16 May 2022
Line 81:		Line 81:

	:: Supposing there was no intelligence behind the universe, no creative mind. In that case, nobody designed my brain for the purpose of thinking. It is merely that when the atoms inside my skull happen, for physical or chemical reasons, to arrange themselves in a certain way, this gives me, as a by-product, the sensation I call thought. But, if so, how can I trust my own thinking to be true? It's like upsetting a milk jug and hoping that the way it splashes itself will give you a map of London. But if I can't trust my own thinking, of course I can't trust the arguments leading to Atheism, and therefore have no reason to be an Atheist, or anything else. Unless I believe in God, I cannot believe in thought: so I can never use thought to disbelieve in God.		:: Supposing there was no intelligence behind the universe, no creative mind. In that case, nobody designed my brain for the purpose of thinking. It is merely that when the atoms inside my skull happen, for physical or chemical reasons, to arrange themselves in a certain way, this gives me, as a by-product, the sensation I call thought. But, if so, how can I trust my own thinking to be true? It's like upsetting a milk jug and hoping that the way it splashes itself will give you a map of London. But if I can't trust my own thinking, of course I can't trust the arguments leading to Atheism, and therefore have no reason to be an Atheist, or anything else. Unless I believe in God, I cannot believe in thought: so I can never use thought to disbelieve in God.

			:::: ''The Case for Christianity'', 32.

	== The Kalām argument ==		== The Kalām argument ==

Mxmsj: /* Links */

2022-05-16T19:14:47Z

Links

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:14, 16 May 2022
Line 113:		Line 113:
	* Peter Kreeft, [http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics-more/20_arguments-gods-existence.htm "Twenty Arguments for the Existence of God."]		* Peter Kreeft, [http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics-more/20_arguments-gods-existence.htm "Twenty Arguments for the Existence of God."]
	* [http://www.catholic.com/blog/trent-horn/new-support-for-the-cosmological-argument "New Support for the Cosmological Argument."]		* [http://www.catholic.com/blog/trent-horn/new-support-for-the-cosmological-argument "New Support for the Cosmological Argument."]
	* [[Natural ~~Theology~~]]		* [[Natural theology]]

	[[Category:Philosophy]]		[[Category:Philosophy]]

Mxmsj: /* Links */

2022-05-16T19:14:33Z

Links

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:14, 16 May 2022
Line 113:		Line 113:
	* Peter Kreeft, [http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics-more/20_arguments-gods-existence.htm "Twenty Arguments for the Existence of God."]		* Peter Kreeft, [http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics-more/20_arguments-gods-existence.htm "Twenty Arguments for the Existence of God."]
	* [http://www.catholic.com/blog/trent-horn/new-support-for-the-cosmological-argument "New Support for the Cosmological Argument."]		* [http://www.catholic.com/blog/trent-horn/new-support-for-the-cosmological-argument "New Support for the Cosmological Argument."]
			* [[Natural Theology]]

	[[Category:Philosophy]]		[[Category:Philosophy]]

Mxmsj: /* Thinking Depends on God */

2022-01-22T14:13:16Z

Thinking Depends on God

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:13, 22 January 2022
Line 80:		Line 80:
	:; C. S. Lewis		:; C. S. Lewis

	:: Supposing there was no intelligence behind the universe, no creative mind. In that case, nobody designed my brain for the purpose of thinking. It is merely that when the atoms inside my skull happen, for physical or chemical reasons, to arrange themselves in a certain way, this gives me, as a by-product, the sensation I call thought. But, if so, how can I trust my own thinking to be true? ~~Itâ€™s~~ like upsetting a milk jug and hoping that the way it splashes itself will give you a map of London. But if I ~~canâ€™t~~ trust my own thinking, of course I ~~canâ€™t~~ trust the arguments leading to Atheism, and therefore have no reason to be an Atheist, or anything else. Unless I believe in God, I cannot believe in thought: so I can never use thought to disbelieve in God.		:: Supposing there was no intelligence behind the universe, no creative mind. In that case, nobody designed my brain for the purpose of thinking. It is merely that when the atoms inside my skull happen, for physical or chemical reasons, to arrange themselves in a certain way, this gives me, as a by-product, the sensation I call thought. But, if so, how can I trust my own thinking to be true? It's like upsetting a milk jug and hoping that the way it splashes itself will give you a map of London. But if I can't trust my own thinking, of course I can't trust the arguments leading to Atheism, and therefore have no reason to be an Atheist, or anything else. Unless I believe in God, I cannot believe in thought: so I can never use thought to disbelieve in God.

