Magis God Wiki - User contributions [en]

Why Believe in God?

2015-01-07T22:26:43Z

David Persyn: /* The trans-material component of human beings must have another origin */

Magis God Wiki: "Why Believe in God?"

© Robert J. Spitzer, S.J. Ph.D./Magis Institute July 2011

There is a list of suggested [[Search Terms]] to assist users in quickly finding their topic of interest.

== Unit A: Does Belief in God Enhance Purpose in Life? ==

[[Purpose in Life]]

This material is not in NPEG, but may be found beginning in Unit 26 of [http://physicsindialog.org PID].

=== What produces happiness and purpose in life? ===

[[Purpose_in_Life#Happiness_and_Purpose_in_Life |Happiness and Purpose]]

=== From immediate gratification and surface apparentness to what is pervasive, enduring, and deep. ===

[[Purpose_in_Life#Moving_from_Shallow_to_Deep |Shallowness to Depth]]

=== Four levels of happiness and purpose in life ===

[[Purpose_in_Life#The_Four_Levels |The Four Levels]]

=== Level two identity, the comparison game, and our culture’s source of anxiety. ===

[[Purpose_in_Life#The_Comparison_Game |The Comparison Game]]

=== Two ways out of the comparison game – level three and level four purpose in life. ===

[[Purpose_in_Life#Ending_the_Game |Getting Out of the Game]]

=== Level four purpose and happiness – transcendence and faith. ===

[[Purpose_in_Life#Transcendence |Faith Leading to Transcendence]]

=== Maintaining a level four purpose in life. ===

[[Purpose_in_Life#Maintaining_Transcendence |Maintaining the Transcendent Happiness]]

== Unit B: Is There any Evidence for the Human Soul? ==

This material is not contained in NPEG, but is in Units 20-21 of [http://physicsindialog.org PID].

=== An assessment of peer-reviewed medical studies on near death experiences from the Lancet, the Journal of the American Medical Association, and other studies. ===

[[The Human Soul]] (This is a single article covering the topics below, which are indexed there for quick reference).

=== The definition of “brain death,” alternative explanations, and controlled, longitudinal studies. ===

=== Eight similar characteristics in near-death experiences. ===

[http://magisgodwiki.org/index.php?title=The_Human_Soul#Near-Death_Experiences Characteristics of NDEs].

=== Patients report seeing data that should not have been accessible to them in their brain-dead states, and which is subsequently verifiable (veridical). ===

[[The_Human_Soul#The_van_Lommel_et_al_Study | The von Lommel Study]]. Veridical data established.

=== 80% of blind patients can see during their near-death experience. ===

[[The_Human_Soul#The_Kenneth_Ring.2C_et_al_Study_of_Near-Death_Experiences_of_the_Blind | The Kenneth Ring Study of NDEs of the Blind]].

=== The measurable absence of death anxiety in both children and adults. ===

[[The_Human_Soul#Melvin_Morse.2C_MD_.E2.80.93_Study_of_Near-Death_Experiences_of_Children | The Melvin Morse Study of NDEs in Children]].

=== Encounters with transcendent beings (loving white light, Jesus, deceased relatives, etc.). ===

=== Conclusions of Von Lommel and other studies. ===

[[The_Human_Soul#Conclusions_Regarding_Near-Death_Experiences | Conclusions drawn from the studies]].

== Unit C: Is there Evidence of a Human Soul (Transcendentals)? ==

[[The Transcendentals]]

An in depth analysis of this material may be found in NPEG Chapters 7-8 and a lecture presentation may also be found in [http://physicsindialog.org PID Units 14-19].

=== The desire for complete intelligibility and perfect truth. ===

[[The_Transcendentals#I._The_Desire_for_Perfect_and_Unconditional_Truth |The Desire for Perfect and Unconditional Truth]]

=== The desire for perfect love and empathy. ===

[[The_Transcendentals#II._The_Desire_for_Perfect_and_Unconditional_Love |The Desire for Perfect and Unconditional Love]]

=== The desire for perfect justice/goodness. ===

[[The_Transcendentals#III._The_Desire_for_Perfect_and_Unconditional_Goodness.2FJustice |The Desire for Perfect and Unconditional Goodness & Justice]]

=== The desire for perfect beauty. ===

[[The_Transcendentals#IV._The_Desire_for_Perfect_and_Unconditional_Beauty |The Desire for Perfect and Unconditional Beauty]]

=== The desire for perfect being/home. ===

[[The_Transcendentals#V._The_Desire_for_Perfect_and_Unconditional_Being.2FHome |The Desire for Perfect and Unconditional Being & Home]]

=== The five transcendental desires and the transmateriality of human consciousness. ===

[[The_Transcendentals#Conclusion |Conclusion]]

=== The five transcendental desires and God. ===

== Unit D: Is there Evidence of God from Science? ==

[[Cosmology]] incuding Physics.

A more in depth assessment of this material may be found in NPEG Chapters 1-2 and the Postscript to Part One, and a lecture presentation may be found in [http://physicsindialog.org PID Units 1-5].

=== The extent and limits of scientific method. ===

[http://magisgodwiki.org/index.php?title=Cosmology#Can_Science_Give_Evidence_of_a_Creation_and_Supernatural_Design.3F Limits of Science].

=== The standard big bang model. ===

[http://magisgodwiki.org/index.php?title=Cosmology#Was_the_Big_Bang_the_Beginning.3F The Big Bang and the Beginning].

=== Was the big bang the beginning of the universe (13.7 billion years ago)? ===

[http://magisgodwiki.org/index.php?title=Cosmology#A_Beginning_in_Physics_Implies_A_Creation_of_the_Universe Beginning of the Universe].

=== The significance of a beginning in physics – implications of creation. ===

[http://magisgodwiki.org/index.php?title=Cosmology#What_is_The_Evidence_for_a_Beginning_and_what_are_the_Implications_for_Creation.3F Implications of Creation].

=== Three models for a pre-big-bang period. ===

==== The string theory-inflationary multiverse. ====

==== The bouncing universe. ====

==== String theory-higher dimensional bouncing universe. ====

=== Significant evidence that all three models for a pre-big-bang period would have to have a beginning. ===

[http://magisgodwiki.org/index.php?title=Cosmology#Evidence_of_a_Beginning_from_Space-Time_Geometry_Proofs Space-Time Geometry].

==== The evidence from space-time geometry proofs (Borde, Guth, and Vilenkin). ====

[http://magisgodwiki.org/index.php?title=Cosmology#The_1994_Borde-Vilenkin_Proof B-V Proof of 1994].

[http://magisgodwiki.org/index.php?title=Cosmology#Alan_Guth.E2.80.99s_1999_analysis_of_expanding_pre-big-bang_models The Guth Analysis of 1999].

[http://magisgodwiki.org/index.php?title=Cosmology#The_2003_Borde-Vilenkin-Guth_Theorem_.28the_BVG_Theorem.29: The 2003 BVG Theorem].

==== The evidence from entropy (Penrose, Beckenstein, Banks, Carroll). ====

=== Universal constants, anthropic coincidences, and fine-tuning. ===

[http://magisgodwiki.org/index.php?title=Cosmology#Implications_of_Supernatural_Intelligence_in_the_Fine-tuning_of_Universal_Constants Fine Tuning].

==== Five examples of fine-tuning. ====

==== Can fine-tuning be explained by pure chance? ====

[http://magisgodwiki.org/index.php?title=Cosmology#The_high_improbability_of_a_pure_chance_occurrence_of_our_low-entropy_universe Pure Chance Improbable].

==== Two competing explanations: the multiverse and supernatural design. ====

==== Which of these two explanations is most reasonable and responsible? ====

[http://magisgodwiki.org/index.php?title=Cosmology#The_high_improbability_of_five_other_anthropic_conditions_.28based_on_cosmological_constants.29 Discussion of Probability]

=== Conclusions about the probability of super intelligent Creator. ===

[http://magisgodwiki.org/index.php?title=Cosmology#Conclusions Conclusions].

== Unit E: Can the Bible be Reconciled with Science? ==

[[The Bible and Science]]

This unit is not found in either NPEG or PID, however, there is a free videocast on [http://www.magisreasonfaith.org/library/videos/video-god-and-modern-physics-module-12/ The Magis website].

=== The bible is not doing science – but theology, sacred truths. ===

[[The_Bible_and_Science#Theology_Not_Science |Theology not Science]]

=== What was the biblical author’s intention in writing Genesis:1:1ff? ===

[[The_Bible_and_Science#The_Intent_of_Genesis |The Intent of Genesis]]

=== Is evolution reconcilable with the bible? ===

[[The_Bible_and_Science#Darwinian_Evolution |The Bible and Evolution]]

=== Human beings are not reducible to merely organic mechanisms, and therefore, cannot be the result of a merely bio-physical process (like evolution). ===

[[The_Bible_and_Science#The_Human_Soul |About the Human Soul]]

==== The trans-material component of human beings must have another origin ====

[[Why_Believe_in_God%3F#Unit_B:_Is_There_any_Evidence_for_the_Human_Soul.3F | See above, Unit B]].

== Unit F: Can the Existence of God be Logically Proven? ==

[[Metaphysical Proofs]]

This Unit contains only steps I and V of a logical proof for God’s existence. Steps II, III, and IV can be found in NPEG Chapter Three (Sections II through IV) and [http://physicsindialog.org PID Units 6-11]. Those wishing a review of logical syllogisms may want to consult [http://physicsindialog.org PID Units 6-7].

=== Three kinds of publicly corroborateable evidence – a-priori, a-posteriori, and combinations. ===

[[Metaphysical_Proofs#Three_Kinds_of_Publicly_Accessible_Evidence_for_Rational_Proof |Three Kinds of Publicly Corroborateable Evidence]]

=== Step I of the metaphysical proof – proof that there must be at least one unconditioned reality in “all reality.” ===

[[Metaphysical_Proofs#Proof_of_the_Existence_of_at_Least_One_Unconditioned_Reality |Proof of the Existence of at least One Unconditioned Reality]]

=== A record of the missing steps of the proof ===

These can be found in NPEG and [http://physicsindialog.org PID] (as noted above). These steps prove that there can only be one unconditioned reality and that it must be absolutely simple and unrestricted in its power.

===Step V of the proof which shows that the one unconditioned absolutely simple unrestricted reality must be the continuous Creator of all else that is. ===

[[Metaphysical_Proofs#Proof_that_the_One_Unconditioned_Reality_is_the_Continuous_Creator_of_All_Else_that_Is |Proof that the One Unconditioned Reality is the Continuous Creator of All Else that Is]].

== Unit G: Is there Evidence of God from Mathematics? ==
For a more in depth presentation of time and the formal a-priori synthetic argument for a timeless Creator of time, see NPEG Chapter Five and also [http://physicsindialog.org PID Units 22-25].

=== “Infinite past time” is an analytical contradiction. ===

[[Mathematics#An_Analytical_Contradiction_in_.22Infinite_Past_Time.22 |An Analytical Contradiction in "Infinite Past Time"]]

=== Three kinds of infinity (A, B, and C infinities). ===

Covered in the last paragraphs of [[Mathematics#An_Analytical_Contradiction_in_.22Infinite_Past_Time.22 |An Analytical Contradiction in "Infinite Past Time"]]

=== David Hilbert’s prohibition of C infinities applied to real aggregate structures. ===

[[Mathematics#Summary_of_Hilbert.27s_Prohibition_of_Actual_Infinities |Hilbert's Prohibition of Actual Infinities]]

=== What is real time? ===

[[Mathematics#A_Brief_Explanation_of_Real_Time |A Brief Explanation of Real Time]]

=== The prohibition of a C infinity to real time ===

Implying that past time must be finite and that it must have a beginning, further implying a Creator of past time. See [[Mathematics#Conclusions |Conclusions]]

== Unit H: Why Doesn’t God Need a Creator? ==

[[God is Uncreated]]

An in depth treatment of this material may be found in NPEG Chapter Six Section I.C. It is briefly treated in [http://physicsindialog.org PID Unit 12].

=== No serious philosopher ever suggested that “everything must have a cause,” ===

For this would imply that God needs a cause. See [[God is Uncreated#Serious Metaphysicians Don't Dismiss First Cause |Serious Metaphysicians Don't Dismiss First Cause]]

=== All rigorous logical proofs require that there be at least one uncaused reality. ===

=== All rigorous proofs show that there can only be one uncaused reality ===

(see Unit F).

=== Conclusion of Proof of God Not Needing a Creator ===

All rigorous proofs show that everything in reality besides the one uncaused reality must be caused and that the one uncaused reality must be the cause of all else that is. God does not need to be created – indeed, he must be “that which is uncreated,” otherwise nothing would exist. See [[God is Uncreated#Conclusion |Conclusion]]

== Unit I: Can Atheism be Rational? ==

[[Can Atheism Be Rational?]] (the article of that title).

For a more in depth study of this material, see NPEG Chapter Six, Sections II and III; for a brief lecture presentation, see [http://physicsindialog.org PID Unit 25].

=== It is impossible to rationally disprove the existence of a transcendent being ===

it cannot be done, a-priori, a-posteriori, or through any combination of that. See [[Can_Atheism_Be_Rational%3F#The_Impossibility_of_Disproving_the_Existence_of_God |The Impossibility of Disproving the Existence of God]]

=== A brief response to the problem of suffering – why would God allow suffering if He is all powerful and all loving? ===

(See Units K&L for a much more extended treatment.)

=== A brief Discussion of the Tenuous Rationality of Atheism ===

[[Can_Atheism_Be_Rational%3F#The_Tenuous_Rationality_of_Atheism |The Tenuous Rationality of Atheism]]

=== A response to Freud’s contention that God is the product of wishful thinking. ===

[[Can_Atheism_Be_Rational%3F#Is_Belief_in_God_Mere_Wishful_Thinking.3F |Is Belief in God Mere Wishful Thinking?]]

== Unit J: Why Seek Revelation? ==

[[Reason and Revelation]]

This is not presented in NPEG. For a brief lecture presentation see PID Unit 30.

=== A brief summary of the four sets of evidence for God ===

[[Reason and Revelation#Four Sets of Evidence |Four Sets of Evidence]]

==== The evidence from physics. ====

==== The evidence from the logical proof for the existence of God. ====

==== The evidence from philosophy of mathematics. ====

==== The evidence from near-death experiences and human transcendentality. ====

=== The mutual corroborative effect of these four sets of evidence. ===

=== The complementary picture of God given by these four sets of evidence. ===

=== If reason can probe so deeply, why do we need God to reveal himself (revelation)? ===

There are five basic areas into which reason cannot probe deeply.

==== The heart of God. ====

==== How to pray and worship. ====

==== Specific ethical precepts and attributes of God that cannot be known by reason ====

(e.g. the trinity).

==== God’s inspiration, response to prayer, and redemption of suffering. ====

==== The dynamic of sacred community. ====

=== Toward a definition of love (agape). ===

[[Reason and Revelation#A Definition of Love |A Definition of Love]]

=== Five reflective questions manifesting the unconditional love of God and his desire to be with us empathetically.===

=== God as Emmanuel ===

[[Reason and Revelation#Six Questions Toward Emmanuel |Six Questions Toward Emmanuel]]

== Unit K: Why Would God Allow Suffering from Humans? ==

[[Suffering Caused by Humans]]

This is only briefly treated in NPEG Chapter Six Section III. (See PID Unit 25-27.)

=== If our love is to be our own (and not merely a program) we must freely choose to love ===

Which means that we must have another choice – namely, “not to love.” But the choice not to love gives rise to the possibility of suffering and evil. See [[Suffering_Caused_by_Humans#The_Intrinsic_Relationship_of_Freedom_and_Love |The Intrinsic Relationship of Freedom and Love]]

=== Responses to special cases concerning suffering caused by humans. ===

[[Suffering_Caused_by_Humans#God_Must_Allow_Loving_Beings_to_Create_Their_Loving_Actions_Anew |Special Cases Discussed]]

== Unit L: Why Does God Allow Suffering from Nature? ==

[[Suffering Caused by Nature]]

This is only briefly treated in NPEG Chapter Six Section III. (See [http://physicsindialog.org PID Unit 26-27].)

=== Suffering is caused by nature because we are born imperfectly into an imperfect world. ===

=== Why would God make an imperfect world? ===

==== To help us to self-initiate ====

development of our purpose in life and our identity (from Level One to Level Four). See [[Suffering_Caused_by_Nature#The_First_Purpose_of_an_Imperfect_World:_Identity_Transformation |Identity Transformation]]

==== To allow us to cultivate the “stoic” virtues ====

[[Suffering_Caused_by_Nature#The_Second_Purpose_of_an_Imperfect_World:_Stoic_Virtues |The Stoic Virtues]] (e.g. courage and self-discipline, etc.)

=== To allow us to develop in love (agape). ===

[[Suffering_Caused_by_Nature#The_Third_Purpose_of_an_Imperfect_World:_Agape |Agape]]

=== To allow us to develop our sense of empathy and compassion. ===

=== To leave room for us to build a better world. ===

[[Suffering_Caused_by_Nature#The_Fourth_Purpose_of_an_Imperfect_World:_Interdependence.2C_Human_Community.2C_and_a_.E2.80.9CBetter_World.E2.80.9D |A Better World]]

=== To leave room for us to build the kingdom of God. ===

[[Suffering_Caused_by_Nature#The_Fifth_Purpose_of_an_Imperfect_World:_Building_the_Kingdom_of_God |The Kingdom of God]]

=== Conclusions about Suffering Well ===

[[Suffering Caused by Nature#Conclusion |Conclusions]]

== Unit M: References ==

[[Believe_in_God_Reference_List]]

A comprehensive bibliography of all the references used in the above twelve units.



{{DEFAULTSORT:Why Believe in God}}
[[Category:Table of Contents]]
[[Category:Intellectual Evangelization]]
[[Category:Supplemental Material]]

Why Believe in God?

2015-01-07T22:22:46Z

David Persyn: /* Unit B: Is There any Evidence for the Human Soul? */

Magis God Wiki: "Why Believe in God?"

© Robert J. Spitzer, S.J. Ph.D./Magis Institute July 2011

There is a list of suggested [[Search Terms]] to assist users in quickly finding their topic of interest.

== Unit A: Does Belief in God Enhance Purpose in Life? ==

[[Purpose in Life]]

This material is not in NPEG, but may be found beginning in Unit 26 of [http://physicsindialog.org PID].

=== What produces happiness and purpose in life? ===

[[Purpose_in_Life#Happiness_and_Purpose_in_Life |Happiness and Purpose]]

=== From immediate gratification and surface apparentness to what is pervasive, enduring, and deep. ===

[[Purpose_in_Life#Moving_from_Shallow_to_Deep |Shallowness to Depth]]

=== Four levels of happiness and purpose in life ===

[[Purpose_in_Life#The_Four_Levels |The Four Levels]]

=== Level two identity, the comparison game, and our culture’s source of anxiety. ===

[[Purpose_in_Life#The_Comparison_Game |The Comparison Game]]

=== Two ways out of the comparison game – level three and level four purpose in life. ===

[[Purpose_in_Life#Ending_the_Game |Getting Out of the Game]]

=== Level four purpose and happiness – transcendence and faith. ===

[[Purpose_in_Life#Transcendence |Faith Leading to Transcendence]]

=== Maintaining a level four purpose in life. ===

[[Purpose_in_Life#Maintaining_Transcendence |Maintaining the Transcendent Happiness]]

== Unit B: Is There any Evidence for the Human Soul? ==

This material is not contained in NPEG, but is in Units 20-21 of [http://physicsindialog.org PID].

=== An assessment of peer-reviewed medical studies on near death experiences from the Lancet, the Journal of the American Medical Association, and other studies. ===

[[The Human Soul]] (This is a single article covering the topics below, which are indexed there for quick reference).

=== The definition of “brain death,” alternative explanations, and controlled, longitudinal studies. ===

=== Eight similar characteristics in near-death experiences. ===

[http://magisgodwiki.org/index.php?title=The_Human_Soul#Near-Death_Experiences Characteristics of NDEs].

=== Patients report seeing data that should not have been accessible to them in their brain-dead states, and which is subsequently verifiable (veridical). ===

[[The_Human_Soul#The_van_Lommel_et_al_Study | The von Lommel Study]]. Veridical data established.

=== 80% of blind patients can see during their near-death experience. ===

[[The_Human_Soul#The_Kenneth_Ring.2C_et_al_Study_of_Near-Death_Experiences_of_the_Blind | The Kenneth Ring Study of NDEs of the Blind]].

=== The measurable absence of death anxiety in both children and adults. ===

[[The_Human_Soul#Melvin_Morse.2C_MD_.E2.80.93_Study_of_Near-Death_Experiences_of_Children | The Melvin Morse Study of NDEs in Children]].

=== Encounters with transcendent beings (loving white light, Jesus, deceased relatives, etc.). ===

=== Conclusions of Von Lommel and other studies. ===

[[The_Human_Soul#Conclusions_Regarding_Near-Death_Experiences | Conclusions drawn from the studies]].

== Unit C: Is there Evidence of a Human Soul (Transcendentals)? ==

[[The Transcendentals]]

An in depth analysis of this material may be found in NPEG Chapters 7-8 and a lecture presentation may also be found in [http://physicsindialog.org PID Units 14-19].

=== The desire for complete intelligibility and perfect truth. ===

[[The_Transcendentals#I._The_Desire_for_Perfect_and_Unconditional_Truth |The Desire for Perfect and Unconditional Truth]]

=== The desire for perfect love and empathy. ===

[[The_Transcendentals#II._The_Desire_for_Perfect_and_Unconditional_Love |The Desire for Perfect and Unconditional Love]]

=== The desire for perfect justice/goodness. ===

[[The_Transcendentals#III._The_Desire_for_Perfect_and_Unconditional_Goodness.2FJustice |The Desire for Perfect and Unconditional Goodness & Justice]]

=== The desire for perfect beauty. ===

[[The_Transcendentals#IV._The_Desire_for_Perfect_and_Unconditional_Beauty |The Desire for Perfect and Unconditional Beauty]]

=== The desire for perfect being/home. ===

[[The_Transcendentals#V._The_Desire_for_Perfect_and_Unconditional_Being.2FHome |The Desire for Perfect and Unconditional Being & Home]]

=== The five transcendental desires and the transmateriality of human consciousness. ===

[[The_Transcendentals#Conclusion |Conclusion]]

=== The five transcendental desires and God. ===

== Unit D: Is there Evidence of God from Science? ==

[[Cosmology]] incuding Physics.

A more in depth assessment of this material may be found in NPEG Chapters 1-2 and the Postscript to Part One, and a lecture presentation may be found in [http://physicsindialog.org PID Units 1-5].

=== The extent and limits of scientific method. ===

[http://magisgodwiki.org/index.php?title=Cosmology#Can_Science_Give_Evidence_of_a_Creation_and_Supernatural_Design.3F Limits of Science].

=== The standard big bang model. ===

[http://magisgodwiki.org/index.php?title=Cosmology#Was_the_Big_Bang_the_Beginning.3F The Big Bang and the Beginning].

=== Was the big bang the beginning of the universe (13.7 billion years ago)? ===

[http://magisgodwiki.org/index.php?title=Cosmology#A_Beginning_in_Physics_Implies_A_Creation_of_the_Universe Beginning of the Universe].

=== The significance of a beginning in physics – implications of creation. ===

[http://magisgodwiki.org/index.php?title=Cosmology#What_is_The_Evidence_for_a_Beginning_and_what_are_the_Implications_for_Creation.3F Implications of Creation].

=== Three models for a pre-big-bang period. ===

==== The string theory-inflationary multiverse. ====

==== The bouncing universe. ====

==== String theory-higher dimensional bouncing universe. ====

=== Significant evidence that all three models for a pre-big-bang period would have to have a beginning. ===

[http://magisgodwiki.org/index.php?title=Cosmology#Evidence_of_a_Beginning_from_Space-Time_Geometry_Proofs Space-Time Geometry].

==== The evidence from space-time geometry proofs (Borde, Guth, and Vilenkin). ====

[http://magisgodwiki.org/index.php?title=Cosmology#The_1994_Borde-Vilenkin_Proof B-V Proof of 1994].

[http://magisgodwiki.org/index.php?title=Cosmology#Alan_Guth.E2.80.99s_1999_analysis_of_expanding_pre-big-bang_models The Guth Analysis of 1999].

[http://magisgodwiki.org/index.php?title=Cosmology#The_2003_Borde-Vilenkin-Guth_Theorem_.28the_BVG_Theorem.29: The 2003 BVG Theorem].

==== The evidence from entropy (Penrose, Beckenstein, Banks, Carroll). ====

=== Universal constants, anthropic coincidences, and fine-tuning. ===

[http://magisgodwiki.org/index.php?title=Cosmology#Implications_of_Supernatural_Intelligence_in_the_Fine-tuning_of_Universal_Constants Fine Tuning].

==== Five examples of fine-tuning. ====

==== Can fine-tuning be explained by pure chance? ====

[http://magisgodwiki.org/index.php?title=Cosmology#The_high_improbability_of_a_pure_chance_occurrence_of_our_low-entropy_universe Pure Chance Improbable].

==== Two competing explanations: the multiverse and supernatural design. ====

==== Which of these two explanations is most reasonable and responsible? ====

[http://magisgodwiki.org/index.php?title=Cosmology#The_high_improbability_of_five_other_anthropic_conditions_.28based_on_cosmological_constants.29 Discussion of Probability]

=== Conclusions about the probability of super intelligent Creator. ===

[http://magisgodwiki.org/index.php?title=Cosmology#Conclusions Conclusions].

== Unit E: Can the Bible be Reconciled with Science? ==

[[The Bible and Science]]

This unit is not found in either NPEG or PID, however, there is a free videocast on [http://www.magisreasonfaith.org/library/videos/video-god-and-modern-physics-module-12/ The Magis website].

=== The bible is not doing science – but theology, sacred truths. ===

[[The_Bible_and_Science#Theology_Not_Science |Theology not Science]]

=== What was the biblical author’s intention in writing Genesis:1:1ff? ===

[[The_Bible_and_Science#The_Intent_of_Genesis |The Intent of Genesis]]

=== Is evolution reconcilable with the bible? ===

[[The_Bible_and_Science#Darwinian_Evolution |The Bible and Evolution]]

=== Human beings are not reducible to merely organic mechanisms, and therefore, cannot be the result of a merely bio-physical process (like evolution). ===

[[The_Bible_and_Science#The_Human_Soul |About the Human Soul]]

==== The trans-material component of human beings must have another origin ====

[http://www.magisgodwiki.org/index.php/title=Why_Believe_in_God%3F#Unit_B:_Is_There_any_Evidence_for_the_Human_Soul.3F See above, Unit B].

== Unit F: Can the Existence of God be Logically Proven? ==

[[Metaphysical Proofs]]

This Unit contains only steps I and V of a logical proof for God’s existence. Steps II, III, and IV can be found in NPEG Chapter Three (Sections II through IV) and [http://physicsindialog.org PID Units 6-11]. Those wishing a review of logical syllogisms may want to consult [http://physicsindialog.org PID Units 6-7].

=== Three kinds of publicly corroborateable evidence – a-priori, a-posteriori, and combinations. ===

[[Metaphysical_Proofs#Three_Kinds_of_Publicly_Accessible_Evidence_for_Rational_Proof |Three Kinds of Publicly Corroborateable Evidence]]

=== Step I of the metaphysical proof – proof that there must be at least one unconditioned reality in “all reality.” ===

[[Metaphysical_Proofs#Proof_of_the_Existence_of_at_Least_One_Unconditioned_Reality |Proof of the Existence of at least One Unconditioned Reality]]

=== A record of the missing steps of the proof ===

These can be found in NPEG and [http://physicsindialog.org PID] (as noted above). These steps prove that there can only be one unconditioned reality and that it must be absolutely simple and unrestricted in its power.

===Step V of the proof which shows that the one unconditioned absolutely simple unrestricted reality must be the continuous Creator of all else that is. ===

[[Metaphysical_Proofs#Proof_that_the_One_Unconditioned_Reality_is_the_Continuous_Creator_of_All_Else_that_Is |Proof that the One Unconditioned Reality is the Continuous Creator of All Else that Is]].

== Unit G: Is there Evidence of God from Mathematics? ==
For a more in depth presentation of time and the formal a-priori synthetic argument for a timeless Creator of time, see NPEG Chapter Five and also [http://physicsindialog.org PID Units 22-25].

=== “Infinite past time” is an analytical contradiction. ===

[[Mathematics#An_Analytical_Contradiction_in_.22Infinite_Past_Time.22 |An Analytical Contradiction in "Infinite Past Time"]]

=== Three kinds of infinity (A, B, and C infinities). ===

Covered in the last paragraphs of [[Mathematics#An_Analytical_Contradiction_in_.22Infinite_Past_Time.22 |An Analytical Contradiction in "Infinite Past Time"]]

=== David Hilbert’s prohibition of C infinities applied to real aggregate structures. ===

[[Mathematics#Summary_of_Hilbert.27s_Prohibition_of_Actual_Infinities |Hilbert's Prohibition of Actual Infinities]]

=== What is real time? ===

[[Mathematics#A_Brief_Explanation_of_Real_Time |A Brief Explanation of Real Time]]

=== The prohibition of a C infinity to real time ===

Implying that past time must be finite and that it must have a beginning, further implying a Creator of past time. See [[Mathematics#Conclusions |Conclusions]]

== Unit H: Why Doesn’t God Need a Creator? ==

[[God is Uncreated]]

An in depth treatment of this material may be found in NPEG Chapter Six Section I.C. It is briefly treated in [http://physicsindialog.org PID Unit 12].

=== No serious philosopher ever suggested that “everything must have a cause,” ===

For this would imply that God needs a cause. See [[God is Uncreated#Serious Metaphysicians Don't Dismiss First Cause |Serious Metaphysicians Don't Dismiss First Cause]]

=== All rigorous logical proofs require that there be at least one uncaused reality. ===

=== All rigorous proofs show that there can only be one uncaused reality ===

(see Unit F).

=== Conclusion of Proof of God Not Needing a Creator ===

All rigorous proofs show that everything in reality besides the one uncaused reality must be caused and that the one uncaused reality must be the cause of all else that is. God does not need to be created – indeed, he must be “that which is uncreated,” otherwise nothing would exist. See [[God is Uncreated#Conclusion |Conclusion]]

== Unit I: Can Atheism be Rational? ==

[[Can Atheism Be Rational?]] (the article of that title).

For a more in depth study of this material, see NPEG Chapter Six, Sections II and III; for a brief lecture presentation, see [http://physicsindialog.org PID Unit 25].

=== It is impossible to rationally disprove the existence of a transcendent being ===

it cannot be done, a-priori, a-posteriori, or through any combination of that. See [[Can_Atheism_Be_Rational%3F#The_Impossibility_of_Disproving_the_Existence_of_God |The Impossibility of Disproving the Existence of God]]

=== A brief response to the problem of suffering – why would God allow suffering if He is all powerful and all loving? ===

(See Units K&L for a much more extended treatment.)

=== A brief Discussion of the Tenuous Rationality of Atheism ===

[[Can_Atheism_Be_Rational%3F#The_Tenuous_Rationality_of_Atheism |The Tenuous Rationality of Atheism]]

=== A response to Freud’s contention that God is the product of wishful thinking. ===

[[Can_Atheism_Be_Rational%3F#Is_Belief_in_God_Mere_Wishful_Thinking.3F |Is Belief in God Mere Wishful Thinking?]]

== Unit J: Why Seek Revelation? ==

[[Reason and Revelation]]

This is not presented in NPEG. For a brief lecture presentation see PID Unit 30.

=== A brief summary of the four sets of evidence for God ===

[[Reason and Revelation#Four Sets of Evidence |Four Sets of Evidence]]

==== The evidence from physics. ====

==== The evidence from the logical proof for the existence of God. ====

==== The evidence from philosophy of mathematics. ====

==== The evidence from near-death experiences and human transcendentality. ====

=== The mutual corroborative effect of these four sets of evidence. ===

=== The complementary picture of God given by these four sets of evidence. ===

=== If reason can probe so deeply, why do we need God to reveal himself (revelation)? ===

There are five basic areas into which reason cannot probe deeply.

==== The heart of God. ====

==== How to pray and worship. ====

==== Specific ethical precepts and attributes of God that cannot be known by reason ====

(e.g. the trinity).

==== God’s inspiration, response to prayer, and redemption of suffering. ====

==== The dynamic of sacred community. ====

=== Toward a definition of love (agape). ===

[[Reason and Revelation#A Definition of Love |A Definition of Love]]

=== Five reflective questions manifesting the unconditional love of God and his desire to be with us empathetically.===

=== God as Emmanuel ===

[[Reason and Revelation#Six Questions Toward Emmanuel |Six Questions Toward Emmanuel]]

== Unit K: Why Would God Allow Suffering from Humans? ==

[[Suffering Caused by Humans]]

This is only briefly treated in NPEG Chapter Six Section III. (See PID Unit 25-27.)

=== If our love is to be our own (and not merely a program) we must freely choose to love ===

Which means that we must have another choice – namely, “not to love.” But the choice not to love gives rise to the possibility of suffering and evil. See [[Suffering_Caused_by_Humans#The_Intrinsic_Relationship_of_Freedom_and_Love |The Intrinsic Relationship of Freedom and Love]]

=== Responses to special cases concerning suffering caused by humans. ===

[[Suffering_Caused_by_Humans#God_Must_Allow_Loving_Beings_to_Create_Their_Loving_Actions_Anew |Special Cases Discussed]]

== Unit L: Why Does God Allow Suffering from Nature? ==

[[Suffering Caused by Nature]]

This is only briefly treated in NPEG Chapter Six Section III. (See [http://physicsindialog.org PID Unit 26-27].)

=== Suffering is caused by nature because we are born imperfectly into an imperfect world. ===

=== Why would God make an imperfect world? ===

==== To help us to self-initiate ====

development of our purpose in life and our identity (from Level One to Level Four). See [[Suffering_Caused_by_Nature#The_First_Purpose_of_an_Imperfect_World:_Identity_Transformation |Identity Transformation]]

==== To allow us to cultivate the “stoic” virtues ====

[[Suffering_Caused_by_Nature#The_Second_Purpose_of_an_Imperfect_World:_Stoic_Virtues |The Stoic Virtues]] (e.g. courage and self-discipline, etc.)

=== To allow us to develop in love (agape). ===

[[Suffering_Caused_by_Nature#The_Third_Purpose_of_an_Imperfect_World:_Agape |Agape]]

=== To allow us to develop our sense of empathy and compassion. ===

=== To leave room for us to build a better world. ===

[[Suffering_Caused_by_Nature#The_Fourth_Purpose_of_an_Imperfect_World:_Interdependence.2C_Human_Community.2C_and_a_.E2.80.9CBetter_World.E2.80.9D |A Better World]]

=== To leave room for us to build the kingdom of God. ===

[[Suffering_Caused_by_Nature#The_Fifth_Purpose_of_an_Imperfect_World:_Building_the_Kingdom_of_God |The Kingdom of God]]

=== Conclusions about Suffering Well ===

[[Suffering Caused by Nature#Conclusion |Conclusions]]

== Unit M: References ==

[[Believe_in_God_Reference_List]]

A comprehensive bibliography of all the references used in the above twelve units.



{{DEFAULTSORT:Why Believe in God}}
[[Category:Table of Contents]]
[[Category:Intellectual Evangelization]]
[[Category:Supplemental Material]]

Why Believe in God?

2015-01-07T22:19:41Z

David Persyn: /* Patients report seeing data that should not have been accessible to them in their brain-dead states, and which is subsequently verifiable (veridical). */

Magis God Wiki: "Why Believe in God?"

© Robert J. Spitzer, S.J. Ph.D./Magis Institute July 2011

There is a list of suggested [[Search Terms]] to assist users in quickly finding their topic of interest.

== Unit A: Does Belief in God Enhance Purpose in Life? ==

[[Purpose in Life]]

This material is not in NPEG, but may be found beginning in Unit 26 of [http://physicsindialog.org PID].

=== What produces happiness and purpose in life? ===

[[Purpose_in_Life#Happiness_and_Purpose_in_Life |Happiness and Purpose]]

=== From immediate gratification and surface apparentness to what is pervasive, enduring, and deep. ===

[[Purpose_in_Life#Moving_from_Shallow_to_Deep |Shallowness to Depth]]

=== Four levels of happiness and purpose in life ===

[[Purpose_in_Life#The_Four_Levels |The Four Levels]]

=== Level two identity, the comparison game, and our culture’s source of anxiety. ===

[[Purpose_in_Life#The_Comparison_Game |The Comparison Game]]

=== Two ways out of the comparison game – level three and level four purpose in life. ===

[[Purpose_in_Life#Ending_the_Game |Getting Out of the Game]]

=== Level four purpose and happiness – transcendence and faith. ===

[[Purpose_in_Life#Transcendence |Faith Leading to Transcendence]]

=== Maintaining a level four purpose in life. ===

[[Purpose_in_Life#Maintaining_Transcendence |Maintaining the Transcendent Happiness]]

== Unit B: Is There any Evidence for the Human Soul? ==

This material is not contained in NPEG, but is in Units 20-21 of [http://physicsindialog.org PID].

=== An assessment of peer-reviewed medical studies on near death experiences from the Lancet, the Journal of the American Medical Association, and other studies. ===

[[The Human Soul]] (This is a single article covering the topics below, which are indexed there for quick reference).

=== The definition of “brain death,” alternative explanations, and controlled, longitudinal studies. ===

=== Eight similar characteristics in near-death experiences. ===

[http://magisgodwiki.org/index.php?title=The_Human_Soul#Near-Death_Experiences Characteristics of NDEs].

=== Patients report seeing data that should not have been accessible to them in their brain-dead states, and which is subsequently verifiable (veridical). ===

[[The_Human_Soul#The_van_Lommel_et_al_Study | The von Lommel Study]]. Veridical data established.

=== 80% of blind patients can see during their near-death experience. ===

[http://magisgodwiki.org/index.php/title=The_Human_Soul#The_Kenneth_Ring.2C_et_al_Study_of_Near-Death_Experiences_of_the_Blind The Kenneth Ring Study of NDEs of the Blind].

=== The measurable absence of death anxiety in both children and adults. ===

[http://magisgodwiki.org/index.php?title=The_Human_Soul#Melvin_Morse.2C_MD_.E2.80.93_Study_of_Near-Death_Experiences_of_Children The Melvin Morse Study of NDEs in Children].

=== Encounters with transcendent beings (loving white light, Jesus, deceased relatives, etc.). ===

=== Conclusions of Von Lommel and other studies. ===

[http://magiswiki.org/index.php/The_Human_Soul#Conclusions_Regarding_Near-Death_Experiences Conclusions drawn from the studies].

== Unit C: Is there Evidence of a Human Soul (Transcendentals)? ==

[[The Transcendentals]]

An in depth analysis of this material may be found in NPEG Chapters 7-8 and a lecture presentation may also be found in [http://physicsindialog.org PID Units 14-19].

=== The desire for complete intelligibility and perfect truth. ===

[[The_Transcendentals#I._The_Desire_for_Perfect_and_Unconditional_Truth |The Desire for Perfect and Unconditional Truth]]

=== The desire for perfect love and empathy. ===

[[The_Transcendentals#II._The_Desire_for_Perfect_and_Unconditional_Love |The Desire for Perfect and Unconditional Love]]

=== The desire for perfect justice/goodness. ===

[[The_Transcendentals#III._The_Desire_for_Perfect_and_Unconditional_Goodness.2FJustice |The Desire for Perfect and Unconditional Goodness & Justice]]

=== The desire for perfect beauty. ===

[[The_Transcendentals#IV._The_Desire_for_Perfect_and_Unconditional_Beauty |The Desire for Perfect and Unconditional Beauty]]

=== The desire for perfect being/home. ===

[[The_Transcendentals#V._The_Desire_for_Perfect_and_Unconditional_Being.2FHome |The Desire for Perfect and Unconditional Being & Home]]

=== The five transcendental desires and the transmateriality of human consciousness. ===

[[The_Transcendentals#Conclusion |Conclusion]]

=== The five transcendental desires and God. ===

== Unit D: Is there Evidence of God from Science? ==

[[Cosmology]] incuding Physics.

A more in depth assessment of this material may be found in NPEG Chapters 1-2 and the Postscript to Part One, and a lecture presentation may be found in [http://physicsindialog.org PID Units 1-5].

=== The extent and limits of scientific method. ===

[http://magisgodwiki.org/index.php?title=Cosmology#Can_Science_Give_Evidence_of_a_Creation_and_Supernatural_Design.3F Limits of Science].

=== The standard big bang model. ===

[http://magisgodwiki.org/index.php?title=Cosmology#Was_the_Big_Bang_the_Beginning.3F The Big Bang and the Beginning].

=== Was the big bang the beginning of the universe (13.7 billion years ago)? ===

[http://magisgodwiki.org/index.php?title=Cosmology#A_Beginning_in_Physics_Implies_A_Creation_of_the_Universe Beginning of the Universe].

=== The significance of a beginning in physics – implications of creation. ===

[http://magisgodwiki.org/index.php?title=Cosmology#What_is_The_Evidence_for_a_Beginning_and_what_are_the_Implications_for_Creation.3F Implications of Creation].

=== Three models for a pre-big-bang period. ===

==== The string theory-inflationary multiverse. ====

==== The bouncing universe. ====

==== String theory-higher dimensional bouncing universe. ====

=== Significant evidence that all three models for a pre-big-bang period would have to have a beginning. ===

[http://magisgodwiki.org/index.php?title=Cosmology#Evidence_of_a_Beginning_from_Space-Time_Geometry_Proofs Space-Time Geometry].

==== The evidence from space-time geometry proofs (Borde, Guth, and Vilenkin). ====

[http://magisgodwiki.org/index.php?title=Cosmology#The_1994_Borde-Vilenkin_Proof B-V Proof of 1994].

[http://magisgodwiki.org/index.php?title=Cosmology#Alan_Guth.E2.80.99s_1999_analysis_of_expanding_pre-big-bang_models The Guth Analysis of 1999].

[http://magisgodwiki.org/index.php?title=Cosmology#The_2003_Borde-Vilenkin-Guth_Theorem_.28the_BVG_Theorem.29: The 2003 BVG Theorem].

==== The evidence from entropy (Penrose, Beckenstein, Banks, Carroll). ====

=== Universal constants, anthropic coincidences, and fine-tuning. ===

[http://magisgodwiki.org/index.php?title=Cosmology#Implications_of_Supernatural_Intelligence_in_the_Fine-tuning_of_Universal_Constants Fine Tuning].

==== Five examples of fine-tuning. ====

==== Can fine-tuning be explained by pure chance? ====

[http://magisgodwiki.org/index.php?title=Cosmology#The_high_improbability_of_a_pure_chance_occurrence_of_our_low-entropy_universe Pure Chance Improbable].

==== Two competing explanations: the multiverse and supernatural design. ====

==== Which of these two explanations is most reasonable and responsible? ====

[http://magisgodwiki.org/index.php?title=Cosmology#The_high_improbability_of_five_other_anthropic_conditions_.28based_on_cosmological_constants.29 Discussion of Probability]

=== Conclusions about the probability of super intelligent Creator. ===

[http://magisgodwiki.org/index.php?title=Cosmology#Conclusions Conclusions].

== Unit E: Can the Bible be Reconciled with Science? ==

[[The Bible and Science]]

This unit is not found in either NPEG or PID, however, there is a free videocast on [http://www.magisreasonfaith.org/library/videos/video-god-and-modern-physics-module-12/ The Magis website].

=== The bible is not doing science – but theology, sacred truths. ===

[[The_Bible_and_Science#Theology_Not_Science |Theology not Science]]

=== What was the biblical author’s intention in writing Genesis:1:1ff? ===

[[The_Bible_and_Science#The_Intent_of_Genesis |The Intent of Genesis]]

=== Is evolution reconcilable with the bible? ===

[[The_Bible_and_Science#Darwinian_Evolution |The Bible and Evolution]]

=== Human beings are not reducible to merely organic mechanisms, and therefore, cannot be the result of a merely bio-physical process (like evolution). ===

[[The_Bible_and_Science#The_Human_Soul |About the Human Soul]]

==== The trans-material component of human beings must have another origin ====

[http://www.magisgodwiki.org/index.php/title=Why_Believe_in_God%3F#Unit_B:_Is_There_any_Evidence_for_the_Human_Soul.3F See above, Unit B].

== Unit F: Can the Existence of God be Logically Proven? ==

[[Metaphysical Proofs]]

This Unit contains only steps I and V of a logical proof for God’s existence. Steps II, III, and IV can be found in NPEG Chapter Three (Sections II through IV) and [http://physicsindialog.org PID Units 6-11]. Those wishing a review of logical syllogisms may want to consult [http://physicsindialog.org PID Units 6-7].

=== Three kinds of publicly corroborateable evidence – a-priori, a-posteriori, and combinations. ===

[[Metaphysical_Proofs#Three_Kinds_of_Publicly_Accessible_Evidence_for_Rational_Proof |Three Kinds of Publicly Corroborateable Evidence]]

=== Step I of the metaphysical proof – proof that there must be at least one unconditioned reality in “all reality.” ===

[[Metaphysical_Proofs#Proof_of_the_Existence_of_at_Least_One_Unconditioned_Reality |Proof of the Existence of at least One Unconditioned Reality]]

=== A record of the missing steps of the proof ===

These can be found in NPEG and [http://physicsindialog.org PID] (as noted above). These steps prove that there can only be one unconditioned reality and that it must be absolutely simple and unrestricted in its power.

===Step V of the proof which shows that the one unconditioned absolutely simple unrestricted reality must be the continuous Creator of all else that is. ===

[[Metaphysical_Proofs#Proof_that_the_One_Unconditioned_Reality_is_the_Continuous_Creator_of_All_Else_that_Is |Proof that the One Unconditioned Reality is the Continuous Creator of All Else that Is]].

== Unit G: Is there Evidence of God from Mathematics? ==
For a more in depth presentation of time and the formal a-priori synthetic argument for a timeless Creator of time, see NPEG Chapter Five and also [http://physicsindialog.org PID Units 22-25].

=== “Infinite past time” is an analytical contradiction. ===

[[Mathematics#An_Analytical_Contradiction_in_.22Infinite_Past_Time.22 |An Analytical Contradiction in "Infinite Past Time"]]

=== Three kinds of infinity (A, B, and C infinities). ===

Covered in the last paragraphs of [[Mathematics#An_Analytical_Contradiction_in_.22Infinite_Past_Time.22 |An Analytical Contradiction in "Infinite Past Time"]]

=== David Hilbert’s prohibition of C infinities applied to real aggregate structures. ===

[[Mathematics#Summary_of_Hilbert.27s_Prohibition_of_Actual_Infinities |Hilbert's Prohibition of Actual Infinities]]

=== What is real time? ===

[[Mathematics#A_Brief_Explanation_of_Real_Time |A Brief Explanation of Real Time]]

=== The prohibition of a C infinity to real time ===

Implying that past time must be finite and that it must have a beginning, further implying a Creator of past time. See [[Mathematics#Conclusions |Conclusions]]

== Unit H: Why Doesn’t God Need a Creator? ==

[[God is Uncreated]]

An in depth treatment of this material may be found in NPEG Chapter Six Section I.C. It is briefly treated in [http://physicsindialog.org PID Unit 12].

=== No serious philosopher ever suggested that “everything must have a cause,” ===

For this would imply that God needs a cause. See [[God is Uncreated#Serious Metaphysicians Don't Dismiss First Cause |Serious Metaphysicians Don't Dismiss First Cause]]

=== All rigorous logical proofs require that there be at least one uncaused reality. ===

=== All rigorous proofs show that there can only be one uncaused reality ===

(see Unit F).

=== Conclusion of Proof of God Not Needing a Creator ===

All rigorous proofs show that everything in reality besides the one uncaused reality must be caused and that the one uncaused reality must be the cause of all else that is. God does not need to be created – indeed, he must be “that which is uncreated,” otherwise nothing would exist. See [[God is Uncreated#Conclusion |Conclusion]]

== Unit I: Can Atheism be Rational? ==

[[Can Atheism Be Rational?]] (the article of that title).

For a more in depth study of this material, see NPEG Chapter Six, Sections II and III; for a brief lecture presentation, see [http://physicsindialog.org PID Unit 25].

=== It is impossible to rationally disprove the existence of a transcendent being ===

it cannot be done, a-priori, a-posteriori, or through any combination of that. See [[Can_Atheism_Be_Rational%3F#The_Impossibility_of_Disproving_the_Existence_of_God |The Impossibility of Disproving the Existence of God]]

=== A brief response to the problem of suffering – why would God allow suffering if He is all powerful and all loving? ===

(See Units K&L for a much more extended treatment.)

=== A brief Discussion of the Tenuous Rationality of Atheism ===

[[Can_Atheism_Be_Rational%3F#The_Tenuous_Rationality_of_Atheism |The Tenuous Rationality of Atheism]]

=== A response to Freud’s contention that God is the product of wishful thinking. ===

[[Can_Atheism_Be_Rational%3F#Is_Belief_in_God_Mere_Wishful_Thinking.3F |Is Belief in God Mere Wishful Thinking?]]

== Unit J: Why Seek Revelation? ==

[[Reason and Revelation]]

This is not presented in NPEG. For a brief lecture presentation see PID Unit 30.

=== A brief summary of the four sets of evidence for God ===

[[Reason and Revelation#Four Sets of Evidence |Four Sets of Evidence]]

==== The evidence from physics. ====

==== The evidence from the logical proof for the existence of God. ====

==== The evidence from philosophy of mathematics. ====

==== The evidence from near-death experiences and human transcendentality. ====

=== The mutual corroborative effect of these four sets of evidence. ===

=== The complementary picture of God given by these four sets of evidence. ===

=== If reason can probe so deeply, why do we need God to reveal himself (revelation)? ===

There are five basic areas into which reason cannot probe deeply.

==== The heart of God. ====

==== How to pray and worship. ====

==== Specific ethical precepts and attributes of God that cannot be known by reason ====

(e.g. the trinity).

==== God’s inspiration, response to prayer, and redemption of suffering. ====

==== The dynamic of sacred community. ====

=== Toward a definition of love (agape). ===

[[Reason and Revelation#A Definition of Love |A Definition of Love]]

=== Five reflective questions manifesting the unconditional love of God and his desire to be with us empathetically.===

=== God as Emmanuel ===

[[Reason and Revelation#Six Questions Toward Emmanuel |Six Questions Toward Emmanuel]]

== Unit K: Why Would God Allow Suffering from Humans? ==

[[Suffering Caused by Humans]]

This is only briefly treated in NPEG Chapter Six Section III. (See PID Unit 25-27.)

=== If our love is to be our own (and not merely a program) we must freely choose to love ===

Which means that we must have another choice – namely, “not to love.” But the choice not to love gives rise to the possibility of suffering and evil. See [[Suffering_Caused_by_Humans#The_Intrinsic_Relationship_of_Freedom_and_Love |The Intrinsic Relationship of Freedom and Love]]

=== Responses to special cases concerning suffering caused by humans. ===

[[Suffering_Caused_by_Humans#God_Must_Allow_Loving_Beings_to_Create_Their_Loving_Actions_Anew |Special Cases Discussed]]

== Unit L: Why Does God Allow Suffering from Nature? ==

[[Suffering Caused by Nature]]

This is only briefly treated in NPEG Chapter Six Section III. (See [http://physicsindialog.org PID Unit 26-27].)

=== Suffering is caused by nature because we are born imperfectly into an imperfect world. ===

=== Why would God make an imperfect world? ===

==== To help us to self-initiate ====

development of our purpose in life and our identity (from Level One to Level Four). See [[Suffering_Caused_by_Nature#The_First_Purpose_of_an_Imperfect_World:_Identity_Transformation |Identity Transformation]]

==== To allow us to cultivate the “stoic” virtues ====

[[Suffering_Caused_by_Nature#The_Second_Purpose_of_an_Imperfect_World:_Stoic_Virtues |The Stoic Virtues]] (e.g. courage and self-discipline, etc.)

=== To allow us to develop in love (agape). ===

[[Suffering_Caused_by_Nature#The_Third_Purpose_of_an_Imperfect_World:_Agape |Agape]]

=== To allow us to develop our sense of empathy and compassion. ===

=== To leave room for us to build a better world. ===

[[Suffering_Caused_by_Nature#The_Fourth_Purpose_of_an_Imperfect_World:_Interdependence.2C_Human_Community.2C_and_a_.E2.80.9CBetter_World.E2.80.9D |A Better World]]

=== To leave room for us to build the kingdom of God. ===

[[Suffering_Caused_by_Nature#The_Fifth_Purpose_of_an_Imperfect_World:_Building_the_Kingdom_of_God |The Kingdom of God]]

=== Conclusions about Suffering Well ===

[[Suffering Caused by Nature#Conclusion |Conclusions]]

== Unit M: References ==

[[Believe_in_God_Reference_List]]

A comprehensive bibliography of all the references used in the above twelve units.



{{DEFAULTSORT:Why Believe in God}}
[[Category:Table of Contents]]
[[Category:Intellectual Evangelization]]
[[Category:Supplemental Material]]

Why Believe in God?

2015-01-07T22:18:01Z

David Persyn: /* Patients report seeing data that should not have been accessible to them in their brain-dead states, and which is subsequently verifiable (veridical). */

Magis God Wiki: "Why Believe in God?"

© Robert J. Spitzer, S.J. Ph.D./Magis Institute July 2011

There is a list of suggested [[Search Terms]] to assist users in quickly finding their topic of interest.

== Unit A: Does Belief in God Enhance Purpose in Life? ==

[[Purpose in Life]]

This material is not in NPEG, but may be found beginning in Unit 26 of [http://physicsindialog.org PID].

=== What produces happiness and purpose in life? ===

[[Purpose_in_Life#Happiness_and_Purpose_in_Life |Happiness and Purpose]]

=== From immediate gratification and surface apparentness to what is pervasive, enduring, and deep. ===

[[Purpose_in_Life#Moving_from_Shallow_to_Deep |Shallowness to Depth]]

=== Four levels of happiness and purpose in life ===

[[Purpose_in_Life#The_Four_Levels |The Four Levels]]

=== Level two identity, the comparison game, and our culture’s source of anxiety. ===

[[Purpose_in_Life#The_Comparison_Game |The Comparison Game]]

=== Two ways out of the comparison game – level three and level four purpose in life. ===

[[Purpose_in_Life#Ending_the_Game |Getting Out of the Game]]

=== Level four purpose and happiness – transcendence and faith. ===

[[Purpose_in_Life#Transcendence |Faith Leading to Transcendence]]

=== Maintaining a level four purpose in life. ===

[[Purpose_in_Life#Maintaining_Transcendence |Maintaining the Transcendent Happiness]]

== Unit B: Is There any Evidence for the Human Soul? ==

This material is not contained in NPEG, but is in Units 20-21 of [http://physicsindialog.org PID].

=== An assessment of peer-reviewed medical studies on near death experiences from the Lancet, the Journal of the American Medical Association, and other studies. ===

[[The Human Soul]] (This is a single article covering the topics below, which are indexed there for quick reference).

=== The definition of “brain death,” alternative explanations, and controlled, longitudinal studies. ===

=== Eight similar characteristics in near-death experiences. ===

[http://magisgodwiki.org/index.php?title=The_Human_Soul#Near-Death_Experiences Characteristics of NDEs].

=== Patients report seeing data that should not have been accessible to them in their brain-dead states, and which is subsequently verifiable (veridical). ===

[http://magisgodwiki.org/index.php/title=The_Human_Soul#The_van_Lommel_et_al_Study The von Lommel Study]. Veridical data established.

=== 80% of blind patients can see during their near-death experience. ===

[http://magisgodwiki.org/index.php/title=The_Human_Soul#The_Kenneth_Ring.2C_et_al_Study_of_Near-Death_Experiences_of_the_Blind The Kenneth Ring Study of NDEs of the Blind].

=== The measurable absence of death anxiety in both children and adults. ===

[http://magisgodwiki.org/index.php?title=The_Human_Soul#Melvin_Morse.2C_MD_.E2.80.93_Study_of_Near-Death_Experiences_of_Children The Melvin Morse Study of NDEs in Children].

=== Encounters with transcendent beings (loving white light, Jesus, deceased relatives, etc.). ===

=== Conclusions of Von Lommel and other studies. ===

[http://magiswiki.org/index.php/The_Human_Soul#Conclusions_Regarding_Near-Death_Experiences Conclusions drawn from the studies].

== Unit C: Is there Evidence of a Human Soul (Transcendentals)? ==

[[The Transcendentals]]

An in depth analysis of this material may be found in NPEG Chapters 7-8 and a lecture presentation may also be found in [http://physicsindialog.org PID Units 14-19].

=== The desire for complete intelligibility and perfect truth. ===

[[The_Transcendentals#I._The_Desire_for_Perfect_and_Unconditional_Truth |The Desire for Perfect and Unconditional Truth]]

=== The desire for perfect love and empathy. ===

[[The_Transcendentals#II._The_Desire_for_Perfect_and_Unconditional_Love |The Desire for Perfect and Unconditional Love]]

=== The desire for perfect justice/goodness. ===

[[The_Transcendentals#III._The_Desire_for_Perfect_and_Unconditional_Goodness.2FJustice |The Desire for Perfect and Unconditional Goodness & Justice]]

=== The desire for perfect beauty. ===

[[The_Transcendentals#IV._The_Desire_for_Perfect_and_Unconditional_Beauty |The Desire for Perfect and Unconditional Beauty]]

=== The desire for perfect being/home. ===

[[The_Transcendentals#V._The_Desire_for_Perfect_and_Unconditional_Being.2FHome |The Desire for Perfect and Unconditional Being & Home]]

=== The five transcendental desires and the transmateriality of human consciousness. ===

[[The_Transcendentals#Conclusion |Conclusion]]

=== The five transcendental desires and God. ===

== Unit D: Is there Evidence of God from Science? ==

[[Cosmology]] incuding Physics.

A more in depth assessment of this material may be found in NPEG Chapters 1-2 and the Postscript to Part One, and a lecture presentation may be found in [http://physicsindialog.org PID Units 1-5].

=== The extent and limits of scientific method. ===

[http://magisgodwiki.org/index.php?title=Cosmology#Can_Science_Give_Evidence_of_a_Creation_and_Supernatural_Design.3F Limits of Science].

=== The standard big bang model. ===

[http://magisgodwiki.org/index.php?title=Cosmology#Was_the_Big_Bang_the_Beginning.3F The Big Bang and the Beginning].

=== Was the big bang the beginning of the universe (13.7 billion years ago)? ===

[http://magisgodwiki.org/index.php?title=Cosmology#A_Beginning_in_Physics_Implies_A_Creation_of_the_Universe Beginning of the Universe].

=== The significance of a beginning in physics – implications of creation. ===

[http://magisgodwiki.org/index.php?title=Cosmology#What_is_The_Evidence_for_a_Beginning_and_what_are_the_Implications_for_Creation.3F Implications of Creation].

=== Three models for a pre-big-bang period. ===

==== The string theory-inflationary multiverse. ====

==== The bouncing universe. ====

==== String theory-higher dimensional bouncing universe. ====

=== Significant evidence that all three models for a pre-big-bang period would have to have a beginning. ===

[http://magisgodwiki.org/index.php?title=Cosmology#Evidence_of_a_Beginning_from_Space-Time_Geometry_Proofs Space-Time Geometry].

==== The evidence from space-time geometry proofs (Borde, Guth, and Vilenkin). ====

[http://magisgodwiki.org/index.php?title=Cosmology#The_1994_Borde-Vilenkin_Proof B-V Proof of 1994].

[http://magisgodwiki.org/index.php?title=Cosmology#Alan_Guth.E2.80.99s_1999_analysis_of_expanding_pre-big-bang_models The Guth Analysis of 1999].

[http://magisgodwiki.org/index.php?title=Cosmology#The_2003_Borde-Vilenkin-Guth_Theorem_.28the_BVG_Theorem.29: The 2003 BVG Theorem].

==== The evidence from entropy (Penrose, Beckenstein, Banks, Carroll). ====

=== Universal constants, anthropic coincidences, and fine-tuning. ===

[http://magisgodwiki.org/index.php?title=Cosmology#Implications_of_Supernatural_Intelligence_in_the_Fine-tuning_of_Universal_Constants Fine Tuning].

==== Five examples of fine-tuning. ====

==== Can fine-tuning be explained by pure chance? ====

[http://magisgodwiki.org/index.php?title=Cosmology#The_high_improbability_of_a_pure_chance_occurrence_of_our_low-entropy_universe Pure Chance Improbable].

==== Two competing explanations: the multiverse and supernatural design. ====

==== Which of these two explanations is most reasonable and responsible? ====

[http://magisgodwiki.org/index.php?title=Cosmology#The_high_improbability_of_five_other_anthropic_conditions_.28based_on_cosmological_constants.29 Discussion of Probability]

=== Conclusions about the probability of super intelligent Creator. ===

[http://magisgodwiki.org/index.php?title=Cosmology#Conclusions Conclusions].

== Unit E: Can the Bible be Reconciled with Science? ==

[[The Bible and Science]]

This unit is not found in either NPEG or PID, however, there is a free videocast on [http://www.magisreasonfaith.org/library/videos/video-god-and-modern-physics-module-12/ The Magis website].

=== The bible is not doing science – but theology, sacred truths. ===

[[The_Bible_and_Science#Theology_Not_Science |Theology not Science]]

=== What was the biblical author’s intention in writing Genesis:1:1ff? ===

[[The_Bible_and_Science#The_Intent_of_Genesis |The Intent of Genesis]]

=== Is evolution reconcilable with the bible? ===

[[The_Bible_and_Science#Darwinian_Evolution |The Bible and Evolution]]

=== Human beings are not reducible to merely organic mechanisms, and therefore, cannot be the result of a merely bio-physical process (like evolution). ===

[[The_Bible_and_Science#The_Human_Soul |About the Human Soul]]

==== The trans-material component of human beings must have another origin ====

[http://www.magisgodwiki.org/index.php/title=Why_Believe_in_God%3F#Unit_B:_Is_There_any_Evidence_for_the_Human_Soul.3F See above, Unit B].

== Unit F: Can the Existence of God be Logically Proven? ==

[[Metaphysical Proofs]]

This Unit contains only steps I and V of a logical proof for God’s existence. Steps II, III, and IV can be found in NPEG Chapter Three (Sections II through IV) and [http://physicsindialog.org PID Units 6-11]. Those wishing a review of logical syllogisms may want to consult [http://physicsindialog.org PID Units 6-7].

=== Three kinds of publicly corroborateable evidence – a-priori, a-posteriori, and combinations. ===

[[Metaphysical_Proofs#Three_Kinds_of_Publicly_Accessible_Evidence_for_Rational_Proof |Three Kinds of Publicly Corroborateable Evidence]]

=== Step I of the metaphysical proof – proof that there must be at least one unconditioned reality in “all reality.” ===

[[Metaphysical_Proofs#Proof_of_the_Existence_of_at_Least_One_Unconditioned_Reality |Proof of the Existence of at least One Unconditioned Reality]]

=== A record of the missing steps of the proof ===

These can be found in NPEG and [http://physicsindialog.org PID] (as noted above). These steps prove that there can only be one unconditioned reality and that it must be absolutely simple and unrestricted in its power.

===Step V of the proof which shows that the one unconditioned absolutely simple unrestricted reality must be the continuous Creator of all else that is. ===

[[Metaphysical_Proofs#Proof_that_the_One_Unconditioned_Reality_is_the_Continuous_Creator_of_All_Else_that_Is |Proof that the One Unconditioned Reality is the Continuous Creator of All Else that Is]].

== Unit G: Is there Evidence of God from Mathematics? ==
For a more in depth presentation of time and the formal a-priori synthetic argument for a timeless Creator of time, see NPEG Chapter Five and also [http://physicsindialog.org PID Units 22-25].

=== “Infinite past time” is an analytical contradiction. ===

[[Mathematics#An_Analytical_Contradiction_in_.22Infinite_Past_Time.22 |An Analytical Contradiction in "Infinite Past Time"]]

=== Three kinds of infinity (A, B, and C infinities). ===

Covered in the last paragraphs of [[Mathematics#An_Analytical_Contradiction_in_.22Infinite_Past_Time.22 |An Analytical Contradiction in "Infinite Past Time"]]

=== David Hilbert’s prohibition of C infinities applied to real aggregate structures. ===

[[Mathematics#Summary_of_Hilbert.27s_Prohibition_of_Actual_Infinities |Hilbert's Prohibition of Actual Infinities]]

=== What is real time? ===

[[Mathematics#A_Brief_Explanation_of_Real_Time |A Brief Explanation of Real Time]]

=== The prohibition of a C infinity to real time ===

Implying that past time must be finite and that it must have a beginning, further implying a Creator of past time. See [[Mathematics#Conclusions |Conclusions]]

== Unit H: Why Doesn’t God Need a Creator? ==

[[God is Uncreated]]

An in depth treatment of this material may be found in NPEG Chapter Six Section I.C. It is briefly treated in [http://physicsindialog.org PID Unit 12].

=== No serious philosopher ever suggested that “everything must have a cause,” ===

For this would imply that God needs a cause. See [[God is Uncreated#Serious Metaphysicians Don't Dismiss First Cause |Serious Metaphysicians Don't Dismiss First Cause]]

=== All rigorous logical proofs require that there be at least one uncaused reality. ===

=== All rigorous proofs show that there can only be one uncaused reality ===

(see Unit F).

=== Conclusion of Proof of God Not Needing a Creator ===

All rigorous proofs show that everything in reality besides the one uncaused reality must be caused and that the one uncaused reality must be the cause of all else that is. God does not need to be created – indeed, he must be “that which is uncreated,” otherwise nothing would exist. See [[God is Uncreated#Conclusion |Conclusion]]

== Unit I: Can Atheism be Rational? ==

[[Can Atheism Be Rational?]] (the article of that title).

For a more in depth study of this material, see NPEG Chapter Six, Sections II and III; for a brief lecture presentation, see [http://physicsindialog.org PID Unit 25].

=== It is impossible to rationally disprove the existence of a transcendent being ===

it cannot be done, a-priori, a-posteriori, or through any combination of that. See [[Can_Atheism_Be_Rational%3F#The_Impossibility_of_Disproving_the_Existence_of_God |The Impossibility of Disproving the Existence of God]]

=== A brief response to the problem of suffering – why would God allow suffering if He is all powerful and all loving? ===

(See Units K&L for a much more extended treatment.)

=== A brief Discussion of the Tenuous Rationality of Atheism ===

[[Can_Atheism_Be_Rational%3F#The_Tenuous_Rationality_of_Atheism |The Tenuous Rationality of Atheism]]

=== A response to Freud’s contention that God is the product of wishful thinking. ===

[[Can_Atheism_Be_Rational%3F#Is_Belief_in_God_Mere_Wishful_Thinking.3F |Is Belief in God Mere Wishful Thinking?]]

== Unit J: Why Seek Revelation? ==

[[Reason and Revelation]]

This is not presented in NPEG. For a brief lecture presentation see PID Unit 30.

=== A brief summary of the four sets of evidence for God ===

[[Reason and Revelation#Four Sets of Evidence |Four Sets of Evidence]]

==== The evidence from physics. ====

==== The evidence from the logical proof for the existence of God. ====

==== The evidence from philosophy of mathematics. ====

==== The evidence from near-death experiences and human transcendentality. ====

=== The mutual corroborative effect of these four sets of evidence. ===

=== The complementary picture of God given by these four sets of evidence. ===

=== If reason can probe so deeply, why do we need God to reveal himself (revelation)? ===

There are five basic areas into which reason cannot probe deeply.

==== The heart of God. ====

==== How to pray and worship. ====

==== Specific ethical precepts and attributes of God that cannot be known by reason ====

(e.g. the trinity).

==== God’s inspiration, response to prayer, and redemption of suffering. ====

==== The dynamic of sacred community. ====

=== Toward a definition of love (agape). ===

[[Reason and Revelation#A Definition of Love |A Definition of Love]]

=== Five reflective questions manifesting the unconditional love of God and his desire to be with us empathetically.===

=== God as Emmanuel ===

[[Reason and Revelation#Six Questions Toward Emmanuel |Six Questions Toward Emmanuel]]

== Unit K: Why Would God Allow Suffering from Humans? ==

[[Suffering Caused by Humans]]

This is only briefly treated in NPEG Chapter Six Section III. (See PID Unit 25-27.)

=== If our love is to be our own (and not merely a program) we must freely choose to love ===

Which means that we must have another choice – namely, “not to love.” But the choice not to love gives rise to the possibility of suffering and evil. See [[Suffering_Caused_by_Humans#The_Intrinsic_Relationship_of_Freedom_and_Love |The Intrinsic Relationship of Freedom and Love]]

=== Responses to special cases concerning suffering caused by humans. ===

[[Suffering_Caused_by_Humans#God_Must_Allow_Loving_Beings_to_Create_Their_Loving_Actions_Anew |Special Cases Discussed]]

== Unit L: Why Does God Allow Suffering from Nature? ==

[[Suffering Caused by Nature]]

This is only briefly treated in NPEG Chapter Six Section III. (See [http://physicsindialog.org PID Unit 26-27].)

=== Suffering is caused by nature because we are born imperfectly into an imperfect world. ===

=== Why would God make an imperfect world? ===

==== To help us to self-initiate ====

development of our purpose in life and our identity (from Level One to Level Four). See [[Suffering_Caused_by_Nature#The_First_Purpose_of_an_Imperfect_World:_Identity_Transformation |Identity Transformation]]

==== To allow us to cultivate the “stoic” virtues ====

[[Suffering_Caused_by_Nature#The_Second_Purpose_of_an_Imperfect_World:_Stoic_Virtues |The Stoic Virtues]] (e.g. courage and self-discipline, etc.)

=== To allow us to develop in love (agape). ===

[[Suffering_Caused_by_Nature#The_Third_Purpose_of_an_Imperfect_World:_Agape |Agape]]

=== To allow us to develop our sense of empathy and compassion. ===

=== To leave room for us to build a better world. ===

[[Suffering_Caused_by_Nature#The_Fourth_Purpose_of_an_Imperfect_World:_Interdependence.2C_Human_Community.2C_and_a_.E2.80.9CBetter_World.E2.80.9D |A Better World]]

=== To leave room for us to build the kingdom of God. ===

[[Suffering_Caused_by_Nature#The_Fifth_Purpose_of_an_Imperfect_World:_Building_the_Kingdom_of_God |The Kingdom of God]]

=== Conclusions about Suffering Well ===

[[Suffering Caused by Nature#Conclusion |Conclusions]]

== Unit M: References ==

[[Believe_in_God_Reference_List]]

A comprehensive bibliography of all the references used in the above twelve units.



{{DEFAULTSORT:Why Believe in God}}
[[Category:Table of Contents]]
[[Category:Intellectual Evangelization]]
[[Category:Supplemental Material]]

Why Believe in God?

2015-01-07T22:15:31Z

David Persyn: /* Patients report seeing data that should not have been accessible to them in their brain-dead states, and which is subsequently verifiable (veridical). */

Magis God Wiki: "Why Believe in God?"

© Robert J. Spitzer, S.J. Ph.D./Magis Institute July 2011

There is a list of suggested [[Search Terms]] to assist users in quickly finding their topic of interest.

== Unit A: Does Belief in God Enhance Purpose in Life? ==

[[Purpose in Life]]

This material is not in NPEG, but may be found beginning in Unit 26 of [http://physicsindialog.org PID].

=== What produces happiness and purpose in life? ===

[[Purpose_in_Life#Happiness_and_Purpose_in_Life |Happiness and Purpose]]

=== From immediate gratification and surface apparentness to what is pervasive, enduring, and deep. ===

[[Purpose_in_Life#Moving_from_Shallow_to_Deep |Shallowness to Depth]]

=== Four levels of happiness and purpose in life ===

[[Purpose_in_Life#The_Four_Levels |The Four Levels]]

=== Level two identity, the comparison game, and our culture’s source of anxiety. ===

[[Purpose_in_Life#The_Comparison_Game |The Comparison Game]]

=== Two ways out of the comparison game – level three and level four purpose in life. ===

[[Purpose_in_Life#Ending_the_Game |Getting Out of the Game]]

=== Level four purpose and happiness – transcendence and faith. ===

[[Purpose_in_Life#Transcendence |Faith Leading to Transcendence]]

=== Maintaining a level four purpose in life. ===

[[Purpose_in_Life#Maintaining_Transcendence |Maintaining the Transcendent Happiness]]

== Unit B: Is There any Evidence for the Human Soul? ==

This material is not contained in NPEG, but is in Units 20-21 of [http://physicsindialog.org PID].

=== An assessment of peer-reviewed medical studies on near death experiences from the Lancet, the Journal of the American Medical Association, and other studies. ===

[[The Human Soul]] (This is a single article covering the topics below, which are indexed there for quick reference).

=== The definition of “brain death,” alternative explanations, and controlled, longitudinal studies. ===

=== Eight similar characteristics in near-death experiences. ===

[http://magisgodwiki.org/index.php?title=The_Human_Soul#Near-Death_Experiences Characteristics of NDEs].

=== Patients report seeing data that should not have been accessible to them in their brain-dead states, and which is subsequently verifiable (veridical). ===

[http://magisgodwiki.org/index.php/title=The_Human_Soul#The_van_Lommel_et_al_Study | The von Lommel Study]. Veridical data established.

=== 80% of blind patients can see during their near-death experience. ===

[http://magisgodwiki.org/index.php/title=The_Human_Soul#The_Kenneth_Ring.2C_et_al_Study_of_Near-Death_Experiences_of_the_Blind The Kenneth Ring Study of NDEs of the Blind].

=== The measurable absence of death anxiety in both children and adults. ===

[http://magisgodwiki.org/index.php?title=The_Human_Soul#Melvin_Morse.2C_MD_.E2.80.93_Study_of_Near-Death_Experiences_of_Children The Melvin Morse Study of NDEs in Children].

=== Encounters with transcendent beings (loving white light, Jesus, deceased relatives, etc.). ===

=== Conclusions of Von Lommel and other studies. ===

[http://magiswiki.org/index.php/The_Human_Soul#Conclusions_Regarding_Near-Death_Experiences Conclusions drawn from the studies].

== Unit C: Is there Evidence of a Human Soul (Transcendentals)? ==

[[The Transcendentals]]

An in depth analysis of this material may be found in NPEG Chapters 7-8 and a lecture presentation may also be found in [http://physicsindialog.org PID Units 14-19].

=== The desire for complete intelligibility and perfect truth. ===

[[The_Transcendentals#I._The_Desire_for_Perfect_and_Unconditional_Truth |The Desire for Perfect and Unconditional Truth]]

=== The desire for perfect love and empathy. ===

[[The_Transcendentals#II._The_Desire_for_Perfect_and_Unconditional_Love |The Desire for Perfect and Unconditional Love]]

=== The desire for perfect justice/goodness. ===

[[The_Transcendentals#III._The_Desire_for_Perfect_and_Unconditional_Goodness.2FJustice |The Desire for Perfect and Unconditional Goodness & Justice]]

=== The desire for perfect beauty. ===

[[The_Transcendentals#IV._The_Desire_for_Perfect_and_Unconditional_Beauty |The Desire for Perfect and Unconditional Beauty]]

=== The desire for perfect being/home. ===

[[The_Transcendentals#V._The_Desire_for_Perfect_and_Unconditional_Being.2FHome |The Desire for Perfect and Unconditional Being & Home]]

=== The five transcendental desires and the transmateriality of human consciousness. ===

[[The_Transcendentals#Conclusion |Conclusion]]

=== The five transcendental desires and God. ===

== Unit D: Is there Evidence of God from Science? ==

[[Cosmology]] incuding Physics.

A more in depth assessment of this material may be found in NPEG Chapters 1-2 and the Postscript to Part One, and a lecture presentation may be found in [http://physicsindialog.org PID Units 1-5].

=== The extent and limits of scientific method. ===

[http://magisgodwiki.org/index.php?title=Cosmology#Can_Science_Give_Evidence_of_a_Creation_and_Supernatural_Design.3F Limits of Science].

=== The standard big bang model. ===

[http://magisgodwiki.org/index.php?title=Cosmology#Was_the_Big_Bang_the_Beginning.3F The Big Bang and the Beginning].

=== Was the big bang the beginning of the universe (13.7 billion years ago)? ===

[http://magisgodwiki.org/index.php?title=Cosmology#A_Beginning_in_Physics_Implies_A_Creation_of_the_Universe Beginning of the Universe].

=== The significance of a beginning in physics – implications of creation. ===

[http://magisgodwiki.org/index.php?title=Cosmology#What_is_The_Evidence_for_a_Beginning_and_what_are_the_Implications_for_Creation.3F Implications of Creation].

=== Three models for a pre-big-bang period. ===

==== The string theory-inflationary multiverse. ====

==== The bouncing universe. ====

==== String theory-higher dimensional bouncing universe. ====

=== Significant evidence that all three models for a pre-big-bang period would have to have a beginning. ===

[http://magisgodwiki.org/index.php?title=Cosmology#Evidence_of_a_Beginning_from_Space-Time_Geometry_Proofs Space-Time Geometry].

==== The evidence from space-time geometry proofs (Borde, Guth, and Vilenkin). ====

[http://magisgodwiki.org/index.php?title=Cosmology#The_1994_Borde-Vilenkin_Proof B-V Proof of 1994].

[http://magisgodwiki.org/index.php?title=Cosmology#Alan_Guth.E2.80.99s_1999_analysis_of_expanding_pre-big-bang_models The Guth Analysis of 1999].

[http://magisgodwiki.org/index.php?title=Cosmology#The_2003_Borde-Vilenkin-Guth_Theorem_.28the_BVG_Theorem.29: The 2003 BVG Theorem].

==== The evidence from entropy (Penrose, Beckenstein, Banks, Carroll). ====

=== Universal constants, anthropic coincidences, and fine-tuning. ===

[http://magisgodwiki.org/index.php?title=Cosmology#Implications_of_Supernatural_Intelligence_in_the_Fine-tuning_of_Universal_Constants Fine Tuning].

==== Five examples of fine-tuning. ====

==== Can fine-tuning be explained by pure chance? ====

[http://magisgodwiki.org/index.php?title=Cosmology#The_high_improbability_of_a_pure_chance_occurrence_of_our_low-entropy_universe Pure Chance Improbable].

==== Two competing explanations: the multiverse and supernatural design. ====

==== Which of these two explanations is most reasonable and responsible? ====

[http://magisgodwiki.org/index.php?title=Cosmology#The_high_improbability_of_five_other_anthropic_conditions_.28based_on_cosmological_constants.29 Discussion of Probability]

=== Conclusions about the probability of super intelligent Creator. ===

[http://magisgodwiki.org/index.php?title=Cosmology#Conclusions Conclusions].

== Unit E: Can the Bible be Reconciled with Science? ==

[[The Bible and Science]]

This unit is not found in either NPEG or PID, however, there is a free videocast on [http://www.magisreasonfaith.org/library/videos/video-god-and-modern-physics-module-12/ The Magis website].

=== The bible is not doing science – but theology, sacred truths. ===

[[The_Bible_and_Science#Theology_Not_Science |Theology not Science]]

=== What was the biblical author’s intention in writing Genesis:1:1ff? ===

[[The_Bible_and_Science#The_Intent_of_Genesis |The Intent of Genesis]]

=== Is evolution reconcilable with the bible? ===

[[The_Bible_and_Science#Darwinian_Evolution |The Bible and Evolution]]

=== Human beings are not reducible to merely organic mechanisms, and therefore, cannot be the result of a merely bio-physical process (like evolution). ===

[[The_Bible_and_Science#The_Human_Soul |About the Human Soul]]

==== The trans-material component of human beings must have another origin ====

[http://www.magisgodwiki.org/index.php/title=Why_Believe_in_God%3F#Unit_B:_Is_There_any_Evidence_for_the_Human_Soul.3F See above, Unit B].

== Unit F: Can the Existence of God be Logically Proven? ==

[[Metaphysical Proofs]]

This Unit contains only steps I and V of a logical proof for God’s existence. Steps II, III, and IV can be found in NPEG Chapter Three (Sections II through IV) and [http://physicsindialog.org PID Units 6-11]. Those wishing a review of logical syllogisms may want to consult [http://physicsindialog.org PID Units 6-7].

=== Three kinds of publicly corroborateable evidence – a-priori, a-posteriori, and combinations. ===

[[Metaphysical_Proofs#Three_Kinds_of_Publicly_Accessible_Evidence_for_Rational_Proof |Three Kinds of Publicly Corroborateable Evidence]]

=== Step I of the metaphysical proof – proof that there must be at least one unconditioned reality in “all reality.” ===

[[Metaphysical_Proofs#Proof_of_the_Existence_of_at_Least_One_Unconditioned_Reality |Proof of the Existence of at least One Unconditioned Reality]]

=== A record of the missing steps of the proof ===

These can be found in NPEG and [http://physicsindialog.org PID] (as noted above). These steps prove that there can only be one unconditioned reality and that it must be absolutely simple and unrestricted in its power.

===Step V of the proof which shows that the one unconditioned absolutely simple unrestricted reality must be the continuous Creator of all else that is. ===

[[Metaphysical_Proofs#Proof_that_the_One_Unconditioned_Reality_is_the_Continuous_Creator_of_All_Else_that_Is |Proof that the One Unconditioned Reality is the Continuous Creator of All Else that Is]].

== Unit G: Is there Evidence of God from Mathematics? ==
For a more in depth presentation of time and the formal a-priori synthetic argument for a timeless Creator of time, see NPEG Chapter Five and also [http://physicsindialog.org PID Units 22-25].

=== “Infinite past time” is an analytical contradiction. ===

[[Mathematics#An_Analytical_Contradiction_in_.22Infinite_Past_Time.22 |An Analytical Contradiction in "Infinite Past Time"]]

=== Three kinds of infinity (A, B, and C infinities). ===

Covered in the last paragraphs of [[Mathematics#An_Analytical_Contradiction_in_.22Infinite_Past_Time.22 |An Analytical Contradiction in "Infinite Past Time"]]

=== David Hilbert’s prohibition of C infinities applied to real aggregate structures. ===

[[Mathematics#Summary_of_Hilbert.27s_Prohibition_of_Actual_Infinities |Hilbert's Prohibition of Actual Infinities]]

=== What is real time? ===

[[Mathematics#A_Brief_Explanation_of_Real_Time |A Brief Explanation of Real Time]]

=== The prohibition of a C infinity to real time ===

Implying that past time must be finite and that it must have a beginning, further implying a Creator of past time. See [[Mathematics#Conclusions |Conclusions]]

== Unit H: Why Doesn’t God Need a Creator? ==

[[God is Uncreated]]

An in depth treatment of this material may be found in NPEG Chapter Six Section I.C. It is briefly treated in [http://physicsindialog.org PID Unit 12].

=== No serious philosopher ever suggested that “everything must have a cause,” ===

For this would imply that God needs a cause. See [[God is Uncreated#Serious Metaphysicians Don't Dismiss First Cause |Serious Metaphysicians Don't Dismiss First Cause]]

=== All rigorous logical proofs require that there be at least one uncaused reality. ===

=== All rigorous proofs show that there can only be one uncaused reality ===

(see Unit F).

=== Conclusion of Proof of God Not Needing a Creator ===

All rigorous proofs show that everything in reality besides the one uncaused reality must be caused and that the one uncaused reality must be the cause of all else that is. God does not need to be created – indeed, he must be “that which is uncreated,” otherwise nothing would exist. See [[God is Uncreated#Conclusion |Conclusion]]

== Unit I: Can Atheism be Rational? ==

[[Can Atheism Be Rational?]] (the article of that title).

For a more in depth study of this material, see NPEG Chapter Six, Sections II and III; for a brief lecture presentation, see [http://physicsindialog.org PID Unit 25].

=== It is impossible to rationally disprove the existence of a transcendent being ===

it cannot be done, a-priori, a-posteriori, or through any combination of that. See [[Can_Atheism_Be_Rational%3F#The_Impossibility_of_Disproving_the_Existence_of_God |The Impossibility of Disproving the Existence of God]]

=== A brief response to the problem of suffering – why would God allow suffering if He is all powerful and all loving? ===

(See Units K&L for a much more extended treatment.)

=== A brief Discussion of the Tenuous Rationality of Atheism ===

[[Can_Atheism_Be_Rational%3F#The_Tenuous_Rationality_of_Atheism |The Tenuous Rationality of Atheism]]

=== A response to Freud’s contention that God is the product of wishful thinking. ===

[[Can_Atheism_Be_Rational%3F#Is_Belief_in_God_Mere_Wishful_Thinking.3F |Is Belief in God Mere Wishful Thinking?]]

== Unit J: Why Seek Revelation? ==

[[Reason and Revelation]]

This is not presented in NPEG. For a brief lecture presentation see PID Unit 30.

=== A brief summary of the four sets of evidence for God ===

[[Reason and Revelation#Four Sets of Evidence |Four Sets of Evidence]]

==== The evidence from physics. ====

==== The evidence from the logical proof for the existence of God. ====

==== The evidence from philosophy of mathematics. ====

==== The evidence from near-death experiences and human transcendentality. ====

=== The mutual corroborative effect of these four sets of evidence. ===

=== The complementary picture of God given by these four sets of evidence. ===

=== If reason can probe so deeply, why do we need God to reveal himself (revelation)? ===

There are five basic areas into which reason cannot probe deeply.

==== The heart of God. ====

==== How to pray and worship. ====

==== Specific ethical precepts and attributes of God that cannot be known by reason ====

(e.g. the trinity).

==== God’s inspiration, response to prayer, and redemption of suffering. ====

==== The dynamic of sacred community. ====

=== Toward a definition of love (agape). ===

[[Reason and Revelation#A Definition of Love |A Definition of Love]]

=== Five reflective questions manifesting the unconditional love of God and his desire to be with us empathetically.===

=== God as Emmanuel ===

[[Reason and Revelation#Six Questions Toward Emmanuel |Six Questions Toward Emmanuel]]

== Unit K: Why Would God Allow Suffering from Humans? ==

[[Suffering Caused by Humans]]

This is only briefly treated in NPEG Chapter Six Section III. (See PID Unit 25-27.)

=== If our love is to be our own (and not merely a program) we must freely choose to love ===

Which means that we must have another choice – namely, “not to love.” But the choice not to love gives rise to the possibility of suffering and evil. See [[Suffering_Caused_by_Humans#The_Intrinsic_Relationship_of_Freedom_and_Love |The Intrinsic Relationship of Freedom and Love]]

=== Responses to special cases concerning suffering caused by humans. ===

[[Suffering_Caused_by_Humans#God_Must_Allow_Loving_Beings_to_Create_Their_Loving_Actions_Anew |Special Cases Discussed]]

== Unit L: Why Does God Allow Suffering from Nature? ==

[[Suffering Caused by Nature]]

This is only briefly treated in NPEG Chapter Six Section III. (See [http://physicsindialog.org PID Unit 26-27].)

=== Suffering is caused by nature because we are born imperfectly into an imperfect world. ===

=== Why would God make an imperfect world? ===

==== To help us to self-initiate ====

development of our purpose in life and our identity (from Level One to Level Four). See [[Suffering_Caused_by_Nature#The_First_Purpose_of_an_Imperfect_World:_Identity_Transformation |Identity Transformation]]

==== To allow us to cultivate the “stoic” virtues ====

[[Suffering_Caused_by_Nature#The_Second_Purpose_of_an_Imperfect_World:_Stoic_Virtues |The Stoic Virtues]] (e.g. courage and self-discipline, etc.)

=== To allow us to develop in love (agape). ===

[[Suffering_Caused_by_Nature#The_Third_Purpose_of_an_Imperfect_World:_Agape |Agape]]

=== To allow us to develop our sense of empathy and compassion. ===

=== To leave room for us to build a better world. ===

[[Suffering_Caused_by_Nature#The_Fourth_Purpose_of_an_Imperfect_World:_Interdependence.2C_Human_Community.2C_and_a_.E2.80.9CBetter_World.E2.80.9D |A Better World]]

=== To leave room for us to build the kingdom of God. ===

[[Suffering_Caused_by_Nature#The_Fifth_Purpose_of_an_Imperfect_World:_Building_the_Kingdom_of_God |The Kingdom of God]]

=== Conclusions about Suffering Well ===

[[Suffering Caused by Nature#Conclusion |Conclusions]]

== Unit M: References ==

[[Believe_in_God_Reference_List]]

A comprehensive bibliography of all the references used in the above twelve units.



{{DEFAULTSORT:Why Believe in God}}
[[Category:Table of Contents]]
[[Category:Intellectual Evangelization]]
[[Category:Supplemental Material]]

Why Believe in God?

2012-05-15T14:20:46Z

David Persyn: /* Conclusions about the probability of super intelligent Creator. */ link repair

Magis God Wiki: "Why Believe in God?"

© Robert J. Spitzer, S.J. Ph.D./Magis Institute July 2011

There is a list of suggested [[Search Terms]] to assist users in quickly finding their topic of interest.

== Unit A: Does Belief in God Enhance Purpose in Life? ==

[[Purpose in Life]]

This material is not in NPEG, but may be found beginning in Unit 26 of [http://physicsindialog.org PID].

=== What produces happiness and purpose in life? ===

[[Purpose_in_Life#Happiness_and_Purpose_in_Life |Happiness and Purpose]]

=== From immediate gratification and surface apparentness to what is pervasive, enduring, and deep. ===

[[Purpose_in_Life#Moving_from_Shallow_to_Deep |Shallowness to Depth]]

=== Four levels of happiness and purpose in life ===

[[Purpose_in_Life#The_Four_Levels |The Four Levels]]

=== Level two identity, the comparison game, and our culture’s source of anxiety. ===

[[Purpose_in_Life#The_Comparison_Game |The Comparison Game]]

=== Two ways out of the comparison game – level three and level four purpose in life. ===

[[Purpose_in_Life#Ending_the_Game |Getting Out of the Game]]

=== Level four purpose and happiness – transcendence and faith. ===

[[Purpose_in_Life#Transcendence |Faith Leading to Transcendence]]

=== Maintaining a level four purpose in life. ===

[[Purpose_in_Life#Maintaining_Transcendence |Maintaining the Transcendent Happiness]]

== Unit B: Is There any Evidence for the Human Soul? ==

This material is not contained in NPEG, but is in Units 20-21 of [http://physicsindialog.org PID].

=== An assessment of peer-reviewed medical studies on near death experiences from the Lancet, the Journal of the American Medical Association, and other studies. ===

[[The Human Soul]] (This is a single article covering the topics below, which are indexed there for quick reference).

=== The definition of “brain death,” alternative explanations, and controlled, longitudinal studies. ===

=== Eight similar characteristics in near-death experiences. ===

[http://magisgodwiki.org/index.php?title=The_Human_Soul#Near-Death_Experiences Characteristics of NDEs].

=== Patients report seeing data that should not have been accessible to them in their brain-dead states, and which is subsequently verifiable (veridical). ===

[http://magisgodwiki.org/index.php/title=The_Human_Soul#The_van_Lommel_et_al_Study The von Lommel Study]. Veridical data established.

=== 80% of blind patients can see during their near-death experience. ===

[http://magisgodwiki.org/index.php/title=The_Human_Soul#The_Kenneth_Ring.2C_et_al_Study_of_Near-Death_Experiences_of_the_Blind The Kenneth Ring Study of NDEs of the Blind].

=== The measurable absence of death anxiety in both children and adults. ===

[http://magisgodwiki.org/index.php?title=The_Human_Soul#Melvin_Morse.2C_MD_.E2.80.93_Study_of_Near-Death_Experiences_of_Children The Melvin Morse Study of NDEs in Children].

=== Encounters with transcendent beings (loving white light, Jesus, deceased relatives, etc.). ===

=== Conclusions of Von Lommel and other studies. ===

[http://magiswiki.org/index.php/The_Human_Soul#Conclusions_Regarding_Near-Death_Experiences Conclusions drawn from the studies].

== Unit C: Is there Evidence of a Human Soul (Transcendentals)? ==

[[The Transcendentals]]

An in depth analysis of this material may be found in NPEG Chapters 7-8 and a lecture presentation may also be found in [http://physicsindialog.org PID Units 14-19].

=== The desire for complete intelligibility and perfect truth. ===

[[The_Transcendentals#I._The_Desire_for_Perfect_and_Unconditional_Truth |The Desire for Perfect and Unconditional Truth]]

=== The desire for perfect love and empathy. ===

[[The_Transcendentals#II._The_Desire_for_Perfect_and_Unconditional_Love |The Desire for Perfect and Unconditional Love]]

=== The desire for perfect justice/goodness. ===

[[The_Transcendentals#III._The_Desire_for_Perfect_and_Unconditional_Goodness.2FJustice |The Desire for Perfect and Unconditional Goodness & Justice]]

=== The desire for perfect beauty. ===

[[The_Transcendentals#IV._The_Desire_for_Perfect_and_Unconditional_Beauty |The Desire for Perfect and Unconditional Beauty]]

=== The desire for perfect being/home. ===

[[The_Transcendentals#V._The_Desire_for_Perfect_and_Unconditional_Being.2FHome |The Desire for Perfect and Unconditional Being & Home]]

=== The five transcendental desires and the transmateriality of human consciousness. ===

[[The_Transcendentals#Conclusion |Conclusion]]

=== The five transcendental desires and God. ===

== Unit D: Is there Evidence of God from Science? ==

[[Cosmology]] incuding Physics.

A more in depth assessment of this material may be found in NPEG Chapters 1-2 and the Postscript to Part One, and a lecture presentation may be found in [http://physicsindialog.org PID Units 1-5].

=== The extent and limits of scientific method. ===

[http://magisgodwiki.org/index.php?title=Cosmology#Can_Science_Give_Evidence_of_a_Creation_and_Supernatural_Design.3F Limits of Science].

=== The standard big bang model. ===

[http://magisgodwiki.org/index.php?title=Cosmology#Was_the_Big_Bang_the_Beginning.3F The Big Bang and the Beginning].

=== Was the big bang the beginning of the universe (13.7 billion years ago)? ===

[http://magisgodwiki.org/index.php?title=Cosmology#A_Beginning_in_Physics_Implies_A_Creation_of_the_Universe Beginning of the Universe].

=== The significance of a beginning in physics – implications of creation. ===

[http://magisgodwiki.org/index.php?title=Cosmology#What_is_The_Evidence_for_a_Beginning_and_what_are_the_Implications_for_Creation.3F Implications of Creation].

=== Three models for a pre-big-bang period. ===

==== The string theory-inflationary multiverse. ====

==== The bouncing universe. ====

==== String theory-higher dimensional bouncing universe. ====

=== Significant evidence that all three models for a pre-big-bang period would have to have a beginning. ===

[http://magisgodwiki.org/index.php?title=Cosmology#Evidence_of_a_Beginning_from_Space-Time_Geometry_Proofs Space-Time Geometry].

==== The evidence from space-time geometry proofs (Borde, Guth, and Vilenkin). ====

[http://magisgodwiki.org/index.php?title=Cosmology#The_1994_Borde-Vilenkin_Proof B-V Proof of 1994].

[http://magisgodwiki.org/index.php?title=Cosmology#Alan_Guth.E2.80.99s_1999_analysis_of_expanding_pre-big-bang_models The Guth Analysis of 1999].

[http://magisgodwiki.org/index.php?title=Cosmology#The_2003_Borde-Vilenkin-Guth_Theorem_.28the_BVG_Theorem.29: The 2003 BVG Theorem].

==== The evidence from entropy (Penrose, Beckenstein, Banks, Carroll). ====

=== Universal constants, anthropic coincidences, and fine-tuning. ===

[http://magisgodwiki.org/index.php?title=Cosmology#Implications_of_Supernatural_Intelligence_in_the_Fine-tuning_of_Universal_Constants Fine Tuning].

==== Five examples of fine-tuning. ====

==== Can fine-tuning be explained by pure chance? ====

[http://magisgodwiki.org/index.php?title=Cosmology#The_high_improbability_of_a_pure_chance_occurrence_of_our_low-entropy_universe Pure Chance Improbable].

==== Two competing explanations: the multiverse and supernatural design. ====

==== Which of these two explanations is most reasonable and responsible? ====

[http://magisgodwiki.org/index.php?title=Cosmology#The_high_improbability_of_five_other_anthropic_conditions_.28based_on_cosmological_constants.29 Discussion of Probability]

=== Conclusions about the probability of super intelligent Creator. ===

[http://magisgodwiki.org/index.php?title=Cosmology#Conclusions Conclusions].

== Unit E: Can the Bible be Reconciled with Science? ==

[[The Bible and Science]]

This unit is not found in either NPEG or PID, however, there is a free videocast on [http://www.magisreasonfaith.org/library/videos/video-god-and-modern-physics-module-12/ The Magis website].

=== The bible is not doing science – but theology, sacred truths. ===

[[The_Bible_and_Science#Theology_Not_Science |Theology not Science]]

=== What was the biblical author’s intention in writing Genesis:1:1ff? ===

[[The_Bible_and_Science#The_Intent_of_Genesis |The Intent of Genesis]]

=== Is evolution reconcilable with the bible? ===

[[The_Bible_and_Science#Darwinian_Evolution |The Bible and Evolution]]

=== Human beings are not reducible to merely organic mechanisms, and therefore, cannot be the result of a merely bio-physical process (like evolution). ===

[[The_Bible_and_Science#The_Human_Soul |About the Human Soul]]

==== The trans-material component of human beings must have another origin ====

[http://www.magisgodwiki.org/index.php/title=Why_Believe_in_God%3F#Unit_B:_Is_There_any_Evidence_for_the_Human_Soul.3F See above, Unit B].

== Unit F: Can the Existence of God be Logically Proven? ==

[[Metaphysical Proofs]]

This Unit contains only steps I and V of a logical proof for God’s existence. Steps II, III, and IV can be found in NPEG Chapter Three (Sections II through IV) and [http://physicsindialog.org PID Units 6-11]. Those wishing a review of logical syllogisms may want to consult [http://physicsindialog.org PID Units 6-7].

