We all know God exists from the Leibnizian argument, Aquinas' Five Ways, the double slit experiment, and others. This just shows that there must have been an uncaused causer obviously. How do we then make the jump from this being into what we call God? This omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent being? I've been struggling with this for quite some time now, and I could really use some help.
Pic unrelated.
Other urls found in this thread:
youtube.com
newadvent.org
edwardfeser.blogspot.com
strangenotions.com
twitter.com
What does that have to do with the other things you mentioned? I actually want to know.
See this video, brother.
youtube.com
shit video
Fair enough, could you answer my question, though?
What's wrong with idealism?
no single argument can prove all attributes of God, much less our Christian God, arguments only get one so far
i c wat u did
I don't feel like it. Is it a rehash of Berkeley?
Basically particles move in a wave of potentialities which take an actual path when there is a conscious observer present, thus showing that if the universe had to come into existence, there must have been a conscious observer present.
Snakes are cute. go away.
You could just have said "yes." I actually had to check what were Aquinas' five ways, and I noticed that the argument from nature is among those. So supposedly you already have a reasonable belief that there's an intelligent and unique supreme being. So what exactly are you grappling with? Whether or not YHWH would be this supreme being?
My problem is that how do we get to this in the first place? How do we get to the point of there being an intelligent and unique supreme being? All we know is that there is an uncaused causer, or an unmoved mover, etc. How do we know that this being is God or a god or some supreme being?
The following by St. Hilary of Poitiers is related to your question: newadvent.org
except that's not actually what QM says, at least not under the Copenhagen interpretation. An "observer" means any measuring instrument, not a conscious mind. Same for the Many Worlds interpretation. The only interpretation that teaches this is the Von Neumann-Winger Interpretation, which I agree would prove God, but literally no scientists believe in it.
No user I really wasn't trying to do anything here. Please tell me
We don't believe in God because of rational arguments, those arguments are useful when arguing philosophically but we don't have faith because of them.
We have faith because God revealed himself, through Moses, the Prophets and then the Incarnation.
What?
I'm a physicist and what they saying is absolute shit.
So you tell me how does that prove it?
This, more or less.
/thread.
Remember that what those terms denote is the metaphysical distinction between act and potency, where only God, a being who is pure act, can ultimately be the explanation for the existence of the universe given what we know about reality. This entails a being who necessarily possesses intellect and will, from the simple fact that the universe does not have to exist and that what exists in the universe must reflect its source. What a human ever means by the use of the term personal, moreover, is simply a being with intellect and free will, hence God is also personal.
These links offer a more detailed explanation, but whole books have been written on these topics. Please heed the following advice from the first link on analogy:
edwardfeser.blogspot.com
strangenotions.com
This, there should be a required reading sticky on QM and how popsci isn’t real sci and does not prove there’s a God in any way
This. I hate those dumbwinnie the poohs who don't even know what an operator or a state vector is to stop with those stupid memes. I hate black science man and friends for making my field a meme field.