Can We Prove God's Existence?

Any argument based on the observation of the physical world necessarily suffers from the p<.05 problem.

"Luck is inherent in random trials. In a medical study, some patients may be healthier. In an agricultural study, some soil may be more fertile. In an educational study, some students may be more motivated. Researchers consequently calculate the probability (the p-value) that the outcomes might happen by chance. A low p-value indicates that the results cannot easily be attributed to the luck of the draw.

How low? In the 1920s, the great British statistician Ronald Fisher said that he considered p-values below 5% to be persuasive and, so, 5% became the hurdle for the “statistically significant” certification needed for publication, funding and fame.

It is not a difficult hurdle. Suppose that a hapless researcher calculates the correlations among hundreds of variables, blissfully unawarethat the data are all, in fact, random numbers. On average, one out of 20 correlations will be statistically significant, even though every correlation is nothing more than coincidence.

Real researchers don’t correlate random numbers but, all too often, they correlate what are essentially randomly chosen variables. This haphazard search for statistical significance even has a name: data mining. As with random numbers, the correlation between randomly chosen, unrelated variables has a 5% chance of being fortuitously statistically significant. Data mining can be augmented by manipulating, pruning and otherwise torturing the data to get low p-values."

An observer within the universe has no way of knowing if he is observing random chance or intelligent design. Given enough variables, enough time and enough universes, it is absolutely possible to live in a universe that is random but appears designed. And since "time" is itself one of the variables that can mutate, there's no way of knowing what the probabilities are from inside the system.

If God were totally contained within the universe, then the laws of the universe could be used to test for God's existence. But God is not contained within the universe. Although He holds every part of the universe in existence from moment to moment, He exists completely apart from it. The laws of the universe cannot contain God. As His creation, the laws of the universe may contain traces of His Being, indications of His characteristics, but that is all.

An objection might be raised. Did not Godel mathematically prove the correctness of Anselm's argument for God's existence? Why, yes. Yes, he did. Godel demonstrated that Anselm's proof for the existence of God was VALID according to the laws of modal logic. Unfortunately, Godel did NOT prove that Anselm's argument was TRUE. To be fair, he can't. Proving something true is outside the bounds of logical proof. Logic can only show validity. And even so, Anselm's argument involved thought, "God is that which a greater cannot be conceived," and thus is not obviously bound within physical universal laws.

So, any argument that relies on the "intelligent design" of the universe to prove God's existence fails. In fact, such an argument MUST fail according to the tenets of Christianity. Persons are not known by proof, they are known by self-revelation. The persons of the Trinity are self-revealed (which is why the OT didn't know there was a Trinity – the Trinitarian Persons had not yet revealed the inner workings of the Godhead). God is certainly pure Logic, but He is, more importantly, Three Persons.

Personhood is the key to discovering God. Thomas was chastised not because he sought physical proof, but because he failed to believe his friends, the other ten surviving apostles. In the moments before the risen Christ appeared, Thomas was in the same boat the rest of us have been in for 2000 years – we have no physical evidence, all we have is trust in eyewitness testimony and trust in Christ's self-revelation. Faith is the evidence of things not seen, but what is the evidence that warrants faith? According to St. Paul, it is the Resurrection. If Christ is not risen from the dead  then we are all dead in our sins. Thomas objected because the apostles had only an empty tomb and some hysterical stories. Technically, the apostles weren't even eyewitnesses to the Resurrection.

Remember, even the apostles were not present at the Resurrection, they didn't actually see the physical event. The only people who were even close to being actual "eyewitnesses" were the (Jewish or Roman) soldiers guarding the tomb. Oddly enough, their testimony is not directly recorded anywhere. We have hearsay testimony of what they told the elders and their own superiors, but we don't have any Scriptural letter or other direct account from any of those soldiers. Six hundred years after the event, historical accounts begin to tell us Longinus, the soldier with the spear, converted, but none of the soldiers guarding the tomb, that is, none of the men who were most likely to have actually seen some aspect of the Resurrection, none of them are said to have converted. 

The Jewish objection to Jesus is that the Old Testament prophecies a Messiah, but not a Messiah who shows up twice (Christians are still waiting on the Messiah's return - Jews consider that very weird). 

Faith is the evidence of things not seen, but what is the evidence for faith? According to St. Paul, the Resurrection is the evidence for Faith. If He is not risen from the dead, we are still in our sins, and the most foolish of men to boot. But, the Resurrection was not seen. 

So, according to Scripture, the Resurrection is the evidence for Faith, and Faith is the evidence for the Resurrection. Which is circular logic, and does nothing to convince anyone who buys into Aristotelian logic. 