	== The Kalām argument ==		== The Kalām argument ==

Mxmsj: /* Theism vs. Scientism */

2021-04-16T10:03:55Z

Theism vs. Scientism

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:03, 16 April 2021
Line 95:		Line 95:

	Science is a metaphysical reality. It is not studied by physics, chemistry or biology. Its nature can be apprehended only by the methods of philosophy. If philosophy is bunk, so is the philosophy of science. If science is real and knowable, other there may be other metaphysical realities that can be known.		Science is a metaphysical reality. It is not studied by physics, chemistry or biology. Its nature can be apprehended only by the methods of philosophy. If philosophy is bunk, so is the philosophy of science. If science is real and knowable, other there may be other metaphysical realities that can be known.

			== Vatican I: ''Dei Filius'' ==

			It is a dogma of the Catholic Church that it is possible for us to recognize the existence of God by the use of human reason.

			:: The same holy mother church holds and teaches that God, the source and end of all things, can be known with certainty from the consideration of created things, by the natural power of human reason : "ever since the creation of the world, his invisible nature has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made" ([[Romans 1]]).<ref>[https://www.papalencyclicals.net/councils/ecum20.htm "Decrees of the First Vatican Council," ''Papal Encyclicals.'']</ref>

	== Reflections ==		== Reflections ==

Mxmsj at 09:46, 16 April 2021

2021-04-16T09:46:52Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:46, 16 April 2021
Line 82:		Line 82:
	:: Supposing there was no intelligence behind the universe, no creative mind. In that case, nobody designed my brain for the purpose of thinking. It is merely that when the atoms inside my skull happen, for physical or chemical reasons, to arrange themselves in a certain way, this gives me, as a by-product, the sensation I call thought. But, if so, how can I trust my own thinking to be true? Itâ€™s like upsetting a milk jug and hoping that the way it splashes itself will give you a map of London. But if I canâ€™t trust my own thinking, of course I canâ€™t trust the arguments leading to Atheism, and therefore have no reason to be an Atheist, or anything else. Unless I believe in God, I cannot believe in thought: so I can never use thought to disbelieve in God.		:: Supposing there was no intelligence behind the universe, no creative mind. In that case, nobody designed my brain for the purpose of thinking. It is merely that when the atoms inside my skull happen, for physical or chemical reasons, to arrange themselves in a certain way, this gives me, as a by-product, the sensation I call thought. But, if so, how can I trust my own thinking to be true? Itâ€™s like upsetting a milk jug and hoping that the way it splashes itself will give you a map of London. But if I canâ€™t trust my own thinking, of course I canâ€™t trust the arguments leading to Atheism, and therefore have no reason to be an Atheist, or anything else. Unless I believe in God, I cannot believe in thought: so I can never use thought to disbelieve in God.

	== The ~~KalÄm~~ argument ==		== The Kalām argument ==

	The [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kal%C4%81m_cosmological_argument ~~KalÄm~~ argument] is fairly simple:		The [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kal%C4%81m_cosmological_argument Kalām argument] is fairly simple:

	# Whatever begins to exist has a cause for its coming into being.		# Whatever begins to exist has a cause for its coming into being.