=== Three kinds of publicly corroborateable evidence – a-priori, a-posteriori, and combinations. ===

[[Metaphysical_Proofs#Three_Kinds_of_Publicly_Accessible_Evidence_for_Rational_Proof |Three Kinds of Publicly Corroborateable Evidence]]

=== Step I of the metaphysical proof – proof that there must be at least one unconditioned reality in “all reality.” ===

[[Metaphysical_Proofs#Proof_of_the_Existence_of_at_Least_One_Unconditioned_Reality |Proof of the Existence of at least One Unconditioned Reality]]

=== A record of the missing steps of the proof ===

These can be found in NPEG and [http://physicsindialog.org PID] (as noted above). These steps prove that there can only be one unconditioned reality and that it must be absolutely simple and unrestricted in its power.

===Step V of the proof which shows that the one unconditioned absolutely simple unrestricted reality must be the continuous Creator of all else that is. ===

[[Metaphysical_Proofs#Proof_that_the_One_Unconditioned_Reality_is_the_Continuous_Creator_of_All_Else_that_Is |Proof that the One Unconditioned Reality is the Continuous Creator of All Else that Is]].

== Unit G: Is there Evidence of God from Mathematics? ==
For a more in depth presentation of time and the formal a-priori synthetic argument for a timeless Creator of time, see NPEG Chapter Five and also [http://physicsindialog.org PID Units 22-25].

=== “Infinite past time” is an analytical contradiction. ===

[[Mathematics#An_Analytical_Contradiction_in_.22Infinite_Past_Time.22 |An Analytical Contradiction in "Infinite Past Time"]]

=== Three kinds of infinity (A, B, and C infinities). ===

Covered in the last paragraphs of [[Mathematics#An_Analytical_Contradiction_in_.22Infinite_Past_Time.22 |An Analytical Contradiction in "Infinite Past Time"]]

=== David Hilbert’s prohibition of C infinities applied to real aggregate structures. ===

[[Mathematics#Summary_of_Hilbert.27s_Prohibition_of_Actual_Infinities |Hilbert's Prohibition of Actual Infinities]]

=== What is real time? ===

[[Mathematics#A_Brief_Explanation_of_Real_Time |A Brief Explanation of Real Time]]

=== The prohibition of a C infinity to real time ===

Implying that past time must be finite and that it must have a beginning, further implying a Creator of past time. See [[Mathematics#Conclusions |Conclusions]]

== Unit H: Why Doesn’t God Need a Creator? ==

[[God is Uncreated]]

An in depth treatment of this material may be found in NPEG Chapter Six Section I.C. It is briefly treated in [http://physicsindialog.org PID Unit 12].

=== No serious philosopher ever suggested that “everything must have a cause,” ===

For this would imply that God needs a cause. See [[God is Uncreated#Serious Metaphysicians Don't Dismiss First Cause |Serious Metaphysicians Don't Dismiss First Cause]]

=== All rigorous logical proofs require that there be at least one uncaused reality. ===

=== All rigorous proofs show that there can only be one uncaused reality ===

(see Unit F).

=== Conclusion of Proof of God Not Needing a Creator ===

All rigorous proofs show that everything in reality besides the one uncaused reality must be caused and that the one uncaused reality must be the cause of all else that is. God does not need to be created – indeed, he must be “that which is uncreated,” otherwise nothing would exist. See [[God is Uncreated#Conclusion |Conclusion]]

== Unit I: Can Atheism be Rational? ==

[[Can Atheism Be Rational?]] (the article of that title).

For a more in depth study of this material, see NPEG Chapter Six, Sections II and III; for a brief lecture presentation, see [http://physicsindialog.org PID Unit 25].

=== It is impossible to rationally disprove the existence of a transcendent being ===

it cannot be done, a-priori, a-posteriori, or through any combination of that. See [[Can_Atheism_Be_Rational%3F#The_Impossibility_of_Disproving_the_Existence_of_God |The Impossibility of Disproving the Existence of God]]

=== A brief response to the problem of suffering – why would God allow suffering if He is all powerful and all loving? ===

(See Units K&L for a much more extended treatment.)

=== A brief Discussion of the Tenuous Rationality of Atheism ===

[[Can_Atheism_Be_Rational%3F#The_Tenuous_Rationality_of_Atheism |The Tenuous Rationality of Atheism]]

=== A response to Freud’s contention that God is the product of wishful thinking. ===

[[Can_Atheism_Be_Rational%3F#Is_Belief_in_God_Mere_Wishful_Thinking.3F |Is Belief in God Mere Wishful Thinking?]]

== Unit J: Why Seek Revelation? ==

[[Reason and Revelation]]

This is not presented in NPEG. For a brief lecture presentation see PID Unit 30.

=== A brief summary of the four sets of evidence for God ===

[[Reason and Revelation#Four Sets of Evidence |Four Sets of Evidence]]

==== The evidence from physics. ====

==== The evidence from the logical proof for the existence of God. ====

==== The evidence from philosophy of mathematics. ====

==== The evidence from near-death experiences and human transcendentality. ====

=== The mutual corroborative effect of these four sets of evidence. ===

=== The complementary picture of God given by these four sets of evidence. ===

=== If reason can probe so deeply, why do we need God to reveal himself (revelation)? ===

There are five basic areas into which reason cannot probe deeply.

==== The heart of God. ====

==== How to pray and worship. ====

==== Specific ethical precepts and attributes of God that cannot be known by reason ====

(e.g. the trinity).

==== God’s inspiration, response to prayer, and redemption of suffering. ====

==== The dynamic of sacred community. ====

=== Toward a definition of love (agape). ===

[[Reason and Revelation#A Definition of Love |A Definition of Love]]

=== Five reflective questions manifesting the unconditional love of God and his desire to be with us empathetically.===

=== God as Emmanuel ===

[[Reason and Revelation#Six Questions Toward Emmanuel |Six Questions Toward Emmanuel]]

== Unit K: Why Would God Allow Suffering from Humans? ==

[[Suffering Caused by Humans]]

This is only briefly treated in NPEG Chapter Six Section III. (See PID Unit 25-27.)

=== If our love is to be our own (and not merely a program) we must freely choose to love ===

Which means that we must have another choice – namely, “not to love.” But the choice not to love gives rise to the possibility of suffering and evil. See [[Suffering_Caused_by_Humans#The_Intrinsic_Relationship_of_Freedom_and_Love |The Intrinsic Relationship of Freedom and Love]]

=== Responses to special cases concerning suffering caused by humans. ===

[[Suffering_Caused_by_Humans#God_Must_Allow_Loving_Beings_to_Create_Their_Loving_Actions_Anew |Special Cases Discussed]]

== Unit L: Why Does God Allow Suffering from Nature? ==

[[Suffering Caused by Nature]]

This is only briefly treated in NPEG Chapter Six Section III. (See [http://physicsindialog.org PID Unit 26-27].)

=== Suffering is caused by nature because we are born imperfectly into an imperfect world. ===

=== Why would God make an imperfect world? ===

==== To help us to self-initiate ====

development of our purpose in life and our identity (from Level One to Level Four). See [[Suffering_Caused_by_Nature#The_First_Purpose_of_an_Imperfect_World:_Identity_Transformation |Identity Transformation]]

==== To allow us to cultivate the “stoic” virtues ====

[[Suffering_Caused_by_Nature#The_Second_Purpose_of_an_Imperfect_World:_Stoic_Virtues |The Stoic Virtues]] (e.g. courage and self-discipline, etc.)

=== To allow us to develop in love (agape). ===

[[Suffering_Caused_by_Nature#The_Third_Purpose_of_an_Imperfect_World:_Agape |Agape]]

=== To allow us to develop our sense of empathy and compassion. ===

=== To leave room for us to build a better world. ===

[[Suffering_Caused_by_Nature#The_Fourth_Purpose_of_an_Imperfect_World:_Interdependence.2C_Human_Community.2C_and_a_.E2.80.9CBetter_World.E2.80.9D |A Better World]]

=== To leave room for us to build the kingdom of God. ===

[[Suffering_Caused_by_Nature#The_Fifth_Purpose_of_an_Imperfect_World:_Building_the_Kingdom_of_God |The Kingdom of God]]

=== Conclusions about Suffering Well ===

[[Suffering Caused by Nature#Conclusion |Conclusions]]

== Unit M: References ==

[[Believe_in_God_Reference_List]]

A comprehensive bibliography of all the references used in the above twelve units.



{{DEFAULTSORT:Why Believe in God}}
[[Category:Table of Contents]]
[[Category:Intellectual Evangelization]]
[[Category:Supplemental Material]]

Why Believe in God?

2012-05-15T14:19:40Z

David Persyn: /* Which of these two explanations is most reasonable and responsible? */ link repair

Magis God Wiki: "Why Believe in God?"

© Robert J. Spitzer, S.J. Ph.D./Magis Institute July 2011

There is a list of suggested [[Search Terms]] to assist users in quickly finding their topic of interest.

== Unit A: Does Belief in God Enhance Purpose in Life? ==

[[Purpose in Life]]

This material is not in NPEG, but may be found beginning in Unit 26 of [http://physicsindialog.org PID].

=== What produces happiness and purpose in life? ===

[[Purpose_in_Life#Happiness_and_Purpose_in_Life |Happiness and Purpose]]

=== From immediate gratification and surface apparentness to what is pervasive, enduring, and deep. ===

[[Purpose_in_Life#Moving_from_Shallow_to_Deep |Shallowness to Depth]]

=== Four levels of happiness and purpose in life ===

[[Purpose_in_Life#The_Four_Levels |The Four Levels]]

=== Level two identity, the comparison game, and our culture’s source of anxiety. ===

[[Purpose_in_Life#The_Comparison_Game |The Comparison Game]]

=== Two ways out of the comparison game – level three and level four purpose in life. ===

[[Purpose_in_Life#Ending_the_Game |Getting Out of the Game]]

=== Level four purpose and happiness – transcendence and faith. ===

[[Purpose_in_Life#Transcendence |Faith Leading to Transcendence]]

=== Maintaining a level four purpose in life. ===

[[Purpose_in_Life#Maintaining_Transcendence |Maintaining the Transcendent Happiness]]

== Unit B: Is There any Evidence for the Human Soul? ==

This material is not contained in NPEG, but is in Units 20-21 of [http://physicsindialog.org PID].

=== An assessment of peer-reviewed medical studies on near death experiences from the Lancet, the Journal of the American Medical Association, and other studies. ===

[[The Human Soul]] (This is a single article covering the topics below, which are indexed there for quick reference).

=== The definition of “brain death,” alternative explanations, and controlled, longitudinal studies. ===

=== Eight similar characteristics in near-death experiences. ===

[http://magisgodwiki.org/index.php?title=The_Human_Soul#Near-Death_Experiences Characteristics of NDEs].

=== Patients report seeing data that should not have been accessible to them in their brain-dead states, and which is subsequently verifiable (veridical). ===

[http://magisgodwiki.org/index.php/title=The_Human_Soul#The_van_Lommel_et_al_Study The von Lommel Study]. Veridical data established.

=== 80% of blind patients can see during their near-death experience. ===

[http://magisgodwiki.org/index.php/title=The_Human_Soul#The_Kenneth_Ring.2C_et_al_Study_of_Near-Death_Experiences_of_the_Blind The Kenneth Ring Study of NDEs of the Blind].

=== The measurable absence of death anxiety in both children and adults. ===

[http://magisgodwiki.org/index.php?title=The_Human_Soul#Melvin_Morse.2C_MD_.E2.80.93_Study_of_Near-Death_Experiences_of_Children The Melvin Morse Study of NDEs in Children].

=== Encounters with transcendent beings (loving white light, Jesus, deceased relatives, etc.). ===

=== Conclusions of Von Lommel and other studies. ===

[http://magiswiki.org/index.php/The_Human_Soul#Conclusions_Regarding_Near-Death_Experiences Conclusions drawn from the studies].

== Unit C: Is there Evidence of a Human Soul (Transcendentals)? ==

[[The Transcendentals]]

An in depth analysis of this material may be found in NPEG Chapters 7-8 and a lecture presentation may also be found in [http://physicsindialog.org PID Units 14-19].

=== The desire for complete intelligibility and perfect truth. ===

[[The_Transcendentals#I._The_Desire_for_Perfect_and_Unconditional_Truth |The Desire for Perfect and Unconditional Truth]]

=== The desire for perfect love and empathy. ===

[[The_Transcendentals#II._The_Desire_for_Perfect_and_Unconditional_Love |The Desire for Perfect and Unconditional Love]]

=== The desire for perfect justice/goodness. ===

[[The_Transcendentals#III._The_Desire_for_Perfect_and_Unconditional_Goodness.2FJustice |The Desire for Perfect and Unconditional Goodness & Justice]]

=== The desire for perfect beauty. ===

[[The_Transcendentals#IV._The_Desire_for_Perfect_and_Unconditional_Beauty |The Desire for Perfect and Unconditional Beauty]]

=== The desire for perfect being/home. ===

[[The_Transcendentals#V._The_Desire_for_Perfect_and_Unconditional_Being.2FHome |The Desire for Perfect and Unconditional Being & Home]]

=== The five transcendental desires and the transmateriality of human consciousness. ===

[[The_Transcendentals#Conclusion |Conclusion]]

=== The five transcendental desires and God. ===

== Unit D: Is there Evidence of God from Science? ==

[[Cosmology]] incuding Physics.

A more in depth assessment of this material may be found in NPEG Chapters 1-2 and the Postscript to Part One, and a lecture presentation may be found in [http://physicsindialog.org PID Units 1-5].

=== The extent and limits of scientific method. ===

[http://magisgodwiki.org/index.php?title=Cosmology#Can_Science_Give_Evidence_of_a_Creation_and_Supernatural_Design.3F Limits of Science].

=== The standard big bang model. ===

[http://magisgodwiki.org/index.php?title=Cosmology#Was_the_Big_Bang_the_Beginning.3F The Big Bang and the Beginning].

=== Was the big bang the beginning of the universe (13.7 billion years ago)? ===

[http://magisgodwiki.org/index.php?title=Cosmology#A_Beginning_in_Physics_Implies_A_Creation_of_the_Universe Beginning of the Universe].

=== The significance of a beginning in physics – implications of creation. ===

[http://magisgodwiki.org/index.php?title=Cosmology#What_is_The_Evidence_for_a_Beginning_and_what_are_the_Implications_for_Creation.3F Implications of Creation].

=== Three models for a pre-big-bang period. ===

==== The string theory-inflationary multiverse. ====

==== The bouncing universe. ====

==== String theory-higher dimensional bouncing universe. ====

=== Significant evidence that all three models for a pre-big-bang period would have to have a beginning. ===

[http://magisgodwiki.org/index.php?title=Cosmology#Evidence_of_a_Beginning_from_Space-Time_Geometry_Proofs Space-Time Geometry].

==== The evidence from space-time geometry proofs (Borde, Guth, and Vilenkin). ====

[http://magisgodwiki.org/index.php?title=Cosmology#The_1994_Borde-Vilenkin_Proof B-V Proof of 1994].

[http://magisgodwiki.org/index.php?title=Cosmology#Alan_Guth.E2.80.99s_1999_analysis_of_expanding_pre-big-bang_models The Guth Analysis of 1999].

[http://magisgodwiki.org/index.php?title=Cosmology#The_2003_Borde-Vilenkin-Guth_Theorem_.28the_BVG_Theorem.29: The 2003 BVG Theorem].

==== The evidence from entropy (Penrose, Beckenstein, Banks, Carroll). ====

=== Universal constants, anthropic coincidences, and fine-tuning. ===

[http://magisgodwiki.org/index.php?title=Cosmology#Implications_of_Supernatural_Intelligence_in_the_Fine-tuning_of_Universal_Constants Fine Tuning].

==== Five examples of fine-tuning. ====

==== Can fine-tuning be explained by pure chance? ====

[http://magisgodwiki.org/index.php?title=Cosmology#The_high_improbability_of_a_pure_chance_occurrence_of_our_low-entropy_universe Pure Chance Improbable].

==== Two competing explanations: the multiverse and supernatural design. ====

==== Which of these two explanations is most reasonable and responsible? ====

[http://magisgodwiki.org/index.php?title=Cosmology#The_high_improbability_of_five_other_anthropic_conditions_.28based_on_cosmological_constants.29 Discussion of Probability]

=== Conclusions about the probability of super intelligent Creator. ===

[http://www.magiswiki.org/index.php/Cosmology#Conclusions Conclusions].

== Unit E: Can the Bible be Reconciled with Science? ==

[[The Bible and Science]]

This unit is not found in either NPEG or PID, however, there is a free videocast on [http://www.magisreasonfaith.org/library/videos/video-god-and-modern-physics-module-12/ The Magis website].

=== The bible is not doing science – but theology, sacred truths. ===

[[The_Bible_and_Science#Theology_Not_Science |Theology not Science]]

=== What was the biblical author’s intention in writing Genesis:1:1ff? ===

[[The_Bible_and_Science#The_Intent_of_Genesis |The Intent of Genesis]]

=== Is evolution reconcilable with the bible? ===

[[The_Bible_and_Science#Darwinian_Evolution |The Bible and Evolution]]

=== Human beings are not reducible to merely organic mechanisms, and therefore, cannot be the result of a merely bio-physical process (like evolution). ===

[[The_Bible_and_Science#The_Human_Soul |About the Human Soul]]

==== The trans-material component of human beings must have another origin ====

[http://www.magisgodwiki.org/index.php/title=Why_Believe_in_God%3F#Unit_B:_Is_There_any_Evidence_for_the_Human_Soul.3F See above, Unit B].

== Unit F: Can the Existence of God be Logically Proven? ==

[[Metaphysical Proofs]]

This Unit contains only steps I and V of a logical proof for God’s existence. Steps II, III, and IV can be found in NPEG Chapter Three (Sections II through IV) and [http://physicsindialog.org PID Units 6-11]. Those wishing a review of logical syllogisms may want to consult [http://physicsindialog.org PID Units 6-7].

=== Three kinds of publicly corroborateable evidence – a-priori, a-posteriori, and combinations. ===

[[Metaphysical_Proofs#Three_Kinds_of_Publicly_Accessible_Evidence_for_Rational_Proof |Three Kinds of Publicly Corroborateable Evidence]]

=== Step I of the metaphysical proof – proof that there must be at least one unconditioned reality in “all reality.” ===

[[Metaphysical_Proofs#Proof_of_the_Existence_of_at_Least_One_Unconditioned_Reality |Proof of the Existence of at least One Unconditioned Reality]]

=== A record of the missing steps of the proof ===

These can be found in NPEG and [http://physicsindialog.org PID] (as noted above). These steps prove that there can only be one unconditioned reality and that it must be absolutely simple and unrestricted in its power.

===Step V of the proof which shows that the one unconditioned absolutely simple unrestricted reality must be the continuous Creator of all else that is. ===

[[Metaphysical_Proofs#Proof_that_the_One_Unconditioned_Reality_is_the_Continuous_Creator_of_All_Else_that_Is |Proof that the One Unconditioned Reality is the Continuous Creator of All Else that Is]].

== Unit G: Is there Evidence of God from Mathematics? ==
For a more in depth presentation of time and the formal a-priori synthetic argument for a timeless Creator of time, see NPEG Chapter Five and also [http://physicsindialog.org PID Units 22-25].

=== “Infinite past time” is an analytical contradiction. ===

[[Mathematics#An_Analytical_Contradiction_in_.22Infinite_Past_Time.22 |An Analytical Contradiction in "Infinite Past Time"]]

=== Three kinds of infinity (A, B, and C infinities). ===

Covered in the last paragraphs of [[Mathematics#An_Analytical_Contradiction_in_.22Infinite_Past_Time.22 |An Analytical Contradiction in "Infinite Past Time"]]

=== David Hilbert’s prohibition of C infinities applied to real aggregate structures. ===

[[Mathematics#Summary_of_Hilbert.27s_Prohibition_of_Actual_Infinities |Hilbert's Prohibition of Actual Infinities]]

=== What is real time? ===

[[Mathematics#A_Brief_Explanation_of_Real_Time |A Brief Explanation of Real Time]]

=== The prohibition of a C infinity to real time ===

Implying that past time must be finite and that it must have a beginning, further implying a Creator of past time. See [[Mathematics#Conclusions |Conclusions]]

== Unit H: Why Doesn’t God Need a Creator? ==

[[God is Uncreated]]

An in depth treatment of this material may be found in NPEG Chapter Six Section I.C. It is briefly treated in [http://physicsindialog.org PID Unit 12].

=== No serious philosopher ever suggested that “everything must have a cause,” ===

For this would imply that God needs a cause. See [[God is Uncreated#Serious Metaphysicians Don't Dismiss First Cause |Serious Metaphysicians Don't Dismiss First Cause]]

=== All rigorous logical proofs require that there be at least one uncaused reality. ===

=== All rigorous proofs show that there can only be one uncaused reality ===

(see Unit F).

=== Conclusion of Proof of God Not Needing a Creator ===

All rigorous proofs show that everything in reality besides the one uncaused reality must be caused and that the one uncaused reality must be the cause of all else that is. God does not need to be created – indeed, he must be “that which is uncreated,” otherwise nothing would exist. See [[God is Uncreated#Conclusion |Conclusion]]

== Unit I: Can Atheism be Rational? ==

[[Can Atheism Be Rational?]] (the article of that title).

For a more in depth study of this material, see NPEG Chapter Six, Sections II and III; for a brief lecture presentation, see [http://physicsindialog.org PID Unit 25].

=== It is impossible to rationally disprove the existence of a transcendent being ===

it cannot be done, a-priori, a-posteriori, or through any combination of that. See [[Can_Atheism_Be_Rational%3F#The_Impossibility_of_Disproving_the_Existence_of_God |The Impossibility of Disproving the Existence of God]]

=== A brief response to the problem of suffering – why would God allow suffering if He is all powerful and all loving? ===

(See Units K&L for a much more extended treatment.)

=== A brief Discussion of the Tenuous Rationality of Atheism ===

[[Can_Atheism_Be_Rational%3F#The_Tenuous_Rationality_of_Atheism |The Tenuous Rationality of Atheism]]

=== A response to Freud’s contention that God is the product of wishful thinking. ===

[[Can_Atheism_Be_Rational%3F#Is_Belief_in_God_Mere_Wishful_Thinking.3F |Is Belief in God Mere Wishful Thinking?]]

== Unit J: Why Seek Revelation? ==

[[Reason and Revelation]]

This is not presented in NPEG. For a brief lecture presentation see PID Unit 30.

=== A brief summary of the four sets of evidence for God ===

[[Reason and Revelation#Four Sets of Evidence |Four Sets of Evidence]]

==== The evidence from physics. ====

==== The evidence from the logical proof for the existence of God. ====

==== The evidence from philosophy of mathematics. ====

==== The evidence from near-death experiences and human transcendentality. ====

=== The mutual corroborative effect of these four sets of evidence. ===

=== The complementary picture of God given by these four sets of evidence. ===

=== If reason can probe so deeply, why do we need God to reveal himself (revelation)? ===

There are five basic areas into which reason cannot probe deeply.

==== The heart of God. ====

==== How to pray and worship. ====

==== Specific ethical precepts and attributes of God that cannot be known by reason ====

(e.g. the trinity).

==== God’s inspiration, response to prayer, and redemption of suffering. ====

==== The dynamic of sacred community. ====

=== Toward a definition of love (agape). ===

[[Reason and Revelation#A Definition of Love |A Definition of Love]]

=== Five reflective questions manifesting the unconditional love of God and his desire to be with us empathetically.===

=== God as Emmanuel ===

[[Reason and Revelation#Six Questions Toward Emmanuel |Six Questions Toward Emmanuel]]

== Unit K: Why Would God Allow Suffering from Humans? ==

[[Suffering Caused by Humans]]

This is only briefly treated in NPEG Chapter Six Section III. (See PID Unit 25-27.)

=== If our love is to be our own (and not merely a program) we must freely choose to love ===

Which means that we must have another choice – namely, “not to love.” But the choice not to love gives rise to the possibility of suffering and evil. See [[Suffering_Caused_by_Humans#The_Intrinsic_Relationship_of_Freedom_and_Love |The Intrinsic Relationship of Freedom and Love]]

=== Responses to special cases concerning suffering caused by humans. ===

[[Suffering_Caused_by_Humans#God_Must_Allow_Loving_Beings_to_Create_Their_Loving_Actions_Anew |Special Cases Discussed]]

== Unit L: Why Does God Allow Suffering from Nature? ==

[[Suffering Caused by Nature]]

This is only briefly treated in NPEG Chapter Six Section III. (See [http://physicsindialog.org PID Unit 26-27].)

=== Suffering is caused by nature because we are born imperfectly into an imperfect world. ===

=== Why would God make an imperfect world? ===

==== To help us to self-initiate ====

development of our purpose in life and our identity (from Level One to Level Four). See [[Suffering_Caused_by_Nature#The_First_Purpose_of_an_Imperfect_World:_Identity_Transformation |Identity Transformation]]

==== To allow us to cultivate the “stoic” virtues ====

[[Suffering_Caused_by_Nature#The_Second_Purpose_of_an_Imperfect_World:_Stoic_Virtues |The Stoic Virtues]] (e.g. courage and self-discipline, etc.)

=== To allow us to develop in love (agape). ===

[[Suffering_Caused_by_Nature#The_Third_Purpose_of_an_Imperfect_World:_Agape |Agape]]

=== To allow us to develop our sense of empathy and compassion. ===

=== To leave room for us to build a better world. ===

[[Suffering_Caused_by_Nature#The_Fourth_Purpose_of_an_Imperfect_World:_Interdependence.2C_Human_Community.2C_and_a_.E2.80.9CBetter_World.E2.80.9D |A Better World]]

=== To leave room for us to build the kingdom of God. ===

[[Suffering_Caused_by_Nature#The_Fifth_Purpose_of_an_Imperfect_World:_Building_the_Kingdom_of_God |The Kingdom of God]]

=== Conclusions about Suffering Well ===

[[Suffering Caused by Nature#Conclusion |Conclusions]]

== Unit M: References ==

[[Believe_in_God_Reference_List]]

A comprehensive bibliography of all the references used in the above twelve units.



{{DEFAULTSORT:Why Believe in God}}
[[Category:Table of Contents]]
[[Category:Intellectual Evangelization]]
[[Category:Supplemental Material]]

Why Believe in God?

2012-05-15T14:18:22Z

David Persyn: /* Universal constants, anthropic coincidences, and fine-tuning. */ link repair

Magis God Wiki: "Why Believe in God?"

© Robert J. Spitzer, S.J. Ph.D./Magis Institute July 2011

There is a list of suggested [[Search Terms]] to assist users in quickly finding their topic of interest.

== Unit A: Does Belief in God Enhance Purpose in Life? ==

[[Purpose in Life]]

This material is not in NPEG, but may be found beginning in Unit 26 of [http://physicsindialog.org PID].

=== What produces happiness and purpose in life? ===

[[Purpose_in_Life#Happiness_and_Purpose_in_Life |Happiness and Purpose]]

=== From immediate gratification and surface apparentness to what is pervasive, enduring, and deep. ===

[[Purpose_in_Life#Moving_from_Shallow_to_Deep |Shallowness to Depth]]

=== Four levels of happiness and purpose in life ===

[[Purpose_in_Life#The_Four_Levels |The Four Levels]]

=== Level two identity, the comparison game, and our culture’s source of anxiety. ===

[[Purpose_in_Life#The_Comparison_Game |The Comparison Game]]

=== Two ways out of the comparison game – level three and level four purpose in life. ===

[[Purpose_in_Life#Ending_the_Game |Getting Out of the Game]]

=== Level four purpose and happiness – transcendence and faith. ===

[[Purpose_in_Life#Transcendence |Faith Leading to Transcendence]]

=== Maintaining a level four purpose in life. ===

[[Purpose_in_Life#Maintaining_Transcendence |Maintaining the Transcendent Happiness]]

== Unit B: Is There any Evidence for the Human Soul? ==

This material is not contained in NPEG, but is in Units 20-21 of [http://physicsindialog.org PID].

=== An assessment of peer-reviewed medical studies on near death experiences from the Lancet, the Journal of the American Medical Association, and other studies. ===

[[The Human Soul]] (This is a single article covering the topics below, which are indexed there for quick reference).

=== The definition of “brain death,” alternative explanations, and controlled, longitudinal studies. ===

=== Eight similar characteristics in near-death experiences. ===

[http://magisgodwiki.org/index.php?title=The_Human_Soul#Near-Death_Experiences Characteristics of NDEs].

=== Patients report seeing data that should not have been accessible to them in their brain-dead states, and which is subsequently verifiable (veridical). ===

[http://magisgodwiki.org/index.php/title=The_Human_Soul#The_van_Lommel_et_al_Study The von Lommel Study]. Veridical data established.

=== 80% of blind patients can see during their near-death experience. ===

[http://magisgodwiki.org/index.php/title=The_Human_Soul#The_Kenneth_Ring.2C_et_al_Study_of_Near-Death_Experiences_of_the_Blind The Kenneth Ring Study of NDEs of the Blind].

=== The measurable absence of death anxiety in both children and adults. ===

[http://magisgodwiki.org/index.php?title=The_Human_Soul#Melvin_Morse.2C_MD_.E2.80.93_Study_of_Near-Death_Experiences_of_Children The Melvin Morse Study of NDEs in Children].

=== Encounters with transcendent beings (loving white light, Jesus, deceased relatives, etc.). ===

=== Conclusions of Von Lommel and other studies. ===

[http://magiswiki.org/index.php/The_Human_Soul#Conclusions_Regarding_Near-Death_Experiences Conclusions drawn from the studies].

== Unit C: Is there Evidence of a Human Soul (Transcendentals)? ==

[[The Transcendentals]]

An in depth analysis of this material may be found in NPEG Chapters 7-8 and a lecture presentation may also be found in [http://physicsindialog.org PID Units 14-19].

=== The desire for complete intelligibility and perfect truth. ===

[[The_Transcendentals#I._The_Desire_for_Perfect_and_Unconditional_Truth |The Desire for Perfect and Unconditional Truth]]

=== The desire for perfect love and empathy. ===

[[The_Transcendentals#II._The_Desire_for_Perfect_and_Unconditional_Love |The Desire for Perfect and Unconditional Love]]

=== The desire for perfect justice/goodness. ===

[[The_Transcendentals#III._The_Desire_for_Perfect_and_Unconditional_Goodness.2FJustice |The Desire for Perfect and Unconditional Goodness & Justice]]

=== The desire for perfect beauty. ===

[[The_Transcendentals#IV._The_Desire_for_Perfect_and_Unconditional_Beauty |The Desire for Perfect and Unconditional Beauty]]

=== The desire for perfect being/home. ===

[[The_Transcendentals#V._The_Desire_for_Perfect_and_Unconditional_Being.2FHome |The Desire for Perfect and Unconditional Being & Home]]

=== The five transcendental desires and the transmateriality of human consciousness. ===

[[The_Transcendentals#Conclusion |Conclusion]]

=== The five transcendental desires and God. ===

== Unit D: Is there Evidence of God from Science? ==

[[Cosmology]] incuding Physics.

A more in depth assessment of this material may be found in NPEG Chapters 1-2 and the Postscript to Part One, and a lecture presentation may be found in [http://physicsindialog.org PID Units 1-5].

=== The extent and limits of scientific method. ===

[http://magisgodwiki.org/index.php?title=Cosmology#Can_Science_Give_Evidence_of_a_Creation_and_Supernatural_Design.3F Limits of Science].

=== The standard big bang model. ===

[http://magisgodwiki.org/index.php?title=Cosmology#Was_the_Big_Bang_the_Beginning.3F The Big Bang and the Beginning].

=== Was the big bang the beginning of the universe (13.7 billion years ago)? ===

[http://magisgodwiki.org/index.php?title=Cosmology#A_Beginning_in_Physics_Implies_A_Creation_of_the_Universe Beginning of the Universe].

=== The significance of a beginning in physics – implications of creation. ===

[http://magisgodwiki.org/index.php?title=Cosmology#What_is_The_Evidence_for_a_Beginning_and_what_are_the_Implications_for_Creation.3F Implications of Creation].

=== Three models for a pre-big-bang period. ===

==== The string theory-inflationary multiverse. ====

==== The bouncing universe. ====

==== String theory-higher dimensional bouncing universe. ====

=== Significant evidence that all three models for a pre-big-bang period would have to have a beginning. ===

[http://magisgodwiki.org/index.php?title=Cosmology#Evidence_of_a_Beginning_from_Space-Time_Geometry_Proofs Space-Time Geometry].

==== The evidence from space-time geometry proofs (Borde, Guth, and Vilenkin). ====

[http://magisgodwiki.org/index.php?title=Cosmology#The_1994_Borde-Vilenkin_Proof B-V Proof of 1994].

[http://magisgodwiki.org/index.php?title=Cosmology#Alan_Guth.E2.80.99s_1999_analysis_of_expanding_pre-big-bang_models The Guth Analysis of 1999].

[http://magisgodwiki.org/index.php?title=Cosmology#The_2003_Borde-Vilenkin-Guth_Theorem_.28the_BVG_Theorem.29: The 2003 BVG Theorem].

==== The evidence from entropy (Penrose, Beckenstein, Banks, Carroll). ====

=== Universal constants, anthropic coincidences, and fine-tuning. ===

[http://magisgodwiki.org/index.php?title=Cosmology#Implications_of_Supernatural_Intelligence_in_the_Fine-tuning_of_Universal_Constants Fine Tuning].

==== Five examples of fine-tuning. ====

==== Can fine-tuning be explained by pure chance? ====

[http://magisgodwiki.org/index.php?title=Cosmology#The_high_improbability_of_a_pure_chance_occurrence_of_our_low-entropy_universe Pure Chance Improbable].

==== Two competing explanations: the multiverse and supernatural design. ====

==== Which of these two explanations is most reasonable and responsible? ====

[http://www.magiswiki.org/index.php/Cosmology#The_high_improbability_of_five_other_anthropic_conditions_.28based_on_cosmological_constants.29 Discussion of Probability]

=== Conclusions about the probability of super intelligent Creator. ===

[http://www.magiswiki.org/index.php/Cosmology#Conclusions Conclusions].

== Unit E: Can the Bible be Reconciled with Science? ==

[[The Bible and Science]]

This unit is not found in either NPEG or PID, however, there is a free videocast on [http://www.magisreasonfaith.org/library/videos/video-god-and-modern-physics-module-12/ The Magis website].

=== The bible is not doing science – but theology, sacred truths. ===

[[The_Bible_and_Science#Theology_Not_Science |Theology not Science]]

=== What was the biblical author’s intention in writing Genesis:1:1ff? ===

[[The_Bible_and_Science#The_Intent_of_Genesis |The Intent of Genesis]]

=== Is evolution reconcilable with the bible? ===

[[The_Bible_and_Science#Darwinian_Evolution |The Bible and Evolution]]

=== Human beings are not reducible to merely organic mechanisms, and therefore, cannot be the result of a merely bio-physical process (like evolution). ===

[[The_Bible_and_Science#The_Human_Soul |About the Human Soul]]

==== The trans-material component of human beings must have another origin ====

[http://www.magisgodwiki.org/index.php/title=Why_Believe_in_God%3F#Unit_B:_Is_There_any_Evidence_for_the_Human_Soul.3F See above, Unit B].

== Unit F: Can the Existence of God be Logically Proven? ==

[[Metaphysical Proofs]]

This Unit contains only steps I and V of a logical proof for God’s existence. Steps II, III, and IV can be found in NPEG Chapter Three (Sections II through IV) and [http://physicsindialog.org PID Units 6-11]. Those wishing a review of logical syllogisms may want to consult [http://physicsindialog.org PID Units 6-7].

=== Three kinds of publicly corroborateable evidence – a-priori, a-posteriori, and combinations. ===

[[Metaphysical_Proofs#Three_Kinds_of_Publicly_Accessible_Evidence_for_Rational_Proof |Three Kinds of Publicly Corroborateable Evidence]]

=== Step I of the metaphysical proof – proof that there must be at least one unconditioned reality in “all reality.” ===

[[Metaphysical_Proofs#Proof_of_the_Existence_of_at_Least_One_Unconditioned_Reality |Proof of the Existence of at least One Unconditioned Reality]]

=== A record of the missing steps of the proof ===

These can be found in NPEG and [http://physicsindialog.org PID] (as noted above). These steps prove that there can only be one unconditioned reality and that it must be absolutely simple and unrestricted in its power.

===Step V of the proof which shows that the one unconditioned absolutely simple unrestricted reality must be the continuous Creator of all else that is. ===

[[Metaphysical_Proofs#Proof_that_the_One_Unconditioned_Reality_is_the_Continuous_Creator_of_All_Else_that_Is |Proof that the One Unconditioned Reality is the Continuous Creator of All Else that Is]].

== Unit G: Is there Evidence of God from Mathematics? ==
For a more in depth presentation of time and the formal a-priori synthetic argument for a timeless Creator of time, see NPEG Chapter Five and also [http://physicsindialog.org PID Units 22-25].

=== “Infinite past time” is an analytical contradiction. ===

[[Mathematics#An_Analytical_Contradiction_in_.22Infinite_Past_Time.22 |An Analytical Contradiction in "Infinite Past Time"]]

=== Three kinds of infinity (A, B, and C infinities). ===

Covered in the last paragraphs of [[Mathematics#An_Analytical_Contradiction_in_.22Infinite_Past_Time.22 |An Analytical Contradiction in "Infinite Past Time"]]

=== David Hilbert’s prohibition of C infinities applied to real aggregate structures. ===

[[Mathematics#Summary_of_Hilbert.27s_Prohibition_of_Actual_Infinities |Hilbert's Prohibition of Actual Infinities]]

=== What is real time? ===

[[Mathematics#A_Brief_Explanation_of_Real_Time |A Brief Explanation of Real Time]]

=== The prohibition of a C infinity to real time ===

Implying that past time must be finite and that it must have a beginning, further implying a Creator of past time. See [[Mathematics#Conclusions |Conclusions]]

== Unit H: Why Doesn’t God Need a Creator? ==

[[God is Uncreated]]

An in depth treatment of this material may be found in NPEG Chapter Six Section I.C. It is briefly treated in [http://physicsindialog.org PID Unit 12].

=== No serious philosopher ever suggested that “everything must have a cause,” ===

For this would imply that God needs a cause. See [[God is Uncreated#Serious Metaphysicians Don't Dismiss First Cause |Serious Metaphysicians Don't Dismiss First Cause]]

=== All rigorous logical proofs require that there be at least one uncaused reality. ===

=== All rigorous proofs show that there can only be one uncaused reality ===

(see Unit F).

=== Conclusion of Proof of God Not Needing a Creator ===

All rigorous proofs show that everything in reality besides the one uncaused reality must be caused and that the one uncaused reality must be the cause of all else that is. God does not need to be created – indeed, he must be “that which is uncreated,” otherwise nothing would exist. See [[God is Uncreated#Conclusion |Conclusion]]

== Unit I: Can Atheism be Rational? ==

[[Can Atheism Be Rational?]] (the article of that title).

For a more in depth study of this material, see NPEG Chapter Six, Sections II and III; for a brief lecture presentation, see [http://physicsindialog.org PID Unit 25].

=== It is impossible to rationally disprove the existence of a transcendent being ===

it cannot be done, a-priori, a-posteriori, or through any combination of that. See [[Can_Atheism_Be_Rational%3F#The_Impossibility_of_Disproving_the_Existence_of_God |The Impossibility of Disproving the Existence of God]]

=== A brief response to the problem of suffering – why would God allow suffering if He is all powerful and all loving? ===

(See Units K&L for a much more extended treatment.)

=== A brief Discussion of the Tenuous Rationality of Atheism ===

[[Can_Atheism_Be_Rational%3F#The_Tenuous_Rationality_of_Atheism |The Tenuous Rationality of Atheism]]

=== A response to Freud’s contention that God is the product of wishful thinking. ===

[[Can_Atheism_Be_Rational%3F#Is_Belief_in_God_Mere_Wishful_Thinking.3F |Is Belief in God Mere Wishful Thinking?]]

== Unit J: Why Seek Revelation? ==

[[Reason and Revelation]]

This is not presented in NPEG. For a brief lecture presentation see PID Unit 30.

=== A brief summary of the four sets of evidence for God ===

[[Reason and Revelation#Four Sets of Evidence |Four Sets of Evidence]]

==== The evidence from physics. ====

==== The evidence from the logical proof for the existence of God. ====

==== The evidence from philosophy of mathematics. ====

==== The evidence from near-death experiences and human transcendentality. ====

=== The mutual corroborative effect of these four sets of evidence. ===

=== The complementary picture of God given by these four sets of evidence. ===

=== If reason can probe so deeply, why do we need God to reveal himself (revelation)? ===

There are five basic areas into which reason cannot probe deeply.

==== The heart of God. ====

==== How to pray and worship. ====

==== Specific ethical precepts and attributes of God that cannot be known by reason ====

(e.g. the trinity).

==== God’s inspiration, response to prayer, and redemption of suffering. ====

==== The dynamic of sacred community. ====

=== Toward a definition of love (agape). ===

[[Reason and Revelation#A Definition of Love |A Definition of Love]]

=== Five reflective questions manifesting the unconditional love of God and his desire to be with us empathetically.===

=== God as Emmanuel ===

[[Reason and Revelation#Six Questions Toward Emmanuel |Six Questions Toward Emmanuel]]

== Unit K: Why Would God Allow Suffering from Humans? ==

[[Suffering Caused by Humans]]

This is only briefly treated in NPEG Chapter Six Section III. (See PID Unit 25-27.)

=== If our love is to be our own (and not merely a program) we must freely choose to love ===

Which means that we must have another choice – namely, “not to love.” But the choice not to love gives rise to the possibility of suffering and evil. See [[Suffering_Caused_by_Humans#The_Intrinsic_Relationship_of_Freedom_and_Love |The Intrinsic Relationship of Freedom and Love]]

=== Responses to special cases concerning suffering caused by humans. ===

[[Suffering_Caused_by_Humans#God_Must_Allow_Loving_Beings_to_Create_Their_Loving_Actions_Anew |Special Cases Discussed]]

== Unit L: Why Does God Allow Suffering from Nature? ==

[[Suffering Caused by Nature]]

This is only briefly treated in NPEG Chapter Six Section III. (See [http://physicsindialog.org PID Unit 26-27].)

=== Suffering is caused by nature because we are born imperfectly into an imperfect world. ===

=== Why would God make an imperfect world? ===

==== To help us to self-initiate ====

development of our purpose in life and our identity (from Level One to Level Four). See [[Suffering_Caused_by_Nature#The_First_Purpose_of_an_Imperfect_World:_Identity_Transformation |Identity Transformation]]

==== To allow us to cultivate the “stoic” virtues ====

[[Suffering_Caused_by_Nature#The_Second_Purpose_of_an_Imperfect_World:_Stoic_Virtues |The Stoic Virtues]] (e.g. courage and self-discipline, etc.)

=== To allow us to develop in love (agape). ===

[[Suffering_Caused_by_Nature#The_Third_Purpose_of_an_Imperfect_World:_Agape |Agape]]

=== To allow us to develop our sense of empathy and compassion. ===

=== To leave room for us to build a better world. ===

[[Suffering_Caused_by_Nature#The_Fourth_Purpose_of_an_Imperfect_World:_Interdependence.2C_Human_Community.2C_and_a_.E2.80.9CBetter_World.E2.80.9D |A Better World]]

=== To leave room for us to build the kingdom of God. ===

[[Suffering_Caused_by_Nature#The_Fifth_Purpose_of_an_Imperfect_World:_Building_the_Kingdom_of_God |The Kingdom of God]]

=== Conclusions about Suffering Well ===

[[Suffering Caused by Nature#Conclusion |Conclusions]]

== Unit M: References ==

[[Believe_in_God_Reference_List]]

A comprehensive bibliography of all the references used in the above twelve units.



{{DEFAULTSORT:Why Believe in God}}
[[Category:Table of Contents]]
[[Category:Intellectual Evangelization]]
[[Category:Supplemental Material]]

Why Believe in God?

2012-05-15T14:16:57Z

David Persyn: /* Universal constants, anthropic coincidences, and fine-tuning. */ link repair

Magis God Wiki: "Why Believe in God?"

© Robert J. Spitzer, S.J. Ph.D./Magis Institute July 2011

There is a list of suggested [[Search Terms]] to assist users in quickly finding their topic of interest.

== Unit A: Does Belief in God Enhance Purpose in Life? ==

[[Purpose in Life]]

This material is not in NPEG, but may be found beginning in Unit 26 of [http://physicsindialog.org PID].

=== What produces happiness and purpose in life? ===

[[Purpose_in_Life#Happiness_and_Purpose_in_Life |Happiness and Purpose]]

=== From immediate gratification and surface apparentness to what is pervasive, enduring, and deep. ===

[[Purpose_in_Life#Moving_from_Shallow_to_Deep |Shallowness to Depth]]

=== Four levels of happiness and purpose in life ===

[[Purpose_in_Life#The_Four_Levels |The Four Levels]]

=== Level two identity, the comparison game, and our culture’s source of anxiety. ===

[[Purpose_in_Life#The_Comparison_Game |The Comparison Game]]

=== Two ways out of the comparison game – level three and level four purpose in life. ===

[[Purpose_in_Life#Ending_the_Game |Getting Out of the Game]]

=== Level four purpose and happiness – transcendence and faith. ===

[[Purpose_in_Life#Transcendence |Faith Leading to Transcendence]]

=== Maintaining a level four purpose in life. ===

[[Purpose_in_Life#Maintaining_Transcendence |Maintaining the Transcendent Happiness]]

== Unit B: Is There any Evidence for the Human Soul? ==

This material is not contained in NPEG, but is in Units 20-21 of [http://physicsindialog.org PID].

=== An assessment of peer-reviewed medical studies on near death experiences from the Lancet, the Journal of the American Medical Association, and other studies. ===

[[The Human Soul]] (This is a single article covering the topics below, which are indexed there for quick reference).

=== The definition of “brain death,” alternative explanations, and controlled, longitudinal studies. ===

=== Eight similar characteristics in near-death experiences. ===

[http://magisgodwiki.org/index.php?title=The_Human_Soul#Near-Death_Experiences Characteristics of NDEs].

=== Patients report seeing data that should not have been accessible to them in their brain-dead states, and which is subsequently verifiable (veridical). ===

[http://magisgodwiki.org/index.php/title=The_Human_Soul#The_van_Lommel_et_al_Study The von Lommel Study]. Veridical data established.

=== 80% of blind patients can see during their near-death experience. ===

[http://magisgodwiki.org/index.php/title=The_Human_Soul#The_Kenneth_Ring.2C_et_al_Study_of_Near-Death_Experiences_of_the_Blind The Kenneth Ring Study of NDEs of the Blind].

=== The measurable absence of death anxiety in both children and adults. ===

[http://magisgodwiki.org/index.php?title=The_Human_Soul#Melvin_Morse.2C_MD_.E2.80.93_Study_of_Near-Death_Experiences_of_Children The Melvin Morse Study of NDEs in Children].

=== Encounters with transcendent beings (loving white light, Jesus, deceased relatives, etc.). ===

=== Conclusions of Von Lommel and other studies. ===

[http://magiswiki.org/index.php/The_Human_Soul#Conclusions_Regarding_Near-Death_Experiences Conclusions drawn from the studies].

== Unit C: Is there Evidence of a Human Soul (Transcendentals)? ==

[[The Transcendentals]]

An in depth analysis of this material may be found in NPEG Chapters 7-8 and a lecture presentation may also be found in [http://physicsindialog.org PID Units 14-19].

=== The desire for complete intelligibility and perfect truth. ===

[[The_Transcendentals#I._The_Desire_for_Perfect_and_Unconditional_Truth |The Desire for Perfect and Unconditional Truth]]

=== The desire for perfect love and empathy. ===

[[The_Transcendentals#II._The_Desire_for_Perfect_and_Unconditional_Love |The Desire for Perfect and Unconditional Love]]

=== The desire for perfect justice/goodness. ===

[[The_Transcendentals#III._The_Desire_for_Perfect_and_Unconditional_Goodness.2FJustice |The Desire for Perfect and Unconditional Goodness & Justice]]

=== The desire for perfect beauty. ===

[[The_Transcendentals#IV._The_Desire_for_Perfect_and_Unconditional_Beauty |The Desire for Perfect and Unconditional Beauty]]

=== The desire for perfect being/home. ===

[[The_Transcendentals#V._The_Desire_for_Perfect_and_Unconditional_Being.2FHome |The Desire for Perfect and Unconditional Being & Home]]

=== The five transcendental desires and the transmateriality of human consciousness. ===

[[The_Transcendentals#Conclusion |Conclusion]]

=== The five transcendental desires and God. ===

== Unit D: Is there Evidence of God from Science? ==

[[Cosmology]] incuding Physics.

A more in depth assessment of this material may be found in NPEG Chapters 1-2 and the Postscript to Part One, and a lecture presentation may be found in [http://physicsindialog.org PID Units 1-5].

=== The extent and limits of scientific method. ===

[http://magisgodwiki.org/index.php?title=Cosmology#Can_Science_Give_Evidence_of_a_Creation_and_Supernatural_Design.3F Limits of Science].

=== The standard big bang model. ===

[http://magisgodwiki.org/index.php?title=Cosmology#Was_the_Big_Bang_the_Beginning.3F The Big Bang and the Beginning].

=== Was the big bang the beginning of the universe (13.7 billion years ago)? ===

[http://magisgodwiki.org/index.php?title=Cosmology#A_Beginning_in_Physics_Implies_A_Creation_of_the_Universe Beginning of the Universe].

=== The significance of a beginning in physics – implications of creation. ===

[http://magisgodwiki.org/index.php?title=Cosmology#What_is_The_Evidence_for_a_Beginning_and_what_are_the_Implications_for_Creation.3F Implications of Creation].

=== Three models for a pre-big-bang period. ===

==== The string theory-inflationary multiverse. ====

==== The bouncing universe. ====

==== String theory-higher dimensional bouncing universe. ====

=== Significant evidence that all three models for a pre-big-bang period would have to have a beginning. ===

[http://magisgodwiki.org/index.php?title=Cosmology#Evidence_of_a_Beginning_from_Space-Time_Geometry_Proofs Space-Time Geometry].

==== The evidence from space-time geometry proofs (Borde, Guth, and Vilenkin). ====

[http://magisgodwiki.org/index.php?title=Cosmology#The_1994_Borde-Vilenkin_Proof B-V Proof of 1994].

[http://magisgodwiki.org/index.php?title=Cosmology#Alan_Guth.E2.80.99s_1999_analysis_of_expanding_pre-big-bang_models The Guth Analysis of 1999].

[http://magisgodwiki.org/index.php?title=Cosmology#The_2003_Borde-Vilenkin-Guth_Theorem_.28the_BVG_Theorem.29: The 2003 BVG Theorem].

==== The evidence from entropy (Penrose, Beckenstein, Banks, Carroll). ====

=== Universal constants, anthropic coincidences, and fine-tuning. ===

[http://magisgodwiki.org/index.php?title=Cosmology#Implications_of_Supernatural_Intelligence_in_the_Fine-tuning_of_Universal_Constants Fine Tuning].

==== Five examples of fine-tuning. ====

==== Can fine-tuning be explained by pure chance? ====

[http://www.magiswiki.org/index.php/Cosmology#The_high_improbability_of_a_pure_chance_occurrence_of_our_low-entropy_universe Pure Chance Improbable].

==== Two competing explanations: the multiverse and supernatural design. ====

==== Which of these two explanations is most reasonable and responsible? ====

[http://www.magiswiki.org/index.php/Cosmology#The_high_improbability_of_five_other_anthropic_conditions_.28based_on_cosmological_constants.29 Discussion of Probability]

=== Conclusions about the probability of super intelligent Creator. ===

[http://www.magiswiki.org/index.php/Cosmology#Conclusions Conclusions].

== Unit E: Can the Bible be Reconciled with Science? ==

[[The Bible and Science]]

This unit is not found in either NPEG or PID, however, there is a free videocast on [http://www.magisreasonfaith.org/library/videos/video-god-and-modern-physics-module-12/ The Magis website].

=== The bible is not doing science – but theology, sacred truths. ===

[[The_Bible_and_Science#Theology_Not_Science |Theology not Science]]

=== What was the biblical author’s intention in writing Genesis:1:1ff? ===

[[The_Bible_and_Science#The_Intent_of_Genesis |The Intent of Genesis]]

=== Is evolution reconcilable with the bible? ===

[[The_Bible_and_Science#Darwinian_Evolution |The Bible and Evolution]]

=== Human beings are not reducible to merely organic mechanisms, and therefore, cannot be the result of a merely bio-physical process (like evolution). ===

[[The_Bible_and_Science#The_Human_Soul |About the Human Soul]]

==== The trans-material component of human beings must have another origin ====

[http://www.magisgodwiki.org/index.php/title=Why_Believe_in_God%3F#Unit_B:_Is_There_any_Evidence_for_the_Human_Soul.3F See above, Unit B].

== Unit F: Can the Existence of God be Logically Proven? ==

[[Metaphysical Proofs]]

This Unit contains only steps I and V of a logical proof for God’s existence. Steps II, III, and IV can be found in NPEG Chapter Three (Sections II through IV) and [http://physicsindialog.org PID Units 6-11]. Those wishing a review of logical syllogisms may want to consult [http://physicsindialog.org PID Units 6-7].

=== Three kinds of publicly corroborateable evidence – a-priori, a-posteriori, and combinations. ===

[[Metaphysical_Proofs#Three_Kinds_of_Publicly_Accessible_Evidence_for_Rational_Proof |Three Kinds of Publicly Corroborateable Evidence]]

=== Step I of the metaphysical proof – proof that there must be at least one unconditioned reality in “all reality.” ===

[[Metaphysical_Proofs#Proof_of_the_Existence_of_at_Least_One_Unconditioned_Reality |Proof of the Existence of at least One Unconditioned Reality]]

=== A record of the missing steps of the proof ===

These can be found in NPEG and [http://physicsindialog.org PID] (as noted above). These steps prove that there can only be one unconditioned reality and that it must be absolutely simple and unrestricted in its power.

===Step V of the proof which shows that the one unconditioned absolutely simple unrestricted reality must be the continuous Creator of all else that is. ===

[[Metaphysical_Proofs#Proof_that_the_One_Unconditioned_Reality_is_the_Continuous_Creator_of_All_Else_that_Is |Proof that the One Unconditioned Reality is the Continuous Creator of All Else that Is]].

== Unit G: Is there Evidence of God from Mathematics? ==
For a more in depth presentation of time and the formal a-priori synthetic argument for a timeless Creator of time, see NPEG Chapter Five and also [http://physicsindialog.org PID Units 22-25].

=== “Infinite past time” is an analytical contradiction. ===

[[Mathematics#An_Analytical_Contradiction_in_.22Infinite_Past_Time.22 |An Analytical Contradiction in "Infinite Past Time"]]

=== Three kinds of infinity (A, B, and C infinities). ===

Covered in the last paragraphs of [[Mathematics#An_Analytical_Contradiction_in_.22Infinite_Past_Time.22 |An Analytical Contradiction in "Infinite Past Time"]]

=== David Hilbert’s prohibition of C infinities applied to real aggregate structures. ===

[[Mathematics#Summary_of_Hilbert.27s_Prohibition_of_Actual_Infinities |Hilbert's Prohibition of Actual Infinities]]

=== What is real time? ===

[[Mathematics#A_Brief_Explanation_of_Real_Time |A Brief Explanation of Real Time]]

=== The prohibition of a C infinity to real time ===

Implying that past time must be finite and that it must have a beginning, further implying a Creator of past time. See [[Mathematics#Conclusions |Conclusions]]

== Unit H: Why Doesn’t God Need a Creator? ==

[[God is Uncreated]]

An in depth treatment of this material may be found in NPEG Chapter Six Section I.C. It is briefly treated in [http://physicsindialog.org PID Unit 12].

=== No serious philosopher ever suggested that “everything must have a cause,” ===

For this would imply that God needs a cause. See [[God is Uncreated#Serious Metaphysicians Don't Dismiss First Cause |Serious Metaphysicians Don't Dismiss First Cause]]

=== All rigorous logical proofs require that there be at least one uncaused reality. ===

=== All rigorous proofs show that there can only be one uncaused reality ===

(see Unit F).

=== Conclusion of Proof of God Not Needing a Creator ===

All rigorous proofs show that everything in reality besides the one uncaused reality must be caused and that the one uncaused reality must be the cause of all else that is. God does not need to be created – indeed, he must be “that which is uncreated,” otherwise nothing would exist. See [[God is Uncreated#Conclusion |Conclusion]]

== Unit I: Can Atheism be Rational? ==

[[Can Atheism Be Rational?]] (the article of that title).

For a more in depth study of this material, see NPEG Chapter Six, Sections II and III; for a brief lecture presentation, see [http://physicsindialog.org PID Unit 25].

=== It is impossible to rationally disprove the existence of a transcendent being ===

it cannot be done, a-priori, a-posteriori, or through any combination of that. See [[Can_Atheism_Be_Rational%3F#The_Impossibility_of_Disproving_the_Existence_of_God |The Impossibility of Disproving the Existence of God]]

=== A brief response to the problem of suffering – why would God allow suffering if He is all powerful and all loving? ===

(See Units K&L for a much more extended treatment.)

=== A brief Discussion of the Tenuous Rationality of Atheism ===

[[Can_Atheism_Be_Rational%3F#The_Tenuous_Rationality_of_Atheism |The Tenuous Rationality of Atheism]]

=== A response to Freud’s contention that God is the product of wishful thinking. ===

[[Can_Atheism_Be_Rational%3F#Is_Belief_in_God_Mere_Wishful_Thinking.3F |Is Belief in God Mere Wishful Thinking?]]

== Unit J: Why Seek Revelation? ==

[[Reason and Revelation]]

This is not presented in NPEG. For a brief lecture presentation see PID Unit 30.

=== A brief summary of the four sets of evidence for God ===

[[Reason and Revelation#Four Sets of Evidence |Four Sets of Evidence]]

==== The evidence from physics. ====

==== The evidence from the logical proof for the existence of God. ====

==== The evidence from philosophy of mathematics. ====

==== The evidence from near-death experiences and human transcendentality. ====

=== The mutual corroborative effect of these four sets of evidence. ===

=== The complementary picture of God given by these four sets of evidence. ===

=== If reason can probe so deeply, why do we need God to reveal himself (revelation)? ===

There are five basic areas into which reason cannot probe deeply.

==== The heart of God. ====

==== How to pray and worship. ====

==== Specific ethical precepts and attributes of God that cannot be known by reason ====

(e.g. the trinity).

==== God’s inspiration, response to prayer, and redemption of suffering. ====

==== The dynamic of sacred community. ====

=== Toward a definition of love (agape). ===

[[Reason and Revelation#A Definition of Love |A Definition of Love]]

=== Five reflective questions manifesting the unconditional love of God and his desire to be with us empathetically.===

=== God as Emmanuel ===

[[Reason and Revelation#Six Questions Toward Emmanuel |Six Questions Toward Emmanuel]]

== Unit K: Why Would God Allow Suffering from Humans? ==

[[Suffering Caused by Humans]]

This is only briefly treated in NPEG Chapter Six Section III. (See PID Unit 25-27.)

=== If our love is to be our own (and not merely a program) we must freely choose to love ===

Which means that we must have another choice – namely, “not to love.” But the choice not to love gives rise to the possibility of suffering and evil. See [[Suffering_Caused_by_Humans#The_Intrinsic_Relationship_of_Freedom_and_Love |The Intrinsic Relationship of Freedom and Love]]

=== Responses to special cases concerning suffering caused by humans. ===

[[Suffering_Caused_by_Humans#God_Must_Allow_Loving_Beings_to_Create_Their_Loving_Actions_Anew |Special Cases Discussed]]

== Unit L: Why Does God Allow Suffering from Nature? ==

[[Suffering Caused by Nature]]

This is only briefly treated in NPEG Chapter Six Section III. (See [http://physicsindialog.org PID Unit 26-27].)

=== Suffering is caused by nature because we are born imperfectly into an imperfect world. ===

=== Why would God make an imperfect world? ===

==== To help us to self-initiate ====

development of our purpose in life and our identity (from Level One to Level Four). See [[Suffering_Caused_by_Nature#The_First_Purpose_of_an_Imperfect_World:_Identity_Transformation |Identity Transformation]]

==== To allow us to cultivate the “stoic” virtues ====

[[Suffering_Caused_by_Nature#The_Second_Purpose_of_an_Imperfect_World:_Stoic_Virtues |The Stoic Virtues]] (e.g. courage and self-discipline, etc.)

=== To allow us to develop in love (agape). ===

[[Suffering_Caused_by_Nature#The_Third_Purpose_of_an_Imperfect_World:_Agape |Agape]]

=== To allow us to develop our sense of empathy and compassion. ===

=== To leave room for us to build a better world. ===

[[Suffering_Caused_by_Nature#The_Fourth_Purpose_of_an_Imperfect_World:_Interdependence.2C_Human_Community.2C_and_a_.E2.80.9CBetter_World.E2.80.9D |A Better World]]

=== To leave room for us to build the kingdom of God. ===

[[Suffering_Caused_by_Nature#The_Fifth_Purpose_of_an_Imperfect_World:_Building_the_Kingdom_of_God |The Kingdom of God]]

=== Conclusions about Suffering Well ===

[[Suffering Caused by Nature#Conclusion |Conclusions]]

== Unit M: References ==

[[Believe_in_God_Reference_List]]

A comprehensive bibliography of all the references used in the above twelve units.



{{DEFAULTSORT:Why Believe in God}}
[[Category:Table of Contents]]
[[Category:Intellectual Evangelization]]
[[Category:Supplemental Material]]

Why Believe in God?

2012-05-15T14:13:53Z

David Persyn: /* The evidence from space-time geometry proofs (Borde, Guth, and Vilenkin). */ link repair

Magis God Wiki: "Why Believe in God?"

© Robert J. Spitzer, S.J. Ph.D./Magis Institute July 2011

There is a list of suggested [[Search Terms]] to assist users in quickly finding their topic of interest.

== Unit A: Does Belief in God Enhance Purpose in Life? ==

[[Purpose in Life]]

This material is not in NPEG, but may be found beginning in Unit 26 of [http://physicsindialog.org PID].

=== What produces happiness and purpose in life? ===

[[Purpose_in_Life#Happiness_and_Purpose_in_Life |Happiness and Purpose]]

=== From immediate gratification and surface apparentness to what is pervasive, enduring, and deep. ===

[[Purpose_in_Life#Moving_from_Shallow_to_Deep |Shallowness to Depth]]

=== Four levels of happiness and purpose in life ===

[[Purpose_in_Life#The_Four_Levels |The Four Levels]]

=== Level two identity, the comparison game, and our culture’s source of anxiety. ===

[[Purpose_in_Life#The_Comparison_Game |The Comparison Game]]

=== Two ways out of the comparison game – level three and level four purpose in life. ===

[[Purpose_in_Life#Ending_the_Game |Getting Out of the Game]]

=== Level four purpose and happiness – transcendence and faith. ===

[[Purpose_in_Life#Transcendence |Faith Leading to Transcendence]]

=== Maintaining a level four purpose in life. ===

[[Purpose_in_Life#Maintaining_Transcendence |Maintaining the Transcendent Happiness]]

== Unit B: Is There any Evidence for the Human Soul? ==

This material is not contained in NPEG, but is in Units 20-21 of [http://physicsindialog.org PID].

=== An assessment of peer-reviewed medical studies on near death experiences from the Lancet, the Journal of the American Medical Association, and other studies. ===

[[The Human Soul]] (This is a single article covering the topics below, which are indexed there for quick reference).

=== The definition of “brain death,” alternative explanations, and controlled, longitudinal studies. ===

=== Eight similar characteristics in near-death experiences. ===

[http://magisgodwiki.org/index.php?title=The_Human_Soul#Near-Death_Experiences Characteristics of NDEs].

=== Patients report seeing data that should not have been accessible to them in their brain-dead states, and which is subsequently verifiable (veridical). ===

[http://magisgodwiki.org/index.php/title=The_Human_Soul#The_van_Lommel_et_al_Study The von Lommel Study]. Veridical data established.

=== 80% of blind patients can see during their near-death experience. ===

[http://magisgodwiki.org/index.php/title=The_Human_Soul#The_Kenneth_Ring.2C_et_al_Study_of_Near-Death_Experiences_of_the_Blind The Kenneth Ring Study of NDEs of the Blind].

=== The measurable absence of death anxiety in both children and adults. ===

[http://magisgodwiki.org/index.php?title=The_Human_Soul#Melvin_Morse.2C_MD_.E2.80.93_Study_of_Near-Death_Experiences_of_Children The Melvin Morse Study of NDEs in Children].

=== Encounters with transcendent beings (loving white light, Jesus, deceased relatives, etc.). ===

=== Conclusions of Von Lommel and other studies. ===

[http://magiswiki.org/index.php/The_Human_Soul#Conclusions_Regarding_Near-Death_Experiences Conclusions drawn from the studies].

== Unit C: Is there Evidence of a Human Soul (Transcendentals)? ==

[[The Transcendentals]]

An in depth analysis of this material may be found in NPEG Chapters 7-8 and a lecture presentation may also be found in [http://physicsindialog.org PID Units 14-19].

=== The desire for complete intelligibility and perfect truth. ===

[[The_Transcendentals#I._The_Desire_for_Perfect_and_Unconditional_Truth |The Desire for Perfect and Unconditional Truth]]

=== The desire for perfect love and empathy. ===

[[The_Transcendentals#II._The_Desire_for_Perfect_and_Unconditional_Love |The Desire for Perfect and Unconditional Love]]

=== The desire for perfect justice/goodness. ===

[[The_Transcendentals#III._The_Desire_for_Perfect_and_Unconditional_Goodness.2FJustice |The Desire for Perfect and Unconditional Goodness & Justice]]

=== The desire for perfect beauty. ===

[[The_Transcendentals#IV._The_Desire_for_Perfect_and_Unconditional_Beauty |The Desire for Perfect and Unconditional Beauty]]

=== The desire for perfect being/home. ===

[[The_Transcendentals#V._The_Desire_for_Perfect_and_Unconditional_Being.2FHome |The Desire for Perfect and Unconditional Being & Home]]

=== The five transcendental desires and the transmateriality of human consciousness. ===

[[The_Transcendentals#Conclusion |Conclusion]]

=== The five transcendental desires and God. ===

== Unit D: Is there Evidence of God from Science? ==

[[Cosmology]] incuding Physics.

A more in depth assessment of this material may be found in NPEG Chapters 1-2 and the Postscript to Part One, and a lecture presentation may be found in [http://physicsindialog.org PID Units 1-5].

=== The extent and limits of scientific method. ===

[http://magisgodwiki.org/index.php?title=Cosmology#Can_Science_Give_Evidence_of_a_Creation_and_Supernatural_Design.3F Limits of Science].

=== The standard big bang model. ===

[http://magisgodwiki.org/index.php?title=Cosmology#Was_the_Big_Bang_the_Beginning.3F The Big Bang and the Beginning].

=== Was the big bang the beginning of the universe (13.7 billion years ago)? ===

[http://magisgodwiki.org/index.php?title=Cosmology#A_Beginning_in_Physics_Implies_A_Creation_of_the_Universe Beginning of the Universe].

=== The significance of a beginning in physics – implications of creation. ===

[http://magisgodwiki.org/index.php?title=Cosmology#What_is_The_Evidence_for_a_Beginning_and_what_are_the_Implications_for_Creation.3F Implications of Creation].

=== Three models for a pre-big-bang period. ===

==== The string theory-inflationary multiverse. ====

==== The bouncing universe. ====

==== String theory-higher dimensional bouncing universe. ====

=== Significant evidence that all three models for a pre-big-bang period would have to have a beginning. ===

[http://magisgodwiki.org/index.php?title=Cosmology#Evidence_of_a_Beginning_from_Space-Time_Geometry_Proofs Space-Time Geometry].

==== The evidence from space-time geometry proofs (Borde, Guth, and Vilenkin). ====

[http://magisgodwiki.org/index.php?title=Cosmology#The_1994_Borde-Vilenkin_Proof B-V Proof of 1994].

[http://magisgodwiki.org/index.php?title=Cosmology#Alan_Guth.E2.80.99s_1999_analysis_of_expanding_pre-big-bang_models The Guth Analysis of 1999].

[http://magisgodwiki.org/index.php?title=Cosmology#The_2003_Borde-Vilenkin-Guth_Theorem_.28the_BVG_Theorem.29: The 2003 BVG Theorem].

==== The evidence from entropy (Penrose, Beckenstein, Banks, Carroll). ====

=== Universal constants, anthropic coincidences, and fine-tuning. ===

[http://www.magiswiki.org/index.php/Cosmology#Implications_of_Supernatural_Intelligence_in_the_Fine-tuning_of_Universal_Constants Fine Tuning].

==== Five examples of fine-tuning. ====

==== Can fine-tuning be explained by pure chance? ====

[http://www.magiswiki.org/index.php/Cosmology#The_high_improbability_of_a_pure_chance_occurrence_of_our_low-entropy_universe Pure Chance Improbable].

==== Two competing explanations: the multiverse and supernatural design. ====

==== Which of these two explanations is most reasonable and responsible? ====

[http://www.magiswiki.org/index.php/Cosmology#The_high_improbability_of_five_other_anthropic_conditions_.28based_on_cosmological_constants.29 Discussion of Probability]

=== Conclusions about the probability of super intelligent Creator. ===

[http://www.magiswiki.org/index.php/Cosmology#Conclusions Conclusions].

== Unit E: Can the Bible be Reconciled with Science? ==

[[The Bible and Science]]

This unit is not found in either NPEG or PID, however, there is a free videocast on [http://www.magisreasonfaith.org/library/videos/video-god-and-modern-physics-module-12/ The Magis website].

=== The bible is not doing science – but theology, sacred truths. ===

[[The_Bible_and_Science#Theology_Not_Science |Theology not Science]]

=== What was the biblical author’s intention in writing Genesis:1:1ff? ===

[[The_Bible_and_Science#The_Intent_of_Genesis |The Intent of Genesis]]

=== Is evolution reconcilable with the bible? ===

[[The_Bible_and_Science#Darwinian_Evolution |The Bible and Evolution]]

=== Human beings are not reducible to merely organic mechanisms, and therefore, cannot be the result of a merely bio-physical process (like evolution). ===

[[The_Bible_and_Science#The_Human_Soul |About the Human Soul]]

==== The trans-material component of human beings must have another origin ====

[http://www.magisgodwiki.org/index.php/title=Why_Believe_in_God%3F#Unit_B:_Is_There_any_Evidence_for_the_Human_Soul.3F See above, Unit B].

== Unit F: Can the Existence of God be Logically Proven? ==

[[Metaphysical Proofs]]

This Unit contains only steps I and V of a logical proof for God’s existence. Steps II, III, and IV can be found in NPEG Chapter Three (Sections II through IV) and [http://physicsindialog.org PID Units 6-11]. Those wishing a review of logical syllogisms may want to consult [http://physicsindialog.org PID Units 6-7].

=== Three kinds of publicly corroborateable evidence – a-priori, a-posteriori, and combinations. ===

[[Metaphysical_Proofs#Three_Kinds_of_Publicly_Accessible_Evidence_for_Rational_Proof |Three Kinds of Publicly Corroborateable Evidence]]

=== Step I of the metaphysical proof – proof that there must be at least one unconditioned reality in “all reality.” ===

[[Metaphysical_Proofs#Proof_of_the_Existence_of_at_Least_One_Unconditioned_Reality |Proof of the Existence of at least One Unconditioned Reality]]

=== A record of the missing steps of the proof ===

These can be found in NPEG and [http://physicsindialog.org PID] (as noted above). These steps prove that there can only be one unconditioned reality and that it must be absolutely simple and unrestricted in its power.

===Step V of the proof which shows that the one unconditioned absolutely simple unrestricted reality must be the continuous Creator of all else that is. ===

[[Metaphysical_Proofs#Proof_that_the_One_Unconditioned_Reality_is_the_Continuous_Creator_of_All_Else_that_Is |Proof that the One Unconditioned Reality is the Continuous Creator of All Else that Is]].

== Unit G: Is there Evidence of God from Mathematics? ==
For a more in depth presentation of time and the formal a-priori synthetic argument for a timeless Creator of time, see NPEG Chapter Five and also [http://physicsindialog.org PID Units 22-25].

=== “Infinite past time” is an analytical contradiction. ===

[[Mathematics#An_Analytical_Contradiction_in_.22Infinite_Past_Time.22 |An Analytical Contradiction in "Infinite Past Time"]]

=== Three kinds of infinity (A, B, and C infinities). ===

Covered in the last paragraphs of [[Mathematics#An_Analytical_Contradiction_in_.22Infinite_Past_Time.22 |An Analytical Contradiction in "Infinite Past Time"]]

=== David Hilbert’s prohibition of C infinities applied to real aggregate structures. ===

[[Mathematics#Summary_of_Hilbert.27s_Prohibition_of_Actual_Infinities |Hilbert's Prohibition of Actual Infinities]]

=== What is real time? ===

[[Mathematics#A_Brief_Explanation_of_Real_Time |A Brief Explanation of Real Time]]

=== The prohibition of a C infinity to real time ===

Implying that past time must be finite and that it must have a beginning, further implying a Creator of past time. See [[Mathematics#Conclusions |Conclusions]]

== Unit H: Why Doesn’t God Need a Creator? ==

[[God is Uncreated]]

An in depth treatment of this material may be found in NPEG Chapter Six Section I.C. It is briefly treated in [http://physicsindialog.org PID Unit 12].

=== No serious philosopher ever suggested that “everything must have a cause,” ===

For this would imply that God needs a cause. See [[God is Uncreated#Serious Metaphysicians Don't Dismiss First Cause |Serious Metaphysicians Don't Dismiss First Cause]]

=== All rigorous logical proofs require that there be at least one uncaused reality. ===

=== All rigorous proofs show that there can only be one uncaused reality ===

(see Unit F).

=== Conclusion of Proof of God Not Needing a Creator ===

All rigorous proofs show that everything in reality besides the one uncaused reality must be caused and that the one uncaused reality must be the cause of all else that is. God does not need to be created – indeed, he must be “that which is uncreated,” otherwise nothing would exist. See [[God is Uncreated#Conclusion |Conclusion]]

== Unit I: Can Atheism be Rational? ==

[[Can Atheism Be Rational?]] (the article of that title).

For a more in depth study of this material, see NPEG Chapter Six, Sections II and III; for a brief lecture presentation, see [http://physicsindialog.org PID Unit 25].

=== It is impossible to rationally disprove the existence of a transcendent being ===

it cannot be done, a-priori, a-posteriori, or through any combination of that. See [[Can_Atheism_Be_Rational%3F#The_Impossibility_of_Disproving_the_Existence_of_God |The Impossibility of Disproving the Existence of God]]

=== A brief response to the problem of suffering – why would God allow suffering if He is all powerful and all loving? ===

(See Units K&L for a much more extended treatment.)

=== A brief Discussion of the Tenuous Rationality of Atheism ===

[[Can_Atheism_Be_Rational%3F#The_Tenuous_Rationality_of_Atheism |The Tenuous Rationality of Atheism]]

=== A response to Freud’s contention that God is the product of wishful thinking. ===

[[Can_Atheism_Be_Rational%3F#Is_Belief_in_God_Mere_Wishful_Thinking.3F |Is Belief in God Mere Wishful Thinking?]]

== Unit J: Why Seek Revelation? ==

[[Reason and Revelation]]

This is not presented in NPEG. For a brief lecture presentation see PID Unit 30.

=== A brief summary of the four sets of evidence for God ===

[[Reason and Revelation#Four Sets of Evidence |Four Sets of Evidence]]

==== The evidence from physics. ====

==== The evidence from the logical proof for the existence of God. ====

==== The evidence from philosophy of mathematics. ====

==== The evidence from near-death experiences and human transcendentality. ====

=== The mutual corroborative effect of these four sets of evidence. ===

=== The complementary picture of God given by these four sets of evidence. ===

=== If reason can probe so deeply, why do we need God to reveal himself (revelation)? ===

There are five basic areas into which reason cannot probe deeply.

==== The heart of God. ====

==== How to pray and worship. ====

==== Specific ethical precepts and attributes of God that cannot be known by reason ====

(e.g. the trinity).

==== God’s inspiration, response to prayer, and redemption of suffering. ====

==== The dynamic of sacred community. ====

=== Toward a definition of love (agape). ===

[[Reason and Revelation#A Definition of Love |A Definition of Love]]

=== Five reflective questions manifesting the unconditional love of God and his desire to be with us empathetically.===

=== God as Emmanuel ===

[[Reason and Revelation#Six Questions Toward Emmanuel |Six Questions Toward Emmanuel]]

== Unit K: Why Would God Allow Suffering from Humans? ==

[[Suffering Caused by Humans]]

This is only briefly treated in NPEG Chapter Six Section III. (See PID Unit 25-27.)

=== If our love is to be our own (and not merely a program) we must freely choose to love ===

Which means that we must have another choice – namely, “not to love.” But the choice not to love gives rise to the possibility of suffering and evil. See [[Suffering_Caused_by_Humans#The_Intrinsic_Relationship_of_Freedom_and_Love |The Intrinsic Relationship of Freedom and Love]]

=== Responses to special cases concerning suffering caused by humans. ===

[[Suffering_Caused_by_Humans#God_Must_Allow_Loving_Beings_to_Create_Their_Loving_Actions_Anew |Special Cases Discussed]]

== Unit L: Why Does God Allow Suffering from Nature? ==

[[Suffering Caused by Nature]]

This is only briefly treated in NPEG Chapter Six Section III. (See [http://physicsindialog.org PID Unit 26-27].)

=== Suffering is caused by nature because we are born imperfectly into an imperfect world. ===

=== Why would God make an imperfect world? ===

==== To help us to self-initiate ====

development of our purpose in life and our identity (from Level One to Level Four). See [[Suffering_Caused_by_Nature#The_First_Purpose_of_an_Imperfect_World:_Identity_Transformation |Identity Transformation]]

==== To allow us to cultivate the “stoic” virtues ====

[[Suffering_Caused_by_Nature#The_Second_Purpose_of_an_Imperfect_World:_Stoic_Virtues |The Stoic Virtues]] (e.g. courage and self-discipline, etc.)

=== To allow us to develop in love (agape). ===

[[Suffering_Caused_by_Nature#The_Third_Purpose_of_an_Imperfect_World:_Agape |Agape]]

=== To allow us to develop our sense of empathy and compassion. ===

=== To leave room for us to build a better world. ===

[[Suffering_Caused_by_Nature#The_Fourth_Purpose_of_an_Imperfect_World:_Interdependence.2C_Human_Community.2C_and_a_.E2.80.9CBetter_World.E2.80.9D |A Better World]]

=== To leave room for us to build the kingdom of God. ===

[[Suffering_Caused_by_Nature#The_Fifth_Purpose_of_an_Imperfect_World:_Building_the_Kingdom_of_God |The Kingdom of God]]

=== Conclusions about Suffering Well ===

[[Suffering Caused by Nature#Conclusion |Conclusions]]

== Unit M: References ==

[[Believe_in_God_Reference_List]]

A comprehensive bibliography of all the references used in the above twelve units.



{{DEFAULTSORT:Why Believe in God}}
[[Category:Table of Contents]]
[[Category:Intellectual Evangelization]]
[[Category:Supplemental Material]]

Why Believe in God?

2012-05-15T14:12:56Z

David Persyn: /* The evidence from space-time geometry proofs (Borde, Guth, and Vilenkin). */ link repair

Magis God Wiki: "Why Believe in God?"

© Robert J. Spitzer, S.J. Ph.D./Magis Institute July 2011

There is a list of suggested [[Search Terms]] to assist users in quickly finding their topic of interest.

== Unit A: Does Belief in God Enhance Purpose in Life? ==

[[Purpose in Life]]

This material is not in NPEG, but may be found beginning in Unit 26 of [http://physicsindialog.org PID].

=== What produces happiness and purpose in life? ===

[[Purpose_in_Life#Happiness_and_Purpose_in_Life |Happiness and Purpose]]

=== From immediate gratification and surface apparentness to what is pervasive, enduring, and deep. ===

[[Purpose_in_Life#Moving_from_Shallow_to_Deep |Shallowness to Depth]]

=== Four levels of happiness and purpose in life ===

[[Purpose_in_Life#The_Four_Levels |The Four Levels]]

=== Level two identity, the comparison game, and our culture’s source of anxiety. ===

[[Purpose_in_Life#The_Comparison_Game |The Comparison Game]]

=== Two ways out of the comparison game – level three and level four purpose in life. ===

[[Purpose_in_Life#Ending_the_Game |Getting Out of the Game]]

=== Level four purpose and happiness – transcendence and faith. ===

[[Purpose_in_Life#Transcendence |Faith Leading to Transcendence]]

=== Maintaining a level four purpose in life. ===

[[Purpose_in_Life#Maintaining_Transcendence |Maintaining the Transcendent Happiness]]

== Unit B: Is There any Evidence for the Human Soul? ==

This material is not contained in NPEG, but is in Units 20-21 of [http://physicsindialog.org PID].

=== An assessment of peer-reviewed medical studies on near death experiences from the Lancet, the Journal of the American Medical Association, and other studies. ===

[[The Human Soul]] (This is a single article covering the topics below, which are indexed there for quick reference).

=== The definition of “brain death,” alternative explanations, and controlled, longitudinal studies. ===

=== Eight similar characteristics in near-death experiences. ===

[http://magisgodwiki.org/index.php?title=The_Human_Soul#Near-Death_Experiences Characteristics of NDEs].

=== Patients report seeing data that should not have been accessible to them in their brain-dead states, and which is subsequently verifiable (veridical). ===

[http://magisgodwiki.org/index.php/title=The_Human_Soul#The_van_Lommel_et_al_Study The von Lommel Study]. Veridical data established.

=== 80% of blind patients can see during their near-death experience. ===

[http://magisgodwiki.org/index.php/title=The_Human_Soul#The_Kenneth_Ring.2C_et_al_Study_of_Near-Death_Experiences_of_the_Blind The Kenneth Ring Study of NDEs of the Blind].

=== The measurable absence of death anxiety in both children and adults. ===

[http://magisgodwiki.org/index.php?title=The_Human_Soul#Melvin_Morse.2C_MD_.E2.80.93_Study_of_Near-Death_Experiences_of_Children The Melvin Morse Study of NDEs in Children].

=== Encounters with transcendent beings (loving white light, Jesus, deceased relatives, etc.). ===

=== Conclusions of Von Lommel and other studies. ===

[http://magiswiki.org/index.php/The_Human_Soul#Conclusions_Regarding_Near-Death_Experiences Conclusions drawn from the studies].

== Unit C: Is there Evidence of a Human Soul (Transcendentals)? ==

[[The Transcendentals]]

An in depth analysis of this material may be found in NPEG Chapters 7-8 and a lecture presentation may also be found in [http://physicsindialog.org PID Units 14-19].

=== The desire for complete intelligibility and perfect truth. ===

[[The_Transcendentals#I._The_Desire_for_Perfect_and_Unconditional_Truth |The Desire for Perfect and Unconditional Truth]]

=== The desire for perfect love and empathy. ===

[[The_Transcendentals#II._The_Desire_for_Perfect_and_Unconditional_Love |The Desire for Perfect and Unconditional Love]]

=== The desire for perfect justice/goodness. ===

[[The_Transcendentals#III._The_Desire_for_Perfect_and_Unconditional_Goodness.2FJustice |The Desire for Perfect and Unconditional Goodness & Justice]]

=== The desire for perfect beauty. ===

[[The_Transcendentals#IV._The_Desire_for_Perfect_and_Unconditional_Beauty |The Desire for Perfect and Unconditional Beauty]]

=== The desire for perfect being/home. ===

[[The_Transcendentals#V._The_Desire_for_Perfect_and_Unconditional_Being.2FHome |The Desire for Perfect and Unconditional Being & Home]]

=== The five transcendental desires and the transmateriality of human consciousness. ===

[[The_Transcendentals#Conclusion |Conclusion]]

=== The five transcendental desires and God. ===

== Unit D: Is there Evidence of God from Science? ==

[[Cosmology]] incuding Physics.

A more in depth assessment of this material may be found in NPEG Chapters 1-2 and the Postscript to Part One, and a lecture presentation may be found in [http://physicsindialog.org PID Units 1-5].

=== The extent and limits of scientific method. ===

[http://magisgodwiki.org/index.php?title=Cosmology#Can_Science_Give_Evidence_of_a_Creation_and_Supernatural_Design.3F Limits of Science].

=== The standard big bang model. ===

[http://magisgodwiki.org/index.php?title=Cosmology#Was_the_Big_Bang_the_Beginning.3F The Big Bang and the Beginning].

=== Was the big bang the beginning of the universe (13.7 billion years ago)? ===

[http://magisgodwiki.org/index.php?title=Cosmology#A_Beginning_in_Physics_Implies_A_Creation_of_the_Universe Beginning of the Universe].

=== The significance of a beginning in physics – implications of creation. ===

[http://magisgodwiki.org/index.php?title=Cosmology#What_is_The_Evidence_for_a_Beginning_and_what_are_the_Implications_for_Creation.3F Implications of Creation].

=== Three models for a pre-big-bang period. ===

==== The string theory-inflationary multiverse. ====

==== The bouncing universe. ====

==== String theory-higher dimensional bouncing universe. ====

=== Significant evidence that all three models for a pre-big-bang period would have to have a beginning. ===

[http://magisgodwiki.org/index.php?title=Cosmology#Evidence_of_a_Beginning_from_Space-Time_Geometry_Proofs Space-Time Geometry].

==== The evidence from space-time geometry proofs (Borde, Guth, and Vilenkin). ====

[http://magisgodwiki.org/index.php?title=Cosmology#The_1994_Borde-Vilenkin_Proof B-V Proof of 1994].

[http://magisgodwiki.org/index.php?title=Cosmology#Alan_Guth.E2.80.99s_1999_analysis_of_expanding_pre-big-bang_models The Guth Analysis of 1999].

[http://www.magisgodwiki.org/index.php/Cosmology#The_2003_Borde-Vilenkin-Guth_Theorem_.28the_BVG_Theorem.29: The 2003 BVG Theorem].

==== The evidence from entropy (Penrose, Beckenstein, Banks, Carroll). ====

=== Universal constants, anthropic coincidences, and fine-tuning. ===

[http://www.magiswiki.org/index.php/Cosmology#Implications_of_Supernatural_Intelligence_in_the_Fine-tuning_of_Universal_Constants Fine Tuning].

==== Five examples of fine-tuning. ====

==== Can fine-tuning be explained by pure chance? ====

[http://www.magiswiki.org/index.php/Cosmology#The_high_improbability_of_a_pure_chance_occurrence_of_our_low-entropy_universe Pure Chance Improbable].

==== Two competing explanations: the multiverse and supernatural design. ====

==== Which of these two explanations is most reasonable and responsible? ====

[http://www.magiswiki.org/index.php/Cosmology#The_high_improbability_of_five_other_anthropic_conditions_.28based_on_cosmological_constants.29 Discussion of Probability]

=== Conclusions about the probability of super intelligent Creator. ===

[http://www.magiswiki.org/index.php/Cosmology#Conclusions Conclusions].

== Unit E: Can the Bible be Reconciled with Science? ==

[[The Bible and Science]]

This unit is not found in either NPEG or PID, however, there is a free videocast on [http://www.magisreasonfaith.org/library/videos/video-god-and-modern-physics-module-12/ The Magis website].

=== The bible is not doing science – but theology, sacred truths. ===

[[The_Bible_and_Science#Theology_Not_Science |Theology not Science]]

=== What was the biblical author’s intention in writing Genesis:1:1ff? ===

[[The_Bible_and_Science#The_Intent_of_Genesis |The Intent of Genesis]]

=== Is evolution reconcilable with the bible? ===

[[The_Bible_and_Science#Darwinian_Evolution |The Bible and Evolution]]

=== Human beings are not reducible to merely organic mechanisms, and therefore, cannot be the result of a merely bio-physical process (like evolution). ===

[[The_Bible_and_Science#The_Human_Soul |About the Human Soul]]

==== The trans-material component of human beings must have another origin ====

[http://www.magisgodwiki.org/index.php/title=Why_Believe_in_God%3F#Unit_B:_Is_There_any_Evidence_for_the_Human_Soul.3F See above, Unit B].

== Unit F: Can the Existence of God be Logically Proven? ==

[[Metaphysical Proofs]]

This Unit contains only steps I and V of a logical proof for God’s existence. Steps II, III, and IV can be found in NPEG Chapter Three (Sections II through IV) and [http://physicsindialog.org PID Units 6-11]. Those wishing a review of logical syllogisms may want to consult [http://physicsindialog.org PID Units 6-7].

=== Three kinds of publicly corroborateable evidence – a-priori, a-posteriori, and combinations. ===

[[Metaphysical_Proofs#Three_Kinds_of_Publicly_Accessible_Evidence_for_Rational_Proof |Three Kinds of Publicly Corroborateable Evidence]]

=== Step I of the metaphysical proof – proof that there must be at least one unconditioned reality in “all reality.” ===

[[Metaphysical_Proofs#Proof_of_the_Existence_of_at_Least_One_Unconditioned_Reality |Proof of the Existence of at least One Unconditioned Reality]]

=== A record of the missing steps of the proof ===

These can be found in NPEG and [http://physicsindialog.org PID] (as noted above). These steps prove that there can only be one unconditioned reality and that it must be absolutely simple and unrestricted in its power.

===Step V of the proof which shows that the one unconditioned absolutely simple unrestricted reality must be the continuous Creator of all else that is. ===

[[Metaphysical_Proofs#Proof_that_the_One_Unconditioned_Reality_is_the_Continuous_Creator_of_All_Else_that_Is |Proof that the One Unconditioned Reality is the Continuous Creator of All Else that Is]].

== Unit G: Is there Evidence of God from Mathematics? ==
For a more in depth presentation of time and the formal a-priori synthetic argument for a timeless Creator of time, see NPEG Chapter Five and also [http://physicsindialog.org PID Units 22-25].

=== “Infinite past time” is an analytical contradiction. ===

[[Mathematics#An_Analytical_Contradiction_in_.22Infinite_Past_Time.22 |An Analytical Contradiction in "Infinite Past Time"]]

=== Three kinds of infinity (A, B, and C infinities). ===

Covered in the last paragraphs of [[Mathematics#An_Analytical_Contradiction_in_.22Infinite_Past_Time.22 |An Analytical Contradiction in "Infinite Past Time"]]

=== David Hilbert’s prohibition of C infinities applied to real aggregate structures. ===

[[Mathematics#Summary_of_Hilbert.27s_Prohibition_of_Actual_Infinities |Hilbert's Prohibition of Actual Infinities]]

=== What is real time? ===

[[Mathematics#A_Brief_Explanation_of_Real_Time |A Brief Explanation of Real Time]]

=== The prohibition of a C infinity to real time ===

Implying that past time must be finite and that it must have a beginning, further implying a Creator of past time. See [[Mathematics#Conclusions |Conclusions]]

== Unit H: Why Doesn’t God Need a Creator? ==

[[God is Uncreated]]

An in depth treatment of this material may be found in NPEG Chapter Six Section I.C. It is briefly treated in [http://physicsindialog.org PID Unit 12].

=== No serious philosopher ever suggested that “everything must have a cause,” ===

For this would imply that God needs a cause. See [[God is Uncreated#Serious Metaphysicians Don't Dismiss First Cause |Serious Metaphysicians Don't Dismiss First Cause]]

=== All rigorous logical proofs require that there be at least one uncaused reality. ===

=== All rigorous proofs show that there can only be one uncaused reality ===

(see Unit F).

=== Conclusion of Proof of God Not Needing a Creator ===

All rigorous proofs show that everything in reality besides the one uncaused reality must be caused and that the one uncaused reality must be the cause of all else that is. God does not need to be created – indeed, he must be “that which is uncreated,” otherwise nothing would exist. See [[God is Uncreated#Conclusion |Conclusion]]

== Unit I: Can Atheism be Rational? ==

[[Can Atheism Be Rational?]] (the article of that title).

For a more in depth study of this material, see NPEG Chapter Six, Sections II and III; for a brief lecture presentation, see [http://physicsindialog.org PID Unit 25].

=== It is impossible to rationally disprove the existence of a transcendent being ===

it cannot be done, a-priori, a-posteriori, or through any combination of that. See [[Can_Atheism_Be_Rational%3F#The_Impossibility_of_Disproving_the_Existence_of_God |The Impossibility of Disproving the Existence of God]]

=== A brief response to the problem of suffering – why would God allow suffering if He is all powerful and all loving? ===

(See Units K&L for a much more extended treatment.)

=== A brief Discussion of the Tenuous Rationality of Atheism ===

[[Can_Atheism_Be_Rational%3F#The_Tenuous_Rationality_of_Atheism |The Tenuous Rationality of Atheism]]

=== A response to Freud’s contention that God is the product of wishful thinking. ===

[[Can_Atheism_Be_Rational%3F#Is_Belief_in_God_Mere_Wishful_Thinking.3F |Is Belief in God Mere Wishful Thinking?]]

== Unit J: Why Seek Revelation? ==

[[Reason and Revelation]]

This is not presented in NPEG. For a brief lecture presentation see PID Unit 30.

=== A brief summary of the four sets of evidence for God ===

[[Reason and Revelation#Four Sets of Evidence |Four Sets of Evidence]]

==== The evidence from physics. ====

==== The evidence from the logical proof for the existence of God. ====

==== The evidence from philosophy of mathematics. ====

==== The evidence from near-death experiences and human transcendentality. ====

=== The mutual corroborative effect of these four sets of evidence. ===

=== The complementary picture of God given by these four sets of evidence. ===

=== If reason can probe so deeply, why do we need God to reveal himself (revelation)? ===

There are five basic areas into which reason cannot probe deeply.

==== The heart of God. ====

==== How to pray and worship. ====

==== Specific ethical precepts and attributes of God that cannot be known by reason ====

(e.g. the trinity).

==== God’s inspiration, response to prayer, and redemption of suffering. ====

==== The dynamic of sacred community. ====

=== Toward a definition of love (agape). ===

[[Reason and Revelation#A Definition of Love |A Definition of Love]]

=== Five reflective questions manifesting the unconditional love of God and his desire to be with us empathetically.===

=== God as Emmanuel ===

[[Reason and Revelation#Six Questions Toward Emmanuel |Six Questions Toward Emmanuel]]

== Unit K: Why Would God Allow Suffering from Humans? ==

[[Suffering Caused by Humans]]

This is only briefly treated in NPEG Chapter Six Section III. (See PID Unit 25-27.)

=== If our love is to be our own (and not merely a program) we must freely choose to love ===

Which means that we must have another choice – namely, “not to love.” But the choice not to love gives rise to the possibility of suffering and evil. See [[Suffering_Caused_by_Humans#The_Intrinsic_Relationship_of_Freedom_and_Love |The Intrinsic Relationship of Freedom and Love]]

=== Responses to special cases concerning suffering caused by humans. ===

[[Suffering_Caused_by_Humans#God_Must_Allow_Loving_Beings_to_Create_Their_Loving_Actions_Anew |Special Cases Discussed]]

== Unit L: Why Does God Allow Suffering from Nature? ==

[[Suffering Caused by Nature]]

This is only briefly treated in NPEG Chapter Six Section III. (See [http://physicsindialog.org PID Unit 26-27].)

=== Suffering is caused by nature because we are born imperfectly into an imperfect world. ===

=== Why would God make an imperfect world? ===

==== To help us to self-initiate ====

development of our purpose in life and our identity (from Level One to Level Four). See [[Suffering_Caused_by_Nature#The_First_Purpose_of_an_Imperfect_World:_Identity_Transformation |Identity Transformation]]

==== To allow us to cultivate the “stoic” virtues ====

[[Suffering_Caused_by_Nature#The_Second_Purpose_of_an_Imperfect_World:_Stoic_Virtues |The Stoic Virtues]] (e.g. courage and self-discipline, etc.)

=== To allow us to develop in love (agape). ===

[[Suffering_Caused_by_Nature#The_Third_Purpose_of_an_Imperfect_World:_Agape |Agape]]

=== To allow us to develop our sense of empathy and compassion. ===

=== To leave room for us to build a better world. ===

[[Suffering_Caused_by_Nature#The_Fourth_Purpose_of_an_Imperfect_World:_Interdependence.2C_Human_Community.2C_and_a_.E2.80.9CBetter_World.E2.80.9D |A Better World]]

=== To leave room for us to build the kingdom of God. ===

[[Suffering_Caused_by_Nature#The_Fifth_Purpose_of_an_Imperfect_World:_Building_the_Kingdom_of_God |The Kingdom of God]]

=== Conclusions about Suffering Well ===

[[Suffering Caused by Nature#Conclusion |Conclusions]]

== Unit M: References ==

[[Believe_in_God_Reference_List]]

A comprehensive bibliography of all the references used in the above twelve units.



{{DEFAULTSORT:Why Believe in God}}
[[Category:Table of Contents]]
[[Category:Intellectual Evangelization]]
[[Category:Supplemental Material]]

Why Believe in God?

2012-05-15T14:11:53Z

David Persyn: /* The evidence from space-time geometry proofs (Borde, Guth, and Vilenkin). */ link repair

Magis God Wiki: "Why Believe in God?"

© Robert J. Spitzer, S.J. Ph.D./Magis Institute July 2011

There is a list of suggested [[Search Terms]] to assist users in quickly finding their topic of interest.

== Unit A: Does Belief in God Enhance Purpose in Life? ==

[[Purpose in Life]]

This material is not in NPEG, but may be found beginning in Unit 26 of [http://physicsindialog.org PID].