The testimony of the ten "eyewitnesses" who "saw" the Resurrection, that is, the apostles in the Upper Room, actually relies on what Jesus told them before (and after) His death. Yes, the ten see the empty tomb and logically conclude something happened, but exactly what happened is left to the prophetic testimony of Christ before He died, and the self-revelatory testimony of the risen Christ. The ten who saw the risen Christ believe the testimony of the only actual eyewitness whose testimony we actually have, Christ Himself. Thomas refuses to believe the ten, and so must be shown physical evidence, self-revelation, by the risen Christ as well. But, ultimately, the entire chain of evidence for the resurrection relies on Christ's self-revelation. The apostolic eyewitness testimony consists of the eleven being eyewitnesses to Christ's self-revelation, His spoken words, before and after the event, it is not eyewitness testimony of the actual Resurrection, the physical event. 

As Thomas shows, Christian faith can use physical proof, but that physical proof will always be secondary to God's self-revelation. Because God is pure logic, we must use logic in our search for God. Our search through the physical universe allows us to observe the witness the universe makes to God's existence, but that, by itself can never be sufficient. The physical presence of Christ before the apostles was not sufficient. The apostles required Christ to explain what their senses perceived. And even among the apostles who witnessed the risen Christ, "the eleven disciples went to Galilee... when they saw him, they worshiped him; but some doubted." The testimonies of those who claim to have seen with their eyes and touched with their hands are the best eyewitness evidence we have, but even that is not truly sufficient, as both Thomas and the other unnamed "doubting" apostles demonstrated. 

It wasn't the apostolic testimony of the Resurrection that ultimately brought Christian belief to the Roman Empire, it was the apostolic service to others, their willingness to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, rescue the abandoned, care for the sick, bury the dead. In the last analysis, we must remember that while God is pure logic, at His core, God is Love. Thus, ultimately, we find God not through physical perception, nor logical analytics, nor even through emotional experience, but only through the choice to serve persons. We meet Christ through each Christian's choice to Love. After all, if God is pure logic, and God is Love, then the only logical choice is Love. If you want evidence of God's existence, start there.

Advantages of Cardano

Cardano Energy Use

Cardano is PoS, not PoW, so it is much less energy intensive. 

Cardano Staking Model

Cardano's staking mechanism does not require "lock, slash and burn." 

There is no coin locking. 

There is no slashing for unfaithful staking pools. That's pretty unusual. Once I have an ADA coin, the only way I lose it is through my own stupidity, not through someone else's (i.e., a staking pool's stupidity). My collateral is NEVER locked or slashed.

Staking is extremely easy and relatively profitable.

Cardano is hard-capped at a maximum number of coins, so it is not inflationary, it does not need to burn coins.

eUTxO accounting advantages

Cardano uses eUTxO accounting (similar to Bitcoin), whereas most other chains use an account-based system (similar to Ethereum). As a result, Cardano transactions are much cheaper and Cardano fees can be computed precisely before the transaction takes place. Therefore Cardano transaction fees are known ahead of the transaction, and are not lost if the transaction does not execute.

Cardano transaction fees are not the cheapest, but are on the cheaper end of any of the coins out there.

Cardano eUTXO model allows multiple assets to be sent to multiple wallets in a single transaction without requiring a smart contract.

Because Cardano uses the eUTxO model, and transactions are deterministic, the determinism  prevents block producers from reordering transactions for their own profit at the cost of others. 

Because eUTxO transactions are done on-chain, the ability to hack the transaction is greatly reduced. 

Due to the eUTxO transactional model, ADA can be sent to multiple addresses with a single transaction fee. It is also the case that multiple assets (e.g., both ADA and SundaeSwap) can be sent together with one transactional fee.

Account-based models operate using a unified global state machine. Every transaction updates the state, meaning that every transaction has to go through it. The speed of the network is limited by how fast nodes can process all these transactions. With a eUTxO model, the ledger doesn't use global state. It's simply the set of unspent transaction outputs (UTxOs) all of which can exist and be used independently of one another. This makes scaling faster and easier than non-eUTxO models

In Cardano’s eUTxO model, Submitting a transaction does not block you from submitting another one regardless of the first one being completed. 

Cardano treats tokens and NFTs as native assets. Cardano does not require (expensive) smart contracts to mint NFTs. It can be done on-chain. This means no smart contract are necessary, security is improved, an entire attack surface is eliminated. Consequently, things like dusting attacks are impossible. Creating NFTs via smart contracts (the model Ethereum and similar coins use) is a bolt-on solution (a hack) with a wide attack surface. 

With Cardano, if the transaction doesn’t go through, you don’t lose your transaction fees. Cardano fees are known BEFORE the transaction takes place. No guesswork.