Mxmsj: /* Links */

2014-03-22T20:13:47Z

Links

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:13, 22 March 2014
Line 107:		Line 107:
	* Peter Kreeft, [http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics-more/20_arguments-gods-existence.htm "Twenty Arguments for the Existence of God."]		* Peter Kreeft, [http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics-more/20_arguments-gods-existence.htm "Twenty Arguments for the Existence of God."]
	* [http://www.catholic.com/blog/trent-horn/new-support-for-the-cosmological-argument "New Support for the Cosmological Argument."]		* [http://www.catholic.com/blog/trent-horn/new-support-for-the-cosmological-argument "New Support for the Cosmological Argument."]


	[[Category:Philosophy]]		[[Category:Philosophy]]
	[[Category:Theology]]		[[Category:Theology]]
	[[Category:Science]]		[[Category:Science]]
			[[Category:Cosmology]]
	[[Category:Evolution]]		[[Category:Evolution]]

Mxmsj: /* The Four Causes */

2014-02-25T16:48:40Z

The Four Causes

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:48, 25 February 2014
Line 3:		Line 3:
	\|-		\|-
	\|		\|
	\|The Four Causes of any thing in the universe		!The Four Causes of any thing in the universe
	\|		!Related questions
	\|-		\|-
	!form		!form

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:04, 10 December 2022
Line 7:		Line 7:
	\|-		\|-
	!form		!form
	\|formal cause (morphe in Greek, hence "morphing"--shape-changing)		\|formal cause (morphe in Greek, hence "morphing" — shape-changing)
	\|What kind of thing is it? What is its essence? What makes it what it is?		\|What kind of thing is it? What is its essence? What makes it what it is?
	\|-		\|-
Line 15:		Line 15:
	\|-		\|-
	!agent		!agent
	\|efficient cause ("the causing cause"--something that makes things happen or that forms matter)		\|efficient cause ("the causing cause" — something that makes things happen or that forms matter)
	\|Who or what formed this thing?		\|Who or what formed this thing?
	\|-		\|-
Line 37:		Line 37:
	::: Because of the Second Law of Thermodynamics (entropy increases: some energy becomes unavailable whenever work is done), it is not possible to have a perpetual-motion machine. People who deny the argument from motion believe in a perpetual-motion universe.		::: Because of the Second Law of Thermodynamics (entropy increases: some energy becomes unavailable whenever work is done), it is not possible to have a perpetual-motion machine. People who deny the argument from motion believe in a perpetual-motion universe.

	:;2. Efficient Cause (a form of matter that causes change or forms matter--one thing causes another thing)		:;2. Efficient Cause (a form of matter that causes change or forms matter — one thing causes another thing)