=== What produces happiness and purpose in life? ===

[[Purpose_in_Life#Happiness_and_Purpose_in_Life |Happiness and Purpose]]

=== From immediate gratification and surface apparentness to what is pervasive, enduring, and deep. ===

[[Purpose_in_Life#Moving_from_Shallow_to_Deep |Shallowness to Depth]]

=== Four levels of happiness and purpose in life ===

[[Purpose_in_Life#The_Four_Levels |The Four Levels]]

=== Level two identity, the comparison game, and our culture’s source of anxiety. ===

[[Purpose_in_Life#The_Comparison_Game |The Comparison Game]]

=== Two ways out of the comparison game – level three and level four purpose in life. ===

[[Purpose_in_Life#Ending_the_Game |Getting Out of the Game]]

=== Level four purpose and happiness – transcendence and faith. ===

[[Purpose_in_Life#Transcendence |Faith Leading to Transcendence]]

=== Maintaining a level four purpose in life. ===

[[Purpose_in_Life#Maintaining_Transcendence |Maintaining the Transcendent Happiness]]

== Unit B: Is There any Evidence for the Human Soul? ==

This material is not contained in NPEG, but is in Units 20-21 of [http://physicsindialog.org PID].

=== An assessment of peer-reviewed medical studies on near death experiences from the Lancet, the Journal of the American Medical Association, and other studies. ===

[[The Human Soul]] (This is a single article covering the topics below, which are indexed there for quick reference).

=== The definition of “brain death,” alternative explanations, and controlled, longitudinal studies. ===

=== Eight similar characteristics in near-death experiences. ===

[http://magisgodwiki.org/index.php?title=The_Human_Soul#Near-Death_Experiences Characteristics of NDEs].

=== Patients report seeing data that should not have been accessible to them in their brain-dead states, and which is subsequently verifiable (veridical). ===

[http://magisgodwiki.org/index.php/title=The_Human_Soul#The_van_Lommel_et_al_Study The von Lommel Study]. Veridical data established.

=== 80% of blind patients can see during their near-death experience. ===

[http://magisgodwiki.org/index.php/title=The_Human_Soul#The_Kenneth_Ring.2C_et_al_Study_of_Near-Death_Experiences_of_the_Blind The Kenneth Ring Study of NDEs of the Blind].

=== The measurable absence of death anxiety in both children and adults. ===

[http://magisgodwiki.org/index.php?title=The_Human_Soul#Melvin_Morse.2C_MD_.E2.80.93_Study_of_Near-Death_Experiences_of_Children The Melvin Morse Study of NDEs in Children].

=== Encounters with transcendent beings (loving white light, Jesus, deceased relatives, etc.). ===

=== Conclusions of Von Lommel and other studies. ===

[http://magiswiki.org/index.php/The_Human_Soul#Conclusions_Regarding_Near-Death_Experiences Conclusions drawn from the studies].

== Unit C: Is there Evidence of a Human Soul (Transcendentals)? ==

[[The Transcendentals]]

An in depth analysis of this material may be found in NPEG Chapters 7-8 and a lecture presentation may also be found in [http://physicsindialog.org PID Units 14-19].

=== The desire for complete intelligibility and perfect truth. ===

[[The_Transcendentals#I._The_Desire_for_Perfect_and_Unconditional_Truth |The Desire for Perfect and Unconditional Truth]]

=== The desire for perfect love and empathy. ===

[[The_Transcendentals#II._The_Desire_for_Perfect_and_Unconditional_Love |The Desire for Perfect and Unconditional Love]]

=== The desire for perfect justice/goodness. ===

[[The_Transcendentals#III._The_Desire_for_Perfect_and_Unconditional_Goodness.2FJustice |The Desire for Perfect and Unconditional Goodness & Justice]]

=== The desire for perfect beauty. ===

[[The_Transcendentals#IV._The_Desire_for_Perfect_and_Unconditional_Beauty |The Desire for Perfect and Unconditional Beauty]]

=== The desire for perfect being/home. ===

[[The_Transcendentals#V._The_Desire_for_Perfect_and_Unconditional_Being.2FHome |The Desire for Perfect and Unconditional Being & Home]]

=== The five transcendental desires and the transmateriality of human consciousness. ===

[[The_Transcendentals#Conclusion |Conclusion]]

=== The five transcendental desires and God. ===

== Unit D: Is there Evidence of God from Science? ==

[[Cosmology]] incuding Physics.

A more in depth assessment of this material may be found in NPEG Chapters 1-2 and the Postscript to Part One, and a lecture presentation may be found in [http://physicsindialog.org PID Units 1-5].

=== The extent and limits of scientific method. ===

[http://magisgodwiki.org/index.php?title=Cosmology#Can_Science_Give_Evidence_of_a_Creation_and_Supernatural_Design.3F Limits of Science].

=== The standard big bang model. ===

[http://magisgodwiki.org/index.php?title=Cosmology#Was_the_Big_Bang_the_Beginning.3F The Big Bang and the Beginning].

=== Was the big bang the beginning of the universe (13.7 billion years ago)? ===

[http://magisgodwiki.org/index.php?title=Cosmology#A_Beginning_in_Physics_Implies_A_Creation_of_the_Universe Beginning of the Universe].

=== The significance of a beginning in physics – implications of creation. ===

[http://magisgodwiki.org/index.php?title=Cosmology#What_is_The_Evidence_for_a_Beginning_and_what_are_the_Implications_for_Creation.3F Implications of Creation].

=== Three models for a pre-big-bang period. ===

==== The string theory-inflationary multiverse. ====

==== The bouncing universe. ====

==== String theory-higher dimensional bouncing universe. ====

=== Significant evidence that all three models for a pre-big-bang period would have to have a beginning. ===

[http://magisgodwiki.org/index.php?title=Cosmology#Evidence_of_a_Beginning_from_Space-Time_Geometry_Proofs Space-Time Geometry].

==== The evidence from space-time geometry proofs (Borde, Guth, and Vilenkin). ====

[http://magisgodwiki.org/index.php?title=Cosmology#The_1994_Borde-Vilenkin_Proof B-V Proof of 1994].

[http://www.magisgodwiki.org/index.php/Cosmology#Alan_Guth.E2.80.99s_1999_analysis_of_expanding_pre-big-bang_models The Guth Analysis of 1999].

[http://www.magisgodwiki.org/index.php/Cosmology#The_2003_Borde-Vilenkin-Guth_Theorem_.28the_BVG_Theorem.29: The 2003 BVG Theorem].

==== The evidence from entropy (Penrose, Beckenstein, Banks, Carroll). ====

=== Universal constants, anthropic coincidences, and fine-tuning. ===

[http://www.magiswiki.org/index.php/Cosmology#Implications_of_Supernatural_Intelligence_in_the_Fine-tuning_of_Universal_Constants Fine Tuning].

==== Five examples of fine-tuning. ====

==== Can fine-tuning be explained by pure chance? ====

[http://www.magiswiki.org/index.php/Cosmology#The_high_improbability_of_a_pure_chance_occurrence_of_our_low-entropy_universe Pure Chance Improbable].

==== Two competing explanations: the multiverse and supernatural design. ====

==== Which of these two explanations is most reasonable and responsible? ====

[http://www.magiswiki.org/index.php/Cosmology#The_high_improbability_of_five_other_anthropic_conditions_.28based_on_cosmological_constants.29 Discussion of Probability]

=== Conclusions about the probability of super intelligent Creator. ===

[http://www.magiswiki.org/index.php/Cosmology#Conclusions Conclusions].

== Unit E: Can the Bible be Reconciled with Science? ==

[[The Bible and Science]]

This unit is not found in either NPEG or PID, however, there is a free videocast on [http://www.magisreasonfaith.org/library/videos/video-god-and-modern-physics-module-12/ The Magis website].

=== The bible is not doing science – but theology, sacred truths. ===

[[The_Bible_and_Science#Theology_Not_Science |Theology not Science]]

=== What was the biblical author’s intention in writing Genesis:1:1ff? ===

[[The_Bible_and_Science#The_Intent_of_Genesis |The Intent of Genesis]]

=== Is evolution reconcilable with the bible? ===

[[The_Bible_and_Science#Darwinian_Evolution |The Bible and Evolution]]

=== Human beings are not reducible to merely organic mechanisms, and therefore, cannot be the result of a merely bio-physical process (like evolution). ===

[[The_Bible_and_Science#The_Human_Soul |About the Human Soul]]

==== The trans-material component of human beings must have another origin ====

[http://www.magisgodwiki.org/index.php/title=Why_Believe_in_God%3F#Unit_B:_Is_There_any_Evidence_for_the_Human_Soul.3F See above, Unit B].

== Unit F: Can the Existence of God be Logically Proven? ==

[[Metaphysical Proofs]]

This Unit contains only steps I and V of a logical proof for God’s existence. Steps II, III, and IV can be found in NPEG Chapter Three (Sections II through IV) and [http://physicsindialog.org PID Units 6-11]. Those wishing a review of logical syllogisms may want to consult [http://physicsindialog.org PID Units 6-7].

=== Three kinds of publicly corroborateable evidence – a-priori, a-posteriori, and combinations. ===

[[Metaphysical_Proofs#Three_Kinds_of_Publicly_Accessible_Evidence_for_Rational_Proof |Three Kinds of Publicly Corroborateable Evidence]]

=== Step I of the metaphysical proof – proof that there must be at least one unconditioned reality in “all reality.” ===

[[Metaphysical_Proofs#Proof_of_the_Existence_of_at_Least_One_Unconditioned_Reality |Proof of the Existence of at least One Unconditioned Reality]]

=== A record of the missing steps of the proof ===

These can be found in NPEG and [http://physicsindialog.org PID] (as noted above). These steps prove that there can only be one unconditioned reality and that it must be absolutely simple and unrestricted in its power.

===Step V of the proof which shows that the one unconditioned absolutely simple unrestricted reality must be the continuous Creator of all else that is. ===

[[Metaphysical_Proofs#Proof_that_the_One_Unconditioned_Reality_is_the_Continuous_Creator_of_All_Else_that_Is |Proof that the One Unconditioned Reality is the Continuous Creator of All Else that Is]].

== Unit G: Is there Evidence of God from Mathematics? ==
For a more in depth presentation of time and the formal a-priori synthetic argument for a timeless Creator of time, see NPEG Chapter Five and also [http://physicsindialog.org PID Units 22-25].

=== “Infinite past time” is an analytical contradiction. ===

[[Mathematics#An_Analytical_Contradiction_in_.22Infinite_Past_Time.22 |An Analytical Contradiction in "Infinite Past Time"]]

=== Three kinds of infinity (A, B, and C infinities). ===

Covered in the last paragraphs of [[Mathematics#An_Analytical_Contradiction_in_.22Infinite_Past_Time.22 |An Analytical Contradiction in "Infinite Past Time"]]

=== David Hilbert’s prohibition of C infinities applied to real aggregate structures. ===

[[Mathematics#Summary_of_Hilbert.27s_Prohibition_of_Actual_Infinities |Hilbert's Prohibition of Actual Infinities]]

=== What is real time? ===

[[Mathematics#A_Brief_Explanation_of_Real_Time |A Brief Explanation of Real Time]]

=== The prohibition of a C infinity to real time ===

Implying that past time must be finite and that it must have a beginning, further implying a Creator of past time. See [[Mathematics#Conclusions |Conclusions]]

== Unit H: Why Doesn’t God Need a Creator? ==

[[God is Uncreated]]

An in depth treatment of this material may be found in NPEG Chapter Six Section I.C. It is briefly treated in [http://physicsindialog.org PID Unit 12].

=== No serious philosopher ever suggested that “everything must have a cause,” ===

For this would imply that God needs a cause. See [[God is Uncreated#Serious Metaphysicians Don't Dismiss First Cause |Serious Metaphysicians Don't Dismiss First Cause]]

=== All rigorous logical proofs require that there be at least one uncaused reality. ===

=== All rigorous proofs show that there can only be one uncaused reality ===

(see Unit F).

=== Conclusion of Proof of God Not Needing a Creator ===

All rigorous proofs show that everything in reality besides the one uncaused reality must be caused and that the one uncaused reality must be the cause of all else that is. God does not need to be created – indeed, he must be “that which is uncreated,” otherwise nothing would exist. See [[God is Uncreated#Conclusion |Conclusion]]

== Unit I: Can Atheism be Rational? ==

[[Can Atheism Be Rational?]] (the article of that title).

For a more in depth study of this material, see NPEG Chapter Six, Sections II and III; for a brief lecture presentation, see [http://physicsindialog.org PID Unit 25].

=== It is impossible to rationally disprove the existence of a transcendent being ===

it cannot be done, a-priori, a-posteriori, or through any combination of that. See [[Can_Atheism_Be_Rational%3F#The_Impossibility_of_Disproving_the_Existence_of_God |The Impossibility of Disproving the Existence of God]]

=== A brief response to the problem of suffering – why would God allow suffering if He is all powerful and all loving? ===

(See Units K&L for a much more extended treatment.)

=== A brief Discussion of the Tenuous Rationality of Atheism ===

[[Can_Atheism_Be_Rational%3F#The_Tenuous_Rationality_of_Atheism |The Tenuous Rationality of Atheism]]

=== A response to Freud’s contention that God is the product of wishful thinking. ===

[[Can_Atheism_Be_Rational%3F#Is_Belief_in_God_Mere_Wishful_Thinking.3F |Is Belief in God Mere Wishful Thinking?]]

== Unit J: Why Seek Revelation? ==

[[Reason and Revelation]]

This is not presented in NPEG. For a brief lecture presentation see PID Unit 30.

=== A brief summary of the four sets of evidence for God ===

[[Reason and Revelation#Four Sets of Evidence |Four Sets of Evidence]]

==== The evidence from physics. ====

==== The evidence from the logical proof for the existence of God. ====

==== The evidence from philosophy of mathematics. ====

==== The evidence from near-death experiences and human transcendentality. ====

=== The mutual corroborative effect of these four sets of evidence. ===

=== The complementary picture of God given by these four sets of evidence. ===

=== If reason can probe so deeply, why do we need God to reveal himself (revelation)? ===

There are five basic areas into which reason cannot probe deeply.

==== The heart of God. ====

==== How to pray and worship. ====

==== Specific ethical precepts and attributes of God that cannot be known by reason ====

(e.g. the trinity).

==== God’s inspiration, response to prayer, and redemption of suffering. ====

==== The dynamic of sacred community. ====

=== Toward a definition of love (agape). ===

[[Reason and Revelation#A Definition of Love |A Definition of Love]]

=== Five reflective questions manifesting the unconditional love of God and his desire to be with us empathetically.===

=== God as Emmanuel ===

[[Reason and Revelation#Six Questions Toward Emmanuel |Six Questions Toward Emmanuel]]

== Unit K: Why Would God Allow Suffering from Humans? ==

[[Suffering Caused by Humans]]

This is only briefly treated in NPEG Chapter Six Section III. (See PID Unit 25-27.)

=== If our love is to be our own (and not merely a program) we must freely choose to love ===

Which means that we must have another choice – namely, “not to love.” But the choice not to love gives rise to the possibility of suffering and evil. See [[Suffering_Caused_by_Humans#The_Intrinsic_Relationship_of_Freedom_and_Love |The Intrinsic Relationship of Freedom and Love]]

=== Responses to special cases concerning suffering caused by humans. ===

[[Suffering_Caused_by_Humans#God_Must_Allow_Loving_Beings_to_Create_Their_Loving_Actions_Anew |Special Cases Discussed]]

== Unit L: Why Does God Allow Suffering from Nature? ==

[[Suffering Caused by Nature]]

This is only briefly treated in NPEG Chapter Six Section III. (See [http://physicsindialog.org PID Unit 26-27].)

=== Suffering is caused by nature because we are born imperfectly into an imperfect world. ===

=== Why would God make an imperfect world? ===

==== To help us to self-initiate ====

development of our purpose in life and our identity (from Level One to Level Four). See [[Suffering_Caused_by_Nature#The_First_Purpose_of_an_Imperfect_World:_Identity_Transformation |Identity Transformation]]

==== To allow us to cultivate the “stoic” virtues ====

[[Suffering_Caused_by_Nature#The_Second_Purpose_of_an_Imperfect_World:_Stoic_Virtues |The Stoic Virtues]] (e.g. courage and self-discipline, etc.)

=== To allow us to develop in love (agape). ===

[[Suffering_Caused_by_Nature#The_Third_Purpose_of_an_Imperfect_World:_Agape |Agape]]

=== To allow us to develop our sense of empathy and compassion. ===

=== To leave room for us to build a better world. ===

[[Suffering_Caused_by_Nature#The_Fourth_Purpose_of_an_Imperfect_World:_Interdependence.2C_Human_Community.2C_and_a_.E2.80.9CBetter_World.E2.80.9D |A Better World]]

=== To leave room for us to build the kingdom of God. ===

[[Suffering_Caused_by_Nature#The_Fifth_Purpose_of_an_Imperfect_World:_Building_the_Kingdom_of_God |The Kingdom of God]]

=== Conclusions about Suffering Well ===

[[Suffering Caused by Nature#Conclusion |Conclusions]]

== Unit M: References ==

[[Believe_in_God_Reference_List]]

A comprehensive bibliography of all the references used in the above twelve units.



{{DEFAULTSORT:Why Believe in God}}
[[Category:Table of Contents]]
[[Category:Intellectual Evangelization]]
[[Category:Supplemental Material]]

Why Believe in God?

2012-05-15T14:10:34Z

David Persyn: /* Significant evidence that all three models for a pre-big-bang period would have to have a beginning. */ link repair

Magis God Wiki: "Why Believe in God?"

© Robert J. Spitzer, S.J. Ph.D./Magis Institute July 2011

There is a list of suggested [[Search Terms]] to assist users in quickly finding their topic of interest.

== Unit A: Does Belief in God Enhance Purpose in Life? ==

[[Purpose in Life]]

This material is not in NPEG, but may be found beginning in Unit 26 of [http://physicsindialog.org PID].

=== What produces happiness and purpose in life? ===

[[Purpose_in_Life#Happiness_and_Purpose_in_Life |Happiness and Purpose]]

=== From immediate gratification and surface apparentness to what is pervasive, enduring, and deep. ===

[[Purpose_in_Life#Moving_from_Shallow_to_Deep |Shallowness to Depth]]

=== Four levels of happiness and purpose in life ===

[[Purpose_in_Life#The_Four_Levels |The Four Levels]]

=== Level two identity, the comparison game, and our culture’s source of anxiety. ===

[[Purpose_in_Life#The_Comparison_Game |The Comparison Game]]

=== Two ways out of the comparison game – level three and level four purpose in life. ===

[[Purpose_in_Life#Ending_the_Game |Getting Out of the Game]]

=== Level four purpose and happiness – transcendence and faith. ===

[[Purpose_in_Life#Transcendence |Faith Leading to Transcendence]]

=== Maintaining a level four purpose in life. ===

[[Purpose_in_Life#Maintaining_Transcendence |Maintaining the Transcendent Happiness]]

== Unit B: Is There any Evidence for the Human Soul? ==

This material is not contained in NPEG, but is in Units 20-21 of [http://physicsindialog.org PID].

=== An assessment of peer-reviewed medical studies on near death experiences from the Lancet, the Journal of the American Medical Association, and other studies. ===

[[The Human Soul]] (This is a single article covering the topics below, which are indexed there for quick reference).

=== The definition of “brain death,” alternative explanations, and controlled, longitudinal studies. ===

=== Eight similar characteristics in near-death experiences. ===

[http://magisgodwiki.org/index.php?title=The_Human_Soul#Near-Death_Experiences Characteristics of NDEs].

=== Patients report seeing data that should not have been accessible to them in their brain-dead states, and which is subsequently verifiable (veridical). ===

[http://magisgodwiki.org/index.php/title=The_Human_Soul#The_van_Lommel_et_al_Study The von Lommel Study]. Veridical data established.

=== 80% of blind patients can see during their near-death experience. ===

[http://magisgodwiki.org/index.php/title=The_Human_Soul#The_Kenneth_Ring.2C_et_al_Study_of_Near-Death_Experiences_of_the_Blind The Kenneth Ring Study of NDEs of the Blind].

=== The measurable absence of death anxiety in both children and adults. ===

[http://magisgodwiki.org/index.php?title=The_Human_Soul#Melvin_Morse.2C_MD_.E2.80.93_Study_of_Near-Death_Experiences_of_Children The Melvin Morse Study of NDEs in Children].

=== Encounters with transcendent beings (loving white light, Jesus, deceased relatives, etc.). ===

=== Conclusions of Von Lommel and other studies. ===

[http://magiswiki.org/index.php/The_Human_Soul#Conclusions_Regarding_Near-Death_Experiences Conclusions drawn from the studies].

== Unit C: Is there Evidence of a Human Soul (Transcendentals)? ==

[[The Transcendentals]]

An in depth analysis of this material may be found in NPEG Chapters 7-8 and a lecture presentation may also be found in [http://physicsindialog.org PID Units 14-19].

=== The desire for complete intelligibility and perfect truth. ===

[[The_Transcendentals#I._The_Desire_for_Perfect_and_Unconditional_Truth |The Desire for Perfect and Unconditional Truth]]

=== The desire for perfect love and empathy. ===

[[The_Transcendentals#II._The_Desire_for_Perfect_and_Unconditional_Love |The Desire for Perfect and Unconditional Love]]

=== The desire for perfect justice/goodness. ===

[[The_Transcendentals#III._The_Desire_for_Perfect_and_Unconditional_Goodness.2FJustice |The Desire for Perfect and Unconditional Goodness & Justice]]

=== The desire for perfect beauty. ===

[[The_Transcendentals#IV._The_Desire_for_Perfect_and_Unconditional_Beauty |The Desire for Perfect and Unconditional Beauty]]

=== The desire for perfect being/home. ===

[[The_Transcendentals#V._The_Desire_for_Perfect_and_Unconditional_Being.2FHome |The Desire for Perfect and Unconditional Being & Home]]

=== The five transcendental desires and the transmateriality of human consciousness. ===

[[The_Transcendentals#Conclusion |Conclusion]]

=== The five transcendental desires and God. ===

== Unit D: Is there Evidence of God from Science? ==

[[Cosmology]] incuding Physics.

A more in depth assessment of this material may be found in NPEG Chapters 1-2 and the Postscript to Part One, and a lecture presentation may be found in [http://physicsindialog.org PID Units 1-5].

=== The extent and limits of scientific method. ===

[http://magisgodwiki.org/index.php?title=Cosmology#Can_Science_Give_Evidence_of_a_Creation_and_Supernatural_Design.3F Limits of Science].

=== The standard big bang model. ===

[http://magisgodwiki.org/index.php?title=Cosmology#Was_the_Big_Bang_the_Beginning.3F The Big Bang and the Beginning].

=== Was the big bang the beginning of the universe (13.7 billion years ago)? ===

[http://magisgodwiki.org/index.php?title=Cosmology#A_Beginning_in_Physics_Implies_A_Creation_of_the_Universe Beginning of the Universe].

=== The significance of a beginning in physics – implications of creation. ===

[http://magisgodwiki.org/index.php?title=Cosmology#What_is_The_Evidence_for_a_Beginning_and_what_are_the_Implications_for_Creation.3F Implications of Creation].

=== Three models for a pre-big-bang period. ===

==== The string theory-inflationary multiverse. ====

==== The bouncing universe. ====

==== String theory-higher dimensional bouncing universe. ====

=== Significant evidence that all three models for a pre-big-bang period would have to have a beginning. ===

[http://magisgodwiki.org/index.php?title=Cosmology#Evidence_of_a_Beginning_from_Space-Time_Geometry_Proofs Space-Time Geometry].

==== The evidence from space-time geometry proofs (Borde, Guth, and Vilenkin). ====

[http://www.magisgodwiki.org/index.php/Cosmology#The_1994_Borde-Vilenkin_Proof B-V Proof of 1994].

[http://www.magisgodwiki.org/index.php/Cosmology#Alan_Guth.E2.80.99s_1999_analysis_of_expanding_pre-big-bang_models The Guth Analysis of 1999].

[http://www.magisgodwiki.org/index.php/Cosmology#The_2003_Borde-Vilenkin-Guth_Theorem_.28the_BVG_Theorem.29: The 2003 BVG Theorem].

==== The evidence from entropy (Penrose, Beckenstein, Banks, Carroll). ====

=== Universal constants, anthropic coincidences, and fine-tuning. ===

[http://www.magiswiki.org/index.php/Cosmology#Implications_of_Supernatural_Intelligence_in_the_Fine-tuning_of_Universal_Constants Fine Tuning].

==== Five examples of fine-tuning. ====

==== Can fine-tuning be explained by pure chance? ====

[http://www.magiswiki.org/index.php/Cosmology#The_high_improbability_of_a_pure_chance_occurrence_of_our_low-entropy_universe Pure Chance Improbable].

==== Two competing explanations: the multiverse and supernatural design. ====

==== Which of these two explanations is most reasonable and responsible? ====

[http://www.magiswiki.org/index.php/Cosmology#The_high_improbability_of_five_other_anthropic_conditions_.28based_on_cosmological_constants.29 Discussion of Probability]

=== Conclusions about the probability of super intelligent Creator. ===

[http://www.magiswiki.org/index.php/Cosmology#Conclusions Conclusions].

== Unit E: Can the Bible be Reconciled with Science? ==

[[The Bible and Science]]

This unit is not found in either NPEG or PID, however, there is a free videocast on [http://www.magisreasonfaith.org/library/videos/video-god-and-modern-physics-module-12/ The Magis website].

=== The bible is not doing science – but theology, sacred truths. ===

[[The_Bible_and_Science#Theology_Not_Science |Theology not Science]]

=== What was the biblical author’s intention in writing Genesis:1:1ff? ===

[[The_Bible_and_Science#The_Intent_of_Genesis |The Intent of Genesis]]

=== Is evolution reconcilable with the bible? ===

[[The_Bible_and_Science#Darwinian_Evolution |The Bible and Evolution]]

=== Human beings are not reducible to merely organic mechanisms, and therefore, cannot be the result of a merely bio-physical process (like evolution). ===

[[The_Bible_and_Science#The_Human_Soul |About the Human Soul]]

==== The trans-material component of human beings must have another origin ====

[http://www.magisgodwiki.org/index.php/title=Why_Believe_in_God%3F#Unit_B:_Is_There_any_Evidence_for_the_Human_Soul.3F See above, Unit B].

== Unit F: Can the Existence of God be Logically Proven? ==

[[Metaphysical Proofs]]

This Unit contains only steps I and V of a logical proof for God’s existence. Steps II, III, and IV can be found in NPEG Chapter Three (Sections II through IV) and [http://physicsindialog.org PID Units 6-11]. Those wishing a review of logical syllogisms may want to consult [http://physicsindialog.org PID Units 6-7].

=== Three kinds of publicly corroborateable evidence – a-priori, a-posteriori, and combinations. ===

[[Metaphysical_Proofs#Three_Kinds_of_Publicly_Accessible_Evidence_for_Rational_Proof |Three Kinds of Publicly Corroborateable Evidence]]

=== Step I of the metaphysical proof – proof that there must be at least one unconditioned reality in “all reality.” ===

[[Metaphysical_Proofs#Proof_of_the_Existence_of_at_Least_One_Unconditioned_Reality |Proof of the Existence of at least One Unconditioned Reality]]

=== A record of the missing steps of the proof ===

These can be found in NPEG and [http://physicsindialog.org PID] (as noted above). These steps prove that there can only be one unconditioned reality and that it must be absolutely simple and unrestricted in its power.

===Step V of the proof which shows that the one unconditioned absolutely simple unrestricted reality must be the continuous Creator of all else that is. ===

[[Metaphysical_Proofs#Proof_that_the_One_Unconditioned_Reality_is_the_Continuous_Creator_of_All_Else_that_Is |Proof that the One Unconditioned Reality is the Continuous Creator of All Else that Is]].

== Unit G: Is there Evidence of God from Mathematics? ==
For a more in depth presentation of time and the formal a-priori synthetic argument for a timeless Creator of time, see NPEG Chapter Five and also [http://physicsindialog.org PID Units 22-25].

=== “Infinite past time” is an analytical contradiction. ===

[[Mathematics#An_Analytical_Contradiction_in_.22Infinite_Past_Time.22 |An Analytical Contradiction in "Infinite Past Time"]]

=== Three kinds of infinity (A, B, and C infinities). ===

Covered in the last paragraphs of [[Mathematics#An_Analytical_Contradiction_in_.22Infinite_Past_Time.22 |An Analytical Contradiction in "Infinite Past Time"]]

=== David Hilbert’s prohibition of C infinities applied to real aggregate structures. ===

[[Mathematics#Summary_of_Hilbert.27s_Prohibition_of_Actual_Infinities |Hilbert's Prohibition of Actual Infinities]]

=== What is real time? ===

[[Mathematics#A_Brief_Explanation_of_Real_Time |A Brief Explanation of Real Time]]

=== The prohibition of a C infinity to real time ===

Implying that past time must be finite and that it must have a beginning, further implying a Creator of past time. See [[Mathematics#Conclusions |Conclusions]]

== Unit H: Why Doesn’t God Need a Creator? ==

[[God is Uncreated]]

An in depth treatment of this material may be found in NPEG Chapter Six Section I.C. It is briefly treated in [http://physicsindialog.org PID Unit 12].

=== No serious philosopher ever suggested that “everything must have a cause,” ===

For this would imply that God needs a cause. See [[God is Uncreated#Serious Metaphysicians Don't Dismiss First Cause |Serious Metaphysicians Don't Dismiss First Cause]]

=== All rigorous logical proofs require that there be at least one uncaused reality. ===

=== All rigorous proofs show that there can only be one uncaused reality ===

(see Unit F).

=== Conclusion of Proof of God Not Needing a Creator ===

All rigorous proofs show that everything in reality besides the one uncaused reality must be caused and that the one uncaused reality must be the cause of all else that is. God does not need to be created – indeed, he must be “that which is uncreated,” otherwise nothing would exist. See [[God is Uncreated#Conclusion |Conclusion]]

== Unit I: Can Atheism be Rational? ==

[[Can Atheism Be Rational?]] (the article of that title).

For a more in depth study of this material, see NPEG Chapter Six, Sections II and III; for a brief lecture presentation, see [http://physicsindialog.org PID Unit 25].

=== It is impossible to rationally disprove the existence of a transcendent being ===

it cannot be done, a-priori, a-posteriori, or through any combination of that. See [[Can_Atheism_Be_Rational%3F#The_Impossibility_of_Disproving_the_Existence_of_God |The Impossibility of Disproving the Existence of God]]

=== A brief response to the problem of suffering – why would God allow suffering if He is all powerful and all loving? ===

(See Units K&L for a much more extended treatment.)

=== A brief Discussion of the Tenuous Rationality of Atheism ===

[[Can_Atheism_Be_Rational%3F#The_Tenuous_Rationality_of_Atheism |The Tenuous Rationality of Atheism]]

=== A response to Freud’s contention that God is the product of wishful thinking. ===

[[Can_Atheism_Be_Rational%3F#Is_Belief_in_God_Mere_Wishful_Thinking.3F |Is Belief in God Mere Wishful Thinking?]]

== Unit J: Why Seek Revelation? ==

[[Reason and Revelation]]

This is not presented in NPEG. For a brief lecture presentation see PID Unit 30.

=== A brief summary of the four sets of evidence for God ===

[[Reason and Revelation#Four Sets of Evidence |Four Sets of Evidence]]

==== The evidence from physics. ====

==== The evidence from the logical proof for the existence of God. ====

==== The evidence from philosophy of mathematics. ====

==== The evidence from near-death experiences and human transcendentality. ====

=== The mutual corroborative effect of these four sets of evidence. ===

=== The complementary picture of God given by these four sets of evidence. ===

=== If reason can probe so deeply, why do we need God to reveal himself (revelation)? ===

There are five basic areas into which reason cannot probe deeply.

==== The heart of God. ====

==== How to pray and worship. ====

==== Specific ethical precepts and attributes of God that cannot be known by reason ====

(e.g. the trinity).

==== God’s inspiration, response to prayer, and redemption of suffering. ====

==== The dynamic of sacred community. ====

=== Toward a definition of love (agape). ===

[[Reason and Revelation#A Definition of Love |A Definition of Love]]

=== Five reflective questions manifesting the unconditional love of God and his desire to be with us empathetically.===

=== God as Emmanuel ===

[[Reason and Revelation#Six Questions Toward Emmanuel |Six Questions Toward Emmanuel]]

== Unit K: Why Would God Allow Suffering from Humans? ==

[[Suffering Caused by Humans]]

This is only briefly treated in NPEG Chapter Six Section III. (See PID Unit 25-27.)

=== If our love is to be our own (and not merely a program) we must freely choose to love ===

Which means that we must have another choice – namely, “not to love.” But the choice not to love gives rise to the possibility of suffering and evil. See [[Suffering_Caused_by_Humans#The_Intrinsic_Relationship_of_Freedom_and_Love |The Intrinsic Relationship of Freedom and Love]]

=== Responses to special cases concerning suffering caused by humans. ===

[[Suffering_Caused_by_Humans#God_Must_Allow_Loving_Beings_to_Create_Their_Loving_Actions_Anew |Special Cases Discussed]]

== Unit L: Why Does God Allow Suffering from Nature? ==

[[Suffering Caused by Nature]]

This is only briefly treated in NPEG Chapter Six Section III. (See [http://physicsindialog.org PID Unit 26-27].)

=== Suffering is caused by nature because we are born imperfectly into an imperfect world. ===

=== Why would God make an imperfect world? ===

==== To help us to self-initiate ====

development of our purpose in life and our identity (from Level One to Level Four). See [[Suffering_Caused_by_Nature#The_First_Purpose_of_an_Imperfect_World:_Identity_Transformation |Identity Transformation]]

==== To allow us to cultivate the “stoic” virtues ====

[[Suffering_Caused_by_Nature#The_Second_Purpose_of_an_Imperfect_World:_Stoic_Virtues |The Stoic Virtues]] (e.g. courage and self-discipline, etc.)

=== To allow us to develop in love (agape). ===

[[Suffering_Caused_by_Nature#The_Third_Purpose_of_an_Imperfect_World:_Agape |Agape]]

=== To allow us to develop our sense of empathy and compassion. ===

=== To leave room for us to build a better world. ===

[[Suffering_Caused_by_Nature#The_Fourth_Purpose_of_an_Imperfect_World:_Interdependence.2C_Human_Community.2C_and_a_.E2.80.9CBetter_World.E2.80.9D |A Better World]]

=== To leave room for us to build the kingdom of God. ===

[[Suffering_Caused_by_Nature#The_Fifth_Purpose_of_an_Imperfect_World:_Building_the_Kingdom_of_God |The Kingdom of God]]

=== Conclusions about Suffering Well ===

[[Suffering Caused by Nature#Conclusion |Conclusions]]

== Unit M: References ==

[[Believe_in_God_Reference_List]]

A comprehensive bibliography of all the references used in the above twelve units.



{{DEFAULTSORT:Why Believe in God}}
[[Category:Table of Contents]]
[[Category:Intellectual Evangelization]]
[[Category:Supplemental Material]]

Why Believe in God?

2012-05-15T14:06:55Z

David Persyn: /* Significant evidence that all three models for a pre-big-bang period would have to have a beginning. */ correct links

Magis God Wiki: "Why Believe in God?"

© Robert J. Spitzer, S.J. Ph.D./Magis Institute July 2011

There is a list of suggested [[Search Terms]] to assist users in quickly finding their topic of interest.

== Unit A: Does Belief in God Enhance Purpose in Life? ==

[[Purpose in Life]]

This material is not in NPEG, but may be found beginning in Unit 26 of [http://physicsindialog.org PID].

=== What produces happiness and purpose in life? ===

[[Purpose_in_Life#Happiness_and_Purpose_in_Life |Happiness and Purpose]]

=== From immediate gratification and surface apparentness to what is pervasive, enduring, and deep. ===

[[Purpose_in_Life#Moving_from_Shallow_to_Deep |Shallowness to Depth]]

=== Four levels of happiness and purpose in life ===

[[Purpose_in_Life#The_Four_Levels |The Four Levels]]

=== Level two identity, the comparison game, and our culture’s source of anxiety. ===

[[Purpose_in_Life#The_Comparison_Game |The Comparison Game]]

=== Two ways out of the comparison game – level three and level four purpose in life. ===

[[Purpose_in_Life#Ending_the_Game |Getting Out of the Game]]

=== Level four purpose and happiness – transcendence and faith. ===

[[Purpose_in_Life#Transcendence |Faith Leading to Transcendence]]

=== Maintaining a level four purpose in life. ===

[[Purpose_in_Life#Maintaining_Transcendence |Maintaining the Transcendent Happiness]]

== Unit B: Is There any Evidence for the Human Soul? ==

This material is not contained in NPEG, but is in Units 20-21 of [http://physicsindialog.org PID].

=== An assessment of peer-reviewed medical studies on near death experiences from the Lancet, the Journal of the American Medical Association, and other studies. ===

[[The Human Soul]] (This is a single article covering the topics below, which are indexed there for quick reference).

=== The definition of “brain death,” alternative explanations, and controlled, longitudinal studies. ===

=== Eight similar characteristics in near-death experiences. ===

[http://magisgodwiki.org/index.php?title=The_Human_Soul#Near-Death_Experiences Characteristics of NDEs].

=== Patients report seeing data that should not have been accessible to them in their brain-dead states, and which is subsequently verifiable (veridical). ===

[http://magisgodwiki.org/index.php/title=The_Human_Soul#The_van_Lommel_et_al_Study The von Lommel Study]. Veridical data established.

=== 80% of blind patients can see during their near-death experience. ===

[http://magisgodwiki.org/index.php/title=The_Human_Soul#The_Kenneth_Ring.2C_et_al_Study_of_Near-Death_Experiences_of_the_Blind The Kenneth Ring Study of NDEs of the Blind].

=== The measurable absence of death anxiety in both children and adults. ===

[http://magisgodwiki.org/index.php?title=The_Human_Soul#Melvin_Morse.2C_MD_.E2.80.93_Study_of_Near-Death_Experiences_of_Children The Melvin Morse Study of NDEs in Children].

=== Encounters with transcendent beings (loving white light, Jesus, deceased relatives, etc.). ===

=== Conclusions of Von Lommel and other studies. ===

[http://magiswiki.org/index.php/The_Human_Soul#Conclusions_Regarding_Near-Death_Experiences Conclusions drawn from the studies].

== Unit C: Is there Evidence of a Human Soul (Transcendentals)? ==

[[The Transcendentals]]

An in depth analysis of this material may be found in NPEG Chapters 7-8 and a lecture presentation may also be found in [http://physicsindialog.org PID Units 14-19].

=== The desire for complete intelligibility and perfect truth. ===

[[The_Transcendentals#I._The_Desire_for_Perfect_and_Unconditional_Truth |The Desire for Perfect and Unconditional Truth]]

=== The desire for perfect love and empathy. ===

[[The_Transcendentals#II._The_Desire_for_Perfect_and_Unconditional_Love |The Desire for Perfect and Unconditional Love]]

=== The desire for perfect justice/goodness. ===

[[The_Transcendentals#III._The_Desire_for_Perfect_and_Unconditional_Goodness.2FJustice |The Desire for Perfect and Unconditional Goodness & Justice]]

=== The desire for perfect beauty. ===

[[The_Transcendentals#IV._The_Desire_for_Perfect_and_Unconditional_Beauty |The Desire for Perfect and Unconditional Beauty]]

=== The desire for perfect being/home. ===

[[The_Transcendentals#V._The_Desire_for_Perfect_and_Unconditional_Being.2FHome |The Desire for Perfect and Unconditional Being & Home]]

=== The five transcendental desires and the transmateriality of human consciousness. ===

[[The_Transcendentals#Conclusion |Conclusion]]

=== The five transcendental desires and God. ===

== Unit D: Is there Evidence of God from Science? ==

[[Cosmology]] incuding Physics.

A more in depth assessment of this material may be found in NPEG Chapters 1-2 and the Postscript to Part One, and a lecture presentation may be found in [http://physicsindialog.org PID Units 1-5].

=== The extent and limits of scientific method. ===

[http://magisgodwiki.org/index.php?title=Cosmology#Can_Science_Give_Evidence_of_a_Creation_and_Supernatural_Design.3F Limits of Science].

=== The standard big bang model. ===

[http://magisgodwiki.org/index.php?title=Cosmology#Was_the_Big_Bang_the_Beginning.3F The Big Bang and the Beginning].

=== Was the big bang the beginning of the universe (13.7 billion years ago)? ===

[http://magisgodwiki.org/index.php?title=Cosmology#A_Beginning_in_Physics_Implies_A_Creation_of_the_Universe Beginning of the Universe].

=== The significance of a beginning in physics – implications of creation. ===

[http://magisgodwiki.org/index.php?title=Cosmology#What_is_The_Evidence_for_a_Beginning_and_what_are_the_Implications_for_Creation.3F Implications of Creation].

=== Three models for a pre-big-bang period. ===

==== The string theory-inflationary multiverse. ====

==== The bouncing universe. ====

==== String theory-higher dimensional bouncing universe. ====

=== Significant evidence that all three models for a pre-big-bang period would have to have a beginning. ===

[http://www.magisgodwiki.org/index.php/Cosmology#Evidence_of_a_Beginning_from_Space-Time_Geometry_Proofs Space-Time Geometry].

==== The evidence from space-time geometry proofs (Borde, Guth, and Vilenkin). ====

[http://www.magisgodwiki.org/index.php/Cosmology#The_1994_Borde-Vilenkin_Proof B-V Proof of 1994].

[http://www.magisgodwiki.org/index.php/Cosmology#Alan_Guth.E2.80.99s_1999_analysis_of_expanding_pre-big-bang_models The Guth Analysis of 1999].

[http://www.magisgodwiki.org/index.php/Cosmology#The_2003_Borde-Vilenkin-Guth_Theorem_.28the_BVG_Theorem.29: The 2003 BVG Theorem].

==== The evidence from entropy (Penrose, Beckenstein, Banks, Carroll). ====

=== Universal constants, anthropic coincidences, and fine-tuning. ===

[http://www.magiswiki.org/index.php/Cosmology#Implications_of_Supernatural_Intelligence_in_the_Fine-tuning_of_Universal_Constants Fine Tuning].

==== Five examples of fine-tuning. ====

==== Can fine-tuning be explained by pure chance? ====

[http://www.magiswiki.org/index.php/Cosmology#The_high_improbability_of_a_pure_chance_occurrence_of_our_low-entropy_universe Pure Chance Improbable].

==== Two competing explanations: the multiverse and supernatural design. ====

==== Which of these two explanations is most reasonable and responsible? ====

[http://www.magiswiki.org/index.php/Cosmology#The_high_improbability_of_five_other_anthropic_conditions_.28based_on_cosmological_constants.29 Discussion of Probability]

=== Conclusions about the probability of super intelligent Creator. ===

[http://www.magiswiki.org/index.php/Cosmology#Conclusions Conclusions].

== Unit E: Can the Bible be Reconciled with Science? ==

[[The Bible and Science]]

This unit is not found in either NPEG or PID, however, there is a free videocast on [http://www.magisreasonfaith.org/library/videos/video-god-and-modern-physics-module-12/ The Magis website].

=== The bible is not doing science – but theology, sacred truths. ===

[[The_Bible_and_Science#Theology_Not_Science |Theology not Science]]

=== What was the biblical author’s intention in writing Genesis:1:1ff? ===

[[The_Bible_and_Science#The_Intent_of_Genesis |The Intent of Genesis]]

=== Is evolution reconcilable with the bible? ===

[[The_Bible_and_Science#Darwinian_Evolution |The Bible and Evolution]]

=== Human beings are not reducible to merely organic mechanisms, and therefore, cannot be the result of a merely bio-physical process (like evolution). ===

[[The_Bible_and_Science#The_Human_Soul |About the Human Soul]]

==== The trans-material component of human beings must have another origin ====

[http://www.magisgodwiki.org/index.php/title=Why_Believe_in_God%3F#Unit_B:_Is_There_any_Evidence_for_the_Human_Soul.3F See above, Unit B].

== Unit F: Can the Existence of God be Logically Proven? ==

[[Metaphysical Proofs]]

This Unit contains only steps I and V of a logical proof for God’s existence. Steps II, III, and IV can be found in NPEG Chapter Three (Sections II through IV) and [http://physicsindialog.org PID Units 6-11]. Those wishing a review of logical syllogisms may want to consult [http://physicsindialog.org PID Units 6-7].

=== Three kinds of publicly corroborateable evidence – a-priori, a-posteriori, and combinations. ===

[[Metaphysical_Proofs#Three_Kinds_of_Publicly_Accessible_Evidence_for_Rational_Proof |Three Kinds of Publicly Corroborateable Evidence]]

=== Step I of the metaphysical proof – proof that there must be at least one unconditioned reality in “all reality.” ===

[[Metaphysical_Proofs#Proof_of_the_Existence_of_at_Least_One_Unconditioned_Reality |Proof of the Existence of at least One Unconditioned Reality]]

=== A record of the missing steps of the proof ===

These can be found in NPEG and [http://physicsindialog.org PID] (as noted above). These steps prove that there can only be one unconditioned reality and that it must be absolutely simple and unrestricted in its power.

===Step V of the proof which shows that the one unconditioned absolutely simple unrestricted reality must be the continuous Creator of all else that is. ===

[[Metaphysical_Proofs#Proof_that_the_One_Unconditioned_Reality_is_the_Continuous_Creator_of_All_Else_that_Is |Proof that the One Unconditioned Reality is the Continuous Creator of All Else that Is]].

== Unit G: Is there Evidence of God from Mathematics? ==
For a more in depth presentation of time and the formal a-priori synthetic argument for a timeless Creator of time, see NPEG Chapter Five and also [http://physicsindialog.org PID Units 22-25].

=== “Infinite past time” is an analytical contradiction. ===

[[Mathematics#An_Analytical_Contradiction_in_.22Infinite_Past_Time.22 |An Analytical Contradiction in "Infinite Past Time"]]

=== Three kinds of infinity (A, B, and C infinities). ===

Covered in the last paragraphs of [[Mathematics#An_Analytical_Contradiction_in_.22Infinite_Past_Time.22 |An Analytical Contradiction in "Infinite Past Time"]]

=== David Hilbert’s prohibition of C infinities applied to real aggregate structures. ===

[[Mathematics#Summary_of_Hilbert.27s_Prohibition_of_Actual_Infinities |Hilbert's Prohibition of Actual Infinities]]

=== What is real time? ===

[[Mathematics#A_Brief_Explanation_of_Real_Time |A Brief Explanation of Real Time]]

=== The prohibition of a C infinity to real time ===

Implying that past time must be finite and that it must have a beginning, further implying a Creator of past time. See [[Mathematics#Conclusions |Conclusions]]

== Unit H: Why Doesn’t God Need a Creator? ==

[[God is Uncreated]]

An in depth treatment of this material may be found in NPEG Chapter Six Section I.C. It is briefly treated in [http://physicsindialog.org PID Unit 12].

=== No serious philosopher ever suggested that “everything must have a cause,” ===

For this would imply that God needs a cause. See [[God is Uncreated#Serious Metaphysicians Don't Dismiss First Cause |Serious Metaphysicians Don't Dismiss First Cause]]

=== All rigorous logical proofs require that there be at least one uncaused reality. ===

=== All rigorous proofs show that there can only be one uncaused reality ===

(see Unit F).

=== Conclusion of Proof of God Not Needing a Creator ===

All rigorous proofs show that everything in reality besides the one uncaused reality must be caused and that the one uncaused reality must be the cause of all else that is. God does not need to be created – indeed, he must be “that which is uncreated,” otherwise nothing would exist. See [[God is Uncreated#Conclusion |Conclusion]]

== Unit I: Can Atheism be Rational? ==

[[Can Atheism Be Rational?]] (the article of that title).

For a more in depth study of this material, see NPEG Chapter Six, Sections II and III; for a brief lecture presentation, see [http://physicsindialog.org PID Unit 25].

=== It is impossible to rationally disprove the existence of a transcendent being ===

it cannot be done, a-priori, a-posteriori, or through any combination of that. See [[Can_Atheism_Be_Rational%3F#The_Impossibility_of_Disproving_the_Existence_of_God |The Impossibility of Disproving the Existence of God]]

=== A brief response to the problem of suffering – why would God allow suffering if He is all powerful and all loving? ===

(See Units K&L for a much more extended treatment.)

=== A brief Discussion of the Tenuous Rationality of Atheism ===

[[Can_Atheism_Be_Rational%3F#The_Tenuous_Rationality_of_Atheism |The Tenuous Rationality of Atheism]]

=== A response to Freud’s contention that God is the product of wishful thinking. ===

[[Can_Atheism_Be_Rational%3F#Is_Belief_in_God_Mere_Wishful_Thinking.3F |Is Belief in God Mere Wishful Thinking?]]

== Unit J: Why Seek Revelation? ==

[[Reason and Revelation]]

This is not presented in NPEG. For a brief lecture presentation see PID Unit 30.

=== A brief summary of the four sets of evidence for God ===

[[Reason and Revelation#Four Sets of Evidence |Four Sets of Evidence]]

==== The evidence from physics. ====

==== The evidence from the logical proof for the existence of God. ====

==== The evidence from philosophy of mathematics. ====

==== The evidence from near-death experiences and human transcendentality. ====

=== The mutual corroborative effect of these four sets of evidence. ===

=== The complementary picture of God given by these four sets of evidence. ===

=== If reason can probe so deeply, why do we need God to reveal himself (revelation)? ===

There are five basic areas into which reason cannot probe deeply.

==== The heart of God. ====

==== How to pray and worship. ====

==== Specific ethical precepts and attributes of God that cannot be known by reason ====

(e.g. the trinity).

==== God’s inspiration, response to prayer, and redemption of suffering. ====

==== The dynamic of sacred community. ====

=== Toward a definition of love (agape). ===

[[Reason and Revelation#A Definition of Love |A Definition of Love]]

=== Five reflective questions manifesting the unconditional love of God and his desire to be with us empathetically.===

=== God as Emmanuel ===

[[Reason and Revelation#Six Questions Toward Emmanuel |Six Questions Toward Emmanuel]]

== Unit K: Why Would God Allow Suffering from Humans? ==

[[Suffering Caused by Humans]]

This is only briefly treated in NPEG Chapter Six Section III. (See PID Unit 25-27.)

=== If our love is to be our own (and not merely a program) we must freely choose to love ===

Which means that we must have another choice – namely, “not to love.” But the choice not to love gives rise to the possibility of suffering and evil. See [[Suffering_Caused_by_Humans#The_Intrinsic_Relationship_of_Freedom_and_Love |The Intrinsic Relationship of Freedom and Love]]

=== Responses to special cases concerning suffering caused by humans. ===

[[Suffering_Caused_by_Humans#God_Must_Allow_Loving_Beings_to_Create_Their_Loving_Actions_Anew |Special Cases Discussed]]

== Unit L: Why Does God Allow Suffering from Nature? ==

[[Suffering Caused by Nature]]

This is only briefly treated in NPEG Chapter Six Section III. (See [http://physicsindialog.org PID Unit 26-27].)

=== Suffering is caused by nature because we are born imperfectly into an imperfect world. ===

=== Why would God make an imperfect world? ===

==== To help us to self-initiate ====

development of our purpose in life and our identity (from Level One to Level Four). See [[Suffering_Caused_by_Nature#The_First_Purpose_of_an_Imperfect_World:_Identity_Transformation |Identity Transformation]]

==== To allow us to cultivate the “stoic” virtues ====

[[Suffering_Caused_by_Nature#The_Second_Purpose_of_an_Imperfect_World:_Stoic_Virtues |The Stoic Virtues]] (e.g. courage and self-discipline, etc.)

=== To allow us to develop in love (agape). ===

[[Suffering_Caused_by_Nature#The_Third_Purpose_of_an_Imperfect_World:_Agape |Agape]]

=== To allow us to develop our sense of empathy and compassion. ===

=== To leave room for us to build a better world. ===

[[Suffering_Caused_by_Nature#The_Fourth_Purpose_of_an_Imperfect_World:_Interdependence.2C_Human_Community.2C_and_a_.E2.80.9CBetter_World.E2.80.9D |A Better World]]

=== To leave room for us to build the kingdom of God. ===

[[Suffering_Caused_by_Nature#The_Fifth_Purpose_of_an_Imperfect_World:_Building_the_Kingdom_of_God |The Kingdom of God]]

=== Conclusions about Suffering Well ===

[[Suffering Caused by Nature#Conclusion |Conclusions]]

== Unit M: References ==

[[Believe_in_God_Reference_List]]

A comprehensive bibliography of all the references used in the above twelve units.



{{DEFAULTSORT:Why Believe in God}}
[[Category:Table of Contents]]
[[Category:Intellectual Evangelization]]
[[Category:Supplemental Material]]

Main Page

2012-05-15T14:04:30Z

David Persyn: /* Getting started */ instructions

Magis God Wiki

© Robert J. Spitzer, S.J., PhD./Magis Institute July 2011

'''Welcome to the Magis God Wiki'''

This is a free resource containing information from the [http://magisreasonfaith.org Magis Center of Reason and Faith], under the direction of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Spitzer_(priest) Robert J. Spitzer, SJ., PhD.]

== Getting started ==
[[Introduction]]

[[Why Believe in God?]]<-- CLICK on this link to go to the Table of Contents for this wiki

Suggested [[Search Terms]]

A short page about [[Copyrights]] and our intellectual property.

The Magis Center for Reason and Faith has also created a site on the [http://magischristwiki.org Historicity of Jesus].

Why Believe in God?

2012-05-15T02:14:35Z

David Persyn: /* The trans-material component of human beings must have another origin */ link

Magis God Wiki: "Why Believe in God?"

© Robert J. Spitzer, S.J. Ph.D./Magis Institute July 2011

There is a list of suggested [[Search Terms]] to assist users in quickly finding their topic of interest.

== Unit A: Does Belief in God Enhance Purpose in Life? ==

[[Purpose in Life]]

This material is not in NPEG, but may be found beginning in Unit 26 of [http://physicsindialog.org PID].

=== What produces happiness and purpose in life? ===

[[Purpose_in_Life#Happiness_and_Purpose_in_Life |Happiness and Purpose]]

=== From immediate gratification and surface apparentness to what is pervasive, enduring, and deep. ===

[[Purpose_in_Life#Moving_from_Shallow_to_Deep |Shallowness to Depth]]

=== Four levels of happiness and purpose in life ===

[[Purpose_in_Life#The_Four_Levels |The Four Levels]]

=== Level two identity, the comparison game, and our culture’s source of anxiety. ===

[[Purpose_in_Life#The_Comparison_Game |The Comparison Game]]

=== Two ways out of the comparison game – level three and level four purpose in life. ===

[[Purpose_in_Life#Ending_the_Game |Getting Out of the Game]]

=== Level four purpose and happiness – transcendence and faith. ===

[[Purpose_in_Life#Transcendence |Faith Leading to Transcendence]]

=== Maintaining a level four purpose in life. ===

[[Purpose_in_Life#Maintaining_Transcendence |Maintaining the Transcendent Happiness]]

== Unit B: Is There any Evidence for the Human Soul? ==

This material is not contained in NPEG, but is in Units 20-21 of [http://physicsindialog.org PID].

=== An assessment of peer-reviewed medical studies on near death experiences from the Lancet, the Journal of the American Medical Association, and other studies. ===

[[The Human Soul]] (This is a single article covering the topics below, which are indexed there for quick reference).

=== The definition of “brain death,” alternative explanations, and controlled, longitudinal studies. ===

=== Eight similar characteristics in near-death experiences. ===

[http://magisgodwiki.org/index.php?title=The_Human_Soul#Near-Death_Experiences Characteristics of NDEs].

=== Patients report seeing data that should not have been accessible to them in their brain-dead states, and which is subsequently verifiable (veridical). ===

[http://magisgodwiki.org/index.php/title=The_Human_Soul#The_van_Lommel_et_al_Study The von Lommel Study]. Veridical data established.

=== 80% of blind patients can see during their near-death experience. ===

[http://magisgodwiki.org/index.php/title=The_Human_Soul#The_Kenneth_Ring.2C_et_al_Study_of_Near-Death_Experiences_of_the_Blind The Kenneth Ring Study of NDEs of the Blind].

=== The measurable absence of death anxiety in both children and adults. ===

[http://magisgodwiki.org/index.php?title=The_Human_Soul#Melvin_Morse.2C_MD_.E2.80.93_Study_of_Near-Death_Experiences_of_Children The Melvin Morse Study of NDEs in Children].

=== Encounters with transcendent beings (loving white light, Jesus, deceased relatives, etc.). ===

=== Conclusions of Von Lommel and other studies. ===

[http://magiswiki.org/index.php/The_Human_Soul#Conclusions_Regarding_Near-Death_Experiences Conclusions drawn from the studies].

== Unit C: Is there Evidence of a Human Soul (Transcendentals)? ==

[[The Transcendentals]]

An in depth analysis of this material may be found in NPEG Chapters 7-8 and a lecture presentation may also be found in [http://physicsindialog.org PID Units 14-19].

=== The desire for complete intelligibility and perfect truth. ===

[[The_Transcendentals#I._The_Desire_for_Perfect_and_Unconditional_Truth |The Desire for Perfect and Unconditional Truth]]

=== The desire for perfect love and empathy. ===

[[The_Transcendentals#II._The_Desire_for_Perfect_and_Unconditional_Love |The Desire for Perfect and Unconditional Love]]

=== The desire for perfect justice/goodness. ===

[[The_Transcendentals#III._The_Desire_for_Perfect_and_Unconditional_Goodness.2FJustice |The Desire for Perfect and Unconditional Goodness & Justice]]

=== The desire for perfect beauty. ===

[[The_Transcendentals#IV._The_Desire_for_Perfect_and_Unconditional_Beauty |The Desire for Perfect and Unconditional Beauty]]

=== The desire for perfect being/home. ===

[[The_Transcendentals#V._The_Desire_for_Perfect_and_Unconditional_Being.2FHome |The Desire for Perfect and Unconditional Being & Home]]

=== The five transcendental desires and the transmateriality of human consciousness. ===

[[The_Transcendentals#Conclusion |Conclusion]]

=== The five transcendental desires and God. ===

== Unit D: Is there Evidence of God from Science? ==

[[Cosmology]] incuding Physics.

A more in depth assessment of this material may be found in NPEG Chapters 1-2 and the Postscript to Part One, and a lecture presentation may be found in [http://physicsindialog.org PID Units 1-5].

=== The extent and limits of scientific method. ===

[http://magisgodwiki.org/index.php?title=Cosmology#Can_Science_Give_Evidence_of_a_Creation_and_Supernatural_Design.3F Limits of Science].

=== The standard big bang model. ===

[http://magisgodwiki.org/index.php?title=Cosmology#Was_the_Big_Bang_the_Beginning.3F The Big Bang and the Beginning].

=== Was the big bang the beginning of the universe (13.7 billion years ago)? ===

[http://magisgodwiki.org/index.php?title=Cosmology#A_Beginning_in_Physics_Implies_A_Creation_of_the_Universe Beginning of the Universe].

=== The significance of a beginning in physics – implications of creation. ===

[http://magisgodwiki.org/index.php?title=Cosmology#What_is_The_Evidence_for_a_Beginning_and_what_are_the_Implications_for_Creation.3F Implications of Creation].

=== Three models for a pre-big-bang period. ===

==== The string theory-inflationary multiverse. ====

==== The bouncing universe. ====

==== String theory-higher dimensional bouncing universe. ====

=== Significant evidence that all three models for a pre-big-bang period would have to have a beginning. ===

[http://www.magiswiki.org/index.php/Cosmology#Evidence_of_a_Beginning_from_Space-Time_Geometry_Proofs Space-Time Geometry].

==== The evidence from space-time geometry proofs (Borde, Guth, and Vilenkin). ====

[http://www.magiswiki.org/index.php/Cosmology#The_1994_Borde-Vilenkin_Proof B-V Proof of 1994].

[http://www.magiswiki.org/index.php/Cosmology#Alan_Guth.E2.80.99s_1999_analysis_of_expanding_pre-big-bang_models The Guth Analysis of 1999].

[http://www.magiswiki.org/index.php/Cosmology#The_2003_Borde-Vilenkin-Guth_Theorem_.28the_BVG_Theorem.29: The 2003 BVG Theorem].

==== The evidence from entropy (Penrose, Beckenstein, Banks, Carroll). ====

=== Universal constants, anthropic coincidences, and fine-tuning. ===

[http://www.magiswiki.org/index.php/Cosmology#Implications_of_Supernatural_Intelligence_in_the_Fine-tuning_of_Universal_Constants Fine Tuning].

==== Five examples of fine-tuning. ====

==== Can fine-tuning be explained by pure chance? ====

[http://www.magiswiki.org/index.php/Cosmology#The_high_improbability_of_a_pure_chance_occurrence_of_our_low-entropy_universe Pure Chance Improbable].

==== Two competing explanations: the multiverse and supernatural design. ====

==== Which of these two explanations is most reasonable and responsible? ====

[http://www.magiswiki.org/index.php/Cosmology#The_high_improbability_of_five_other_anthropic_conditions_.28based_on_cosmological_constants.29 Discussion of Probability]

=== Conclusions about the probability of super intelligent Creator. ===

[http://www.magiswiki.org/index.php/Cosmology#Conclusions Conclusions].

== Unit E: Can the Bible be Reconciled with Science? ==

[[The Bible and Science]]

This unit is not found in either NPEG or PID, however, there is a free videocast on [http://www.magisreasonfaith.org/library/videos/video-god-and-modern-physics-module-12/ The Magis website].

=== The bible is not doing science – but theology, sacred truths. ===

[[The_Bible_and_Science#Theology_Not_Science |Theology not Science]]

=== What was the biblical author’s intention in writing Genesis:1:1ff? ===

[[The_Bible_and_Science#The_Intent_of_Genesis |The Intent of Genesis]]

=== Is evolution reconcilable with the bible? ===

[[The_Bible_and_Science#Darwinian_Evolution |The Bible and Evolution]]

=== Human beings are not reducible to merely organic mechanisms, and therefore, cannot be the result of a merely bio-physical process (like evolution). ===

[[The_Bible_and_Science#The_Human_Soul |About the Human Soul]]

==== The trans-material component of human beings must have another origin ====

[http://www.magisgodwiki.org/index.php/title=Why_Believe_in_God%3F#Unit_B:_Is_There_any_Evidence_for_the_Human_Soul.3F See above, Unit B].

== Unit F: Can the Existence of God be Logically Proven? ==

[[Metaphysical Proofs]]

This Unit contains only steps I and V of a logical proof for God’s existence. Steps II, III, and IV can be found in NPEG Chapter Three (Sections II through IV) and [http://physicsindialog.org PID Units 6-11]. Those wishing a review of logical syllogisms may want to consult [http://physicsindialog.org PID Units 6-7].

=== Three kinds of publicly corroborateable evidence – a-priori, a-posteriori, and combinations. ===

[[Metaphysical_Proofs#Three_Kinds_of_Publicly_Accessible_Evidence_for_Rational_Proof |Three Kinds of Publicly Corroborateable Evidence]]

=== Step I of the metaphysical proof – proof that there must be at least one unconditioned reality in “all reality.” ===

[[Metaphysical_Proofs#Proof_of_the_Existence_of_at_Least_One_Unconditioned_Reality |Proof of the Existence of at least One Unconditioned Reality]]

=== A record of the missing steps of the proof ===

These can be found in NPEG and [http://physicsindialog.org PID] (as noted above). These steps prove that there can only be one unconditioned reality and that it must be absolutely simple and unrestricted in its power.

===Step V of the proof which shows that the one unconditioned absolutely simple unrestricted reality must be the continuous Creator of all else that is. ===

[[Metaphysical_Proofs#Proof_that_the_One_Unconditioned_Reality_is_the_Continuous_Creator_of_All_Else_that_Is |Proof that the One Unconditioned Reality is the Continuous Creator of All Else that Is]].

== Unit G: Is there Evidence of God from Mathematics? ==
For a more in depth presentation of time and the formal a-priori synthetic argument for a timeless Creator of time, see NPEG Chapter Five and also [http://physicsindialog.org PID Units 22-25].

=== “Infinite past time” is an analytical contradiction. ===

[[Mathematics#An_Analytical_Contradiction_in_.22Infinite_Past_Time.22 |An Analytical Contradiction in "Infinite Past Time"]]

=== Three kinds of infinity (A, B, and C infinities). ===

Covered in the last paragraphs of [[Mathematics#An_Analytical_Contradiction_in_.22Infinite_Past_Time.22 |An Analytical Contradiction in "Infinite Past Time"]]

=== David Hilbert’s prohibition of C infinities applied to real aggregate structures. ===

[[Mathematics#Summary_of_Hilbert.27s_Prohibition_of_Actual_Infinities |Hilbert's Prohibition of Actual Infinities]]

=== What is real time? ===

[[Mathematics#A_Brief_Explanation_of_Real_Time |A Brief Explanation of Real Time]]

=== The prohibition of a C infinity to real time ===

Implying that past time must be finite and that it must have a beginning, further implying a Creator of past time. See [[Mathematics#Conclusions |Conclusions]]

== Unit H: Why Doesn’t God Need a Creator? ==

[[God is Uncreated]]

An in depth treatment of this material may be found in NPEG Chapter Six Section I.C. It is briefly treated in [http://physicsindialog.org PID Unit 12].

=== No serious philosopher ever suggested that “everything must have a cause,” ===

For this would imply that God needs a cause. See [[God is Uncreated#Serious Metaphysicians Don't Dismiss First Cause |Serious Metaphysicians Don't Dismiss First Cause]]

=== All rigorous logical proofs require that there be at least one uncaused reality. ===

=== All rigorous proofs show that there can only be one uncaused reality ===

(see Unit F).

=== Conclusion of Proof of God Not Needing a Creator ===

All rigorous proofs show that everything in reality besides the one uncaused reality must be caused and that the one uncaused reality must be the cause of all else that is. God does not need to be created – indeed, he must be “that which is uncreated,” otherwise nothing would exist. See [[God is Uncreated#Conclusion |Conclusion]]

== Unit I: Can Atheism be Rational? ==

[[Can Atheism Be Rational?]] (the article of that title).

For a more in depth study of this material, see NPEG Chapter Six, Sections II and III; for a brief lecture presentation, see [http://physicsindialog.org PID Unit 25].

=== It is impossible to rationally disprove the existence of a transcendent being ===

it cannot be done, a-priori, a-posteriori, or through any combination of that. See [[Can_Atheism_Be_Rational%3F#The_Impossibility_of_Disproving_the_Existence_of_God |The Impossibility of Disproving the Existence of God]]

=== A brief response to the problem of suffering – why would God allow suffering if He is all powerful and all loving? ===

(See Units K&L for a much more extended treatment.)

=== A brief Discussion of the Tenuous Rationality of Atheism ===

[[Can_Atheism_Be_Rational%3F#The_Tenuous_Rationality_of_Atheism |The Tenuous Rationality of Atheism]]

=== A response to Freud’s contention that God is the product of wishful thinking. ===

[[Can_Atheism_Be_Rational%3F#Is_Belief_in_God_Mere_Wishful_Thinking.3F |Is Belief in God Mere Wishful Thinking?]]

== Unit J: Why Seek Revelation? ==

[[Reason and Revelation]]

This is not presented in NPEG. For a brief lecture presentation see PID Unit 30.

=== A brief summary of the four sets of evidence for God ===

[[Reason and Revelation#Four Sets of Evidence |Four Sets of Evidence]]

==== The evidence from physics. ====

==== The evidence from the logical proof for the existence of God. ====

==== The evidence from philosophy of mathematics. ====

==== The evidence from near-death experiences and human transcendentality. ====

=== The mutual corroborative effect of these four sets of evidence. ===

=== The complementary picture of God given by these four sets of evidence. ===

=== If reason can probe so deeply, why do we need God to reveal himself (revelation)? ===

There are five basic areas into which reason cannot probe deeply.

==== The heart of God. ====

==== How to pray and worship. ====

==== Specific ethical precepts and attributes of God that cannot be known by reason ====

(e.g. the trinity).

==== God’s inspiration, response to prayer, and redemption of suffering. ====

==== The dynamic of sacred community. ====

=== Toward a definition of love (agape). ===

[[Reason and Revelation#A Definition of Love |A Definition of Love]]

=== Five reflective questions manifesting the unconditional love of God and his desire to be with us empathetically.===

=== God as Emmanuel ===

[[Reason and Revelation#Six Questions Toward Emmanuel |Six Questions Toward Emmanuel]]

== Unit K: Why Would God Allow Suffering from Humans? ==

[[Suffering Caused by Humans]]

This is only briefly treated in NPEG Chapter Six Section III. (See PID Unit 25-27.)

=== If our love is to be our own (and not merely a program) we must freely choose to love ===

Which means that we must have another choice – namely, “not to love.” But the choice not to love gives rise to the possibility of suffering and evil. See [[Suffering_Caused_by_Humans#The_Intrinsic_Relationship_of_Freedom_and_Love |The Intrinsic Relationship of Freedom and Love]]

=== Responses to special cases concerning suffering caused by humans. ===

[[Suffering_Caused_by_Humans#God_Must_Allow_Loving_Beings_to_Create_Their_Loving_Actions_Anew |Special Cases Discussed]]

== Unit L: Why Does God Allow Suffering from Nature? ==

[[Suffering Caused by Nature]]

This is only briefly treated in NPEG Chapter Six Section III. (See [http://physicsindialog.org PID Unit 26-27].)

=== Suffering is caused by nature because we are born imperfectly into an imperfect world. ===

=== Why would God make an imperfect world? ===

==== To help us to self-initiate ====

development of our purpose in life and our identity (from Level One to Level Four). See [[Suffering_Caused_by_Nature#The_First_Purpose_of_an_Imperfect_World:_Identity_Transformation |Identity Transformation]]

==== To allow us to cultivate the “stoic” virtues ====

[[Suffering_Caused_by_Nature#The_Second_Purpose_of_an_Imperfect_World:_Stoic_Virtues |The Stoic Virtues]] (e.g. courage and self-discipline, etc.)

=== To allow us to develop in love (agape). ===

[[Suffering_Caused_by_Nature#The_Third_Purpose_of_an_Imperfect_World:_Agape |Agape]]

=== To allow us to develop our sense of empathy and compassion. ===

=== To leave room for us to build a better world. ===

[[Suffering_Caused_by_Nature#The_Fourth_Purpose_of_an_Imperfect_World:_Interdependence.2C_Human_Community.2C_and_a_.E2.80.9CBetter_World.E2.80.9D |A Better World]]

=== To leave room for us to build the kingdom of God. ===

[[Suffering_Caused_by_Nature#The_Fifth_Purpose_of_an_Imperfect_World:_Building_the_Kingdom_of_God |The Kingdom of God]]

=== Conclusions about Suffering Well ===

[[Suffering Caused by Nature#Conclusion |Conclusions]]

== Unit M: References ==

[[Believe_in_God_Reference_List]]

A comprehensive bibliography of all the references used in the above twelve units.



{{DEFAULTSORT:Why Believe in God}}
[[Category:Table of Contents]]
[[Category:Intellectual Evangelization]]
[[Category:Supplemental Material]]

Suffering Caused by Nature

2012-05-15T02:06:27Z

David Persyn: /* The Fourth Purpose of an Imperfect World: Interdependence, Human Community, and a “Better World” */ format correction

The Magis God Wiki: Suffering Caused by Nature

Why Would God Allow Suffering Caused by Nature?

© Robert J. Spitzer S.J. Ph.D./Magis Institute July 2011

'''Introduction'''

It is somewhat easier to understand why God would allow suffering to occur through human agents than it is to understand why He would allow suffering to occur through natural causation. After all, it would seem that if God creates the natural order, He could have created it perfectly – so perfectly that there would be no possibility of human suffering. He could have created each human being in a perfectly self-sufficient way, so that we would have no need. Or, if we had need, He could have created us with a perfect capacity to fulfill those needs within a world of perfectly abundant resources. So why did God create an imperfect natural order? Why did He create a natural order which would allow for scarcity? Why did He create a natural order that would give rise to earthquakes and volcanoes and tsunamis? Why did He create a natural order which would permit vulnerabilities within the human genome that allow for blindness, deafness, or muscular degeneration? Why did He create a natural order which would permit debilitating diseases?

The brief answer lies in the fact that a perfect natural order would leave no room for weakness and vulnerability; yet weakness and vulnerability induce many positive human characteristics, perhaps the most important human characteristics, such as (1) identity transformation, (2) stoic virtues, (3) agape, (4) interdependence and human community, and (5) building the kingdom of God. This list of characteristics represents the most noble of human strivings, the propensity toward greater civility and civilization, and glimpses of a perfection which is unconditional and eternal by its very nature. Though weakness and vulnerability seem to delimit and even undermine human potential, they very frequently detach us from what is base and superficial so that we might freely see and move toward what is truly worthy of ourselves, what will truly have a lasting effect, what is truly destined in its intrinsic perfection to last forever.

A perfect world might leave us content with pure autonomy and superficiality, and would deprive us of the help we might need to deepen our virtue, relationships, community, compassion, and noble striving for the common good and the kingdom of God. The “perfect world” might deprive us of the impetus toward real perfection, the perfection of love, the perfection which is destined to last forever. We will now discuss each of the above five positive characteristics of weakness and vulnerability induced by an imperfect world.

== The First Purpose of an Imperfect World: Identity Transformation ==

As explained in UNIT A, human beings tend to move through four levels of happiness or purpose:

(1) happiness arising out of external physical and material stimuli;

(2) happiness arising out of ego-satisfaction and comparative advantage (such as status, admiration, popularity, winning, power, and control);

(3) happiness arising out of making an optimal positive difference and legacy to the people and world around me; and (4) happiness arising out of being connected with and immersed in what is perfect, ultimate, and eternal in Truth, Love, Goodness, Beauty, and Being (for those with faith, God).

It so happens that the lower levels of happiness/identity are more surface-apparent, immediately gratifying, and intense than the higher levels. They tend to more easily attract us and hold our attention from without (instead of requiring discipline from within), so we more easily gravitate toward them. However, they are much less pervasive, enduring, and deep than the higher levels of happiness/identity. For example, making an optimal positive difference to others and the world with my time, talent, and energy (Level 3) can have effects far beyond my ego-gratification (Level 2), so it is more pervasive than Level 2. These effects can last much longer than the acquisition of a new car, the enjoyment of an ice cream cone, and the enjoyment of status and power – so they are more enduring than Levels 1 and 2. Finally, they are deeper than Levels 1 and 2, because they involve my highest creative and psychological powers (i.e., my powers of intellection, moral reasoning, ideal formation, love, spiritual engagement, etc.).

The difficulty is that only one of these levels of happiness/identity can be dominant. The others will become recessive. Thus, if the desire for physical pleasure and material goods is dominant, the desire for ego-satisfaction, optimal contribution, and spiritual connection will be recessive. We will therefore live for what is most surface-apparent and immediately gratifying, but neglect what is most pervasive, enduring, and deep (and therefore, what could express our most noble purpose in life). Alternatively, if we want to move toward what is most pervasive, enduring and deep, we will have to allow Levels 1 and 2 to become recessive; we will have to let go of them (enticing as they are); and this is where suffering frequently comes in.

We cannot say that human beings require suffering in order to move from the more superficial levels of happiness/identity to the higher (most pervasive, enduring, and deep) ones, for human beings can see the intrinsic goodness and beauty of making an optimal positive difference to family, friends, community, organization, culture, and even the kingdom of God. They can be attracted to this noble, beautiful, and even transcendent identity as a fulfillment of their higher selves, or even their transcendent eternal selves. However, this more positive impetus to move toward the more pervasive, enduring, and deep identity can be assisted by suffering, weakness, and vulnerability; for it is precisely these negative conditions which can break the spell of the lower levels of identity.

Physical pleasures (Level 1) can be so riveting that they can produce addiction. The same holds true for status, esteem, control, and power. In my own life, I have seen how powerful (and even addictive) these lower levels of identity can be. Yet, I truly desired (and saw the beauty and nobility of) the higher levels of happiness/identity. Though this vision was quite powerful in me, I found myself transfixed by the lower levels – almost unable to move myself beyond them. This is where the “power of weakness and vulnerability” came into my life. Experiences of physical limitation and the failure of “my best laid plans” broke the spell of unmitigated pursuit of ego, status, and power. I had a genuine Pauline experience of having to look at life anew – to look for more pervasive purpose in the face of a loss of power – to reexamine what I was living for in light of a loss of control. I had to become more dependent on God, to trust in His ways, and to trust more radically in His logic of love. Thank God for weakness; thank God for the imperfect natural order which gave rise to those weaknesses. Without them, I would have been unqualifiedly locked into my addiction to ego, status, and power – even though I saw the beauty and nobility of optimal contribution and love. I would have been addicted to the superficial amidst the appreciation of the noble – what an emptiness, what a frustration, what unhappiness – until weakness broke the spell. The irony is, weakness and suffering gave me the freedom to overcome the far greater suffering of living beneath myself, of avoiding noble purpose, of consciously wasting my life. Physical and psychological weakness helped to overcome the suffering arising out of superficial identity and spiritual deficiency.

As noted above, there are probably people who do not need suffering to make a move from, say, Level 2 to Level 3 and 4. I was not one of them. Suffering was my liberation, my vehicle, my pathway to what was most worthy of my life, and what was most noble and perduring in me. I suspect that there are others like me (and Saint Paul) who can use a dose of suffering, weakness, and vulnerability every now and then to call them to their most noble, perduring, and true selves. For these, the imperfect world is indispensable. Being left to the so-called perfect world would have led to superficiality and spiritual deprivation (a deeper pain).

This liberating power of suffering is not restricted to physical or psychological weakness. It applies most poignantly to the anticipation of death. I once had a student who asked, “Why do we need to die? If God is perfect and He intended to give us eternal life, why does He make us die in order to get there? Why not just allow us to continue living without all the mystery about the beyond?” I initially responded that eternal life is not merely a continuation of this current earthly life, and that death provided the transition from this life to the “new” life. She responded, “Well, why isn’t the ‘new’ life a continuation of this one? Why wouldn’t God create us immediately in the ‘new’ life?” I indicated to her that the goodness, joy, and beauty of the “new” life did not essentially consist in a perfect, natural order (although this would be part of it), but rather in the perfect love that would exist between God and us, and between all of us in God. I further indicated that this “love” would consist in a perfect act of empathy with another whereby doing the good for the other would be just as easy, if not easier, than doing the good for oneself – where empathy would take over the desire for ego-satisfaction and autonomy – where communion and community would not immolate the individual personality, but bring it to its completion through others and God.

The student almost intuitively agreed that this would be perfect joy, which led her to re-ask the question, “Well, why didn’t God just create us in a situation of perfect love?” At this point, the reader will recognize my answer to her question in the foregoing section, namely, that love is our free choice. God cannot create us into a “world of perfect love;” we have to create the condition of love for ourselves and others by our free decisions. As noted immediately above, our decision to love (to live for a contributive identity) can be assisted considerably by weakness and vulnerability; but even more importantly, it can be assisted by the anticipation of death.

As many philosophers have noted (both those coming from a transcendental perspective, such as Karl Rahner and Edith Stein, or a merely immanent perspective, such as Martin Heidegger and Jean Paul Sartre*footnotes*), death produces a psychological finality which compels us to make a decision about what truly matters to us, what truly defines our lives, sooner rather than later. It really does not matter whether we have a strong belief in an afterlife or not; the finality of death incites us to make a statement about the “pre-death” meaning of our lives. Most of us view an interminable deferral of fundamental options (such as, to live for love or not to live for love; to live for integrity or not to live for integrity; to live for truth or not to live for truth; etc.) to be unacceptable because death calls us to give authentic definition to our lives – the finality of death says to our innermost being that we must express our true selves prior to the termination of the life we know.

Death might be the best gift we have been given because it calls us to our deepest life-definition and self-definition, and in the words of Jean Paul Sartre, to the creation of our essence. If we believe in an afterlife, we take this authentic self-definition (say, love) with us into our eternity. But even if we do not believe in an afterlife, death still constitutes an indispensable gift of life, for it prevents us from interminably delaying the creation of our essence. It calls us to proclaim who we truly are and what we really stand for – sooner rather than later. We cannot interminably waste our lives in indecision.

In light of death, the choice of one’s fundamental essence (say, love) becomes transformative and “life-giving.” Death gives life – an authentic, reflective, and free life through a more pervasive, enduring, and deep purpose in life.

== The Second Purpose of an Imperfect World: Stoic Virtues ==

Weakness and vulnerability (arising out of an imperfect natural order) are the conditions necessary for two of the cardinal virtues – courage and self-discipline (the so-called “stoic virtues”). Notice that these virtues define our character precisely because they are chosen in the midst of adversity. They define our ability to “pay a price” for our principles and ideals. This “price” gives existential weight to our principles and ideals, for we cannot hold them cheaply.

This is particularly evident with respect to courage. The principles of love and truth and justice are good in themselves, and they are honorable in action, but when I have to choose them in the midst of the possibility of injury, embarrassment, mortification, or death, then I am not merely admiring them for their intrinsic goodness; I am truly making them my own. The greater the price that I must pay to live the principles and ideals that I admire and honor, the more they become part of me, the more they define my being by the “hard choice” I make. If I choose an honorable thing because I honor it, it speaks only partially to who I am; but if I choose an honorable thing not only because I honor it, but because I want to live it even at the cost of injury, embarrassment, or death, then it truly defines me. Ironically, an imperfect natural order (which gives rise to the real possibility of injury or death) not only gives rise to the possibility of courage, but also to that courage lending existential weight (and therefore dignity) to my choice of the honorable thing.

Is it worth it? Is it worth injury and death to choose the noble thing in the midst of adversity? Only the reader can answer for him or herself. Would you rather have a very, very safe world where you can only be a bystander? Or would you rather have an unsafe world where you can enter into the fray and see who you truly are – how you truly embrace the honorable – even at the cost of injury or death? What would you want for your children – a safe world without the possibility of challenge or self-sacrifice? Without the dignity and self-definition of challenge and self-sacrifice? Or an unsafe world, holding out the possibility and actuality of that ultimate dignity?

Let us presume for a moment that you have faith in an unconditionally loving God who wants to share that love with you for all eternity. If so, then you cannot limit the project of self-definition through suffering and sacrifice to this life alone. The suffering you endure for the sake of the noble, for the sake of love, and for the sake of the kingdom of God defines your being into eternity. It is an indelible mark of who you are forever; your eternal badge of courage. Therefore, the religious perspective goes far beyond the stoic one because it sees eternal consequences and eternal self-definition in acts of self-sacrifice.

Now, ask yourself the above set of questions once again, through this eternal perspective: Would you rather have a very, very safe world where you can only be a bystander? Or would you rather have an unsafe world where you can enter into the fray and see who you truly and eternally are – how you truly and eternally embrace the honorable – even at the cost of injury or death? What would you want for your children – a safe world without the possibility of challenge or self-sacrifice? Without the dignity and self-definition of challenge and self-sacrifice? Or an unsafe world, holding out the possibility and actuality of that ultimate and eternal dignity?

We now move to the second stoic virtue, namely, self-control or self-discipline. It is like the obverse of courage. While courage is the pursuit of virtue over against the possibility of pain, self-control is the pursuit of virtue through the avoidance of pleasure. Many philosophers have recognized that an unmitigated pursuit of pleasure can interfere with, or even undermine the pursuit of what is most noble, most pervasive, and most enduring. Yet, these pleasures cannot be said to be intrinsically evil. Food is obviously a good to human beings seeking nourishment; but an unmitigated pursuit of food (to the point of gluttony) will likely undermine (or at least slow down) the pursuit of the noble. A glass of wine may be good as an element of a convivial meal; however, a half-gallon of wine is likely to result in a fight where once there was friendship, and a rather unproductive morning. The same holds true for most sensorial pleasures.

Similarly, ego-satisfactions can also play a beneficial part in life. Success in a speech might encourage one to do more speaking. Achievement in studies might encourage one to pursue a Ph.D. Praise from others could build up self-esteem. But an unmitigated pursuit of success, achievement, and praise (as an end in itself) will produce unmitigated egocentricity with its consequences of jealousy, fear of failure, ego-sensitivity, blame, rage, contempt, inferiority, superiority, self-pity, and all the other negative emotions which accompany these unmitigated pursuits.

Both sensorial and ego pleasures are a mixed blessing – in their proper perspective they can bring happiness, conviviality, and encouragement toward certain forms of achievement; but pursued as ends in themselves, they will very likely interfere with, and even undermine the pursuit of what is noble, pervasive, and enduring (what is most meaningful and purposeful in life).

This gives rise to the question of why God didn’t create a more perfect human being in a more perfect world. Why didn’t God just give us an “internal regulator” which would not allow us to eat too much, drink too much, desire too much? Why didn’t God put us in a world with just enough resources to satisfy our sensorial and ego-longings just enough for health but not enough to undermine our deepest purpose in life? We return to the same words we have seen time and time again – “choice” and “freedom.”

Choosing to delimit pleasure can be as challenging as choosing pain. Yet one does not have to look very far to see that the delimitation of pleasure for the purpose of the noble is just as self-definitional as choosing pain. There is a definite cost to delimiting pleasure – sometimes it comes in the form of saying “no” amidst an irresistible urge which has taken over the imagination; sometimes it means dealing with an addiction (a habit of overindulgence); sometimes it means feeling profoundly unfree because I deny myself what I am free to pursue; sometimes it makes me look like a “prude” (delimiting pleasure when my friends are not); etc.

The key difficulty with self-control (delimiting pleasure for the sake of the noble) is that it lacks the intrinsic rewards of courage. Courage looks difficult while self-control seems relatively easy; courage seems heroic while self-control seems ordinary – so much so that when one lacks self-control, one is criticized for being immature or sub-par; courage looks like it goes beyond the call of duty while self-control seems to lie perfectly within the call of duty. Seemingly, there is nothing really special about self-control. But this lack of intrinsic reward makes it all the more difficult.

So, why didn’t God just create us with a behavioral governor inside our brains? Why didn’t God create a better human in a better world without the possibility of unmitigated desire for pleasure? Why didn’t God just create us like cows – when we’ve had enough, we just stop? Because God wanted us to define ourselves in terms of ordinary, non-heroic choices. God wanted us to choose the noble in utterly ordinary circumstances, but with a cost – to choose the noble over against another scotch; over against another amusement; over against another material purchase; over against anything else which would undermine our pursuit of the noble. In the day-to-day, ordinary, non-heroic choices we make, an essence (self-definition) begins to form, etched in our character beyond mere thought and aspiration, through the constant pursuit of the little things that enable nobility to emerge from our souls.

We might fail in this pursuit countless times, but our perseverance in struggle, our perseverance in the midst of failure, can be just as effective in etching self-definition into our eternal souls as perfect control and perfect success. In God’s logic of unconditional love (which includes unconditional forgiveness and healing), our acts of contrition, our hope in forgiveness, our perseverance in the struggle for self-control, and our undying desire for the noble are all “part of the cost” of virtue, which makes that virtue more than a mere thought or aspiration. This struggle is the cost which etches that virtue into our very eternal souls – the precious cost of self-definition.

For this reason, God has created us with the capacity for all seven “deadly sins” (gluttony, lust, sloth, greed, anger envy, pride) and a capacity to desire more than we need even to the point of undermining a good and noble life. God has done this to give us the privilege and freedom to choose the noble over against the possibility of the ignoble so that our virtue (or at least our struggle in pursuit of the virtuous) might be our own; so that it might be etched into our eternal souls; so that it might be part of our self-definition for all eternity.

== The Third Purpose of an Imperfect World: Agape ==

Definition of Agape. A more extensive definition of agape was given in UNIT J (Section I). For the purpose of the forthcoming analysis, suffice it to say that agape is a gift of self which is frequently expressed in self-sacrifice. It is grounded in empathy with the other which makes transparent the unique and intrinsic goodness, worthiness, and lovability of that other, which creates a unity with that other whereby doing the good for the other is just as easy, if not easier, than doing the good for oneself. As such, agape arises out of a desire to give life to the intrinsically valuable and lovable other. That other could be a stranger or a friend. Furthermore, agape seeks no reward – neither the reward of romantic feelings intrinsic to eros (romantic love), nor the reward of reciprocal commitment and care intrinsic to philia (friendship), nor even the feelings of love and delight intrinsic to storge (affection). In agape, it is sufficient to see the other as valuable and lovable in him or herself. The well-being of the other (in him or herself) is a sufficient reward for the commitment of one’s time, future, psychic energy, physical energy, resources, and even self-sacrifice. The well-being of the other in him or herself is its own reward.

Empathy. As can be seen, agape begins with empathy, a feeling for another, or perhaps better, a feeling with another, which produces a recognition of the unique and intrinsic goodness and lovability of the other, which produces “caring for” and “caring about” the other (in him or herself), which produces a unity with the other whereby doing the good for the other is just as easy if not easier than doing the good for oneself. Most of us would agree to the proposition that this “feeling for and with another” is quite natural. We can meet another for a few moments and get a sense of the goodness and lovability of another from that other’s mere benevolent glance. We can see another in need and intuit the worthiness of that other by merely looking into their eyes. We can meet our students on the first day of class and intuit from the ethos exuded by them that they are worth our time and energy. Mere presence, mere tone of voice, mere benevolent glance engenders a recognition of unique and intrinsic goodness and lovability which causes us to care about the other, to protect the other, to attend to the other’s needs, to spend time with the other, and even to sacrifice oneself for the other – even a total stranger. It is as if we have a receptor, like a radio antenna, which is attuned to the frequency of the other’s unique and intrinsic goodness and lovability, and when the signal comes, whether it be from a smile, an utterance, a look of need, we connect in a single feeling which engenders a gift of self.

Yet, even though most would agree that empathy is natural to us, we must hasten to add that our own desires for autonomy and ego-fulfillment can block our receptivity to the other’s “signal.” We can become so self-absorbed or self-involved that we forget to turn on the receiver, and even if we have turned on the receiver, we have the volume turned down so low that it cannot produce adequate output in our hearts. It is at this juncture that suffering – particularly the suffering of weakness and vulnerability arising out of an imperfect world, proves to be most helpful.

This point may be illustrated by a story my father told me when I was an adolescent. I think he meant it more as a parable about how some attitudes can lead some people to become believers and other people to become unbelievers and even malcontents. But it became for me a first glimpse into the interrelationship between suffering and compassion, love and lovability, trust and trustworthiness, co-responsibility and dignity, and the nature of God.

Once upon a time, God created a world at a banquet table. He had everyone sit down, and served up a sumptuous feast. Unfortunately, He did not provide any of the people at the table with wrists or elbows. As a consequence, nobody could feed themselves. All they could do was feel acute hunger while gazing at the feast.

This provoked a variety of responses. At one end of the table, a group began to conjecture that God could not possibly be all-powerful, for if He were, He would have been all-knowing, and would have realized that it would have been far more perfect to create persons with wrists and elbows so that they could eat sumptuous feasts placed before them. The refrain was frequently heard, “Any fool can see that some pivot point on the arm would be preferable to the impoverished straight ones with which we have been provided!”

A second group retorted, “If there really is a God, it would seem that He would have to be all-powerful and all-knowing, in which case, He would not make elementary mistakes. If God is God, He could have made a better creature (e.g., with elbows). If God exists, and in His omniscience has created us without elbows or wrists, He must have a cruel streak, perhaps even a sadistic streak. At the very minimum, He certainly cannot be all-loving.”

A third group responded by noting that the attributes of “all-powerful” and “all-loving” would seem to belong to God by nature, for love is positive, and God is purely positive, therefore, God (not being devoid of any positivity) would have to be pure love. They then concluded that God could not exist at all, for it was clear that the people at the table were set into a condition that was certainly less than perfect (which seemed to betoken an imperfectly loving God). They conjectured, “We should not ask where the banquet came from, let alone where we come from, but just accept the fact that life is inexplicable and absurd. After all, we have been created to suffer, but an all-loving God (which God would have to be, if He existed) would not have done this. Our only recourse is to face, with authenticity and courage, the absence of God in the world, and to embrace the despair and absurdity of life.”

A fourth group was listening to the responses of the first three, but did not seem to be engaged by the heavily theoretical discourse. A few of them began to look across the table, and in an act of compassion, noticed that even though they could not feed themselves, they could feed the person across the table. In an act of freely choosing to feed the other first, of letting go of the resentment about not being able to “do it for myself,” they began to feed one another. At once, agape was discovered in freedom, while their very real need to eat was satisfied.

This parable reveals a key insight into suffering, namely, that “empathy has reasons that negative theorizing knows not of.” The first three groups had all assumed that weakness and vulnerability were essentially negative, and because of this, they assumed that either God had made a mistake or He was defective in love. Their preoccupation with the negativity of weakness distracted them from discovering, in that same weakness, the positive, empathetic, compassionate responsiveness to the need of the other which grounds the unity and generativity of love. This lesson holds the key not only to the meaning of suffering but also to the life and joy of agape.

The experience of the fourth group at the table reveals by God would create us into an imperfect world – because the imperfection of the human condition leads to weakness and vulnerability, and this weakness and vulnerability provide invaluable assistance in directing us toward empathy and compassion, and even in receiving the empathy and compassion from another.

As noted above in Section II.A, weakness and vulnerability are not required for empathy and compassion, for many people will find empathy and compassion to be their own reward. They will see the positivity of empathy and compassion as good for both others and themselves.

Again, I must repeat that this was certainly not the case for me. Even though I saw the intrinsic goodness and worthwhileness of empathy and compassion (for both myself and others), my egocentricity and desire for autonomy created such powerful blocks that I could not move myself to what I thought was my life’s purpose and destiny. I needed to be knocked off my pedestal; I needed to be released from the spell of autonomy and egocentricity through sheer weakness and vulnerability. This happened to me – the weakness and vulnerability of an imperfect genome in imperfect conditions in an imperfect world.

Like the fourth group in the parable, my imperfect condition gave me a moment to reconsider the entire meaning of life – what really made life worth living, and it was here that I discovered empathy, love, and even compassion. The process was gradual, but the “thorn in the flesh” gave me the very real assistance I needed to open myself to love as a meaning of life.

Love’s Vulnerability. Love has vulnerability built into it. There is a softness to love; it opens itself to being completed by the other (non-self-sufficient); it reveals weakness (the need for complementarity by the other); it is forgiving of the other in times of failure; it anticipates forgiveness by the other in one’s own failings; its empathy can elicit tears.

Some of us seem to be able to accept and even live in this vulnerability through a simple vision of its intrinsic beauty and goodness. Others, like myself, need some extrinsic prodding to break the spell of self-sufficiency and autonomy which require neither complementarity, nor vulnerability, nor the weakness and softness of love. Some of us need to experience vulnerability from the outside in order to see the goodness of love’s vulnerability. Some need the assistance of weakness to accept the love of another. Some of us need to be reduced to tears in order to experience the tears of sympathy. Some of us need extrinsic weakness and vulnerability to accept the weakness and vulnerability intrinsic to the beauty and goodness of love. We cannot seem to reach our true happiness without some impetus which makes us unhappy – for a time; for a brief time by comparison to love’s eternal joy.

Humility. The same holds true for love’s essential condition – humility. Most of us recognize the necessity of humility in empathy and “gift of self.” Self-absorption does not permit the “signal” of the other to be received. Moreover, one is so obsessed with fulfilling one’s ego needs that one barely notices the goodness and mystery of the other, and feels compelled to use the other as a mere instrument of self-satisfaction. These conditions undermine the very possibility of love.

Some people are able to see the goodness and beauty of humility and to move almost effortlessly toward it, but judging from the history of philosophy, most of us do not belong to this group. We have all heard the expressions dating back to the time of Socrates that “there is no cheap wisdom,” and that “humility is essence of wisdom.” When we put these two expressions together, we find that the wisdom and goodness of humility will be a hard won insight; it will have a cost, because it is contrary to our propensity to pursue ego-gratification, comparative advantage, status, and power.

I, for one, never belonged to the group that found the wisdom and goodness of humility to be transparent. It has been one of the hardest of hard won insights, but it has been one of the most precious, because it has opened the door to agape, which has been, for me, true joy. I believe that I was about 22 years old when I first got an inkling about the “possible value” of humility. At that time, I was still equating my lovability with my esteemability and respectability – nothing more. Yes, I was a friend to others; I could have a great time with my friends; but I was in no position to enter into an act of empathy which would allow for a longstanding commitment or a sacrificial gift of self. Once again, I found myself belonging to the group who needed extrinsic prodding from deprivation and difficulty to reexamine what I considered to be virtuous.

At that time, I saw faith, courage, achievement, philia (friendship), and altruism to be quite virtuous. I still consider these to be absolutely essential, to this day. But to be honest, I didn’t even notice humility, empathy, and the vulnerability intrinsic to agape, so I was in no position to consider them virtuous. It took gentle but insistent extrinsic prodding – an accumulation of little weaknesses, little vulnerabilities, and little deficiencies – to make me realize that there was more to virtue than my previous list, and more to love than “making the world a better place.” Vulnerability led to openness, and that openness led, through prayer, the sacraments, and Scripture, directly to the heart of Christ.

In my novitiate days, I experienced the heart of Christ during my thirty-day silent retreat, and this experience, combined with my experience of vulnerability, led to an examination of what was missing in my definition of virtue and love. This conclusion was by no means immediate. It took nearly 18 months to begin appropriating first the critical value of humility, and then subsequently its beauty and goodness. But of this much I can be sure: without the experience of extrinsic vulnerability (coming from an imperfect physical nature in an imperfect world), I probably would not have moved from the experience of Christ’s humble love to the beauty and necessity of humility in my own love and life. Once again, I thank God for an imperfect physical nature in an imperfect world.