Cardano has a cap to it's blockchain storage requirements, other chains don't. With other chains, as the number of transactions grows, the blockchain also grows. 

"Every transaction that stores data on the blockchain needs to include a certain amount of ADA that corresponds to the amount of data. That ADA can only be reclaimed by spending the UTxO but spending the UTxO means that no future transaction can reference that UTxO so the associated data does not need to be stored any longer. All of this means that the size of the state of Cardano cannot grow beyond a certain limit (since ADA has a maximum supply)."

Cardano Speed and Reliability

Cardano has modular design. This is no longer a new thing, but when Cardano started developing this, they were among the first to attempt it. Modularity improves security and limits failure modes. 

Cardano is written in a functional language, Haskell, which can be easily checked for formal mathematical verification, that is, the correctness of the code can be much more easily verified.

Haskell is one of the "safer" programming languages available. Microsoft, Google, Apple are all moving away from C-like languages and towards formal languages like Rust or Haskell. The Haskell community overall reaches for generalizing a solution as far as possible, usually along the lines of some abstract mathematical underpinning. There are huge advantages to this. They build out solutions to problems they didn't even know they had. They are able to rely on mathematical laws to guide designs and ensure concepts compose nicely. Solidity and similar languages aren’t built to do that. 

Cardano's design is so reliable it has never gone down. 

Cardano has never required a hard fork or rollback and never will.

Cardano is fast - not the fastest, but faster than most of the other top ten coins.

Cardano consistently has the most development on the chain every year.

Cardano procedures and protocols have been subject to peer review. Peer review is not some magical cure-all, it has its own problems, but it improves the odds that Cardano procedures and protocols have no major flaws.

Cardano is not single-layer, it is dual layer. That gives it more resiliency and flexibility than single-layer protocols.

Cardano has one of the most active Github developer communities in crypto. It consistently has more code development commits than nearly any other project. When combined with the formal correctness of the code, that means a lot of solidly beneficial code is being consistently produced.

Cardano Decentralization

Decentralization can mean a number of things: 

1. Decentralized governance: How decisions about future development of the network are made. 
• Decentralized software development: Who contributes to source code development, and who decides which changes get accepted? This is arguably a subset of governance.
• Decentralized protocol: are the rules of the protocol the highest authority within the blockchain, or can powerful people in the community change the rules ex post facto, negate the protocol, rollback the blockchain and retroactively enforce a different protocol than the one the community had previously agreed to operate by? This is also arguably a subset of governance.
• Scattered/equal token distribution: Who owns how many native tokens on the network? This could be an aspect of governance, depending on network design.
2. Decentralized infrastructure: The (number of) parties running the network infrastructure, the diversity of hardware, and the distribution and number of different locations.

"With Bitcoin, just a handful of mining organizations (often five or fewer) control more than 50% of the hashing power of the network, which is enough to dictate the ordering of transactions. (Just three mining pools control 47% of Bitcoin’s hashing power, and just two mining pools control almost 48% of Ethereum’s hashing power).  Worse, a very small number of providers build Bitcoin mining hardware, so companies like Bitmain effectively control the Bitcoin network."

Cardano is arguably the most decentralized coin available by infrastructure. Cardano is one of the most decentralized chains by infrastructure (number of stake pools) and its protocol doesn't hard-fork or require rollback. The rules of the protocol are still under the authority of IOHK, so it's not the most decentralized protocol on that front yet. It also is not yet most decentralized by governance or software development, although both of those situations are also under development.

Cardano MOUs

While Bitcoin is the only coin that has been declared an official national currency, Cardano is the only coin that has MOUs with national governments.

Cardano's structure has been supported by the peer review process. This is not fool-proof - a lot of stupid things have the "peer review" imprimatur - but it's better than not having it at all. It's like trying to do encryption. Microsoft tried to roll their own for decades. Every time they tried, they got faced by hackers. In every case, Microsoft ended up adopting an open-source encryption tool developed by actual mathematicians. Cardano started out that way.

Is Judas in Hell?

Here's the problem. 

1) Scripture is inerrant. That is, on points of faith and morals, it does not contain error. Sure, it may not accurately describe things in a way that is in accordance with experimental science, but Scripture is not meant to be a science textbook, It is, in various books and passages, a history. It engages in poetry, allitration, hyperbole, sarcasm, even cynicism, but it is on matters of faith and morals without error.

2) Scripture says Judas repented (Matthew 27:3). Notice: although all Christians agree Peter repented, it says nowhere explicitly in Scripture that Peter did, in fact, repent. Luke's Gospel tells us Peter "wept bitterly" (Luke 22:62), but it does not explicitly say he repented. Peter's repentance is implied, never explicit. The explicit words of Scripture tell us of Judas' repentance.