	:The efficient cause (agent) is what forms matter into a particular thing or causes events to happen.		:The efficient cause (agent) is what forms matter into a particular thing or causes events to happen.
Line 43:		Line 43:
	::B. No thing in the universe can cause itself to be what it is; every thing is formed by a pre-existing agent, which itself was formed by a pre-existing agent, etc.		::B. No thing in the universe can cause itself to be what it is; every thing is formed by a pre-existing agent, which itself was formed by a pre-existing agent, etc.
	::C. There cannot be an infinite regress of things-caused-by-things.:Either you see this or you don't!		::C. There cannot be an infinite regress of things-caused-by-things.:Either you see this or you don't!
	::D. There must be a different kind of being from the kind of things we find in the universe. In order to be the cause of all things in the universe that cause other things in the universe, this being must be uncaused--that is, not brought into being by any other being and not just a form of pre-existing matter.		::D. There must be a different kind of being from the kind of things we find in the universe. In order to be the cause of all things in the universe that cause other things in the universe, this being must be uncaused — that is, not brought into being by any other being and not just a form of pre-existing matter.
	::: When we get down to the level of quantum behavior, it is virtually impossible to identify the chain of caused causes. Things seem to happen purely at random, with no identifiable cause. But if every part of the universe exhibited the same indeterminacy as quanta (quantum pheonomena), we would not be able to tell that the quantum behavior was different from ordinary behavior. For us to know how quanta act, to know their indeterminate nature, the quanta must be able to act as causes in our observational apparatus; and if the quanta act as causes with a particular nature, then they cannot be used to discredit the notion of efficient causality.		::: When we get down to the level of quantum behavior, it is virtually impossible to identify the chain of caused causes. Things seem to happen purely at random, with no identifiable cause. But if every part of the universe exhibited the same indeterminacy as quanta (quantum pheonomena), we would not be able to tell that the quantum behavior was different from ordinary behavior. For us to know how quanta act, to know their indeterminate nature, the quanta must be able to act as causes in our observational apparatus; and if the quanta act as causes with a particular nature, then they cannot be used to discredit the notion of efficient causality.
	:::Heisenberg's Principle of Uncertainty is certain. It is a law of nature: we cannot determine both the location and the vector of motion of a quantum phenomenon at the same time. In order to observe quanta, we must interact with them; when we interact with them, we change their quantum state. If we can know this fact about quantum phenomena, it proves that the indeterminacy of quantum behavior does not overturn the principle of causality. The evidence for Heisenberg's Principle of Uncertainty comes from the effect that quanta have on our instruments. If the quanta did not have a predictable effect on our instruments, we would not know what we do know about them--we could not group and classify them as the kind of things whose location and vector of motion cannot be determined at the same time.		:::Heisenberg's Principle of Uncertainty is certain. It is a law of nature: we cannot determine both the location and the vector of motion of a quantum phenomenon at the same time. In order to observe quanta, we must interact with them; when we interact with them, we change their quantum state. If we can know this fact about quantum phenomena, it proves that the indeterminacy of quantum behavior does not overturn the principle of causality. The evidence for Heisenberg's Principle of Uncertainty comes from the effect that quanta have on our instruments. If the quanta did not have a predictable effect on our instruments, we would not know what we do know about them — we could not group and classify them as the kind of things whose location and vector of motion cannot be determined at the same time.

	:; 3. Contingency:		:; 3. Contingency:
Line 53:		Line 53:
	::C. There cannot be an infinite regress of beings caused by other beings. The matter and energy in the universe from which all other beings come cannot have come into existence out of nothing.		::C. There cannot be an infinite regress of beings caused by other beings. The matter and energy in the universe from which all other beings come cannot have come into existence out of nothing.
	::D. There must be a different kind of being from the kind of things we find in the universe. There must be a being whose existence is necessary, not contingent. This is a being whose being is to be (reminiscent of the Hebrew name of God, yhwh in Hebrew, ego eimi in Greek: "I am" or "I am who am" or "I am He who causes to be").		::D. There must be a different kind of being from the kind of things we find in the universe. There must be a being whose existence is necessary, not contingent. This is a being whose being is to be (reminiscent of the Hebrew name of God, yhwh in Hebrew, ego eimi in Greek: "I am" or "I am who am" or "I am He who causes to be").
	:::The whole universe is dying (Second Law of Thermodynamics--entropy increases). That we are alive and not dead shows that the universe had a beginning in time (or with time). Space-time and matter-energy all interact with each other and depend on each other. Prior to the inflation of the God-particle, there was no space or time or matter or energy--there was no universe. We have no record of conditions prior to the smallest unit of time, ~10-43 second (a Plank second) after the beginning of all time. Some non-contingent (necessary) Being must have caused all contingent being.		:::The whole universe is dying (Second Law of Thermodynamics — entropy increases). That we are alive and not dead shows that the universe had a beginning in time (or with time). Space-time and matter-energy all interact with each other and depend on each other. Prior to the inflation of the God-particle, there was no space or time or matter or energy — there was no universe. We have no record of conditions prior to the smallest unit of time, ~10-43 second (a Plank second) after the beginning of all time. Some non-contingent (necessary) Being must have caused all contingent being.

	:; 4. Qualities		:; 4. Qualities