Two of the foremost gifts of agape are forgiveness and compassion. Suffering can be just as helpful in appropriating these two gifts as appropriating empathy, love’s vulnerability, and humility.

Forgiveness. Forgiveness requires both humility and empathy because it entails letting go of a just grievance against another. If someone has intentionally insulted or hurt us without provocation, it is difficult not to desire retribution or, at the very least, some form of retributive justice. Yet this retribution generally produces a cycle of vengeance begetting vengeance and violence begetting violence. If we are to interrupt this cycle of vengeance and violence, if we are to allow the parties in the cycle to begin the long process of healing, and if we are to restore equanimity to a shattered peace, we will, to some degree, have to let go of our just claims against the other. But how is this possible? We must see the intrinsic value and need of the unjust perpetrator (like the priest in Les Miserables who sees the goodness and need of Jean Valjean “beyond all appearances”); we must see the intrinsic goodness of interrupting the cycle of vengeance begetting vengeance and violence begetting violence; and we must want the good of our enemy (even though we may have to protect ourselves against him in the future). But how can we do this – particularly when we are still stinging from the injustice of a heartless act?

In my life, this occurred through a poignant recognition of the truth in the parable of the wicked servant who maltreated his fellow servant (after having been forgiven by his master for a much greater debt – Mt 18:23-35). In my novitiate years, I had an intuitive recognition of the truth of this parable and its general applicability to everyone. But eventually, the direct applicability to me became “painfully” obvious. My deepening appreciation of empathy and humility opened the way to seeing the dignity and goodness of others, which, in turn, led to a deepening care for them. My past disregard, thoughtlessness, and callousness became painfully apparent. It suddenly occurred to me how much the Lord of unconditional love had forgiven me for countless acts of self-absorbed heartlessness. It gradually dawned on me that if I had been forgiven so much, I too would have to forgive others. The “have to” in that recognition was not one of fear (i.e., “If I don’t forgive others as God has forgiven me, then I will be punished like the wicked servant”). Neither was it a “have to” arising out of duty (i.e., “If God did it for me, then I would be an ingrate if I did not do it for other people”). Rather, it was a “have to” borne out of love. When I recognized how much I had been loved by God, I was moved to do the same for others out of both a profound sense of gratitude, and a simple desire to love in the same way as the One who loved me.

Yet, none of this would have occurred if I had not appreciated empathy and humility (which led to the recognition of the unique goodness and lovability of others). As noted above, my appreciation of empathy and humility was greatly assisted by suffering, which allowed me to move (partially) beyond the spell of self-absorption and autonomy. This freedom which came through a combination of suffering and the love of God has enabled me, albeit imperfectly, to forgive from the heart.

I have a long way to go in the pursuit of humility and empathy, of care and respect, and forgiveness; so I expect that I will need further assistance along that path. But I have come to realize that God’s unconditional love in combination with suffering is one of the best vehicles to this freedom to love and forgive. I have also come to realize that true happiness consists in this love, which seems, at least in my life, to come inevitably through the vulnerability of an imperfect physical nature in an imperfect world.

Compassion. Compassion is yet another gift which suffering helps to appropriate. As might be obvious to most, “compassion” means “to suffer with.” Though some ancients recognized compassion as virtuous, others did not. The Old Testament has a progressive awareness of the goodness of compassion, but it is Jesus who brings it to its fullest and deepest meaning. I would like to explore briefly the teaching of Jesus here because I believe that it goes far beyond philosophical treatments, and probes the depths of both the divine and human heart.

Jesus elevates compassion to the very perfection of God: “Be compassionate (oiktirmones) as your Father is compassionate” (Luke 6:36). This passage parallels Matthew’s rendition, “Be perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect” (Mt 5:48). The Greek word here, oiktirmones, has multiple connotations. It implies mercy in the sense of forgiveness, and also in the sense of genuine sympathy for the poor and the marginalized. It carries with it every implication of the heart of the father of the prodigal son (Luke 15) where we see the root of compassion (“to suffer with”) quite deeply.

The father of the prodigal son (who represents God the Father, for Jesus) is not simply merciful to him, he sympathizes with him in his suffering. Even though the boy has betrayed him, his family, his country, his election, and the Law, the father cannot help but be moved by his son’s misery. He so sympathizes with his son in his suffering that he forgives him and restores him to full membership with the family (signified by giving him a signet ring). Compassion (“loving sympathy with another who suffers”), here, is not only the source of forgiveness, it is also the source of healing and the imparting of dignity. We are now getting to the essence of compassion.

When we are compassionate (not merely showing compassion, which feels like pity to the receiving party) we feel like the prodigal son’s father. We don’t feel misery in the same way that the son feels misery (i.e., starving, deprived, alone, regretful), but we feel miserable because the one we love is miserable, and this sense of “sympathetic sadness” moves us to do as much as we can to comfort the one who is suffering. Comfort sometimes takes the form of doing something beneficial (restoring the son to the family, giving a medical treatment which is successful, giving a poor person a meal, etc.). But frequently enough, we cannot do anything but give our time, presence, and attention; we can only be with the other. We are capable only of using our presence, our friendship, and our love to give comfort. Yet this imparts dignity. Spending time with another proves to the other that she is valuable, because most everyone intuitively recognizes the preciousness of time. Children certainly do.

No matter how compassion is manifested (doing something for someone, or simply being with someone), it always has the capacity to impart dignity. There is something about “an act of loving sympathy with another’s misery from which comfort naturally exudes” which proves to another that she not only has esteemability or status, but genuine lovability (belovedness), which is much deeper than a mere accolade for talent or a job well done. This “loving sympathy giving rise to comfort” is the deepest and most positive gift which can be given, for the awareness of belovedness, genuine belovedness, is a recognition of our truest dignity. We intuitively know that it is better to be loved than “accorded esteem,” and when we receive such love, it brings with it a flood of dignity, a freedom to be oneself, an appreciation of the goodness of one’s personhood – one’s being (and not merely one’s accomplishments); and this is true joy.

There is only one hitch. We generally have to be suffering in order to receive compassion. When you really think about it, you can only receive “the loving sympathy with suffering which naturally gives rise to comfort” when you are suffering! You can’t be the recipient of a genuine gift of “suffering with,” unless you are suffering – logically. Thus, we can see one of the most paradoxical aspects of the human condition – if we are to receive the deep affirmation of our belovedness which leads to our deepest moments of dignity, freedom, self-affirmation, and joy, we must be in a state of deprivation.

Most children have experienced this when they were genuinely sick and stayed home from school. Instead of their mothers being revolted by their illness, or angry at the inconvenience of their illness, they probably received loving sympathy, comfort, and a genuine affirmation of their belovedness – just as they are, with chicken pox sores, not beaming with health, and probably whining. This gift of compassion leaves an indelible mark on children. If it recurs again and again, an intuitive belief begins to form that they are intrinsically lovable. They are beloved just in themselves, without all the adornments that can make them exteriorly beautiful. It will eventually enable them to love themselves and to accept love from another, and this will make all the difference between a life of love and a life of trying to win the love which one never thought one had or deserved. One life will lead toward the love of others, and the other will be a frantic quest to get a gift which one believes oneself to be deprived of. What a difference. Notice how suffering is integral to this difference.

Now, you might say, and rightly so, that suffering alone did not produce compassion. True enough. Compassion requires three elements:

1) a compassionate person,

2) a suffering person, and

3) an act of receiving compassion by the suffering person.

Like the parable of the Banquet Table, suffering induces compassion; but like the proverbial horse that is led to water, you cannot force compassion out of a heart that refuses to be moved. Suffering is the prefect condition for moving a heart which is capable of being moved, but it cannot produce compassion automatically. So what makes a person capable of compassion? In my life, this has occurred through two main conditions, both of which entailed suffering: (1) receiving acts of compassion from my parents, friends, and teachers, and (2) experiencing enough suffering to break the spell of egocentricity and autonomy so that empathy (the precondition for loving sympathy with another in misery) could occur. As I noted above, I did not belong to the group of individuals which was able to be naturally compassionate or even empathetic. I needed suffering in order to produce the preconditions of compassion. Oddly enough, then, suffering helped me (and I presume others) to reach the point that I could respond with loving sympathy and comfort to a person who was suffering. Thus, suffering provided the indispensable conditions for the first two elements of an act of compassion (a compassionate person and a suffering person).

Now, only one element remains to be explained, namely, a suffering person capable of accepting an act of compassion. I would venture to say that accepting compassion is even harder than giving it, for it means admitting need, vulnerability, and weakness within a culture that not only disvalues these things, but also sees them as negating dignity. Most of us who have reached our mid-twenties no longer have the attitude of children who are capable of accepting the compassion of parents, friends, and teachers. We have learned that we are supposed to be capable of taking care of ourselves, carrying our own weight, and that our respectability depends on this. We have also learned that we should never take another person’s time for our personal needs. Even though we could not possibly live this way, we try to believe the myth so that we can content ourselves with our autonomy and self-sufficiency. We convince ourselves that we are not needy, and we would never explicitly admit to being needy, but we do find ways, “acceptable ways,” of getting our needs met.

This culture and many others are somewhat difficult to understand because we intimate that we should not open ourselves to having our legitimate physical and emotional needs met, which forces us to have them met in disguised ways. But of course they are not really disguised, because the adult child who visits his elderly parents has to make up a story that he was just passing by anyway, and that he wouldn’t have come by if he wasn’t in the neighborhood, but he was. The adult child obviously knows that he is making up a story in order to break through the parents’ reticence to have their legitimate physical and emotional needs met, and the child knows that the parents’ needs are legitimate. So why does he have to play the game of telling his parents that he “knows” they really didn’t need him to stop by, and that he was not troubling himself, in order to do something simply compassionate? The short answer is that our culture prizes autonomy and self-sufficiency more than it does compassion and belovedness. This should give us pause, and make us hearken back to Jesus’ admonition, “Truly, I say to you, unless you turn and become like children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven” (Mt 18:3). This is particularly relevant to accepting the love and compassion of others.

How do people find the freedom to accept another’s compassion? As implied above, some people do this naturally. Others remember the acts of compassion they received as children and carry them over into adulthood. And still others, like myself, need suffering in order to do this.

I suffer from retinitus pigmentosa (a degenerative eye disease). This caused me to lose my driver’s license when I was 33. Now if there is one thing in this culture that proves we are self-sufficient and autonomous, it is the fact that we can get into our cars and go wherever we want whenever we want. But I found myself, at the age of 33, not being able to get into my car and go wherever I wanted whenever I wanted. Quite the contrary. I lost my insurance, and therefore, my driver’s license, and therefore became dependent on others for rides.

At first, I could not bear to ask anyone for a ride out of sheer embarrassment. I felt that the mere admission of bad eyesight and an inability to drive myself (not carrying my own weight, as it were) would produce utter shock and disdain among the people I asked. Now, this shock and disdain really never happened, but after two years of having my secretaries ask for rides for me, I still did not believe that people were really not shocked and disdainful; I thought they were disguising it incredibly well. So, as I took the rides from compassionate people, I would sit there believing that they were angered at the inconvenience, troubled by my inferiority, and pitying me for that inferiority. I really hated getting into those cars.

One day, I was accepting a ride to my parish when a lady mentioned to me that she was really grateful that she was able to get on the list of people who wanted to give me a ride. I said, “A list? Why would there be a list?” And she said that this was something that many people thought they could do, that it was relatively easy, and it would give them some time with me. I was truly shocked. They were not annoyed at my weakness. They found it a rather pleasing and interesting idiosyncrasy in a person who seemed, at times, distant because of his use of complex sentences and concepts. They said that my eye problem made me human, and that they were able to empathize with a person that they had otherwise found to be somewhat intimidating. In fact, this lady said that it made me “un-intimidating!” Now, I had to think about this.

What my reflection revealed was that, whether I wanted to believe it or not, people liked me – just for myself, not for my intellect or my gifts of speaking. They wanted to get to know me, they wanted me to be un-intimidating. They enjoyed being around me not despite my weakness, but in the midst of my weakness. They really enjoyed being of service – and giving a ride was something they could do (which I obviously could not do). I had the peculiar role of allowing these wonderful people an opportunity to obtain dignity from their selfless service to another. In their attempt to make my life easier, in their loving sympathy with my weakness, in their self-sacrifice to care for me, I too was able to impart dignity back to them by merely accepting their compassion as compassion, by accepting their love as genuine love. I often wondered why people were so happy when they were giving me a ride. It began to occur to me that the smile was not an act, but a genuine bit of joy produced through an authentic act of empathy, graciously accepted by someone in need.

But how did I get there? Suffering. In this case, deprivation – a problem with my eyes. But more than this, I had to go through a period of humiliation (more suffering) before I began to realize that people were better than I ever expected them to be. The reason I did not think they were better than I ever expected was because I was not up to their level. I was not capable of that kind of compassion. Formerly, I believed that their compassion really was a disguised act of shock and disdain (they were doing it because the pastor had put pressure on them, and so they were making the best out of a bad situation). But when that lady told me about the list, it occurred to me that people were really that good; they were much better than I expected; and so I felt called to be more compassionate in imitation of them. The more I responded to this call to become genuinely compassionate myself, the more I was able to accept the compassion of others.

I deduced from this a cycle for people like myself, namely, that a small act of accepting compassion induces an awareness of how genuinely good people can be, and this awareness, in turn, called me to imitate them, which, in turn, freed me to accept their compassion (in my belief about how good they really were). Not a bad deal! Suffering induced not only the compassion of others, it made me aware of goodness in the world, called me to compassion, and allowed me to accept the compassion of others, which imparted true dignity to the one giving compassion. All of this through one manifestation of suffering.

I have been going through this for twenty years now, and I have received a lot of rides – I mean a LOT of rides. I have seen this cycle recur again and again; and I feel that God called me to be a magnet of compassion (with a concomitant deepening of my own compassion) in all of these circumstances of need – need which was met by my accepting the compassion of others. If I lived for this alone – skip the books, the teaching, the degrees, the presidency, etc. – it would have been more than enough – simply living to induce compassion by the simple act of asking for and accepting a ride.

Conclusion. Is suffering really necessary for agape (empathy, the acceptance of love’s vulnerability, humility, forgiveness, and compassion)? For a being like God, it is not, for God can, in a timeless, completely transparent act, through His perfect power and love, achieve perfect empathy, perfect acceptance of love’s vulnerability, perfect humility, perfect forgiveness, and perfect compassion. I suppose angelic beings could also do this in a timeless and transparent way. As I have indicated many times above, I believe there are some people who can more easily move to this position without much assistance from suffering. But for people like me, suffering is absolutely indispensable to removing the blocks to agape presented by my egocentric and autonomous desires, my belief in the cultural myth of self-sufficiency, my underestimation of the goodness and love of other people, and all the other limitations to my head and heart.

I have to believe that God allowed an imperfect physical nature and an imperfect world for people like me not only to actualize agape freely (well, at least partially), but also, and perhaps more importantly, to even notice it. I really believe that God asks people who are better than me in love to patiently bear with the trials that are indispensable for people like me to arrive at an insight about empathy, humility, forgiveness, and compassion. But then again, they already have the empathy, humility, and compassion to do this, so God’s request is truly achievable.

God works through this suffering. He doesn’t waste any of it. For those who are open to seeing the horizon of love embedded in it, there is a future, nay, an eternity for each of us to manifest our own unique brand of unconditional love within the symphony of love which is God’s kingdom. Without suffering, I do not think I could have even begun to move freely toward that horizon which is my eternal destiny and joy.

== The Fourth Purpose of an Imperfect World: Interdependence, Human Community, and a “Better World” ==

We now move from an individual and personal perspective on suffering to a social and cultural perspective. We saw in the previous three sub-sections how God uses an imperfect world (and the challenge/suffering it can cause) to call and lead individuals toward life-transformations, courage, self-discipline, empathy, humility, love’s vulnerability, compassion, and agape. However, the value of an imperfect world and suffering is not limited to this. God can also use suffering to advance the collective human spirit, particularly in culture and society. There are three evident manifestations of this collective-cultural-societal benefit of an imperfect world and suffering: (1) interdependence, (2) room to make a better world, and (3) the development of progressively better social and cultural ideals and systems. Each will be discussed in turn.

(1) Interdependence. We cannot be completely autonomous – we need each other not only to advance but also to survive. Our imperfect world has literally compelled us to seek help from one another, to open ourselves to others’ strengths, to make up for one another’s weaknesses, and to organize ourselves to form a whole which is greater than the sum of its parts. We could say that our imperfect world is the condition necessary for the possibility of interdependence, and that interdependence provides an almost indispensable impetus to organize societies for mutual benefit.

The reader might respond that this is a somewhat cynical view of human nature because we probably would have formed societies simply to express empathy and love. I do not doubt this for a moment. However, I also believe that necessity is not only the mother of invention, but also the mother of social organizations for mutual benefit and specialization of labor. An imperfect world complements the human desire for empathy and love. While empathy and love allow us to enjoy one another, the imperfect world challenges us to extend that love to meeting others’ needs and making up for others’ weaknesses. Challenge (arising out of an imperfect world) induces us to extend our empathy, friendship, and enjoyment of one another into the domain of meeting one another’s needs, organizing ourselves for optimal mutual benefit, and creating societies which take on a life of their own beyond any specific individual or group of individuals. Yet an imperfect world does far more than this. It calls us to make a better world, to the discovery of the deepest meaning of justice and love, and even to create better cultures and systems of world organization.

(2) Room to make a better world. An imperfect world reveals that God did not do everything for us. He has left room for us to overcome the seeming imperfections of nature through our creativity, ideals, and loves – not merely individual creativity, ideals, and loves, but also through collective creativity, ideals, and loves. As noted above, individuals can receive a tremendous sense of purpose and fulfillment by meeting challenges and overcoming adversity. Yet we can experience an even greater purpose and fulfillment by collectively meeting challenges which are far too great for any individual; challenges which allow us to be a small part of a much larger purpose and destiny within human history.

It would have been noble indeed, and a fulfillment of both individual and collective purpose to have played a small part in the history of irrigation, the synthesis of metals, the building of roads, the discovery of herbs and medicines, the development of elementary technologies, the development of initial legal codes, the initial formulation of the great ideas (such as justice and love), the discoveries of modern chemistry, modern biology, modern medicine, modern particle physics, contemporary astronomy and astrophysics, the development of justice theory, inalienable rights theory, political rights theory, economic rights theory, contemporary structures of governments, the development of psychology, sociology, literature, history, indeed, all the humanities, arts, and social sciences; to have played a small part in the great engineering and technological feats which have enabled us to meet our resource needs amidst growing population, to be part of the communication and transportation revolutions that have brought our world so much closer together; to have been a small part of the commerce which not only ennobled human work, but also generated the resources necessary to build a better world; to have been a small part in these monumental creative efforts meeting tremendous collective challenges and needs in the course of human history. Yet, none of these achievements (and the individual and collective purpose and fulfillment coming from them) would have been possible without an imperfect world. If God had done everything for us, life would have been much less interesting (to say the least) and would have been devoid of the great purpose and achievement of the collective human spirit. Thank God for an imperfect world and the challenges and suffering arising out of it. We were not created to be self-sufficient, overly-protected “babies,” but rather to rise to the challenge of collective nobility and love – to build a better world.

(3) The development of progressively better social and cultural ideals and systems. We not only have the capacity to meet tremendous challenges collectively, we can also build culture – the animating ethos arising out of our collective heart which impels us not only toward a deeper and broader vision of individuals, but also of groups, communities, societies, and the world. This broader and deeper vision includes a deeper appreciation of individual and collective potential and therefore a deeper respect for the individual and collective human spirit. Thus, we have the capacity not only to build a legal system, but also to infuse it with an ideal of justice and rights, a scrupulous concern for accuracy and evidence, and a presumption of innocence and care for the individual. We have the ability not only to make tremendous scientific discoveries, but also to use them for the common good rather than the good of just a privileged class. We have the ability not only to build great structures, but also to use our architecture to reflect the beauty and goodness of the human spirit. We have the capacity not only to do great research but also to impart the knowledge and wisdom gained by it in a humane and altruistic educational system. And the list goes on.

Perhaps more importantly, we have the capacity to build these more beneficent cultural ideals and systems out of the lessons of our collective tragedy and suffering. One of the greatest ironies of human history, it seems to me, is the virtual inevitability of the greatest human cultural achievements arising out of the greatest moments of human suffering and tragedy (whether these be caused by natural calamities like the plague or more frequently out of humanly induced tragedies such as slavery, persecution of groups, world wars, and genocide). Roman coliseums (butchering millions for mere entertainment) seem eventually to produce Constantinian conversions (taking an entire empire toward an appreciation of Christian love); manifestations of slavery seem to lead eventually to an abolitionist movement and an Emancipation Proclamation; outbreaks of plague seem to lead eventually to advances in medicine and public health, as well as a deeper appreciation of individual life and personhood; manifestations of human cruelty and injustice seem to lead eventually to inalienable rights and political rights theories (and to systems of human rights); large-scale economic marginalization and injustice seem to lead eventually to economic rights theories (and to systems of economic rights); world wars seem to lead eventually to institutions of world justice and peace. There seems to be something in collective tragedy and suffering that awakens the human spirit, awakens a prophet or a visionary (such as Jesus Christ, St. Francis of Assisi, William Wilberforce, Mahatma Gandhi, or Martin Luther King, Jr.), which then awakens a collective movement of the human heart (such as the abolitionist movement), which then has to endure suffering and hardship in order to persist, but when it does persist, brings us to a greater awareness of what is humane. Out of the ashes of collective tragedy seems almost inevitably to arise a collective advancement in the common good and human culture; and more than this – a collective resolve, a determination of the collective human spirit which proclaims, “never again;” and still more – a political-legal system to shepherd this collective resolve into the future.

As may now be evident, the greatest collective human achievements in science, law, government, philosophy, politics and human ideals (to mention but a few areas) seem to have at their base not just an imperfect world, not just individual suffering, not just collective suffering, but epic and even monumental collective suffering. Was an imperfect world necessary for these greatest human achievements? It would seem so (at least partially); otherwise there would have been no room to grow, no challenges to overcome (either individually or collectively), and no ideals to be formulated by meeting these challenges. God would have done them all for us.

Nothing could be worse for a child’s development and capacity for socialization than an overprotective parents who think they are doing the child a favor by doing her homework for her, constructing her project for her, thinking for her. To remove all imperfections from a child’s living conditions; to take away all challenges and opportunities to meet adversity, all opportunities to rise above imperfect conditions; to take away all opportunities to create and invent a better future; and to remove the opportunity to exemplify courage and love in the midst of this creativity would be tantamount to a decapitation. God would no more decapitate the collective human spirit than a parent would a child; and so, God not only allowed an imperfect world filled with challenge and adversity, He created it.

We must remember at this juncture that God’s perspective is eternal. As noted above, God intends to redeem every scintilla of our suffering and to transform it into the symphony of eternal love which is His kingdom. Therefore, a person who suffered in a Nazi concentration camp (which eventually lead to the U.N. Charter of Human Rights and to the current system of international courts) did not suffer for the progress of this world alone, as if he were merely a pawn in the progress of the world. Rather, his suffering is destined for eternal redemption by an unconditionally loving and providential God who will bring courage, self-discipline, empathy, humility, love’s vulnerability, compassion, and agape to its fullest unique expression for all eternity. At the moment of what seems to be senseless suffering and death, God takes the individual into the fullness of His love, light, and life while initiating a momentum toward a greater common good within the course of human history. People of faith must continually take precautions against reducing themselves to mere immanentists, for the God of love redeems each person’s suffering individually and eternally while using it to induce and engender progress toward His own ideal for world culture and the human community.

The above points only answer part of our question about the necessity of suffering to advance the common good; for even if an imperfect world were truly necessary for such advancement, it does not seem that something as monstrous as a world war would be so necessary. True enough. But here is where moral evil and human freedom exacerbate the conditions of an imperfect world. Unlike natural laws, which blindly follow the pre-patterned sequences of cause and effect, human evil has embedded in it injustice, egocentrism, hatred, and cruelty which are all truly unnecessary. Nevertheless, even in the midst of the unnecessary and gratuitous suffering arising out of moral evil, the human spirit (galvanized by the Holy Spirit, according to my faith) rises above this suffering and seems eventually to produce advancements in culture and the common good in proportion to the degree of suffering.

In conclusion, the annals of human history are replete with examples of how tremendous moments of collective human suffering (whether caused by human depravity or the imperfections and indifference of nature, or both) induced, engendered, accelerated, and in many other ways helped to create the greatest human ideals and cultural achievements. If one has faith one will likely attribute this “phoenix out of the ashes” phenomenon to the Holy Spirit working within the collective human spirit. If one does not have faith, one will simply have to marvel at the incredible goodness of the collective human spirit. (Was it possible for us to do this by ourselves? – Hmmm….)

In any case, the imperfect world and the history of human suffering have given rise to a concrete reality of remarkable beauty and goodness in the areas of justice, rights, legal systems, governance systems, medicine, biology, chemistry, physics, psychology, sociology, and every other discipline which has as its noble end the advancement of the common good. Without an imperfect world, without some suffering in the world, I find it very difficult to believe that any of this would have arisen out of the collective human spirit in the course of history.

It would seem that the price paid in pain has been at least partially offset by the gains made in culture, society, the individual spirit, and the collective human spirit. I do not mean to trivialize the history of human suffering and tragedy nor the lives of individuals ruined by human injustice and an imperfect natural order. Yet we should not fail to find some hope in light emerging from darkness, and goodness emerging from evil. Inasmuch as God is all-powerful and all-loving, He can seize upon this goodness and light to reinforce its historical momentum, and more importantly to transform it into an unconditionally loving eternity. An imperfect world shaped by an imperfect, yet transcendently good human spirit brought to fulfillment by an unconditionally loving God, may well equate to an eternal symphony of love.

== The Fifth Purpose of an Imperfect World: Building the Kingdom of God ==

As noted many times above, suffering can be of invaluable assistance in leading us to our eternal and loving reward. We have seen how suffering could be truly helpful to moving from a merely materialistic identity (Level 1) and an egocentric identity (Level 2), to a contributive, loving identity (Level 3) and a transcendently good and loving identity (Level 4). The movement toward a Level 3 / Level 4 identity is not for this world alone, for love is eternal by nature, and faith is oriented toward a loving eternity. Hence, any progress toward Level 3 and Level 4 is also progress toward the eternal Kingdom of God. If suffering helps us to progress toward Level 3 and 4, it must also help us to progress toward the Kingdom of God.

The same holds true for the points made in Sections II.B and II.C. In Section II.C, we saw how suffering could be helpful in embracing deeper empathy, humility, compassion, and agape, and in Section II.B, we saw how suffering could be helpful in appropriating deeper courage and self-discipline, which are intrinsic to the pursuit of authentic love. Inasmuch as suffering is helpful in developing the elements and conditions of authentic love, and unconditional love is intrinsic to the eternal Kingdom of God, suffering must likewise be helpful in moving toward the Kingdom of God.

Furthermore, the intention of a loving God would be to redeem suffering. Thus, whenever we suffer, God is already working through it to bring about optimal empathy, humility, authenticity, compassion, courage, and self-discipline, and through these, to bring about the optimal path toward eternal salvation in His love. We may not clearly apprehend the direction, timeline, and nuances of this plan, but we may be sure that an unconditionally loving God will do everything to optimize our salvation (without violating our and others’ freedom) in every moment of suffering.

There is another way in which suffering is involved in our eternal destiny, namely, building up the kingdom of God.

The more we cooperate with God’s plan to bring love and salvation out of suffering, the more we can become instruments of God’s hope, love, and salvation to others, which allows us, in turn, to be genuine participants in bringing about the kingdom of God.

God does not need our perfect cooperation to bestow salvation upon us, because His love is unconditional and He can redeem and heal our imperfections beyond our limited powers. This is a very happy truth, because the vast majority of us (or perhaps I should speak only for myself) are incapable of even approaching perfect cooperation with God’s loving plan. Yet God has left enough room for us to participate in His work of salvation (albeit imperfectly) and so, the more we consciously cooperate with His plan, the more good we will be able to do for ourselves and others in the work of eternal salvation.

The above thought provokes a question: Why try to cooperate with God’s loving plan, if God will save repentant people (amidst their imperfections) anyway? Because cooperating with God’s loving plan will (1) make suffering less painful and depressing for us and others, (2) deepen our conversion toward authentic unconditional love more quickly (which brings us closer to true joy), and (3) help us to play an important role in actualizing eternal salvation.

As noted in the previous subsection, God did not do everything for us. He created us in an imperfect world so that we might be able to make a significant contribution in bringing about both love in the world, and unconditional love in His eternal Kingdom.

Consider the following: God did not create a perfectly loving kingdom on earth. This is obvious not only in the imperfect natural world in which we live, but also in the millions of unloving human actions awaiting redemption in His future eternal kingdom. In God’s kingdom there will be no acts of unlove because God’s grace will eventually purify our freedom so that our actions truly reflect a pure desire to love authentically and unconditionally. Inasmuch as our freedom is not yet completely purified, the Kingdom of God is not and cannot be perfectly manifest on earth.

Can we do anything to help build the kingdom of God? Just as the Creator gives us room to make a better world; so He would also give us room to participate in the work of salvation. He lets us be His instruments and participate in the greatest of all possible earthly actions, namely, the diffusion of His eternal love and joy. He allows us to play an integral part in giving His greatest gift to humankind. What could be a greater dignity, privilege, and purpose in life? What could be a greater joy?

This great joy may be punctuated by suffering. It seems that the noble project of giving away the eternal and unconditional love of God can involve ignorance or at least incomplete knowledge, misunderstanding, and misinterpretation. It can engender resentment, infighting, and jealousy; preaching love and not living up to it (inauthenticity and hypocrisy); using our noble ministry for procuring earthly treasure and self-aggrandizement; having to face false allegations, having to be courageous to stay true to his word, and having to make sacrifices of a thousand other kinds.

It seems that the privilege, purpose, and joy we have been given in preaching the unconditional love of God entails many pitfalls and sufferings, but there is no greater dignity or purpose we can have than this eternal project. Moreover, these sufferings are a manifestation of our love, a purification of our freedom, a gift of self to complement God’s gift to us. This suffering is not only filled with meaning, but also with self-transformation and love destined to last throughout eternity.

Suffering also has a peculiar way of leading people to God and church community. This is clearly evidenced in 12-Step programs and in many adult re-conversions to religion. As noted above, suffering can compel us to look for more profound meaning in life, to seek purpose in places we had never anticipated, and to find meaning and consolation in those new places.

We will settle for mediocrity and superficiality in our life’s purpose when we are feeling self-sufficient. The feeling of being in “complete control” is so satisfying that we would sacrifice breadth and depth of meaning in order to preserve it. Much of the time we would rather be in complete control of a very small domain, than in only partial control of a very large one. The only way we can overcome this self-imposed superficiality is to give up the need for absolute control. But how? Absolute control feels so good; it makes me feel so much better than everyone else; and that too makes me feel so good. It can sometimes be more addictive than drugs. How can I let go of the desire for control in order to enter humbly into a huge domain over which I might only have a small influence, but one that will echo in its love throughout the many consciousnesses and “eternities” it affects? Think about it for a moment. If you’re anything like me, there seems to be one initial step, namely, suffering.

I grew up in a faith tradition, and so, when suffering and the feeling of powerlessness entered into my life, I reflexively turned toward God to hold the center when I could not hold it myself. I have known other people who did not grow up with faith and whose turning toward God had to be learned over the course of months or years in Alcoholics Anonymous (or other 12-Step programs), in religious counseling, through hospital chaplaincy during protracted medical treatments, through reading of religious books or magazines, or even through religious television and radio. In the case of those who are professed believers or agnostics, God has a way of appearing in the midst of suffering. When we reach out to Him in that suffering, we find that the sense of powerlessness is replaced with the consolation of God’s power in the midst of our humility and creatureliness. When we realize that we are powerless, we have a perfect opportunity for a radical humility opening upon radical love. All that is required is an admission of our need for the One who can be in control (in the words of Alcoholics Anonymous, a “higher power”).

The radical admission of need (humility) allows the God of love to move into our center, for He would not do this unless we, in our freedom, invite Him to do so. Odd as it may seem, God’s love is so great that He will not impose Himself on us; He will not come into our lives if we do not want Him. He subjects Himself and His love to our freedom because He is unconditionally loving.

However, if we do invite God into our lives, to be our control, our center, a higher power, and to be Creator, then God most assuredly will enter into our lives to help us. This help may not be a direct solution to our problems, it may not be the help that we ask for or expect; but most assuredly this help will open us up to an awareness of His unconditional love. Much of the time, this awareness occurs through a church community.

The awareness of God’s love can occur on a variety of levels – some of them quite tacit. Sometimes it can be in the form of expressions or actions of love from fellow church members; other times it can come through clergy, or can leap off the page of a religious book; sometimes it can be imbued with the beauty of church life: the beauty of the people serving in the church, the beauty of faith exemplified by those individuals, the beauty of the doctrine of religious love, the beauty of liturgy, the liturgical year, the beauty of music, art and architecture, the beauty of tradition – we are invited into an ethos of beauty which leads deeper and deeper into the mystery of God’s love and majesty.

This mysterious beautiful love calls us into itself. It enchants us, fascinates us, enriches us, and fills us quietly but deeply. We become very interested in things theological; almost addicted to asking questions about God, heaven, Scripture, Tradition – everything having to do with this mysterious, beautiful love. God might not solve our problems or resolve our sufferings immediately, but He will make us aware of His love through our admission of need, and He will invite us more deeply into that mystery, enchant and enrich us with it, and then lead us by His own path to a new meaning of life in humility, service, and love. To be sure, this path may not be easy, but in the long run, it will lead us out of superficiality into a life filled with transcendent Truth, Love, Goodness, Beauty, and Home, to a life betokening our eternal destiny of love with Him.

But that’s not all. When we have been “rescued” from a life of superficiality, meaninglessness, or hopelessness, we develop a natural inclination to share it with others. At this point, the Lord of love again inspires us, enflaming us with wisdom and energy, with knowledge and compassion, and with a love and faith beyond our temporal understanding, to go out and share the good news that we do not have to be at the center, we do not have to be in complete control. We can trust the One and only one who can be in complete control, and we can content ourselves with being a very small part of the immense and eternal kingdom of love.

This desire to share the Word of hope with others, to share the Word that gives more than superficial life, the Word that reaches into mystery, perfection, and eternity builds on itself. When we see the depth and breadth, the hope and love, the richness and joy that comes from our ministry and service, we cannot resist the inspiration to do more – increasingly more. We want to serve the Lord of love who has made this possible for us. As we do this, we not only find an increased meaning, depth, love, and joy in our lives, we grow in certitude that we are being led. God then becomes for us more than higher power, more than Creator (though ironically this should be enough), He becomes the God of providential love concerned not just for me but for us, concerned to lead us toward greater freedom and love, caring enough to invite us into His very divine life of love. After living a life of service and ministry, one can scarcely doubt the love and the presence of God. Certitude has worked its way into our life experience through the acceptance of God’s invitation given to us in suffering.

The unfolding of these “loving tactics of God” has certainly been the story of my life, but I have seen it manifest even more profoundly in the lives of those with greater challenges than my own. Sometimes the people with the greatest challenges in life – physical, familial, mental – give some of the strongest and most articulate testimonies to the love of God. Their faith, peace, confidence, awareness of God, capacity for compassion, and above all, their joy and “being at home with God” are incredibly profound. I frequently find this to be a sign of God’s presence because I cannot fathom how they could have all these qualities without some direct inspiration from the God of love.

This holds true even for children, particularly those who face illness and physical deprivation. Many of the children I have met in hospitals, who are facing severe illnesses and even death, have a profound faith, peace, and confidence which allows them to console their parents when their parents are incapable of consoling them. When I first heard children say, “Don’t worry, Mom – everything is going to be alright;” I used to think, “Well, that is the naïve optimism of a child.” But then I came to realize that most of these children didn’t think their life in this world was going to be alright; they thought their life with God would make everything alright. I asked some of these parents whether they had brought up their children in a religious household. Many of them had, but interestingly enough, many of the children who had not been brought up in a religious household expressed just as profound a peace and confidence in the life to come as the ones who had been raised with that expectation. One might maintain that this is yet another iteration of the naïve optimism of a child, but I don’t think so, because the prospect of death (powerful as this finality is) did not seem to shake the peace which these children felt.

One can make out of this whatever one wishes. But there is one major point which is shared by children and adults who experience this “peace beyond all understanding”, namely, they both have acknowledged their need for God and have invited Him into their center. Children seem to do this naturally – not just with God, but with their parents and with everyone else for that matter. That is the distinctive advantage of children. But adults can do this too; they can acquire the heart of a child; but they generally need to do this through suffering which causes them to invite God into their center, which, in turn, allows God to invite them more deeply into His mysterious loving beauty, which, in turn, induces them to serve God by sharing the life and meaning of eternal and perfect love, which, in turn, leads to peace beyond all understanding. Adults frequently need suffering to reach the state of openness to God. Children seem to possess it in their very being. Far from naïveté; they exemplify a confidence, peace, and love originating in God Himself.

== Conclusion ==

Why would God create an imperfect world? In a word, for the sake of love; for the sake of people like me; for the sake of love manifest as life transformation, virtue, empathy, compassion, humility, agape; love manifest in creating a better world and even building up the very kingdom of love – the kingdom of the unconditionally loving God. As we have seen, every one of these reasons not only gives noble purpose to this life, but carries forward to its fulfillment in an eternal and perfectly loving life. It is the noble purpose which lasts forever. Temporal imperfection, in the logic of Unconditional Love, leads to eternal perfection.

Why Believe in God?

2012-05-15T01:50:14Z

David Persyn: /* Unit D: Is there Evidence of God from Science? */ links

Magis God Wiki: "Why Believe in God?"

© Robert J. Spitzer, S.J. Ph.D./Magis Institute July 2011

There is a list of suggested [[Search Terms]] to assist users in quickly finding their topic of interest.

== Unit A: Does Belief in God Enhance Purpose in Life? ==

[[Purpose in Life]]

This material is not in NPEG, but may be found beginning in Unit 26 of [http://physicsindialog.org PID].

=== What produces happiness and purpose in life? ===

[[Purpose_in_Life#Happiness_and_Purpose_in_Life |Happiness and Purpose]]

=== From immediate gratification and surface apparentness to what is pervasive, enduring, and deep. ===

[[Purpose_in_Life#Moving_from_Shallow_to_Deep |Shallowness to Depth]]

=== Four levels of happiness and purpose in life ===

[[Purpose_in_Life#The_Four_Levels |The Four Levels]]

=== Level two identity, the comparison game, and our culture’s source of anxiety. ===

[[Purpose_in_Life#The_Comparison_Game |The Comparison Game]]

=== Two ways out of the comparison game – level three and level four purpose in life. ===

[[Purpose_in_Life#Ending_the_Game |Getting Out of the Game]]

=== Level four purpose and happiness – transcendence and faith. ===

[[Purpose_in_Life#Transcendence |Faith Leading to Transcendence]]

=== Maintaining a level four purpose in life. ===

[[Purpose_in_Life#Maintaining_Transcendence |Maintaining the Transcendent Happiness]]

== Unit B: Is There any Evidence for the Human Soul? ==

This material is not contained in NPEG, but is in Units 20-21 of [http://physicsindialog.org PID].

=== An assessment of peer-reviewed medical studies on near death experiences from the Lancet, the Journal of the American Medical Association, and other studies. ===

[[The Human Soul]] (This is a single article covering the topics below, which are indexed there for quick reference).

=== The definition of “brain death,” alternative explanations, and controlled, longitudinal studies. ===

=== Eight similar characteristics in near-death experiences. ===

[http://magisgodwiki.org/index.php?title=The_Human_Soul#Near-Death_Experiences Characteristics of NDEs].

=== Patients report seeing data that should not have been accessible to them in their brain-dead states, and which is subsequently verifiable (veridical). ===

[http://magisgodwiki.org/index.php/title=The_Human_Soul#The_van_Lommel_et_al_Study The von Lommel Study]. Veridical data established.

=== 80% of blind patients can see during their near-death experience. ===

[http://magisgodwiki.org/index.php/title=The_Human_Soul#The_Kenneth_Ring.2C_et_al_Study_of_Near-Death_Experiences_of_the_Blind The Kenneth Ring Study of NDEs of the Blind].

=== The measurable absence of death anxiety in both children and adults. ===

[http://magisgodwiki.org/index.php?title=The_Human_Soul#Melvin_Morse.2C_MD_.E2.80.93_Study_of_Near-Death_Experiences_of_Children The Melvin Morse Study of NDEs in Children].

=== Encounters with transcendent beings (loving white light, Jesus, deceased relatives, etc.). ===

=== Conclusions of Von Lommel and other studies. ===

[http://magiswiki.org/index.php/The_Human_Soul#Conclusions_Regarding_Near-Death_Experiences Conclusions drawn from the studies].

== Unit C: Is there Evidence of a Human Soul (Transcendentals)? ==

[[The Transcendentals]]

An in depth analysis of this material may be found in NPEG Chapters 7-8 and a lecture presentation may also be found in [http://physicsindialog.org PID Units 14-19].

=== The desire for complete intelligibility and perfect truth. ===

[[The_Transcendentals#I._The_Desire_for_Perfect_and_Unconditional_Truth |The Desire for Perfect and Unconditional Truth]]

=== The desire for perfect love and empathy. ===

[[The_Transcendentals#II._The_Desire_for_Perfect_and_Unconditional_Love |The Desire for Perfect and Unconditional Love]]

=== The desire for perfect justice/goodness. ===

[[The_Transcendentals#III._The_Desire_for_Perfect_and_Unconditional_Goodness.2FJustice |The Desire for Perfect and Unconditional Goodness & Justice]]

=== The desire for perfect beauty. ===

[[The_Transcendentals#IV._The_Desire_for_Perfect_and_Unconditional_Beauty |The Desire for Perfect and Unconditional Beauty]]

=== The desire for perfect being/home. ===

[[The_Transcendentals#V._The_Desire_for_Perfect_and_Unconditional_Being.2FHome |The Desire for Perfect and Unconditional Being & Home]]

=== The five transcendental desires and the transmateriality of human consciousness. ===

[[The_Transcendentals#Conclusion |Conclusion]]

=== The five transcendental desires and God. ===

== Unit D: Is there Evidence of God from Science? ==

[[Cosmology]] incuding Physics.

A more in depth assessment of this material may be found in NPEG Chapters 1-2 and the Postscript to Part One, and a lecture presentation may be found in [http://physicsindialog.org PID Units 1-5].

=== The extent and limits of scientific method. ===

[http://magisgodwiki.org/index.php?title=Cosmology#Can_Science_Give_Evidence_of_a_Creation_and_Supernatural_Design.3F Limits of Science].

=== The standard big bang model. ===

[http://magisgodwiki.org/index.php?title=Cosmology#Was_the_Big_Bang_the_Beginning.3F The Big Bang and the Beginning].

=== Was the big bang the beginning of the universe (13.7 billion years ago)? ===

[http://magisgodwiki.org/index.php?title=Cosmology#A_Beginning_in_Physics_Implies_A_Creation_of_the_Universe Beginning of the Universe].

=== The significance of a beginning in physics – implications of creation. ===

[http://magisgodwiki.org/index.php?title=Cosmology#What_is_The_Evidence_for_a_Beginning_and_what_are_the_Implications_for_Creation.3F Implications of Creation].

=== Three models for a pre-big-bang period. ===

==== The string theory-inflationary multiverse. ====

==== The bouncing universe. ====

==== String theory-higher dimensional bouncing universe. ====

=== Significant evidence that all three models for a pre-big-bang period would have to have a beginning. ===

[http://www.magiswiki.org/index.php/Cosmology#Evidence_of_a_Beginning_from_Space-Time_Geometry_Proofs Space-Time Geometry].

==== The evidence from space-time geometry proofs (Borde, Guth, and Vilenkin). ====

[http://www.magiswiki.org/index.php/Cosmology#The_1994_Borde-Vilenkin_Proof B-V Proof of 1994].

[http://www.magiswiki.org/index.php/Cosmology#Alan_Guth.E2.80.99s_1999_analysis_of_expanding_pre-big-bang_models The Guth Analysis of 1999].

[http://www.magiswiki.org/index.php/Cosmology#The_2003_Borde-Vilenkin-Guth_Theorem_.28the_BVG_Theorem.29: The 2003 BVG Theorem].

==== The evidence from entropy (Penrose, Beckenstein, Banks, Carroll). ====

=== Universal constants, anthropic coincidences, and fine-tuning. ===

[http://www.magiswiki.org/index.php/Cosmology#Implications_of_Supernatural_Intelligence_in_the_Fine-tuning_of_Universal_Constants Fine Tuning].

==== Five examples of fine-tuning. ====

==== Can fine-tuning be explained by pure chance? ====

[http://www.magiswiki.org/index.php/Cosmology#The_high_improbability_of_a_pure_chance_occurrence_of_our_low-entropy_universe Pure Chance Improbable].

==== Two competing explanations: the multiverse and supernatural design. ====

==== Which of these two explanations is most reasonable and responsible? ====

[http://www.magiswiki.org/index.php/Cosmology#The_high_improbability_of_five_other_anthropic_conditions_.28based_on_cosmological_constants.29 Discussion of Probability]

=== Conclusions about the probability of super intelligent Creator. ===

[http://www.magiswiki.org/index.php/Cosmology#Conclusions Conclusions].

== Unit E: Can the Bible be Reconciled with Science? ==

[[The Bible and Science]]

This unit is not found in either NPEG or PID, however, there is a free videocast on [http://www.magisreasonfaith.org/library/videos/video-god-and-modern-physics-module-12/ The Magis website].

=== The bible is not doing science – but theology, sacred truths. ===

[[The_Bible_and_Science#Theology_Not_Science |Theology not Science]]

=== What was the biblical author’s intention in writing Genesis:1:1ff? ===

[[The_Bible_and_Science#The_Intent_of_Genesis |The Intent of Genesis]]

=== Is evolution reconcilable with the bible? ===

[[The_Bible_and_Science#Darwinian_Evolution |The Bible and Evolution]]

=== Human beings are not reducible to merely organic mechanisms, and therefore, cannot be the result of a merely bio-physical process (like evolution). ===

[[The_Bible_and_Science#The_Human_Soul |About the Human Soul]]

==== The trans-material component of human beings must have another origin ====

[[http://www.magiswiki.org/index.php/Why_Believe_in_God%3F#Unit_B:_Is_There_any_Evidence_for_the_Human_Soul.3F | See above, Unit B]].

== Unit F: Can the Existence of God be Logically Proven? ==

[[Metaphysical Proofs]]

This Unit contains only steps I and V of a logical proof for God’s existence. Steps II, III, and IV can be found in NPEG Chapter Three (Sections II through IV) and [http://physicsindialog.org PID Units 6-11]. Those wishing a review of logical syllogisms may want to consult [http://physicsindialog.org PID Units 6-7].

=== Three kinds of publicly corroborateable evidence – a-priori, a-posteriori, and combinations. ===

[[Metaphysical_Proofs#Three_Kinds_of_Publicly_Accessible_Evidence_for_Rational_Proof |Three Kinds of Publicly Corroborateable Evidence]]

=== Step I of the metaphysical proof – proof that there must be at least one unconditioned reality in “all reality.” ===

[[Metaphysical_Proofs#Proof_of_the_Existence_of_at_Least_One_Unconditioned_Reality |Proof of the Existence of at least One Unconditioned Reality]]

=== A record of the missing steps of the proof ===

These can be found in NPEG and [http://physicsindialog.org PID] (as noted above). These steps prove that there can only be one unconditioned reality and that it must be absolutely simple and unrestricted in its power.

===Step V of the proof which shows that the one unconditioned absolutely simple unrestricted reality must be the continuous Creator of all else that is. ===

[[Metaphysical_Proofs#Proof_that_the_One_Unconditioned_Reality_is_the_Continuous_Creator_of_All_Else_that_Is |Proof that the One Unconditioned Reality is the Continuous Creator of All Else that Is]].

== Unit G: Is there Evidence of God from Mathematics? ==
For a more in depth presentation of time and the formal a-priori synthetic argument for a timeless Creator of time, see NPEG Chapter Five and also [http://physicsindialog.org PID Units 22-25].

=== “Infinite past time” is an analytical contradiction. ===

[[Mathematics#An_Analytical_Contradiction_in_.22Infinite_Past_Time.22 |An Analytical Contradiction in "Infinite Past Time"]]

=== Three kinds of infinity (A, B, and C infinities). ===

Covered in the last paragraphs of [[Mathematics#An_Analytical_Contradiction_in_.22Infinite_Past_Time.22 |An Analytical Contradiction in "Infinite Past Time"]]

=== David Hilbert’s prohibition of C infinities applied to real aggregate structures. ===

[[Mathematics#Summary_of_Hilbert.27s_Prohibition_of_Actual_Infinities |Hilbert's Prohibition of Actual Infinities]]

=== What is real time? ===

[[Mathematics#A_Brief_Explanation_of_Real_Time |A Brief Explanation of Real Time]]

=== The prohibition of a C infinity to real time ===

Implying that past time must be finite and that it must have a beginning, further implying a Creator of past time. See [[Mathematics#Conclusions |Conclusions]]

== Unit H: Why Doesn’t God Need a Creator? ==

[[God is Uncreated]]

An in depth treatment of this material may be found in NPEG Chapter Six Section I.C. It is briefly treated in [http://physicsindialog.org PID Unit 12].

=== No serious philosopher ever suggested that “everything must have a cause,” ===

For this would imply that God needs a cause. See [[God is Uncreated#Serious Metaphysicians Don't Dismiss First Cause |Serious Metaphysicians Don't Dismiss First Cause]]

=== All rigorous logical proofs require that there be at least one uncaused reality. ===

=== All rigorous proofs show that there can only be one uncaused reality ===

(see Unit F).

=== Conclusion of Proof of God Not Needing a Creator ===

All rigorous proofs show that everything in reality besides the one uncaused reality must be caused and that the one uncaused reality must be the cause of all else that is. God does not need to be created – indeed, he must be “that which is uncreated,” otherwise nothing would exist. See [[God is Uncreated#Conclusion |Conclusion]]

== Unit I: Can Atheism be Rational? ==

[[Can Atheism Be Rational?]] (the article of that title).

For a more in depth study of this material, see NPEG Chapter Six, Sections II and III; for a brief lecture presentation, see [http://physicsindialog.org PID Unit 25].

=== It is impossible to rationally disprove the existence of a transcendent being ===

it cannot be done, a-priori, a-posteriori, or through any combination of that. See [[Can_Atheism_Be_Rational%3F#The_Impossibility_of_Disproving_the_Existence_of_God |The Impossibility of Disproving the Existence of God]]

=== A brief response to the problem of suffering – why would God allow suffering if He is all powerful and all loving? ===

(See Units K&L for a much more extended treatment.)

=== A brief Discussion of the Tenuous Rationality of Atheism ===

[[Can_Atheism_Be_Rational%3F#The_Tenuous_Rationality_of_Atheism |The Tenuous Rationality of Atheism]]

=== A response to Freud’s contention that God is the product of wishful thinking. ===

[[Can_Atheism_Be_Rational%3F#Is_Belief_in_God_Mere_Wishful_Thinking.3F |Is Belief in God Mere Wishful Thinking?]]

== Unit J: Why Seek Revelation? ==

[[Reason and Revelation]]

This is not presented in NPEG. For a brief lecture presentation see PID Unit 30.

=== A brief summary of the four sets of evidence for God ===

[[Reason and Revelation#Four Sets of Evidence |Four Sets of Evidence]]

==== The evidence from physics. ====

==== The evidence from the logical proof for the existence of God. ====

==== The evidence from philosophy of mathematics. ====

==== The evidence from near-death experiences and human transcendentality. ====

=== The mutual corroborative effect of these four sets of evidence. ===

=== The complementary picture of God given by these four sets of evidence. ===

=== If reason can probe so deeply, why do we need God to reveal himself (revelation)? ===

There are five basic areas into which reason cannot probe deeply.

==== The heart of God. ====

==== How to pray and worship. ====

==== Specific ethical precepts and attributes of God that cannot be known by reason ====

(e.g. the trinity).

==== God’s inspiration, response to prayer, and redemption of suffering. ====

==== The dynamic of sacred community. ====

=== Toward a definition of love (agape). ===

[[Reason and Revelation#A Definition of Love |A Definition of Love]]

=== Five reflective questions manifesting the unconditional love of God and his desire to be with us empathetically.===

=== God as Emmanuel ===

[[Reason and Revelation#Six Questions Toward Emmanuel |Six Questions Toward Emmanuel]]

== Unit K: Why Would God Allow Suffering from Humans? ==

[[Suffering Caused by Humans]]

This is only briefly treated in NPEG Chapter Six Section III. (See PID Unit 25-27.)

=== If our love is to be our own (and not merely a program) we must freely choose to love ===

Which means that we must have another choice – namely, “not to love.” But the choice not to love gives rise to the possibility of suffering and evil. See [[Suffering_Caused_by_Humans#The_Intrinsic_Relationship_of_Freedom_and_Love |The Intrinsic Relationship of Freedom and Love]]

=== Responses to special cases concerning suffering caused by humans. ===

[[Suffering_Caused_by_Humans#God_Must_Allow_Loving_Beings_to_Create_Their_Loving_Actions_Anew |Special Cases Discussed]]

== Unit L: Why Does God Allow Suffering from Nature? ==

[[Suffering Caused by Nature]]

This is only briefly treated in NPEG Chapter Six Section III. (See [http://physicsindialog.org PID Unit 26-27].)

=== Suffering is caused by nature because we are born imperfectly into an imperfect world. ===

=== Why would God make an imperfect world? ===

==== To help us to self-initiate ====

development of our purpose in life and our identity (from Level One to Level Four). See [[Suffering_Caused_by_Nature#The_First_Purpose_of_an_Imperfect_World:_Identity_Transformation |Identity Transformation]]

==== To allow us to cultivate the “stoic” virtues ====

[[Suffering_Caused_by_Nature#The_Second_Purpose_of_an_Imperfect_World:_Stoic_Virtues |The Stoic Virtues]] (e.g. courage and self-discipline, etc.)

=== To allow us to develop in love (agape). ===

[[Suffering_Caused_by_Nature#The_Third_Purpose_of_an_Imperfect_World:_Agape |Agape]]

=== To allow us to develop our sense of empathy and compassion. ===

=== To leave room for us to build a better world. ===

[[Suffering_Caused_by_Nature#The_Fourth_Purpose_of_an_Imperfect_World:_Interdependence.2C_Human_Community.2C_and_a_.E2.80.9CBetter_World.E2.80.9D |A Better World]]

=== To leave room for us to build the kingdom of God. ===

[[Suffering_Caused_by_Nature#The_Fifth_Purpose_of_an_Imperfect_World:_Building_the_Kingdom_of_God |The Kingdom of God]]

=== Conclusions about Suffering Well ===

[[Suffering Caused by Nature#Conclusion |Conclusions]]

== Unit M: References ==

[[Believe_in_God_Reference_List]]

A comprehensive bibliography of all the references used in the above twelve units.



{{DEFAULTSORT:Why Believe in God}}
[[Category:Table of Contents]]
[[Category:Intellectual Evangelization]]
[[Category:Supplemental Material]]

Why Believe in God?

2012-05-15T01:44:18Z

David Persyn: /* The extent and limits of scientific method. */ link

Magis God Wiki: "Why Believe in God?"

© Robert J. Spitzer, S.J. Ph.D./Magis Institute July 2011

There is a list of suggested [[Search Terms]] to assist users in quickly finding their topic of interest.

== Unit A: Does Belief in God Enhance Purpose in Life? ==

[[Purpose in Life]]

This material is not in NPEG, but may be found beginning in Unit 26 of [http://physicsindialog.org PID].

=== What produces happiness and purpose in life? ===

[[Purpose_in_Life#Happiness_and_Purpose_in_Life |Happiness and Purpose]]

=== From immediate gratification and surface apparentness to what is pervasive, enduring, and deep. ===

[[Purpose_in_Life#Moving_from_Shallow_to_Deep |Shallowness to Depth]]

=== Four levels of happiness and purpose in life ===

[[Purpose_in_Life#The_Four_Levels |The Four Levels]]

=== Level two identity, the comparison game, and our culture’s source of anxiety. ===

[[Purpose_in_Life#The_Comparison_Game |The Comparison Game]]

=== Two ways out of the comparison game – level three and level four purpose in life. ===

[[Purpose_in_Life#Ending_the_Game |Getting Out of the Game]]

=== Level four purpose and happiness – transcendence and faith. ===

[[Purpose_in_Life#Transcendence |Faith Leading to Transcendence]]

=== Maintaining a level four purpose in life. ===

[[Purpose_in_Life#Maintaining_Transcendence |Maintaining the Transcendent Happiness]]

== Unit B: Is There any Evidence for the Human Soul? ==

This material is not contained in NPEG, but is in Units 20-21 of [http://physicsindialog.org PID].

=== An assessment of peer-reviewed medical studies on near death experiences from the Lancet, the Journal of the American Medical Association, and other studies. ===

[[The Human Soul]] (This is a single article covering the topics below, which are indexed there for quick reference).

=== The definition of “brain death,” alternative explanations, and controlled, longitudinal studies. ===

=== Eight similar characteristics in near-death experiences. ===

[http://magisgodwiki.org/index.php?title=The_Human_Soul#Near-Death_Experiences Characteristics of NDEs].

=== Patients report seeing data that should not have been accessible to them in their brain-dead states, and which is subsequently verifiable (veridical). ===

[http://magisgodwiki.org/index.php/title=The_Human_Soul#The_van_Lommel_et_al_Study The von Lommel Study]. Veridical data established.

=== 80% of blind patients can see during their near-death experience. ===

[http://magisgodwiki.org/index.php/title=The_Human_Soul#The_Kenneth_Ring.2C_et_al_Study_of_Near-Death_Experiences_of_the_Blind The Kenneth Ring Study of NDEs of the Blind].

=== The measurable absence of death anxiety in both children and adults. ===

[http://magisgodwiki.org/index.php?title=The_Human_Soul#Melvin_Morse.2C_MD_.E2.80.93_Study_of_Near-Death_Experiences_of_Children The Melvin Morse Study of NDEs in Children].

=== Encounters with transcendent beings (loving white light, Jesus, deceased relatives, etc.). ===

=== Conclusions of Von Lommel and other studies. ===

[http://magiswiki.org/index.php/The_Human_Soul#Conclusions_Regarding_Near-Death_Experiences Conclusions drawn from the studies].

== Unit C: Is there Evidence of a Human Soul (Transcendentals)? ==

[[The Transcendentals]]

An in depth analysis of this material may be found in NPEG Chapters 7-8 and a lecture presentation may also be found in [http://physicsindialog.org PID Units 14-19].

=== The desire for complete intelligibility and perfect truth. ===

[[The_Transcendentals#I._The_Desire_for_Perfect_and_Unconditional_Truth |The Desire for Perfect and Unconditional Truth]]

=== The desire for perfect love and empathy. ===

[[The_Transcendentals#II._The_Desire_for_Perfect_and_Unconditional_Love |The Desire for Perfect and Unconditional Love]]

=== The desire for perfect justice/goodness. ===

[[The_Transcendentals#III._The_Desire_for_Perfect_and_Unconditional_Goodness.2FJustice |The Desire for Perfect and Unconditional Goodness & Justice]]

=== The desire for perfect beauty. ===

[[The_Transcendentals#IV._The_Desire_for_Perfect_and_Unconditional_Beauty |The Desire for Perfect and Unconditional Beauty]]

=== The desire for perfect being/home. ===

[[The_Transcendentals#V._The_Desire_for_Perfect_and_Unconditional_Being.2FHome |The Desire for Perfect and Unconditional Being & Home]]

=== The five transcendental desires and the transmateriality of human consciousness. ===

[[The_Transcendentals#Conclusion |Conclusion]]

=== The five transcendental desires and God. ===

== Unit D: Is there Evidence of God from Science? ==

[[Cosmology]] incuding Physics.

A more in depth assessment of this material may be found in NPEG Chapters 1-2 and the Postscript to Part One, and a lecture presentation may be found in [http://physicsindialog.org PID Units 1-5].

=== The extent and limits of scientific method. ===

[http://www.magisgodwiki.org/index.php/title=Cosmology#Can_Science_Give_Evidence_of_a_Creation_and_Supernatural_Design.3F Limits of Science].

=== The standard big bang model. ===

[http://www.magiswiki.org/index.php/Cosmology#Was_the_Big_Bang_the_Beginning.3F The Big Bang and the Beginning].

=== Was the big bang the beginning of the universe (13.7 billion years ago)? ===

[http://www.magiswiki.org/index.php/Cosmology#A_Beginning_in_Physics_Implies_A_Creation_of_the_Universe Beginning of the Universe].

=== The significance of a beginning in physics – implications of creation. ===

[http://www.magiswiki.org/index.php/Cosmology#What_is_The_Evidence_for_a_Beginning_and_what_are_the_Implications_for_Creation.3F Implications of Creation].

=== Three models for a pre-big-bang period. ===

==== The string theory-inflationary multiverse. ====

==== The bouncing universe. ====

==== String theory-higher dimensional bouncing universe. ====

=== Significant evidence that all three models for a pre-big-bang period would have to have a beginning. ===

[http://www.magiswiki.org/index.php/Cosmology#Evidence_of_a_Beginning_from_Space-Time_Geometry_Proofs Space-Time Geometry].

==== The evidence from space-time geometry proofs (Borde, Guth, and Vilenkin). ====

[http://www.magiswiki.org/index.php/Cosmology#The_1994_Borde-Vilenkin_Proof B-V Proof of 1994].

[http://www.magiswiki.org/index.php/Cosmology#Alan_Guth.E2.80.99s_1999_analysis_of_expanding_pre-big-bang_models The Guth Analysis of 1999].

[http://www.magiswiki.org/index.php/Cosmology#The_2003_Borde-Vilenkin-Guth_Theorem_.28the_BVG_Theorem.29: The 2003 BVG Theorem].

==== The evidence from entropy (Penrose, Beckenstein, Banks, Carroll). ====

=== Universal constants, anthropic coincidences, and fine-tuning. ===

[http://www.magiswiki.org/index.php/Cosmology#Implications_of_Supernatural_Intelligence_in_the_Fine-tuning_of_Universal_Constants Fine Tuning].

==== Five examples of fine-tuning. ====

==== Can fine-tuning be explained by pure chance? ====

[http://www.magiswiki.org/index.php/Cosmology#The_high_improbability_of_a_pure_chance_occurrence_of_our_low-entropy_universe Pure Chance Improbable].

==== Two competing explanations: the multiverse and supernatural design. ====

==== Which of these two explanations is most reasonable and responsible? ====

[http://www.magiswiki.org/index.php/Cosmology#The_high_improbability_of_five_other_anthropic_conditions_.28based_on_cosmological_constants.29 Discussion of Probability]

=== Conclusions about the probability of super intelligent Creator. ===

[http://www.magiswiki.org/index.php/Cosmology#Conclusions Conclusions].

== Unit E: Can the Bible be Reconciled with Science? ==

[[The Bible and Science]]

This unit is not found in either NPEG or PID, however, there is a free videocast on [http://www.magisreasonfaith.org/library/videos/video-god-and-modern-physics-module-12/ The Magis website].

=== The bible is not doing science – but theology, sacred truths. ===

[[The_Bible_and_Science#Theology_Not_Science |Theology not Science]]

=== What was the biblical author’s intention in writing Genesis:1:1ff? ===

[[The_Bible_and_Science#The_Intent_of_Genesis |The Intent of Genesis]]

=== Is evolution reconcilable with the bible? ===

[[The_Bible_and_Science#Darwinian_Evolution |The Bible and Evolution]]

=== Human beings are not reducible to merely organic mechanisms, and therefore, cannot be the result of a merely bio-physical process (like evolution). ===

[[The_Bible_and_Science#The_Human_Soul |About the Human Soul]]

==== The trans-material component of human beings must have another origin ====

[[http://www.magiswiki.org/index.php/Why_Believe_in_God%3F#Unit_B:_Is_There_any_Evidence_for_the_Human_Soul.3F | See above, Unit B]].

== Unit F: Can the Existence of God be Logically Proven? ==

[[Metaphysical Proofs]]

This Unit contains only steps I and V of a logical proof for God’s existence. Steps II, III, and IV can be found in NPEG Chapter Three (Sections II through IV) and [http://physicsindialog.org PID Units 6-11]. Those wishing a review of logical syllogisms may want to consult [http://physicsindialog.org PID Units 6-7].

=== Three kinds of publicly corroborateable evidence – a-priori, a-posteriori, and combinations. ===

[[Metaphysical_Proofs#Three_Kinds_of_Publicly_Accessible_Evidence_for_Rational_Proof |Three Kinds of Publicly Corroborateable Evidence]]

=== Step I of the metaphysical proof – proof that there must be at least one unconditioned reality in “all reality.” ===

[[Metaphysical_Proofs#Proof_of_the_Existence_of_at_Least_One_Unconditioned_Reality |Proof of the Existence of at least One Unconditioned Reality]]

=== A record of the missing steps of the proof ===

These can be found in NPEG and [http://physicsindialog.org PID] (as noted above). These steps prove that there can only be one unconditioned reality and that it must be absolutely simple and unrestricted in its power.

===Step V of the proof which shows that the one unconditioned absolutely simple unrestricted reality must be the continuous Creator of all else that is. ===

[[Metaphysical_Proofs#Proof_that_the_One_Unconditioned_Reality_is_the_Continuous_Creator_of_All_Else_that_Is |Proof that the One Unconditioned Reality is the Continuous Creator of All Else that Is]].

== Unit G: Is there Evidence of God from Mathematics? ==
For a more in depth presentation of time and the formal a-priori synthetic argument for a timeless Creator of time, see NPEG Chapter Five and also [http://physicsindialog.org PID Units 22-25].

=== “Infinite past time” is an analytical contradiction. ===

[[Mathematics#An_Analytical_Contradiction_in_.22Infinite_Past_Time.22 |An Analytical Contradiction in "Infinite Past Time"]]

=== Three kinds of infinity (A, B, and C infinities). ===

Covered in the last paragraphs of [[Mathematics#An_Analytical_Contradiction_in_.22Infinite_Past_Time.22 |An Analytical Contradiction in "Infinite Past Time"]]

=== David Hilbert’s prohibition of C infinities applied to real aggregate structures. ===

[[Mathematics#Summary_of_Hilbert.27s_Prohibition_of_Actual_Infinities |Hilbert's Prohibition of Actual Infinities]]

=== What is real time? ===

[[Mathematics#A_Brief_Explanation_of_Real_Time |A Brief Explanation of Real Time]]

=== The prohibition of a C infinity to real time ===

Implying that past time must be finite and that it must have a beginning, further implying a Creator of past time. See [[Mathematics#Conclusions |Conclusions]]

== Unit H: Why Doesn’t God Need a Creator? ==

[[God is Uncreated]]

An in depth treatment of this material may be found in NPEG Chapter Six Section I.C. It is briefly treated in [http://physicsindialog.org PID Unit 12].

=== No serious philosopher ever suggested that “everything must have a cause,” ===

For this would imply that God needs a cause. See [[God is Uncreated#Serious Metaphysicians Don't Dismiss First Cause |Serious Metaphysicians Don't Dismiss First Cause]]

=== All rigorous logical proofs require that there be at least one uncaused reality. ===

=== All rigorous proofs show that there can only be one uncaused reality ===

(see Unit F).

=== Conclusion of Proof of God Not Needing a Creator ===

All rigorous proofs show that everything in reality besides the one uncaused reality must be caused and that the one uncaused reality must be the cause of all else that is. God does not need to be created – indeed, he must be “that which is uncreated,” otherwise nothing would exist. See [[God is Uncreated#Conclusion |Conclusion]]

== Unit I: Can Atheism be Rational? ==

[[Can Atheism Be Rational?]] (the article of that title).

For a more in depth study of this material, see NPEG Chapter Six, Sections II and III; for a brief lecture presentation, see [http://physicsindialog.org PID Unit 25].

=== It is impossible to rationally disprove the existence of a transcendent being ===

it cannot be done, a-priori, a-posteriori, or through any combination of that. See [[Can_Atheism_Be_Rational%3F#The_Impossibility_of_Disproving_the_Existence_of_God |The Impossibility of Disproving the Existence of God]]

=== A brief response to the problem of suffering – why would God allow suffering if He is all powerful and all loving? ===

(See Units K&L for a much more extended treatment.)

=== A brief Discussion of the Tenuous Rationality of Atheism ===

[[Can_Atheism_Be_Rational%3F#The_Tenuous_Rationality_of_Atheism |The Tenuous Rationality of Atheism]]

=== A response to Freud’s contention that God is the product of wishful thinking. ===

[[Can_Atheism_Be_Rational%3F#Is_Belief_in_God_Mere_Wishful_Thinking.3F |Is Belief in God Mere Wishful Thinking?]]

== Unit J: Why Seek Revelation? ==

[[Reason and Revelation]]

This is not presented in NPEG. For a brief lecture presentation see PID Unit 30.

=== A brief summary of the four sets of evidence for God ===

[[Reason and Revelation#Four Sets of Evidence |Four Sets of Evidence]]

==== The evidence from physics. ====

==== The evidence from the logical proof for the existence of God. ====

==== The evidence from philosophy of mathematics. ====

==== The evidence from near-death experiences and human transcendentality. ====

=== The mutual corroborative effect of these four sets of evidence. ===

=== The complementary picture of God given by these four sets of evidence. ===

=== If reason can probe so deeply, why do we need God to reveal himself (revelation)? ===

There are five basic areas into which reason cannot probe deeply.

==== The heart of God. ====

==== How to pray and worship. ====

==== Specific ethical precepts and attributes of God that cannot be known by reason ====

(e.g. the trinity).

==== God’s inspiration, response to prayer, and redemption of suffering. ====

==== The dynamic of sacred community. ====

=== Toward a definition of love (agape). ===

[[Reason and Revelation#A Definition of Love |A Definition of Love]]

=== Five reflective questions manifesting the unconditional love of God and his desire to be with us empathetically.===

=== God as Emmanuel ===

[[Reason and Revelation#Six Questions Toward Emmanuel |Six Questions Toward Emmanuel]]

== Unit K: Why Would God Allow Suffering from Humans? ==

[[Suffering Caused by Humans]]

This is only briefly treated in NPEG Chapter Six Section III. (See PID Unit 25-27.)

=== If our love is to be our own (and not merely a program) we must freely choose to love ===

Which means that we must have another choice – namely, “not to love.” But the choice not to love gives rise to the possibility of suffering and evil. See [[Suffering_Caused_by_Humans#The_Intrinsic_Relationship_of_Freedom_and_Love |The Intrinsic Relationship of Freedom and Love]]

=== Responses to special cases concerning suffering caused by humans. ===

[[Suffering_Caused_by_Humans#God_Must_Allow_Loving_Beings_to_Create_Their_Loving_Actions_Anew |Special Cases Discussed]]

== Unit L: Why Does God Allow Suffering from Nature? ==

[[Suffering Caused by Nature]]

This is only briefly treated in NPEG Chapter Six Section III. (See [http://physicsindialog.org PID Unit 26-27].)

=== Suffering is caused by nature because we are born imperfectly into an imperfect world. ===

=== Why would God make an imperfect world? ===

==== To help us to self-initiate ====

development of our purpose in life and our identity (from Level One to Level Four). See [[Suffering_Caused_by_Nature#The_First_Purpose_of_an_Imperfect_World:_Identity_Transformation |Identity Transformation]]

==== To allow us to cultivate the “stoic” virtues ====

[[Suffering_Caused_by_Nature#The_Second_Purpose_of_an_Imperfect_World:_Stoic_Virtues |The Stoic Virtues]] (e.g. courage and self-discipline, etc.)

=== To allow us to develop in love (agape). ===

[[Suffering_Caused_by_Nature#The_Third_Purpose_of_an_Imperfect_World:_Agape |Agape]]

=== To allow us to develop our sense of empathy and compassion. ===

=== To leave room for us to build a better world. ===

[[Suffering_Caused_by_Nature#The_Fourth_Purpose_of_an_Imperfect_World:_Interdependence.2C_Human_Community.2C_and_a_.E2.80.9CBetter_World.E2.80.9D |A Better World]]

=== To leave room for us to build the kingdom of God. ===

[[Suffering_Caused_by_Nature#The_Fifth_Purpose_of_an_Imperfect_World:_Building_the_Kingdom_of_God |The Kingdom of God]]

=== Conclusions about Suffering Well ===

[[Suffering Caused by Nature#Conclusion |Conclusions]]

== Unit M: References ==

[[Believe_in_God_Reference_List]]

A comprehensive bibliography of all the references used in the above twelve units.



{{DEFAULTSORT:Why Believe in God}}
[[Category:Table of Contents]]
[[Category:Intellectual Evangelization]]
[[Category:Supplemental Material]]

Why Believe in God?

2012-05-15T01:37:07Z

David Persyn: /* Unit B: Is There any Evidence for the Human Soul? */ fix links

Magis God Wiki: "Why Believe in God?"

© Robert J. Spitzer, S.J. Ph.D./Magis Institute July 2011

There is a list of suggested [[Search Terms]] to assist users in quickly finding their topic of interest.

== Unit A: Does Belief in God Enhance Purpose in Life? ==

[[Purpose in Life]]

This material is not in NPEG, but may be found beginning in Unit 26 of [http://physicsindialog.org PID].

=== What produces happiness and purpose in life? ===

[[Purpose_in_Life#Happiness_and_Purpose_in_Life |Happiness and Purpose]]

=== From immediate gratification and surface apparentness to what is pervasive, enduring, and deep. ===

[[Purpose_in_Life#Moving_from_Shallow_to_Deep |Shallowness to Depth]]

=== Four levels of happiness and purpose in life ===

[[Purpose_in_Life#The_Four_Levels |The Four Levels]]

=== Level two identity, the comparison game, and our culture’s source of anxiety. ===

[[Purpose_in_Life#The_Comparison_Game |The Comparison Game]]

=== Two ways out of the comparison game – level three and level four purpose in life. ===

[[Purpose_in_Life#Ending_the_Game |Getting Out of the Game]]

=== Level four purpose and happiness – transcendence and faith. ===

[[Purpose_in_Life#Transcendence |Faith Leading to Transcendence]]

=== Maintaining a level four purpose in life. ===

[[Purpose_in_Life#Maintaining_Transcendence |Maintaining the Transcendent Happiness]]

== Unit B: Is There any Evidence for the Human Soul? ==

This material is not contained in NPEG, but is in Units 20-21 of [http://physicsindialog.org PID].

=== An assessment of peer-reviewed medical studies on near death experiences from the Lancet, the Journal of the American Medical Association, and other studies. ===

[[The Human Soul]] (This is a single article covering the topics below, which are indexed there for quick reference).

=== The definition of “brain death,” alternative explanations, and controlled, longitudinal studies. ===

=== Eight similar characteristics in near-death experiences. ===

[http://magisgodwiki.org/index.php?title=The_Human_Soul#Near-Death_Experiences Characteristics of NDEs].

=== Patients report seeing data that should not have been accessible to them in their brain-dead states, and which is subsequently verifiable (veridical). ===

[http://magisgodwiki.org/index.php/title=The_Human_Soul#The_van_Lommel_et_al_Study The von Lommel Study]. Veridical data established.

=== 80% of blind patients can see during their near-death experience. ===

[http://magisgodwiki.org/index.php/title=The_Human_Soul#The_Kenneth_Ring.2C_et_al_Study_of_Near-Death_Experiences_of_the_Blind The Kenneth Ring Study of NDEs of the Blind].

=== The measurable absence of death anxiety in both children and adults. ===

[http://magisgodwiki.org/index.php?title=The_Human_Soul#Melvin_Morse.2C_MD_.E2.80.93_Study_of_Near-Death_Experiences_of_Children The Melvin Morse Study of NDEs in Children].

=== Encounters with transcendent beings (loving white light, Jesus, deceased relatives, etc.). ===

=== Conclusions of Von Lommel and other studies. ===

[http://magiswiki.org/index.php/The_Human_Soul#Conclusions_Regarding_Near-Death_Experiences Conclusions drawn from the studies].

== Unit C: Is there Evidence of a Human Soul (Transcendentals)? ==

[[The Transcendentals]]

An in depth analysis of this material may be found in NPEG Chapters 7-8 and a lecture presentation may also be found in [http://physicsindialog.org PID Units 14-19].

=== The desire for complete intelligibility and perfect truth. ===

[[The_Transcendentals#I._The_Desire_for_Perfect_and_Unconditional_Truth |The Desire for Perfect and Unconditional Truth]]

=== The desire for perfect love and empathy. ===

[[The_Transcendentals#II._The_Desire_for_Perfect_and_Unconditional_Love |The Desire for Perfect and Unconditional Love]]

=== The desire for perfect justice/goodness. ===

[[The_Transcendentals#III._The_Desire_for_Perfect_and_Unconditional_Goodness.2FJustice |The Desire for Perfect and Unconditional Goodness & Justice]]

=== The desire for perfect beauty. ===

[[The_Transcendentals#IV._The_Desire_for_Perfect_and_Unconditional_Beauty |The Desire for Perfect and Unconditional Beauty]]

=== The desire for perfect being/home. ===

[[The_Transcendentals#V._The_Desire_for_Perfect_and_Unconditional_Being.2FHome |The Desire for Perfect and Unconditional Being & Home]]

=== The five transcendental desires and the transmateriality of human consciousness. ===

[[The_Transcendentals#Conclusion |Conclusion]]

=== The five transcendental desires and God. ===

== Unit D: Is there Evidence of God from Science? ==

[[Cosmology]] incuding Physics.

A more in depth assessment of this material may be found in NPEG Chapters 1-2 and the Postscript to Part One, and a lecture presentation may be found in [http://physicsindialog.org PID Units 1-5].

=== The extent and limits of scientific method. ===

[http://www.magiswiki.org/index.php/Cosmology#Can_Science_Give_Evidence_of_a_Creation_and_Supernatural_Design.3F Limits of Science].

=== The standard big bang model. ===

[http://www.magiswiki.org/index.php/Cosmology#Was_the_Big_Bang_the_Beginning.3F The Big Bang and the Beginning].

=== Was the big bang the beginning of the universe (13.7 billion years ago)? ===

[http://www.magiswiki.org/index.php/Cosmology#A_Beginning_in_Physics_Implies_A_Creation_of_the_Universe Beginning of the Universe].

=== The significance of a beginning in physics – implications of creation. ===

[http://www.magiswiki.org/index.php/Cosmology#What_is_The_Evidence_for_a_Beginning_and_what_are_the_Implications_for_Creation.3F Implications of Creation].

=== Three models for a pre-big-bang period. ===

==== The string theory-inflationary multiverse. ====

==== The bouncing universe. ====

==== String theory-higher dimensional bouncing universe. ====

=== Significant evidence that all three models for a pre-big-bang period would have to have a beginning. ===

[http://www.magiswiki.org/index.php/Cosmology#Evidence_of_a_Beginning_from_Space-Time_Geometry_Proofs Space-Time Geometry].

==== The evidence from space-time geometry proofs (Borde, Guth, and Vilenkin). ====

[http://www.magiswiki.org/index.php/Cosmology#The_1994_Borde-Vilenkin_Proof B-V Proof of 1994].

[http://www.magiswiki.org/index.php/Cosmology#Alan_Guth.E2.80.99s_1999_analysis_of_expanding_pre-big-bang_models The Guth Analysis of 1999].

[http://www.magiswiki.org/index.php/Cosmology#The_2003_Borde-Vilenkin-Guth_Theorem_.28the_BVG_Theorem.29: The 2003 BVG Theorem].

==== The evidence from entropy (Penrose, Beckenstein, Banks, Carroll). ====

=== Universal constants, anthropic coincidences, and fine-tuning. ===

[http://www.magiswiki.org/index.php/Cosmology#Implications_of_Supernatural_Intelligence_in_the_Fine-tuning_of_Universal_Constants Fine Tuning].

==== Five examples of fine-tuning. ====

==== Can fine-tuning be explained by pure chance? ====

[http://www.magiswiki.org/index.php/Cosmology#The_high_improbability_of_a_pure_chance_occurrence_of_our_low-entropy_universe Pure Chance Improbable].

==== Two competing explanations: the multiverse and supernatural design. ====

==== Which of these two explanations is most reasonable and responsible? ====

[http://www.magiswiki.org/index.php/Cosmology#The_high_improbability_of_five_other_anthropic_conditions_.28based_on_cosmological_constants.29 Discussion of Probability]

=== Conclusions about the probability of super intelligent Creator. ===

[http://www.magiswiki.org/index.php/Cosmology#Conclusions Conclusions].

== Unit E: Can the Bible be Reconciled with Science? ==

[[The Bible and Science]]

This unit is not found in either NPEG or PID, however, there is a free videocast on [http://www.magisreasonfaith.org/library/videos/video-god-and-modern-physics-module-12/ The Magis website].

=== The bible is not doing science – but theology, sacred truths. ===

[[The_Bible_and_Science#Theology_Not_Science |Theology not Science]]

=== What was the biblical author’s intention in writing Genesis:1:1ff? ===

[[The_Bible_and_Science#The_Intent_of_Genesis |The Intent of Genesis]]

=== Is evolution reconcilable with the bible? ===

[[The_Bible_and_Science#Darwinian_Evolution |The Bible and Evolution]]

=== Human beings are not reducible to merely organic mechanisms, and therefore, cannot be the result of a merely bio-physical process (like evolution). ===

[[The_Bible_and_Science#The_Human_Soul |About the Human Soul]]

==== The trans-material component of human beings must have another origin ====

[[http://www.magiswiki.org/index.php/Why_Believe_in_God%3F#Unit_B:_Is_There_any_Evidence_for_the_Human_Soul.3F | See above, Unit B]].

== Unit F: Can the Existence of God be Logically Proven? ==

[[Metaphysical Proofs]]

This Unit contains only steps I and V of a logical proof for God’s existence. Steps II, III, and IV can be found in NPEG Chapter Three (Sections II through IV) and [http://physicsindialog.org PID Units 6-11]. Those wishing a review of logical syllogisms may want to consult [http://physicsindialog.org PID Units 6-7].

=== Three kinds of publicly corroborateable evidence – a-priori, a-posteriori, and combinations. ===

[[Metaphysical_Proofs#Three_Kinds_of_Publicly_Accessible_Evidence_for_Rational_Proof |Three Kinds of Publicly Corroborateable Evidence]]

=== Step I of the metaphysical proof – proof that there must be at least one unconditioned reality in “all reality.” ===

[[Metaphysical_Proofs#Proof_of_the_Existence_of_at_Least_One_Unconditioned_Reality |Proof of the Existence of at least One Unconditioned Reality]]

=== A record of the missing steps of the proof ===

These can be found in NPEG and [http://physicsindialog.org PID] (as noted above). These steps prove that there can only be one unconditioned reality and that it must be absolutely simple and unrestricted in its power.

===Step V of the proof which shows that the one unconditioned absolutely simple unrestricted reality must be the continuous Creator of all else that is. ===

[[Metaphysical_Proofs#Proof_that_the_One_Unconditioned_Reality_is_the_Continuous_Creator_of_All_Else_that_Is |Proof that the One Unconditioned Reality is the Continuous Creator of All Else that Is]].

== Unit G: Is there Evidence of God from Mathematics? ==
For a more in depth presentation of time and the formal a-priori synthetic argument for a timeless Creator of time, see NPEG Chapter Five and also [http://physicsindialog.org PID Units 22-25].

=== “Infinite past time” is an analytical contradiction. ===

[[Mathematics#An_Analytical_Contradiction_in_.22Infinite_Past_Time.22 |An Analytical Contradiction in "Infinite Past Time"]]

=== Three kinds of infinity (A, B, and C infinities). ===

Covered in the last paragraphs of [[Mathematics#An_Analytical_Contradiction_in_.22Infinite_Past_Time.22 |An Analytical Contradiction in "Infinite Past Time"]]

=== David Hilbert’s prohibition of C infinities applied to real aggregate structures. ===

[[Mathematics#Summary_of_Hilbert.27s_Prohibition_of_Actual_Infinities |Hilbert's Prohibition of Actual Infinities]]

=== What is real time? ===

[[Mathematics#A_Brief_Explanation_of_Real_Time |A Brief Explanation of Real Time]]

=== The prohibition of a C infinity to real time ===

Implying that past time must be finite and that it must have a beginning, further implying a Creator of past time. See [[Mathematics#Conclusions |Conclusions]]

== Unit H: Why Doesn’t God Need a Creator? ==

[[God is Uncreated]]

An in depth treatment of this material may be found in NPEG Chapter Six Section I.C. It is briefly treated in [http://physicsindialog.org PID Unit 12].

=== No serious philosopher ever suggested that “everything must have a cause,” ===

For this would imply that God needs a cause. See [[God is Uncreated#Serious Metaphysicians Don't Dismiss First Cause |Serious Metaphysicians Don't Dismiss First Cause]]

=== All rigorous logical proofs require that there be at least one uncaused reality. ===

=== All rigorous proofs show that there can only be one uncaused reality ===

(see Unit F).

=== Conclusion of Proof of God Not Needing a Creator ===

All rigorous proofs show that everything in reality besides the one uncaused reality must be caused and that the one uncaused reality must be the cause of all else that is. God does not need to be created – indeed, he must be “that which is uncreated,” otherwise nothing would exist. See [[God is Uncreated#Conclusion |Conclusion]]

== Unit I: Can Atheism be Rational? ==

[[Can Atheism Be Rational?]] (the article of that title).

For a more in depth study of this material, see NPEG Chapter Six, Sections II and III; for a brief lecture presentation, see [http://physicsindialog.org PID Unit 25].

=== It is impossible to rationally disprove the existence of a transcendent being ===

it cannot be done, a-priori, a-posteriori, or through any combination of that. See [[Can_Atheism_Be_Rational%3F#The_Impossibility_of_Disproving_the_Existence_of_God |The Impossibility of Disproving the Existence of God]]

=== A brief response to the problem of suffering – why would God allow suffering if He is all powerful and all loving? ===

(See Units K&L for a much more extended treatment.)

=== A brief Discussion of the Tenuous Rationality of Atheism ===

[[Can_Atheism_Be_Rational%3F#The_Tenuous_Rationality_of_Atheism |The Tenuous Rationality of Atheism]]

=== A response to Freud’s contention that God is the product of wishful thinking. ===

[[Can_Atheism_Be_Rational%3F#Is_Belief_in_God_Mere_Wishful_Thinking.3F |Is Belief in God Mere Wishful Thinking?]]

== Unit J: Why Seek Revelation? ==

[[Reason and Revelation]]

This is not presented in NPEG. For a brief lecture presentation see PID Unit 30.

=== A brief summary of the four sets of evidence for God ===

[[Reason and Revelation#Four Sets of Evidence |Four Sets of Evidence]]

==== The evidence from physics. ====

==== The evidence from the logical proof for the existence of God. ====

==== The evidence from philosophy of mathematics. ====

==== The evidence from near-death experiences and human transcendentality. ====

=== The mutual corroborative effect of these four sets of evidence. ===

=== The complementary picture of God given by these four sets of evidence. ===

=== If reason can probe so deeply, why do we need God to reveal himself (revelation)? ===

There are five basic areas into which reason cannot probe deeply.

==== The heart of God. ====

==== How to pray and worship. ====

==== Specific ethical precepts and attributes of God that cannot be known by reason ====

(e.g. the trinity).

==== God’s inspiration, response to prayer, and redemption of suffering. ====

==== The dynamic of sacred community. ====

=== Toward a definition of love (agape). ===

[[Reason and Revelation#A Definition of Love |A Definition of Love]]

=== Five reflective questions manifesting the unconditional love of God and his desire to be with us empathetically.===

=== God as Emmanuel ===

[[Reason and Revelation#Six Questions Toward Emmanuel |Six Questions Toward Emmanuel]]

== Unit K: Why Would God Allow Suffering from Humans? ==

[[Suffering Caused by Humans]]

This is only briefly treated in NPEG Chapter Six Section III. (See PID Unit 25-27.)

=== If our love is to be our own (and not merely a program) we must freely choose to love ===

Which means that we must have another choice – namely, “not to love.” But the choice not to love gives rise to the possibility of suffering and evil. See [[Suffering_Caused_by_Humans#The_Intrinsic_Relationship_of_Freedom_and_Love |The Intrinsic Relationship of Freedom and Love]]

=== Responses to special cases concerning suffering caused by humans. ===

[[Suffering_Caused_by_Humans#God_Must_Allow_Loving_Beings_to_Create_Their_Loving_Actions_Anew |Special Cases Discussed]]

== Unit L: Why Does God Allow Suffering from Nature? ==

[[Suffering Caused by Nature]]

This is only briefly treated in NPEG Chapter Six Section III. (See [http://physicsindialog.org PID Unit 26-27].)

=== Suffering is caused by nature because we are born imperfectly into an imperfect world. ===

=== Why would God make an imperfect world? ===

==== To help us to self-initiate ====

development of our purpose in life and our identity (from Level One to Level Four). See [[Suffering_Caused_by_Nature#The_First_Purpose_of_an_Imperfect_World:_Identity_Transformation |Identity Transformation]]

==== To allow us to cultivate the “stoic” virtues ====

[[Suffering_Caused_by_Nature#The_Second_Purpose_of_an_Imperfect_World:_Stoic_Virtues |The Stoic Virtues]] (e.g. courage and self-discipline, etc.)

=== To allow us to develop in love (agape). ===

[[Suffering_Caused_by_Nature#The_Third_Purpose_of_an_Imperfect_World:_Agape |Agape]]

=== To allow us to develop our sense of empathy and compassion. ===

=== To leave room for us to build a better world. ===

[[Suffering_Caused_by_Nature#The_Fourth_Purpose_of_an_Imperfect_World:_Interdependence.2C_Human_Community.2C_and_a_.E2.80.9CBetter_World.E2.80.9D |A Better World]]

=== To leave room for us to build the kingdom of God. ===

[[Suffering_Caused_by_Nature#The_Fifth_Purpose_of_an_Imperfect_World:_Building_the_Kingdom_of_God |The Kingdom of God]]

=== Conclusions about Suffering Well ===

[[Suffering Caused by Nature#Conclusion |Conclusions]]

== Unit M: References ==

[[Believe_in_God_Reference_List]]

A comprehensive bibliography of all the references used in the above twelve units.



{{DEFAULTSORT:Why Believe in God}}
[[Category:Table of Contents]]
[[Category:Intellectual Evangelization]]
[[Category:Supplemental Material]]

Why Believe in God?

2012-05-15T01:31:59Z

David Persyn: /* Unit B: Is There any Evidence for the Human Soul? */ link issues

Magis God Wiki: "Why Believe in God?"

© Robert J. Spitzer, S.J. Ph.D./Magis Institute July 2011

There is a list of suggested [[Search Terms]] to assist users in quickly finding their topic of interest.

== Unit A: Does Belief in God Enhance Purpose in Life? ==

[[Purpose in Life]]

This material is not in NPEG, but may be found beginning in Unit 26 of [http://physicsindialog.org PID].

=== What produces happiness and purpose in life? ===

[[Purpose_in_Life#Happiness_and_Purpose_in_Life |Happiness and Purpose]]

=== From immediate gratification and surface apparentness to what is pervasive, enduring, and deep. ===

[[Purpose_in_Life#Moving_from_Shallow_to_Deep |Shallowness to Depth]]

=== Four levels of happiness and purpose in life ===

[[Purpose_in_Life#The_Four_Levels |The Four Levels]]

=== Level two identity, the comparison game, and our culture’s source of anxiety. ===

[[Purpose_in_Life#The_Comparison_Game |The Comparison Game]]

=== Two ways out of the comparison game – level three and level four purpose in life. ===

[[Purpose_in_Life#Ending_the_Game |Getting Out of the Game]]

=== Level four purpose and happiness – transcendence and faith. ===

[[Purpose_in_Life#Transcendence |Faith Leading to Transcendence]]

=== Maintaining a level four purpose in life. ===

[[Purpose_in_Life#Maintaining_Transcendence |Maintaining the Transcendent Happiness]]

== Unit B: Is There any Evidence for the Human Soul? ==

This material is not contained in NPEG, but is in Units 20-21 of [http://physicsindialog.org PID].

=== An assessment of peer-reviewed medical studies on near death experiences from the Lancet, the Journal of the American Medical Association, and other studies. ===

[[The Human Soul]] (This is a single article covering the topics below, which are indexed there for quick reference).

=== The definition of “brain death,” alternative explanations, and controlled, longitudinal studies. ===

=== Eight similar characteristics in near-death experiences. ===

[http://magisgodwiki.org/index.php/The_Human_Soul#Near-Death_Experiences Characteristics of NDEs].

=== Patients report seeing data that should not have been accessible to them in their brain-dead states, and which is subsequently verifiable (veridical). ===

[http://magiswiki.org/index.php/The_Human_Soul#The_van_Lommel_et_al_Study The von Lommel Study]. Veridical data established.

=== 80% of blind patients can see during their near-death experience. ===

[http://magiswiki.org/index.php/The_Human_Soul#The_Kenneth_Ring.2C_et_al_Study_of_Near-Death_Experiences_of_the_Blind The Kenneth Ring Study of NDEs of the Blind].

=== The measurable absence of death anxiety in both children and adults. ===

[http://magiswiki.org/index.php/The_Human_Soul#Melvin_Morse.2C_MD_.E2.80.93_Study_of_Near-Death_Experiences_of_Children The Melvin Morse Study of NDEs in Children].

=== Encounters with transcendent beings (loving white light, Jesus, deceased relatives, etc.). ===

=== Conclusions of Von Lommel and other studies. ===

[http://magiswiki.org/index.php/The_Human_Soul#Conclusions_Regarding_Near-Death_Experiences Conclusions drawn from the studies].

== Unit C: Is there Evidence of a Human Soul (Transcendentals)? ==

[[The Transcendentals]]

An in depth analysis of this material may be found in NPEG Chapters 7-8 and a lecture presentation may also be found in [http://physicsindialog.org PID Units 14-19].

=== The desire for complete intelligibility and perfect truth. ===

[[The_Transcendentals#I._The_Desire_for_Perfect_and_Unconditional_Truth |The Desire for Perfect and Unconditional Truth]]

=== The desire for perfect love and empathy. ===

[[The_Transcendentals#II._The_Desire_for_Perfect_and_Unconditional_Love |The Desire for Perfect and Unconditional Love]]

=== The desire for perfect justice/goodness. ===

[[The_Transcendentals#III._The_Desire_for_Perfect_and_Unconditional_Goodness.2FJustice |The Desire for Perfect and Unconditional Goodness & Justice]]

=== The desire for perfect beauty. ===

[[The_Transcendentals#IV._The_Desire_for_Perfect_and_Unconditional_Beauty |The Desire for Perfect and Unconditional Beauty]]

=== The desire for perfect being/home. ===

[[The_Transcendentals#V._The_Desire_for_Perfect_and_Unconditional_Being.2FHome |The Desire for Perfect and Unconditional Being & Home]]

=== The five transcendental desires and the transmateriality of human consciousness. ===

[[The_Transcendentals#Conclusion |Conclusion]]

=== The five transcendental desires and God. ===

== Unit D: Is there Evidence of God from Science? ==

[[Cosmology]] incuding Physics.

A more in depth assessment of this material may be found in NPEG Chapters 1-2 and the Postscript to Part One, and a lecture presentation may be found in [http://physicsindialog.org PID Units 1-5].

=== The extent and limits of scientific method. ===

[http://www.magiswiki.org/index.php/Cosmology#Can_Science_Give_Evidence_of_a_Creation_and_Supernatural_Design.3F Limits of Science].

=== The standard big bang model. ===

[http://www.magiswiki.org/index.php/Cosmology#Was_the_Big_Bang_the_Beginning.3F The Big Bang and the Beginning].

=== Was the big bang the beginning of the universe (13.7 billion years ago)? ===

[http://www.magiswiki.org/index.php/Cosmology#A_Beginning_in_Physics_Implies_A_Creation_of_the_Universe Beginning of the Universe].

=== The significance of a beginning in physics – implications of creation. ===

[http://www.magiswiki.org/index.php/Cosmology#What_is_The_Evidence_for_a_Beginning_and_what_are_the_Implications_for_Creation.3F Implications of Creation].

=== Three models for a pre-big-bang period. ===

==== The string theory-inflationary multiverse. ====

==== The bouncing universe. ====

==== String theory-higher dimensional bouncing universe. ====

=== Significant evidence that all three models for a pre-big-bang period would have to have a beginning. ===

[http://www.magiswiki.org/index.php/Cosmology#Evidence_of_a_Beginning_from_Space-Time_Geometry_Proofs Space-Time Geometry].

==== The evidence from space-time geometry proofs (Borde, Guth, and Vilenkin). ====

[http://www.magiswiki.org/index.php/Cosmology#The_1994_Borde-Vilenkin_Proof B-V Proof of 1994].

[http://www.magiswiki.org/index.php/Cosmology#Alan_Guth.E2.80.99s_1999_analysis_of_expanding_pre-big-bang_models The Guth Analysis of 1999].

[http://www.magiswiki.org/index.php/Cosmology#The_2003_Borde-Vilenkin-Guth_Theorem_.28the_BVG_Theorem.29: The 2003 BVG Theorem].

==== The evidence from entropy (Penrose, Beckenstein, Banks, Carroll). ====

=== Universal constants, anthropic coincidences, and fine-tuning. ===

[http://www.magiswiki.org/index.php/Cosmology#Implications_of_Supernatural_Intelligence_in_the_Fine-tuning_of_Universal_Constants Fine Tuning].

==== Five examples of fine-tuning. ====

==== Can fine-tuning be explained by pure chance? ====

[http://www.magiswiki.org/index.php/Cosmology#The_high_improbability_of_a_pure_chance_occurrence_of_our_low-entropy_universe Pure Chance Improbable].

==== Two competing explanations: the multiverse and supernatural design. ====

==== Which of these two explanations is most reasonable and responsible? ====

[http://www.magiswiki.org/index.php/Cosmology#The_high_improbability_of_five_other_anthropic_conditions_.28based_on_cosmological_constants.29 Discussion of Probability]

=== Conclusions about the probability of super intelligent Creator. ===

[http://www.magiswiki.org/index.php/Cosmology#Conclusions Conclusions].

== Unit E: Can the Bible be Reconciled with Science? ==

[[The Bible and Science]]

This unit is not found in either NPEG or PID, however, there is a free videocast on [http://www.magisreasonfaith.org/library/videos/video-god-and-modern-physics-module-12/ The Magis website].

=== The bible is not doing science – but theology, sacred truths. ===

[[The_Bible_and_Science#Theology_Not_Science |Theology not Science]]

=== What was the biblical author’s intention in writing Genesis:1:1ff? ===

[[The_Bible_and_Science#The_Intent_of_Genesis |The Intent of Genesis]]

=== Is evolution reconcilable with the bible? ===

[[The_Bible_and_Science#Darwinian_Evolution |The Bible and Evolution]]

=== Human beings are not reducible to merely organic mechanisms, and therefore, cannot be the result of a merely bio-physical process (like evolution). ===

[[The_Bible_and_Science#The_Human_Soul |About the Human Soul]]

==== The trans-material component of human beings must have another origin ====

[[http://www.magiswiki.org/index.php/Why_Believe_in_God%3F#Unit_B:_Is_There_any_Evidence_for_the_Human_Soul.3F | See above, Unit B]].

== Unit F: Can the Existence of God be Logically Proven? ==

[[Metaphysical Proofs]]

This Unit contains only steps I and V of a logical proof for God’s existence. Steps II, III, and IV can be found in NPEG Chapter Three (Sections II through IV) and [http://physicsindialog.org PID Units 6-11]. Those wishing a review of logical syllogisms may want to consult [http://physicsindialog.org PID Units 6-7].

=== Three kinds of publicly corroborateable evidence – a-priori, a-posteriori, and combinations. ===

[[Metaphysical_Proofs#Three_Kinds_of_Publicly_Accessible_Evidence_for_Rational_Proof |Three Kinds of Publicly Corroborateable Evidence]]

=== Step I of the metaphysical proof – proof that there must be at least one unconditioned reality in “all reality.” ===

[[Metaphysical_Proofs#Proof_of_the_Existence_of_at_Least_One_Unconditioned_Reality |Proof of the Existence of at least One Unconditioned Reality]]

=== A record of the missing steps of the proof ===

These can be found in NPEG and [http://physicsindialog.org PID] (as noted above). These steps prove that there can only be one unconditioned reality and that it must be absolutely simple and unrestricted in its power.

===Step V of the proof which shows that the one unconditioned absolutely simple unrestricted reality must be the continuous Creator of all else that is. ===

[[Metaphysical_Proofs#Proof_that_the_One_Unconditioned_Reality_is_the_Continuous_Creator_of_All_Else_that_Is |Proof that the One Unconditioned Reality is the Continuous Creator of All Else that Is]].

== Unit G: Is there Evidence of God from Mathematics? ==
For a more in depth presentation of time and the formal a-priori synthetic argument for a timeless Creator of time, see NPEG Chapter Five and also [http://physicsindialog.org PID Units 22-25].

=== “Infinite past time” is an analytical contradiction. ===

[[Mathematics#An_Analytical_Contradiction_in_.22Infinite_Past_Time.22 |An Analytical Contradiction in "Infinite Past Time"]]

=== Three kinds of infinity (A, B, and C infinities). ===

Covered in the last paragraphs of [[Mathematics#An_Analytical_Contradiction_in_.22Infinite_Past_Time.22 |An Analytical Contradiction in "Infinite Past Time"]]

=== David Hilbert’s prohibition of C infinities applied to real aggregate structures. ===

[[Mathematics#Summary_of_Hilbert.27s_Prohibition_of_Actual_Infinities |Hilbert's Prohibition of Actual Infinities]]

=== What is real time? ===

[[Mathematics#A_Brief_Explanation_of_Real_Time |A Brief Explanation of Real Time]]

=== The prohibition of a C infinity to real time ===

Implying that past time must be finite and that it must have a beginning, further implying a Creator of past time. See [[Mathematics#Conclusions |Conclusions]]

== Unit H: Why Doesn’t God Need a Creator? ==

[[God is Uncreated]]

An in depth treatment of this material may be found in NPEG Chapter Six Section I.C. It is briefly treated in [http://physicsindialog.org PID Unit 12].

=== No serious philosopher ever suggested that “everything must have a cause,” ===

For this would imply that God needs a cause. See [[God is Uncreated#Serious Metaphysicians Don't Dismiss First Cause |Serious Metaphysicians Don't Dismiss First Cause]]

=== All rigorous logical proofs require that there be at least one uncaused reality. ===

=== All rigorous proofs show that there can only be one uncaused reality ===

(see Unit F).

=== Conclusion of Proof of God Not Needing a Creator ===

All rigorous proofs show that everything in reality besides the one uncaused reality must be caused and that the one uncaused reality must be the cause of all else that is. God does not need to be created – indeed, he must be “that which is uncreated,” otherwise nothing would exist. See [[God is Uncreated#Conclusion |Conclusion]]

== Unit I: Can Atheism be Rational? ==

[[Can Atheism Be Rational?]] (the article of that title).

For a more in depth study of this material, see NPEG Chapter Six, Sections II and III; for a brief lecture presentation, see [http://physicsindialog.org PID Unit 25].

=== It is impossible to rationally disprove the existence of a transcendent being ===

it cannot be done, a-priori, a-posteriori, or through any combination of that. See [[Can_Atheism_Be_Rational%3F#The_Impossibility_of_Disproving_the_Existence_of_God |The Impossibility of Disproving the Existence of God]]

=== A brief response to the problem of suffering – why would God allow suffering if He is all powerful and all loving? ===

(See Units K&L for a much more extended treatment.)

=== A brief Discussion of the Tenuous Rationality of Atheism ===

[[Can_Atheism_Be_Rational%3F#The_Tenuous_Rationality_of_Atheism |The Tenuous Rationality of Atheism]]

=== A response to Freud’s contention that God is the product of wishful thinking. ===

[[Can_Atheism_Be_Rational%3F#Is_Belief_in_God_Mere_Wishful_Thinking.3F |Is Belief in God Mere Wishful Thinking?]]

== Unit J: Why Seek Revelation? ==

[[Reason and Revelation]]

This is not presented in NPEG. For a brief lecture presentation see PID Unit 30.

=== A brief summary of the four sets of evidence for God ===

[[Reason and Revelation#Four Sets of Evidence |Four Sets of Evidence]]

==== The evidence from physics. ====

==== The evidence from the logical proof for the existence of God. ====

==== The evidence from philosophy of mathematics. ====

==== The evidence from near-death experiences and human transcendentality. ====

=== The mutual corroborative effect of these four sets of evidence. ===

=== The complementary picture of God given by these four sets of evidence. ===

=== If reason can probe so deeply, why do we need God to reveal himself (revelation)? ===

There are five basic areas into which reason cannot probe deeply.

==== The heart of God. ====

==== How to pray and worship. ====

==== Specific ethical precepts and attributes of God that cannot be known by reason ====

(e.g. the trinity).

==== God’s inspiration, response to prayer, and redemption of suffering. ====

==== The dynamic of sacred community. ====

=== Toward a definition of love (agape). ===

[[Reason and Revelation#A Definition of Love |A Definition of Love]]

=== Five reflective questions manifesting the unconditional love of God and his desire to be with us empathetically.===

=== God as Emmanuel ===

[[Reason and Revelation#Six Questions Toward Emmanuel |Six Questions Toward Emmanuel]]

== Unit K: Why Would God Allow Suffering from Humans? ==

[[Suffering Caused by Humans]]

This is only briefly treated in NPEG Chapter Six Section III. (See PID Unit 25-27.)

=== If our love is to be our own (and not merely a program) we must freely choose to love ===

Which means that we must have another choice – namely, “not to love.” But the choice not to love gives rise to the possibility of suffering and evil. See [[Suffering_Caused_by_Humans#The_Intrinsic_Relationship_of_Freedom_and_Love |The Intrinsic Relationship of Freedom and Love]]

=== Responses to special cases concerning suffering caused by humans. ===

[[Suffering_Caused_by_Humans#God_Must_Allow_Loving_Beings_to_Create_Their_Loving_Actions_Anew |Special Cases Discussed]]

== Unit L: Why Does God Allow Suffering from Nature? ==

[[Suffering Caused by Nature]]

This is only briefly treated in NPEG Chapter Six Section III. (See [http://physicsindialog.org PID Unit 26-27].)

=== Suffering is caused by nature because we are born imperfectly into an imperfect world. ===

=== Why would God make an imperfect world? ===

==== To help us to self-initiate ====

development of our purpose in life and our identity (from Level One to Level Four). See [[Suffering_Caused_by_Nature#The_First_Purpose_of_an_Imperfect_World:_Identity_Transformation |Identity Transformation]]

==== To allow us to cultivate the “stoic” virtues ====

[[Suffering_Caused_by_Nature#The_Second_Purpose_of_an_Imperfect_World:_Stoic_Virtues |The Stoic Virtues]] (e.g. courage and self-discipline, etc.)

=== To allow us to develop in love (agape). ===

[[Suffering_Caused_by_Nature#The_Third_Purpose_of_an_Imperfect_World:_Agape |Agape]]

=== To allow us to develop our sense of empathy and compassion. ===

=== To leave room for us to build a better world. ===

[[Suffering_Caused_by_Nature#The_Fourth_Purpose_of_an_Imperfect_World:_Interdependence.2C_Human_Community.2C_and_a_.E2.80.9CBetter_World.E2.80.9D |A Better World]]

=== To leave room for us to build the kingdom of God. ===

[[Suffering_Caused_by_Nature#The_Fifth_Purpose_of_an_Imperfect_World:_Building_the_Kingdom_of_God |The Kingdom of God]]

=== Conclusions about Suffering Well ===

[[Suffering Caused by Nature#Conclusion |Conclusions]]

== Unit M: References ==

[[Believe_in_God_Reference_List]]

A comprehensive bibliography of all the references used in the above twelve units.



{{DEFAULTSORT:Why Believe in God}}
[[Category:Table of Contents]]
[[Category:Intellectual Evangelization]]
[[Category:Supplemental Material]]

Why Believe in God?

2012-05-15T01:29:04Z

David Persyn: /* Eight similar characteristics in near-death experiences. */ link

Magis God Wiki: "Why Believe in God?"

© Robert J. Spitzer, S.J. Ph.D./Magis Institute July 2011

There is a list of suggested [[Search Terms]] to assist users in quickly finding their topic of interest.

== Unit A: Does Belief in God Enhance Purpose in Life? ==

[[Purpose in Life]]

This material is not in NPEG, but may be found beginning in Unit 26 of [http://physicsindialog.org PID].

=== What produces happiness and purpose in life? ===

[[Purpose_in_Life#Happiness_and_Purpose_in_Life |Happiness and Purpose]]

=== From immediate gratification and surface apparentness to what is pervasive, enduring, and deep. ===

[[Purpose_in_Life#Moving_from_Shallow_to_Deep |Shallowness to Depth]]

=== Four levels of happiness and purpose in life ===

[[Purpose_in_Life#The_Four_Levels |The Four Levels]]

=== Level two identity, the comparison game, and our culture’s source of anxiety. ===

[[Purpose_in_Life#The_Comparison_Game |The Comparison Game]]

=== Two ways out of the comparison game – level three and level four purpose in life. ===

[[Purpose_in_Life#Ending_the_Game |Getting Out of the Game]]

=== Level four purpose and happiness – transcendence and faith. ===

[[Purpose_in_Life#Transcendence |Faith Leading to Transcendence]]

=== Maintaining a level four purpose in life. ===

[[Purpose_in_Life#Maintaining_Transcendence |Maintaining the Transcendent Happiness]]

== Unit B: Is There any Evidence for the Human Soul? ==

This material is not contained in NPEG, but is in Units 20-21 of [http://physicsindialog.org PID].

=== An assessment of peer-reviewed medical studies on near death experiences from the Lancet, the Journal of the American Medical Association, and other studies. ===

[[The Human Soul]] (This is a single article covering the topics below, which are indexed there for quick reference).

=== The definition of “brain death,” alternative explanations, and controlled, longitudinal studies. ===

=== Eight similar characteristics in near-death experiences. ===

[[The_Human_Soul#Near-Death_Experiences | Characteristics of NDEs]].

=== Patients report seeing data that should not have been accessible to them in their brain-dead states, and which is subsequently verifiable (veridical). ===

[http://magiswiki.org/index.php/The_Human_Soul#The_van_Lommel_et_al_Study The von Lommel Study]. Veridical data established.

=== 80% of blind patients can see during their near-death experience. ===

[http://magiswiki.org/index.php/The_Human_Soul#The_Kenneth_Ring.2C_et_al_Study_of_Near-Death_Experiences_of_the_Blind The Kenneth Ring Study of NDEs of the Blind].

=== The measurable absence of death anxiety in both children and adults. ===

[http://magiswiki.org/index.php/The_Human_Soul#Melvin_Morse.2C_MD_.E2.80.93_Study_of_Near-Death_Experiences_of_Children The Melvin Morse Study of NDEs in Children].

=== Encounters with transcendent beings (loving white light, Jesus, deceased relatives, etc.). ===

=== Conclusions of Von Lommel and other studies. ===

[http://magiswiki.org/index.php/The_Human_Soul#Conclusions_Regarding_Near-Death_Experiences Conclusions drawn from the studies].

== Unit C: Is there Evidence of a Human Soul (Transcendentals)? ==

[[The Transcendentals]]

An in depth analysis of this material may be found in NPEG Chapters 7-8 and a lecture presentation may also be found in [http://physicsindialog.org PID Units 14-19].

=== The desire for complete intelligibility and perfect truth. ===

[[The_Transcendentals#I._The_Desire_for_Perfect_and_Unconditional_Truth |The Desire for Perfect and Unconditional Truth]]

=== The desire for perfect love and empathy. ===

[[The_Transcendentals#II._The_Desire_for_Perfect_and_Unconditional_Love |The Desire for Perfect and Unconditional Love]]

=== The desire for perfect justice/goodness. ===

[[The_Transcendentals#III._The_Desire_for_Perfect_and_Unconditional_Goodness.2FJustice |The Desire for Perfect and Unconditional Goodness & Justice]]

=== The desire for perfect beauty. ===

[[The_Transcendentals#IV._The_Desire_for_Perfect_and_Unconditional_Beauty |The Desire for Perfect and Unconditional Beauty]]

=== The desire for perfect being/home. ===

[[The_Transcendentals#V._The_Desire_for_Perfect_and_Unconditional_Being.2FHome |The Desire for Perfect and Unconditional Being & Home]]

=== The five transcendental desires and the transmateriality of human consciousness. ===

[[The_Transcendentals#Conclusion |Conclusion]]

=== The five transcendental desires and God. ===

== Unit D: Is there Evidence of God from Science? ==

[[Cosmology]] incuding Physics.

A more in depth assessment of this material may be found in NPEG Chapters 1-2 and the Postscript to Part One, and a lecture presentation may be found in [http://physicsindialog.org PID Units 1-5].

=== The extent and limits of scientific method. ===

[http://www.magiswiki.org/index.php/Cosmology#Can_Science_Give_Evidence_of_a_Creation_and_Supernatural_Design.3F Limits of Science].

=== The standard big bang model. ===

[http://www.magiswiki.org/index.php/Cosmology#Was_the_Big_Bang_the_Beginning.3F The Big Bang and the Beginning].

=== Was the big bang the beginning of the universe (13.7 billion years ago)? ===

[http://www.magiswiki.org/index.php/Cosmology#A_Beginning_in_Physics_Implies_A_Creation_of_the_Universe Beginning of the Universe].

=== The significance of a beginning in physics – implications of creation. ===

[http://www.magiswiki.org/index.php/Cosmology#What_is_The_Evidence_for_a_Beginning_and_what_are_the_Implications_for_Creation.3F Implications of Creation].

=== Three models for a pre-big-bang period. ===

==== The string theory-inflationary multiverse. ====

==== The bouncing universe. ====

==== String theory-higher dimensional bouncing universe. ====

=== Significant evidence that all three models for a pre-big-bang period would have to have a beginning. ===

[http://www.magiswiki.org/index.php/Cosmology#Evidence_of_a_Beginning_from_Space-Time_Geometry_Proofs Space-Time Geometry].

==== The evidence from space-time geometry proofs (Borde, Guth, and Vilenkin). ====

[http://www.magiswiki.org/index.php/Cosmology#The_1994_Borde-Vilenkin_Proof B-V Proof of 1994].

[http://www.magiswiki.org/index.php/Cosmology#Alan_Guth.E2.80.99s_1999_analysis_of_expanding_pre-big-bang_models The Guth Analysis of 1999].

[http://www.magiswiki.org/index.php/Cosmology#The_2003_Borde-Vilenkin-Guth_Theorem_.28the_BVG_Theorem.29: The 2003 BVG Theorem].

==== The evidence from entropy (Penrose, Beckenstein, Banks, Carroll). ====

=== Universal constants, anthropic coincidences, and fine-tuning. ===

[http://www.magiswiki.org/index.php/Cosmology#Implications_of_Supernatural_Intelligence_in_the_Fine-tuning_of_Universal_Constants Fine Tuning].

==== Five examples of fine-tuning. ====

==== Can fine-tuning be explained by pure chance? ====

[http://www.magiswiki.org/index.php/Cosmology#The_high_improbability_of_a_pure_chance_occurrence_of_our_low-entropy_universe Pure Chance Improbable].

==== Two competing explanations: the multiverse and supernatural design. ====

==== Which of these two explanations is most reasonable and responsible? ====

[http://www.magiswiki.org/index.php/Cosmology#The_high_improbability_of_five_other_anthropic_conditions_.28based_on_cosmological_constants.29 Discussion of Probability]

=== Conclusions about the probability of super intelligent Creator. ===

[http://www.magiswiki.org/index.php/Cosmology#Conclusions Conclusions].

== Unit E: Can the Bible be Reconciled with Science? ==

[[The Bible and Science]]

This unit is not found in either NPEG or PID, however, there is a free videocast on [http://www.magisreasonfaith.org/library/videos/video-god-and-modern-physics-module-12/ The Magis website].

=== The bible is not doing science – but theology, sacred truths. ===

[[The_Bible_and_Science#Theology_Not_Science |Theology not Science]]

=== What was the biblical author’s intention in writing Genesis:1:1ff? ===

[[The_Bible_and_Science#The_Intent_of_Genesis |The Intent of Genesis]]

=== Is evolution reconcilable with the bible? ===

[[The_Bible_and_Science#Darwinian_Evolution |The Bible and Evolution]]

=== Human beings are not reducible to merely organic mechanisms, and therefore, cannot be the result of a merely bio-physical process (like evolution). ===

[[The_Bible_and_Science#The_Human_Soul |About the Human Soul]]

==== The trans-material component of human beings must have another origin ====

[[http://www.magiswiki.org/index.php/Why_Believe_in_God%3F#Unit_B:_Is_There_any_Evidence_for_the_Human_Soul.3F | See above, Unit B]].

== Unit F: Can the Existence of God be Logically Proven? ==

[[Metaphysical Proofs]]

This Unit contains only steps I and V of a logical proof for God’s existence. Steps II, III, and IV can be found in NPEG Chapter Three (Sections II through IV) and [http://physicsindialog.org PID Units 6-11]. Those wishing a review of logical syllogisms may want to consult [http://physicsindialog.org PID Units 6-7].

=== Three kinds of publicly corroborateable evidence – a-priori, a-posteriori, and combinations. ===

[[Metaphysical_Proofs#Three_Kinds_of_Publicly_Accessible_Evidence_for_Rational_Proof |Three Kinds of Publicly Corroborateable Evidence]]

=== Step I of the metaphysical proof – proof that there must be at least one unconditioned reality in “all reality.” ===

[[Metaphysical_Proofs#Proof_of_the_Existence_of_at_Least_One_Unconditioned_Reality |Proof of the Existence of at least One Unconditioned Reality]]

=== A record of the missing steps of the proof ===

These can be found in NPEG and [http://physicsindialog.org PID] (as noted above). These steps prove that there can only be one unconditioned reality and that it must be absolutely simple and unrestricted in its power.

===Step V of the proof which shows that the one unconditioned absolutely simple unrestricted reality must be the continuous Creator of all else that is. ===

[[Metaphysical_Proofs#Proof_that_the_One_Unconditioned_Reality_is_the_Continuous_Creator_of_All_Else_that_Is |Proof that the One Unconditioned Reality is the Continuous Creator of All Else that Is]].

== Unit G: Is there Evidence of God from Mathematics? ==
For a more in depth presentation of time and the formal a-priori synthetic argument for a timeless Creator of time, see NPEG Chapter Five and also [http://physicsindialog.org PID Units 22-25].

=== “Infinite past time” is an analytical contradiction. ===

[[Mathematics#An_Analytical_Contradiction_in_.22Infinite_Past_Time.22 |An Analytical Contradiction in "Infinite Past Time"]]

=== Three kinds of infinity (A, B, and C infinities). ===

Covered in the last paragraphs of [[Mathematics#An_Analytical_Contradiction_in_.22Infinite_Past_Time.22 |An Analytical Contradiction in "Infinite Past Time"]]

=== David Hilbert’s prohibition of C infinities applied to real aggregate structures. ===

[[Mathematics#Summary_of_Hilbert.27s_Prohibition_of_Actual_Infinities |Hilbert's Prohibition of Actual Infinities]]

=== What is real time? ===

[[Mathematics#A_Brief_Explanation_of_Real_Time |A Brief Explanation of Real Time]]

=== The prohibition of a C infinity to real time ===

Implying that past time must be finite and that it must have a beginning, further implying a Creator of past time. See [[Mathematics#Conclusions |Conclusions]]

== Unit H: Why Doesn’t God Need a Creator? ==

[[God is Uncreated]]

An in depth treatment of this material may be found in NPEG Chapter Six Section I.C. It is briefly treated in [http://physicsindialog.org PID Unit 12].

=== No serious philosopher ever suggested that “everything must have a cause,” ===

For this would imply that God needs a cause. See [[God is Uncreated#Serious Metaphysicians Don't Dismiss First Cause |Serious Metaphysicians Don't Dismiss First Cause]]

=== All rigorous logical proofs require that there be at least one uncaused reality. ===

=== All rigorous proofs show that there can only be one uncaused reality ===

(see Unit F).

=== Conclusion of Proof of God Not Needing a Creator ===

All rigorous proofs show that everything in reality besides the one uncaused reality must be caused and that the one uncaused reality must be the cause of all else that is. God does not need to be created – indeed, he must be “that which is uncreated,” otherwise nothing would exist. See [[God is Uncreated#Conclusion |Conclusion]]

== Unit I: Can Atheism be Rational? ==

[[Can Atheism Be Rational?]] (the article of that title).

For a more in depth study of this material, see NPEG Chapter Six, Sections II and III; for a brief lecture presentation, see [http://physicsindialog.org PID Unit 25].

=== It is impossible to rationally disprove the existence of a transcendent being ===

it cannot be done, a-priori, a-posteriori, or through any combination of that. See [[Can_Atheism_Be_Rational%3F#The_Impossibility_of_Disproving_the_Existence_of_God |The Impossibility of Disproving the Existence of God]]

=== A brief response to the problem of suffering – why would God allow suffering if He is all powerful and all loving? ===

(See Units K&L for a much more extended treatment.)

=== A brief Discussion of the Tenuous Rationality of Atheism ===

[[Can_Atheism_Be_Rational%3F#The_Tenuous_Rationality_of_Atheism |The Tenuous Rationality of Atheism]]

=== A response to Freud’s contention that God is the product of wishful thinking. ===

[[Can_Atheism_Be_Rational%3F#Is_Belief_in_God_Mere_Wishful_Thinking.3F |Is Belief in God Mere Wishful Thinking?]]

== Unit J: Why Seek Revelation? ==

[[Reason and Revelation]]

This is not presented in NPEG. For a brief lecture presentation see PID Unit 30.

=== A brief summary of the four sets of evidence for God ===

[[Reason and Revelation#Four Sets of Evidence |Four Sets of Evidence]]

==== The evidence from physics. ====

==== The evidence from the logical proof for the existence of God. ====

==== The evidence from philosophy of mathematics. ====

==== The evidence from near-death experiences and human transcendentality. ====

=== The mutual corroborative effect of these four sets of evidence. ===

=== The complementary picture of God given by these four sets of evidence. ===

=== If reason can probe so deeply, why do we need God to reveal himself (revelation)? ===

There are five basic areas into which reason cannot probe deeply.

==== The heart of God. ====

==== How to pray and worship. ====

==== Specific ethical precepts and attributes of God that cannot be known by reason ====

(e.g. the trinity).

==== God’s inspiration, response to prayer, and redemption of suffering. ====

==== The dynamic of sacred community. ====

=== Toward a definition of love (agape). ===

[[Reason and Revelation#A Definition of Love |A Definition of Love]]

=== Five reflective questions manifesting the unconditional love of God and his desire to be with us empathetically.===

=== God as Emmanuel ===

[[Reason and Revelation#Six Questions Toward Emmanuel |Six Questions Toward Emmanuel]]

== Unit K: Why Would God Allow Suffering from Humans? ==

[[Suffering Caused by Humans]]

This is only briefly treated in NPEG Chapter Six Section III. (See PID Unit 25-27.)

=== If our love is to be our own (and not merely a program) we must freely choose to love ===

Which means that we must have another choice – namely, “not to love.” But the choice not to love gives rise to the possibility of suffering and evil. See [[Suffering_Caused_by_Humans#The_Intrinsic_Relationship_of_Freedom_and_Love |The Intrinsic Relationship of Freedom and Love]]

=== Responses to special cases concerning suffering caused by humans. ===

[[Suffering_Caused_by_Humans#God_Must_Allow_Loving_Beings_to_Create_Their_Loving_Actions_Anew |Special Cases Discussed]]

== Unit L: Why Does God Allow Suffering from Nature? ==

[[Suffering Caused by Nature]]

This is only briefly treated in NPEG Chapter Six Section III. (See [http://physicsindialog.org PID Unit 26-27].)

=== Suffering is caused by nature because we are born imperfectly into an imperfect world. ===

=== Why would God make an imperfect world? ===

==== To help us to self-initiate ====

development of our purpose in life and our identity (from Level One to Level Four). See [[Suffering_Caused_by_Nature#The_First_Purpose_of_an_Imperfect_World:_Identity_Transformation |Identity Transformation]]

==== To allow us to cultivate the “stoic” virtues ====

[[Suffering_Caused_by_Nature#The_Second_Purpose_of_an_Imperfect_World:_Stoic_Virtues |The Stoic Virtues]] (e.g. courage and self-discipline, etc.)

=== To allow us to develop in love (agape). ===

[[Suffering_Caused_by_Nature#The_Third_Purpose_of_an_Imperfect_World:_Agape |Agape]]

=== To allow us to develop our sense of empathy and compassion. ===

=== To leave room for us to build a better world. ===

[[Suffering_Caused_by_Nature#The_Fourth_Purpose_of_an_Imperfect_World:_Interdependence.2C_Human_Community.2C_and_a_.E2.80.9CBetter_World.E2.80.9D |A Better World]]

=== To leave room for us to build the kingdom of God. ===

[[Suffering_Caused_by_Nature#The_Fifth_Purpose_of_an_Imperfect_World:_Building_the_Kingdom_of_God |The Kingdom of God]]

=== Conclusions about Suffering Well ===

[[Suffering Caused by Nature#Conclusion |Conclusions]]

== Unit M: References ==

[[Believe_in_God_Reference_List]]

A comprehensive bibliography of all the references used in the above twelve units.



{{DEFAULTSORT:Why Believe in God}}
[[Category:Table of Contents]]
[[Category:Intellectual Evangelization]]
[[Category:Supplemental Material]]

Why Believe in God?

2012-05-15T01:26:48Z

David Persyn: /* Eight similar characteristics in near-death experiences. */ link

Magis God Wiki: "Why Believe in God?"

© Robert J. Spitzer, S.J. Ph.D./Magis Institute July 2011

There is a list of suggested [[Search Terms]] to assist users in quickly finding their topic of interest.

== Unit A: Does Belief in God Enhance Purpose in Life? ==

[[Purpose in Life]]

This material is not in NPEG, but may be found beginning in Unit 26 of [http://physicsindialog.org PID].

=== What produces happiness and purpose in life? ===

[[Purpose_in_Life#Happiness_and_Purpose_in_Life |Happiness and Purpose]]

=== From immediate gratification and surface apparentness to what is pervasive, enduring, and deep. ===

[[Purpose_in_Life#Moving_from_Shallow_to_Deep |Shallowness to Depth]]

=== Four levels of happiness and purpose in life ===

[[Purpose_in_Life#The_Four_Levels |The Four Levels]]

=== Level two identity, the comparison game, and our culture’s source of anxiety. ===

[[Purpose_in_Life#The_Comparison_Game |The Comparison Game]]

=== Two ways out of the comparison game – level three and level four purpose in life. ===

[[Purpose_in_Life#Ending_the_Game |Getting Out of the Game]]

=== Level four purpose and happiness – transcendence and faith. ===

[[Purpose_in_Life#Transcendence |Faith Leading to Transcendence]]

=== Maintaining a level four purpose in life. ===

[[Purpose_in_Life#Maintaining_Transcendence |Maintaining the Transcendent Happiness]]

== Unit B: Is There any Evidence for the Human Soul? ==

This material is not contained in NPEG, but is in Units 20-21 of [http://physicsindialog.org PID].

=== An assessment of peer-reviewed medical studies on near death experiences from the Lancet, the Journal of the American Medical Association, and other studies. ===

[[The Human Soul]] (This is a single article covering the topics below, which are indexed there for quick reference).

=== The definition of “brain death,” alternative explanations, and controlled, longitudinal studies. ===

=== Eight similar characteristics in near-death experiences. ===

[http://magisgodwiki.org/index.php/The_Human_Soul#Near-Death_Experiences Characteristics of NDEs].

=== Patients report seeing data that should not have been accessible to them in their brain-dead states, and which is subsequently verifiable (veridical). ===

[http://magiswiki.org/index.php/The_Human_Soul#The_van_Lommel_et_al_Study The von Lommel Study]. Veridical data established.

=== 80% of blind patients can see during their near-death experience. ===

[http://magiswiki.org/index.php/The_Human_Soul#The_Kenneth_Ring.2C_et_al_Study_of_Near-Death_Experiences_of_the_Blind The Kenneth Ring Study of NDEs of the Blind].

=== The measurable absence of death anxiety in both children and adults. ===

[http://magiswiki.org/index.php/The_Human_Soul#Melvin_Morse.2C_MD_.E2.80.93_Study_of_Near-Death_Experiences_of_Children The Melvin Morse Study of NDEs in Children].

=== Encounters with transcendent beings (loving white light, Jesus, deceased relatives, etc.). ===

=== Conclusions of Von Lommel and other studies. ===

[http://magiswiki.org/index.php/The_Human_Soul#Conclusions_Regarding_Near-Death_Experiences Conclusions drawn from the studies].

== Unit C: Is there Evidence of a Human Soul (Transcendentals)? ==

[[The Transcendentals]]

An in depth analysis of this material may be found in NPEG Chapters 7-8 and a lecture presentation may also be found in [http://physicsindialog.org PID Units 14-19].

=== The desire for complete intelligibility and perfect truth. ===

[[The_Transcendentals#I._The_Desire_for_Perfect_and_Unconditional_Truth |The Desire for Perfect and Unconditional Truth]]

=== The desire for perfect love and empathy. ===

[[The_Transcendentals#II._The_Desire_for_Perfect_and_Unconditional_Love |The Desire for Perfect and Unconditional Love]]

=== The desire for perfect justice/goodness. ===

[[The_Transcendentals#III._The_Desire_for_Perfect_and_Unconditional_Goodness.2FJustice |The Desire for Perfect and Unconditional Goodness & Justice]]

=== The desire for perfect beauty. ===

[[The_Transcendentals#IV._The_Desire_for_Perfect_and_Unconditional_Beauty |The Desire for Perfect and Unconditional Beauty]]

=== The desire for perfect being/home. ===

[[The_Transcendentals#V._The_Desire_for_Perfect_and_Unconditional_Being.2FHome |The Desire for Perfect and Unconditional Being & Home]]

=== The five transcendental desires and the transmateriality of human consciousness. ===

[[The_Transcendentals#Conclusion |Conclusion]]

=== The five transcendental desires and God. ===

== Unit D: Is there Evidence of God from Science? ==

[[Cosmology]] incuding Physics.

A more in depth assessment of this material may be found in NPEG Chapters 1-2 and the Postscript to Part One, and a lecture presentation may be found in [http://physicsindialog.org PID Units 1-5].

=== The extent and limits of scientific method. ===

[http://www.magiswiki.org/index.php/Cosmology#Can_Science_Give_Evidence_of_a_Creation_and_Supernatural_Design.3F Limits of Science].

=== The standard big bang model. ===

[http://www.magiswiki.org/index.php/Cosmology#Was_the_Big_Bang_the_Beginning.3F The Big Bang and the Beginning].

=== Was the big bang the beginning of the universe (13.7 billion years ago)? ===

[http://www.magiswiki.org/index.php/Cosmology#A_Beginning_in_Physics_Implies_A_Creation_of_the_Universe Beginning of the Universe].

=== The significance of a beginning in physics – implications of creation. ===

[http://www.magiswiki.org/index.php/Cosmology#What_is_The_Evidence_for_a_Beginning_and_what_are_the_Implications_for_Creation.3F Implications of Creation].

=== Three models for a pre-big-bang period. ===

==== The string theory-inflationary multiverse. ====

==== The bouncing universe. ====

==== String theory-higher dimensional bouncing universe. ====

=== Significant evidence that all three models for a pre-big-bang period would have to have a beginning. ===

[http://www.magiswiki.org/index.php/Cosmology#Evidence_of_a_Beginning_from_Space-Time_Geometry_Proofs Space-Time Geometry].

==== The evidence from space-time geometry proofs (Borde, Guth, and Vilenkin). ====

[http://www.magiswiki.org/index.php/Cosmology#The_1994_Borde-Vilenkin_Proof B-V Proof of 1994].

[http://www.magiswiki.org/index.php/Cosmology#Alan_Guth.E2.80.99s_1999_analysis_of_expanding_pre-big-bang_models The Guth Analysis of 1999].

[http://www.magiswiki.org/index.php/Cosmology#The_2003_Borde-Vilenkin-Guth_Theorem_.28the_BVG_Theorem.29: The 2003 BVG Theorem].

==== The evidence from entropy (Penrose, Beckenstein, Banks, Carroll). ====

=== Universal constants, anthropic coincidences, and fine-tuning. ===

[http://www.magiswiki.org/index.php/Cosmology#Implications_of_Supernatural_Intelligence_in_the_Fine-tuning_of_Universal_Constants Fine Tuning].

==== Five examples of fine-tuning. ====

==== Can fine-tuning be explained by pure chance? ====

[http://www.magiswiki.org/index.php/Cosmology#The_high_improbability_of_a_pure_chance_occurrence_of_our_low-entropy_universe Pure Chance Improbable].

==== Two competing explanations: the multiverse and supernatural design. ====

==== Which of these two explanations is most reasonable and responsible? ====

[http://www.magiswiki.org/index.php/Cosmology#The_high_improbability_of_five_other_anthropic_conditions_.28based_on_cosmological_constants.29 Discussion of Probability]

=== Conclusions about the probability of super intelligent Creator. ===

[http://www.magiswiki.org/index.php/Cosmology#Conclusions Conclusions].

== Unit E: Can the Bible be Reconciled with Science? ==

[[The Bible and Science]]

This unit is not found in either NPEG or PID, however, there is a free videocast on [http://www.magisreasonfaith.org/library/videos/video-god-and-modern-physics-module-12/ The Magis website].

=== The bible is not doing science – but theology, sacred truths. ===

[[The_Bible_and_Science#Theology_Not_Science |Theology not Science]]

=== What was the biblical author’s intention in writing Genesis:1:1ff? ===

[[The_Bible_and_Science#The_Intent_of_Genesis |The Intent of Genesis]]

=== Is evolution reconcilable with the bible? ===

[[The_Bible_and_Science#Darwinian_Evolution |The Bible and Evolution]]

=== Human beings are not reducible to merely organic mechanisms, and therefore, cannot be the result of a merely bio-physical process (like evolution). ===

[[The_Bible_and_Science#The_Human_Soul |About the Human Soul]]

==== The trans-material component of human beings must have another origin ====

[[http://www.magiswiki.org/index.php/Why_Believe_in_God%3F#Unit_B:_Is_There_any_Evidence_for_the_Human_Soul.3F | See above, Unit B]].

== Unit F: Can the Existence of God be Logically Proven? ==

[[Metaphysical Proofs]]

This Unit contains only steps I and V of a logical proof for God’s existence. Steps II, III, and IV can be found in NPEG Chapter Three (Sections II through IV) and [http://physicsindialog.org PID Units 6-11]. Those wishing a review of logical syllogisms may want to consult [http://physicsindialog.org PID Units 6-7].

=== Three kinds of publicly corroborateable evidence – a-priori, a-posteriori, and combinations. ===

[[Metaphysical_Proofs#Three_Kinds_of_Publicly_Accessible_Evidence_for_Rational_Proof |Three Kinds of Publicly Corroborateable Evidence]]

=== Step I of the metaphysical proof – proof that there must be at least one unconditioned reality in “all reality.” ===

[[Metaphysical_Proofs#Proof_of_the_Existence_of_at_Least_One_Unconditioned_Reality |Proof of the Existence of at least One Unconditioned Reality]]

=== A record of the missing steps of the proof ===

These can be found in NPEG and [http://physicsindialog.org PID] (as noted above). These steps prove that there can only be one unconditioned reality and that it must be absolutely simple and unrestricted in its power.

===Step V of the proof which shows that the one unconditioned absolutely simple unrestricted reality must be the continuous Creator of all else that is. ===

[[Metaphysical_Proofs#Proof_that_the_One_Unconditioned_Reality_is_the_Continuous_Creator_of_All_Else_that_Is |Proof that the One Unconditioned Reality is the Continuous Creator of All Else that Is]].

== Unit G: Is there Evidence of God from Mathematics? ==
For a more in depth presentation of time and the formal a-priori synthetic argument for a timeless Creator of time, see NPEG Chapter Five and also [http://physicsindialog.org PID Units 22-25].

=== “Infinite past time” is an analytical contradiction. ===

[[Mathematics#An_Analytical_Contradiction_in_.22Infinite_Past_Time.22 |An Analytical Contradiction in "Infinite Past Time"]]

=== Three kinds of infinity (A, B, and C infinities). ===

Covered in the last paragraphs of [[Mathematics#An_Analytical_Contradiction_in_.22Infinite_Past_Time.22 |An Analytical Contradiction in "Infinite Past Time"]]

=== David Hilbert’s prohibition of C infinities applied to real aggregate structures. ===

[[Mathematics#Summary_of_Hilbert.27s_Prohibition_of_Actual_Infinities |Hilbert's Prohibition of Actual Infinities]]

=== What is real time? ===

[[Mathematics#A_Brief_Explanation_of_Real_Time |A Brief Explanation of Real Time]]

=== The prohibition of a C infinity to real time ===

Implying that past time must be finite and that it must have a beginning, further implying a Creator of past time. See [[Mathematics#Conclusions |Conclusions]]

== Unit H: Why Doesn’t God Need a Creator? ==

[[God is Uncreated]]

An in depth treatment of this material may be found in NPEG Chapter Six Section I.C. It is briefly treated in [http://physicsindialog.org PID Unit 12].

=== No serious philosopher ever suggested that “everything must have a cause,” ===

For this would imply that God needs a cause. See [[God is Uncreated#Serious Metaphysicians Don't Dismiss First Cause |Serious Metaphysicians Don't Dismiss First Cause]]

=== All rigorous logical proofs require that there be at least one uncaused reality. ===

=== All rigorous proofs show that there can only be one uncaused reality ===

(see Unit F).

=== Conclusion of Proof of God Not Needing a Creator ===

All rigorous proofs show that everything in reality besides the one uncaused reality must be caused and that the one uncaused reality must be the cause of all else that is. God does not need to be created – indeed, he must be “that which is uncreated,” otherwise nothing would exist. See [[God is Uncreated#Conclusion |Conclusion]]

== Unit I: Can Atheism be Rational? ==

[[Can Atheism Be Rational?]] (the article of that title).

For a more in depth study of this material, see NPEG Chapter Six, Sections II and III; for a brief lecture presentation, see [http://physicsindialog.org PID Unit 25].

=== It is impossible to rationally disprove the existence of a transcendent being ===

it cannot be done, a-priori, a-posteriori, or through any combination of that. See [[Can_Atheism_Be_Rational%3F#The_Impossibility_of_Disproving_the_Existence_of_God |The Impossibility of Disproving the Existence of God]]

=== A brief response to the problem of suffering – why would God allow suffering if He is all powerful and all loving? ===

(See Units K&L for a much more extended treatment.)

=== A brief Discussion of the Tenuous Rationality of Atheism ===

[[Can_Atheism_Be_Rational%3F#The_Tenuous_Rationality_of_Atheism |The Tenuous Rationality of Atheism]]

=== A response to Freud’s contention that God is the product of wishful thinking. ===

[[Can_Atheism_Be_Rational%3F#Is_Belief_in_God_Mere_Wishful_Thinking.3F |Is Belief in God Mere Wishful Thinking?]]

== Unit J: Why Seek Revelation? ==

[[Reason and Revelation]]

This is not presented in NPEG. For a brief lecture presentation see PID Unit 30.

=== A brief summary of the four sets of evidence for God ===

[[Reason and Revelation#Four Sets of Evidence |Four Sets of Evidence]]

==== The evidence from physics. ====

==== The evidence from the logical proof for the existence of God. ====

==== The evidence from philosophy of mathematics. ====

==== The evidence from near-death experiences and human transcendentality. ====

=== The mutual corroborative effect of these four sets of evidence. ===

=== The complementary picture of God given by these four sets of evidence. ===

=== If reason can probe so deeply, why do we need God to reveal himself (revelation)? ===

There are five basic areas into which reason cannot probe deeply.

==== The heart of God. ====

==== How to pray and worship. ====

==== Specific ethical precepts and attributes of God that cannot be known by reason ====

(e.g. the trinity).

==== God’s inspiration, response to prayer, and redemption of suffering. ====

==== The dynamic of sacred community. ====

=== Toward a definition of love (agape). ===

[[Reason and Revelation#A Definition of Love |A Definition of Love]]

=== Five reflective questions manifesting the unconditional love of God and his desire to be with us empathetically.===

=== God as Emmanuel ===

[[Reason and Revelation#Six Questions Toward Emmanuel |Six Questions Toward Emmanuel]]

== Unit K: Why Would God Allow Suffering from Humans? ==

[[Suffering Caused by Humans]]

This is only briefly treated in NPEG Chapter Six Section III. (See PID Unit 25-27.)

=== If our love is to be our own (and not merely a program) we must freely choose to love ===

Which means that we must have another choice – namely, “not to love.” But the choice not to love gives rise to the possibility of suffering and evil. See [[Suffering_Caused_by_Humans#The_Intrinsic_Relationship_of_Freedom_and_Love |The Intrinsic Relationship of Freedom and Love]]

=== Responses to special cases concerning suffering caused by humans. ===

[[Suffering_Caused_by_Humans#God_Must_Allow_Loving_Beings_to_Create_Their_Loving_Actions_Anew |Special Cases Discussed]]

== Unit L: Why Does God Allow Suffering from Nature? ==

[[Suffering Caused by Nature]]

This is only briefly treated in NPEG Chapter Six Section III. (See [http://physicsindialog.org PID Unit 26-27].)

=== Suffering is caused by nature because we are born imperfectly into an imperfect world. ===

=== Why would God make an imperfect world? ===

==== To help us to self-initiate ====

development of our purpose in life and our identity (from Level One to Level Four). See [[Suffering_Caused_by_Nature#The_First_Purpose_of_an_Imperfect_World:_Identity_Transformation |Identity Transformation]]

==== To allow us to cultivate the “stoic” virtues ====

[[Suffering_Caused_by_Nature#The_Second_Purpose_of_an_Imperfect_World:_Stoic_Virtues |The Stoic Virtues]] (e.g. courage and self-discipline, etc.)

=== To allow us to develop in love (agape). ===

[[Suffering_Caused_by_Nature#The_Third_Purpose_of_an_Imperfect_World:_Agape |Agape]]

=== To allow us to develop our sense of empathy and compassion. ===

=== To leave room for us to build a better world. ===

[[Suffering_Caused_by_Nature#The_Fourth_Purpose_of_an_Imperfect_World:_Interdependence.2C_Human_Community.2C_and_a_.E2.80.9CBetter_World.E2.80.9D |A Better World]]

=== To leave room for us to build the kingdom of God. ===

[[Suffering_Caused_by_Nature#The_Fifth_Purpose_of_an_Imperfect_World:_Building_the_Kingdom_of_God |The Kingdom of God]]

=== Conclusions about Suffering Well ===

[[Suffering Caused by Nature#Conclusion |Conclusions]]

== Unit M: References ==

[[Believe_in_God_Reference_List]]

A comprehensive bibliography of all the references used in the above twelve units.



{{DEFAULTSORT:Why Believe in God}}
[[Category:Table of Contents]]
[[Category:Intellectual Evangelization]]
[[Category:Supplemental Material]]

Purpose in Life

2012-05-11T17:35:58Z

David Persyn: format pic

Can Faith Enhance Purpose in Life?

© Robert J. Spitzer, S.J. Ph.D./Magis Institute July 2011
== Happiness and Purpose in Life ==

In two of my books (Healing the Culture and The Spirit of Leadership), I describe the four levels of happiness in detail. “Happiness” may be defined as the fulfillment of a desire (and “unhappiness” as the non-fulfillment of desire). Thus, if there are four kinds of desire, there will also be four kinds of happiness. Normally, one of these desires (and its satisfaction – “happiness”) becomes dominant and the others become either recessive or ignored. The dominant desire becomes our identity, while recessive ones serve the dominant one. Ignored desires generally frustrate or debilitate us. Even though all four desires are functional, the dominant desire (or identity) tends to control the way we view happiness and success, our goals in life, the way we conduct relationships and view love, our principles and ethics, the ideals we seek, and the way we judge our self-worth, our progress in life, and our very selves. Needless to say, the kind of desire we choose or allow to become dominant is one of the most important decisions in our lives. Therefore, a more systematic explanation of these desires might be helpful to better understand the fourth level (the transcendent, faith, and/or spiritual life).

== Moving from Shallow to Deep ==

Level 1 (laetus) is the desire for externally stimulated or physical pleasures and possessions (e.g., a bowl of linguini or a new Mercedes e-Class with leather upholstery).

Level 2 (felix) is an ego-gratification arising out of the displacement of the outer world toward my inner world (my ego – “I”). Such ego-gratifications might take the form of increases in status, admiration, achievement, power, control, winning, etc., and generally entail a comparative advantage, which can lead to fixation and extremely negative emotive conditions (see below).

Level 3 (beatus) moves in the opposite direction of Level 2. Instead of displacing the outer world toward my inner world (Level 2), it invests my inner world in the outer world, that is, it tries to make an optimal positive difference to the world (e.g., to family, friends, organization, community, church, culture, and kingdom of God) with my time, talents, energy, indeed, my life. It can occur through both action and “being with,” and occurs most powerfully through agape (love without expectation of return – love for the sake of the beloved alone).

Level 4 (sublimis) is the desire for the ultimate, unconditional, or perfect in truth, love, goodness, beauty, and being. Faith identifies perfect and unconditional truth, love, goodness, beauty, and being with God; and so Level 4, for people of faith, is the desire for God. Its fullest expression has been elucidated throughout this book.

== The Four Levels ==

The above four levels of desire (or happiness) may be summarized in the foregoing diagram:

[[File:4_Levels_Happiness.png |thumb|480px|left| A Diagram of the Four Levels of Happiness]]

As one moves up the four levels of desire, one attains more pervasive, enduring, and deep purpose in life. For example, Level 3 or 4 purpose has a much greater effect in the world (more pervasive) than a Level 1 or 2 purpose (which is restricted to self-benefit). Similarly, Level 3 and 4 purpose endures much longer than Level 1 or 2 purpose. Level 4 purpose even endures unto eternity. Finally, Level 3 or 4 purpose is deeper (utilizes our higher powers of creativity, intellection, moral reasoning, love, and spiritual awareness) than Level 1 or 2 purpose. If efficacy in life is determined by the pervasiveness, endurance, and depth of one’s actions, then the higher one moves up the levels of desire, the greater the effectiveness of one’s life.

The only “down side” to this ascendancy of effectiveness and purpose in life is that one has to delay gratification, look beneath and beyond the surface of life, and give up some degree of intensity. It is clear that Level 1 is immediately gratifying, surface apparent, and intense; while Level 4 frequently requires nuance, education, subtlety, delay in gratification, and detachment from intensity. Thus, the spiritual life is marked by a trade-off – in order to attain to universal and eternal effects arising out of our self-transcendent powers of truth, love, goodness, beauty, and being, we frequently have to give up some degree of immediate gratification, intensity, and surface apparentness.

This “trade-off” marks one of the most difficult challenges of the spiritual life, for it is not easy to let go of what is so easily and intensely satisfying. Yet, it is worth it, for the move to Levels 3 and 4 fills us with higher purpose, more enduring (even eternal) effects, and awakens the highest, most sophisticated powers within us; and far more than this, Level 4 introduces us to a deep relationship with the unconditionally loving God. Level 4 simultaneously actualizes our humanity and spiritual life. Saint Augustine phrased it well when he prayed to God, “For Thou hast made us for Thyself, and our hearts are restless until they rest in Thee.”

As noted above, each level of desire can become dominant, and when it does, it becomes our purpose in life and our identity. As shown throughout the book, human beings can only be ultimately satisfied by a Level 4 identity, because our desire for the unconditional and perfect in truth, love, goodness, beauty, and being can never be satiated by what is conditioned or imperfect. Inasmuch as God is the one and only unconditional and perfect Truth-Love-Goodness-Beauty-Being, then Saint Augustine was correct in his prayer.

== The Comparison Game ==

Most of us do not come to this conclusion through an intuitive grasp of the truth of Saint Augustine’s prayer. We normally do it through the school of hard knocks. We obsess upon the material/physical world (Level 1) and the ego/comparative world (Level 2) because they are so immediately gratifying, intense, and surface-apparent. It is hard to loosen our grip on them – even in order to pursue what is more pervasive, enduring, and deep; even to pursue what is eternal, perfect, and unconditional; even to pursue the ultimate fulfillment of our being. Thus, most of us move through a series of trials and tribulations which manifest the pain of over-investing in what is beneath our ultimate dignity and nature. The most popular over-investment in our culture is the one directed at Level 2, and so I will illustrate it here. I have written extensively about other over-investments in both Healing the Culture and The Spirit of Leadership (see References).

Level 2 (ego-gratification) is almost always linked to comparisons. In order to shift the locus of control from the outer world to the inner world, I must constantly ask myself, “Who’s achieving more? Who’s achieving less? Who’s making more progress? Whose making less? Who’s winning? Who’s losing? Who’s got more status? Who’s got less status? Who’s more popular? Who’s less popular? Who’s got more control? Who’s got less control? Who is more admired? Who is less admired?” Notice that these questions are not linked to a pursuit of the truth or to a contributive mentality, or even to an ultimate meaning. One is using these comparative questions to obtain identity. Thus, one is literally living for a Level 2 answer to these questions, and is therefore treating these comparative characteristics as ends in themselves. Hence, one is not achieving in order to contribute to family, colleagues, or the culture; one is achieving as an end in itself, as if achievement gave life meaning. Similarly, one is not seeking status in order to have the credibility to do good for others or even the kingdom of God. One is simply seeking status as an end in itself. The same holds for winning, power, control, and so forth.

Notice further that Level 2 is not bad. Indeed, quite the opposite. The desire for achievement leads to progress in civilization. The desire for respect leads to credibility, confidence, and self-respect. The desire to win leads to competitiveness and the seeking of excellence. Even the desire for power can be used for good purposes. So what’s the problem? The problem is not Level 2, but living for Level 2 as an end in itself. When one does this, then achievement leads to compulsive “getting ahead,” instead of “a good beyond the achievement.” Seeking respect leads to pandering after admiration. Power sought as an end in itself corrupts – and absolute power sought in itself corrupts absolutely.

== Ending the Game ==

A variety of consequences follows from this narrow purpose in life: one may feel emptiness arising out of “underliving life.” The desire to make a positive difference (or even an optimal positive difference) to family, friends, community, organization, colleagues, church, culture, and society (Level 3) goes unfulfilled. One begins to think that one’s life doesn’t really make any difference to the world or to history – “the world is not better off for my having lived.” To make matters worse, one’s desire for the ultimate (in Truth, Love, Goodness, Beauty, and Being – indeed, God) is also unfulfilled. Though one longs for the ultimate with all one’s heart, one’s obsession with Level 2 precludes the pursuit of Level 4. Again, one’s spirit reacts with a profound sense of emptiness, a sense of underliving life, a more and more poignant awareness that “I am wasting the little precious time I have in this world.”

Furthermore, a large array of negative emotions begins to accompany this emptiness. Most of these emotions arise out of a fixation on comparative advantage. Since a dominant Level 2 identity treats status, admiration, power, control, winning, etc. as ends in themselves, it is compelled to seek comparative advantage as its fulfillment. This fixation requires not only that I progress more and more (in status, power, winning, etc.), but also that I have more of it than Joe, Sue, Frank, and Mary. When I do not have more, when I am not better than others, I profoundly believe that my life is either stagnant or slipping away. I feel a profound diminishment in self-worth and success. And so I begin to feel jealousy, a malaise about life, inferiority, loneliness, frustration, and even a terrible sense of self-pity and resentment.

One might respond that these negative emotions do not befall the dominant Level 2 winner, for to the victor go the spoils. While it is true that winners do receive significant ego-gratification, it is worth noting that the above-mentioned emptiness still follows in its wake. Furthermore, such winners are obliged to increase in their Level 2 successes, because they cannot attain any sense of progress without doing so. If they do not continually increase in their successes, they experience the same kinds of malaise, inferiority, jealousy, frustration, and self-pity as non-winners.

Moreover, these winners contract a peculiar disease – namely, the desire to be overtly admired. When perceived inferiors do not acknowledge the winner’s superiority (and their own inferiority by comparison), the winner feels tremendous resentment. “You have not given me the accolades I deserve. And furthermore, you are actually treating yourself as my equal – who do you think you are? It’s outrageous.” This peculiar disease has another aspect which Saint Augustine well recognized, namely, contempt. Dominant Level 2 winners can’t help it. They really do feel that their lives are worth more than other people’s lives, and so they either project contempt or (if they are more enlightened) they are patronizingly condescending (“That’s a nice little project you did there”). In the end, such winners cannot afford to fail; if they do, those whom they have treated with contempt will ravage them.

Furthermore, a winner’s self-image cannot tolerate being embarrassed in front of inferiors (“Spitzer, you pronounced the word ‘spectroscopy’ improperly three times. I cannot believe that a person of your caliber would make such a mistake.” I go to my room, close the door, and play that excruciating tape over and over again in my mind until I want to do myself physical harm, for the physical pain would be so much better than… “I can’t believe I made that mistake in public. Aaarrgghh!”). Dominant Level 2 winners also feel the need to blame others for all their failures (because, in principle, they cannot fail).

In sum, winners better be perfect; but then again, they can’t be altogether perfect. So winners must construct a huge façade and then protect it; but then again, they cannot construct a façade impenetrable enough to keep observant inferiors at bay. So, dominant Level 2 winners better be prepared for contempt, resentment, blame, anger, debilitating ego-sensitivities, and above all, loneliness – for no one (except Mother Theresa, and maybe their own mothers) will want to be around them for any other reason than sheer necessity. The reason I know all these things is because I have struggled and continue to struggle with these negative emotions (from both winning and losing). Nevertheless, I can attest that Level 3 (the contributive/love) and Level 4 (the transcendent/spiritual life) help immeasurably to diminish the pain, emptiness, and obsession of a dominant Level 2 identity. Indeed, as will be seen, the spiritual life can break the grip of a dominant Level 2 identity, and usher in a life of sublimity in God.

== Transcendence ==

In Catholic/Christian religious faith, “living on Level 4” means desiring the unconditionally loving, good, truth-filled, and salvific will of the unconditionally loving God. The proof and explanation of this unconditionally loving, good, truth-filled, and salvific will occurs through the revelation of Jesus Christ and the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

An intellectual choice of Level 4 as one’s fulfillment, purification, and joy, does not necessarily translate into an affective (emotional) choice of Level 4. Thus, we might say that Level 4 is the identity to which we want to move, but find ourselves unable to give up attachments to Levels 1 and 2 (which interfere with the move to Level 4). We can therefore find ourselves in conflicts of desire, failures of resolve, and feelings of inadequacy and guilt. You should not find this daunting because it is part of everyone’s journey toward Level 4. I am not aware of a single person (or a single saint) who found detachment from Levels 1 and 2 easy. However, patience, positive reinforcement, negative reinforcement, and above all, prayer pave the way for progress. Slowly but surely Levels 3 and 4 begin to replace the deep attachment to Levels 1 and 2, bringing with them a decrease in jealousy, fear, anger, egocentricity, self-pity, contempt, inferiority, superiority, ego-sensitivity, and so many other debilitating emotive states. In their place, Level 4 (arising out of a deep relationship with the unconditionally loving God) brings peace, inspiration, zeal, hope, a remarkable efficacy in life, and above all, love (even progress towards unconditional Love). In short, the long journey of detachment from Levels 1 and 2 toward attachment to Levels 3 and 4 brings sanity, peace, and eternal Love.

== Maintaining Transcendence ==

As will by now be clear, the most effective way of moving from Levels 1 and 2 to Levels 3 and 4 is through God’s grace, and the most effective way of allowing God’s grace to affect us is through prayer and the contemplative life.

Introduction

2011-08-04T18:03:09Z

David Persyn:

The Magis God Wiki

© Robert J. Spitzer, S.J., PhD./Magis Institute July 2011

Welcome to The Magis God Wiki, a free research tool written and developed by Robert J. Spitzer, S.J., Ph.D. of the Magis Center of Reason and Faith. We respectfully ask that if you download, print, or use any of this information, you acknowledge the copyright and its author (see above).

This tool was written and designed for in-depth study and research. It is written in a form to present the best of current research, probative studies, detailed analysis, and leads to other significant books, journals, and research materials. It is carefully footnoted.

If you directly reference the material from this encyclopedia, the proper footnote form is:

Spitzer, Robert. 2011. “the name of the article cited” in The Magis Online Encyclopedia of Reason and Faith. http://magiswiki.org/ .

MOERF has two parts:

1. [[Why Believe in God?]]

2. [http://www.magischristwiki.org Why Believe in jesus?]

Both can be accessed directly from the home page of [http://magisgodwiki.org Magis God Wiki].

The first part ( [[Why Believe in God?]] ) is concerned with several themes – evidence for a transcendent, intelligent Creator from physics, logic, philosophy of mathematics, near-death experiences, and human transcendentality; the questionable rationality of atheism, the need for revelation, and a response to the question of why God allows suffering. The second part ( [http://www.magischristwiki.org Why Believe in jesus?] ) is concerned with the Historicity of Jesus and other evidence.

Please note that all twelve units of this part of the encyclopedia are systematically organized so that they can be read one after the other like a book. Graduate students and professionals may want to do this with a view to obtaining a comprehensive knowledge of the interrelationship among the topics.

If you wish to search for any topic related to God and the disciplines between physics, logic, philosophy of mathematics, cosmology, or fundamental theology, simply go to the search window in the upper right hand corner of your screen and insert the word or string in which you are interested. Every use of these words will appear in the sentence in which they are used throughout the encyclopedia. Simply click on those which are of interest.

We hope you find this tool to be a source of information, analysis, and inspiration.

== Other Related Resources ==

There are two complementary resources for the material in [[Why Believe in God?]]:

1. Fr. Spitzer’s book, New Proofs for the Existence of God: Contributions of Contemporary Physics and Philosophy (Eerdmans 2010) – hereafter NPEG. The book may be purchased at a discounted price (about $19.00) from [http://www.amazon.com/New-Proofs-Existence-God-Contributions/dp/0802863833/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1310218614&sr=1-1 Amazon]. The book contains a much more detailed account of the physical evidence for an intelligent Creator, the three logical proofs for the existence of God, the transcendentals, and the analysis of the rationality of atheism. It does not contain the discussion of near-death experiences, the need for revelation, and the rational response to suffering.

2. A thirty-part lecture series (35 minutes per part) presented by Fr. Spitzer (using a Camtasia blackboard) entitled “ [http://physicsindialog.org Physics and Metaphysics in Dialogue] ” – hereafter PID. The lecture series can be purchased via PayPal's secure website for $45.00 at [http://physicsindialog.org Physics in Dialogue]. All the parts of the encyclopedia are in the lecture series. Many students have found that the lecture series is quite helpful for making these materials accessible, giving the big picture, and fitting together its various parts. This lecture series may also be taken for credit (from Benedictine College – North Central Commission on Accreditation) by registering at the [http://physicsindialog.org Physics in Dialogue] site at a cost of $325.00 ($108.33 per credit hour). There is an on-line Q&A and discussion forum. For the course, there are on-line examinations and an on-line Q&A discussion forum (with Ph.D. moderators), study questions, and other resources that accompany the course. If students wish to transfer credit to their own institutions, they may obtain the course syllabus (GS 298 Physics and Metaphysics in Dialogue) and petition their Registrar. It is a general studies (GS) listing, and the Registrar can give elective credit toward graduation or general studies to the course. If students wish to transfer the course into a specific department, such as philosophy or theology, they will have to obtain permission from the department as well as the Registrar.



{{DEFAULTSORT:Introduction}}
[[Category:College Course]]
[[Category:High School Course]]
[[Category:Intellectual Evangelization]]
[[Category:Supplemental Material]]

Introduction

2011-08-04T18:01:53Z

David Persyn:

The Magis God Wiki

© Robert J. Spitzer, S.J., PhD./Magis Institute July 2011

Welcome to The Magis God Wiki, a free research tool written and developed by Robert J. Spitzer, S.J., Ph.D. of the Magis Center of Reason and Faith. We respectfully ask that if you download, print, or use any of this information, you acknowledge the copyright and its author (see above).

This tool was written and designed for in-depth study and research. It is written in a form to present the best of current research, probative studies, detailed analysis, and leads to other significant books, journals, and research materials. It is carefully footnoted.

If you directly reference the material from this encyclopedia, the proper footnote form is:

Spitzer, Robert. 2011. “the name of the article cited” in The Magis Online Encyclopedia of Reason and Faith. http://magiswiki.org/ .

MOERF has two parts:

1. [[Why Believe in God?]]

2. [http://www.magischristwiki.org Why Believe in jesus?]

Both can be accessed directly from the home page of [http://magisgodwiki.org Magis God Wiki].

The first part ( [[Why Believe in God?]] ) is concerned with several themes – evidence for a transcendent, intelligent Creator from physics, logic, philosophy of mathematics, near-death experiences, and human transcendentality; the questionable rationality of atheism, the need for revelation, and a response to the question of why God allows suffering. The second part ( [http://www.magischristwiki.org Why Believe in jesus?] ) is concerned with the Historicity of Jesus and other evidence.

Please note that all twelve units of this part of the encyclopedia are systematically organized so that they can be read one after the other like a book. Graduate students and professionals may want to do this with a view to obtaining a comprehensive knowledge of the interrelationship among the topics.

If you wish to search for any topic related to God and the disciplines between physics, logic, philosophy of mathematics, cosmology, or fundamental theology, simply go to the search window in the upper right hand corner of your screen and insert the word or string in which you are interested. Every use of these words will appear in the sentence in which they are used throughout the encyclopedia. Simply click on those which are of interest.

We hope you find this tool to be a source of information, analysis, and inspiration.

== Other Related Resources ==

There are two complementary resources for the material in [[Why Believe in God]]:

1. Fr. Spitzer’s book, New Proofs for the Existence of God: Contributions of Contemporary Physics and Philosophy (Eerdmans 2010) – hereafter NPEG. The book may be purchased at a discounted price (about $19.00) from [http://www.amazon.com/New-Proofs-Existence-God-Contributions/dp/0802863833/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1310218614&sr=1-1 Amazon]. The book contains a much more detailed account of the physical evidence for an intelligent Creator, the three logical proofs for the existence of God, the transcendentals, and the analysis of the rationality of atheism. It does not contain the discussion of near-death experiences, the need for revelation, and the rational response to suffering.

2. A thirty-part lecture series (35 minutes per part) presented by Fr. Spitzer (using a Camtasia blackboard) entitled “ [http://physicsindialog.org Physics and Metaphysics in Dialogue] ” – hereafter PID. The lecture series can be purchased via PayPal's secure website for $45.00 at [http://physicsindialog.org Physics in Dialogue]. All the parts of the encyclopedia are in the lecture series. Many students have found that the lecture series is quite helpful for making these materials accessible, giving the big picture, and fitting together its various parts. This lecture series may also be taken for credit (from Benedictine College – North Central Commission on Accreditation) by registering at the [http://physicsindialog.org Physics in Dialogue] site at a cost of $325.00 ($108.33 per credit hour). There is an on-line Q&A and discussion forum. For the course, there are on-line examinations and an on-line Q&A discussion forum (with Ph.D. moderators), study questions, and other resources that accompany the course. If students wish to transfer credit to their own institutions, they may obtain the course syllabus (GS 298 Physics and Metaphysics in Dialogue) and petition their Registrar. It is a general studies (GS) listing, and the Registrar can give elective credit toward graduation or general studies to the course. If students wish to transfer the course into a specific department, such as philosophy or theology, they will have to obtain permission from the department as well as the Registrar.



{{DEFAULTSORT:Introduction}}
[[Category:College Course]]
[[Category:High School Course]]
[[Category:Intellectual Evangelization]]
[[Category:Supplemental Material]]

Introduction

2011-08-04T17:59:33Z

David Persyn:

The Magis God Wiki

© Robert J. Spitzer, S.J., PhD./Magis Institute July 2011

Welcome to The Magis God Wiki, a free research tool written and developed by Robert J. Spitzer, S.J., Ph.D. of the Magis Center of Reason and Faith. We respectfully ask that if you download, print, or use any of this information, you acknowledge the copyright and its author (see above).

This tool was written and designed for in-depth study and research. It is written in a form to present the best of current research, probative studies, detailed analysis, and leads to other significant books, journals, and research materials. It is carefully footnoted.

If you directly reference the material from this encyclopedia, the proper footnote form is:

Spitzer, Robert. 2011. “the name of the article cited” in The Magis Online Encyclopedia of Reason and Faith. http://magiswiki.org/ .

MOERF has two parts:

1. [[Why Believe in God?]]

2. [http://www.magischristwiki.org Why Believe in jesus?]

Both can be accessed directly from the home page of [http://magisgodwiki.org Magis God Wiki].

The first part ( [[Why Believe in God?]] ) is concerned with several themes – evidence for a transcendent, intelligent Creator from physics, logic, philosophy of mathematics, near-death experiences, and human transcendentality; the questionable rationality of atheism, the need for revelation, and a response to the question of why God allows suffering. The second part ( [[Why Believe in Jesus?]] ) is concerned with the Historicity of Jesus and other evidence.

Please note that all twelve units of this part of the encyclopedia are systematically organized so that they can be read one after the other like a book. Graduate students and professionals may want to do this with a view to obtaining a comprehensive knowledge of the interrelationship among the topics.

If you wish to search for any topic related to God and the disciplines between physics, logic, philosophy of mathematics, cosmology, or fundamental theology, simply go to the search window in the upper right hand corner of your screen and insert the word or string in which you are interested. Every use of these words will appear in the sentence in which they are used throughout the encyclopedia. Simply click on those which are of interest.

We hope you find this tool to be a source of information, analysis, and inspiration.

== Other Related Resources ==

There are two complementary resources for the material in [[Why Believe in God]]:

1. Fr. Spitzer’s book, New Proofs for the Existence of God: Contributions of Contemporary Physics and Philosophy (Eerdmans 2010) – hereafter NPEG. The book may be purchased at a discounted price (about $19.00) from [http://www.amazon.com/New-Proofs-Existence-God-Contributions/dp/0802863833/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1310218614&sr=1-1 Amazon]. The book contains a much more detailed account of the physical evidence for an intelligent Creator, the three logical proofs for the existence of God, the transcendentals, and the analysis of the rationality of atheism. It does not contain the discussion of near-death experiences, the need for revelation, and the rational response to suffering.

2. A thirty-part lecture series (35 minutes per part) presented by Fr. Spitzer (using a Camtasia blackboard) entitled “ [http://physicsindialog.org Physics and Metaphysics in Dialogue] ” – hereafter PID. The lecture series can be purchased via PayPal's secure website for $45.00 at [http://physicsindialog.org Physics in Dialogue]. All the parts of the encyclopedia are in the lecture series. Many students have found that the lecture series is quite helpful for making these materials accessible, giving the big picture, and fitting together its various parts. This lecture series may also be taken for credit (from Benedictine College – North Central Commission on Accreditation) by registering at the [http://physicsindialog.org Physics in Dialogue] site at a cost of $325.00 ($108.33 per credit hour). There is an on-line Q&A and discussion forum. For the course, there are on-line examinations and an on-line Q&A discussion forum (with Ph.D. moderators), study questions, and other resources that accompany the course. If students wish to transfer credit to their own institutions, they may obtain the course syllabus (GS 298 Physics and Metaphysics in Dialogue) and petition their Registrar. It is a general studies (GS) listing, and the Registrar can give elective credit toward graduation or general studies to the course. If students wish to transfer the course into a specific department, such as philosophy or theology, they will have to obtain permission from the department as well as the Registrar.



{{DEFAULTSORT:Introduction}}
[[Category:College Course]]
[[Category:High School Course]]
[[Category:Intellectual Evangelization]]
[[Category:Supplemental Material]]

File:MagisWikiLogo.png

2011-07-26T23:29:37Z

David Persyn: uploaded a new version of "File:MagisWikiLogo.png"

Logo File for customization of the MagisWiki (MOERF) site

Main Page

2011-07-26T22:39:05Z

David Persyn: /* Getting started */ link

Magis God Wiki

© Robert J. Spitzer, S.J., PhD./Magis Institute July 2011

'''Welcome to the Magis God Wiki'''

This is a free resource containing information from the [http://magisreasonfaith.org Magis Center of Reason and Faith], under the direction of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Spitzer_(priest) Robert J. Spitzer, SJ., PhD.]

== Getting started ==
[[Introduction]]

[[Why Believe in God?]]

Suggested [[Search Terms]]

A short page about [[Copyrights]] and our intellectual property.

The Magis Center for Reason and Faith has also created a site on the [http://magischristwiki.org Historicity of Jesus].

Suffering Caused by Nature

2011-07-26T21:08:57Z

David Persyn: branding

Suffering Caused by Humans

2011-07-26T21:07:25Z

David Persyn: branding

The Magis God Wiki: Suffering Caused by Humans

Why Would God Allow Suffering Caused by Human Beings?

© Robert J. Spitzer S.J. Ph.D./Magis Institute July 2011

'''Introduction'''

The following UNIT assumes:

1. That God has destined human beings for eternal life (see UNITs B&C), that God is unconditional love (see UNIT J), and therefore, that God destines all of us for eternal life in His unconditional love.

2. In view of this, one might ask the question, “Why would a loving God have allowed suffering to occur?”

As will be seen, there are several reasons why God would allow suffering to occur in the world, but if God is unconditional love, then all of them would have to be linked to the advancement of love. Thus, if God allows human beings to cause suffering to one another, He does so for reasons of advancing the free appropriation of love; and if God created an imperfect world with natural laws which indirectly cause suffering (see UNIT L), He would have done so for the same reason. In this view, God does not directly cause suffering (except to impede those headed toward imminent self-destruction), and if He allows suffering, He does so to advance love and to strengthen His invitation to eternal unconditional love.

Well, then, if God does not directly cause suffering (except to impede those headed toward imminent self-destruction), and is therefore only an indirect cause of suffering, what or who are the true direct causes of suffering? There are two major sources beyond ourselves:

1. Other human beings (individuals or groups – e.g., Joe causes suffering to Mary, or the Nazi party causes suffering to Jewish people); and

2. Nature (e.g., tsunamis, earthquakes, draught, disease, old age, etc.).

There are many nuances and combinations of these two sources of suffering. For example, a preventable disease such as leprosy (a natural cause) is not prevented or delimited by a particular country in order that tax money can be used to incite a new war (a human cause); or a tsunami (a natural cause) hits a particular country, but the country next to it decides not to use easily accessible resources to help because the victims are thought to be inferior and undeserving (a human cause). Many forms of psychological suffering are attributable to such combinations. For example, a person might feel depression because of a chemical imbalance (a natural cause), which causes him to be marginalized by people who are fearful of his peculiar conduct (a human cause), which, in turn, exacerbates his depression and its physical symptoms.

I will treat the first source of suffering in UNIT K and the second in UNIT L. Before proceeding to these two sources, it may prove helpful to review the overriding principle indicated in the last UNIT, namely, that God is unconditional love. For if God is unconditional love, then it would seem that He would not want anyone to suffer. Indeed, it would seem that God should be likened to the most compassionate and affectionate of parents who would gladly suffer in the place of his/her child, but realizes that this child must make her own decisions and must deal with the challenges of life as a free human agent. It seems that an unconditionally loving God would suffer with everyone who suffers, and would redeem every scintilla of suffering through His providence for all eternity. It seems that an unconditionally loving God would allow suffering to occur if it could lead to our choice of a more authentic love and life which could last for eternity. The key thing to remember is that God has an eternal perspective, and if the previous UNIT is correct, then He also has an unconditionally loving perspective. Thus, we will want to look for answers to our suffering which ultimately to an eternity of unconditional, authentic love.

If the above conclusions are at least partially valid, then all suffering has some potential to lead to eternal and unconditional love, and it should not be viewed as a complete negative. Suffering may last for a while, but if we try to cooperate with God’s loving intention, it can be turned into love, and that love will last for all eternity. Even incredible tragedies, like the death of a child, may not be ultimately and completely tragic, for if we cooperate with God’s loving (long term) plan, the initial tragedy and loss can become an instrument of transformation and redemption (and furthermore, the child would be in God’s eternally loving arms). In this view (belief in a loving God), God feels the grief of the loving parents who miss their beloved, and He will feel that grief for as long as the parents experience it; but God simultaneously bestows unconditional and eternal love and fulfillment on the child whose loss is the cause of that grief.

In this view, suffering is complex. It includes the genuine experience of deep grief at premature loss. It also includes an experience of faith or hope that God is already bestowing unconditional love upon this child. It also includes an experience of trust that one will be reunited with that child in the eternity of God’s unconditional love. Finally, it includes a journey – a journey with a loving God to find meaning in the tragedy. Perhaps this journey may lead to a greater sense of contribution, to a deepened sense of empathy, humility, and compassion for others and even to a sense of greater trust in God (see Levels Three and Four of Purpose in Life in UNIT A).

This complex phenomenon will undoubtedly lead to complex emotional states. The important point to remember is that an unconditionally loving God would expect us to feel all these emotions in all of their complexity throughout a prolonged period of grieving. It is therefore important for us not to let one feeling become more important or authentic than another so that the “more authentic one” mitigates or cancels the “less authentic one.” We need to experience “grief – profound loss – hope in unconditional love – hope in eternal reuniting – peace beyond all understanding” all at once, in all its complexity, unmitigated, until Unconditional Love can make transparent sense of it all. This is an incredibly hard thing to do; yet it is a path to the transformation of suffering into love, and therefore a path into the horizon of Unconditional Love’s eternity.

I present the above, because I am concerned that the reader might think that the forthcoming presentation about why God might permit suffering is a bit too philosophical, too clinical, too detached from the real emotion and sadness of suffering. This is not my intention. I do not want to whitewash the true pathos of suffering or present an overly clinical view of it. My intention is only to give a sense of the logical parameters surrounding a loving God’s choice to allow suffering in the world, and in so doing to help the reader clarify his or her thinking, avoid needless pain (arising out of thoughts of God’s heartlessness or abandonment), and to obtain optimal benefit and guidance in finding eternal love through suffering.

== The Intrinsic Relationship of Freedom and Love ==

So why would an unconditionally loving God allow human beings to cause suffering to one another? In a phrase, because love requires the freedom to be unloving, and “unlove” frequently causes suffering. In other words, without the capacity to cause suffering (through choices of unlove), human beings could not be truly loving, and this would defeat the purpose of an unconditionally loving God. Why does love require the freedom to choose unlove? If one does not have the freedom to choose unloving behaviors, then one’s loving behaviors are not really chosen – they are merely programmed (like impulses, desires, or instincts). Beings which have no real alternatives are not the true initiators of their actions; they are merely responding to stimuli in the only way they can. Thus, if one’s love is not chosen, one’s love is not one’s own. It originates from a cause other than one’s self.

This insight may be deepened by examining what would happen if God made us incapable of unloving behaviors. Let us suppose that I did not have the capacity to choose unloving behaviors. It would seem that the world would be a better place. After all, I would not have to worry about acting on a greedy impulse that could cause harm to another person; I would not have to worry about insulting my friend out of a sense of fear or pride; I wouldn’t even have to worry about any of the Ten Commandments or the seven deadly sins. I would be incapable of lying, stealing, coveting, egocentricity, arrogance, anger, jealousy, contempt, and all of the other attitudes or dispositions which could cause me to do harm to another human being.

There are a few problems with this “better world,” not the least of which is that my incapacity to act on these harmful dispositions and attitudes would reflect rather poorly on my intelligence and reflectivity – indeed, I would be, well, virtually lobotomized. (Lobotomies were a rather crude but effective means of eliminating overly aggressive impulses in the early days of psychiatry). Imagine, for a moment, that you were not capable of fearing another person’s superior talent – that you were incapable of being jealous or wanting more than you could ever really need. If you were truly incapable of these things, you would either be incapable of imagining them, or you would not have the self-consciousness to want to make those things your own. In either case, your intelligence (characterized by your powers of imagination and self-consciousness) would be manifestly inferior to what it currently is. Without these powers of imagination, you would not be able to create; you would not even be able to identify obstacles to a better life so that those obstacles could be overcome. The limits to your imagination would be the limits to your apprehension of a future; and the limits to your self-consciousness (your awareness of your self) would be the limits to your recognition of your future. You wouldn’t be able to see alternative possibilities in your future – making your apprehension of cause and effect merely a response to stimuli (desire for food → lunge at meat). Cause and effect would certainly not be set within the context of a possible future, but only the satiation of a sensorial appetite or instinct.

Thus, God is caught in a dilemma from the very beginning. If God refuses to create a being capable of unlove, He must also refuse to create a being with the powers of self-consciousness and imagination that would make unlove desirable; and if God refuses to make a being with such powers of self-consciousness and imagination, He would also have to refuse to make a being capable of foresight, self-determination, and creativity. God’s refusal to make an agent capable of unlove is also a refusal to make a self-conscious, creative being. He would be relegated to creating – well – cows and crustaceans.

This supposed self-limitation of God would be contrary to His unconditionally loving nature, for as was implied in UNIT J, it would be just like an unconditionally loving God to want to create “beloveds” with the capacity for love. Now, if God refused to create a creature with self-consciousness and powers of imagination capable of seeing a future beyond mere response to impulse or stimulus (because He wanted to make that creature incapable of unlove), then He could not create a creature capable of love – because love requires freedom of choice, and choice requires the ability to see options in one’s future which may run contrary to impulses and stimuli. Without self-consciousness (the vision of “self”) and the imagination to envision one’s self in opposed future scenarios, one could not be held accountable for anything one did. One would not have the power to choose loving or unloving conduct, because one could not envision one’s self as both doing and not doing such loving or unloving conduct. Choice requires seeing the alternatives. No choice, no accountability – but only response to impulse and stimulus; no accountability, no ownership of an action; no ownership of an action, no ownership of one’s love. Love, in this case, would be merely a response to impulse or stimulus; it would be merely an accident of one’s nature or programming. It would not be chosen. It would not be one’s own. Love which is not one’s own is not love at all. It is merely instinctual behaviors which wind up having positive or beneficial effects. Computers can be programmed to do very positive and beneficial actions (and programmed not to do negative actions), but we certainly would not say that those computers are loving.

In sum, if God were to create a creature incapable of unlove, He would also have to create a creature incapable of love, because the very powers of self-consciousness and imagination enabling one to envision one’s self in the future can lead equally to jealousy or magnanimity, egocentricity or altruism, arrogance or humility, greed or generosity, anger or kindness, hatred or love. To render a being incapable of jealousy is to render it incapable of magnanimity. To render it incapable of egocentricity is to render it incapable of altruism. Ultimately, to render a being incapable of hatred is to render it incapable of love.

==God Must Allow Loving Beings to Create Their Loving Actions Anew ==

There is perhaps a simpler approach to seeing God’s dilemma. If God is to create a being capable of love, then He would have to allow this being to make that love its own; otherwise, the being would be like a marionette – only behaving according to a program or cause other than itself. Now, if God is to allow a being to make love its own, He must allow that being to create its loving actions anew, that is, to have the loving action originate with the self, and not merely with a program or cause other than the self. If this being is to create its loving actions anew, it must have a choice either to perform a loving action or not to perform it. If it does not have such a choice, its actions would originate from programs, instincts, causes, or stimuli other than itself. The “loving” action would not be created anew by the self, and hence, the “loving” action would not belong to the “loving” agent. It would not be love but merely an instinctual, caused, or stimulated behavior with beneficial consequences. Just because my computer’s actions are beneficial to me does not mean it loves me.

God’s dilemma now becomes apparent. If God is to create a loving being, He must create that being with the capacity to create a loving action anew; and if He is to create a being with that capacity, He must create a being with the capacity to choose love or unlove; and if He creates a being with that capacity, He creates the very possibility of unlove leading to suffering.

Note, here, that God does not create the actuality of suffering in the world, but only the possibility of suffering, by creating agents who have the real choice, the real power, to act contrary to love. God must create this possibility; otherwise, He could not create a free agent, and therefore, could not create a loving being – that is, He could not create a beloved with the freedom to love others with a love that is its own. God’s purpose in creating “little beloveds who are loving” would be frustrated.

=== Can God Experience a Dilemma in His Acts of Creation? ===

It may seem somewhat unusual that God could be forced into a dilemma. After all, if God is all-powerful (as God is), it would seem that God could do absolutely anything. But the fallacy of this thought is revealed by a dilemma which most of us heard in grade school – namely, “Could God create a rock so heavy that He couldn’t lift it?” (assuming that God has something akin to a physical body with which to lift rocks). The answer is that the question is absurd because it presents a contradiction.

Recall, for a moment, the principle of non-contradiction – something cannot both be and not be a particular characteristic in the same respect at the same place and time. The word “cannot,” here, means “impossible,” which means it is not possible for this to occur under any circumstances – even through divine power. Impossible is impossible in all circumstances, places, times, and universes.

How can we understand this? Let’s take a block of wood, for example. The principle of non-contradiction tells us that the block of wood cannot be in both the shape of a square (four inscribed right angles) and the shape of a non-square (say, a circle, with no inscribed right angles) in the same respect (i.e., the same area) at the same place and time. In other words, our block of wood cannot be a “square-circle” of the same area in the same place and time. But it’s not only the block of wood; it is also in your mind. Go ahead and try it. Envision a square-circle in the same area at the same place and time. Go ahead. Having difficulties? Of course, you can flip back and forth between square and circle, but you cannot conceive it at the same place and time. The principle of non-contradiction would hold that even God cannot conceive of a square-circle with the same area at the same place and time – that even God would have to flip between square and circle.

Why? Because the inability to combine square and circle is not about the limits of human power or the human mind; it is not about the limitations of divine power or the divine mind; but rather, it is about the exclusionary properties of boundaries – the exclusionary properties of anything which is finite. The first thing one learns in elementary logic is that boundaries (finites) which are on the same generic level exclude one another from themselves. The boundary of “four inscribed right angles” excludes the boundary of “no inscribed right angles” from itself in the same respect at the same place and time. That’s what boundaries do. Thus, when God created any boundary or any form of finitude, He simultaneously created the exclusionary property of that boundary. That is, He created boundary A’s exclusion of “all boundaries non-A” from itself. When God created protons, He also created their exclusion of electrons from themselves in the same respect at the same place and time. So also, when God created wave behaviors, He simultaneously created their exclusion of particle behaviors from themselves in the same respect at the same place and time, etc. That’s the nature of finitude – it cannot be other finites in the same respect at the same place and time. If God did not want to create “exclusion,” He could not have created finite realities.

The only being which could be absolutely inclusive (that is, which would not exclude anything from itself) would be one which has no boundary or finitude whatsoever – it would have no intrinsic boundary or extrinsic boundary. It would not be conditioned by space or time. It would not be restricted to any magnitude or quantity; it would not even have a particular way of acting (like a wave, or a particle, or a proton, or an electron). It would have to be pure acting, pure act, pure power, pure existence, without any way, magnitude, quantity, or spatio-temporal condition – just pure Being. We would call that “God.” The moment being has a boundary, it would cease to be purely inclusive, and would begin to exclude other boundaries from itself; just like squares excluding circles, or proton behaviors excluding electron behaviors, or wave behaviors excluding particle behaviors, etc.

God does not exclude anything from Himself because God is compatible with every boundary. Why? Because He, Himself has no boundaries which would exclude other boundaries. We might now return to the idea of God creating a rock which is so heavy He cannot lift it. We can see now that this is an absurd proposition because God doesn’t have a “body” – a finite physical form – which lifts rocks. All rocks are completely compatible with the divine nature. A finite physical body would have intrinsic limits to its rock-lifting capacity, and therefore, there could be rocks that it could not lift.

Nothing is intrinsically contradictory to God, because God is purely inclusive (pure act, pure power, pure being); but anything other than God (which would have boundaries to action, power, or being) would exclude other boundaries (on the same generic level) from itself in the same respect at the same place and time. God cannot force a violation of the exclusionary property of boundaries – He cannot create a contradiction. The only way God could avoid such exclusions or contradictions is if He didn’t create any boundaries or finitude in the first place. Thus, the moment God created finitude, He subjected Himself to dilemmas, that is, He had to respect the exclusionary property of the boundary that He created. The fact that there cannot be a square-circle is not a problem with divine power or the divine mind; it is a problem with the exclusionary property of the boundary of square or circle. As noted above, it really does not matter where that boundary exists – in a block of wood, a human mind, or the divine mind. Boundaries will exclude other boundaries from themselves on the same generic level in the same respect at the same place and time.

=== The Divine Dilemma in Creating the Capacity for Love ===

Now, we may return to the divine dilemma with which we began. Given that God can get into dilemmas because of the finitude of His creation, it should not be surprising that God cannot create a creature with the capacity to own its own love (to initiate a loving action anew) without simultaneously creating that creature with the choice (capacity) for unlove (with the consequences of human suffering). If God wants to create a truly loving creature (beyond a mere marionette), He will have to create the very possibility of unlove, and the very possibility of human suffering. Human beings took care of the rest. In their God-given autonomy and freedom, they seized upon the possibility of unlove, and so human suffering entered the world.

We cannot be angry with God for creating the possibility of suffering, for we, in fact, made it actual. Moreover, the reason He created the possibility of suffering was to make us “beloveds with the capacity to own our own love”; with the freedom and autonomy to originate love anew; with the capacity to love originatively as He loves. As implied in UNIT J, this incredibly important capacity to love is our happiness, our creativity, our eternal future, and our highest calling. It therefore seems to me that this precious gift of love is worth the price of suffering – even tragic suffering. I believe that God made the right choice, because I wish not only for myself, but for the whole of humanity, a status beyond that of a marionette – a status commensurate with the very love of God.

== Could God Eliminate Human Evil through Continuous Miraculous Intervention? ==

There is one more question which frequently comes up in my discussions with students, namely: “Even if God had to create the possibility of unlove (and suffering) in order to enable us to love, couldn’t He situationally prevent some human evils by a little miracle, or by a little conspiracy of providence? Couldn’t He have seen how awful Hitler was going to be? Couldn’t He have, well, caused Hitler an early demise by some means that at least looked natural? Couldn’t He have anticipated the effect Stalin would have on history and allowed at least one of those assassination attempts to ‘hit home?’ And, in my own life, couldn’t He have seen the devastating effect of Joe X’s action and have caused Joe to get really sick for a week at the time he hurt me so much? And while I’m thinking about it, couldn’t He have also caused a car to hit that man who kidnapped that little girl? And couldn’t He have prevented me (in some very gentle way) from hurting that person who was my lifelong friend? And while I’m at it…. I don’t expect God to make these interventions every day; just on really urgent occasions.”

There can be little doubt that God does intervene in our lives through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit (in our own lives and the lives of people around us), in little and great conspiracies of providence, and even in outright miracles. But these occasions are rare – very rare – because they truly represent interruptions in the free action of human beings. If God interrupted occasions of unlove or evil every time we would like Him to, none of us would have any sense about the efficacy of our actions (or anybody else’s actions, for that matter). We would never know whether, on this particular occasion that I am contemplating unlove, the bolt of lightening would come from the sky in the form of an interruption – say, an inability to speak, a sudden lapse of intellection, a pain in the heart, or getting hit by a car. The whole world would be waiting for a sword of Damocles to drop on them because the frequent occasions of God “stopping evil at the times we would like Him to” would interrupt the flow of human action, and would cause a fear of performing unloving actions. Needless to say, this last point would not only interfere with the freedom for unlove, but also the freedom to love which is inextricably tied to it (as seen above).

In this scenario, God becomes the giant behavioristic conditioner in the sky. He so frequently lowers the boom on anticipated evil that He conditions most people (out of fear or desperation) to avoid evil. Unfortunately those people did not choose to avoid it, but rather reacted to the continuous negative stimulus of attempting it. In the end, God would only have succeeded in creating people who treat their boss with respect even though they utterly hate him; or treat their coworkers with respect out of fear of the dreaded boss. Whatever this is, it is not love. If God wants us to choose love, He has to allow us the real possibility of unlove, a real possibility which is not cloaked in fear, hindrance, and retribution.

But it may be objected, “Well, okay, skip the idea of God preventing evil every time we want Him to. Couldn’t He just make an exception for really terrible cases, like Hitler and Stalin? Couldn’t He just have eradicated them?” Unfortunately, He cannot. Because if Hitlers and Stalins always met an early demise, human beings would eventually figure out that there was a line which cannot be crossed, and an entire science would arise to predict where that line is. We would be like frenzied lawyers attempting to find the precise point at which one crosses the line from legal to illegal – locating excusability and deniability, mounting up the case law to prove that one can go to the very edge without crossing it. When does one become Hitler or Stalin? When does one become a tyrant? Aren’t there many Hitlers and Stalins who just never had the right historical opportunity to put their plans into practice? Or should God lobotomize only those Hitlers and Stalins that do have historical opportunities? Would other Hitlers and Stalins not follow in the old ones’ wakes?

And what about Hitler and Stalin, themselves? Wouldn’t God want to hold out the possibility of their redemption (even though their actions are evil and hateful)? If God’s love is unconditional, then He could not reject even really terrible people if there were even a glimmer of hope for conversion.

We may now draw a general conclusion. The problem with God eradicating only some really terrible people is that human ingenuity will discover it, and when it is discovered, the process of conditioning (on the basis of fear) will begin. People of common sense will not approach the line even though they desire it; and the ones who would approach the line wouldn’t have a chance. They’d be dead or rendered incapacitated before they knew what happened to them. God must avoid this kind of behavioral conditioning in all its forms; for it interferes with our freedom for unlove in all its forms, which ultimately interferes with our freedom to love in all its forms.

God so loves the world, and God so wants us to love one another, that He will respect our freedom, and restrain Himself from interfering with that freedom, even in the most egregious situations and with the most egregiously offensive people. The price of love is not only the capacity for unlove, but the real possibility of unlove.

We now proceed in UNIT L to a discussion of the next extrinsic source of suffering and evil, namely, suffering induced by natural causation.

Reason and Revelation

2011-07-26T21:06:23Z

David Persyn: branding

The Magis God Wiki: Reason and Revelation

Does Reason Need Revelation?

© Robert J. Spitzer, S.J. Ph.D./Magis Institute July 2011

Thus far, in the Magis Encyclopedia of Reason and Faith, we have concerned ourselves with the methods pertinent to reason. These methods are described in UNIT F (Section I) and in NPEG Chapter Six, Section I. In brief, reason proceeds from two kinds of publicly accessible evidence: (1) a-posteriori evidence (empirical evidence—that which can be experienced through the senses of many individuals and thereby publicly corroborated) and (2) a-priori evidence (evidence coming from the principle of non-contradiction which gives rise to the methods of logic, mathematics, and metaphysics). These two kinds of evidence can also be combined through logical syllogism.

== Four Sets of Evidence ==

We have discussed four major sets of evidence for the existence of God (defined as a transcendent intelligent Creator):

1. The evidence for an intelligent Creator of our universe from physics (UNIT D),

2. The evidence for “an absolutely unique, unconditioned, unrestricted, absolutely simple creator of all else that is” necessitated by a logical proof (UNIT F, Section II),

3. Evidence for a timeless Creator of time from a proof coming from the philosophy of mathematics (UNIT G), and

4. Evidence from near-death experiences and five human transcendental desires that indicate a transmaterial human soul implying a transcendent creator of that soul (UNITs B&C).

These four sets of evidence are very different in their origin and nature, and so they corroborate one another.

1. The evidence from physics begins with empirical observations but makes its conclusions through space-time geometry proofs, entropy, and anthropic coincidences.

2. The evidence from the logical proof for God begins with the necessity for at least one unconditioned reality (which cannot be denied without simultaneously denying the existence of everything including oneself), and then proceeds through a series of deductions to the unique, unrestricted and continuously creating attributes of this unconditioned reality.

3. The evidence from philosophy of mathematics begins with the analytical contradiction that infinite past time reduces to an achieved unachievable or a completed non-completeable (intrinsic contradictions), and then concludes that actual infinities (C Infinities) cannot be applied to dynamically aggregating real time because this would negate the efficacy of its non-contemporaneous separation of contradictory states (e.g. the cat alive and dead).

4. Near-death experiences give an experiential and verifiable evidence of survival of human self-consciousness after bodily death which frequently includes encounters with a transcendent being (implying a trans-material soul). This transmaterial soul is also implied by five human transcendental desires.

When these four sets of evidence are summed up in their mutually corroborative relationship, it makes the conclusion about Gods existence quite strong for even if one set of evidence is found to be weak (which I do not believe is the case) the other three sets of evidence would still substantiate the conclusion. John Henry Newman called this coincidence of evidence, “an informal inference,” by which he meant “a strong probability arising out of the convergence of several different antecedent probabilities.”

These four sets of evidence are not only mutually corroborative, but also complementary and aggregative – that is, they add to a more complete picture of the transcendent intelligent Creator.

1. The data from physics indicates a Creator of our universe (or any multiverse in which it might be situated) as well as a supercalculating superintellect which can fine-tune the constants of our universe on the smallest microscopic and largest macroscopic scales;

2. The evidence from the logical proof indicates a unique, absolutely simple, unconditioned, unrestricted, continuous Creator of all else that is;

3. The philosophy of mathematics indicates a timeless Creator of all time; and

4. The near-death experiences and transcendentals indicate a Creator of a transmaterial soul and imply that this Creator is also good and loving.

If we combine all of this, we could conclude that “a unique absolutely simple, super intelligent, timeless, unconditioned, unrestricted, good, and loving continuous Creator of all else that is” exists.

If reason can conclude to all of this, why would we need revelation? Why would God have to reveal Himself in some special way to us? After all, it seems that all of the pertinent characteristics of a transcendent being can be discovered through the evidence and methods of reason. Is there any need for belief or faith? Any need for God to give us some special revelation of Himself beyond reason? The inescapable answer is “yes.”

There are five major reasons why we need God’s special revelation to go beyond the remarkable power of reason:

1. The need to probe the heart of God.

2. The need to know how to pray and worship.

3. The need for specific revelation in the area of dogma and ethics.

4. The need to know the specifics of God’s inspiration, guiding providence, and redemption of suffering.

5. The need for sacred community.

With respect to the first need (the need to know God’s heart), we must go beyond what reason can reveal. Though we may be able to affirm God’s love and goodness from the transcendentals and near-death experiences, there are many unanswered questions. For example, is God’s love unconditional? How does God define “love”? Does that love entail responsibilities? Is it commensurate with our freedom? Does God have feelings of empathy? Affection? Compassion? If so, how do these characteristics manifest themselves?

With respect to the second need (the need to know how to pray and worship), we will want to know how best to respond to the heart of God. If we assume that God has a heart – particularly a heart of unconditional love – then we will want to know how we might open ourselves to Him. If persons are truly interpersonal, then we can never become fully alive, have full meaning, or even be fully aware of ourselves, without being in relationship with other people. The same holds true for God. Yet how can we be in relationship with Him so that we might find full meaning in life and come alive through Him? If prayer is the context for a relationship with God, then we will want to know how to pray – how to pray privately, publicly, how to meditate, contemplate; how to relate to one another through God, and how to relate to God through one another. These matters go far beyond the domain of a-posteriori or a-priori evidence and so if we are to understand them, we will need some form of revelation.

With respect to the third need (the need for specific revelation), there are certain dogmas and ethical precepts that are beyond the domain of reason. There are many doctrines that can be known by reason – the uniqueness and unrestrictedness of God, the transmateriality of human beings, and the importance of love for the meaning of life. Though reason can take us a long way, it cannot probe more specifically and deeply into the divine essence. For example, in Christianity, the Trinity, the Incarnation of the second person of the Trinity, and the Eucharist cannot be proven by assembling a–posteriori and a-priori evidence. These truths are simply beyond our empirical world, our experience, and even the domain of the principle of non-contradiction. Yet these inspired truths are important because they tell us about God’s interpersonal nature and interpersonal love, and this view of God can have a profound effect on the way we view ourselves and the way we live our lives.

Furthermore, inasmuch as ethics flows from the essence or heart of God, then inspired dogmas about God will shed light upon ethics and morality. Though reason can go a long way in the domain of ethics (probing what is good and how to achieve it), it cannot reach the fullness of ethical truth by itself. This can be seen with respect to the four cardinal virtues of Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle (prudence, justice, courage, and temperance). Though they are remarkable in their power to guide and discipline human thought and action, they do not reach the level of self-sacrificial and compassionate love (agape). This most important ethical precept comes to Christians through the revelation of Jesus Christ. Furthermore, though reason can come to a partial definition of “love,” it falls quite short of the beatitudes, which are revelations (of Jesus).

Finally, there are a host of ethical precepts that follow upon this definition of love, and go beyond the domain of natural reason (such as the golden rule). We may see this in the context of the silver rule: “do not do unto others what you would not have them do unto you, that is, avoid unnecessary harm to others, but if a harm is unavoidable, minimize it.” The silver rule probably comes from natural reason because it is to be found in virtually every culture, religion, and secular legal system. The silver rule is considered ethical minimalism because it is the foundation for all other ethical precepts, and furthermore, if someone does not believe it, they are likely to lack conscience (and be sociopathic).

The golden rule goes far beyond the silver rule and is considered ethical maximalism (or altruism) because it declares, “do unto others as you would have them do unto you; that is, do the good for others that you would want done unto you.” This good goes far beyond merely avoiding harm. This rule does not come from a philosopher or poet, but rather, from Jesus, who considers it to be an extension of His teaching about the primacy of love. How could Christians have known that this was the fullest expression of ethics – unless they linked ethics to love? And how could they have known to link ethics to love – unless they knew that love was the highest commandment, and that this highest commandment reflected the very essence of God? And how could they have known this fundamental truth? By reason alone? I do not think so. Ethical reflection over hundreds of years was incapable of discovering either the primacy of love, the altruistic definition of love (the beatitudes – agape), or even the golden rule. Without the revelation of Jesus Christ, it seems doubtful that this essential fulfillment of ethics would have ever been discovered.

This need for revelation continues to the present day, for we need to know how the ethical issues we confront with modern technologies and circumstances can be resolved in light of the beatitudes, the primacy of love, and God’s unconditional love. This is not the domain of reason and it is not the domain of simple intuition or feeling but rather the domain of God’s inspiration working through our minds and hearts – the domain of revelation.

There is one other ethical dimension of revelation that should be considered, namely, the binding nature of moral or ethical precepts. The problem that John Locke elucidated in Reasonableness of Christianity was that the reflection of all moral philosophers throughout the ages does not have any moral authority to bind our minds or consciousness. This binding authority, this sense of ethical duty, needs to have a divine source, and for this reason, without divine authorization, the sense of obligation or duty seems to dissipate. Once again (as Locke discerned) we seem to be in need of revelation, and without this revelation, our responsibility to do what is good, and even our awareness of what is good seems to be significantly diminished.

The fourth need (specifics about inspiration, providence, and suffering) is beyond the domain of reason. Though reason can point to the existence, goodness, and love of God, it cannot derive from this how God works to inspire us, guide us, and redeem our suffering. These areas are essential for the way in which we view ourselves and live our lives. Does God bring good out of our suffering – for us, others, or the community? How does God work? What is His ultimate goal in redeeming suffering? Is suffering inconsistent or consistent with God’s love? Is it devoid of meaning or does it us lead us to deeper virtue, meaning, and love? Does God inspire us? Does He give us interior experiences of Himself – His joy, home, or love? Does God guide us? If so, how does He guide us? What are the signs of that guidance? How can we best follow those signs? Does He guide us in conjunction with others? Does He form a “conspiracy” of grace around us? All of these questions are beyond the domain of reason – they cannot be experienced from the world or deduced from first principles. If we are to get answers we will have to turn to a source of revelation, and put our faith in it. When we do, the proof of the pudding should be in the tasting; for authentic teaching in this area should bear fruit – in the long term.

With respect to the fifth need (the need for religious community), there is considerable evidence that religious community supports the faith and worship of individual members, forms a common ethos through which God can act and teach, and creates a common “face” through which the group can interact with the world.<ref>See Eliade 1987, 1991, 1996.</ref> Yet how can a religious community do all these things without making reference to the other four areas of revelation mentioned above. Now inasmuch as these other four areas of revelation are integral to religious community, and inasmuch as they are beyond the domain of reason, then there will be dimensions of religious community which can only come from a common source of revelation. This common source will have to set up structures, authority, and designate the custodians of the group, its ethos, and its common teaching (doctrine). Evidently, joining a religious community has a very significant impact on the way we view ourselves and live our lives. If we have faith, this decision will be one of the most important we make, and is likely to shape our journey into the eternal.

The above five needs go beyond the scope of reason. Even if one affirms the goodness and love of God in the transcendentals and the specifics of near-death experiences, (e.g. encountering a loving white light or Jesus), one still does not have a clear sense of any of these five important areas of knowledge. Yet each of these areas is exceedingly important in living an authentic, good, and loving life.

We might say that these five areas (the domain of revelation) tell us who God is, and in light of this, how we ought to live, however, the domain of reason cannot go this far – it can tell that God exists and what His attributes are, but it is quite vague on who God is and the how of life. Reason can point to Gods goodness and love. It does not create empathy with God, feelings for God, or an awareness of God’s healing and guiding “hand.” Though reason can give us natural ethics (e.g. the four cardinal virtues), it leaves the specific interpretation of these natural precepts to us.

This gives rise to a fundamental question. If the five areas of revelation are essential to living a life of full meaning, love, and efficacy, and these five areas cannot be known by the light of reason alone, then would a loving God deprive us of this vital information? Even Christian deists (such as John Locke) affirmed that a loving God would not deny to us what we need to live a full, meaningful, and loving life. It would be inconsistent with His love, and inconsistent with reason itself.

What does this mean? If God would not leave us without the essential revelation of himself, then that revelation must be available and accessible to us in some form, and if it is, then it is incumbent upon us to discover it and its proper interpretation so that we might complement the truths of reason and allow ourselves to live a life with the fullest horizon of meaning, love, and efficacy. Failure to do so would be like relegating ourselves to a life of incompleteness and superficiality which would be at best a partial waste, and at worst, a betrayal of self.

So what can we do to avoid this? We must once again use the critical tools of reason, and also the intuitive tools of the heart, to find the source of revelation which fits the requirements of both.

Where can we begin such an enterprise? I would submit that it could begin with exploring the nature of love; for as will be seen, this one power holds out the possibility of being purely positive, the meaning of life, the source of peaceful coexistence with others, and the fulfillment of human authenticity and joy. In my view, there is no other power or virtue which holds out this potential, and so I believe that it can lead us to the source of revelation and the heart of God. In order to explore this great potential, we will want to begin with probing its essential characteristics.

== A Definition of Love (Agapē) ==

We might begin by distinguishing the four Greek words for love that have been the subject of volumes since the time of Plato: storge, philia, eros, and agapē.<ref>Plato’s classical work on love is the Symposium, but large sections of the Phaedrus and the Timaeus (Plato 1961) are also dedicated to this theme. Jesus’ emphasis on agapē transformed Western culture, giving rise to tractates on love from both philosophers (such as St. Thomas Aquinas) and practitioners (such as St. Francis of Assisi). These reflections have been combined with insights from psychology and contemporary anthropology in the contemporary period. C.S. Lewis gives an excellent exposition of agapē in contrast to the other three notions of love in his well known work, The Four Loves (Lewis 1960). There are two truly outstanding volumes on the nature of agapē: D’Arcy 1956 and Pieper 1974. Other excellent works on agapē are Suenens 1962, Lepp 1963, and Johann 1966</ref> Storge may be translated as affection. It is a spontaneous emotional response to someone or something we find to be outwardly lovable, delightful, or cute. Children immediately elicit affection (when they are in a good mood). The smile of a cherished friend or even a pet can elicit this spontaneous emotional response. This response can be quite fleeting or, in the case of parents, enduring. It is fundamentally emotional, lacks depth, does not necessarily result in action or commitment, and may not elicit the same response from others. It is dependent upon mood, and a perception of the lovableness, delightfulness, cuteness, or need of another. As will be seen, agapē is quite different from affection. Though affection may accompany agapē, agapē is not dependent on it.

Philia (friendship) expects mutuality or reciprocity, and when it occurs it is open to various degrees of commitment and depth. So, for example, if I commit myself more to my friend (perhaps through time, shared concern, physical energy, psychic energy, or even my future) it acts as an invitation to my friend to make a commitment on a similar level back to me. If reciprocal commitment occurs, the friendship grows in depth. This depth reaches its natural limit only when both parties have committed themselves totally to each other, but depth can increase only as much as each party is willing to reciprocate.

A certain state of being occurs conjointly with increased depth of friendship. There is a sense of caring and being cared for, a sense of being completed by the other and completing the other, a sense of being at home through the other and the other being at home through oneself, a sense of intimate connection which carries with it a sense of stability and well being. Feelings of alienation (not being at home in the world or with oneself) can be alleviated. This degree of connection requires considerable sensitivity and work, and therefore might be punctuated with lapses giving rise to disruption, outbursts, frustration, and even dashed expectations.

Notice that philia has an in-built reward. I like being cared for by, committed to, completed through, and at home with the other. Even though my participation in the friendship requires effort and discipline, the friendship yields an essential benefit and reward. I am not saying that one pursues friendships merely for the reward; one can pursue them out of the recognition of the goodness of the other, that is, out of a sense of natural attraction and generosity. Nevertheless, the reward is there and it is intrinsic to the mutuality of friendship. Agapē is different from friendship in this last respect.

Eros is concerned with the romantic, and the romantic is concerned with gender difference, complementarity in that difference, libidinal or sexual feelings, the apperception of beauty/desirability, and a sense of adventure amidst it all. Naturally, eros may be accompanied by storge and philia. When it is accompanied by an ever deepening philia, it leads to exclusive commitment. Romantic feelings can drive philia to deeper and deeper reciprocity, while this deeper reciprocity gives meaning, a sense of “home,” and a sense of mutual completion to the romantic feelings of eros. As philia drives eros and eros drives philia, a couple eventually arrives at a point where they cannot increase their commitment to one another any further. At this point, they have made one another their number one priority. Since one cannot have more than one number one priority (logically), the combination of eros and philia ends up being exclusive (i.e., unrepeatable with another), as happens in marriage.

If eros is not combined with philia, and as a consequence becomes an end in itself, it can become quite reckless and aggressive, because the couple will try to seek the satisfaction of the deepest imaginable philia through romantic sensibilities alone. When romantic sensibilities fade (as they must, because by themselves they cannot produce a totally committed philia), impatience, frustration, and even aggression can result. Libidinal or romantic feelings alone are not sufficient for the discipline, work, commitment, reciprocity, and resultant mutual care which is intrinsic to totally committed philia. When eros is not connected to totally committed philia, it is generally the source of great pain, emptiness, disillusionment, and aggression. As will be seen, agapē can be involved in the connection between philia and eros, but it does not need to be accompanied by philia or eros; it can stand quite alone.

We may now proceed to the subject of this section, namely, agapē. Agapē may be initially defined as the kind of love which does not require feelings of affection (storge), the mutuality of philia (being cared for, committed to, complemented by, and at home with the other), or the romantic/libidinal feelings of eros. Agapē does not require a feeling, reward, or a return (mutuality). It is a love which arises out of an empathetic recognition of and connection with the unique, intrinsic dignity, goodness, and mystery of the other. The unique, intrinsic dignity of the other may be captured in a benevolent glance, a conversation, or a sense of the other’s unique presence. Once captured, it provokes an awareness of the intrinsic value, worth, or goodness of the other, and this, in its turn, provokes a desire to help, protect, and enhance this intrinsically valuable, good, mysterious other. A connection, a unity, then forms, whereby doing the good for that unique other is just as easy if not easier than doing the good for oneself. Notice that when the unity occurs, one will naturally work for the good of the other without feelings of affection, for awareness of the unique, intrinsic goodness and value of the other does not depend on the perception of delightfulness, cuteness, or adorableness. Similarly, this awareness does not depend on the anticipation of mutuality (being cared about or committed to by the other). Finally, this awareness does not depend on romantic feelings arising out of a perception of beauty/desirability. It depends only on an empathetic connection with the unique, intrinsic goodness, value, and mystery of the other.

Human beings have a most remarkable capability – we can become directly aware of the unique dignity and value of another through an act of empathy. We can even become directly aware of the unique transcendental and eternal value of the other. This remarkable capacity enables us to connect with the intrinsic goodness of the other, giving rise to the desire to help, protect, and enhance the other solely because of her intrinsic value, that is, who she is in herself. This desire does not need affection, mutuality, or romantic feelings in order to arise. There need be nothing in it for me. The intrinsic value of the other (pure and simple) is sufficient to make agapē occur. Once it occurs, a unity arises, whereby doing the good for the other is just as easy (if not easier) than doing the good for myself.

This capability to connect directly with the intrinsic goodness of another is the source of compassion, forgiveness, self-sacrificial love, and care for the marginalized. Agapē’s independence from the rewards of the other three kinds of love enables it to be the source of these four special qualities.

For example, it would be virtually impossible to forgive another if one has to have affectionate or romantic feelings for the one in need of forgiveness. Feelings of affection and romance are generally absent from such occasions. Similarly, the sense of mutuality is likely to be at its low point when the need for forgiveness is high. Therefore, forgiveness has to spring from a direct connection with the unique, intrinsic, transcendental worth of the other, which makes the well being of that other desirable in itself.

The same can be said for compassion (suffering with another). When others are in need of compassion, they are generally in states of weakness and vulnerability. As such, they do not tend to provoke feelings of delight or cuteness. Neither do they provoke romantic feelings. Similarly, they are less capable of responding with deep mutuality because their needs probably exceed their capacity to give at that time. Something else must motivate the desire to be compassionate. Once again, the motivator appears to be the direct empathetic connection with the unique, intrinsic dignity, goodness, and mystery of the other which makes the well-being of the other (irrespective of the other’s capacity to look good or respond) intrinsically desirable.

The same can be seen with self-sacrificial love and sympathy for the marginalized. Marginalized people generally provoke little affection or romantic feelings. Their vulnerability means that they are almost incapable of responding with deep reciprocity. Again, it is the direct connection with their unique, intrinsic, transcendental dignity, value, and mystery which provokes one to see the tragedy in the common underestimation of their worth and mystery, and so concomitantly provokes one to work for their well being as if it were an intrinsically desirable objective. In brief, agapē is an unselfish form of love provoked by the intrinsic dignity, goodness, and mystery of the other, which is directly apprehendable in a moment of empathy.

Acts of agapē produce joy for both the giver and the receiver. One might cynically say that the giver’s joy is nothing more than egocentricity (“I feel so much more messianic today after stooping down to help this poor wretch.” Or “I feel so much better about my life after seeing and alleviating the inferiority of this other’s life.”). However, anyone who has genuinely entered into an act of agapē knows that the “joy” of agapē is not an egocentric, contemptuous, or even comparative kind of joy. Rather, it is the joy of knowing that a “little eternity” was not subject to ruin, or that that “little eternity” was vouchsafed into her eternity, or that the world was preserved from a tragic loss. When one gazes into the face of the other and picks up the “gem of great price” and is able to make the gem shine for the benefit of itself and all those around it, one instinctively feels joy in actualizing that individual’s (and the world’s) inestimable positivity.

Thus, agapē produces an authentic happiness arising out of positivity and enhancement for the intrinsically dignified “little eternities” who deserve this positivity in and of themselves. It is a recognition that they are worth love in themselves, and I am happy that their worthiness has been recognized and actualized (if only in a very finite way). Notice that I am not happy that “their worthiness has been actualized through me,” but rather, that “their worthiness has been actualized in and of itself.”

This joy of agapē is therefore contingent upon real humility and detachment from ego and all of its feelings (anger, resentment, vengeance, harboring of grudges, contempt, pursuit of comparative advantage, and fear of ego-deprivation). This “precious detachment” so essential to human growth, happiness, and even joy (and so necessary for justice, peace, and the common good) may well require help from Unconditional Agapē. For this reason, faith could well be integral to the fruition and optimization of agapē. If it is, then faith is also essential to the meaning, purpose, and fruition of every human being.

In sum, agapē holds out the promise of completeness in fulfillment, creativity, unity with others, human community, individual transcendentality, and even interpersonal transcendentality. It cannot be grasped through concepts alone, for it has contents that can only be revealed through human intuition, feeling, and desire (i.e., the domain of the heart), through concrete experiences of the lovability of others and the limiting nature of one’s ego, through human suffering, and through worship and God’s self-revelation.

== Six Questions Toward Emmanuel ==

When I was teaching at Georgetown University, I was privileged to direct a physics and philosophy student on an Ignatian retreat. He was exceptionally bright and good-willed, and had the capacity to express what was on his mind in a very straightforward way. At the beginning of our first conference he said, “Could I ask you something very elementary which has been bothering me for several years? I don’t have any real problem with the idea of a Creator, because I believe that finitude is intrinsic to time and the origin of the universe will ultimately have to have a cause beyond a universal singularity.<ref>These concepts from contemporary physics are explained in my manuscript, New Proofs for the Existence of God: Contributions of Contemporary Philosophy and Physics. They are also explained in several articles. See, for example, Spitzer 2003.</ref> ''God'' is not a question for me. But it’s this Jesus thing. I’m not sure I see the need for Jesus and I’m not sure I really get it. Can’t we just stick with a ‘Creator outside of space-time asymmetry’?”

I thought about it for a couple of minutes and said to him, “The ‘Jesus thing’ is about the unconditional Love of God. It is about God wanting to be with us in a perfect act of empathy; about God wanting to save us unconditionally and to bring us to His own life of unconditional Love. A Creator alone, indeed, even a Creator with infinite power, could be tantamount to Aristotle’s God. Once he has fulfilled His purpose of ultimate, efficient, and final causation, He is detached from the affairs of rather base and uninteresting human beings. The God of Jesus Christ is about the desire to be intimately involved in the affairs of human beings made in His image and destined for His eternity – and that makes all the difference.”

He said in reply, “This all seems a bit too good to be true. I would like the Creator to be the God of Jesus Christ, but do you have any evidence that this is not just wishful thinking – evidence showing that this is really the way God is? Is there any reason why we would think that God is loving instead of indifferent?” I responded by noting that it would be better for him to answer six questions rather than have me give an extended discourse, because the six questions could reveal not only what was in his fine mind, but more importantly, what was in his heart – what he thought about love, life’s purpose, others, and His highest imaginable state of existence. If he answered these six questions (from his heart) in a manner commensurate with “the logic of love,” then the unconditional Love and divinity of Christ (i.e., Jesus being Emmanuel – God with us) would be self-evident.

I give you, the reader, these six questions and some points to guide your reflection, so that you might be able to see more clearly the logic of love and its consequences for an “unrestricted Creator outside of space-time asymmetry” (God).

1) What is the most positive and creative power or capacity within me?

At first glance, one might want to respond that this power is intellect, or artistic creativity, but further reflection may show that the capacity to apprehend truth or knowledge, or to create beauty, in and of itself, is not necessarily positive. Knowledge and beauty can be misused, and therefore be negative, destructive, manipulative, inauthentic, and thus undermine both the individual and common good. There is but one human power that contains its own end of “positivity” within itself, one power that is directed toward the positive of itself, and therefore one power that directs intellect and artistic creativity to its proper, positive end. As may by now be evident, that power is love (agapē – see Section I above). Love’s capacity for empathy, its ability to enter into a unity with others leading to a natural “giving of self,” forms the fabric of the common good and the human community, and so seeks as its end the good of both individuals and that community.

As implied above (Section I), love by its very nature unifies, seeks the positive, orders things to their proper end, finds a harmony amidst diversity, and gives of itself in order to initiate and actualize this unifying purpose. This implies that love is naturally oriented toward perfect positivity and perfect fulfillment.

Furthermore, love would seem to be the one virtue that can be an end in itself. Other virtues do not necessarily culminate in a unity with others whereby doing the good for the other is just as easy if not easier than doing the good for oneself. Thus, courage, left to itself, might be mere bravado or might lead to the persecution of the weak. Self-discipline, left to itself, might lead to a disdain for the weak or a sense of self-sufficiency which is antithetical to empathy. Even humility can be overbearing and disdainful if it is not done out of love. Even though these virtues are necessary means for the actualization of love (i.e., authentic love cannot exist without courage, self-discipline, and humility), they cannot be ends in themselves, for they can be the instruments of unlove when they are not guided by the intrinsic goodness of love. Love seems to be the only virtue that can be an end in itself and therefore can stand by itself.

Now, if you, the reader, affirm the existence of this power within yourself and further affirm that it is the guiding light of both intellect and creativity, that its successful operation is the only way in which all your other powers can be guided to a positive end, that it is therefore the only way of guaranteeing positivity for both yourself and others, and that it therefore holds out the promise of authentic fulfillment, purpose in life, and happiness, then you will have acknowledged love to be the highest of all powers. You will then want to proceed to the next question.

2) If love is the one power that seeks the positive in itself, and we are made to find our purpose in life through love, could God (perfect Being), who created us with this loving nature, be devoid of love?

If the Creator were devoid of love, why would that Creator create human beings not only with the capacity for love, but to be fulfilled only when they are loving? If the Creator is devoid of love, why make love the actualization of all human powers and desires, and therefore of human nature? If the Creator is not loving, then the creation of “beings meant for love” seems absurd. However, if the Creator is love, then creating a loving creature (i.e., sharing His loving nature) would seem to be both intrinsically and extrinsically consistent with what (or perhaps better, “who”) He is. Could the Creator be any less loving than the “loving nature” He has created? Furthermore, if a Creator were perfect Being, wouldn’t that perfect Being also be capable of the one power and virtue which can be an end in itself, that is, Love?

If you, the reader, can reasonably affirm the love of the Creator from the above, then you may want to proceed to the third question.

3) Is my desire to love and to be loved conditional or unconditional?

It may do well to pause for a moment here and give some background about our desire for love which has occupied the writings of many philosophers since the time of Plato.

We appear to have a desire for perfect and unconditional Love. Not only do we have the power to love (i.e., the power to be naturally connected to another human being in profound empathy, care, self-gift, concern, and acceptance), we have a “sense” of what this profound interpersonal connection would be like if it were perfect. This sense of perfect love has the positive effect of inciting us to pursue ever more perfect forms of love. However, it has the drawback of inciting us to expect ever more perfect love from other human beings. This generally leads to frustrated expectations of others and consequently to a decline of relationships that can never grow fast enough to match this expectation of perfect and unconditional Love.

The evidence of this desire for perfect and unconditional Love manifests itself in our frustrated expectations within relationships. Have you ever had this experience – where you thought a relationship (or friendship) with another was going quite well until little imperfections began to manifest themselves? In situations like these, there might be slight irritation, but one has hopes that the ideal will soon be recaptured. But as the fallibility of the beloved begins to be more acutely manifest (the other is not perfectly humble, gentle, kind, forgiving, self-giving, and concerned with me) the irritation becomes frustration, which, in turn, becomes dashed expectation: “I can’t believe I thought she was really the One.” Of course, she wasn’t the One, because she is not perfect and unconditioned.

This gives rise to the question, “Why do we all too frequently expect our beloveds to be perfect and expect ourselves to be perfect to our beloveds if we did not have a desire for perfect and unconditional Love in the first place?” The reader must now apply this question to him or herself. If you did not have a desire for perfect and unconditional Love, why would you be so dissatisfied with imperfect and conditioned manifestations of love in others (even from the time of childhood)? If you sense within yourself an incapacity to be ultimately satisfied by any form of conditioned or finite love, then you will have also affirmed within yourself the intrinsic desire for unconditional Love, which leads to the next question.

4) If my desire for love can only be ultimately satisfied by unconditional Love, then could the Creator of this desire be anything less than Unconditional Love?

A simple response to this question might run as follows: if we assume that the Creator does not intend to frustrate this desire for unconditional Love within all of us, it would seem that His creation of the desire would imply an intention to fulfill it, which would, in turn, imply the very presence of this quality within Him. This would mean that the Creator of the desire for unconditional Love is (as the only possible fulfillment of that desire) Himself Unconditional Love. The reader here is only affirming the inconsistency of a “Creator incapable of unconditional Love” creating a being with the desire for perfect and unconditional Love. This is sufficient for affirming the presence of unconditional Love in the Creator.

A more complete explanation might begin with the origin of the desire for perfect and unconditional Love. The awareness of unconditional Love (which arouses the desire for unconditional Love) seems to be beyond any specifically known or concretely experienced love, for it seems to cause dissatisfaction with every conditioned love we have known or experienced. How can we have an awareness of love that we have neither known nor experienced? How can we even extrapolate to it if we do not know where we are going? The inability of philosophers to give a purely naturalistic answer to these questions has led them to associate the “tacit awareness of unconditional Love” with the “felt presence of Unconditional Love Itself.” Unconditional Love Itself would therefore seem to be the cause of our awareness of It and also our desire for It. Inasmuch as Unconditional Love Itself transcends all conditioned (and human) manifestations of love, it might fairly be associated with the Creator. The Creator would then be associated with our human awareness of and desire for unconditional Love. Therefore, it seems that the Creator would have to be at least capable of unconditional Love.<ref>The simple and complete explanations of “unconditional Love in the Creator” may be combined to reveal God’s intention to fulfill our desire for unconditional Love:

A) The Cause of the awareness of and desire for unconditional Love cannot be capable of only conditioned love. Therefore, It would have to be at least capable of unconditional Love.

B) If the Cause of our awareness of and desire for unconditional love is truly capable of unconditional Love, then He would not have created us with this awareness and desire only to frustrate it (for this would contradict the nature of Unconditional Love).

C) Therefore, the unconditionally loving Creator of our awareness of and desire for unconditional Love intends to fulfill that desire unconditionally.</ref>

5) If the Creator is Unconditional Love, would He want to enter into a relationship with us of intense empathy, that is, would He want to be Emmanuel (“God with us”)?

If one did not attribute unconditional Love to God, then the idea of God wanting to be with us, or God being with us, would be preposterous. A God of stoic indifference would not want to bother with creatures, let alone actually be among them and enter into empathetic relationship with them. However, in the logic of love, or rather, in the logic of unconditional Love, all this changes.

If we attribute the various parts of the definition of agapē (given above in Section I) to an unconditionally loving Creator, we might obtain the following result: God (as Unconditional Agapē) would be unconditional empathy and care for others (even to the point of self-sacrificial care). As such, God would expect neither repayment for this care, nor any of the affective benefits of the other three kinds of love. Hence, God would not need the affection of storge in order to love us, though He would have unconditional affection for us; He would not need the mutual commitment and caring of philia, though He would be unconditionally committed to us in friendship; and He would not have need of our romantic feelings, even though He would grace such feelings in the human endeavor toward exclusive love. God would seek unconditionally to protect, defend, maintain, and enhance the intrinsic dignity, worth, lovability, unique goodness, transcendental mystery, and intrinsic eternity of every one of us.

Recall that love is empathizing with the other and entering into a unity with that other whereby doing the good for the other is just as easy, if not easier, than doing the good for oneself. This kind of love has the non-egocentricity, humility, self-gift, deep affection, and care which would make infinite power into infinite gentleness, and would incite an infinitely powerful Being to enter into a restrictive condition to empathize more fully with His beloveds. In this logic, “Emmanuel” would be typical of an unconditionally loving God. This would characterize the way that Unconditional Love would act – not being egocentrically conscious of the infinite distance between Creator and creature, but rather being infinitely desirous of bridging this gap in a perfect unity of perfect empathy and perfect care. It would be just like the unconditionally loving God to be “God with us.”

The following consideration might help to clarify this. If God is truly Unconditional Love, then it would not be unreasonable to suspect that He would be unconditional empathy; and if He were unconditional empathy, it would not be unreasonable to suspect that He would want to enter into an empathetic relationship with us “face-to-face” (“peer-to-peer”) where the Lover and beloved would have a parallel access to the uniquely good and lovable personhood and mystery of the other (through empathy). A truly unconditionally loving Being would want to give complete empathetic access to His heart and interior life in a way which was proportionate to the receiving apparatus of the weaker (creaturely) being. It would seem reasonable (according to the reasonings of the heart), then, that an unconditionally loving Creator would want to be Emmanuel in order to give us complete empathetic access to that unconditional Love through voice, face, touch, action, concrete relationship, and in every other way that love, care, affection, home, and felt response can be concretely manifest and appropriated by us. If God really is Unconditional Love, then we might be presumptuous enough to expect that He might be Emmanuel; and if Emmanuel, then concretely manifest in history. If this resonates with the reader’s thoughts and feelings, you will want to proceed to the next question.

6) If it would be typical of the unconditionally loving God to want to be fully with us, then is Jesus the One?

As reasonable and responsible as the answers to the above questions might be, they can be considerably strengthened through historical corroboration, that is, through experienceable data which concretizes the reasoning given immediately above. What kind of experienceable data could accomplish this corroboration? Data which at once manifests (1) God in our midst (Emmanuel) and (2) God as Unconditional Love. It so happens that a remarkably powerful experienceable event did at once manifest and synthesize these two corroborating data, and showed the above reasoning about the unconditional Love of God to be both reasonable and experienceable, and to be mutually corroboratable through concrete experience and the logic of love. This remarkable experienceable event is Jesus Christ.

So can this incredibly good news, this historical corroboration of our reasoning, this complete access to the heart of God be brought into focus so that it can be seen clearly to be at once the truth about God and our destiny? I believe it can, because the life of Jesus and the Church He initiated is filled with clues that synergistically connect the mind to the heart and the heart to the mind.

The rest of this book will be devoted to showing the remarkable similarity between the above reasoning about God’s unconditional Love and Jesus’ appearance in our midst. The reader will then have a background to better answer the question, “Is Jesus the One? Is Jesus Emmanuel – the Unconditional Love of God with us?”

== Footnotes ==

<references />

Can Atheism Be Rational?

2011-07-26T21:04:59Z

David Persyn: branding

Magis God Wiki: Can Atheism be Rational?

© Robert J. Spitzer, S.J. Ph.D./Magis Institute July 2011

'''Introduction'''

We must first discuss whether the existence of God can be disproved. As will be seen, this is not possible because the three modes of obtaining publicly accessible evidence (a-priori, a-posteriori, and a combination of both) cannot be used to support the non-existence of a transcendent being (see Unit F Section I). In view of this, atheism cannot in principle be, a rational enterprise. We must then look into the most common reasons for atheism, and respond to the choices and the agendas that most frequently underlie the claim of atheism. Some of these claims may be classified as follows:

1. Personal reasons:

a. “I don’t think an all-powerful all-loving God would permit my or others’ suffering.”

b. “I do not want to be accountable to or responsible to a transcendent entity.”

c. “If God exists, then I can’t be absolutely free and absolutely responsible, but I am; therefore God doesn’t exist for me.”

d. “All religion is wishful thinking (a projection of a good God to assuage my feelings of fear and loneliness), but I can take the truth; therefore I choose not to believe in God.”

2. Atheism which is really against religion (but not against God).

a. “Religion has done more harm than good throughout history (torture and wars). Therefore, religion must be suppressed in our society.”

b. “Religion is the opiate of the people, and as long as people think about the next life, they will not engage in revolution or any other social upheaval necessary for social change; therefore, religion should be suppressed in our society.”

These opinions need to be responded to, because they are only partially valid, and sometimes quite misleading and incorrect. Section 2 will briefly redress some of the problems in the above contentions. Special consideration will be given to the frequent objection that belief in God is mere wishful thinking (Section 3 because this objection attacks the integrity, authenticity, and courage of believers, and, as a consequence seems to unconsciously undermine faith in young people. (Section 3).

== The Impossibility of Disproving the Existence of God ==

It may be thought that the existence of God can be disproved. One obvious difficulty with this contention is that it would entail the denial of the two proofs given in MOERF – God, Units F&G, and in NPEG Chaps Three through Five, which, in turn, would entail a myriad of intrinsic contradictions and denials of fact (including the denial of one’s own existence). But there is a more sweeping problem with this contention, namely, it cannot be accomplished in principle because the unrestricted nature of God renders all methods of disproof fruitless. This can be shown by referring back to the three ways of proving the truth or falsity of claims. Recall from MOERF - God, Unit F that a claim may be considered reasonable and responsible if:

1 it can be affirmed by rigorous public corroboration, or

2 its denial leads to an intrinsic contradiction, or

3 its denial leads to a contradiction of fact (a rigorously corroborated state of affairs).

None of these methods can be used to prove the nonexistence of God. The following will make this clear.

The first method (rigorous public corroboration) is quite useful for proving the existence of a reality, but useless for proving the nonexistence of a reality. If, for example, I wish to prove the existence of dogs, I need only experience one, and have other people corroborate that experience. However, if I wish to prove the nonexistence of, say, phoenixes, I would have to experience everything that there is to experience, be certain that I had exhausted the entire range of possible experiences, and notice that phoenixes are not there. This would seem to be a rather daunting prospect.

Proving the nonexistence of God by this method is even more daunting, for God, as defined (the absence of intrinsic or extrinsic parameters which make realities accessible to human sensation, imagination, and understanding), is, in principle, beyond human experience. If God were to be experienceable, God would have to make an aspect of Himself accessible to us (such as an experience of His love or beauty (as in mystical or religious experience).<ref>It should be noted that not even God can make his entire essence – an unrestricted act of understanding – understandable to a subject without the capacity to understand it (e.g., one capable of only restricted acts of understanding). As with a square-circle, this is not a deficiency of God’s power, but rather a deficiency solely attributable to the excluding boundaries of a partially simple being. Since humans are capable only of conditioned acts of understanding, God cannot force us to understand what we are in principle incapable of understanding (i.e., unrestricted understanding).</ref> Therefore, the first method of disproof cannot be applied to an unconditioned, unrestricted being (God).

The second method (proving falsity through intrinsic contradiction), is equally fruitless. As noted above, contradictions arise out of the exclusionary properties of boundaries or restrictions (e.g., the boundaries of square exclude the boundaries of circle, or the boundaries of proton exclude the boundaries of electron, such that one cannot have a square-circle or a proton-electron in the same respect at the same place and time). An entity without any intrinsic or extrinsic boundaries or restrictions (i.e., an absolutely simple Reality) would be purely inclusive, and therefore, would not exclude anything extrinsically (from Itself) or intrinsically (“within” Itself). If there are no exclusionary properties intrinsic to “absolutely simple, unrestricted, unconditioned Reality,” then there can never be a basis for intrinsic contradiction. If there is no boundary or restriction, there is no basis for contradiction.

The third method (proving nonexistence through a contradiction of fact) is also fruitless for a similar reason. If a reality is to be proven contradictory to fact (i.e., to be a contradiction of a publicly corroborated state of affairs), it must be capable of being contradicted. For example, if I am to prove that an electron does not exist at a particular coordinate (x, y, z), then all I need do is prove that there is a proton (or some other contradictory particle or state of affairs) at that coordinate (x, y, z) in the same respect at the same time. The contradictory properties of electron and proton make this kind of disproof possible.

However, as noted above, contradiction is based on the exclusionary property of boundaries or restrictions. Now, if an entity has no intrinsic or extrinsic boundaries or restrictions (as has been defined of God), it does not exclude any bounded or restricted being from itself; it does not extrinsically exclude anything. Therefore it cannot be contradicted by any bounded or restricted being. Thus, one cannot say, “If protons exist, God cannot exist,” for the boundaries of protons will never exclude the boundarylessness of God. Similarly, one cannot say, “If squares exist, God cannot exist,” for the boundaries of square do not exclude the boundarylessness of God. The same holds true for all finite realities. The boundaries of a finite thing cannot exclude the boundarylessness of God. Therefore, nothing finite can ever be used to contradict the existence of God. This means that nothing finite (and therefore nothing in our world) could ever be the basis for disproving “God” (as defined).

Inasmuch as these three methods exhaust the scope of formal proof or disproof, it follows that the existence of God cannot be disproved in principle. Thus, given the above definition of “God” (i.e., as absolutely simple – without intrinsic or extrinsic boundaries or restrictions), it would seem that atheism could not be a rational enterprise in the same way as theism.

== The Tenuous Rationality of Atheism ==

As will be shown, atheism frequently arises out of definitional problems. The most prominent ones throughout history are restricted and inadequate definitions of “God,” “love,” and “evil.” We will consider each in turn.

(1) Restricted Definition of God.

At this juncture, the reader might ask, “If the existence of God cannot be disproved, what is the foundation of atheism?” The brief answer is that it cannot be grounded in a formal argument based upon the definition of “God” given above (“absolutely simple” or “unrestricted,” or “infinite” – in the sense of an A-infinity). If a proof against the existence of God is to be formulated, it would have to have an alternative definition of God which introduces exclusionary properties, restrictions, or finitude into the definition.

For example, if one defines “God” as a being which would necessarily interfere with human freedom (which would be contrary to the purely inclusive properties of perfect love and perfect goodness/justice, etc.), then one might be able to formulate an argument which says, “If human beings are absolutely free,<ref>The notion of absolute human freedom implied in Jean-Paul Sartre’s Being and Nothingness is a very disputable claim, but this is not the point of our discussion, which is concerned with the definition of “God.”</ref> then ‘god’ (defined as necessarily interfering with freedom) cannot exist.”

But the definition of God in this argument is arbitrarily restricted (and contradicts the absolute simplicity and unrestrictedness of the unconditioned Reality -- see Encyclopedia Units E-F). Furthermore, if one understands a purely inclusive God to be perfectly loving and good, one would have to say that God helps human freedom in every way possible to be complete and perfect, and therefore, would not undermine human freedom.

(2) Suffering and “Love.”

One might have had a terrible experience of suffering or grief, and think to oneself, “How could God allow this to happen? My grief is incompatible with a perfectly loving God!” One might go on to think that this is a disproof of the perfect love of God which might suggest that God is not purely inclusive or that pure inclusivity does not include love; and if pure inclusivity does not include love, and God is not perfectly loving, then there is no point in affirming His existence.

There can be little doubt that the primary reason for atheism is the inability to answer the question of human suffering. The importance of this question has led me to write yet another volume entitled Suffering and the God of Love. For the moment, I will endeavor a brief answer, though this is quite dangerous because the superficiality intrinsic to brevity may cause resentment on the part of readers who have suffered greatly. Nevertheless, I will proceed in the hopes that the reader will forgive this unavoidable flaw, and direct attention to my other volume on suffering for a lengthier treatment.

Once again, atheism arises out of an assumed definition – but this time it does not arise out of a definition of “God;” it arises out of a definition of “love” which is attributed to God. The effect is essentially the same because when the inadequate definition of love is attributed to God, it seems to mitigate the perfect inclusivity of God. So, what is this so-called inadequate definition of “love”? It is one that holds that love is incompatible with suffering. In my view, this definition is overly simplistic for several reasons. I will mention only two of them here.

First, the above definition does not consider the interrelationship between freedom and love. If our love is to be our own, then we must be free to do acts of unlove (which could cause great harm, suffering, or evil). Stated conversely, if we are not free to do anything but love, then our love is not our own. It is merely a program of behavior that has nothing to do with our choice. Our love would not be self-initiated. Thus, if God wants to create loving creatures (in imitation of His perfect love), God has to create free beings who can cause suffering and evil in the world by their choices. The dynamics of love and freedom require that God allow us the latitude to grow in love through our human freedom. God’s only alternative to allowing free beings to choose unloving acts is to completely refrain from creating loving creatures. Is that something that perfect Love would do?

The second problem with defining love as incompatible with suffering is that it does not allow for suffering to purify freedom toward love. I will speak solely for myself, here; but often I have contented myself with an incredibly superficial view of life’s meaning (e.g., material well-being, ego-satisfactions, status, etc.) and incredibly superficial views of human beings (as material beings instead of transcendental beings; as problems instead of mysteries) during the “good” times. It was only when I was challenged by real suffering that I began to ask more probative questions, to search for deeper purpose in life, and to let go of what was then manifestly superficial (underliving my life).

These moments of suffering led me to the discovery of love as the purpose of life – to the enjoyment of others’ companionship and friendship, to the recognition of the goodness and lovability of others, to the depth of empathy and compassion; indeed, to the discovery of my heart. I do not think I could have let go of my more superficial, materialistic, egocentric views of happiness and meaning without having experienced suffering, deprivation, and need for others.

Furthermore, I do not believe that I would have discovered my own transcendental identity without this same deprivation and need. Much like Saint Augustine, my contentment with material and ego-satisfactions distracted me from noticing that I had desires for perfect and unconditional Truth, Love, Goodness/Justice, Beauty, and Home (See Encyclopedia Unit C). Though I went to church and had some religious sensibility, I tended to live life on a material-ego level. Suffering not only led to a discovery of my heart, but also of my transcendental desires; and this discovery, in turn, led not only to a discovery of my transmaterial being (what might be termed my “soul”), but also of my yearning for unconditional Love – my yearning for God.

In retrospect, I am grateful for the suffering that led me to the discovery of love, my heart, my soul, and the loving God. I did not like my suffering while I was experiencing it, but the journey – the journey in freedom – that led to the discovery of what is truly pervasive, enduring, and deep, made the suffering worthwhile; for it led to an eternity’s worth of purpose, a true respect for the transcendent other, and the discovery not merely of my heart, but of my transcendent heart and my call to unconditional Love. No, for me, suffering was not incompatible with love. Suffering was the instrument of Love.<ref>In Suffering and the God of Love, I have adduced several deeper correlations between suffering and love. Hopefully, the above is sufficient to reveal the superficiality of a definition of “love” which is incompatible with suffering.</ref>

(3) Inadequate Definitions of Evil

Another issue has recurrently emerged throughout the history of philosophy, namely, the problem of evil. It would seem that if God is perfect Goodness and Love, He would not permit evil in the world; and furthermore, it would seem that anything evil should be excluded by God (who was defined above to be a perfectly inclusive Reality). Again, the seeming incompatibility between a perfectly good God (a perfectly inclusive God) and evil arises out of an assumed definition. This time, the definition of “evil” seems incompatible with perfect Goodness and inclusivity. Since evil seems to be evident, it seems to mean either that God is not perfectly good or that a perfectly good (perfectly inclusive) God does not exist.

Let us consider the first point, namely, that if God is perfectly good, He would not allow evil in the world. This contention has already been addressed above with respect to the definition of “love,” so I will only briefly repeat the germane point: if God were to disallow all human evil, then God would have to disallow the free choice to act in an evil way; and if God disallowed the free choice to act in an evil way, He would not allow our good actions to be self-initiated. He would essentially have programmed us for good behaviors, but not allowed us to choose good behaviors over against the option of choosing evil ones; therefore, He would have foreclosed the possibility of our good actions truly being self-initiated, and therefore truly being our own.

Furthermore, acts of human evil can purify our freedom toward perfect Love, for when evil actions are perpetrated against us, we are challenged to respond with a gift of self (love) in forgiveness, mercy, and compassion. These selfless actions (which are frequently undeserved by the perpetrators) are the highest manifestations of human generosity and love. Ironically, they are elicited by evil. The story of my life, as well as world history and literature, are replete with examples of how forgiveness of evil has led to the intensification of goodness and love. Would Europe be the same without the Marshall Plan in which America forgave the debt (and built up the economies) of the nations with whom it had been at war?<ref>This was done in contradistinction to the Treaty of Versailles which left Germany destitute amidst its war reparations after the first world war. Many believe that this act of “justice” (or perhaps better, retribution) led to the rise of national socialism (the Nazi party) in Germany, and eventually to the second world war.</ref> Would Viktor Hugo’s hero, Jean Valjean, have existed without the forgiveness of the priest from whom he had stolen the candles?<ref>Les Miserables</ref> Would the great ideas of human rights and economic rights have occurred without the forgiveness of centuries of oppression? The list goes on and on.

Evil elicits vengeance, and vengeance begets vengeance, unless a free agent intervenes and lets go of the just offense in a recognizable act of compassion. This act not only stops the cycle of vengeance begetting vengeance, but also calls collective human consciousness to a higher ideal, a higher sense of collective self, which is at once intrinsically beautiful, while allowing the real possibility of peace. Ironically, this greatest of human choices can be induced by evil.

We may now proceed to the second point of tension between God and evil, namely, that if God is perfectly good, He must exclude evil (which seems to contradict His pure inclusivity). Again, the problem is definitional, for the definition of “evil” seems to get in the way of God being both perfect goodness and perfect inclusivity. However, the definition of “evil” which does this views “evil” as something positive – as something existing in itself.

A brief summary of the volumes which have been written on this since the time of Plato shows a more comprehensive view of “evil” which does not view it as something positive or existing in itself. In this view, evil is seen to be a negation of a free being’s power to love. Obviously, the free being exists, and his power to love exists (and is positive). But evil does not exist apart from this free being and his positive capacity to love. Evil occurs when the existing free agent negates (ignores or undermines) his positive power to love.

Now, these evil actions could have, say, angry feelings embedded in them. But these feelings are not identifiable with evil itself; they are the result of evil (that is, a free agent’s choice to ignore or undermine his capacity for love). Furthermore, destructive (evil) behaviors may come from this free agent, but these behaviors are also not identifiable with evil itself; they are the result of evil (i.e., a free agent’s choice to ignore or undermine his capacity for love). Thus, the occurrence of evil is not something which exists in itself; rather, it is the result of a free agent’s choice to ignore or undermine the capacity for affection, empathy, compassion – love.

In sum, evil can occur through an existing free agent, and it arises out of the ignoring or undermining of an existing capacity for love. It can give rise to feelings and destructive behaviors which have ontological status. However, the evil of the free agent, of the feelings, and of the destructive behaviors does not exist of itself. It occurs through the negating of the positive power to love in the free agent. If this definition of evil is correct, then it is not excluded by God; for it has no existence which can be excluded. God’s perfect goodness and perfect inclusivity remain completely compatible.

There are other kinds of atheism not connected to the notion of “God,” and therefore not concerned with incompatibility between God and a particular phenomenon (say suffering or evil). For example, socio-political atheism generally tends to be more irreligious than atheistic. It objects to religion because it is, say, an “opium of the people”<ref> Marx 1970.</ref> (a distraction from needed socio-political change). Philosophers who proffer these claims frequently do not offer any argument against the existence of God, but rest their case on their sense of religion as antithetical to human progress.

Many such philosophers frequently ignore the fact that religion is responsible for social progress in many arenas, such as the initiation and advancement of laws, legal systems, social welfare systems (through, say, prophets who exhorted the populace to care for widows and orphans), schools and educational systems, hospitals and health care systems, etc. This makes those philosophers’ selective view of history quite suspect.

I would like to conclude this section by returning to an important point made earlier – namely, that I do not want my brief treatment of suffering and evil to convey in any way a disregard for the true suffering that so many have endured in their lives. Grief at the loss of a loved one, debilitation at the loss of one’s faculties, indignity at the hands of callous individuals, should never be underestimated. My sole purpose in treating the above topics was to show how careful we must be in our definitions of “love,” “evil,” and “God.” As we attempt to translate our deepest emotions and experiences into concepts, we will want to remember that the more nuanced and complete the definitions, the more they will correspond to the truth; and the more they correspond to the truth, the more they will present the path to healing and deliverance within the horizon of unrestricted Love, Goodness, Justice, Beauty, and Home.

We are now in a position to objectively and comprehensibly consider the age old objection to theism that belief in God is near wishful thinking.

== Is Belief in God Mere Wishful Thinking? ==

Even though many of us believe in a beneficent God, we are hesitant, if not fearful, about manifesting this conviction in public. We then find that this absence of public conviction redounds back to us. We begin to be reticent about believing what we do not declare in public, and this reticence turns into interior doubt, and then we find ourselves declining in hope and subtly inclining toward skepticism and even cynicism. Thus, we may find ourselves taking on a perspective which is opposed to our beliefs and convictions. Why would we do this?

After 35 years of teaching university students, young adults, and business leaders, I have come to the conclusion that the reason we do not publicly declare our belief in God is because of our fear of being branded as “naïve optimists,” “dependent on a crutch,” “too weak to face reality,” or “ignorant fools.” Readers familiar with the history of modern philosophy will recognize the ghosts of Ludwig Feuerbach, Sigmund Freud, and Karl Marx in these brands.

First, with respect to Freud, I think it is fair to say that secularists have brought Freud’s rejection of religion as mere “projection,” “wish fulfillment,” and illusion to a significant level within popular culture:

<blockquote>To assess the truth-value of religious doctrines does not lie within the scope of the present enquiry. It is enough for us that we have recognized them as being, in their psychological nature, illusions. … We know approximately at what periods and by what kind of men religious doctrines were created. If in addition we discover the motives which led to this, our attitude to the problem of [the truth of] religion will undergo a marked displacement. We shall tell ourselves that it would be very nice if there were a God who created the world and was a benevolent Providence, and if there were a moral order in the universe and an after-life; but it is a very striking fact that all this is exactly as we are bound to wish it to be. And it would be more remarkable still if our wretched, ignorant and downtrodden ancestors had succeeded in solving all these difficult riddles of the universe.<ref>Freud 1927, Vol. 21, p. 33.</ref></blockquote>

Freud derives this argument almost completely (and unquestioningly) from Ludwig Feuerbach, a German philosopher and anthropologist (1804-1872)<ref>Interestingly, Karl Marx (the other popular atheist of the 19th century) also relied unquestioningly upon Ludwig Feuerbach’s analysis, “With regard to religion, Marx fully accepted Feuerbach's claim in opposition to traditional theology that human beings had created God in their own image…” (Wolff 2008, Sec. 2.2).</ref> who held that in every respect, God corresponds to some need in human nature: “If man is to find contentment in God, he must find himself in God.” Thus, for Feuerbach, God is an outward projection of our inner world.<ref>See part 1 of The Essence of Christianity, which was first published in 1841. For the English translation, see Feuerbach 1893.</ref> Freud condenses Feuerbach’s argument by essentially holding that a benevolent God is the sole result of wishful thinking.

The popularization of this declaration has caused fearfulness about public disclosure of belief in God and eternal life. Most college students and college-educated adults are aware of the “crutch argument” which they have received from popular culture and even some teachers. No one wants to be accused of relying on a crutch, or of naively refusing to face reality which implies being either a coward or a fool, or both; and if they are not intellectually prepared to challenge the factual or logical adequacy of Feuerbach’s and Freud’s claim, many prefer to hide their beliefs or to pretend that they have opposite beliefs from the ones they really hold. The desire for acceptance by the supposed intellectuals and sophisticates of the culture is so strong that they mask their true inclinations, intuitions, and identity in favor of platitudes given them by pseudo-intellectuals. This causes the slow erosion of hope (and the subtle increase of skepticism and cynicism described above).

The truth is that Freud’s claim is logically inadequate and factually inaccurate. We may begin with its logical inadequacy. Prima facie, Freud’s argument cannot be proven, and that is why it must remain arbitrarily asserted and a leaping non-sequitur. The argument runs as follows: “Since my ‘wretched, ignorant, and downtrodden ancestors’ could not help but believe in a God that would protect them from the forces of nature, they invented a benevolent God.” Freud presumes we will conclude from this that God does not exist. Even if it were true that our ancestors invented a benevolent God (which it is not – see below), it does not follow that God does not exist.

Just because I want something to be true does not mean that it is not true. I would like the day to be warm and sunny outside as I rise in the morning; this does not necessitate a cold and gloomy day. I would very much like to complete this book and see it published; this does not mean that it will not see the light of day. I think it would be wonderful if a striped horse-like creature existed; this does not eliminate zebras from the realm of possible existents. So also I would like God to exist; this does not necessitate His nonexistence. Indeed, if God existed, why wouldn’t He give me some clues to His existence that I might be aware of Him and even seek Him? Alister McGrath notes in this regard:

<blockquote>Freud’s theory concerning the origins of religion in the individual is, like that of Feuerbach, generally incapable of being tested. It is a hypothesis, not a fact. Freud could be said to lend psychoanalytical support to Feuerbach, but not to provide the crucial experimental data which would convert a hypothesis into a fact. On the relatively few points at which Freud’s hypothesis is capable of being tested experimentally, it is generally accepted that it is wrong. … Freud’s psychoanalytical atheism must now be regarded as a hypothesis that has not been, and indeed cannot be, proved.<ref>McGrath 1992.</ref></blockquote>

There is a tremendous body of evidence from contemporary physics and philosophy validating a creation of the universe and the existence of God about which I and many other authors in the late 20th and 21st centuries have written (see above Encyclopedia Units A-H).<ref>See, for example, Spitzer 2009: New Proofs for the Existence of God: Contributions of Contemporary Physics and Philosophy, and the dozens of references to physicists and philosophers in it (e.g., Adler, Barr, Carter, Craig, Davies, Eddington, Gingerich, Gordon, Hoyle, Jastrow, Lonergan, Penrose, Penzias, Plantinga, Polkinghorne, Ross, Stoeger, and so forth).</ref> There is also a significant body of historical evidence supporting the historicity of Jesus’ resurrection<ref>See, for example, Spitzer 2010: Jesus-Emmanuel: Evidence of the Divinity of Christ and the Unconditional Love of God, and the dozens of historical references in it (particularly N.T. Wright 2003 and 1996, Meier 1994, Brown 1994, Dunn 1985, Habermas 2006, Stewart 2006, and also, Fitzmyer, Fuller, Funk, Jeremias, Johnson (L.T.), and many others)</ref> (see Encyclopedia Units K-L), as well as experientially verifiable evidence based on near-death experiences (see Encyclopedia Unit B) and rational evidence based on human transcendental desires (see Encyclopedia Unit C). In view of this evidence, Freud’s declaration is revealed to be not only arbitrary and unprovable, but also invalid. But the problems with Freud’s declaration do not end here. He grounds his invalid argument in the proposition that our “wretched, ignorant, and downtrodden ancestors” invented a benevolent God to assuage their fears of the uncontrollable forces of nature. This contention is not factually accurate.

Mircea Eliade, after an exhaustive study of world religions,<ref>Eliade was editor of the 16-volume Macmillan Encyclopedia of Religion. See Eliade 1987.</ref> found that religion is grounded almost universally in a sense of the sacred which is not reducible to a mere subjective projection. Rather, the sacred is a source or cause of human striving to live in a spiritual and transcendent domain. This domain is not a sterile concept, but rather is filled with transcendent awareness and emotion frequently resembling what Rudolf Otto terms the sense of “creatureliness,” “mysterium tremendum,” “awesomeness,” “overpoweringness” (or “majesty”), “energy” (or “urgency”), “fascination,” and “transcendent otherness.”<ref>See Otto 1958, chapters 3-6.</ref> Our awareness of the sacred must be symbolically expressed because symbols point beyond themselves, and the sacred is precisely beyond the ordinary world. As such, it moves us to our most pervasive, enduring, and deep principles, ideals, meanings, and beliefs.<ref>See Eliade 1996.</ref>

Four points are significant here.

First, Eliade’s assessment of religion is grounded in much, much more data than Feuerbach’s or Sigmund Freud’s.

Secondly, it suggests that religion was not motivated by our need to alleviate fear moving us to invent a benevolent God. As Otto (and, by implication, Eliade) explain, there is a sense of “creatureliness,” “tremendum,” “awesomeness,” “overpoweringness,” and “transcendent otherness” embedded in the sacred. The experience of these transcendent phenomena are as likely to cause fear as alleviate it. This could lead as easily to thoughts about non-benevolence as much as benevolence in the sacred domain (and in the deity). This makes Freud’s contention of God being a result of wish fulfillment to be unlikely. Furthermore, the idea that God was invented by humans to control the seemingly uncontrollable natural forces is also unlikely, for the sacred could be just as uncontrollable as nature – perhaps more.<ref> The Christian revelation that love is the highest commandment and that God is unconditional love is virtually unique in the history of religions. There is an awareness of God’s love in many world religions, but love is not considered to be the defining essence of God. In Christianity, God’s unconditional and saving love is always freely offered, but it can be freely rejected by human beings (which would lead to emptiness, alienation, and loneliness). See Encyclopedia Units P and Q.</ref>

Thirdly, the sense of the sacred seems to have a source outside of ourselves, for it gives rise to a sense of transcendent otherness, overpoweringness, and creatureliness. This seems to fly in the face of Feuerbach’s contention that God is a projection of man’s powers, needs, and desires. How does the idea of transcendent otherness, awesomeness, and overpoweringness come out of a projection of my own powers, needs, and desires?

Fourthly, Feuerbach’s and Freud’s contentions do not account for the human strivings borne out of the sense of the sacred, such as sacred duties, self-sacrifice for a transcendent good, the desire to order society according to sacred principles, the urge to develop religious symbols, art, architecture, music, and ritual, etc. Do these elements of virtually every tribe and civilization really come from the desire to alleviate fear, or rather out of a striving to be closer to the domain of the sacred, or to be closer to a God who is the highest principle, highest law, highest beauty, highest harmony, and highest unity? The sense of transcendent otherness (with its accompanying awareness of mystery, sacred duty, sacred principle, and awesome majesty) seems in many respects to be unrelated to the projection of human needs and powers, and the alleviation of human fears. Indeed, it appears to be the very converse of these Feuerbachian/Freudian constructs, and as such, is not reducible to them.

Eliade goes on to explain that this sense of the sacred seems to be irreducible to any social, historical, or cultural conditioning. Though it is true that religion involves “the social man, the economic man, and so forth…all these conditioning factors together do not, of themselves, add up to the life of the spirit.”<ref>Eliade 1991, p.32.</ref>

Eliade’s significant study of particular religions in particular cultures and times<ref>See his 16-volume Encyclopedia of Religion – Eliade 1987</ref> led him to the conviction that humanity has a general sense of the transcendent/sacred beyond any particular culture, society, or historical epic. He notes that human consciousness transcends its historical and cultural conditioning,<ref>Eliade 1991, p. 33.</ref> and that it has at least a tacit awareness of certain universal images and symbols.<ref>Eliade 1991, pp. 16-17.</ref> Eliade’s critics claim that this contention is difficult to prove (even though Eliade assembled a considerable amount of data to support it). Eliade responded by noting that his “historicist” critics’ position (reducing religion to historical-cultural conditioning) was equally, if not more difficult to prove than his own, because it requires disregarding the remarkable unity (amidst exceedingly diverse cultures and times) of human consciousness of the sacred. Whatever one may think about the verifiability of Eliade’s position, the mere existence of the debate between Eliade and his critics reveals the position of Feuerbach and Freud to be lacking in empirical data and incredibly naïve.

Therefore, religion was very likely not an invention of our ancestors to alleviate fear. Neither was it a mere projection of our ancestors’ innermost needs, nor a product of mere social-historical-cultural conditioning. It seems to be a consciousness – perhaps an altogether irreducible consciousness – of its own. So what can we say about contemporary belief in God – especially the Christian belief in a God of unconditional love? Is belief in this benevolent God simply a crutch? The answer to this question would have to be “no” (even if the alleviation of fear is involved in some people’s belief in God) because religion is very likely our response to our awareness of the sacred or spiritual. This awareness awakens within us both fear and the alleviation of fear, evil and good, cosmic evil and cosmic good, guilt and the alleviation of guilt, creatureliness and transcendence, God’s call to responsibility and God’s promise of love. If anything is clear from the considerable data assembled by Eliade and others, religion is a remarkably complex phenomenon and certainly cannot be reduced to the alleviation of fear or to a “crutch.” It involves self-awareness, courage, a sense of co-responsibility and duty, humility and self-sacrifice, principles, ideals, and love. In many of these respects it is the precise antithesis of a crutch or fear-alleviator, calling forth from us the very highest commitment of ourselves and our character. Believers should have no fear about being accused of fearfulness, for the very accusation is groundless and ignorant.

== Footnotes ==

<references />

God is Uncreated

2011-07-26T21:03:22Z

David Persyn: branding

The Magis God Wiki: God is Uncreated

Why Doesn’t God Need a Creator?

© Robert J. Spitzer S.J. Ph.D./Magis Institute July 2011

The problem of “what created God?” is summarized well by Bertrand Russell’s rather dismissive treatment of the First Cause argument:

<blockquote>It is maintained that everything we see in this world has a cause, and as you go back in the chain of causes further and further you must come to a First Cause, and to that First Cause you give the name of God. That argument, I suppose, does not carry very much weight nowadays, because, in the first place, cause is not quite what it used to be. The philosophers and men of science have got going on cause, and it has not anything like the vitality it used to have; but, apart from that, you can see that the argument that there must be a First Cause is one that cannot have any validity. I may say that when I was a young man and was debating these questions very seriously in my mind, I for a long time accepted the argument of the First Cause, until one day, at the age of eighteen, I read John Stuart Mill’s Autobiography, and I there found this sentence: “My father taught me that the question ‘Who made me?’ cannot be answered, since it immediately suggests the further question ‘Who made God?’” That very simple sentence showed me, as I still think, the fallacy in the argument of the First Cause. If everything must have a cause, then God must have a cause. If there can be anything without a cause, it may just as well be the world as God, so that there cannot be any validity in that argument.<ref>Russell 1957, pp. 6-7.</ref></blockquote>

== Serious Metaphysicians Don't Dismiss First Cause ==

The major thrust of Russell’s argument concerns the universality of the causal principle. Russell believes that “First Cause arguments” are based on the assumption that “everything must have a cause.” If any metaphysician seriously assumed this, then he would be liable to Russell’s judgment that his argument is (stupidly) open to the question, “What caused God?” Fortunately, I can attest that very few metaphysicians in history were stupid enough to argue Russell’s “universality of causation,” making his rendition of “First Cause arguments” a straw man. It should be noted that in the three philosophical proofs given in NPEG (Chapters Three through Five), it was never assumed that “everything has a cause.” Indeed, the assumption was quite the contrary.

In the metaphysical proof (given in Chapter 3 of NPEG), a complete disjunction was given: In all reality there is either only conditioned (caused) realities or there is at least one unconditioned (uncaused) reality. This proof does not assume that everything has a cause, but rather demonstrates that an unconditioned reality (i.e., an uncaused reality) would have to exist if the hypothesis that “all reality is conditioned” entails that nothing exist. It does entail this. And hence, the proof does not fall prey to the question, “What caused God?” because this question, within the context of the proof, would be “What caused the unconditioned (uncaused) reality?” which is, of course, absurd. The Lonerganian argument rests on grounds similar to the metaphysical one (see Chapter 4, Section II.A of NPG), and so does not fall prey to Russell’s objection for the same reasons.

In the third proof (given in Chapter 5 of NPEG), it was not assumed that everything had to have a cause, and a first uncaused caused was likewise not assumed. Rather, it was shown that a first cause of past time had to exist because the hypothesis of infinite past time contradicted the constitutive nature of time necessary to prevent contradictions in history. Thus, a first uncaused cause was shown to be necessary, and further, to transcend temporality altogether.

In sum, all three proofs never assumed the universality of the causal principle (“everything must have a cause”). Indeed, every proof assumed the hypothetical possibility of the contrary (i.e., that an uncaused reality could exist).

Russell’s statement also includes another objection, namely that proofs of God have inadequate definitions of causation: “The philosophers and the men of science have got going on cause, and it has not anything like the vitality it used to have….”<ref>Russell 1957, pp. 6-7.</ref> Since the days of Hume<ref>Hume 1969, pp., 58-60.</ref> and Kant,<ref>Kant 1965, pp. 205, 230, and 253. He uses his problematic notion of causality to show “problems” in the First Cause argument. See, for example, pp. 389-390, 409ff, 415ff, 464ff. Notice that Kant defines causality according to the linear dynamics of seventeenth and eighteenth century (Newtonian) physics, limiting its usefulness in contemporary physics and ontology.</ref> the objection has been raised that we do not know precisely what a cause is. In recent years in the areas of quantum mechanics and Relativity Theory, the notion of causation has expanded enormously to include information in quantum fields, changes in space-time geometry, non-aggregative motion in plasmas, and a host of other non-linear, non-experienceable, seeming causal relationships. Most philosophers and scientists do not believe they understand one one-hundredth of the possible manifestations of causes. But one does not have to understand or experience the full range of causation in order to use some general principles of causation within the arguments for God’s existence.

Recall for a moment that science is quite different from metaphysics. Science seeks to understand the particulars of data (say, causation within a quantum field), while metaphysics uses completely disjunctive categories with the most general definition possible. Thus, the only definition of causation with which the above three proofs are concerned is what is completely disjunctive to “an unconditioned reality” (first and second proofs), and “a creator of past time outside of this universe” (third proof). These proofs do not require an experience or understanding of every possible manifestation of the above three references to the “caused.” Indeed, they do not have to make recourse to the notion of “causation” (with all of its historical baggage) at all.

Recourse was made to three categories which could adequately cover the entire range of action, interaction, interrelationship, and energy emission in the General Theory of Relativity, Quantum Theory, quantum cosmology, string theory, etc. – namely, “conditioned realities” (realities which depend on the fulfillment of conditions of any kind for their existence) and “conditions” (any reality upon which a conditioned reality depends for its existence) and “unconditioned reality” (a reality which does not depend on conditions of any kind for its existence). Conditioned realities and conditions can include space-time manifolds, electromagnetic fields, quantum fields, plasma fields, positions in the space-time manifold, structures of complexes, magnetic monopoles – literally any reality which is not unconditioned.

Dependence on conditions is all that needs to be known in order for the proof to function. The kind of condition is absolutely irrelevant to the functioning of the proof. No doubt, in the future, the meaning of causation will be enhanced and changed with respect to the kinds of conditions and conditioned realities. But what will remain unchanged is that there will be conditioned realities, and that these realities will not, by themselves, be able to exist without an unconditioned reality. Furthermore, what will remain unchanged is that an unconditioned reality must be absolutely simple (proved in Chapter 3, Section II.B of NPEG) and unrestricted intelligibility (proved in Chapter 4, Section II.B of NPEG); and that absolute simplicity and unrestricted intelligibility must be unique; which means that everything else in reality must be conditioned. This puts to rest Russell’s further criticism that “if there can be anything without a cause, it may just as well be the world as God.”

By now it will be clear that the first two proofs do not assume that realities need a cause. Far from it – they actually demonstrate that all realities which are not absolutely simple and unrestrictedly intelligible must be conditioned (caused) realities. So long as the proofs require nothing more than these most generic, completely disjunctive definitions of “causation,” philosophers and scientists can keep changing and expanding their views of causation without affecting the intelligibility or the validity of the three above-mentioned proofs.

We now proceed to Russell’s third objection, namely, “how do we know that there are not many uncaused realities?” The only reason this question comes up is because Russell has not analyzed any real proofs for God’s existence – but only his strawman argument. If he had read any of the proofs which resemble the two proofs in NPEG Chapters Three and Four, he would have noticed that after proving that there must be at least one uncaused reality, most metaphysicians prove that there can only be one uncaused reality (see NPEG Chapter Three, Section III and Chapter Four, Section II.C). After showing that there can be only one uncaused reality, it is easy to show that everything else in all reality must be caused. This follows by a simple disjunctive deduction (i.e. everything else besides the one uncaused reality must be caused). Thus, these proofs do not assume that there can only be one uncaused reality; they prove it. Russell’s third objection, then, is irrelevant to these proofs, and as we can see, the proofs of God actually help to clarify the caused status of everything else in reality.

== Conclusion ==

In conclusion, if Russell had assessed any rigorous proofs for the existence of God, he would never have asked the question, “what created God?” Rigorous proofs first demonstrate that there must be at least one uncaused cause (They certainly do not assume that everything must be caused as Russell suggests). Rigorous proofs then go on to demonstrate that there can only be one uncaused cause, which leads inevitably to the deduction that everything else besides the one uncaused cause, must be caused.

== Footnotes ==

<references />

Mathematics

2011-07-26T21:02:25Z

David Persyn: branding

The Magis God Wiki: Mathematics

Is There Evidence of God From the Philosophy of Mathematics??

© Robert J. Spitzer, S.J. Ph.D./Magis Institute July 2011

The foregoing is only the first step in the philosophical proof of a Creator of past time. It shows that there is an analytical contradiction in the concept of “infinite past time” which strongly implies that this concept cannot exist in reality (and that past time must therefore be finite). If readers are interested in the full a-priori synthetic proof for a beginning of past time (which necessitates a Creator of past time which itself is not in past time) then they may want to consult Chapter Five of NPEF and units 22 through 26 of PMD (see the Introduction to this book – Footnote #1).

== An Analytical Contradiction in "Infinite Past Time" ==

The problematic character of infinite past time is revealed by a seemingly inescapable analytical contradiction in the very expression “infinite past time.”

If one splits the expression into its two component parts: (1) “past time” and (2) “infinite,” and attempts to find a common conceptual base which can apply to both terms (much like a lowest common denominator can apply to two different denominators in two fractions), one can immediately detect contradictory features. One such common conceptual base is the idea of “occurrence,” another, the idea of “achievement,” and still another, the idea of “actualizability.” Let us begin with the expression “past time.”

Past time can only be viewed as having occurred, or having been achieved, or having been actualized; otherwise, it would be analytically indistinguishable from present time and future time. In order to maintain the analytical distinction among these three interrelated ideas, present time must be viewed as “occurring,” or “being achieved,” or “being actualized”; and future time must be viewed as “not having occurred,” “not achieved,” and “not actualized.” The notion of “past” loses its intelligibility with respect to present and future if its meaning were to include “occurring,” “being achieved,” or “being actualized” (pertaining to the present); or “not having occurred,” “not achieved,” or “not actualized” (pertaining to the future). If past time is to retain its distinct intelligibility, it can only be viewed as “having occurred,” “achieved,” and “actualized.”

Now let us turn to the other side of the expression, namely, “infinite.” Throughout this Unit, I will view “infinity” within the context of a continuous succession because I will show that real time in changeable universes must be a “continuous succession of non-contemporaneous distension.” Now, infinities within a continuous succession imply “unoccurrable,” “unachievable,” and “unactualizable,” for a continuous succession occurs one step at a time (that is, one step after another), and can therefore only be increased a finite amount. No matter how fast and how long the succession occurs, the “one step at a time” or “one step after another” character of the succession necessitates that only a finite amount is occurrable, achievable, or actualizable. Now, if “infinity” is applied to a continuous succession, and it is to be kept analytically distinct from (indeed, contrary to) “finitude,” then “infinity” must always be more than can ever occur, be achieved, or be actualized through a continuous succession (“one step at a time” succession). Therefore, infinity would have to be unoccurrable, unachievable, and unactualizable when applied to a continuous succession. Any other definition would make “infinity” analytically indistinguishable from “finitude” in its application to a continuous succession. Therefore, in order to maintain the analytical distinction between “finitude” and “infinity” in a continuous succession, “infinity” must be considered unoccurrable (as distinct from finitude which is occurrable), unachievable (as distinct from finitude which is achievable), and unactualizable (as distinct from finitude which is actualizable). We are now ready to combine the two parts of our expression through our three common conceptual bases:

'''“Infinite..............................Past Time”'''

“(The) unoccurable................(has) occurred.”

“(The) unachievable...............(has been) achieved.”

“(The) unactualizable.............(has been) actualized.”

Failures of human imagination may deceive one into thinking that the above analytical contradictions can be overcome, but further scrutiny reveals their inescapability. For example, it might be easier to detect the unachievability of an infinite series when one views an infinite succession as having a beginning point without an ending point, for if a series has no end, then, a priori, it can never be achieved. However, when one looks at the infinite series as having an ending point but no beginning point (as with infinite past time reaching the present), one is tempted to think that the presence of the ending point must signify achievement, and, therefore, the infinite series was achieved. This conjecture does not avoid the contradiction of “infinite past time” being “an achieved unachievable.” It simply manifests a failure of our imagination. Since we conjecture that the ending point has been reached, we think that an infinite number of steps has really been traversed, but this does not help, because we are still contending that unachievability has been achieved, and are therefore still asserting an analytical contradiction.

Another failure of our imagination arises out of thinking about relative progress in an historical succession. Our common sense might say that infinite past history is impossible because an infinity is innumerable, immeasurable, and unquantifiable, making the expression “an infinite number” an oxymoron. But then we get to thinking that infinite history seems plausible because each step relative to the other steps is quantifiable in its progression; each step is subject to relative numeration. Therefore, it seems like history can really achieve an infinite number of steps.

However, as the above analysis reveals, this cannot be so because an infinity in a continuous succession must be unachievable or unactualizable as a whole (otherwise, it would be analytically indistinguishable from “finitude” in a continuous succession). Since, as has been said, past time must be achieved or actualized (otherwise it would be analytically indistinguishable from “present” and “future”), “infinite past time” must be an “achieved unachievable” or an “actualized unactualizable” (an intrinsic contradiction). Moreover, the expression “an infinite number” is also an intrinsic contradiction because “number” implies a definite quantity, whereas “infinity” implies innumerability (more than can ever be numbered). Therefore, infinite history and its characterization as “a completion of infinite time,” remains inescapably analytically contradictory.

This intrinsic analytical contradiction reveals the problematic character of the very idea of “infinite past time.” It now remains for us to show the inapplicability of this problematic idea to our universe, and indeed, to any really possible changeable universe. This step will give ontological (“synthetic”) significance to the analytical contradiction by showing that the condition of the real world (i.e., our real universe, or any really possible changeable universe) will contradict (and therefore resist) the application of this problematic idea to it. The result will be that no real universe could have had infinite past time.

Before we can proceed to this proof, we must first give an ontological explanation of real time<ref>“Real time” will be defined as “a continuous succession of non-contemporaneous distention".</ref>, and then show that this real time must be intrinsic to any changeable universe, and then explain Hilbert’s distinction between actual and potential infinities so that it will be clear that “infinite past time” (as defined) must be an actual infinity which Hilbert shows to be inapplicable to any reality to which the axioms of finite mathematics can be applied. The ontological proof against an infinity of past time will follow from this.

Please note that the a-priori synthetic proof is based upon the work of the famous mathematician David Hilbert (see “On the Infinite” in Hilary Putnam, ed Philosophy of Mathematics (Inglewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentiss Hall, 1977). What follows is a brief summary of Hilbert’s discovery. For a full explanation see NPEG, Chapter V, and PID Units 22 – 27.

== A Brief Explanation of Real Time ==

It is perhaps best to begin our ontological analysis of time without making recourse to locomotion (which combines space and time). This may be done by looking at a non-spatial change such as death. Let us suppose a cat dies. One of the most apparent ontological truths about this occurrence is that “the state before” and “the state after” cannot be coincident. If they were, it would be an obvious contradiction (the cat simultaneously alive and dead). This, of course, is the problem with all history. Changed existential states in any specific entity cannot be coincident without contradiction. Therefore, wherever there is change, indeed, wherever there is changeability, there must also be some existential non-coincidence which allows differing states to occur within a single entity (e.g., a cat). Let us sum up this initial definition of time as “the existential non-coincidence necessary for the possibility of changed states within a single entity.” If this existential non-coincidence were not objectively real, changeable beings and changeable states within the same being would have to be simultaneous, and therefore intrinsically contradictory, and therefore impossible. In view of this, time may also be defined as, “that without which all history is a contradiction.”

At this point, one will want to ask, “What is ‘existential non-coincidence?’” or “How does it manifest itself?” The temptation here is to spatialize it, by, for example, inserting a spatial continuum between “the cat alive” and “the cat dead.” Though this may be very satisfying from the vantage point of human imagination, it leads to a host of problems. To begin with, our cat both alive and dead is in the same place, and the separation of its existential states is not describable by an extensive – spatial – separation. Yet, the cat’s change does require a non-extensive separation (frequently termed “a distensive separation”). One must be careful here not to visualize distensive separation as a three-dimensional continuum, otherwise one will be imposing a quasi-spatial continuum between events.

Henri Bergson wrestled with this problem, and finally made recourse to a kind of “protomentalist unified separation of existential states” which he termed “elementary memory.” He supposed that this elementary memory existed in the universe as a whole, as a kind of very “elementary cosmic consciousness.” In a famous passage in Duration and Simultaneity, he noted:

<blockquote>What we wish to establish is that we cannot speak of a reality which endures without inserting consciousness into it.<ref>Bergson 1965, p. 48. See also Spitzer 1989, pp. 12-14.</ref></blockquote>

In order to show this, he constructs a thought experiment in which he assumes the above existential non-coincidence of incompatible states:

<blockquote>We shall have to consider a moment in the unfolding of the universe, that is, a snapshot that exists independently of any consciousness, then we shall try conjointly to summon another moment brought as close as possible to the first, and thus have a minimum amount of time enter into the world without allowing the faintest glimmer of memory to go with it. We shall see that this is impossible. Without an elementary memory that connects the two moments, there will be only one or the other, consequently a single instant, no before and after, no succession, no time.<ref>Bergson 1965, p. 48.</ref></blockquote>

I do not wish here to either affirm or deny Bergson’s protomentalist conclusions, but I do want to acknowledge the ontological conditions of change and time which Bergson recognized in concluding to them, namely,

1) a real existential non-coincidence between changed states,

2) a fundamental unity within this separation which unifies the non-coincidence of earlier and later, and

3) the non-spatial (and hence, for Bergson, the “elementary memory” or “elementary consciousness”) character of this “unity of existential non-coincidence.”

These three ontological conditions now give a further refinement of our ontological explanation of time, namely, “a non-spatial unity intrinsic to existential non-coincidence necessary for changeability.” Inasmuch as this unity is divisible into “earlier” and “later” (as Bergson correctly surmises) it is a non-contemporaneous manifold. This non-contemporaneous manifold is distinct from a spatial unity which is a contemporaneous manifold. Since the transition from earlier to later is akin to a “stretching from within,” I will refer to it as “distension” instead of “extension” which more properly applies to a contemporaneous (spatial) manifold. Hence, “real time” may now be defined as a “non-contemporaneous” distensive manifold intrinsic to changeable realities (or groups of changeable realities).”

== Summary of Hilbert's Prohibition of Actual Infinities ==

In order to expedite the explanation of Hilbert’s prohibition, it will be helpful to draw a distinction between three kinds of infinity which are genuinely distinct from one another and cannot be used as analogies for one another. This will show why Hilbert’s prohibition only applies to C infinities (infinities hypothesized to be within algorithmically finite structures).

Three Kinds of Infinity

For the sake of convenience, I will term these three kinds of infinity A, B, and C:

1) “A-infinity.” “Infinite” frequently has the meaning of “unrestricted,” (e.g., “infinite power” means “unrestricted power”). It can only be conceived through the “via negativa,” that is, by disallowing or negating any magnitude, characteristic, quality, way of acting, or way of being which could be restricted or introduce restriction into an infinite (unrestricted) power. Therefore, “infinite,” here, is not a mathematical concept. It is the negation of any restriction (or any condition which could introduce restriction) into power, act, or being.

2) “B-infinity.” “Infinite” is also used to signify indefinite progression or indefinite ongoingness. An indefinite progression is never truly actualized. It is one that can (potentially) progress ad infinitum. Examples of this might be an interminably ongoing series, or an ever-expanding Euclidean plane. The series or the plane never reaches infinity; it simply can (potentially) keep on going ad infinitum. Thus, Hilbert calls this kind of infinity a “potential infinity.”

3) “C-infinity.” “Infinite” is sometimes used to signify “infinity actualized within an algorithmically finite structure.” Mathematicians such as Georg Cantor hypothesized a set with an actual infinite number of members (a Cantorian set) which would not be a set with an ever-increasing number of members or an algorithm which could generate a potential infinity of members. Examples might be an existing infinite number line, or an existing infinite spatial manifold, or the achievement of an infinite continuous succession of asymmetrical events (i.e., infinite past history).

The Hilbertian prohibition applies to the C-infinity alone, for, as will be seen, it is not concerned with non-mathematical infinities (i.e., an A-infinity), and it permits indefinitely ongoing (continually potential) successions through algorithmically finite structures (i.e., B-infinities). Before showing Hilbert’s and others’ prohibition of C-infinities, the two permissible kinds of infinities will be discussed.

An A-infinity has long been recognized by the Scholastic tradition.<ref>Beginning with Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite. See Rolt 1940.</ref> As noted above, it is not a mathematical infinity (such as infinite sets, infinite number lines, infinite successions, etc.) and it is not applied to algorithmically finite structures (such as spatial magnitudes, temporal magnitudes, fields, forces, etc.). Hence, it does not postulate an infinite Euclidean plane, infinite past time, an infinite number line, infinite space, infinite history, infinite thermometers, infinite density, or an infinite physical force. An A-infinity is simply the recognition of “non-restrictedness” in power. It is, therefore, a negation of any predicate which has restriction or could imply restriction in an infinite power.

As Scholastic philosophers have long recognized, one can only speak about “infinite power” or “infinite being” by negating any restriction (or structure giving rise to a restriction such as a divisible magnitude) to the power itself. Thus, one can say that “infinite power” is not restricted as to form, way of acting, space-time point, or even to spatiality itself (which is a divisible magnitude having intrinsically finite parts).

Such negative statements are not equivalent to “no knowledge” or unintelligibility; for one does know that infinite power does not have a restriction. Yet, at the same time, one cannot positively imagine (through, say, picture-thinking) what such unrestricted power would be. Every image we have is likely to restrict the entity we are conceiving either intrinsically or extrinsically.

Our inability to conceive or imagine this entity does not in any way rule out its possibility, for our inability to conceive of it does not reveal an intrinsic contradiction or “an extrinsic contradiction with some existing reality;” it merely admits the limits of our spatializing, temporalizing, finitizing imagination and conception. Thus, as we shall see, Hilbert’s prohibition of an “actual infinity” does not extend to an A-infinity, for an A-infinity is neither a mathematical infinity nor an application of infinity to an algorithmically finite structure. Interestingly enough, Hilbert’s prohibition of a C-infinity could actually constitute a proof for an A-infinity.

A B-infinity is quite distinct from an A-infinity because it is both a mathematical infinity and an application of infinity to an algorithmically finite structure. Unlike the prohibited C-infinity, the B-infinity applies a mathematical infinity to an algorithmically finite structure in only a potential way. Therefore, the B-infinity only acknowledges the possibility that an algorithmically finite structure could continue to progress indefinitely.

Thus, the B-infinity does not imply that a Cantorian set (with an infinite number of members) actually exists. It implies that a particular algorithm (sufficient to define the set) can continue to generate members indefinitely. Furthermore, it does not hold that an infinite number line actually exists, but rather than one can continue to generate numbers on the line indefinitely. The existence (completion or achievement) of an infinite number line is never advocated, but only the potential to continue to generate numbers according to a particular algorithm indefinitely.

The same holds true for magnitudes such as space (a contemporaneous magnitude) and time (a non-contemporaneous magnitude). A potential infinity implies that a spatial magnitude has the potential to continue expanding indefinitely. Similarly, it holds that a non-contemporaneous succession of events has the potential to continue indefinitely (into the future). It does not imply that an infinite spatial magnitude really exists or that an infinity of continuously successive historical events actually occurred.

The Hilbertian prohibition does not apply to a B-infinity because one is not advocating the existence (actuality) of a mathematical infinity within an algorithmically finite structure. One is only advocating the potential to increase an algorithmically finite structure indefinitely according to a particular algorithm. As we shall see momentarily, infinity applied to the succession of future events will not give rise to a Hilbertian paradox because future events are only potential. An infinity never exists. Future time can only be an indefinitely increasing succession of events; never the existence (actuality) of a mathematical infinity. As will be seen, such is not the case with past time, which explains why infinite past time falls under the Hilbertian prohibition.

A C-infinity, like a B-infinity, is both a mathematical infinity and an application of infinity to an algorithmically finite structure. The important difference, however, between the B and C-infinities is that the C-infinity implies the existence (actuality) of a mathematical infinity within an algorithmically finite structure. As noted above, examples of a C-infinity would be an actual Cantorian set with an actual infinite number of members, or an infinite number line with an actual infinite number of positions, or an actually existing infinite spatial magnitude, or an actual occurrence of an infinite number of events in the past. Thus, if C-infinities could really exist, there could be infinite space, infinity degrees Fahrenheit, infinite mass density, infinite physical force, and infinite past time. These notions seem irresolvably paradoxical prima facie, because the mathematical infinity applied to them utterly destroys their intelligibility as algorithmically finite structures. The proof for this goes beyond prima facie intuition. It extends to the requirements for mathematical intelligibility itself. Thus, as Hilbert shows, a mathematical infinity existing within an algorithmically finite structure undermines the very possibility of finite mathematics, and therefore the very possibility of quantifying those algorithmically finite structures. Therefore, a C-infinity must, in all cases, be illusory.

Now, it was shown above that the succession of past events is a real, non-contemporaneously distended, interactive, asymmetrically related, continuously successive whole. As such, it must be an actual asymmetrical progression. It does not matter that past events no longer exist, because all past events did exist and affected, and were related to, present events as they passed out of existence. Thus, they constitute a real past progression. This is sufficient to qualify “a past succession of events” for Hilbert’s prohibition, because the application of an infinity to it must be a C-infinity (not a B-infinity).

If a C-infinity must in all cases be rejected (because it entails the undermining of finite mathematics and the quantification of algorithmically finite structures), then an infinite past succession of events must also be rejected. This will be shown first by summarizing Hilbert’s (and others’) prohibition of C-infinities and second through a formal proof which illustrates the contradictory and incoherent nature of the C-infinity applied to past time.

It is important not only to distinguish among these three kinds of infinity, but also to avoid analogizing one with the other. Thus, infinite future time cannot be a proper analogy for infinite past time. As can be seen, they are quite distinct (a B-infinity versus a C-infinity, respectively). Furthermore, infinite future time cannot be used as an analogy for infinite power (a B-infinity versus an A-infinity, respectively). The rules for each kind of infinity do not apply meaningfully to the other kinds.

The Mathematical Prohibition of C-Infinities

The above discussion was brought to the attention of philosophers of mathematics by David Hilbert, who attempted to clarify the notion of an infinite numeric series which was thought to exist as a completed totality:

<blockquote>Just as in the limit processes of the infinitesimal calculus, the infinite in the sense of the infinitely large and the infinitely small proved to be merely a figure of speech, so too we must realize that the infinite in the sense of an infinite totality, where we still find it used in deductive methods, is an ''illusion''.<ref>Hilbert 1964, p. 135.</ref></blockquote>

Hilbert is proposing here that, even though a B-infinity (one with the potential to continue indefinitely without being actual) is mathematically admissible, a C-infinity (the existence of a mathematical infinity within an algorithmically finite structure) is not mathematically admissible because it presents irresolvable paradoxes and contradicts the very axioms of finite mathematics. In recounting the history of the “actual infinite” (Hilbert’s designation of a C-infinity from Georg Cantor’s actual infinite set of numbers) Hilbert notes that the Russel-Zermelo paradox presents so many devastating contradictions that it nearly undermined deductive procedure in mathematics:

<blockquote>These contradictions, the so-called paradoxes of set theory, though at first scattered, became progressively more acute and more serious. In particular, a contradiction discovered by Zermelo and Russell had a downright catastrophic effect when it became known throughout the world of mathematics. Confronted by these paradoxes, Dedekind and Frege completely abandoned their point of view [belief in the coherency of an infinite set as proposed by Cantor] and retreated.<ref>Hilbert 1964, p. 141.</ref></blockquote>

Hilbert then concludes that the technique of ideal elements (which can imply infinities) cannot be used if they change the fundamental axioms of finite numbers to which they have been applied. Since this does not occur with potential infinities (B-infinities), but always occurs with actual infinities (C-infinities), Hilbert rejects the use of the latter in any way that could apply to the real world (i.e., real magnitudes, real counting, real series, etc.):

<blockquote>In summary, let us return to our main theme and draw some conclusions from all our thinking about the infinite. Our principal result is that the infinite is nowhere to be found in reality. It neither exists in nature nor provides a legitimate basis for rational thought – a remarkable harmony between being and thought. … The role that remains for the infinite to play is solely that of an idea – if one means by an idea, in Kant’s terminology, a concept of reason which transcends all experience and which completes the concrete as a totality [a B-infinity]…. <ref>Hilbert 1964, p. 151.</ref></blockquote>

== Conclusions ==

Hilbert’s analysis shows that the existence of a mathematical infinity in an algorithmically finite structure results not only in a contradiction, but also in the undermining of the axioms of finite numbers which it was intended to complete. If devastating consequences for the whole of mathematical reasoning are to be avoided, C-infinities must not be applied to real magnitudes, successions, series, or any algorithmically finite structure that could be considered real (such as past time).

Hilbert’s prohibition of C-infinities continues to be widely held by contemporary mathematicians. As William Lane Craig notes:

<blockquote>According to Robinson, “Cantor’s infinities are abstract and divorced from the physical world [Robinson 1969, p. 163].” This judgement is echoed by Fraenkel, who concludes that among the various branches of mathematics, set theory is “the branch which least of all is connected with external experience and most genuinely originates from free intellectual creation [Fraenkel 1973, p. 240].” As a creation of the human mind, state Rotman and Kneebone…when one selects from an infinite set an infinite subset, the actual possibility of such an operation is not implied. “The conception of an infinite sequence of choices (or of any other acts)…is a mathematical fiction – an idealization of what is imaginable only in finite cases [Rotman and Kneebone 1966, p. 60].” <ref>Craig 1993, p. 10. Many other mathematicians and philosophers have recognized this as well. See, for example, Whitrow, 1954-1955, pp. 215-225; 1967, pp. 422-432; 1968; and 1970, pp. 224-233.</ref></blockquote

Of course, infinities can be applied to sets in merely theoretical or abstract ways (e.g., Cantorian sets or the Zermelo-Fraenkel universe of sets), but this cannot be thought to have applicability to the real world:

<blockquote>[T]he Zermelo-Fraenkel universe of sets exists only in a realm of abstract thought… [I]he “universe” of sets to which the…theory refers is in no way intended as an abstract model of an existing Universe, but serves merely as the postulated universe of discourse for a certain kind of abstract inquiry.<ref>Rotman and Kneebone 1966, p. 61.</ref></blockquote>

In sum, Hilbert’s, Fraenkel’s, Rotman’s, Kneebone’s, Zermelo’s, Robinson’s, and many others’ analysis shows that the existence of a mathematical infinity in an algorithmically finite structure results not only in a contradiction, but also in the undermining of the axioms of finite numbers which it was intended to complete. If devastating consequences for the whole of mathematical reasoning (and also the applicability of mathematics to the finite universe) are to be avoided, C-infinities must not be applied to real magnitudes, successions, series, or any algorithmically finite structure that could be considered real (such as past time).
At this juncture, the reader will probably notice the invalidity of the hypothesis “infinite past history” or “infinite past time.” The ontological explanation of time, which shows that history must be a continuous succession of events (each of which has real distensive separation and real power to aggregate the whole of the continuous succession) reveals that when infinity is applied to it, it must imply “infinity within an actual algorithmically finite structure,” which implies an actual infinity (a C-infinity). As noted above, this C-infinity must be considered illusory (nonexistent within a standard universe) because it undermines the axioms of finite mathematics which ground the quantifiable intelligibility of the realities in that universe (and also the applicability of mathematics to the finite universe). This deduction alone is sufficient to show that infinite history (implying infinite past time) cannot exist through any possible reality (or contemporaneously unified group of realities) in any possible universe. There will have to be a beginning (and a creator) of past time wherever past time exists.
C-infinities not only undermine the axioms of finite mathematics, but also the intelligibility of the finite realities to which they have been applied. For example, the existence of an infinity in the whole of past history would undermine the distensive separation of every part of that past history (reducing its aggregative effect within the whole to nothing – a dimensionless point), because an infinite distension minus any finite part, or any infinite part which is a subset of the whole, is still infinity. But this cannot be the case in real history, because every part of past time must maintain its distensive separation and its power to aggregate the whole. If it did not, then history would be fraught with irresolvable contradictions (e.g., the cat alive and dead simultaneously).

Therefore if every part of real history (and real time) are to maintain their real distensive separation then every part of real history and time must contribute or constitute (build up) the whole of real history or time, because every part separates everything that came before it from everything coming after it. But as we saw, no part can really contribute or constitute (build up) an infinite continuum – its addition or removal has no effect – it does not change the whole at all. Inasmuch as parts in an infinite whole cannot build up the whole, they cannot cause real distensive separation of everything that came before from everything coming after in that whole and so parts of an infinite whole cannot be parts of real history or real time. If they were, history would be fraught with contradictions. This leads to the conclusion that history and time must be finite, and if finite, must have a beginning. As we saw in Unit D, a beginning of time implies a Creator. This Creator would have to be timeless.

For the demonstration of the timelessness of the Creator of pastime, see NPEG, Chap Five, Section V.

== Footnotes ==

<references />

Metaphysical Proofs

2011-07-26T21:01:19Z

David Persyn: branding

The Magis God Wiki: Metaphysical Proofs

Can the Existence of God be Logically Proven?

© Robert J. Spitzer, S.J./Magis Institute July 2011 – All rights reserved

The following unit gives a brief synopsis of the three kinds of publicly accessible evidence used for rational proof or disproof (Section I) and the first step in a logical-metaphysical proof for the existence of God (Section II). The latter gives only the first step in that proof (there must exist at least one unconditioned reality). The other steps of the proof which show that there can be only one unconditioned reality, and that this unique reality is absolutely simple, unrestricted, and the continuous Creator of all else that is may be found in NPEG Chapter Three and also in lectures # 6 through 11 of PID.<ref>Recall from the introduction to the Encyclopedia that NPEG refers to New Proofs for the Existence of God: Contributions of Contemporary Physics and Philosophy (Eerdmans 2010) and PID refers to the lecture series entitled Physics and Metaphysics I Dialogue by Robert J. Spitzer, S.J., Ph.D. which can be accessed through www.physicsindialogue.org.</ref>

== Three Kinds of Publicly Accessible Evidence for Rational Proof ==

It might do well to begin with a brief summary of the three methods of assuring publicly accessible evidence: a-posteriori, a-priori, and a combination of both (contradiction of a fact). Two-thousand, four-hundred years ago, Aristotle showed that all human knowledge is based on certain first principles which are necessary for the functioning of any proof, and therefore cannot be proved (or disproved) without themselves being used. He implied that it was reasonable to believe in the validity of these first principles since they had shown themselves to be reliable in countless individual circumstances, and responsible to believe in them because their denial would require a virtual cessation to thought.<ref>Metaphysics, Book IV,3 (1005b5-1011b23), and Book VI,3 (1061b34-1063b35). Aristotle sums up his reasoning here as follows: “It would seem also that in saying the man is not a horse we should be either more or not less right than in saying he is not a man, so that we shall be right in saying that the same person is a horse; for it was assumed to be possible to make opposite statements equally truly. It follows then that the same person is a man and a horse, or any other animal. While, then, there is no proof of the axiom [the principle of non-contradiction] without qualification, there is a proof relatively to anyone who will make these suppositions. And perhaps if we had questioned Heraclitus himself in this way we might have forced him to confess that opposite statements can never be true of the same subjects” (Aristotle 1984(a), p. 1678, Book VI,3, 1062a25-31). See also Posterior Analytics, Book I,2 (72a12).</ref>

A belief may be considered reasonable and responsible if:

1) it can be affirmed by rigorous public corroboration, or

2) its denial leads to an intrinsic contradiction, or

3) its denial leads to a contradiction of publicly corroborated fact.

One of these forms of evidence is sufficient to ground the truth of a proposition. More than one would provide additional corroboration, but is not necessary. Standards for the reasonable and responsible definition of terms will be given below.

With respect to (1), rigorous corroboration means an agreed upon criterion for corroboration which is sufficient to make a preponderance of reasonable and responsible people believe that a denial of the claim is far more unreasonable and irresponsible than an affirmation of it. In the domain of sense description (e.g., Bob Spitzer is coming into his office) this corroboration could occur through agreement on sensorial apparitions from multiple persons having multiple perspectives. In science, rigorous corroboration could occur through different kinds of experimentation, repetitions of experiments, different kinds of measuring devices, etc. In social sciences, this might come from multiple approaches to a single problem or statistical analysis (using correlation coefficients, T tables, etc.).

With respect to (2), I will consider it reasonable and responsible to claim that intrinsic contradictions (e.g., “a square-circle of the same area in the same respect at the same place and time,” “an object which acts like both a proton and an electron in the same respect at the same place and time,” or “an infinite-finite in the same respect at the same place and time”) are impossible states of affairs. Therefore, all such intrinsic contradictions could not be reasonably and responsibly held to be true for real states of affairs.

Furthermore, any hypothetical state of affairs which inevitably and logically leads to an intrinsic contradiction will also be held to be an impossible state of affairs. For example, if the claim “past time is infinite” (which, on its surface, may not appear to be contradictory) can be shown to be an intrinsic and ontological contradiction, then the statement “past time is infinite” must also be considered an impossible state of affairs.

Furthermore, I will consider it reasonable and responsible to assert that the opposite of an intrinsically contradictory proposition is true. With respect to the above example, if the proposition “past time is infinite” results in an intrinsic and ontological contradiction, then the opposite of that proposition must be true, that is, “past time is finite.” The expression “it is not the case that past time is infinite” is equivalent to “past time is finite,” or “not (past time is not finite)” equals “past time is finite.” The “nots” cancel each other out.

I will also consider it reasonable and responsible to hold that impossible states of affairs are universally false. For example square-circles of the same area in the same respect at the same place and time will not be able to exist in another universe any more than this one. They will not be able to inhere in steel any more than wood. They will not exist tomorrow any more than they can exist today, and they could not have existed 1,000 years ago any more than they can exist today.

With respect to (3), I will consider any hypothetical state of affairs which contradicts a rigorously corroborated fact (such as well corroborated experimental evidence) to be false. (By the way, this is the ground of scientific method.)

I will consider terms to be reasonably and responsibly defined when those definitions adequately allow for public corroboration, demonstrate non-contradiction, or demonstrate that a hypothetical state of affairs contradicts a rigorously corroborated fact. Terms need not be perfectly defined with respect to all possible states of affairs or all possible hypothetical conditions in order to achieve the above objective. They do not even have to be comprehensive. Terms need only have sufficient meaning to successfully complete corroboration or demonstration.

For example, I do not need to know everything about the strong nuclear force constant in order to demonstrate that a 2 percent change in that constant would either prohibit the generation of hydrogen atoms or prohibit the generation of atoms heavier than hydrogen. I only need to know the ways in which the strong nuclear force interacts with the electromagnetic force in order to demonstrate the bonding peculiarities that would prohibit either hydrogen or elements heavier than hydrogen from being generated.

If the you, the reader, accept these three grounds of reasonable and responsible belief, as well as the requirements for adequate definition, you will likely also accept the three elements of metaphysical method mentioned above, for these flow directly from the three grounds of reasonable and responsible belief.

Conversely, if you do not accept the three grounds of reasonable and responsible belief, you will not only have trouble with metaphysics and proofs for God’s existence, but also with every form of logical demonstration, scientific method, and application of mathematical principles to reality, for all four of these intellectual enterprises depend equally on the three grounds for reasonable and responsible belief. Metaphysics and proofs for God’s existence do not require any more belief or force of will than an application of mathematics or logic to the world.

== A Logical-Metaphysical Proof for the Existence of God ==

The following is the first step in a metaphysical argument for the existence of God. It proves that there is at least one unconditioned reality in the set of all reality. Steps II through IV (which are not given here) prove that an unconditioned reality has to be unrestricted in its power, and that an unrestricted reality can only be one (and only one). This means that there must be one (and only one) unrestricted and unconditioned reality in the set of all reality. Step V proves that this one unrestricted, unconditioned reality must be the continuous Creator of all else that is. Readers wishing to see steps II through V may want to read NPEG Chapter Three. Those who would prefer a lecture presentation will want to consult lectures of PID number 6 through number 11 -- www.physicsindialogue.org.

=== Metaphysical Proof for the Existence of God ===

Many metaphysical arguments for God’s existence have been offered since the time of Plato and Aristotle.<ref>See the [[Introduction]].</ref> This one attempts to incorporate two insights from twentieth century thought into the seminal insights of Plato, Aristotle, St. Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas, and their interpreters. The first insight comes from Bernard Lonergan, who uses the notion of ontological conditions to interpret causal schemes of recurrence.<ref>Lonergan 1992, pp. 141-143.</ref> This view of causation can be applied to the whole range of causal connections (from the simple extrinsic collision of billiard balls, to very subtle and indeterminate information transfers in quantum systems). The second insight comes from quantum theory, which gives very lucid examples of the traditional notion of ontological simplicity. These two insights strengthen and clarify not only the proof of an unconditioned reality, but also the proofs for the absolutely simple, infinite, and unique nature of this unconditioned reality.

This version of the metaphysical argument consists of five steps:

1. Proof of at least one unconditioned reality.

2. Proof that unconditioned reality itself is the simplest possible reality.

3. Proof that unconditioned reality itself is absolutely unique.

4. Proof that Unconditioned Reality Itself is unrestricted.

5. Proof that the one Unconditioned Reality is the continuous Creator of all else that is.

==== Proof of the Existence of at Least One Unconditioned Reality ====

This proof will consist of three substeps:

A) A complete disjunction elucidating the whole range of possible options for all reality.

B) Proof that a finite number of conditioned realities cannot ground the existence of any conditioned reality.

C) Proof that an infinite number of conditioned realities cannot ground the existence of any conditioned reality.

1. Complete Disjunction Elucidating the Whole Range of Possibilities for All Reality

In all reality (R), R could have either no unconditioned reality (“Hypothesis ∼UR”), or one or more unconditioned realities (“Hypothesis UR”), not neither, not both (complete disjunction). Both options cannot be false because the whole range of possibilities for R are covered by these two options. Both options cannot be true because this would violate the principle of non-contradiction. Therefore, one and only one option can be and must be true.

I A. Definitions

[[File:Metaphysics1.png |thumb|480px|left|A Diagram of the Hierarchy of Conditioned Reality]]
“Conditioned reality” means any reality (e.g., individual, particle, field, wave, structure, spatio-temporal continuum, spatio-temporal position, physical laws – e.g., E = MC2) which is dependent upon another reality for its existence or occurrence. For example, a cat is a conditioned reality because it depends on cells and structures of cells for its existence. Without such cells and their specific structure, the cat would simply not exist. Similarly, cells are conditioned realities because they depend on molecules and specific structures of molecules for their existence. Likewise, molecules are conditioned realities because they depend on atoms and structures of atoms. Atoms are dependent on quarks and structures of quarks, and so forth.

“Conditions” means any reality (e.g., individual, particle, field, wave, structure, spatio-temporal continuum, spatio-temporal position, physical laws – e.g., E=MC2) upon which a conditioned reality<ref>The reader may be accustomed to seeing the word “conditioned” used in an epistemological sense (e.g., in the works of Kant, or with respect to scientific judgments). I am using it in a definitively ontological sense here. This usage reflects the contemporary scientific understanding of physical laws and other forms of ontological dependency. A rather poignant example of this ontological use of “conditioned” with respect to physical schemes of recurrence may be found in Lonergan 1992, pp. 141-143.</ref> depends for its existence or occurrence. For example, cells are the conditions of cats, molecules the conditions of cells, etc.

“Unconditioned reality” means a reality which does not depend on any other reality of any kind for its existence or occurrence.

II A. Consequences of the Complete Disjunction

Notice that the first option in the above disjunction (Hypothesis ∼UR – “there are no unconditioned realities in all reality”) can be restated as: “in all reality (R), there are only conditioned realities.” For it is equivalent to say, “there are no unconditioned realities in all reality” as to say, “there are only conditioned realities in all reality.”

Note that if option #1 is false, then option #2 must be true, because one, and only one, of these two disjunctive options can be, and must be true. The remainder of Section II will be concerned with showing that option #1 must be false for all reality. This will prove, by disjunctive syllogism, that option #2 must be true, and therefore, there must exist at least one unconditioned reality in all reality.

[[File:Metaphysics2.png |thumb|480px|left|A Diagram of Complete Disjunction]]

For any conditioned reality (CR), CR can depend either on a finite number of conditions or an infinite number of conditions, not neither, not both (complete disjunction). Both options cannot be false because all possibilities are covered by these two options. Both options cannot be true because that would violate the principle of non-contradiction. Let us call option 1 “Hypothesis F” and option 2 “Hypothesis ∼F.” Section II.B (below) will show that “Hypothesis F” must always be false for any conditioned reality. Section II.C will show that “Hypothesis ∼F” must also be false for any conditioned reality. Therefore, no conditioned reality can exist under “Hypothesis F” or “Hypothesis ∼F.” If these two hypotheses cover the whole range of possibilities for any conditioned reality, then no conditioned reality could exist in all reality if there are only conditioned realities in all reality. Therefore, at least one unconditioned reality must exist.

[[File:Metaphysics3.png |thumb|480px|left|A Diagram of the necessity for a conditioned reality]]

II.B. Proof that “Hypothesis F” Must be False for any Conditioned Reality (CR)

1. If any conditioned reality (CR) is dependent on only a finite number of conditions for its existence (“Hypothesis F”), then there would have to be a most fundamental condition (“last condition”) upon which the CR depends. For example, a quark or some other more fundamental conditioned reality would have to be the most fundamental condition (“last condition”) upon which a CR – say, a cat – depends. This temporarily ignores the possibility of a circular set of conditions which will be disproved in Section II.D below.

[[File:Metaphysics4.png |thumb|480px|left|A Diagram of the Hierarchy of Conditions with Fundamental]]

2. “Hypothesis ∼UR” (under which “Hypothesis F” is being considered) asserts that there are no unconditioned realities in all reality. This is equivalent to asserting that there are only conditioned realities. Therefore, the most fundamental condition for any conditioned reality (CR) would have to be a conditioned reality (since we have hypothesized in “Hypothesis ∼UR” that there are only conditioned realities in all reality).

3. If we ignore the possibility of a circular set of conditions for the moment, then the most fundamental condition (last condition) must be a conditioned reality whose conditions are not fulfilled. The last condition must have conditions because it is a conditioned reality (according to “Hypothesis ∼UR”), and its conditions cannot be fulfilled because it is the last, or terminating condition (according to “Hypothesis F”). Therefore, the combination of “Hypothesis F” and “Hypothesis ∼UR” requires that the last condition be a conditioned reality whose conditions are not fulfilled. But “a conditioned reality whose conditions are not fulfilled” is literally nothing.

4. If the combination of “Hypothesis ∼UR” and “Hypothesis F” requires that the most fundamental condition be non-existent (nothing), then all conditioned realities hypothetically dependent on it would also have to be non-existent, in which case the conditioned reality would never exist.

Therefore, no conditioned reality can exist under both hypotheses “∼UR” and “F.” Therefore, “Hypothesis F” under “Hypothesis ∼UR” must be false for any conditioned reality in all reality.

[[File:Metaphysics5.png |thumb|480px|left|A Diagram of falsity of "Hypothesis F"]]

II.C. Proof that “Hypothesis ∼F” Must be False for any Conditioned Reality (CR)

1. According to “Hypothesis ∼F,” any conditioned reality is dependent on an infinite number of conditions being fulfilled for its existence. This means there is no “most fundamental condition” (“last condition”).

2. If there is no “most fundamental condition,” then the number of conditions upon which CR depends is always 1+ more than can ever be achieved, and is therefore unachievable.

3. If CR depends on an unachievable number of conditions being fulfilled for its existence, it will never exist (a priori). In other words if CR (say, a cat) is dependent upon a dependent upon a dependent upon a dependent, ad infinitum, in order to come into existence, it will never come into existence. Its conditions will never be fulfilled.

4. Therefore, no conditioned reality can exist under “Hypothesis ∼F.” Therefore, “Hypothesis ∼F” is false for any conditioned reality.<ref>There is an obvious similarity here to the uncaused cause argument – the second way of St. Thomas Aquinas (Aquinas 1947, I., Question 2, Art. 3 i). But I have refrained from using the word “cause” in the proof here because “cause” has been interpreted by various philosophers in very narrow ways. It would not be useful, for example, to view “cause” simply as one billiard ball striking another, or an “aggregation of mass points.” If it is useful to interpret the concepts in this unit in causal terms, I could define “proximate cause” as “a proximate fulfillment of a conditioned reality’s conditions.” “First cause” could be defined as “the ultimate fulfillment of a conditioned reality’s conditions by an unconditioned reality.” These definitions are not restricted to pre-twentieth century views of physics and philosophy. By using the vocabulary of this unit, “proximate cause” could refer to “the collapse of a wave function to an eigen state,” “the orientation of motion arising out of irregular geometries of space-time,” “plasma interactions, and even the creation of the entire universe by a reality outside of space-time asymmetry.”</ref>

[[File:Metaphysics6.png |thumb|480px|left|A Diagram of falsity of "Hypothesis F" with Infinites]]

II.D. Proof that a Circular Set of Conditions is False for Any CR

It may at first seem that a circular set of conditions is an intermediate or alternative position to hypotheses F and ∼F. As will be shown in a moment, it is not. “Circular set of conditions” means reciprocal conditionality, where CRa depends upon CRb for its existence, while CRb depends on CRa for its existence. It can be shown that “CRa’s dependence on CRb’s dependence on CRa’s dependence… etc.,” would not allow either to exist; but in order to show the fallacy of circular conditionality within the context of hypotheses F and ∼F, I have chosen the following argument.

1. Let us suppose there is a circular arrangement of conditioned realities, where CRa is dependent on CRb, which is, in turn, dependent on CRc, which is, in turn, dependent on CRa.

[[File:Metaphysics6.png |thumb|360px|left|A Diagram of Circular Conditioned Realities]]

One may postulate any number of CRs in the circle that one wishes (even an infinity). The question is not how many conditioned realities are in the circle, but rather how many conditions each conditioned reality is dependent on in the circle. There are, again, two disjunctive options to respond to this question: (a) each conditioned reality is dependent on a finite number of conditions (implying a last condition), or (b) each conditioned reality is dependent on an infinite number of conditions (implying no last or terminating condition). This is completely disjunctive; therefore, if the circularity hypothesis is to be tenable, then one of these hypotheses must be true. If neither of the hypotheses is true, then the circularity hypothesis cannot be tenable.

2. If it is postulated that the circle corresponds to “Hypothesis F” (that each CR in the circle is dependent on a finite number of conditions), then there must be a last condition in the circle. Let us say that the last condition is CRc (though it could be any CR one wishes on any rotation through the circle). The last condition would have to be a “conditioned reality whose conditions are not fulfilled,” in which case it would not exist (because inasmuch as it is the last condition, its conditions will not be fulfilled). All other conditioned realities in the circle which depend on CRc (which would be all CRs in the circle) would likewise not exist. The circle would therefore not be able to come into existence. Notice that this is simply a restatement of the disproof of “Hypothesis F” in Section II.B above.

3. Let us hypothetically entertain the other side of the disjunction, namely that every CR in the circle is dependent on every other CR an infinite number of times (because there is no last condition). This means that every CR in the circle is dependent upon an infinite number of conditions being fulfilled. Since an infinite dependence is unachievable, every CR in the circle would have to be dependent on an unachievable number of conditions being fulfilled. Again, the circle would not be able to come into existence. Notice that this is simply a restatement of the disproof of “Hypothesis ∼F” given in Section II.C above.

4. Inasmuch as a circle must imply either that each conditioned reality is dependent on a finite number of conditions (having a last condition) or that each conditioned reality is dependent on an infinite number of conditions (because there is no last condition), and since both sides of this disjunction are false (i.e., will not allow any of the conditioned realities within the circle to exist), then a circle of dependent conditions cannot explain the existence of any of its constituents, and therefore, cannot represent a real state of affairs.

II.E.
Conclusion: There Must Exist at Least One Unconditioned Reality in All Reality

1. If hypotheses F and ∼F are both false for any conditioned reality, and if hypotheses F and ∼F represent the whole range of possibilities for any conditioned reality, and if a circle is not an alternative position to hypotheses F and ∼F (it is merely a restatement of either of them) then no CR can exist under either or both hypotheses.

2. If no CR can exist under either or both hypotheses, then there cannot be only conditioned realities in “all Reality.”

3. Therefore, by disjunctive syllogism, there must be at least one unconditioned reality in all Reality. To deny this would require affirming either hypothesis F or ∼F, or both; but such an affirmation is absurd, for nothing, not even this writer, would then be able to exist.

[[File:Metaphysics8.png |thumb|480px|left|A Diagram of Absolute Necessity for an Unconditioned Reality]]

II.F. Another Refutation of Hypothesis ∼UR

There is an even more fundamental ontological problem with Hypothesis ∼UR than the ones stated above, namely, that an infinite number of conditioned realities without an unconditioned reality is equivalent to absolutely nothing. Recalling that Hypothesis ∼UR means that there are only CRs in reality, then CR1 would have to depend on some other conditioned reality, say, CR2 in order to exist. Hence, it is nothing until CR2 exists and fulfills its conditions. Similarly, CR2 would also have to depend on some other conditioned reality, say, CR3 for its existence, and it would likewise be nothing until CR3 exists and fulfills its conditions. And so forth, ad infinitum. Since every hypothetical conditioned reality is dependent upon other nonexistent conditioned realities for its existence, it will never come into existence. It does not matter whether one posits an infinite number of them; for each one in the series of dependence is still equal to nothing without the reality of the others. But if the “others” are nothing without others, and those “others” are nothing without still others, it does not matter if one postulates an infinite number of others (or arranges the infinite number of others in a circle). They are all still nothing in their dependence upon nonexistent conditions. Therefore, Hypothesis ∼UR will always result in all reality being nothing, which readers will hopefully view as false, since they are reading this proof. Once again, we see the necessity for the existence of at least one unconditioned reality in all reality, and recognize that an unconditioned reality will have to be the ultimate fulfillment of all conditioned realities’ conditions.

Missing Steps of the Proof

==== Proof that an unconditioned reality must be absolutely simple. ====

For steps two through four of the proof (described below), refer to NPEG, Chapter Three, Sections II through IV. For a lecture presentation of the proof in its entirety, see PID Units 7-12. For students who are unfamiliar with logic or who want to refresh themselves on basic syllogisms, see PID Units 7-8.

==== Proof that an absolutely simple reality must be absolutely unique (one and only one). ====

==== Proof that the one absolutely simple unconditioned reality must also be unrestricted in its power or act. ====

Step One proved that there must be at least one unconditioned reality in “all reality.” Steps Two and Four show that there can be only one unconditioned reality, because an unconditioned reality must be absolutely simple. Step Four goes on to show that this one absolutely simple reality must be unrestricted in its power or act. We are now in a position to prove that this one unconditioned reality is the continuous Creator of all else that is, and this occurs in the Fifth Step as follows:

==== Proof that the One Unconditioned Reality is the Continuous Creator of All Else that Is ====

This argument may be broken down into two steps:

A) the unique, absolutely simple, unrestricted, unconditioned Reality itself must be the Creator of all else that is, and

B) this Creator must continuously create.

V.A. The Unique, Absolutely Simple, Unrestricted, Unconditioned Reality Itself is the Creator of all Else that Is

Substep (1) Definitions.

a) “Creation” means the ultimate fulfillment of a conditioned reality’s conditions. The word “ultimate” is used here to differentiate creation from a “proximate cause” (a proximate fulfillment of conditions). For example, the existence and proper structure of a cat’s cells is a proximate fulfillment of the cat’s conditions. Alternatively, “creation” refers to the ultimate fulfillment of the cat’s conditions by the one unconditioned Reality itself. (Recall that every conditioned reality is ultimately dependent on an unconditioned reality for the fulfillment of its conditions; otherwise it would be nothing – see Step One.)

b) “Creator” means the source (power or act) which ultimately fulfills a conditioned reality’s conditions. This source or power is unconditioned Reality itself (see below, Substep 2).

Substep (2) We begin by showing that everything in reality must be a conditioned reality except the one unconditioned Reality itself.

a) In all reality, realities must be either conditioned or unconditioned (complete disjunction).

b) There can be only one unconditioned Reality itself in “all reality” (proved in Step III).

c) Therefore, all other realities in “all reality” must be conditioned realities (by disjunctive syllogism).

Substep (3) As proved in Step One (Section I), conditioned realities cannot have their conditions ultimately fulfilled by conditioned realities alone. Even an infinite number of conditioned realities cannot ultimately fulfill the conditions of conditioned realities. Two conclusions can be drawn from this:

a) For any conditioned reality X, there must always be a most fundamental (last) condition to be fulfilled. Otherwise, a conditioned reality would be dependent for its existence on the fulfillment of an infinite (unfulfillable) number of conditions (see Hypothesis ∼F in Step I.C, above).

b) This most fundamental (last) condition must be fulfilled by the one unconditioned Reality itself. If it were not, this last condition would depend on a “conditioned reality whose conditions were not fulfilled” (i.e., a non-existent – nothing), meaning that all other conditions of contingent reality X would not be fulfilled, meaning, in turn, that conditioned reality X could not exist (see Hypothesis F in Step I.B, above).

Substep (4) Since there must be a last condition, and since this last condition must always be fulfilled by an unconditioned reality, and since there can only be one unconditioned Reality itself, and since everything in “all reality” besides the one, unconditioned Reality must be a conditioned reality, then the one, unconditioned Reality must be the Creator (the source of the ultimate fulfillment of conditions) of all else that is real.<ref>St. Thomas Aquinas argues this point in much the same way. He first demonstrates the simplicity of self-subsisting Being Itself (ipsum suum esse subsistens – what has been termed in this proof “unconditioned Reality itself”), then argues the uniqueness of self-subsisting Being itself, which implies that the rest of reality must be non-self-subsisting beings (which have been termed “conditioned realities” in this proof). This requires that the one, self-subsisting Being itself be the Creator of all else that is: “…it must be said that every being in any way existing is from God. For whatever is found in anything by participation, must be caused in it by that to which it belongs essentially, as iron becomes ignited by fire. Now it has been shown above when treating of the divine simplicity that God is the essentially self-subsisting Being; and also it was shown that subsisting being must be one; as, if whiteness were self-subsisting, it would be one, since whiteness is multiplied by its recipients. Therefore all beings apart from God are not their own being, but are beings by participation. Therefore it must be that all things which are diversified by the diverse participation of being, so as to be more or less perfect, are caused by one First Being, Who possesses being most perfectly” (Aquinas 1947, pp. 229-30, Q.44, Art. 1).</ref>

V.B. The Creator Must Continuously Create all Else that is Real

This may at first appear confusing to those who interpret “creation” as “creatio ex nihilo” (a one-time creation of the universe out of nothing). Though this is a common meaning of “creation,” this argument views “creation” in a broader way as “the ultimate fulfillment of conditions by the unconditioned Reality itself.” Naturally this definition is not in conflict with “creatio ex nihilo,” it simply includes the possibility of the Creator (the source, power, or activity of the ultimate fulfillment of conditions) continuously fulfilling conditions ultimately, and, as it were, “holding or conserving” conditioned realities in being.

Substep (1) No conditioned reality can ever become unconditioned, because there can be only one unconditioned Reality itself (from Step III, above).

Substep (2) Therefore, every conditioned reality must be dependent on the unconditioned Reality itself for the ultimate fulfillment of its conditions at every moment that those conditions could cease to be fulfilled.

Substep (3) If the unconditioned Reality itself does not ultimately fulfill the conditions of every conditioned reality at every moment they are dependent on such fulfillment, they would cease to be real. This is sometimes referred to as “radical contingency,” which reflects the radical and continuous dependence of all conditioned realities on the one unconditioned Reality itself.

Substep (4) Therefore, the Creator (the unique, absolutely simple, unrestricted, unconditioned Reality itself) must be a continuous Creator (source of the ultimate fulfillment of conditions) of all else that is real at every moment it could cease to be real (i.e., at every moment of its reality).<ref>St. Thomas Aquinas gives an elaborate proof of the necessity for God to conserve all created things in being. In the Summa Theologica, Question 104, Art. 1, he begins the proof by noting: “…a thing is said to preserve another per se and directly, namely, when what is preserved depends on the preserver in such a way that it cannot exist without it. In this manner all creatures need to be preserved by God. For the being of every creature depends on God, so that not for a moment could it subsist, but would fall into nothingness were it not kept in being by the operation of the Divine power…” (Aquinas 1947, pp. 511-12).</ref> Analogously speaking, if the Creator stopped “thinking” about us, we would literally lapse into nothingness.

Conclusion

In view of the above five steps, the “unique, absolutely simple, unrestricted, unconditioned Reality itself which is the continuous Creator of all else that is” must exist. This Reality corresponds to what is generally thought to be “God.”<ref>The God of faith generally includes these characteristics, but goes beyond them in the areas of divine self-revelation, grace, redemption of suffering, redemption of sin, relationship to human beings, providence, and prayer (to name but a few areas).</ref> God, as defined, must exist.

As noted in the conclusion to Section IV, the denial of the existence of God (as defined) would entail the denial of one’s own existence, or arguing a most fundamental ontological contradiction or an intrinsic contradiction (or all of the above). If these alternatives are considered to be unreasonable or irresponsible (or both), the existence of God should be considered rationally affirmed.

== Footnotes ==

<references/>

The Bible and Science

2011-07-26T21:00:18Z

David Persyn: branding

The Magis God Wiki: The Bible and Science

Can the Bible be Reconciled With the Findings of Science?

© Robert J. Spitzer, S.J./Magis Institute July 2011 – All rights reserved

== Theology Not Science ==

The Church has taught, since the time of Pius XII, in two encyclical letters that (1) the bible is not a scientific document, but rather, a theological one (Divino Afflante Spiritu – 1943) and

(2) that evolution is compatible with both the bible and Church teaching (Humani Generis -- 1950)

Let me briefly explain each of these. With respect to the first point, the Church has long recognized that divine inspiration is not divine dictation. When God inspires a biblical author, he does so through the biblical author’s human powers, capacities, and categories. This means that when God inspired the author of Genesis 1:1 ff, He would have used categories familiar to a person about 2,800 years ago. These categories were decidedly not scientific. Empirical, mathematical Science was initiated by around the late 16th century by Francis Bacon and others and has developed since that time. The formal mathematics that we use in contemporary physics (the calculus in particular) was developed by Newton and Leibnitz after that time. This means that God could not have meaningfully given a scientific account of the creation or the development of the natural world to the biblical author, and therefore, we cannot try to make the biblical account be scientific in the strict sense.

So what was the biblical author doing? He was doing theology. He is inspired to respond to the accounts of creation implicit in the myths of his day (e.g. the Gilgamesh epic). These creation accounts speak about many gods, and associates natural objects (such as the sun and the moon) with gods. They also imply that the gods are capricious and frequently unjust and that creation can be intrinsically evil. The biblical author is inspired to redress these theological problems by creating a story which has one God. This one God creates the sun, the moon, and the stars, and all other natural objects (hence, they are merely creations). Furthermore, God is just and good (not capricious) and creates things which are good.

== The Intent of Genesis ==

Therefore, the biblical author’s use of “seven days” is to be taken as a theological context for the story and not as an attempt by God to suggest scientific fact. The same holds true for the age of the universe which physics has very well established to be at least 13.7 billion years old (since the big bang). One cannot assert as scientific fact that the universe is a little over 5,000 years old (by summing the generations in the bible as if the creation of human beings is coincident with the creation of the universe itself), because the creation of human beings on the seventh day is part of the theological context of the story. This was never meant to be a scientific fact, and it should not be treated as one.
With respect to the point about evolution, Humani Generis allows Catholics to believe in natural evolutionary processes. This would allow for evolution on a large scale. However, Humani Generis is very careful to specify that the human soul is not a product of mere material evolution. Certain features of the human body may have evolved from other less developed species, but the human soul is not matter, and it therefore could not have arisen from a merely material process.

== The Human Soul ==

There is considerable evidence for the immateriality of human beings besides our Catholic and biblical belief in a human soul. For example, there are excellent scientific studies of near death experiences which indicate the survival of human self- consciousness after bodily death – E.G., in the prestigious British medical journal, The Lancet,<ref>see van Lommel, MD, van Wees, Ruud; Meyers, Vincent; and Elfferich, Ingrid. 2001. “Near-Death Experience in Survivors of Cardiac Arrest: A Prospective Study in the Netherlands.” The Lancet. Vol. 358, Issue 9298, pp. 2039-2045.</ref> There is also evidence of a soul from the transcendental nature of human understanding, conscience, love, beauty, and spiritual awareness (see for example, my book NPEG Chapter 8). This kind of evidence (along with our belief in a soul) indicates that God created the human soul and that this creation of the soul cannot be explained by evolution (which is a material process). Even if the human body arose in its early, middle, and late stages from an evolutionary process, it would have been transformed by an infusion of the soul in its final state.

== Darwinian Evolution ==

So what does this mean about “Darwinian evolution”? If this term means pure evolution implying those human beings are merely material (and therefore devoid of a soul and embodiment which is influenced by a soul) then it would be inconsistent with Catholic teaching and also the biblical account. However, if it means something else, then that “something else” would have to be judged according to the Christian beliefs elucidated above.

== Conclusion ==

One final point -- is the biblical account of creation diametrically opposed to the scientific account of creation? It is not. There are many parallels. Both accounts allow for a creator transcending our universe (and even transcending time itself); both accounts see stages in the unfolding of creation; both accounts recognize that the universe is fine-tuned for the development of life and even human beings; and both accounts see human beings (and human intelligence) as the highest development in the created order of the universe. There are many other parallels, but these are sufficient to show a general consistency between scientific and theological accounts. We would not want to make this general consistency into detailed, specific consistency because this would force the biblical author (writing 2800 years ago) to be giving a scientific account.

== Footnotes ==

<references/>

Cosmology

2011-07-26T20:59:01Z

David Persyn: branding

The Magis God Wiki: Cosmology

Is there Evidence of the Existence of God from Contemporary Physics?

© Robert J. Spitzer, S.J. Ph.D./Magis Institute July 2011

This will be an overview of a more complex treatment which may be found in my recent book New Proofs for the Existence of God: Contributions of Contemporary Physics and Philosophy (hereafter “NPEG”). I have given a series of lectures on these matters in an on-line series called Physics and Metaphysics in Dialogue which can be accessed at our [http://www.physicsindialogue.org (hereafter “PID”) website] – see lectures #1-6. It will be rather quick paced, and if some of you want a more thorough treatment you may want to refer to the book. I will divide the topic into three parts:

1. Can Science Give Evidence of Creation and Supernatural Design?

2. What is the Evidence for a Beginning and what are the Implications for Creation?

3. What is the evidence of Supernatural Intelligence from Anthropic Fine-tuning?

== Can Science Give Evidence of a Creation and Supernatural Design? ==

We should begin by clarifying what science can really tell us about a beginning of the universe and supernatural causation. First, unlike philosophy and metaphysics, science cannot deductively prove a creation or God. This is because natural science deals with the physical universe and with the regularities which we call “laws of nature” that are obeyed by the phenomena within that universe. But God is not an object or phenomenon or regularity within the physical universe; so science cannot say anything about God. Moreover, science is an empirical and inductive discipline. As such, science cannot be certain that it has considered all possible data that would be relevant to a complete explanation of particular physical phenomena or the universe itself. It is always open to new data and discoveries which could alter its explanation of particular phenomena and the universe. This can be seen quite clearly in revisions made to the Big Bang model.

So what can science tell us? It can identify, aggregate, and synthesize evidence indicating that the finitude of past time in the universe as we currently know it to be and conceive it could be. Science can also identify the exceedingly high improbability of the random occurrence of conditions necessary to sustain life in the universe as we currently know it to be and conceive it could be.

Even though scientific conclusions are subject to modification in the light of new data, we should not let this possibility cause us to unnecessarily discount the validity of long-standing, persistent, rigorously established theories. If we did this, we might discount the majority of our scientific theories. Thus, it is reasonable and responsible to attribute qualified truth value to such theories until such time as new data requires them to be modified.

== What is The Evidence for a Beginning and what are the Implications for Creation? ==

The arguments that suggest the finitude of past time (i.e. that time had a beginning) are basically of two types: (a) arguments about the possible geometries of spacetime and (b) arguments based on the Second Law of Thermodynamics (entropy). Though the arguments we shall give may conceivably have loopholes, in the sense that cosmological models or scenarios may be found in the future to which these arguments don’t apply, their persistence and applicability to a large number of existing cosmological models gives them respectable probative force. Until such time as they are shown to be invalid or inapplicable to empirically verifiable characteristics of our universe, they should be considered as justifying the conclusion that it is at least probable that the universe had a beginning.

=== A Beginning in Physics Implies A Creation of the Universe ===

Before examining this evidence, it is essential to discuss the implications of a beginning (in physics) for a creation of our universe. A beginning in physics implies a Creator. Because a beginning in physics marks a point at which the universe came into existence. In physics, time is something real, and it has real effects on other physical phenomena. Thus, the point at which the universe comes into existence is also the point at which physical time comes into existence.

How does this imply a Creator? First, in physics, nothing physical could exist prior to the beginning point (indeed there is no “prior to the beginning point” because there is no physical time).

Secondly, if the physical universe (and its physical time) did not exist prior to the beginning, then it was literally nothing. It is important to note that “nothing” means “nothing.” It does not mean a “vacuum” or “a low energy state of a quantum field,” “empty space,” or other real things. Vacuums, empty space, and low energy states in quantum fields are dimensional and orientable – they have specific characteristics and parameters, but nothing is not dimensional or orientable, and it does not have any specific characteristics or parameters because it is nothing. For example, you can have more or less of a vacuum or empty space, but you cannot have more or less of nothing because nothing is nothing.

Thirdly, nothing can do only nothing, because it is nothing. To imply the contrary is to make nothing into something. The classical expression was, “from nothing, only nothing comes.”

Fourthly, if nothing can’t do anything, then it certainly cannot create anything. Thus, when the universe was nothing, it could not have created itself (made itself into something) when it was nothing, because when it was nothing, it could only do nothing.

Finally, if the universe could not have made itself something when it was nothing, then something else would have had to have made the universe something when it was nothing, and that “something else” would have to be completely transcendent (completely independent of the universe and beyond it). This transcendent (and independent) creative force beyond our universe (and its space-time asymmetry) is generally termed “a Creator.” Therefore, a beginning in physics implies a transcendent powerful creative force (a “Creator”).

=== Was the Big Bang the Beginning? ===

In view of the fact that a beginning in physics implies a Creator, many physicists with a naturalistic orientation would like to avoid the necessity of such a beginning. For this reason, they have proposed that the big bang was not the beginning of the universe. Before we can assess this hypothesis, we will want to get a few facts about the contemporary big bang theory.

The Big Bang Theory was proposed originally by a Belgium priest by the name of Fr. George Lemaitre who used it to resolve a problem (the radial velocities of extra galactic nebulae) connected with Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity. Though Einstein did not at first affirm the idea of an expanding universe, he later believed it because of its overwhelming verification. Indeed, it is one of the most rigorously established theories in physics today.

Essentially, the contemporary Big Bang Theory holds that the big bang occurred approximately 13.7 billion years ago (plus or minus 200 million years). It may be analogized to a balloon blowing up where the elastic on the balloon is like the space-time field (in general relativity, space-time can actually stretch, expand as a whole, warp, vibrate, and change its coordinate structure according to the density of mass-energy in it).

Now, going back to our analogy, suppose there are paint spots all over the balloon; notice that as the balloon expands (i.e. as space-time stretches and expands as a whole), all the paint dots (which may be likened to galaxies) move away from each other. Our universe has been doing something like this for 13.7 billion years.

Our observable universe seems to have a finite amount of mass-energy. It has approximately 4.6% visible matter (matter-energy that can emit light, electromagnetic fields, etc.), 23% dark matter (interacts with gravity, but does not seem to have luminescent or electromagnetic activity), and 72.4% dark energy (which seems to be like a field attached to a space-time field causing space-time to accelerate in its expansion). The visible matter in our universe seems to be approximately 1055 kilograms which is approximately 1080 baryons (protons and neutrons – particles with significant rest mass).

Since the time of Fr. Lemaitre, the Big Bang Theory has been confirmed by multiple, distinct data sets which come together around a similar set of numbers and values: Edwin Hubble’s’ Redshifts (which shows that all galaxies are moving away from each other), Arno Penzias’ and Robert Wilson’s discovery of the 2.7 degree Kelvin uniformly distributed radiation which is the remnant of the big bang, evidence from the cosmic background explorer satellite (COBE), and further evidence from the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP). This is why most physicists consider the big bang to be a rigorously established physical theory.

Was the big bang the beginning of the universe? Many physicists think that it was because the big bang was the moment at which space-time came into existence and because there is no physical evidence for a period prior to the big bang. However, some physicists believe that the big bang was not the beginning of our universe which opens the possibility for a pre-big-bang period of indefinite length (perhaps avoiding a beginning and all of its implications for a creation). This hypothetical pre-big-bang period is made possible through quantum cosmology (which allows the universe to operate in a space-time smaller than the minimums required by general relativity). Currently, string theory is one hypothetical candidate for quantum cosmology in which some physicists (including Stephen Hawking) have placed considerable hope. (Those of you interested in additional detail on quantum cosmology and string theory will want to read the Postscript to Part One of NPG). String Theory allows for the possibility of higher-dimensional space, which in turn, allows for two possible pre-big bang periods:

1. A multiverse (a mega universe which coughs out multiple bubble universes, one of which is our universe) and

2. An oscillating universe in higher dimensional space (e.g. two three dimensional membranes interacting and colliding through a four dimensional bulk space-time).

It is not important to know all the details of a multiverse or an oscillating universe in higher dimensional space, because there is only one relevant question. Do these speculative scenarios themselves require a beginning or can they go indefinitely back into the past? It so happens that a considerable amount of work has been done in the area of space-time geometry proofs which conclude that all inflationary model universes, multiverses (which must be inflationary in order to exist), and oscillating universes in higher dimensional space must have a beginning. These extraordinary proofs suggest the probability that our universe (or any multiverse in which it might be situated) must have a beginning, which implies a Creator. So what are these proofs?

=== Evidence of a Beginning from Space-Time Geometry Proofs ===

There are three pieces of evidence arising out of space-time geometry proofs which indicate a beginning of our universe or any speculative multiverse in which our universe might be situated. It also indicates a beginning of oscillating universes – even oscillating universes in higher dimensional space. These proofs are so widely applicable that they establish a beginning of virtually every hypothetical pre-big bang condition which can be connected to our universe. They, therefore, indicate the probability of an absolute beginning of physical reality which implies the probability of a Creator outside of our universe (or any multiverse in which it might be situated).

Since 1994 two proofs and (and a series of models) have been developed that show that not only our universe, but any multiverse and inflationary bouncing universe must have a beginning: 1) The 1994 Borde-Vilenkin Proof, 2) The modeling of inflationary universes by Alan Guth and others, and 3) The 2003 Borde-Vilenkin-Guth Theorem (the BVG Theorem).

==== The 1994 Borde-Vilenkin Proof ====

Arvin Borde (Kavli Institute of Theoretical Physics at the University of California Santa Barbara) and Alexander Vilenkin (Director of the Institute of Cosmology at Tufts University) formulated a proof in 1994 that every inflationary universe meeting five assumptions would have to have a singularity (a beginning of the universe/multiverse in a finite proper time)<ref> See Borde and Vilenkin 1994</ref>. Our universe meets all the conditions in this proof. In 1997 they discovered a possible exception to one of their assumptions (concerning weak energy conditions) which was very, very unlikely within our universe. Physicists, including Alan Guth (the Victor Weisskopf Professor of Physics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and father of inflationary theory) did not consider this exception to be relevant: “… the technical assumption questioned in the 1997 Borde-Vilenkin paper does not seem important enough to me to change the conclusion [that the 1994 proof of a beginning of inflationary model universes is required].”<ref>Guth 1999 pg. 1.</ref> Therefore, the 1994 proof still has general validity today.
(Refer to NPEG Chapter One, Section IV.D)

==== Alan Guth’s 1999 analysis of expanding pre-big-bang models ====

Guth concluded his study as follows:
“In my own opinion, it looks like eternally inflating models necessarily have a beginning… As hard as physicists have worked to try to construct an alternative, so far all the models that we construct have a beginning; they are eternal into the future, but not into the past.”<ref>Guth 1999 pg. 1.</ref>

(Refer to NPEG Chapter One, Section IV.D)

==== The 2003 Borde-Vilenkin-Guth Theorem (the BVG Theorem): ====

Borde, Vilenkin, and Guth joined together to formulate an elegant and vastly applicable demonstration of a beginning of expanding universes (in a famous article in Physical Review Letters). Alexander Vilenkin explains it as follows:

<blockquote>“Suppose, for example, that [a] space traveler has just zoomed by the earth at the speed of 100,000 kilometers per second and is now headed toward a distant galaxy, about a billion light years away. [because of the expansion of the universe as a whole], that galaxy is moving away from us at a speed of 20,000 kilometers per second, so when the space traveler catches up with it, the observers there will see him moving at 80,000 kilometers per second. [As the universe continues to expand, the relative velocity of the space traveler will get smaller and smaller into the future]. If the velocity of the space traveler relative to the spectators gets smaller and smaller into the future, then it follows that his velocity should get larger and larger as we follow his history into the past. In the limit, his velocity should get arbitrarily close to the speed of light [the maximum velocity attainable by mass energy in the universe].”<ref>Vilenkin 2006 p. 173.</ref></blockquote>

The point where relative velocities become arbitrarily close to the speed of light constitutes a boundary to past time in any expanding universe or multiverse. Though the conclusion of Borde, Vilenkin, and Guth is somewhat technical for non physicists, its importance makes their precise words worth mentioning:

<blockquote>Our argument shows that null and time like geodesics are, in general, past-incomplete [requiring a boundary to past time] in inflationary models, whether or not energy conditions hold, provided only that the averaged expansion condition Hav > 0 hold along these past-directed geodesics. This is a stronger conclusion than the one arrived at in previous work in that we have shown under reasonable assumptions that almost all causal geodesics, when extended to the past of an arbitrary point, reach the boundary of the inflating region of space-time in a finite proper time.<ref> Borde, Guth, and Vilenkin 2003 p. 3</ref></blockquote>

This proof is vastly applicable to just about any model universe or multiverse that could be connected with our universe. Alexander Vilenkin put it this way in 2006:

<blockquote>We made no assumptions about the material content of the universe. We did not even assume that gravity is described by Einstein’s equations. So, if Einstein’s gravity requires some modification, our conclusion will still hold. The only assumption that we made was that the expansion rate of the universe never gets below some nonzero value, no matter how small. This assumption should certainly be satisfied in the inflating false vacuum. The conclusion is that past-eternal inflation without a beginning is impossible. <ref>Vilenkin 2006 p.175.</ref></blockquote>

Physicists do not use the word “impossible” very often. So, Vilenkin’s claim here is quite strong. The reason he is able to make it is that there is only one condition that must be fulfilled – an expansion rate of the universe greater than zero (no matter how small).

It is important to note that Borde, Vilenkin, and Guth applied their theorem to the string multiverse as well as to higher dimensional oscillating universes. I present their own words here (which might be quite difficult for non-physicists) because it gives a sense of their own appreciation of the vast applicability of their theorem:

<blockquote>Our argument can be straightforwardly extended to cosmology in higher dimensions [arising out of string theory/M Theory]. For example, [1] in [some models of a string multiverse], brane worlds are created in collisions of bubbles nucleating in an inflating higher-dimensional bulk space-time. Our analysis implies that the inflating bulk cannot be past-complete [i.e. must have a boundary to past time]. ¶ [2] We finally comment on the cyclic Universe model [in the higher dimensional space of string theory] in which a bulk of four spatial dimensions is sandwiched between two three-dimensional branes…In some versions of the cyclic model the brane space-times’ are everywhere expanding, so our theorem immediately implies the existence of a past boundary at which boundary conditions must be imposed. In other versions, there are brief periods of contraction, but the net result of each cycle is an expansion.…Thus, as long as Hav > 0 for a null geodesic when averaged over one cycle, then Hav > 0 for any number of cycles, and our theorem would imply that the geodesic is incomplete [i.e. must have a boundary to past time].<ref>Borde, Guth, and Vilenkin 2003 p. 4.</ref></blockquote>

The boundary to past time (required in the BVG theorem) could indicate an absolute beginning of the universe or a pre-pre-big bang era with a completely different physics. If it is the latter, then the pre-big-bang period would also have to have had a boundary to its past time (because it would have a rate of expansion greater than zero). Eventually, one will reach an absolute beginning when there are no more pre-pre-pre-big-bang eras.

This is an extraordinary conclusion, because it shows that a beginning is required in virtually every conceivable pre-big-bang scenario – including the string multiverse and oscillating universes in higher dimensional space. By implication, then, even if there were multiple pre-big-bang eras, it is likely that these eras would have to have an expansion rate greater than zero, which means that they too would have to have a beginning, which would make an absolute beginning virtually unavoidable. This absolute beginning would be the point at which the universe came into existence. Prior to that point the universe (and its physical time) would have been nothing, which as we saw above, implies a Creator.

Exceptions to this theorem are very difficult to formulate and are quite tenuous because they require either a universe with an average Hubble expansion less than or equal to zero (which is difficult to connect to our inflationary universe) or a deconstruction of time which is physically unrealistic. (For an extended discussion of these exceptions, you may consult Chapter One, Section III.D-E of NPEG). For this reason all attempts to get around the BVG Theorem to date have been unsuccessful. Even if physicists in the future are able to formulate a hypothetical model which could get around the BVG Theorem, it would not mean that this hypothetical model is true for our universe. It is likely to be only a testimony to human ingenuity. Therefore, it is probable that our universe (or any multiverse in which it might be situated) had an absolute beginning. This implies a creation of the universe by a Power transcending our universe.

There is another impressive set of data which corroborates the above three space-time geometry proofs, namely, the Second Law of Thermodynamics (i.e. entropy). The constraints of time will not permit me to address this topic, however, those interested in explication of it may consult Chapter One (Section III A-C) of NPEG).
In conclusion, the evidence from physics (from both space-time geometry proofs and the second law of thermodynamics) indicates the probability of a beginning of our universe. In as much as a beginning indicates a point at which our universe came into existence, and prior to that point, the universe was nothing, then it is probable that the universe (and any hypothetical multiverse in which it might be situated) was created by a transcendent power outside of physical space and time.

== Implications of Supernatural Intelligence in the Fine-tuning of Universal Constants ==

There are several conditions of our universe necessary for the emergence of any complex life form. Many of these conditions are so exceedingly improbable that it is not reasonable to expect that they could have occurred by pure chance For this reason many physicists attribute their occurrence to supernatural design. Some other physicists prefer to believe instead in trillions upon trillions of “other universes” (which are unobserved and likely unobservable). Before discussing which explanation is more probative, we need to explore some specific instances of this highly improbable fine-tuning. We may break the discussion into two parts:

1. The exceedingly high improbability of our low entropy universe, and

2. The exceedingly high improbability of the anthropic values of our universe’s constants.

We will discuss each in turn.

=== The high improbability of a pure chance occurrence of our low-entropy universe ===

A low-entropy universe is necessary for the emergence, development, and complexification of life forms (because a high entropy universe would be too run down to allow for such development). Roger Penrose has calculated the exceedingly small probability of a pure chance occurrence of our low–entropy universe as 10^10^123 to one. How can we understand this number? It is like a ten raised to an exponent of:

100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000.

This number is so large, that if every zero were 10 point type, our solar system would not be able to hold it! Currently, there is no natural explanation for the occurrence of this number, and if none is found, then we are left with the words of Roger Penrose himself:

<blockquote>“In order to produce a universe resembling the one in which we live, the Creator would have to aim for an absurdly tiny volume of the phase space of possible universes—about 1/10^10^123 of the entire volume, for the situation under consideration.” </blockquote>

What Penrose is saying here is that this occurrence cannot be explained by a random (pure chance) occurrence. Therefore, one will have to make recourse either to a multiverse (composed of bubble universes, each having different values of constants) or as Penrose implies, a Creator (with a super-intellect).

=== The high improbability of five other anthropic conditions (based on cosmological constants) ===

A cosmological constant is a number which controls the equations of physics, and the equations of physics, in turn, describe the laws of nature. Therefore, these numbers control the laws of nature (and whether these laws of nature will be hospitable or hostile to any life form). Some examples of constants are: the speed of light constant (c= 300,000 km per second), Planck’s constant (ℏ = 6.6 x 10-34 joule seconds), the gravitational attraction constant (G = 6.67 x 10-11 ), the strong nuclear force constant (gs = 15), the weak force constant (gw = 1.43 x 10-62), the mass of the proton (mp = 1.67 x 10-27 kg), rest mass of an electron (me = 9.11 x 10-31 kg), and charge of an electron proton (e = 1.6 x 10-19 coulombs). There are several other constants, but these pertain to the following anthropic coincidences (highly improbable conditions required for life).

(i) If the gravitational constant (G) or weak force constant (gw) varied from their values by an exceedingly small fraction (higher or lower) -- one part in 10^50 (.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001) then either the universe would have suffered a catastrophic collapse or would have exploded throughout its expansion, both of which options would have prevented the emergence and development of any life form. This cannot be reasonably explained by pure chance.

(ii) If the strong nuclear force constant were higher than its value (15) by only 2%, there would be no hydrogen in the universe (and therefore no nuclear fuel or water -- this would have prohibited life). If, on the other hand, the strong nuclear force constant had been 2% lower than its value then no element heavier than hydrogen could have emerged in the universe (helium, carbon, etc). This would have been equally detrimental to the development of life. This “anthropic coincidence” also seems to lie beyond the boundaries of pure chance.

(iii) If the gravitational constant, electromagnetism, or the “proton mass relative to the electron mass” varied from their values by only a tiny fraction (higher or lower), then all stars would be either blue giants or red dwarfs. These kinds of stars would not emit the proper kind of heat and light for a long enough period to allow for the emergence, development, and complexification of life forms. Again, these “anthropic coincidences” are beyond pure chance occurrence.

(iv) If the weak force constant had been slightly smaller or larger than its value, then supernovae explosions would never have occurred. If these explosions had not occurred, there would be no carbon, iron, or earth-like planets.

(v) Fred Hoyle and William Fowler discovered the exceedingly high improbability of oxygen, carbon, helium and beryllium having the precise values to allow for both carbon abundance and carbon bonding (necessary for life). This “anthropic coincidence” was so striking that it caused Hoyle to abandon his previous atheism and declare:

<blockquote>“A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question.”</blockquote>

(For all five “anthropic coincidences,” refer to NPEG Chapter One, Sect. II and [http://physicsindialog.org Lectures #5 and 6 of PID].)

The odds against all five of the anthropic coincidences happening randomly is so exceedingly improbable that it is like telling a monkey to type out the corpus of Shakespeare perfectly by random tapping of the keys. After returning two weeks later the entire corpus of Shakespeare, Hamlet, Macbeth, Richard III, are all perfectly recounted. Most reasonable and responsible individuals would not attribute this to random occurrence (because the odds are so overwhelmingly against it), and so, they look for another explanation which is more reasonable and responsible.

For this reason, no respectable physicist (including Stephen Hawking), believes that these anthropic coincidences can be explained by pure chance. In view of the fact that no natural explanation has been found for them, most physicists have made recourse to two trans-universal explanations:

1. A multiverse (a naturalistic explanation) and

2. A super intellectual Creator (a supernatural explanation).

Is the naturalistic explanation more reasonable and responsible? Not necessarily because the other universes (and the multiverse itself) are in principle unobservable. Furthermore, it violates the principle of parsimony (Ockham’s Razor) – the explanation with the least number of assumptions, conditions, and requirements is to be preferred. As Paul Davies notes:

<blockquote>Another weakness of the anthropic argument is that it seems the very antithesis of Ockham’s razor, according to which the most plausible of a possible set of explanations is that which contains the simplest ideas and least number of assumptions. To invoke an infinity of other universes just to explain one is surely carrying excess baggage to cosmic extremes … It is hard to see how such a purely theoretical construct can ever be used as an explanation, in the scientific sense, of a feature of nature. Of course, one might find it easier to believe in an infinite array of universes than in an infinite Deity, but such a belief must rest on faith rather than observation.<ref>Davies 1983, pp. 173-174.</ref></blockquote>

3. All known multiverse theories have significant fine-tuning requirements. Linde’s chaotic inflationary multiverse cannot randomly cough out bubble universes because they would collide and make both universes inhospitable to life; the bubble universes must be spaced out in a slow roll which requires considerable fine-tuning in the multiverses initial parameters.<ref>See Alabidi and Lyth 2006.</ref> Similarly, Susskind’s String Theory landscape requires considerable meta-level fine-tuning to explain its “anthropic" tendencies.<ref>See Gordon 2010 pp. 100-102.</ref>

== Conclusions ==

Given these problems, is the multiverse a more reasonable and responsible explanation of our universe’s anthropic coincidences? Many physicists believe that it is not, not only because of the above three problems, but also because of the likelihood of a Creator. When the evidence for a beginning (a Creator) is combined with the exceedingly high improbability of the above anthropic coincidences, a super intellect may be the most reasonable and responsible explanation because it avoids all the problems of a hypothetical multiverse. Thus, it is both reasonable and responsible to believe on the basis of physics, that there is a very powerful and intelligent being that caused our universe to exist as a whole.

== Footnotes ==

<references/>



{{DEFAULTSORT:Cosmology}}
[[Category:Cosmology]]
[[Category:Physics]]
[[Category:Time]]

Search Terms

2011-07-26T20:57:12Z

David Persyn: branding

Magis God Wiki: Search Terms

Suggested Search Topics for this site

© Robert J. Spitzer, S.J.,/Magis Institute July 2011

This page was created to suggest a list of terms that can be searched by users to find topics of interest. Simply enter one of these terms into the search window at the upper right corner of the page, and click search, and you will get a list of every place in this Wiki where that term is used.

The letters after each term refer to the unit (divisions) where the terms are discussed. We hope this article is helpful, especially to users who are new to the Wiki format.

Aesthetic, C

Anthropic, D

--and strong force, D

- and supernatural design, D

- and universal constants, D

- and weak force, D

Atheism, I

- and evil, I

- and freedom, I

- and Freud, I

- indemonstrable, I

- and Marxism, I

- and suffering, I, K, L

- tenuous rationality of, I

--and wishful thinking, I

Beauty, C

- definition of, C

- and God, C

- and human mystery, C

- and mysticism, C

- perfect, C

- and transcendentals, C

Being, F

- and act, F

- and Aquinas, F

- and God, F

- and reality, F

Belief

- and the design of the universe, D

- in God, A - L

- reasonable and responsible, F

Bing Bang Cosmology, D

- description of, D

Black Holes, D

Bubble Universes (see also Pocket Universes), D

Causality, F, H

- and conditioned reality, F

- and contemporary physics, H

- and creator, F, H

- definition of, F, H

- and the metaphysical proof, F, H

- proximate, F, H

- and Russell, H

- and time, G, H

- transcendent, D, F, H

- ultimate, F

- and uncaused reality, F

- and unconditioned reality, F

Change, G

Chaotic Inflation, D

Choice, K

Condition, F

- and causality, F

- epistemological, F

- ontological, F

Conditioned Reality, F

Conscience, C

- and Aquinas, C

- and the good, C

- and Kant, C

- leading to God, C

- and Newman, C

Consciousness, B, C

- of God, C

Constants, D

- and anthropic universe, D

- and Carter, D

- and Davies, D

- definition of

- fine-tuning of, D

- and Hoyle, D

- kinds of , D

- and Penrose, D

- and supernatural design, D

- universal, D

Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) Radiation, D

Cosmological Constant (see also Vacuum Energy), D

Cosmological Fine-Tuning, D

Cosmology, D

Creation of Universe, D

- in classical Big Bang Cosmology, D

- in contemporary Big Bang Cosmology, D

- continuous, F

- and the finitude of past time, G

- and inflationary model universe, D

- and time, D&G

- and universal constants, D

Creator, D , F, G

- continuous, F

-of Everything, F

-of Time, G

-of Universe, D

Cyclic Ekpyrotic Universe, D

Dark Energy (see Vacuum Energy), D

Death, B

-and soul, B

-process of, B

-survival of, B

Design, D

- of universal constants,D

- vs. weak anthropic principle, D

Desire, A, C

-and happiness, A

- and identity, A

- for perfect Being, C

- for perfect Justice/Goodness, C

- for perfect Home, C

- for perfect Love, C

- and purpose, A

-and unhappiness

Desire to Know, C

Electron, D

Elements, D

Energy, D

- dark, D

- electromagnetic, D

- and fields, D

- and four universal forces, D

- and mass, D

- and space-time, D

- and universal constants, D

Entropy, D

- and an anthropic universe, D

- and finite duration of universe, D

- and Roger Penrose, D

Evidence, F

- irreducible forms of, F

- kinds of , F

- in proofs of God, F, I

Explanation, F

- complete, F

Faith, A, J, I

-and purpose, A

- and reason, J

-and revelation, J

- and suffering, L

- and unbelief, I

- and wishful thinking, I

Fields, D

- electromagnetic, D

- quantum, D

- space-time, D

Fine-Tuning (see Cosmological Fine-Tuning), D

Freedom, K

Galactic System, D

Galaxies, D

General Theory of Relativity, D

- and Einstein, D

- and inflationary universe, D

- and mass-energy, D

- and special theory of relativity, D

God, A-L

- as creator of past time, G

- as creator of the universe, D

- as designer of universe, D

- as infinite reality, F

- as transcending time, G

- as unconditioned reality, F

- as unique reality, F

- as unrestricted reality, F

Goodness, C

- and conscience, C

- desire for, C

- and God, C

- and justice, C

- and love, C

- in Newman, C

- perfect, C

- in Plato, C

- and transcendentals, C

Gravity, D

- and quantum cosmology, D

- and space time, D

- and vacuum energy, D

Happiness, A

History, J

Holy, C

Home, C

- desire for, C

- and God, C

- and mysticism, C

- perfect, C

- and transcendentals, C

- and Underhill, C

Hubble Constant, D

Hubble Expansion, D

Identity, A

Infinity, G

- actual, G

- and finite mathematics, G

- Hilbert’s prohibition of, G

- potential, G

- and power, F, G

- regression, F

Inflation, D

- and Borde and Vilenkin, D

- and creation of universe, D

- description of, D

- and Guth, D

- and regional universes, D

- and string theory, D

- and vacuum energy, D

Initial Conditions, D

Intelligence, C, D

- animal, C

- artificial, C

- divine, C, D

- human, C

Joy, C

Kalam argument, G

Kallosh, R.

Light, D

- speed of, D

Logic, F, I

- analytical contradiction, F, G, I

- contradiction of fact, F, G, I

- disjunctive syllogism, F

- implicative syllogism, F

- modus ponens, F

- modus tollens, F

Love, C, J, K, L

- and creator, C, J

- definition of, J

- desire for, C, J

- and empathy, J

- of God, C, J

- and goodness, C, J

- and human mystery, C, J

- and justice, C, J

- perfect, J

- and transcendentals, C

- unconditional, C, J

Mathematical Physics, D

Mathematics, G

- finite, G

- and Hilbert, G

- infinities in, G

- non-standard, G

- and past time, G

- the philosophy of, G

Metaphysics, F

- and God, F

- and physics, D, F

Method, D, F, G

- in metaphysics, F

- in science, D

M-Theory, D

Multiverse, D

Mystery, C, J

Mysticism, C, J

Near-death experiences, B

-blind people, B

-fear of death, B

- Gallup study, B

- - Moody, M.D. study, B

- Morse, M.D. study, B

- Ring, Ph.D. study, B

-transcendent experience, B

-Van Lommel, M.D. study, B

-verifiable aspects, B

Nothing, D

- ex nihilo, D

Ontology, F

- and the beautiful, C

Oscillating Universe, D

Peace, C

Physics, D

- and Big Bang Cosmology, D

- of early universe, D

- limits of, D

- and metaphysics, D

- method of, D

- in Planck era, D

- and universe, D

Pocket Universes (see also Bubble Universes), D

Prayer, J

Pre-Big-Bang Inflationary (PBBI) Model, D

Proof, F, I

- disproving, I

- evidence in, F, I

- and necessity, F

- and reasonable & responsible belief, F

- requisites for, F

- validity of, F

Proton, D

Purpose, A

Quantum Cosmology, D

- and gravity, D

- and Hawking, D

- and inflationary model universe, D

- and Planck era, D

- and string theory, D

Quantum Field, D

Quantum Fluctuation, D

Quark, D

Reality, F

- and being, F

- conditioned, F

- definition of, F

- unconditioned, F

- unrestricted, F

Red Shifts, D

Revelation, J

Simplicity, F

- and God, F

Singularity, D

- and Borde and Vilenkin, D

- in classical Big Bang Model, D

- in contemporary Big Bang Model, D

- and Guth, D

- and inflationary model universe, D

Soul, B

-and God, B

-and near death experiences, B

-and the transcendentals, C

Space, D

- characteristics in our universe, D

- definition of, D

- and energy, D

- in the General Theory of Relativity, D

- not nothing, D

- and space-time, D

- and universe, D

- variability of , D

Space-Time, D

- and general theory of relativity, D

- and gravity, D

- and mass-energy, D

- and the Planck era, D

- and universe, D

Stars, D

String Landscape Theory, D

String Theory, D

- and inflationary model universe, D

- M-Theory, D

- and Planck era, D

- and quantum cosmology, D

- Superstring Theory, D

Strong Force (See Strong Nuclear Force), D

Strong Nuclear Force, D

Suffering, K, L

-and compassion, L

-and courage, L

-and empathy, L

-and freedom, K

-and God, K&L

-and happiness, L

-from humans, K

-and identity, L

-and love, K&L

-from nature, L

Teleological, D

Time, D, G

- and age of the universe, D

- asymmetry of, D, G

- finitude of past, G

- and general theory of relativity, D

- and space-time, D

- succession of, G

- and universe, D,

Transcendentals, C

- and God, C

- in neo-Platonism, C

- perfect beauty, C

- perfect goodness, C

- perfect home, C

- perfect justice, C

- perfect love, C

- perfect truth, C

- presence to human consciousness, C

Transmateriality of humans, B

Truth, C, F

- perfect, C

- restricted, C

- and transcendentals, C

Typicality (of our universe), D

Unconditioned Reality, F

- and causation, F

- and conditioned reality, F

- definition of, F

- and God, F

- proof of, F

- and uncaused cause, F

- uniqueness of, F

Understanding, D

Uniqueness, F

- of absolutely simple reality, F

- of God, F

- and transcendentals, C

Unity, F

- and manifolds, G

- and simplicity, F

- of space, D

- in space-time, D

Universe, D

- constants of, D

- creation of , D

- definition of, D

- finite age of, D

- finite mass of, D

- finite span of , D

- and Guth, D

- and Linde, D

- and multiverse, D

- pocket (see regional), D

- and space, D

- supernatural design of, D

- and time, D

Unrestricted Reality, F

- and A-infinity, G

- definition of, F

- proof of , F

- uniqueness of , F

Weak Force, D

- and other constants, D

- and supernatural design of universe, D

Search Terms

2011-07-26T20:55:57Z

David Persyn: Protected "Search Terms": High traffic page ([edit=sysop] (indefinite) [move=sysop] (indefinite))

Magis Online Encyclopedia of Reason and Faith

Suggested Search Topics for Part One – Why Believe in God?

© Robert J. Spitzer, S.J.,/Magis Institute July 2011

This page was created to suggest a list of terms that can be searched by users to find topics of interest. Simply enter one of these terms into the search window at the upper right corner of the page, and click search, and you will get a list of every place in this Wiki where that term is used.

The letters after each term refer to the unit (divisions) where the terms are discussed. We hope this article is helpful, especially to users who are new to the Wiki format.

Aesthetic, C

Anthropic, D

--and strong force, D

- and supernatural design, D

- and universal constants, D

- and weak force, D

Atheism, I

- and evil, I

- and freedom, I

- and Freud, I

- indemonstrable, I

- and Marxism, I

- and suffering, I, K, L

- tenuous rationality of, I

--and wishful thinking, I

Beauty, C

- definition of, C

- and God, C

- and human mystery, C

- and mysticism, C

- perfect, C

- and transcendentals, C

Being, F

- and act, F

- and Aquinas, F

- and God, F

- and reality, F

Belief

- and the design of the universe, D

- in God, A - L

- reasonable and responsible, F

Bing Bang Cosmology, D

- description of, D

Black Holes, D

Bubble Universes (see also Pocket Universes), D

Causality, F, H

- and conditioned reality, F

- and contemporary physics, H

- and creator, F, H

- definition of, F, H

- and the metaphysical proof, F, H

- proximate, F, H

- and Russell, H

- and time, G, H

- transcendent, D, F, H

- ultimate, F

- and uncaused reality, F

- and unconditioned reality, F

Change, G

Chaotic Inflation, D

Choice, K

Condition, F

- and causality, F

- epistemological, F

- ontological, F

Conditioned Reality, F

Conscience, C

- and Aquinas, C

- and the good, C

- and Kant, C

- leading to God, C

- and Newman, C

Consciousness, B, C

- of God, C

Constants, D

- and anthropic universe, D

- and Carter, D

- and Davies, D

- definition of

- fine-tuning of, D

- and Hoyle, D

- kinds of , D

- and Penrose, D

- and supernatural design, D

- universal, D

Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) Radiation, D

Cosmological Constant (see also Vacuum Energy), D

Cosmological Fine-Tuning, D

Cosmology, D

Creation of Universe, D

- in classical Big Bang Cosmology, D

- in contemporary Big Bang Cosmology, D

- continuous, F

- and the finitude of past time, G

- and inflationary model universe, D

- and time, D&G

- and universal constants, D

Creator, D , F, G

- continuous, F

-of Everything, F

-of Time, G

-of Universe, D

Cyclic Ekpyrotic Universe, D

Dark Energy (see Vacuum Energy), D

Death, B

-and soul, B

-process of, B

-survival of, B

Design, D

- of universal constants,D

- vs. weak anthropic principle, D

Desire, A, C

-and happiness, A

- and identity, A

- for perfect Being, C

- for perfect Justice/Goodness, C

- for perfect Home, C

- for perfect Love, C

- and purpose, A

-and unhappiness

Desire to Know, C

Electron, D

Elements, D

Energy, D

- dark, D

- electromagnetic, D

- and fields, D

- and four universal forces, D

- and mass, D

- and space-time, D

- and universal constants, D

Entropy, D

- and an anthropic universe, D

- and finite duration of universe, D

- and Roger Penrose, D

Evidence, F

- irreducible forms of, F

- kinds of , F

- in proofs of God, F, I

Explanation, F

- complete, F

Faith, A, J, I

-and purpose, A

- and reason, J

-and revelation, J

- and suffering, L

- and unbelief, I

- and wishful thinking, I

Fields, D

- electromagnetic, D

- quantum, D

- space-time, D

Fine-Tuning (see Cosmological Fine-Tuning), D

Freedom, K

Galactic System, D

Galaxies, D

General Theory of Relativity, D

- and Einstein, D

- and inflationary universe, D

- and mass-energy, D

- and special theory of relativity, D

God, A-L

- as creator of past time, G

- as creator of the universe, D

- as designer of universe, D

- as infinite reality, F

- as transcending time, G

- as unconditioned reality, F

- as unique reality, F

- as unrestricted reality, F

Goodness, C

- and conscience, C

- desire for, C

- and God, C

- and justice, C

- and love, C

- in Newman, C

- perfect, C

- in Plato, C

- and transcendentals, C

Gravity, D

- and quantum cosmology, D

- and space time, D

- and vacuum energy, D

Happiness, A

History, J

Holy, C

Home, C

- desire for, C

- and God, C

- and mysticism, C

- perfect, C

- and transcendentals, C

- and Underhill, C

Hubble Constant, D

Hubble Expansion, D

Identity, A

Infinity, G

- actual, G

- and finite mathematics, G

- Hilbert’s prohibition of, G

- potential, G

- and power, F, G

- regression, F

Inflation, D

- and Borde and Vilenkin, D

- and creation of universe, D

- description of, D

- and Guth, D

- and regional universes, D

- and string theory, D

- and vacuum energy, D

Initial Conditions, D

Intelligence, C, D

- animal, C

- artificial, C

- divine, C, D

- human, C

Joy, C

Kalam argument, G

Kallosh, R.

Light, D

- speed of, D

Logic, F, I

- analytical contradiction, F, G, I

- contradiction of fact, F, G, I

- disjunctive syllogism, F

- implicative syllogism, F

- modus ponens, F

- modus tollens, F

Love, C, J, K, L

- and creator, C, J

- definition of, J

- desire for, C, J

- and empathy, J

- of God, C, J

- and goodness, C, J

- and human mystery, C, J

- and justice, C, J

- perfect, J

- and transcendentals, C

- unconditional, C, J

Mathematical Physics, D

Mathematics, G

- finite, G

- and Hilbert, G

- infinities in, G

- non-standard, G

- and past time, G

- the philosophy of, G

Metaphysics, F

- and God, F

- and physics, D, F

Method, D, F, G

- in metaphysics, F

- in science, D

M-Theory, D

Multiverse, D

Mystery, C, J

Mysticism, C, J

Near-death experiences, B

-blind people, B

-fear of death, B

- Gallup study, B

- - Moody, M.D. study, B

- Morse, M.D. study, B

- Ring, Ph.D. study, B

-transcendent experience, B

-Van Lommel, M.D. study, B

-verifiable aspects, B

Nothing, D

- ex nihilo, D

Ontology, F

- and the beautiful, C

Oscillating Universe, D

Peace, C

Physics, D

- and Big Bang Cosmology, D

- of early universe, D

- limits of, D

- and metaphysics, D

- method of, D

- in Planck era, D

- and universe, D

Pocket Universes (see also Bubble Universes), D

Prayer, J

Pre-Big-Bang Inflationary (PBBI) Model, D

Proof, F, I

- disproving, I

- evidence in, F, I

- and necessity, F

- and reasonable & responsible belief, F

- requisites for, F

- validity of, F

Proton, D

Purpose, A

Quantum Cosmology, D

- and gravity, D

- and Hawking, D

- and inflationary model universe, D

- and Planck era, D

- and string theory, D

Quantum Field, D

Quantum Fluctuation, D

Quark, D

Reality, F

- and being, F

- conditioned, F

- definition of, F

- unconditioned, F

- unrestricted, F

Red Shifts, D

Revelation, J

Simplicity, F

- and God, F

Singularity, D

- and Borde and Vilenkin, D

- in classical Big Bang Model, D

- in contemporary Big Bang Model, D

- and Guth, D

- and inflationary model universe, D

Soul, B

-and God, B

-and near death experiences, B

-and the transcendentals, C

Space, D

- characteristics in our universe, D

- definition of, D

- and energy, D

- in the General Theory of Relativity, D

- not nothing, D

- and space-time, D

- and universe, D

- variability of , D

Space-Time, D

- and general theory of relativity, D

- and gravity, D

- and mass-energy, D

- and the Planck era, D

- and universe, D

Stars, D

String Landscape Theory, D

String Theory, D

- and inflationary model universe, D

- M-Theory, D

- and Planck era, D

- and quantum cosmology, D

- Superstring Theory, D

Strong Force (See Strong Nuclear Force), D

Strong Nuclear Force, D

Suffering, K, L

-and compassion, L

-and courage, L

-and empathy, L

-and freedom, K

-and God, K&L

-and happiness, L

-from humans, K

-and identity, L

-and love, K&L

-from nature, L

Teleological, D

Time, D, G

- and age of the universe, D

- asymmetry of, D, G

- finitude of past, G

- and general theory of relativity, D

- and space-time, D

- succession of, G

- and universe, D,

Transcendentals, C

- and God, C

- in neo-Platonism, C

- perfect beauty, C

- perfect goodness, C

- perfect home, C

- perfect justice, C

- perfect love, C

- perfect truth, C

- presence to human consciousness, C

Transmateriality of humans, B

Truth, C, F

- perfect, C

- restricted, C

- and transcendentals, C

Typicality (of our universe), D

Unconditioned Reality, F

- and causation, F

- and conditioned reality, F

- definition of, F

- and God, F

- proof of, F

- and uncaused cause, F

- uniqueness of, F

Understanding, D

Uniqueness, F

- of absolutely simple reality, F

- of God, F

- and transcendentals, C

Unity, F

- and manifolds, G

- and simplicity, F

- of space, D

- in space-time, D

Universe, D

- constants of, D

- creation of , D

- definition of, D

- finite age of, D

- finite mass of, D

- finite span of , D

- and Guth, D

- and Linde, D

- and multiverse, D

- pocket (see regional), D

- and space, D

- supernatural design of, D

- and time, D

Unrestricted Reality, F

- and A-infinity, G

- definition of, F

- proof of , F

- uniqueness of , F

Weak Force, D

- and other constants, D

- and supernatural design of universe, D

Why Believe in God?

2011-07-26T20:54:57Z

David Persyn: branding

Magis God Wiki: "Why Believe in God?"

© Robert J. Spitzer, S.J. Ph.D./Magis Institute July 2011

There is a list of suggested [[Search Terms]] to assist users in quickly finding their topic of interest.

== Unit A: Does Belief in God Enhance Purpose in Life? ==

[[Purpose in Life]]

This material is not in NPEG, but may be found beginning in Unit 26 of [http://physicsindialog.org PID].

=== What produces happiness and purpose in life? ===

[[Purpose_in_Life#Happiness_and_Purpose_in_Life |Happiness and Purpose]]

=== From immediate gratification and surface apparentness to what is pervasive, enduring, and deep. ===

[[Purpose_in_Life#Moving_from_Shallow_to_Deep |Shallowness to Depth]]

=== Four levels of happiness and purpose in life ===

[[Purpose_in_Life#The_Four_Levels |The Four Levels]]

=== Level two identity, the comparison game, and our culture’s source of anxiety. ===

[[Purpose_in_Life#The_Comparison_Game |The Comparison Game]]

=== Two ways out of the comparison game – level three and level four purpose in life. ===

[[Purpose_in_Life#Ending_the_Game |Getting Out of the Game]]

=== Level four purpose and happiness – transcendence and faith. ===

[[Purpose_in_Life#Transcendence |Faith Leading to Transcendence]]

=== Maintaining a level four purpose in life. ===

[[Purpose_in_Life#Maintaining_Transcendence |Maintaining the Transcendent Happiness]]

== Unit B: Is There any Evidence for the Human Soul? ==

This material is not contained in NPEG, but is in Units 20-21 of [http://physicsindialog.org PID].

=== An assessment of peer-reviewed medical studies on near death experiences from the Lancet, the Journal of the American Medical Association, and other studies. ===

[[The Human Soul]] (This is a single article covering the topics below, which are indexed there for quick reference).

=== The definition of “brain death,” alternative explanations, and controlled, longitudinal studies. ===

=== Eight similar characteristics in near-death experiences. ===

[http://magiswiki.org/index.php/The_Human_Soul#Near-Death_Experiences Characteristics of NDEs].

=== Patients report seeing data that should not have been accessible to them in their brain-dead states, and which is subsequently verifiable (veridical). ===

[http://magiswiki.org/index.php/The_Human_Soul#The_van_Lommel_et_al_Study The von Lommel Study]. Veridical data established.

=== 80% of blind patients can see during their near-death experience. ===

[http://magiswiki.org/index.php/The_Human_Soul#The_Kenneth_Ring.2C_et_al_Study_of_Near-Death_Experiences_of_the_Blind The Kenneth Ring Study of NDEs of the Blind].

=== The measurable absence of death anxiety in both children and adults. ===

[http://magiswiki.org/index.php/The_Human_Soul#Melvin_Morse.2C_MD_.E2.80.93_Study_of_Near-Death_Experiences_of_Children The Melvin Morse Study of NDEs in Children].

=== Encounters with transcendent beings (loving white light, Jesus, deceased relatives, etc.). ===

=== Conclusions of Von Lommel and other studies. ===

[http://magiswiki.org/index.php/The_Human_Soul#Conclusions_Regarding_Near-Death_Experiences Conclusions drawn from the studies].

== Unit C: Is there Evidence of a Human Soul (Transcendentals)? ==

[[The Transcendentals]]

An in depth analysis of this material may be found in NPEG Chapters 7-8 and a lecture presentation may also be found in [http://physicsindialog.org PID Units 14-19].

=== The desire for complete intelligibility and perfect truth. ===

[[The_Transcendentals#I._The_Desire_for_Perfect_and_Unconditional_Truth |The Desire for Perfect and Unconditional Truth]]

=== The desire for perfect love and empathy. ===

[[The_Transcendentals#II._The_Desire_for_Perfect_and_Unconditional_Love |The Desire for Perfect and Unconditional Love]]

=== The desire for perfect justice/goodness. ===

[[The_Transcendentals#III._The_Desire_for_Perfect_and_Unconditional_Goodness.2FJustice |The Desire for Perfect and Unconditional Goodness & Justice]]

=== The desire for perfect beauty. ===

[[The_Transcendentals#IV._The_Desire_for_Perfect_and_Unconditional_Beauty |The Desire for Perfect and Unconditional Beauty]]

=== The desire for perfect being/home. ===

[[The_Transcendentals#V._The_Desire_for_Perfect_and_Unconditional_Being.2FHome |The Desire for Perfect and Unconditional Being & Home]]

=== The five transcendental desires and the transmateriality of human consciousness. ===

[[The_Transcendentals#Conclusion |Conclusion]]

=== The five transcendental desires and God. ===

== Unit D: Is there Evidence of God from Science? ==

[[Cosmology]] incuding Physics.

A more in depth assessment of this material may be found in NPEG Chapters 1-2 and the Postscript to Part One, and a lecture presentation may be found in [http://physicsindialog.org PID Units 1-5].

=== The extent and limits of scientific method. ===

[http://www.magiswiki.org/index.php/Cosmology#Can_Science_Give_Evidence_of_a_Creation_and_Supernatural_Design.3F Limits of Science].

=== The standard big bang model. ===

[http://www.magiswiki.org/index.php/Cosmology#Was_the_Big_Bang_the_Beginning.3F The Big Bang and the Beginning].

=== Was the big bang the beginning of the universe (13.7 billion years ago)? ===

[http://www.magiswiki.org/index.php/Cosmology#A_Beginning_in_Physics_Implies_A_Creation_of_the_Universe Beginning of the Universe].

=== The significance of a beginning in physics – implications of creation. ===

[http://www.magiswiki.org/index.php/Cosmology#What_is_The_Evidence_for_a_Beginning_and_what_are_the_Implications_for_Creation.3F Implications of Creation].

=== Three models for a pre-big-bang period. ===

==== The string theory-inflationary multiverse. ====

==== The bouncing universe. ====

==== String theory-higher dimensional bouncing universe. ====

=== Significant evidence that all three models for a pre-big-bang period would have to have a beginning. ===

[http://www.magiswiki.org/index.php/Cosmology#Evidence_of_a_Beginning_from_Space-Time_Geometry_Proofs Space-Time Geometry].

==== The evidence from space-time geometry proofs (Borde, Guth, and Vilenkin). ====

[http://www.magiswiki.org/index.php/Cosmology#The_1994_Borde-Vilenkin_Proof B-V Proof of 1994].

[http://www.magiswiki.org/index.php/Cosmology#Alan_Guth.E2.80.99s_1999_analysis_of_expanding_pre-big-bang_models The Guth Analysis of 1999].

[http://www.magiswiki.org/index.php/Cosmology#The_2003_Borde-Vilenkin-Guth_Theorem_.28the_BVG_Theorem.29: The 2003 BVG Theorem].

==== The evidence from entropy (Penrose, Beckenstein, Banks, Carroll). ====

=== Universal constants, anthropic coincidences, and fine-tuning. ===

[http://www.magiswiki.org/index.php/Cosmology#Implications_of_Supernatural_Intelligence_in_the_Fine-tuning_of_Universal_Constants Fine Tuning].

==== Five examples of fine-tuning. ====

==== Can fine-tuning be explained by pure chance? ====

[http://www.magiswiki.org/index.php/Cosmology#The_high_improbability_of_a_pure_chance_occurrence_of_our_low-entropy_universe Pure Chance Improbable].

==== Two competing explanations: the multiverse and supernatural design. ====

==== Which of these two explanations is most reasonable and responsible? ====

[http://www.magiswiki.org/index.php/Cosmology#The_high_improbability_of_five_other_anthropic_conditions_.28based_on_cosmological_constants.29 Discussion of Probability]

=== Conclusions about the probability of super intelligent Creator. ===

[http://www.magiswiki.org/index.php/Cosmology#Conclusions Conclusions].

== Unit E: Can the Bible be Reconciled with Science? ==

[[The Bible and Science]]

This unit is not found in either NPEG or PID, however, there is a free videocast on [http://www.magisreasonfaith.org/library/videos/video-god-and-modern-physics-module-12/ The Magis website].

=== The bible is not doing science – but theology, sacred truths. ===

[[The_Bible_and_Science#Theology_Not_Science |Theology not Science]]

=== What was the biblical author’s intention in writing Genesis:1:1ff? ===

[[The_Bible_and_Science#The_Intent_of_Genesis |The Intent of Genesis]]

=== Is evolution reconcilable with the bible? ===

[[The_Bible_and_Science#Darwinian_Evolution |The Bible and Evolution]]

=== Human beings are not reducible to merely organic mechanisms, and therefore, cannot be the result of a merely bio-physical process (like evolution). ===

[[The_Bible_and_Science#The_Human_Soul |About the Human Soul]]

==== The trans-material component of human beings must have another origin ====

[[http://www.magiswiki.org/index.php/Why_Believe_in_God%3F#Unit_B:_Is_There_any_Evidence_for_the_Human_Soul.3F | See above, Unit B]].

== Unit F: Can the Existence of God be Logically Proven? ==

[[Metaphysical Proofs]]

This Unit contains only steps I and V of a logical proof for God’s existence. Steps II, III, and IV can be found in NPEG Chapter Three (Sections II through IV) and [http://physicsindialog.org PID Units 6-11]. Those wishing a review of logical syllogisms may want to consult [http://physicsindialog.org PID Units 6-7].

=== Three kinds of publicly corroborateable evidence – a-priori, a-posteriori, and combinations. ===

[[Metaphysical_Proofs#Three_Kinds_of_Publicly_Accessible_Evidence_for_Rational_Proof |Three Kinds of Publicly Corroborateable Evidence]]

=== Step I of the metaphysical proof – proof that there must be at least one unconditioned reality in “all reality.” ===

[[Metaphysical_Proofs#Proof_of_the_Existence_of_at_Least_One_Unconditioned_Reality |Proof of the Existence of at least One Unconditioned Reality]]

=== A record of the missing steps of the proof ===

These can be found in NPEG and [http://physicsindialog.org PID] (as noted above). These steps prove that there can only be one unconditioned reality and that it must be absolutely simple and unrestricted in its power.

===Step V of the proof which shows that the one unconditioned absolutely simple unrestricted reality must be the continuous Creator of all else that is. ===

[[Metaphysical_Proofs#Proof_that_the_One_Unconditioned_Reality_is_the_Continuous_Creator_of_All_Else_that_Is |Proof that the One Unconditioned Reality is the Continuous Creator of All Else that Is]].

== Unit G: Is there Evidence of God from Mathematics? ==
For a more in depth presentation of time and the formal a-priori synthetic argument for a timeless Creator of time, see NPEG Chapter Five and also [http://physicsindialog.org PID Units 22-25].

=== “Infinite past time” is an analytical contradiction. ===

[[Mathematics#An_Analytical_Contradiction_in_.22Infinite_Past_Time.22 |An Analytical Contradiction in "Infinite Past Time"]]

=== Three kinds of infinity (A, B, and C infinities). ===

Covered in the last paragraphs of [[Mathematics#An_Analytical_Contradiction_in_.22Infinite_Past_Time.22 |An Analytical Contradiction in "Infinite Past Time"]]

=== David Hilbert’s prohibition of C infinities applied to real aggregate structures. ===

[[Mathematics#Summary_of_Hilbert.27s_Prohibition_of_Actual_Infinities |Hilbert's Prohibition of Actual Infinities]]

=== What is real time? ===

[[Mathematics#A_Brief_Explanation_of_Real_Time |A Brief Explanation of Real Time]]

=== The prohibition of a C infinity to real time ===

Implying that past time must be finite and that it must have a beginning, further implying a Creator of past time. See [[Mathematics#Conclusions |Conclusions]]

== Unit H: Why Doesn’t God Need a Creator? ==

[[God is Uncreated]]

An in depth treatment of this material may be found in NPEG Chapter Six Section I.C. It is briefly treated in [http://physicsindialog.org PID Unit 12].

=== No serious philosopher ever suggested that “everything must have a cause,” ===

For this would imply that God needs a cause. See [[God is Uncreated#Serious Metaphysicians Don't Dismiss First Cause |Serious Metaphysicians Don't Dismiss First Cause]]

=== All rigorous logical proofs require that there be at least one uncaused reality. ===

=== All rigorous proofs show that there can only be one uncaused reality ===

(see Unit F).

=== Conclusion of Proof of God Not Needing a Creator ===

All rigorous proofs show that everything in reality besides the one uncaused reality must be caused and that the one uncaused reality must be the cause of all else that is. God does not need to be created – indeed, he must be “that which is uncreated,” otherwise nothing would exist. See [[God is Uncreated#Conclusion |Conclusion]]

== Unit I: Can Atheism be Rational? ==

[[Can Atheism Be Rational?]] (the article of that title).

For a more in depth study of this material, see NPEG Chapter Six, Sections II and III; for a brief lecture presentation, see [http://physicsindialog.org PID Unit 25].

=== It is impossible to rationally disprove the existence of a transcendent being ===

it cannot be done, a-priori, a-posteriori, or through any combination of that. See [[Can_Atheism_Be_Rational%3F#The_Impossibility_of_Disproving_the_Existence_of_God |The Impossibility of Disproving the Existence of God]]

=== A brief response to the problem of suffering – why would God allow suffering if He is all powerful and all loving? ===

(See Units K&L for a much more extended treatment.)

=== A brief Discussion of the Tenuous Rationality of Atheism ===

[[Can_Atheism_Be_Rational%3F#The_Tenuous_Rationality_of_Atheism |The Tenuous Rationality of Atheism]]

=== A response to Freud’s contention that God is the product of wishful thinking. ===

[[Can_Atheism_Be_Rational%3F#Is_Belief_in_God_Mere_Wishful_Thinking.3F |Is Belief in God Mere Wishful Thinking?]]

== Unit J: Why Seek Revelation? ==

[[Reason and Revelation]]

This is not presented in NPEG. For a brief lecture presentation see PID Unit 30.

=== A brief summary of the four sets of evidence for God ===

[[Reason and Revelation#Four Sets of Evidence |Four Sets of Evidence]]

==== The evidence from physics. ====

==== The evidence from the logical proof for the existence of God. ====

==== The evidence from philosophy of mathematics. ====

==== The evidence from near-death experiences and human transcendentality. ====

=== The mutual corroborative effect of these four sets of evidence. ===

=== The complementary picture of God given by these four sets of evidence. ===

=== If reason can probe so deeply, why do we need God to reveal himself (revelation)? ===

There are five basic areas into which reason cannot probe deeply.

==== The heart of God. ====

==== How to pray and worship. ====

==== Specific ethical precepts and attributes of God that cannot be known by reason ====

(e.g. the trinity).

==== God’s inspiration, response to prayer, and redemption of suffering. ====

==== The dynamic of sacred community. ====

=== Toward a definition of love (agape). ===

[[Reason and Revelation#A Definition of Love |A Definition of Love]]

=== Five reflective questions manifesting the unconditional love of God and his desire to be with us empathetically.===

=== God as Emmanuel ===

[[Reason and Revelation#Six Questions Toward Emmanuel |Six Questions Toward Emmanuel]]

== Unit K: Why Would God Allow Suffering from Humans? ==

[[Suffering Caused by Humans]]

This is only briefly treated in NPEG Chapter Six Section III. (See PID Unit 25-27.)

=== If our love is to be our own (and not merely a program) we must freely choose to love ===

Which means that we must have another choice – namely, “not to love.” But the choice not to love gives rise to the possibility of suffering and evil. See [[Suffering_Caused_by_Humans#The_Intrinsic_Relationship_of_Freedom_and_Love |The Intrinsic Relationship of Freedom and Love]]

=== Responses to special cases concerning suffering caused by humans. ===

[[Suffering_Caused_by_Humans#God_Must_Allow_Loving_Beings_to_Create_Their_Loving_Actions_Anew |Special Cases Discussed]]

== Unit L: Why Does God Allow Suffering from Nature? ==

[[Suffering Caused by Nature]]

This is only briefly treated in NPEG Chapter Six Section III. (See [http://physicsindialog.org PID Unit 26-27].)

=== Suffering is caused by nature because we are born imperfectly into an imperfect world. ===

=== Why would God make an imperfect world? ===

==== To help us to self-initiate ====

development of our purpose in life and our identity (from Level One to Level Four). See [[Suffering_Caused_by_Nature#The_First_Purpose_of_an_Imperfect_World:_Identity_Transformation |Identity Transformation]]

==== To allow us to cultivate the “stoic” virtues ====

[[Suffering_Caused_by_Nature#The_Second_Purpose_of_an_Imperfect_World:_Stoic_Virtues |The Stoic Virtues]] (e.g. courage and self-discipline, etc.)

=== To allow us to develop in love (agape). ===

[[Suffering_Caused_by_Nature#The_Third_Purpose_of_an_Imperfect_World:_Agape |Agape]]

=== To allow us to develop our sense of empathy and compassion. ===

=== To leave room for us to build a better world. ===

[[Suffering_Caused_by_Nature#The_Fourth_Purpose_of_an_Imperfect_World:_Interdependence.2C_Human_Community.2C_and_a_.E2.80.9CBetter_World.E2.80.9D |A Better World]]

=== To leave room for us to build the kingdom of God. ===

[[Suffering_Caused_by_Nature#The_Fifth_Purpose_of_an_Imperfect_World:_Building_the_Kingdom_of_God |The Kingdom of God]]

=== Conclusions about Suffering Well ===

[[Suffering Caused by Nature#Conclusion |Conclusions]]

== Unit M: References ==

[[Believe_in_God_Reference_List]]

A comprehensive bibliography of all the references used in the above twelve units.



{{DEFAULTSORT:Why Believe in God}}
[[Category:Table of Contents]]
[[Category:Intellectual Evangelization]]
[[Category:Supplemental Material]]

Introduction

2011-07-26T20:54:06Z

David Persyn: branding

The Magis God Wiki

© Robert J. Spitzer, S.J., PhD./Magis Institute July 2011

Welcome to The Magis God Wiki, a free research tool written and developed by Robert J. Spitzer, S.J., Ph.D. of the Magis Center of Reason and Faith. We respectfully ask that if you download, print, or use any of this information, you acknowledge the copyright and its author (see above).

This tool was written and designed for in-depth study and research. It is written in a form to present the best of current research, probative studies, detailed analysis, and leads to other significant books, journals, and research materials. It is carefully footnoted.

If you directly reference the material from this encyclopedia, the proper footnote form is:

Spitzer, Robert. 2011. “the name of the article cited” in The Magis Online Encyclopedia of Reason and Faith. http://magiswiki.org/ .

MOERF has two parts:

1. [[Why Believe in God?]]

2. [[Why Believe in Jesus?]]

Both can be accessed directly from the home page of [http://magisgodwiki.org Magis God Wiki].

The first part ( [[Why Believe in God?]] ) is concerned with several themes – evidence for a transcendent, intelligent Creator from physics, logic, philosophy of mathematics, near-death experiences, and human transcendentality; the questionable rationality of atheism, the need for revelation, and a response to the question of why God allows suffering. The second part ( [[Why Believe in Jesus?]] ) is concerned with the Historicity of Jesus and other evidence.

Please note that all twelve units of this part of the encyclopedia are systematically organized so that they can be read one after the other like a book. Graduate students and professionals may want to do this with a view to obtaining a comprehensive knowledge of the interrelationship among the topics.

If you wish to search for any topic related to God and the disciplines between physics, logic, philosophy of mathematics, cosmology, or fundamental theology, simply go to the search window in the upper right hand corner of your screen and insert the word or string in which you are interested. Every use of these words will appear in the sentence in which they are used throughout the encyclopedia. Simply click on those which are of interest.

We hope you find this tool to be a source of information, analysis, and inspiration.

== Other Related Resources ==

There are two complementary resources for the material in [[Why Believe in God]]:

1. Fr. Spitzer’s book, New Proofs for the Existence of God: Contributions of Contemporary Physics and Philosophy (Eerdmans 2010) – hereafter NPEG. The book may be purchased at a discounted price (about $19.00) from [http://www.amazon.com/New-Proofs-Existence-God-Contributions/dp/0802863833/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1310218614&sr=1-1 Amazon]. The book contains a much more detailed account of the physical evidence for an intelligent Creator, the three logical proofs for the existence of God, the transcendentals, and the analysis of the rationality of atheism. It does not contain the discussion of near-death experiences, the need for revelation, and the rational response to suffering.

2. A thirty-part lecture series (35 minutes per part) presented by Fr. Spitzer (using a Camtasia blackboard) entitled “ [http://physicsindialog.org Physics and Metaphysics in Dialogue] ” – hereafter PID. The lecture series can be purchased via PayPal's secure website for $45.00 at [http://physicsindialog.org Physics in Dialogue]. All the parts of the encyclopedia are in the lecture series. Many students have found that the lecture series is quite helpful for making these materials accessible, giving the big picture, and fitting together its various parts. This lecture series may also be taken for credit (from Benedictine College – North Central Commission on Accreditation) by registering at the [http://physicsindialog.org Physics in Dialogue] site at a cost of $325.00 ($108.33 per credit hour). There is an on-line Q&A and discussion forum. For the course, there are on-line examinations and an on-line Q&A discussion forum (with Ph.D. moderators), study questions, and other resources that accompany the course. If students wish to transfer credit to their own institutions, they may obtain the course syllabus (GS 298 Physics and Metaphysics in Dialogue) and petition their Registrar. It is a general studies (GS) listing, and the Registrar can give elective credit toward graduation or general studies to the course. If students wish to transfer the course into a specific department, such as philosophy or theology, they will have to obtain permission from the department as well as the Registrar.



{{DEFAULTSORT:Introduction}}
[[Category:College Course]]
[[Category:High School Course]]
[[Category:Intellectual Evangelization]]
[[Category:Supplemental Material]]

Magis God Wiki:About

2011-07-26T18:07:31Z

David Persyn: branding

The Magis Gpd Wiki is a free resource provided by the [[http://magisreasonfaith.org |Magis Center for Reason and Faith]] under the leadership of [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Spitzer,_SJ |Rev. Robert J. Spitzer, SJ, PhD]] and contains intellectual material created by him. Referenced and cited materials remain the intellectual property of their creators and/or publishers.

Magis gives permission for reproduction or redistribution of the materials on this site owned by Magis or Robert J. Spitzer, under the conditions that attribution is given and that the material is presented without modification other than truncation for citing purposes.

Main Page

2011-07-26T18:02:54Z

David Persyn: branding

Magis God Wiki

© Robert J. Spitzer, S.J., PhD./Magis Institute July 2011

'''Welcome to the Magis God Wiki'''

This is a free resource containing information from the [http://magisreasonfaith.org Magis Center of Reason and Faith], under the direction of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Spitzer_(priest) Robert J. Spitzer, SJ., PhD.]

== Getting started ==
[[Introduction]]

[[Why Believe in God?]]

[[Why Believe in Jesus?]]

Suggested [[Search Terms]]

A short page about [[Copyrights]] and our intellectual property.

Cosmology

2011-07-25T20:56:18Z

David Persyn: /* The high improbability of five other anthropic conditions (based on cosmological constants) */

Magis Online Encyclopedia of Reason and Faith - MOERF

Is there Evidence of the Existence of God from Contemporary Physics?

© Robert J. Spitzer, S.J. Ph.D./Magis Institute July 2011

This will be an overview of a more complex treatment which may be found in my recent book New Proofs for the Existence of God: Contributions of Contemporary Physics and Philosophy (hereafter “NPEG”). I have given a series of lectures on these matters in an on-line series called Physics and Metaphysics in Dialogue which can be accessed at our [http://www.physicsindialogue.org (hereafter “PID”) website] – see lectures #1-6. It will be rather quick paced, and if some of you want a more thorough treatment you may want to refer to the book. I will divide the topic into three parts:

1. Can Science Give Evidence of Creation and Supernatural Design?

2. What is the Evidence for a Beginning and what are the Implications for Creation?

3. What is the evidence of Supernatural Intelligence from Anthropic Fine-tuning?

== Can Science Give Evidence of a Creation and Supernatural Design? ==

We should begin by clarifying what science can really tell us about a beginning of the universe and supernatural causation. First, unlike philosophy and metaphysics, science cannot deductively prove a creation or God. This is because natural science deals with the physical universe and with the regularities which we call “laws of nature” that are obeyed by the phenomena within that universe. But God is not an object or phenomenon or regularity within the physical universe; so science cannot say anything about God. Moreover, science is an empirical and inductive discipline. As such, science cannot be certain that it has considered all possible data that would be relevant to a complete explanation of particular physical phenomena or the universe itself. It is always open to new data and discoveries which could alter its explanation of particular phenomena and the universe. This can be seen quite clearly in revisions made to the Big Bang model.

So what can science tell us? It can identify, aggregate, and synthesize evidence indicating that the finitude of past time in the universe as we currently know it to be and conceive it could be. Science can also identify the exceedingly high improbability of the random occurrence of conditions necessary to sustain life in the universe as we currently know it to be and conceive it could be.

Even though scientific conclusions are subject to modification in the light of new data, we should not let this possibility cause us to unnecessarily discount the validity of long-standing, persistent, rigorously established theories. If we did this, we might discount the majority of our scientific theories. Thus, it is reasonable and responsible to attribute qualified truth value to such theories until such time as new data requires them to be modified.

== What is The Evidence for a Beginning and what are the Implications for Creation? ==

The arguments that suggest the finitude of past time (i.e. that time had a beginning) are basically of two types: (a) arguments about the possible geometries of spacetime and (b) arguments based on the Second Law of Thermodynamics (entropy). Though the arguments we shall give may conceivably have loopholes, in the sense that cosmological models or scenarios may be found in the future to which these arguments don’t apply, their persistence and applicability to a large number of existing cosmological models gives them respectable probative force. Until such time as they are shown to be invalid or inapplicable to empirically verifiable characteristics of our universe, they should be considered as justifying the conclusion that it is at least probable that the universe had a beginning.

=== A Beginning in Physics Implies A Creation of the Universe ===

Before examining this evidence, it is essential to discuss the implications of a beginning (in physics) for a creation of our universe. A beginning in physics implies a Creator. Because a beginning in physics marks a point at which the universe came into existence. In physics, time is something real, and it has real effects on other physical phenomena. Thus, the point at which the universe comes into existence is also the point at which physical time comes into existence.

How does this imply a Creator? First, in physics, nothing physical could exist prior to the beginning point (indeed there is no “prior to the beginning point” because there is no physical time).

Secondly, if the physical universe (and its physical time) did not exist prior to the beginning, then it was literally nothing. It is important to note that “nothing” means “nothing.” It does not mean a “vacuum” or “a low energy state of a quantum field,” “empty space,” or other real things. Vacuums, empty space, and low energy states in quantum fields are dimensional and orientable – they have specific characteristics and parameters, but nothing is not dimensional or orientable, and it does not have any specific characteristics or parameters because it is nothing. For example, you can have more or less of a vacuum or empty space, but you cannot have more or less of nothing because nothing is nothing.

Thirdly, nothing can do only nothing, because it is nothing. To imply the contrary is to make nothing into something. The classical expression was, “from nothing, only nothing comes.”

Fourthly, if nothing can’t do anything, then it certainly cannot create anything. Thus, when the universe was nothing, it could not have created itself (made itself into something) when it was nothing, because when it was nothing, it could only do nothing.

Finally, if the universe could not have made itself something when it was nothing, then something else would have had to have made the universe something when it was nothing, and that “something else” would have to be completely transcendent (completely independent of the universe and beyond it). This transcendent (and independent) creative force beyond our universe (and its space-time asymmetry) is generally termed “a Creator.” Therefore, a beginning in physics implies a transcendent powerful creative force (a “Creator”).

=== Was the Big Bang the Beginning? ===

In view of the fact that a beginning in physics implies a Creator, many physicists with a naturalistic orientation would like to avoid the necessity of such a beginning. For this reason, they have proposed that the big bang was not the beginning of the universe. Before we can assess this hypothesis, we will want to get a few facts about the contemporary big bang theory.

The Big Bang Theory was proposed originally by a Belgium priest by the name of Fr. George Lemaitre who used it to resolve a problem (the radial velocities of extra galactic nebulae) connected with Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity. Though Einstein did not at first affirm the idea of an expanding universe, he later believed it because of its overwhelming verification. Indeed, it is one of the most rigorously established theories in physics today.

Essentially, the contemporary Big Bang Theory holds that the big bang occurred approximately 13.7 billion years ago (plus or minus 200 million years). It may be analogized to a balloon blowing up where the elastic on the balloon is like the space-time field (in general relativity, space-time can actually stretch, expand as a whole, warp, vibrate, and change its coordinate structure according to the density of mass-energy in it).

Now, going back to our analogy, suppose there are paint spots all over the balloon; notice that as the balloon expands (i.e. as space-time stretches and expands as a whole), all the paint dots (which may be likened to galaxies) move away from each other. Our universe has been doing something like this for 13.7 billion years.

Our observable universe seems to have a finite amount of mass-energy. It has approximately 4.6% visible matter (matter-energy that can emit light, electromagnetic fields, etc.), 23% dark matter (interacts with gravity, but does not seem to have luminescent or electromagnetic activity), and 72.4% dark energy (which seems to be like a field attached to a space-time field causing space-time to accelerate in its expansion). The visible matter in our universe seems to be approximately 1055 kilograms which is approximately 1080 baryons (protons and neutrons – particles with significant rest mass).

Since the time of Fr. Lemaitre, the Big Bang Theory has been confirmed by multiple, distinct data sets which come together around a similar set of numbers and values: Edwin Hubble’s’ Redshifts (which shows that all galaxies are moving away from each other), Arno Penzias’ and Robert Wilson’s discovery of the 2.7 degree Kelvin uniformly distributed radiation which is the remnant of the big bang, evidence from the cosmic background explorer satellite (COBE), and further evidence from the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP). This is why most physicists consider the big bang to be a rigorously established physical theory.

Was the big bang the beginning of the universe? Many physicists think that it was because the big bang was the moment at which space-time came into existence and because there is no physical evidence for a period prior to the big bang. However, some physicists believe that the big bang was not the beginning of our universe which opens the possibility for a pre-big-bang period of indefinite length (perhaps avoiding a beginning and all of its implications for a creation). This hypothetical pre-big-bang period is made possible through quantum cosmology (which allows the universe to operate in a space-time smaller than the minimums required by general relativity). Currently, string theory is one hypothetical candidate for quantum cosmology in which some physicists (including Stephen Hawking) have placed considerable hope. (Those of you interested in additional detail on quantum cosmology and string theory will want to read the Postscript to Part One of NPG). String Theory allows for the possibility of higher-dimensional space, which in turn, allows for two possible pre-big bang periods:

1. A multiverse (a mega universe which coughs out multiple bubble universes, one of which is our universe) and

2. An oscillating universe in higher dimensional space (e.g. two three dimensional membranes interacting and colliding through a four dimensional bulk space-time).

It is not important to know all the details of a multiverse or an oscillating universe in higher dimensional space, because there is only one relevant question. Do these speculative scenarios themselves require a beginning or can they go indefinitely back into the past? It so happens that a considerable amount of work has been done in the area of space-time geometry proofs which conclude that all inflationary model universes, multiverses (which must be inflationary in order to exist), and oscillating universes in higher dimensional space must have a beginning. These extraordinary proofs suggest the probability that our universe (or any multiverse in which it might be situated) must have a beginning, which implies a Creator. So what are these proofs?

=== Evidence of a Beginning from Space-Time Geometry Proofs ===

There are three pieces of evidence arising out of space-time geometry proofs which indicate a beginning of our universe or any speculative multiverse in which our universe might be situated. It also indicates a beginning of oscillating universes – even oscillating universes in higher dimensional space. These proofs are so widely applicable that they establish a beginning of virtually every hypothetical pre-big bang condition which can be connected to our universe. They, therefore, indicate the probability of an absolute beginning of physical reality which implies the probability of a Creator outside of our universe (or any multiverse in which it might be situated).

Since 1994 two proofs and (and a series of models) have been developed that show that not only our universe, but any multiverse and inflationary bouncing universe must have a beginning: 1) The 1994 Borde-Vilenkin Proof, 2) The modeling of inflationary universes by Alan Guth and others, and 3) The 2003 Borde-Vilenkin-Guth Theorem (the BVG Theorem).

==== The 1994 Borde-Vilenkin Proof ====

Arvin Borde (Kavli Institute of Theoretical Physics at the University of California Santa Barbara) and Alexander Vilenkin (Director of the Institute of Cosmology at Tufts University) formulated a proof in 1994 that every inflationary universe meeting five assumptions would have to have a singularity (a beginning of the universe/multiverse in a finite proper time)<ref> See Borde and Vilenkin 1994</ref>. Our universe meets all the conditions in this proof. In 1997 they discovered a possible exception to one of their assumptions (concerning weak energy conditions) which was very, very unlikely within our universe. Physicists, including Alan Guth (the Victor Weisskopf Professor of Physics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and father of inflationary theory) did not consider this exception to be relevant: “… the technical assumption questioned in the 1997 Borde-Vilenkin paper does not seem important enough to me to change the conclusion [that the 1994 proof of a beginning of inflationary model universes is required].”<ref>Guth 1999 pg. 1.</ref> Therefore, the 1994 proof still has general validity today.
(Refer to NPEG Chapter One, Section IV.D)

==== Alan Guth’s 1999 analysis of expanding pre-big-bang models ====

Guth concluded his study as follows:
“In my own opinion, it looks like eternally inflating models necessarily have a beginning… As hard as physicists have worked to try to construct an alternative, so far all the models that we construct have a beginning; they are eternal into the future, but not into the past.”<ref>Guth 1999 pg. 1.</ref>

(Refer to NPEG Chapter One, Section IV.D)

==== The 2003 Borde-Vilenkin-Guth Theorem (the BVG Theorem): ====

Borde, Vilenkin, and Guth joined together to formulate an elegant and vastly applicable demonstration of a beginning of expanding universes (in a famous article in Physical Review Letters). Alexander Vilenkin explains it as follows:

<blockquote>“Suppose, for example, that [a] space traveler has just zoomed by the earth at the speed of 100,000 kilometers per second and is now headed toward a distant galaxy, about a billion light years away. [because of the expansion of the universe as a whole], that galaxy is moving away from us at a speed of 20,000 kilometers per second, so when the space traveler catches up with it, the observers there will see him moving at 80,000 kilometers per second. [As the universe continues to expand, the relative velocity of the space traveler will get smaller and smaller into the future]. If the velocity of the space traveler relative to the spectators gets smaller and smaller into the future, then it follows that his velocity should get larger and larger as we follow his history into the past. In the limit, his velocity should get arbitrarily close to the speed of light [the maximum velocity attainable by mass energy in the universe].”<ref>Vilenkin 2006 p. 173.</ref></blockquote>

The point where relative velocities become arbitrarily close to the speed of light constitutes a boundary to past time in any expanding universe or multiverse. Though the conclusion of Borde, Vilenkin, and Guth is somewhat technical for non physicists, its importance makes their precise words worth mentioning:

<blockquote>Our argument shows that null and time like geodesics are, in general, past-incomplete [requiring a boundary to past time] in inflationary models, whether or not energy conditions hold, provided only that the averaged expansion condition Hav > 0 hold along these past-directed geodesics. This is a stronger conclusion than the one arrived at in previous work in that we have shown under reasonable assumptions that almost all causal geodesics, when extended to the past of an arbitrary point, reach the boundary of the inflating region of space-time in a finite proper time.<ref> Borde, Guth, and Vilenkin 2003 p. 3</ref></blockquote>

This proof is vastly applicable to just about any model universe or multiverse that could be connected with our universe. Alexander Vilenkin put it this way in 2006:

<blockquote>We made no assumptions about the material content of the universe. We did not even assume that gravity is described by Einstein’s equations. So, if Einstein’s gravity requires some modification, our conclusion will still hold. The only assumption that we made was that the expansion rate of the universe never gets below some nonzero value, no matter how small. This assumption should certainly be satisfied in the inflating false vacuum. The conclusion is that past-eternal inflation without a beginning is impossible. <ref>Vilenkin 2006 p.175.</ref></blockquote>

Physicists do not use the word “impossible” very often. So, Vilenkin’s claim here is quite strong. The reason he is able to make it is that there is only one condition that must be fulfilled – an expansion rate of the universe greater than zero (no matter how small).

It is important to note that Borde, Vilenkin, and Guth applied their theorem to the string multiverse as well as to higher dimensional oscillating universes. I present their own words here (which might be quite difficult for non-physicists) because it gives a sense of their own appreciation of the vast applicability of their theorem:

<blockquote>Our argument can be straightforwardly extended to cosmology in higher dimensions [arising out of string theory/M Theory]. For example, [1] in [some models of a string multiverse], brane worlds are created in collisions of bubbles nucleating in an inflating higher-dimensional bulk space-time. Our analysis implies that the inflating bulk cannot be past-complete [i.e. must have a boundary to past time]. ¶ [2] We finally comment on the cyclic Universe model [in the higher dimensional space of string theory] in which a bulk of four spatial dimensions is sandwiched between two three-dimensional branes…In some versions of the cyclic model the brane space-times’ are everywhere expanding, so our theorem immediately implies the existence of a past boundary at which boundary conditions must be imposed. In other versions, there are brief periods of contraction, but the net result of each cycle is an expansion.…Thus, as long as Hav > 0 for a null geodesic when averaged over one cycle, then Hav > 0 for any number of cycles, and our theorem would imply that the geodesic is incomplete [i.e. must have a boundary to past time].<ref>Borde, Guth, and Vilenkin 2003 p. 4.</ref></blockquote>

The boundary to past time (required in the BVG theorem) could indicate an absolute beginning of the universe or a pre-pre-big bang era with a completely different physics. If it is the latter, then the pre-big-bang period would also have to have had a boundary to its past time (because it would have a rate of expansion greater than zero). Eventually, one will reach an absolute beginning when there are no more pre-pre-pre-big-bang eras.

This is an extraordinary conclusion, because it shows that a beginning is required in virtually every conceivable pre-big-bang scenario – including the string multiverse and oscillating universes in higher dimensional space. By implication, then, even if there were multiple pre-big-bang eras, it is likely that these eras would have to have an expansion rate greater than zero, which means that they too would have to have a beginning, which would make an absolute beginning virtually unavoidable. This absolute beginning would be the point at which the universe came into existence. Prior to that point the universe (and its physical time) would have been nothing, which as we saw above, implies a Creator.

Exceptions to this theorem are very difficult to formulate and are quite tenuous because they require either a universe with an average Hubble expansion less than or equal to zero (which is difficult to connect to our inflationary universe) or a deconstruction of time which is physically unrealistic. (For an extended discussion of these exceptions, you may consult Chapter One, Section III.D-E of NPEG). For this reason all attempts to get around the BVG Theorem to date have been unsuccessful. Even if physicists in the future are able to formulate a hypothetical model which could get around the BVG Theorem, it would not mean that this hypothetical model is true for our universe. It is likely to be only a testimony to human ingenuity. Therefore, it is probable that our universe (or any multiverse in which it might be situated) had an absolute beginning. This implies a creation of the universe by a Power transcending our universe.

There is another impressive set of data which corroborates the above three space-time geometry proofs, namely, the Second Law of Thermodynamics (i.e. entropy). The constraints of time will not permit me to address this topic, however, those interested in explication of it may consult Chapter One (Section III A-C) of NPEG).
In conclusion, the evidence from physics (from both space-time geometry proofs and the second law of thermodynamics) indicates the probability of a beginning of our universe. In as much as a beginning indicates a point at which our universe came into existence, and prior to that point, the universe was nothing, then it is probable that the universe (and any hypothetical multiverse in which it might be situated) was created by a transcendent power outside of physical space and time.

== Implications of Supernatural Intelligence in the Fine-tuning of Universal Constants ==

There are several conditions of our universe necessary for the emergence of any complex life form. Many of these conditions are so exceedingly improbable that it is not reasonable to expect that they could have occurred by pure chance For this reason many physicists attribute their occurrence to supernatural design. Some other physicists prefer to believe instead in trillions upon trillions of “other universes” (which are unobserved and likely unobservable). Before discussing which explanation is more probative, we need to explore some specific instances of this highly improbable fine-tuning. We may break the discussion into two parts:

1. The exceedingly high improbability of our low entropy universe, and

2. The exceedingly high improbability of the anthropic values of our universe’s constants.

We will discuss each in turn.

=== The high improbability of a pure chance occurrence of our low-entropy universe ===

A low-entropy universe is necessary for the emergence, development, and complexification of life forms (because a high entropy universe would be too run down to allow for such development). Roger Penrose has calculated the exceedingly small probability of a pure chance occurrence of our low–entropy universe as 10^10^123 to one. How can we understand this number? It is like a ten raised to an exponent of:

100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000.

This number is so large, that if every zero were 10 point type, our solar system would not be able to hold it! Currently, there is no natural explanation for the occurrence of this number, and if none is found, then we are left with the words of Roger Penrose himself:

<blockquote>“In order to produce a universe resembling the one in which we live, the Creator would have to aim for an absurdly tiny volume of the phase space of possible universes—about 1/10^10^123 of the entire volume, for the situation under consideration.” </blockquote>

What Penrose is saying here is that this occurrence cannot be explained by a random (pure chance) occurrence. Therefore, one will have to make recourse either to a multiverse (composed of bubble universes, each having different values of constants) or as Penrose implies, a Creator (with a super-intellect).

=== The high improbability of five other anthropic conditions (based on cosmological constants) ===

A cosmological constant is a number which controls the equations of physics, and the equations of physics, in turn, describe the laws of nature. Therefore, these numbers control the laws of nature (and whether these laws of nature will be hospitable or hostile to any life form). Some examples of constants are: the speed of light constant (c= 300,000 km per second), Planck’s constant (ℏ = 6.6 x 10-34 joule seconds), the gravitational attraction constant (G = 6.67 x 10-11 ), the strong nuclear force constant (gs = 15), the weak force constant (gw = 1.43 x 10-62), the mass of the proton (mp = 1.67 x 10-27 kg), rest mass of an electron (me = 9.11 x 10-31 kg), and charge of an electron proton (e = 1.6 x 10-19 coulombs). There are several other constants, but these pertain to the following anthropic coincidences (highly improbable conditions required for life).

(i) If the gravitational constant (G) or weak force constant (gw) varied from their values by an exceedingly small fraction (higher or lower) -- one part in 10^50 (.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001) then either the universe would have suffered a catastrophic collapse or would have exploded throughout its expansion, both of which options would have prevented the emergence and development of any life form. This cannot be reasonably explained by pure chance.

(ii) If the strong nuclear force constant were higher than its value (15) by only 2%, there would be no hydrogen in the universe (and therefore no nuclear fuel or water -- this would have prohibited life). If, on the other hand, the strong nuclear force constant had been 2% lower than its value then no element heavier than hydrogen could have emerged in the universe (helium, carbon, etc). This would have been equally detrimental to the development of life. This “anthropic coincidence” also seems to lie beyond the boundaries of pure chance.

(iii) If the gravitational constant, electromagnetism, or the “proton mass relative to the electron mass” varied from their values by only a tiny fraction (higher or lower), then all stars would be either blue giants or red dwarfs. These kinds of stars would not emit the proper kind of heat and light for a long enough period to allow for the emergence, development, and complexification of life forms. Again, these “anthropic coincidences” are beyond pure chance occurrence.

(iv) If the weak force constant had been slightly smaller or larger than its value, then supernovae explosions would never have occurred. If these explosions had not occurred, there would be no carbon, iron, or earth-like planets.

(v) Fred Hoyle and William Fowler discovered the exceedingly high improbability of oxygen, carbon, helium and beryllium having the precise values to allow for both carbon abundance and carbon bonding (necessary for life). This “anthropic coincidence” was so striking that it caused Hoyle to abandon his previous atheism and declare:

<blockquote>“A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question.”</blockquote>

(For all five “anthropic coincidences,” refer to NPEG Chapter One, Sect. II and [http://physicsindialog.org Lectures #5 and 6 of PID].)

The odds against all five of the anthropic coincidences happening randomly is so exceedingly improbable that it is like telling a monkey to type out the corpus of Shakespeare perfectly by random tapping of the keys. After returning two weeks later the entire corpus of Shakespeare, Hamlet, Macbeth, Richard III, are all perfectly recounted. Most reasonable and responsible individuals would not attribute this to random occurrence (because the odds are so overwhelmingly against it), and so, they look for another explanation which is more reasonable and responsible.

For this reason, no respectable physicist (including Stephen Hawking), believes that these anthropic coincidences can be explained by pure chance. In view of the fact that no natural explanation has been found for them, most physicists have made recourse to two trans-universal explanations:

1. A multiverse (a naturalistic explanation) and

2. A super intellectual Creator (a supernatural explanation).

Is the naturalistic explanation more reasonable and responsible? Not necessarily because the other universes (and the multiverse itself) are in principle unobservable. Furthermore, it violates the principle of parsimony (Ockham’s Razor) – the explanation with the least number of assumptions, conditions, and requirements is to be preferred. As Paul Davies notes:

<blockquote>Another weakness of the anthropic argument is that it seems the very antithesis of Ockham’s razor, according to which the most plausible of a possible set of explanations is that which contains the simplest ideas and least number of assumptions. To invoke an infinity of other universes just to explain one is surely carrying excess baggage to cosmic extremes … It is hard to see how such a purely theoretical construct can ever be used as an explanation, in the scientific sense, of a feature of nature. Of course, one might find it easier to believe in an infinite array of universes than in an infinite Deity, but such a belief must rest on faith rather than observation.<ref>Davies 1983, pp. 173-174.</ref></blockquote>

3. All known multiverse theories have significant fine-tuning requirements. Linde’s chaotic inflationary multiverse cannot randomly cough out bubble universes because they would collide and make both universes inhospitable to life; the bubble universes must be spaced out in a slow roll which requires considerable fine-tuning in the multiverses initial parameters.<ref>See Alabidi and Lyth 2006.</ref> Similarly, Susskind’s String Theory landscape requires considerable meta-level fine-tuning to explain its “anthropic" tendencies.<ref>See Gordon 2010 pp. 100-102.</ref>

== Conclusions ==

Given these problems, is the multiverse a more reasonable and responsible explanation of our universe’s anthropic coincidences? Many physicists believe that it is not, not only because of the above three problems, but also because of the likelihood of a Creator. When the evidence for a beginning (a Creator) is combined with the exceedingly high improbability of the above anthropic coincidences, a super intellect may be the most reasonable and responsible explanation because it avoids all the problems of a hypothetical multiverse. Thus, it is both reasonable and responsible to believe on the basis of physics, that there is a very powerful and intelligent being that caused our universe to exist as a whole.

== Footnotes ==

<references/>



{{DEFAULTSORT:Cosmology}}
[[Category:Cosmology]]
[[Category:Physics]]
[[Category:Time]]

Cosmology

2011-07-25T20:55:26Z

David Persyn: /* The high improbability of a pure chance occurrence of our low-entropy universe */ another exponent

Magis Online Encyclopedia of Reason and Faith - MOERF

Is there Evidence of the Existence of God from Contemporary Physics?

© Robert J. Spitzer, S.J. Ph.D./Magis Institute July 2011

This will be an overview of a more complex treatment which may be found in my recent book New Proofs for the Existence of God: Contributions of Contemporary Physics and Philosophy (hereafter “NPEG”). I have given a series of lectures on these matters in an on-line series called Physics and Metaphysics in Dialogue which can be accessed at our [http://www.physicsindialogue.org (hereafter “PID”) website] – see lectures #1-6. It will be rather quick paced, and if some of you want a more thorough treatment you may want to refer to the book. I will divide the topic into three parts:

1. Can Science Give Evidence of Creation and Supernatural Design?

2. What is the Evidence for a Beginning and what are the Implications for Creation?

3. What is the evidence of Supernatural Intelligence from Anthropic Fine-tuning?

== Can Science Give Evidence of a Creation and Supernatural Design? ==

We should begin by clarifying what science can really tell us about a beginning of the universe and supernatural causation. First, unlike philosophy and metaphysics, science cannot deductively prove a creation or God. This is because natural science deals with the physical universe and with the regularities which we call “laws of nature” that are obeyed by the phenomena within that universe. But God is not an object or phenomenon or regularity within the physical universe; so science cannot say anything about God. Moreover, science is an empirical and inductive discipline. As such, science cannot be certain that it has considered all possible data that would be relevant to a complete explanation of particular physical phenomena or the universe itself. It is always open to new data and discoveries which could alter its explanation of particular phenomena and the universe. This can be seen quite clearly in revisions made to the Big Bang model.

So what can science tell us? It can identify, aggregate, and synthesize evidence indicating that the finitude of past time in the universe as we currently know it to be and conceive it could be. Science can also identify the exceedingly high improbability of the random occurrence of conditions necessary to sustain life in the universe as we currently know it to be and conceive it could be.

Even though scientific conclusions are subject to modification in the light of new data, we should not let this possibility cause us to unnecessarily discount the validity of long-standing, persistent, rigorously established theories. If we did this, we might discount the majority of our scientific theories. Thus, it is reasonable and responsible to attribute qualified truth value to such theories until such time as new data requires them to be modified.

== What is The Evidence for a Beginning and what are the Implications for Creation? ==

The arguments that suggest the finitude of past time (i.e. that time had a beginning) are basically of two types: (a) arguments about the possible geometries of spacetime and (b) arguments based on the Second Law of Thermodynamics (entropy). Though the arguments we shall give may conceivably have loopholes, in the sense that cosmological models or scenarios may be found in the future to which these arguments don’t apply, their persistence and applicability to a large number of existing cosmological models gives them respectable probative force. Until such time as they are shown to be invalid or inapplicable to empirically verifiable characteristics of our universe, they should be considered as justifying the conclusion that it is at least probable that the universe had a beginning.

=== A Beginning in Physics Implies A Creation of the Universe ===

Before examining this evidence, it is essential to discuss the implications of a beginning (in physics) for a creation of our universe. A beginning in physics implies a Creator. Because a beginning in physics marks a point at which the universe came into existence. In physics, time is something real, and it has real effects on other physical phenomena. Thus, the point at which the universe comes into existence is also the point at which physical time comes into existence.

How does this imply a Creator? First, in physics, nothing physical could exist prior to the beginning point (indeed there is no “prior to the beginning point” because there is no physical time).

Secondly, if the physical universe (and its physical time) did not exist prior to the beginning, then it was literally nothing. It is important to note that “nothing” means “nothing.” It does not mean a “vacuum” or “a low energy state of a quantum field,” “empty space,” or other real things. Vacuums, empty space, and low energy states in quantum fields are dimensional and orientable – they have specific characteristics and parameters, but nothing is not dimensional or orientable, and it does not have any specific characteristics or parameters because it is nothing. For example, you can have more or less of a vacuum or empty space, but you cannot have more or less of nothing because nothing is nothing.

Thirdly, nothing can do only nothing, because it is nothing. To imply the contrary is to make nothing into something. The classical expression was, “from nothing, only nothing comes.”

Fourthly, if nothing can’t do anything, then it certainly cannot create anything. Thus, when the universe was nothing, it could not have created itself (made itself into something) when it was nothing, because when it was nothing, it could only do nothing.

Finally, if the universe could not have made itself something when it was nothing, then something else would have had to have made the universe something when it was nothing, and that “something else” would have to be completely transcendent (completely independent of the universe and beyond it). This transcendent (and independent) creative force beyond our universe (and its space-time asymmetry) is generally termed “a Creator.” Therefore, a beginning in physics implies a transcendent powerful creative force (a “Creator”).

=== Was the Big Bang the Beginning? ===

In view of the fact that a beginning in physics implies a Creator, many physicists with a naturalistic orientation would like to avoid the necessity of such a beginning. For this reason, they have proposed that the big bang was not the beginning of the universe. Before we can assess this hypothesis, we will want to get a few facts about the contemporary big bang theory.

The Big Bang Theory was proposed originally by a Belgium priest by the name of Fr. George Lemaitre who used it to resolve a problem (the radial velocities of extra galactic nebulae) connected with Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity. Though Einstein did not at first affirm the idea of an expanding universe, he later believed it because of its overwhelming verification. Indeed, it is one of the most rigorously established theories in physics today.

Essentially, the contemporary Big Bang Theory holds that the big bang occurred approximately 13.7 billion years ago (plus or minus 200 million years). It may be analogized to a balloon blowing up where the elastic on the balloon is like the space-time field (in general relativity, space-time can actually stretch, expand as a whole, warp, vibrate, and change its coordinate structure according to the density of mass-energy in it).

Now, going back to our analogy, suppose there are paint spots all over the balloon; notice that as the balloon expands (i.e. as space-time stretches and expands as a whole), all the paint dots (which may be likened to galaxies) move away from each other. Our universe has been doing something like this for 13.7 billion years.

Our observable universe seems to have a finite amount of mass-energy. It has approximately 4.6% visible matter (matter-energy that can emit light, electromagnetic fields, etc.), 23% dark matter (interacts with gravity, but does not seem to have luminescent or electromagnetic activity), and 72.4% dark energy (which seems to be like a field attached to a space-time field causing space-time to accelerate in its expansion). The visible matter in our universe seems to be approximately 1055 kilograms which is approximately 1080 baryons (protons and neutrons – particles with significant rest mass).

Since the time of Fr. Lemaitre, the Big Bang Theory has been confirmed by multiple, distinct data sets which come together around a similar set of numbers and values: Edwin Hubble’s’ Redshifts (which shows that all galaxies are moving away from each other), Arno Penzias’ and Robert Wilson’s discovery of the 2.7 degree Kelvin uniformly distributed radiation which is the remnant of the big bang, evidence from the cosmic background explorer satellite (COBE), and further evidence from the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP). This is why most physicists consider the big bang to be a rigorously established physical theory.

Was the big bang the beginning of the universe? Many physicists think that it was because the big bang was the moment at which space-time came into existence and because there is no physical evidence for a period prior to the big bang. However, some physicists believe that the big bang was not the beginning of our universe which opens the possibility for a pre-big-bang period of indefinite length (perhaps avoiding a beginning and all of its implications for a creation). This hypothetical pre-big-bang period is made possible through quantum cosmology (which allows the universe to operate in a space-time smaller than the minimums required by general relativity). Currently, string theory is one hypothetical candidate for quantum cosmology in which some physicists (including Stephen Hawking) have placed considerable hope. (Those of you interested in additional detail on quantum cosmology and string theory will want to read the Postscript to Part One of NPG). String Theory allows for the possibility of higher-dimensional space, which in turn, allows for two possible pre-big bang periods:

1. A multiverse (a mega universe which coughs out multiple bubble universes, one of which is our universe) and

2. An oscillating universe in higher dimensional space (e.g. two three dimensional membranes interacting and colliding through a four dimensional bulk space-time).

It is not important to know all the details of a multiverse or an oscillating universe in higher dimensional space, because there is only one relevant question. Do these speculative scenarios themselves require a beginning or can they go indefinitely back into the past? It so happens that a considerable amount of work has been done in the area of space-time geometry proofs which conclude that all inflationary model universes, multiverses (which must be inflationary in order to exist), and oscillating universes in higher dimensional space must have a beginning. These extraordinary proofs suggest the probability that our universe (or any multiverse in which it might be situated) must have a beginning, which implies a Creator. So what are these proofs?

=== Evidence of a Beginning from Space-Time Geometry Proofs ===

There are three pieces of evidence arising out of space-time geometry proofs which indicate a beginning of our universe or any speculative multiverse in which our universe might be situated. It also indicates a beginning of oscillating universes – even oscillating universes in higher dimensional space. These proofs are so widely applicable that they establish a beginning of virtually every hypothetical pre-big bang condition which can be connected to our universe. They, therefore, indicate the probability of an absolute beginning of physical reality which implies the probability of a Creator outside of our universe (or any multiverse in which it might be situated).

Since 1994 two proofs and (and a series of models) have been developed that show that not only our universe, but any multiverse and inflationary bouncing universe must have a beginning: 1) The 1994 Borde-Vilenkin Proof, 2) The modeling of inflationary universes by Alan Guth and others, and 3) The 2003 Borde-Vilenkin-Guth Theorem (the BVG Theorem).

==== The 1994 Borde-Vilenkin Proof ====

Arvin Borde (Kavli Institute of Theoretical Physics at the University of California Santa Barbara) and Alexander Vilenkin (Director of the Institute of Cosmology at Tufts University) formulated a proof in 1994 that every inflationary universe meeting five assumptions would have to have a singularity (a beginning of the universe/multiverse in a finite proper time)<ref> See Borde and Vilenkin 1994</ref>. Our universe meets all the conditions in this proof. In 1997 they discovered a possible exception to one of their assumptions (concerning weak energy conditions) which was very, very unlikely within our universe. Physicists, including Alan Guth (the Victor Weisskopf Professor of Physics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and father of inflationary theory) did not consider this exception to be relevant: “… the technical assumption questioned in the 1997 Borde-Vilenkin paper does not seem important enough to me to change the conclusion [that the 1994 proof of a beginning of inflationary model universes is required].”<ref>Guth 1999 pg. 1.</ref> Therefore, the 1994 proof still has general validity today.
(Refer to NPEG Chapter One, Section IV.D)

==== Alan Guth’s 1999 analysis of expanding pre-big-bang models ====

Guth concluded his study as follows:
“In my own opinion, it looks like eternally inflating models necessarily have a beginning… As hard as physicists have worked to try to construct an alternative, so far all the models that we construct have a beginning; they are eternal into the future, but not into the past.”<ref>Guth 1999 pg. 1.</ref>

(Refer to NPEG Chapter One, Section IV.D)

==== The 2003 Borde-Vilenkin-Guth Theorem (the BVG Theorem): ====

Borde, Vilenkin, and Guth joined together to formulate an elegant and vastly applicable demonstration of a beginning of expanding universes (in a famous article in Physical Review Letters). Alexander Vilenkin explains it as follows:

<blockquote>“Suppose, for example, that [a] space traveler has just zoomed by the earth at the speed of 100,000 kilometers per second and is now headed toward a distant galaxy, about a billion light years away. [because of the expansion of the universe as a whole], that galaxy is moving away from us at a speed of 20,000 kilometers per second, so when the space traveler catches up with it, the observers there will see him moving at 80,000 kilometers per second. [As the universe continues to expand, the relative velocity of the space traveler will get smaller and smaller into the future]. If the velocity of the space traveler relative to the spectators gets smaller and smaller into the future, then it follows that his velocity should get larger and larger as we follow his history into the past. In the limit, his velocity should get arbitrarily close to the speed of light [the maximum velocity attainable by mass energy in the universe].”<ref>Vilenkin 2006 p. 173.</ref></blockquote>

The point where relative velocities become arbitrarily close to the speed of light constitutes a boundary to past time in any expanding universe or multiverse. Though the conclusion of Borde, Vilenkin, and Guth is somewhat technical for non physicists, its importance makes their precise words worth mentioning:

<blockquote>Our argument shows that null and time like geodesics are, in general, past-incomplete [requiring a boundary to past time] in inflationary models, whether or not energy conditions hold, provided only that the averaged expansion condition Hav > 0 hold along these past-directed geodesics. This is a stronger conclusion than the one arrived at in previous work in that we have shown under reasonable assumptions that almost all causal geodesics, when extended to the past of an arbitrary point, reach the boundary of the inflating region of space-time in a finite proper time.<ref> Borde, Guth, and Vilenkin 2003 p. 3</ref></blockquote>

This proof is vastly applicable to just about any model universe or multiverse that could be connected with our universe. Alexander Vilenkin put it this way in 2006:

<blockquote>We made no assumptions about the material content of the universe. We did not even assume that gravity is described by Einstein’s equations. So, if Einstein’s gravity requires some modification, our conclusion will still hold. The only assumption that we made was that the expansion rate of the universe never gets below some nonzero value, no matter how small. This assumption should certainly be satisfied in the inflating false vacuum. The conclusion is that past-eternal inflation without a beginning is impossible. <ref>Vilenkin 2006 p.175.</ref></blockquote>

Physicists do not use the word “impossible” very often. So, Vilenkin’s claim here is quite strong. The reason he is able to make it is that there is only one condition that must be fulfilled – an expansion rate of the universe greater than zero (no matter how small).

It is important to note that Borde, Vilenkin, and Guth applied their theorem to the string multiverse as well as to higher dimensional oscillating universes. I present their own words here (which might be quite difficult for non-physicists) because it gives a sense of their own appreciation of the vast applicability of their theorem:

<blockquote>Our argument can be straightforwardly extended to cosmology in higher dimensions [arising out of string theory/M Theory]. For example, [1] in [some models of a string multiverse], brane worlds are created in collisions of bubbles nucleating in an inflating higher-dimensional bulk space-time. Our analysis implies that the inflating bulk cannot be past-complete [i.e. must have a boundary to past time]. ¶ [2] We finally comment on the cyclic Universe model [in the higher dimensional space of string theory] in which a bulk of four spatial dimensions is sandwiched between two three-dimensional branes…In some versions of the cyclic model the brane space-times’ are everywhere expanding, so our theorem immediately implies the existence of a past boundary at which boundary conditions must be imposed. In other versions, there are brief periods of contraction, but the net result of each cycle is an expansion.…Thus, as long as Hav > 0 for a null geodesic when averaged over one cycle, then Hav > 0 for any number of cycles, and our theorem would imply that the geodesic is incomplete [i.e. must have a boundary to past time].<ref>Borde, Guth, and Vilenkin 2003 p. 4.</ref></blockquote>

The boundary to past time (required in the BVG theorem) could indicate an absolute beginning of the universe or a pre-pre-big bang era with a completely different physics. If it is the latter, then the pre-big-bang period would also have to have had a boundary to its past time (because it would have a rate of expansion greater than zero). Eventually, one will reach an absolute beginning when there are no more pre-pre-pre-big-bang eras.

This is an extraordinary conclusion, because it shows that a beginning is required in virtually every conceivable pre-big-bang scenario – including the string multiverse and oscillating universes in higher dimensional space. By implication, then, even if there were multiple pre-big-bang eras, it is likely that these eras would have to have an expansion rate greater than zero, which means that they too would have to have a beginning, which would make an absolute beginning virtually unavoidable. This absolute beginning would be the point at which the universe came into existence. Prior to that point the universe (and its physical time) would have been nothing, which as we saw above, implies a Creator.

Exceptions to this theorem are very difficult to formulate and are quite tenuous because they require either a universe with an average Hubble expansion less than or equal to zero (which is difficult to connect to our inflationary universe) or a deconstruction of time which is physically unrealistic. (For an extended discussion of these exceptions, you may consult Chapter One, Section III.D-E of NPEG). For this reason all attempts to get around the BVG Theorem to date have been unsuccessful. Even if physicists in the future are able to formulate a hypothetical model which could get around the BVG Theorem, it would not mean that this hypothetical model is true for our universe. It is likely to be only a testimony to human ingenuity. Therefore, it is probable that our universe (or any multiverse in which it might be situated) had an absolute beginning. This implies a creation of the universe by a Power transcending our universe.

There is another impressive set of data which corroborates the above three space-time geometry proofs, namely, the Second Law of Thermodynamics (i.e. entropy). The constraints of time will not permit me to address this topic, however, those interested in explication of it may consult Chapter One (Section III A-C) of NPEG).
In conclusion, the evidence from physics (from both space-time geometry proofs and the second law of thermodynamics) indicates the probability of a beginning of our universe. In as much as a beginning indicates a point at which our universe came into existence, and prior to that point, the universe was nothing, then it is probable that the universe (and any hypothetical multiverse in which it might be situated) was created by a transcendent power outside of physical space and time.

== Implications of Supernatural Intelligence in the Fine-tuning of Universal Constants ==

There are several conditions of our universe necessary for the emergence of any complex life form. Many of these conditions are so exceedingly improbable that it is not reasonable to expect that they could have occurred by pure chance For this reason many physicists attribute their occurrence to supernatural design. Some other physicists prefer to believe instead in trillions upon trillions of “other universes” (which are unobserved and likely unobservable). Before discussing which explanation is more probative, we need to explore some specific instances of this highly improbable fine-tuning. We may break the discussion into two parts:

1. The exceedingly high improbability of our low entropy universe, and

2. The exceedingly high improbability of the anthropic values of our universe’s constants.

We will discuss each in turn.

=== The high improbability of a pure chance occurrence of our low-entropy universe ===

A low-entropy universe is necessary for the emergence, development, and complexification of life forms (because a high entropy universe would be too run down to allow for such development). Roger Penrose has calculated the exceedingly small probability of a pure chance occurrence of our low–entropy universe as 10^10^123 to one. How can we understand this number? It is like a ten raised to an exponent of:

100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000.

This number is so large, that if every zero were 10 point type, our solar system would not be able to hold it! Currently, there is no natural explanation for the occurrence of this number, and if none is found, then we are left with the words of Roger Penrose himself:

<blockquote>“In order to produce a universe resembling the one in which we live, the Creator would have to aim for an absurdly tiny volume of the phase space of possible universes—about 1/10^10^123 of the entire volume, for the situation under consideration.” </blockquote>

What Penrose is saying here is that this occurrence cannot be explained by a random (pure chance) occurrence. Therefore, one will have to make recourse either to a multiverse (composed of bubble universes, each having different values of constants) or as Penrose implies, a Creator (with a super-intellect).

=== The high improbability of five other anthropic conditions (based on cosmological constants) ===

A cosmological constant is a number which controls the equations of physics, and the equations of physics, in turn, describe the laws of nature. Therefore, these numbers control the laws of nature (and whether these laws of nature will be hospitable or hostile to any life form). Some examples of constants are: the speed of light constant (c= 300,000 km per second), Planck’s constant (ℏ = 6.6 x 10-34 joule seconds), the gravitational attraction constant (G = 6.67 x 10-11 ), the strong nuclear force constant (gs = 15), the weak force constant (gw = 1.43 x 10-62), the mass of the proton (mp = 1.67 x 10-27 kg), rest mass of an electron (me = 9.11 x 10-31 kg), and charge of an electron proton (e = 1.6 x 10-19 coulombs). There are several other constants, but these pertain to the following anthropic coincidences (highly improbable conditions required for life).

(i) If the gravitational constant (G) or weak force constant (gw) varied from their values by an exceedingly small fraction (higher or lower) -- one part in 1050 (.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001) then either the universe would have suffered a catastrophic collapse or would have exploded throughout its expansion, both of which options would have prevented the emergence and development of any life form. This cannot be reasonably explained by pure chance.

(ii) If the strong nuclear force constant were higher than its value (15) by only 2%, there would be no hydrogen in the universe (and therefore no nuclear fuel or water -- this would have prohibited life). If, on the other hand, the strong nuclear force constant had been 2% lower than its value then no element heavier than hydrogen could have emerged in the universe (helium, carbon, etc). This would have been equally detrimental to the development of life. This “anthropic coincidence” also seems to lie beyond the boundaries of pure chance.

(iii) If the gravitational constant, electromagnetism, or the “proton mass relative to the electron mass” varied from their values by only a tiny fraction (higher or lower), then all stars would be either blue giants or red dwarfs. These kinds of stars would not emit the proper kind of heat and light for a long enough period to allow for the emergence, development, and complexification of life forms. Again, these “anthropic coincidences” are beyond pure chance occurrence.

(iv) If the weak force constant had been slightly smaller or larger than its value, then supernovae explosions would never have occurred. If these explosions had not occurred, there would be no carbon, iron, or earth-like planets.

(v) Fred Hoyle and William Fowler discovered the exceedingly high improbability of oxygen, carbon, helium and beryllium having the precise values to allow for both carbon abundance and carbon bonding (necessary for life). This “anthropic coincidence” was so striking that it caused Hoyle to abandon his previous atheism and declare:

<blockquote>“A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question.”</blockquote>

(For all five “anthropic coincidences,” refer to NPEG Chapter One, Sect. II and [http://physicsindialog.org Lectures #5 and 6 of PID].)

The odds against all five of the anthropic coincidences happening randomly is so exceedingly improbable that it is like telling a monkey to type out the corpus of Shakespeare perfectly by random tapping of the keys. After returning two weeks later the entire corpus of Shakespeare, Hamlet, Macbeth, Richard III, are all perfectly recounted. Most reasonable and responsible individuals would not attribute this to random occurrence (because the odds are so overwhelmingly against it), and so, they look for another explanation which is more reasonable and responsible.

For this reason, no respectable physicist (including Stephen Hawking), believes that these anthropic coincidences can be explained by pure chance. In view of the fact that no natural explanation has been found for them, most physicists have made recourse to two trans-universal explanations:

1. A multiverse (a naturalistic explanation) and

2. A super intellectual Creator (a supernatural explanation).

Is the naturalistic explanation more reasonable and responsible? Not necessarily because the other universes (and the multiverse itself) are in principle unobservable. Furthermore, it violates the principle of parsimony (Ockham’s Razor) – the explanation with the least number of assumptions, conditions, and requirements is to be preferred. As Paul Davies notes:

<blockquote>Another weakness of the anthropic argument is that it seems the very antithesis of Ockham’s razor, according to which the most plausible of a possible set of explanations is that which contains the simplest ideas and least number of assumptions. To invoke an infinity of other universes just to explain one is surely carrying excess baggage to cosmic extremes … It is hard to see how such a purely theoretical construct can ever be used as an explanation, in the scientific sense, of a feature of nature. Of course, one might find it easier to believe in an infinite array of universes than in an infinite Deity, but such a belief must rest on faith rather than observation.<ref>Davies 1983, pp. 173-174.</ref></blockquote>

3. All known multiverse theories have significant fine-tuning requirements. Linde’s chaotic inflationary multiverse cannot randomly cough out bubble universes because they would collide and make both universes inhospitable to life; the bubble universes must be spaced out in a slow roll which requires considerable fine-tuning in the multiverses initial parameters.<ref>See Alabidi and Lyth 2006.</ref> Similarly, Susskind’s String Theory landscape requires considerable meta-level fine-tuning to explain its “anthropic" tendencies.<ref>See Gordon 2010 pp. 100-102.</ref>

== Conclusions ==

Given these problems, is the multiverse a more reasonable and responsible explanation of our universe’s anthropic coincidences? Many physicists believe that it is not, not only because of the above three problems, but also because of the likelihood of a Creator. When the evidence for a beginning (a Creator) is combined with the exceedingly high improbability of the above anthropic coincidences, a super intellect may be the most reasonable and responsible explanation because it avoids all the problems of a hypothetical multiverse. Thus, it is both reasonable and responsible to believe on the basis of physics, that there is a very powerful and intelligent being that caused our universe to exist as a whole.

== Footnotes ==

<references/>



{{DEFAULTSORT:Cosmology}}
[[Category:Cosmology]]
[[Category:Physics]]
[[Category:Time]]

Cosmology

2011-07-25T20:54:09Z

David Persyn: /* The high improbability of a pure chance occurrence of our low-entropy universe */ fix exponent

Magis Online Encyclopedia of Reason and Faith - MOERF

Is there Evidence of the Existence of God from Contemporary Physics?

© Robert J. Spitzer, S.J. Ph.D./Magis Institute July 2011

This will be an overview of a more complex treatment which may be found in my recent book New Proofs for the Existence of God: Contributions of Contemporary Physics and Philosophy (hereafter “NPEG”). I have given a series of lectures on these matters in an on-line series called Physics and Metaphysics in Dialogue which can be accessed at our [http://www.physicsindialogue.org (hereafter “PID”) website] – see lectures #1-6. It will be rather quick paced, and if some of you want a more thorough treatment you may want to refer to the book. I will divide the topic into three parts:

1. Can Science Give Evidence of Creation and Supernatural Design?

2. What is the Evidence for a Beginning and what are the Implications for Creation?

3. What is the evidence of Supernatural Intelligence from Anthropic Fine-tuning?

== Can Science Give Evidence of a Creation and Supernatural Design? ==

We should begin by clarifying what science can really tell us about a beginning of the universe and supernatural causation. First, unlike philosophy and metaphysics, science cannot deductively prove a creation or God. This is because natural science deals with the physical universe and with the regularities which we call “laws of nature” that are obeyed by the phenomena within that universe. But God is not an object or phenomenon or regularity within the physical universe; so science cannot say anything about God. Moreover, science is an empirical and inductive discipline. As such, science cannot be certain that it has considered all possible data that would be relevant to a complete explanation of particular physical phenomena or the universe itself. It is always open to new data and discoveries which could alter its explanation of particular phenomena and the universe. This can be seen quite clearly in revisions made to the Big Bang model.

So what can science tell us? It can identify, aggregate, and synthesize evidence indicating that the finitude of past time in the universe as we currently know it to be and conceive it could be. Science can also identify the exceedingly high improbability of the random occurrence of conditions necessary to sustain life in the universe as we currently know it to be and conceive it could be.

Even though scientific conclusions are subject to modification in the light of new data, we should not let this possibility cause us to unnecessarily discount the validity of long-standing, persistent, rigorously established theories. If we did this, we might discount the majority of our scientific theories. Thus, it is reasonable and responsible to attribute qualified truth value to such theories until such time as new data requires them to be modified.

== What is The Evidence for a Beginning and what are the Implications for Creation? ==

The arguments that suggest the finitude of past time (i.e. that time had a beginning) are basically of two types: (a) arguments about the possible geometries of spacetime and (b) arguments based on the Second Law of Thermodynamics (entropy). Though the arguments we shall give may conceivably have loopholes, in the sense that cosmological models or scenarios may be found in the future to which these arguments don’t apply, their persistence and applicability to a large number of existing cosmological models gives them respectable probative force. Until such time as they are shown to be invalid or inapplicable to empirically verifiable characteristics of our universe, they should be considered as justifying the conclusion that it is at least probable that the universe had a beginning.

=== A Beginning in Physics Implies A Creation of the Universe ===

Before examining this evidence, it is essential to discuss the implications of a beginning (in physics) for a creation of our universe. A beginning in physics implies a Creator. Because a beginning in physics marks a point at which the universe came into existence. In physics, time is something real, and it has real effects on other physical phenomena. Thus, the point at which the universe comes into existence is also the point at which physical time comes into existence.

How does this imply a Creator? First, in physics, nothing physical could exist prior to the beginning point (indeed there is no “prior to the beginning point” because there is no physical time).

Secondly, if the physical universe (and its physical time) did not exist prior to the beginning, then it was literally nothing. It is important to note that “nothing” means “nothing.” It does not mean a “vacuum” or “a low energy state of a quantum field,” “empty space,” or other real things. Vacuums, empty space, and low energy states in quantum fields are dimensional and orientable – they have specific characteristics and parameters, but nothing is not dimensional or orientable, and it does not have any specific characteristics or parameters because it is nothing. For example, you can have more or less of a vacuum or empty space, but you cannot have more or less of nothing because nothing is nothing.

Thirdly, nothing can do only nothing, because it is nothing. To imply the contrary is to make nothing into something. The classical expression was, “from nothing, only nothing comes.”

Fourthly, if nothing can’t do anything, then it certainly cannot create anything. Thus, when the universe was nothing, it could not have created itself (made itself into something) when it was nothing, because when it was nothing, it could only do nothing.

Finally, if the universe could not have made itself something when it was nothing, then something else would have had to have made the universe something when it was nothing, and that “something else” would have to be completely transcendent (completely independent of the universe and beyond it). This transcendent (and independent) creative force beyond our universe (and its space-time asymmetry) is generally termed “a Creator.” Therefore, a beginning in physics implies a transcendent powerful creative force (a “Creator”).

=== Was the Big Bang the Beginning? ===

In view of the fact that a beginning in physics implies a Creator, many physicists with a naturalistic orientation would like to avoid the necessity of such a beginning. For this reason, they have proposed that the big bang was not the beginning of the universe. Before we can assess this hypothesis, we will want to get a few facts about the contemporary big bang theory.

The Big Bang Theory was proposed originally by a Belgium priest by the name of Fr. George Lemaitre who used it to resolve a problem (the radial velocities of extra galactic nebulae) connected with Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity. Though Einstein did not at first affirm the idea of an expanding universe, he later believed it because of its overwhelming verification. Indeed, it is one of the most rigorously established theories in physics today.

Essentially, the contemporary Big Bang Theory holds that the big bang occurred approximately 13.7 billion years ago (plus or minus 200 million years). It may be analogized to a balloon blowing up where the elastic on the balloon is like the space-time field (in general relativity, space-time can actually stretch, expand as a whole, warp, vibrate, and change its coordinate structure according to the density of mass-energy in it).

Now, going back to our analogy, suppose there are paint spots all over the balloon; notice that as the balloon expands (i.e. as space-time stretches and expands as a whole), all the paint dots (which may be likened to galaxies) move away from each other. Our universe has been doing something like this for 13.7 billion years.

Our observable universe seems to have a finite amount of mass-energy. It has approximately 4.6% visible matter (matter-energy that can emit light, electromagnetic fields, etc.), 23% dark matter (interacts with gravity, but does not seem to have luminescent or electromagnetic activity), and 72.4% dark energy (which seems to be like a field attached to a space-time field causing space-time to accelerate in its expansion). The visible matter in our universe seems to be approximately 1055 kilograms which is approximately 1080 baryons (protons and neutrons – particles with significant rest mass).

Since the time of Fr. Lemaitre, the Big Bang Theory has been confirmed by multiple, distinct data sets which come together around a similar set of numbers and values: Edwin Hubble’s’ Redshifts (which shows that all galaxies are moving away from each other), Arno Penzias’ and Robert Wilson’s discovery of the 2.7 degree Kelvin uniformly distributed radiation which is the remnant of the big bang, evidence from the cosmic background explorer satellite (COBE), and further evidence from the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP). This is why most physicists consider the big bang to be a rigorously established physical theory.

Was the big bang the beginning of the universe? Many physicists think that it was because the big bang was the moment at which space-time came into existence and because there is no physical evidence for a period prior to the big bang. However, some physicists believe that the big bang was not the beginning of our universe which opens the possibility for a pre-big-bang period of indefinite length (perhaps avoiding a beginning and all of its implications for a creation). This hypothetical pre-big-bang period is made possible through quantum cosmology (which allows the universe to operate in a space-time smaller than the minimums required by general relativity). Currently, string theory is one hypothetical candidate for quantum cosmology in which some physicists (including Stephen Hawking) have placed considerable hope. (Those of you interested in additional detail on quantum cosmology and string theory will want to read the Postscript to Part One of NPG). String Theory allows for the possibility of higher-dimensional space, which in turn, allows for two possible pre-big bang periods:

1. A multiverse (a mega universe which coughs out multiple bubble universes, one of which is our universe) and

2. An oscillating universe in higher dimensional space (e.g. two three dimensional membranes interacting and colliding through a four dimensional bulk space-time).

It is not important to know all the details of a multiverse or an oscillating universe in higher dimensional space, because there is only one relevant question. Do these speculative scenarios themselves require a beginning or can they go indefinitely back into the past? It so happens that a considerable amount of work has been done in the area of space-time geometry proofs which conclude that all inflationary model universes, multiverses (which must be inflationary in order to exist), and oscillating universes in higher dimensional space must have a beginning. These extraordinary proofs suggest the probability that our universe (or any multiverse in which it might be situated) must have a beginning, which implies a Creator. So what are these proofs?

=== Evidence of a Beginning from Space-Time Geometry Proofs ===

There are three pieces of evidence arising out of space-time geometry proofs which indicate a beginning of our universe or any speculative multiverse in which our universe might be situated. It also indicates a beginning of oscillating universes – even oscillating universes in higher dimensional space. These proofs are so widely applicable that they establish a beginning of virtually every hypothetical pre-big bang condition which can be connected to our universe. They, therefore, indicate the probability of an absolute beginning of physical reality which implies the probability of a Creator outside of our universe (or any multiverse in which it might be situated).

Since 1994 two proofs and (and a series of models) have been developed that show that not only our universe, but any multiverse and inflationary bouncing universe must have a beginning: 1) The 1994 Borde-Vilenkin Proof, 2) The modeling of inflationary universes by Alan Guth and others, and 3) The 2003 Borde-Vilenkin-Guth Theorem (the BVG Theorem).

==== The 1994 Borde-Vilenkin Proof ====

Arvin Borde (Kavli Institute of Theoretical Physics at the University of California Santa Barbara) and Alexander Vilenkin (Director of the Institute of Cosmology at Tufts University) formulated a proof in 1994 that every inflationary universe meeting five assumptions would have to have a singularity (a beginning of the universe/multiverse in a finite proper time)<ref> See Borde and Vilenkin 1994</ref>. Our universe meets all the conditions in this proof. In 1997 they discovered a possible exception to one of their assumptions (concerning weak energy conditions) which was very, very unlikely within our universe. Physicists, including Alan Guth (the Victor Weisskopf Professor of Physics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and father of inflationary theory) did not consider this exception to be relevant: “… the technical assumption questioned in the 1997 Borde-Vilenkin paper does not seem important enough to me to change the conclusion [that the 1994 proof of a beginning of inflationary model universes is required].”<ref>Guth 1999 pg. 1.</ref> Therefore, the 1994 proof still has general validity today.
(Refer to NPEG Chapter One, Section IV.D)

==== Alan Guth’s 1999 analysis of expanding pre-big-bang models ====

Guth concluded his study as follows:
“In my own opinion, it looks like eternally inflating models necessarily have a beginning… As hard as physicists have worked to try to construct an alternative, so far all the models that we construct have a beginning; they are eternal into the future, but not into the past.”<ref>Guth 1999 pg. 1.</ref>

(Refer to NPEG Chapter One, Section IV.D)

==== The 2003 Borde-Vilenkin-Guth Theorem (the BVG Theorem): ====

Borde, Vilenkin, and Guth joined together to formulate an elegant and vastly applicable demonstration of a beginning of expanding universes (in a famous article in Physical Review Letters). Alexander Vilenkin explains it as follows:

<blockquote>“Suppose, for example, that [a] space traveler has just zoomed by the earth at the speed of 100,000 kilometers per second and is now headed toward a distant galaxy, about a billion light years away. [because of the expansion of the universe as a whole], that galaxy is moving away from us at a speed of 20,000 kilometers per second, so when the space traveler catches up with it, the observers there will see him moving at 80,000 kilometers per second. [As the universe continues to expand, the relative velocity of the space traveler will get smaller and smaller into the future]. If the velocity of the space traveler relative to the spectators gets smaller and smaller into the future, then it follows that his velocity should get larger and larger as we follow his history into the past. In the limit, his velocity should get arbitrarily close to the speed of light [the maximum velocity attainable by mass energy in the universe].”<ref>Vilenkin 2006 p. 173.</ref></blockquote>

The point where relative velocities become arbitrarily close to the speed of light constitutes a boundary to past time in any expanding universe or multiverse. Though the conclusion of Borde, Vilenkin, and Guth is somewhat technical for non physicists, its importance makes their precise words worth mentioning:

<blockquote>Our argument shows that null and time like geodesics are, in general, past-incomplete [requiring a boundary to past time] in inflationary models, whether or not energy conditions hold, provided only that the averaged expansion condition Hav > 0 hold along these past-directed geodesics. This is a stronger conclusion than the one arrived at in previous work in that we have shown under reasonable assumptions that almost all causal geodesics, when extended to the past of an arbitrary point, reach the boundary of the inflating region of space-time in a finite proper time.<ref> Borde, Guth, and Vilenkin 2003 p. 3</ref></blockquote>

This proof is vastly applicable to just about any model universe or multiverse that could be connected with our universe. Alexander Vilenkin put it this way in 2006:

<blockquote>We made no assumptions about the material content of the universe. We did not even assume that gravity is described by Einstein’s equations. So, if Einstein’s gravity requires some modification, our conclusion will still hold. The only assumption that we made was that the expansion rate of the universe never gets below some nonzero value, no matter how small. This assumption should certainly be satisfied in the inflating false vacuum. The conclusion is that past-eternal inflation without a beginning is impossible. <ref>Vilenkin 2006 p.175.</ref></blockquote>

Physicists do not use the word “impossible” very often. So, Vilenkin’s claim here is quite strong. The reason he is able to make it is that there is only one condition that must be fulfilled – an expansion rate of the universe greater than zero (no matter how small).

It is important to note that Borde, Vilenkin, and Guth applied their theorem to the string multiverse as well as to higher dimensional oscillating universes. I present their own words here (which might be quite difficult for non-physicists) because it gives a sense of their own appreciation of the vast applicability of their theorem:

<blockquote>Our argument can be straightforwardly extended to cosmology in higher dimensions [arising out of string theory/M Theory]. For example, [1] in [some models of a string multiverse], brane worlds are created in collisions of bubbles nucleating in an inflating higher-dimensional bulk space-time. Our analysis implies that the inflating bulk cannot be past-complete [i.e. must have a boundary to past time]. ¶ [2] We finally comment on the cyclic Universe model [in the higher dimensional space of string theory] in which a bulk of four spatial dimensions is sandwiched between two three-dimensional branes…In some versions of the cyclic model the brane space-times’ are everywhere expanding, so our theorem immediately implies the existence of a past boundary at which boundary conditions must be imposed. In other versions, there are brief periods of contraction, but the net result of each cycle is an expansion.…Thus, as long as Hav > 0 for a null geodesic when averaged over one cycle, then Hav > 0 for any number of cycles, and our theorem would imply that the geodesic is incomplete [i.e. must have a boundary to past time].<ref>Borde, Guth, and Vilenkin 2003 p. 4.</ref></blockquote>

The boundary to past time (required in the BVG theorem) could indicate an absolute beginning of the universe or a pre-pre-big bang era with a completely different physics. If it is the latter, then the pre-big-bang period would also have to have had a boundary to its past time (because it would have a rate of expansion greater than zero). Eventually, one will reach an absolute beginning when there are no more pre-pre-pre-big-bang eras.

This is an extraordinary conclusion, because it shows that a beginning is required in virtually every conceivable pre-big-bang scenario – including the string multiverse and oscillating universes in higher dimensional space. By implication, then, even if there were multiple pre-big-bang eras, it is likely that these eras would have to have an expansion rate greater than zero, which means that they too would have to have a beginning, which would make an absolute beginning virtually unavoidable. This absolute beginning would be the point at which the universe came into existence. Prior to that point the universe (and its physical time) would have been nothing, which as we saw above, implies a Creator.

Exceptions to this theorem are very difficult to formulate and are quite tenuous because they require either a universe with an average Hubble expansion less than or equal to zero (which is difficult to connect to our inflationary universe) or a deconstruction of time which is physically unrealistic. (For an extended discussion of these exceptions, you may consult Chapter One, Section III.D-E of NPEG). For this reason all attempts to get around the BVG Theorem to date have been unsuccessful. Even if physicists in the future are able to formulate a hypothetical model which could get around the BVG Theorem, it would not mean that this hypothetical model is true for our universe. It is likely to be only a testimony to human ingenuity. Therefore, it is probable that our universe (or any multiverse in which it might be situated) had an absolute beginning. This implies a creation of the universe by a Power transcending our universe.

There is another impressive set of data which corroborates the above three space-time geometry proofs, namely, the Second Law of Thermodynamics (i.e. entropy). The constraints of time will not permit me to address this topic, however, those interested in explication of it may consult Chapter One (Section III A-C) of NPEG).
In conclusion, the evidence from physics (from both space-time geometry proofs and the second law of thermodynamics) indicates the probability of a beginning of our universe. In as much as a beginning indicates a point at which our universe came into existence, and prior to that point, the universe was nothing, then it is probable that the universe (and any hypothetical multiverse in which it might be situated) was created by a transcendent power outside of physical space and time.

== Implications of Supernatural Intelligence in the Fine-tuning of Universal Constants ==

There are several conditions of our universe necessary for the emergence of any complex life form. Many of these conditions are so exceedingly improbable that it is not reasonable to expect that they could have occurred by pure chance For this reason many physicists attribute their occurrence to supernatural design. Some other physicists prefer to believe instead in trillions upon trillions of “other universes” (which are unobserved and likely unobservable). Before discussing which explanation is more probative, we need to explore some specific instances of this highly improbable fine-tuning. We may break the discussion into two parts:

1. The exceedingly high improbability of our low entropy universe, and

2. The exceedingly high improbability of the anthropic values of our universe’s constants.

We will discuss each in turn.

=== The high improbability of a pure chance occurrence of our low-entropy universe ===

A low-entropy universe is necessary for the emergence, development, and complexification of life forms (because a high entropy universe would be too run down to allow for such development). Roger Penrose has calculated the exceedingly small probability of a pure chance occurrence of our low–entropy universe as 10^10^123 to one. How can we understand this number? It is like a ten raised to an exponent of:

100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000.

This number is so large, that if every zero were 10 point type, our solar system would not be able to hold it! Currently, there is no natural explanation for the occurrence of this number, and if none is found, then we are left with the words of Roger Penrose himself:

<blockquote>“In order to produce a universe resembling the one in which we live, the Creator would have to aim for an absurdly tiny volume of the phase space of possible universes—about 1/1010123of the entire volume, for the situation under consideration.” </blockquote>

What Penrose is saying here is that this occurrence cannot be explained by a random (pure chance) occurrence. Therefore, one will have to make recourse either to a multiverse (composed of bubble universes, each having different values of constants) or as Penrose implies, a Creator (with a super-intellect).

=== The high improbability of five other anthropic conditions (based on cosmological constants) ===

A cosmological constant is a number which controls the equations of physics, and the equations of physics, in turn, describe the laws of nature. Therefore, these numbers control the laws of nature (and whether these laws of nature will be hospitable or hostile to any life form). Some examples of constants are: the speed of light constant (c= 300,000 km per second), Planck’s constant (ℏ = 6.6 x 10-34 joule seconds), the gravitational attraction constant (G = 6.67 x 10-11 ), the strong nuclear force constant (gs = 15), the weak force constant (gw = 1.43 x 10-62), the mass of the proton (mp = 1.67 x 10-27 kg), rest mass of an electron (me = 9.11 x 10-31 kg), and charge of an electron proton (e = 1.6 x 10-19 coulombs). There are several other constants, but these pertain to the following anthropic coincidences (highly improbable conditions required for life).

(i) If the gravitational constant (G) or weak force constant (gw) varied from their values by an exceedingly small fraction (higher or lower) -- one part in 1050 (.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001) then either the universe would have suffered a catastrophic collapse or would have exploded throughout its expansion, both of which options would have prevented the emergence and development of any life form. This cannot be reasonably explained by pure chance.

(ii) If the strong nuclear force constant were higher than its value (15) by only 2%, there would be no hydrogen in the universe (and therefore no nuclear fuel or water -- this would have prohibited life). If, on the other hand, the strong nuclear force constant had been 2% lower than its value then no element heavier than hydrogen could have emerged in the universe (helium, carbon, etc). This would have been equally detrimental to the development of life. This “anthropic coincidence” also seems to lie beyond the boundaries of pure chance.

(iii) If the gravitational constant, electromagnetism, or the “proton mass relative to the electron mass” varied from their values by only a tiny fraction (higher or lower), then all stars would be either blue giants or red dwarfs. These kinds of stars would not emit the proper kind of heat and light for a long enough period to allow for the emergence, development, and complexification of life forms. Again, these “anthropic coincidences” are beyond pure chance occurrence.

(iv) If the weak force constant had been slightly smaller or larger than its value, then supernovae explosions would never have occurred. If these explosions had not occurred, there would be no carbon, iron, or earth-like planets.

(v) Fred Hoyle and William Fowler discovered the exceedingly high improbability of oxygen, carbon, helium and beryllium having the precise values to allow for both carbon abundance and carbon bonding (necessary for life). This “anthropic coincidence” was so striking that it caused Hoyle to abandon his previous atheism and declare:

<blockquote>“A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question.”</blockquote>

(For all five “anthropic coincidences,” refer to NPEG Chapter One, Sect. II and [http://physicsindialog.org Lectures #5 and 6 of PID].)

The odds against all five of the anthropic coincidences happening randomly is so exceedingly improbable that it is like telling a monkey to type out the corpus of Shakespeare perfectly by random tapping of the keys. After returning two weeks later the entire corpus of Shakespeare, Hamlet, Macbeth, Richard III, are all perfectly recounted. Most reasonable and responsible individuals would not attribute this to random occurrence (because the odds are so overwhelmingly against it), and so, they look for another explanation which is more reasonable and responsible.

For this reason, no respectable physicist (including Stephen Hawking), believes that these anthropic coincidences can be explained by pure chance. In view of the fact that no natural explanation has been found for them, most physicists have made recourse to two trans-universal explanations:

1. A multiverse (a naturalistic explanation) and

2. A super intellectual Creator (a supernatural explanation).

Is the naturalistic explanation more reasonable and responsible? Not necessarily because the other universes (and the multiverse itself) are in principle unobservable. Furthermore, it violates the principle of parsimony (Ockham’s Razor) – the explanation with the least number of assumptions, conditions, and requirements is to be preferred. As Paul Davies notes:

<blockquote>Another weakness of the anthropic argument is that it seems the very antithesis of Ockham’s razor, according to which the most plausible of a possible set of explanations is that which contains the simplest ideas and least number of assumptions. To invoke an infinity of other universes just to explain one is surely carrying excess baggage to cosmic extremes … It is hard to see how such a purely theoretical construct can ever be used as an explanation, in the scientific sense, of a feature of nature. Of course, one might find it easier to believe in an infinite array of universes than in an infinite Deity, but such a belief must rest on faith rather than observation.<ref>Davies 1983, pp. 173-174.</ref></blockquote>

3. All known multiverse theories have significant fine-tuning requirements. Linde’s chaotic inflationary multiverse cannot randomly cough out bubble universes because they would collide and make both universes inhospitable to life; the bubble universes must be spaced out in a slow roll which requires considerable fine-tuning in the multiverses initial parameters.<ref>See Alabidi and Lyth 2006.</ref> Similarly, Susskind’s String Theory landscape requires considerable meta-level fine-tuning to explain its “anthropic" tendencies.<ref>See Gordon 2010 pp. 100-102.</ref>

== Conclusions ==

Given these problems, is the multiverse a more reasonable and responsible explanation of our universe’s anthropic coincidences? Many physicists believe that it is not, not only because of the above three problems, but also because of the likelihood of a Creator. When the evidence for a beginning (a Creator) is combined with the exceedingly high improbability of the above anthropic coincidences, a super intellect may be the most reasonable and responsible explanation because it avoids all the problems of a hypothetical multiverse. Thus, it is both reasonable and responsible to believe on the basis of physics, that there is a very powerful and intelligent being that caused our universe to exist as a whole.

== Footnotes ==

<references/>



{{DEFAULTSORT:Cosmology}}
[[Category:Cosmology]]
[[Category:Physics]]
[[Category:Time]]

Search Terms

2011-07-24T21:51:10Z

David Persyn: typos

Copyrights

2011-07-16T18:29:55Z

David Persyn: Protected "Copyrights" ([edit=sysop] (indefinite) [move=sysop] (indefinite))

== About our Copyrights ==

The pages in this Wiki resource are the intellectual property as noted therein. Licensing for use is granted under the conditions of [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/ |Creative Commons Attribution Share Alike]. Any other use of the materials on this site is prohibited unless express written permission is obtained by the copyright owner(s).

Can Atheism Be Rational?

2011-07-16T18:29:12Z

David Persyn: /* Footnotes */ remove temp footontes

MOERF – GOD UNIT “I”

Can Atheism be Rational?

© Robert J. Spitzer, S.J. Ph.D./Magis Institute July 2011

'''Introduction'''

We must first discuss whether the existence of God can be disproved. As will be seen, this is not possible because the three modes of obtaining publicly accessible evidence (a-priori, a-posteriori, and a combination of both) cannot be used to support the non-existence of a transcendent being (see Unit F Section I). In view of this, atheism cannot in principle be, a rational enterprise. We must then look into the most common reasons for atheism, and respond to the choices and the agendas that most frequently underlie the claim of atheism. Some of these claims may be classified as follows:

1. Personal reasons:

a. “I don’t think an all-powerful all-loving God would permit my or others’ suffering.”

b. “I do not want to be accountable to or responsible to a transcendent entity.”

c. “If God exists, then I can’t be absolutely free and absolutely responsible, but I am; therefore God doesn’t exist for me.”

d. “All religion is wishful thinking (a projection of a good God to assuage my feelings of fear and loneliness), but I can take the truth; therefore I choose not to believe in God.”

2. Atheism which is really against religion (but not against God).

a. “Religion has done more harm than good throughout history (torture and wars). Therefore, religion must be suppressed in our society.”

b. “Religion is the opiate of the people, and as long as people think about the next life, they will not engage in revolution or any other social upheaval necessary for social change; therefore, religion should be suppressed in our society.”

These opinions need to be responded to, because they are only partially valid, and sometimes quite misleading and incorrect. Section 2 will briefly redress some of the problems in the above contentions. Special consideration will be given to the frequent objection that belief in God is mere wishful thinking (Section 3 because this objection attacks the integrity, authenticity, and courage of believers, and, as a consequence seems to unconsciously undermine faith in young people. (Section 3).

== The Impossibility of Disproving the Existence of God ==

It may be thought that the existence of God can be disproved. One obvious difficulty with this contention is that it would entail the denial of the two proofs given in MOERF – God, Units F&G, and in NPEG Chaps Three through Five, which, in turn, would entail a myriad of intrinsic contradictions and denials of fact (including the denial of one’s own existence). But there is a more sweeping problem with this contention, namely, it cannot be accomplished in principle because the unrestricted nature of God renders all methods of disproof fruitless. This can be shown by referring back to the three ways of proving the truth or falsity of claims. Recall from MOERF - God, Unit F that a claim may be considered reasonable and responsible if:

1 it can be affirmed by rigorous public corroboration, or

2 its denial leads to an intrinsic contradiction, or

3 its denial leads to a contradiction of fact (a rigorously corroborated state of affairs).

None of these methods can be used to prove the nonexistence of God. The following will make this clear.

The first method (rigorous public corroboration) is quite useful for proving the existence of a reality, but useless for proving the nonexistence of a reality. If, for example, I wish to prove the existence of dogs, I need only experience one, and have other people corroborate that experience. However, if I wish to prove the nonexistence of, say, phoenixes, I would have to experience everything that there is to experience, be certain that I had exhausted the entire range of possible experiences, and notice that phoenixes are not there. This would seem to be a rather daunting prospect.

Proving the nonexistence of God by this method is even more daunting, for God, as defined (the absence of intrinsic or extrinsic parameters which make realities accessible to human sensation, imagination, and understanding), is, in principle, beyond human experience. If God were to be experienceable, God would have to make an aspect of Himself accessible to us (such as an experience of His love or beauty (as in mystical or religious experience).<ref>It should be noted that not even God can make his entire essence – an unrestricted act of understanding – understandable to a subject without the capacity to understand it (e.g., one capable of only restricted acts of understanding). As with a square-circle, this is not a deficiency of God’s power, but rather a deficiency solely attributable to the excluding boundaries of a partially simple being. Since humans are capable only of conditioned acts of understanding, God cannot force us to understand what we are in principle incapable of understanding (i.e., unrestricted understanding).</ref> Therefore, the first method of disproof cannot be applied to an unconditioned, unrestricted being (God).

The second method (proving falsity through intrinsic contradiction), is equally fruitless. As noted above, contradictions arise out of the exclusionary properties of boundaries or restrictions (e.g., the boundaries of square exclude the boundaries of circle, or the boundaries of proton exclude the boundaries of electron, such that one cannot have a square-circle or a proton-electron in the same respect at the same place and time). An entity without any intrinsic or extrinsic boundaries or restrictions (i.e., an absolutely simple Reality) would be purely inclusive, and therefore, would not exclude anything extrinsically (from Itself) or intrinsically (“within” Itself). If there are no exclusionary properties intrinsic to “absolutely simple, unrestricted, unconditioned Reality,” then there can never be a basis for intrinsic contradiction. If there is no boundary or restriction, there is no basis for contradiction.

The third method (proving nonexistence through a contradiction of fact) is also fruitless for a similar reason. If a reality is to be proven contradictory to fact (i.e., to be a contradiction of a publicly corroborated state of affairs), it must be capable of being contradicted. For example, if I am to prove that an electron does not exist at a particular coordinate (x, y, z), then all I need do is prove that there is a proton (or some other contradictory particle or state of affairs) at that coordinate (x, y, z) in the same respect at the same time. The contradictory properties of electron and proton make this kind of disproof possible.

However, as noted above, contradiction is based on the exclusionary property of boundaries or restrictions. Now, if an entity has no intrinsic or extrinsic boundaries or restrictions (as has been defined of God), it does not exclude any bounded or restricted being from itself; it does not extrinsically exclude anything. Therefore it cannot be contradicted by any bounded or restricted being. Thus, one cannot say, “If protons exist, God cannot exist,” for the boundaries of protons will never exclude the boundarylessness of God. Similarly, one cannot say, “If squares exist, God cannot exist,” for the boundaries of square do not exclude the boundarylessness of God. The same holds true for all finite realities. The boundaries of a finite thing cannot exclude the boundarylessness of God. Therefore, nothing finite can ever be used to contradict the existence of God. This means that nothing finite (and therefore nothing in our world) could ever be the basis for disproving “God” (as defined).

Inasmuch as these three methods exhaust the scope of formal proof or disproof, it follows that the existence of God cannot be disproved in principle. Thus, given the above definition of “God” (i.e., as absolutely simple – without intrinsic or extrinsic boundaries or restrictions), it would seem that atheism could not be a rational enterprise in the same way as theism.

== The Tenuous Rationality of Atheism ==

As will be shown, atheism frequently arises out of definitional problems. The most prominent ones throughout history are restricted and inadequate definitions of “God,” “love,” and “evil.” We will consider each in turn.

(1) Restricted Definition of God.

At this juncture, the reader might ask, “If the existence of God cannot be disproved, what is the foundation of atheism?” The brief answer is that it cannot be grounded in a formal argument based upon the definition of “God” given above (“absolutely simple” or “unrestricted,” or “infinite” – in the sense of an A-infinity). If a proof against the existence of God is to be formulated, it would have to have an alternative definition of God which introduces exclusionary properties, restrictions, or finitude into the definition.

For example, if one defines “God” as a being which would necessarily interfere with human freedom (which would be contrary to the purely inclusive properties of perfect love and perfect goodness/justice, etc.), then one might be able to formulate an argument which says, “If human beings are absolutely free,<ref>The notion of absolute human freedom implied in Jean-Paul Sartre’s Being and Nothingness is a very disputable claim, but this is not the point of our discussion, which is concerned with the definition of “God.”</ref> then ‘god’ (defined as necessarily interfering with freedom) cannot exist.”

But the definition of God in this argument is arbitrarily restricted (and contradicts the absolute simplicity and unrestrictedness of the unconditioned Reality -- see Encyclopedia Units E-F). Furthermore, if one understands a purely inclusive God to be perfectly loving and good, one would have to say that God helps human freedom in every way possible to be complete and perfect, and therefore, would not undermine human freedom.

(2) Suffering and “Love.”

One might have had a terrible experience of suffering or grief, and think to oneself, “How could God allow this to happen? My grief is incompatible with a perfectly loving God!” One might go on to think that this is a disproof of the perfect love of God which might suggest that God is not purely inclusive or that pure inclusivity does not include love; and if pure inclusivity does not include love, and God is not perfectly loving, then there is no point in affirming His existence.

There can be little doubt that the primary reason for atheism is the inability to answer the question of human suffering. The importance of this question has led me to write yet another volume entitled Suffering and the God of Love. For the moment, I will endeavor a brief answer, though this is quite dangerous because the superficiality intrinsic to brevity may cause resentment on the part of readers who have suffered greatly. Nevertheless, I will proceed in the hopes that the reader will forgive this unavoidable flaw, and direct attention to my other volume on suffering for a lengthier treatment.

Once again, atheism arises out of an assumed definition – but this time it does not arise out of a definition of “God;” it arises out of a definition of “love” which is attributed to God. The effect is essentially the same because when the inadequate definition of love is attributed to God, it seems to mitigate the perfect inclusivity of God. So, what is this so-called inadequate definition of “love”? It is one that holds that love is incompatible with suffering. In my view, this definition is overly simplistic for several reasons. I will mention only two of them here.

First, the above definition does not consider the interrelationship between freedom and love. If our love is to be our own, then we must be free to do acts of unlove (which could cause great harm, suffering, or evil). Stated conversely, if we are not free to do anything but love, then our love is not our own. It is merely a program of behavior that has nothing to do with our choice. Our love would not be self-initiated. Thus, if God wants to create loving creatures (in imitation of His perfect love), God has to create free beings who can cause suffering and evil in the world by their choices. The dynamics of love and freedom require that God allow us the latitude to grow in love through our human freedom. God’s only alternative to allowing free beings to choose unloving acts is to completely refrain from creating loving creatures. Is that something that perfect Love would do?

The second problem with defining love as incompatible with suffering is that it does not allow for suffering to purify freedom toward love. I will speak solely for myself, here; but often I have contented myself with an incredibly superficial view of life’s meaning (e.g., material well-being, ego-satisfactions, status, etc.) and incredibly superficial views of human beings (as material beings instead of transcendental beings; as problems instead of mysteries) during the “good” times. It was only when I was challenged by real suffering that I began to ask more probative questions, to search for deeper purpose in life, and to let go of what was then manifestly superficial (underliving my life).

These moments of suffering led me to the discovery of love as the purpose of life – to the enjoyment of others’ companionship and friendship, to the recognition of the goodness and lovability of others, to the depth of empathy and compassion; indeed, to the discovery of my heart. I do not think I could have let go of my more superficial, materialistic, egocentric views of happiness and meaning without having experienced suffering, deprivation, and need for others.

Furthermore, I do not believe that I would have discovered my own transcendental identity without this same deprivation and need. Much like Saint Augustine, my contentment with material and ego-satisfactions distracted me from noticing that I had desires for perfect and unconditional Truth, Love, Goodness/Justice, Beauty, and Home (See Encyclopedia Unit C). Though I went to church and had some religious sensibility, I tended to live life on a material-ego level. Suffering not only led to a discovery of my heart, but also of my transcendental desires; and this discovery, in turn, led not only to a discovery of my transmaterial being (what might be termed my “soul”), but also of my yearning for unconditional Love – my yearning for God.

In retrospect, I am grateful for the suffering that led me to the discovery of love, my heart, my soul, and the loving God. I did not like my suffering while I was experiencing it, but the journey – the journey in freedom – that led to the discovery of what is truly pervasive, enduring, and deep, made the suffering worthwhile; for it led to an eternity’s worth of purpose, a true respect for the transcendent other, and the discovery not merely of my heart, but of my transcendent heart and my call to unconditional Love. No, for me, suffering was not incompatible with love. Suffering was the instrument of Love.<ref>In Suffering and the God of Love, I have adduced several deeper correlations between suffering and love. Hopefully, the above is sufficient to reveal the superficiality of a definition of “love” which is incompatible with suffering.</ref>

(3) Inadequate Definitions of Evil

Another issue has recurrently emerged throughout the history of philosophy, namely, the problem of evil. It would seem that if God is perfect Goodness and Love, He would not permit evil in the world; and furthermore, it would seem that anything evil should be excluded by God (who was defined above to be a perfectly inclusive Reality). Again, the seeming incompatibility between a perfectly good God (a perfectly inclusive God) and evil arises out of an assumed definition. This time, the definition of “evil” seems incompatible with perfect Goodness and inclusivity. Since evil seems to be evident, it seems to mean either that God is not perfectly good or that a perfectly good (perfectly inclusive) God does not exist.

Let us consider the first point, namely, that if God is perfectly good, He would not allow evil in the world. This contention has already been addressed above with respect to the definition of “love,” so I will only briefly repeat the germane point: if God were to disallow all human evil, then God would have to disallow the free choice to act in an evil way; and if God disallowed the free choice to act in an evil way, He would not allow our good actions to be self-initiated. He would essentially have programmed us for good behaviors, but not allowed us to choose good behaviors over against the option of choosing evil ones; therefore, He would have foreclosed the possibility of our good actions truly being self-initiated, and therefore truly being our own.

Furthermore, acts of human evil can purify our freedom toward perfect Love, for when evil actions are perpetrated against us, we are challenged to respond with a gift of self (love) in forgiveness, mercy, and compassion. These selfless actions (which are frequently undeserved by the perpetrators) are the highest manifestations of human generosity and love. Ironically, they are elicited by evil. The story of my life, as well as world history and literature, are replete with examples of how forgiveness of evil has led to the intensification of goodness and love. Would Europe be the same without the Marshall Plan in which America forgave the debt (and built up the economies) of the nations with whom it had been at war?<ref>This was done in contradistinction to the Treaty of Versailles which left Germany destitute amidst its war reparations after the first world war. Many believe that this act of “justice” (or perhaps better, retribution) led to the rise of national socialism (the Nazi party) in Germany, and eventually to the second world war.</ref> Would Viktor Hugo’s hero, Jean Valjean, have existed without the forgiveness of the priest from whom he had stolen the candles?<ref>Les Miserables</ref> Would the great ideas of human rights and economic rights have occurred without the forgiveness of centuries of oppression? The list goes on and on.

Evil elicits vengeance, and vengeance begets vengeance, unless a free agent intervenes and lets go of the just offense in a recognizable act of compassion. This act not only stops the cycle of vengeance begetting vengeance, but also calls collective human consciousness to a higher ideal, a higher sense of collective self, which is at once intrinsically beautiful, while allowing the real possibility of peace. Ironically, this greatest of human choices can be induced by evil.

We may now proceed to the second point of tension between God and evil, namely, that if God is perfectly good, He must exclude evil (which seems to contradict His pure inclusivity). Again, the problem is definitional, for the definition of “evil” seems to get in the way of God being both perfect goodness and perfect inclusivity. However, the definition of “evil” which does this views “evil” as something positive – as something existing in itself.

A brief summary of the volumes which have been written on this since the time of Plato shows a more comprehensive view of “evil” which does not view it as something positive or existing in itself. In this view, evil is seen to be a negation of a free being’s power to love. Obviously, the free being exists, and his power to love exists (and is positive). But evil does not exist apart from this free being and his positive capacity to love. Evil occurs when the existing free agent negates (ignores or undermines) his positive power to love.

Now, these evil actions could have, say, angry feelings embedded in them. But these feelings are not identifiable with evil itself; they are the result of evil (that is, a free agent’s choice to ignore or undermine his capacity for love). Furthermore, destructive (evil) behaviors may come from this free agent, but these behaviors are also not identifiable with evil itself; they are the result of evil (i.e., a free agent’s choice to ignore or undermine his capacity for love). Thus, the occurrence of evil is not something which exists in itself; rather, it is the result of a free agent’s choice to ignore or undermine the capacity for affection, empathy, compassion – love.

In sum, evil can occur through an existing free agent, and it arises out of the ignoring or undermining of an existing capacity for love. It can give rise to feelings and destructive behaviors which have ontological status. However, the evil of the free agent, of the feelings, and of the destructive behaviors does not exist of itself. It occurs through the negating of the positive power to love in the free agent. If this definition of evil is correct, then it is not excluded by God; for it has no existence which can be excluded. God’s perfect goodness and perfect inclusivity remain completely compatible.

There are other kinds of atheism not connected to the notion of “God,” and therefore not concerned with incompatibility between God and a particular phenomenon (say suffering or evil). For example, socio-political atheism generally tends to be more irreligious than atheistic. It objects to religion because it is, say, an “opium of the people”<ref> Marx 1970.</ref> (a distraction from needed socio-political change). Philosophers who proffer these claims frequently do not offer any argument against the existence of God, but rest their case on their sense of religion as antithetical to human progress.

Many such philosophers frequently ignore the fact that religion is responsible for social progress in many arenas, such as the initiation and advancement of laws, legal systems, social welfare systems (through, say, prophets who exhorted the populace to care for widows and orphans), schools and educational systems, hospitals and health care systems, etc. This makes those philosophers’ selective view of history quite suspect.

I would like to conclude this section by returning to an important point made earlier – namely, that I do not want my brief treatment of suffering and evil to convey in any way a disregard for the true suffering that so many have endured in their lives. Grief at the loss of a loved one, debilitation at the loss of one’s faculties, indignity at the hands of callous individuals, should never be underestimated. My sole purpose in treating the above topics was to show how careful we must be in our definitions of “love,” “evil,” and “God.” As we attempt to translate our deepest emotions and experiences into concepts, we will want to remember that the more nuanced and complete the definitions, the more they will correspond to the truth; and the more they correspond to the truth, the more they will present the path to healing and deliverance within the horizon of unrestricted Love, Goodness, Justice, Beauty, and Home.

We are now in a position to objectively and comprehensibly consider the age old objection to theism that belief in God is near wishful thinking.

== Is Belief in God Mere Wishful Thinking? ==

Even though many of us believe in a beneficent God, we are hesitant, if not fearful, about manifesting this conviction in public. We then find that this absence of public conviction redounds back to us. We begin to be reticent about believing what we do not declare in public, and this reticence turns into interior doubt, and then we find ourselves declining in hope and subtly inclining toward skepticism and even cynicism. Thus, we may find ourselves taking on a perspective which is opposed to our beliefs and convictions. Why would we do this?

After 35 years of teaching university students, young adults, and business leaders, I have come to the conclusion that the reason we do not publicly declare our belief in God is because of our fear of being branded as “naïve optimists,” “dependent on a crutch,” “too weak to face reality,” or “ignorant fools.” Readers familiar with the history of modern philosophy will recognize the ghosts of Ludwig Feuerbach, Sigmund Freud, and Karl Marx in these brands.

First, with respect to Freud, I think it is fair to say that secularists have brought Freud’s rejection of religion as mere “projection,” “wish fulfillment,” and illusion to a significant level within popular culture:

<blockquote>To assess the truth-value of religious doctrines does not lie within the scope of the present enquiry. It is enough for us that we have recognized them as being, in their psychological nature, illusions. … We know approximately at what periods and by what kind of men religious doctrines were created. If in addition we discover the motives which led to this, our attitude to the problem of [the truth of] religion will undergo a marked displacement. We shall tell ourselves that it would be very nice if there were a God who created the world and was a benevolent Providence, and if there were a moral order in the universe and an after-life; but it is a very striking fact that all this is exactly as we are bound to wish it to be. And it would be more remarkable still if our wretched, ignorant and downtrodden ancestors had succeeded in solving all these difficult riddles of the universe.<ref>Freud 1927, Vol. 21, p. 33.</ref></blockquote>

Freud derives this argument almost completely (and unquestioningly) from Ludwig Feuerbach, a German philosopher and anthropologist (1804-1872)<ref>Interestingly, Karl Marx (the other popular atheist of the 19th century) also relied unquestioningly upon Ludwig Feuerbach’s analysis, “With regard to religion, Marx fully accepted Feuerbach's claim in opposition to traditional theology that human beings had created God in their own image…” (Wolff 2008, Sec. 2.2).</ref> who held that in every respect, God corresponds to some need in human nature: “If man is to find contentment in God, he must find himself in God.” Thus, for Feuerbach, God is an outward projection of our inner world.<ref>See part 1 of The Essence of Christianity, which was first published in 1841. For the English translation, see Feuerbach 1893.</ref> Freud condenses Feuerbach’s argument by essentially holding that a benevolent God is the sole result of wishful thinking.

The popularization of this declaration has caused fearfulness about public disclosure of belief in God and eternal life. Most college students and college-educated adults are aware of the “crutch argument” which they have received from popular culture and even some teachers. No one wants to be accused of relying on a crutch, or of naively refusing to face reality which implies being either a coward or a fool, or both; and if they are not intellectually prepared to challenge the factual or logical adequacy of Feuerbach’s and Freud’s claim, many prefer to hide their beliefs or to pretend that they have opposite beliefs from the ones they really hold. The desire for acceptance by the supposed intellectuals and sophisticates of the culture is so strong that they mask their true inclinations, intuitions, and identity in favor of platitudes given them by pseudo-intellectuals. This causes the slow erosion of hope (and the subtle increase of skepticism and cynicism described above).

The truth is that Freud’s claim is logically inadequate and factually inaccurate. We may begin with its logical inadequacy. Prima facie, Freud’s argument cannot be proven, and that is why it must remain arbitrarily asserted and a leaping non-sequitur. The argument runs as follows: “Since my ‘wretched, ignorant, and downtrodden ancestors’ could not help but believe in a God that would protect them from the forces of nature, they invented a benevolent God.” Freud presumes we will conclude from this that God does not exist. Even if it were true that our ancestors invented a benevolent God (which it is not – see below), it does not follow that God does not exist.

Just because I want something to be true does not mean that it is not true. I would like the day to be warm and sunny outside as I rise in the morning; this does not necessitate a cold and gloomy day. I would very much like to complete this book and see it published; this does not mean that it will not see the light of day. I think it would be wonderful if a striped horse-like creature existed; this does not eliminate zebras from the realm of possible existents. So also I would like God to exist; this does not necessitate His nonexistence. Indeed, if God existed, why wouldn’t He give me some clues to His existence that I might be aware of Him and even seek Him? Alister McGrath notes in this regard:

<blockquote>Freud’s theory concerning the origins of religion in the individual is, like that of Feuerbach, generally incapable of being tested. It is a hypothesis, not a fact. Freud could be said to lend psychoanalytical support to Feuerbach, but not to provide the crucial experimental data which would convert a hypothesis into a fact. On the relatively few points at which Freud’s hypothesis is capable of being tested experimentally, it is generally accepted that it is wrong. … Freud’s psychoanalytical atheism must now be regarded as a hypothesis that has not been, and indeed cannot be, proved.<ref>McGrath 1992.</ref></blockquote>

There is a tremendous body of evidence from contemporary physics and philosophy validating a creation of the universe and the existence of God about which I and many other authors in the late 20th and 21st centuries have written (see above Encyclopedia Units A-H).<ref>See, for example, Spitzer 2009: New Proofs for the Existence of God: Contributions of Contemporary Physics and Philosophy, and the dozens of references to physicists and philosophers in it (e.g., Adler, Barr, Carter, Craig, Davies, Eddington, Gingerich, Gordon, Hoyle, Jastrow, Lonergan, Penrose, Penzias, Plantinga, Polkinghorne, Ross, Stoeger, and so forth).</ref> There is also a significant body of historical evidence supporting the historicity of Jesus’ resurrection<ref>See, for example, Spitzer 2010: Jesus-Emmanuel: Evidence of the Divinity of Christ and the Unconditional Love of God, and the dozens of historical references in it (particularly N.T. Wright 2003 and 1996, Meier 1994, Brown 1994, Dunn 1985, Habermas 2006, Stewart 2006, and also, Fitzmyer, Fuller, Funk, Jeremias, Johnson (L.T.), and many others)</ref> (see Encyclopedia Units K-L), as well as experientially verifiable evidence based on near-death experiences (see Encyclopedia Unit B) and rational evidence based on human transcendental desires (see Encyclopedia Unit C). In view of this evidence, Freud’s declaration is revealed to be not only arbitrary and unprovable, but also invalid. But the problems with Freud’s declaration do not end here. He grounds his invalid argument in the proposition that our “wretched, ignorant, and downtrodden ancestors” invented a benevolent God to assuage their fears of the uncontrollable forces of nature. This contention is not factually accurate.

Mircea Eliade, after an exhaustive study of world religions,<ref>Eliade was editor of the 16-volume Macmillan Encyclopedia of Religion. See Eliade 1987.</ref> found that religion is grounded almost universally in a sense of the sacred which is not reducible to a mere subjective projection. Rather, the sacred is a source or cause of human striving to live in a spiritual and transcendent domain. This domain is not a sterile concept, but rather is filled with transcendent awareness and emotion frequently resembling what Rudolf Otto terms the sense of “creatureliness,” “mysterium tremendum,” “awesomeness,” “overpoweringness” (or “majesty”), “energy” (or “urgency”), “fascination,” and “transcendent otherness.”<ref>See Otto 1958, chapters 3-6.</ref> Our awareness of the sacred must be symbolically expressed because symbols point beyond themselves, and the sacred is precisely beyond the ordinary world. As such, it moves us to our most pervasive, enduring, and deep principles, ideals, meanings, and beliefs.<ref>See Eliade 1996.</ref>

Four points are significant here.

First, Eliade’s assessment of religion is grounded in much, much more data than Feuerbach’s or Sigmund Freud’s.

Secondly, it suggests that religion was not motivated by our need to alleviate fear moving us to invent a benevolent God. As Otto (and, by implication, Eliade) explain, there is a sense of “creatureliness,” “tremendum,” “awesomeness,” “overpoweringness,” and “transcendent otherness” embedded in the sacred. The experience of these transcendent phenomena are as likely to cause fear as alleviate it. This could lead as easily to thoughts about non-benevolence as much as benevolence in the sacred domain (and in the deity). This makes Freud’s contention of God being a result of wish fulfillment to be unlikely. Furthermore, the idea that God was invented by humans to control the seemingly uncontrollable natural forces is also unlikely, for the sacred could be just as uncontrollable as nature – perhaps more.<ref> The Christian revelation that love is the highest commandment and that God is unconditional love is virtually unique in the history of religions. There is an awareness of God’s love in many world religions, but love is not considered to be the defining essence of God. In Christianity, God’s unconditional and saving love is always freely offered, but it can be freely rejected by human beings (which would lead to emptiness, alienation, and loneliness). See Encyclopedia Units P and Q.</ref>

Thirdly, the sense of the sacred seems to have a source outside of ourselves, for it gives rise to a sense of transcendent otherness, overpoweringness, and creatureliness. This seems to fly in the face of Feuerbach’s contention that God is a projection of man’s powers, needs, and desires. How does the idea of transcendent otherness, awesomeness, and overpoweringness come out of a projection of my own powers, needs, and desires?

Fourthly, Feuerbach’s and Freud’s contentions do not account for the human strivings borne out of the sense of the sacred, such as sacred duties, self-sacrifice for a transcendent good, the desire to order society according to sacred principles, the urge to develop religious symbols, art, architecture, music, and ritual, etc. Do these elements of virtually every tribe and civilization really come from the desire to alleviate fear, or rather out of a striving to be closer to the domain of the sacred, or to be closer to a God who is the highest principle, highest law, highest beauty, highest harmony, and highest unity? The sense of transcendent otherness (with its accompanying awareness of mystery, sacred duty, sacred principle, and awesome majesty) seems in many respects to be unrelated to the projection of human needs and powers, and the alleviation of human fears. Indeed, it appears to be the very converse of these Feuerbachian/Freudian constructs, and as such, is not reducible to them.

Eliade goes on to explain that this sense of the sacred seems to be irreducible to any social, historical, or cultural conditioning. Though it is true that religion involves “the social man, the economic man, and so forth…all these conditioning factors together do not, of themselves, add up to the life of the spirit.”<ref>Eliade 1991, p.32.</ref>

Eliade’s significant study of particular religions in particular cultures and times<ref>See his 16-volume Encyclopedia of Religion – Eliade 1987</ref> led him to the conviction that humanity has a general sense of the transcendent/sacred beyond any particular culture, society, or historical epic. He notes that human consciousness transcends its historical and cultural conditioning,<ref>Eliade 1991, p. 33.</ref> and that it has at least a tacit awareness of certain universal images and symbols.<ref>Eliade 1991, pp. 16-17.</ref> Eliade’s critics claim that this contention is difficult to prove (even though Eliade assembled a considerable amount of data to support it). Eliade responded by noting that his “historicist” critics’ position (reducing religion to historical-cultural conditioning) was equally, if not more difficult to prove than his own, because it requires disregarding the remarkable unity (amidst exceedingly diverse cultures and times) of human consciousness of the sacred. Whatever one may think about the verifiability of Eliade’s position, the mere existence of the debate between Eliade and his critics reveals the position of Feuerbach and Freud to be lacking in empirical data and incredibly naïve.

Therefore, religion was very likely not an invention of our ancestors to alleviate fear. Neither was it a mere projection of our ancestors’ innermost needs, nor a product of mere social-historical-cultural conditioning. It seems to be a consciousness – perhaps an altogether irreducible consciousness – of its own. So what can we say about contemporary belief in God – especially the Christian belief in a God of unconditional love? Is belief in this benevolent God simply a crutch? The answer to this question would have to be “no” (even if the alleviation of fear is involved in some people’s belief in God) because religion is very likely our response to our awareness of the sacred or spiritual. This awareness awakens within us both fear and the alleviation of fear, evil and good, cosmic evil and cosmic good, guilt and the alleviation of guilt, creatureliness and transcendence, God’s call to responsibility and God’s promise of love. If anything is clear from the considerable data assembled by Eliade and others, religion is a remarkably complex phenomenon and certainly cannot be reduced to the alleviation of fear or to a “crutch.” It involves self-awareness, courage, a sense of co-responsibility and duty, humility and self-sacrifice, principles, ideals, and love. In many of these respects it is the precise antithesis of a crutch or fear-alleviator, calling forth from us the very highest commitment of ourselves and our character. Believers should have no fear about being accused of fearfulness, for the very accusation is groundless and ignorant.

== Footnotes ==

<references />