So... that's an issue.

Now, one might argue that is is clearly not an issue because the Church tells us that Judas is in hell for having betrayed Christ. But the Church doesn't actually say that anywhere in any of her official documents. Sure, individual saints, Fathers of the Church, Doctors of the Church either implicitly or explicitly tell us Judas is in hell, but those same individuals are often unclear on points of doctrine or get specific doctrinal points wrong, despite their sanctity. The Church exists to correct those errors and steer us on the clear path. The Church's Magisterial authority does not clearly state Judas is definitely in hell. (see note below)

Now, perhaps this is all just a translation problem. If we look at the Greek, we can see that Judas "metamelloma" (repented). Does "metamelloma" mean "equivocal" or "incomplete" or does it have some other kind of asterick? 

According to James Glentworth Butler, "as nearly as possible [metamelomai] is the exact equivalent of the word Repent or Repentance." Worse, God chastises those who did not "metamellomai" after hearing John. (Mat 21:32). But Judas DID metamellomai. So... why is metamellomai sufficient when people listen to John, but not sufficient for Judas? It's the same word. 

If there is some kind of asterick surrounding "metamelloma", then why are the tax collectors and prostitutes who do this after hearing John's message forgiven? Or, conversely, if the "metamelloma" of the prostitutes is sufficient, then why isn't Judas' "metamelloma" sufficient? 

What options are available here?

1) Well, we could conclude that Scripture is wrong, Judas' repentance wasn't real, and Judas is going to hell for betraying Christ. But if Scripture is wrong on this point, that means Scripture is not inerrant. That's a non-starter.

2) We could conclude that Scripture is correct, Judas did, indeed, engage in true repentance just like the tax collectors and prostitutes. So, is Judas in hell? If he is, then he isn't in hell for betraying Jesus, because Judas repented of that. He would have to be in hell for some other reason. Perhaps his suicide?

But there's a second problem. Scripture describes him as dying in two different ways.  

Matthew 27:5: Then he threw down the pieces of silver in the temple and departed, and went and hanged himself.

Acts 1:18: Now this man purchased a field with the wages of iniquity; and falling headlong he burst open in the middle and all his entrails gushed out.

There have been various attempts to harmonize these two discordant passages. The most popular is to say that he did, indeed, hang himself, but he hung himself in a tree in the Field of Blood. After he was dead, either the rope broke and his bloated corpse fell to the ground and burst open, or the simple act of bloating was sufficient to cause his entrails to burst out and his corpse fell in some unspecified manner.

This is vaguely disorienting. Perhaps some variation on those themes work, although it isn't entirely clear why the two passages appear to disagree so strongly. You would think Matthew and Luke (the author of Acts) would have talked with each other about Judas' situation, or that Peter would have been better informed about the fate of one of the Twelve. But, leave that as it may be. What do we do with the money?

Notice that in Matthew 27:5, Judas throws down and abandons the pieces of silver. The chief priests then pick up the money and buy the field that became known as the Field of Blood. In Acts 1:18, Peter says Judas didn't throw the money away, instead, Peter says Judas kept the money and bought a field with it. Which one is it?

Matthew 27: 5-8: And casting down the pieces of silver in the temple, he departed: and went and hanged himself with an halter. 6But the chief priests having taken the pieces of silver, said: It is not lawful to put them into the Temple treasury, because it is the price of blood. 7And after they had consulted together, they bought with them the potter's field, to be a burying place for strangers. 8For this cause the field was called Haceldama, that is, The field of blood, even to this day.

Acts:1:18-19: And he indeed hath possessed a field of the reward of iniquity, falling headlong burst asunder in the midst: and all his bowels gushed out. 19And it became known to all the inhabitants of Jerusalem: so that the same field was called in their tongue, Haceldama, that is to say, The field of blood.

To make matters worse, it is Peter who tells us the Acts 1 story, so the discordance between Matthew 25 and Acts 1 involves not just Scripture's inerrancy, but Peter's infallibility.  Not only do we have the question of (1) Judas repentance, we also have the questions of (2) who, exactly, bought the field and (3) why, exactly, was it called the Field of Blood?

Now, the third question is easily harmonized. A group might have more than one reason to name a thing, and it is quite possible that both the method of purchase and the bursting of bowels combined to give the field its name. But the purchase itself... how do you harmonize that? The only possible way to make it work is to say the chief priests made the purchase, but since they made that purchase with money they morally refused to accept, they made it with Judas' money, properly speaking, and so it was Judas' purchase, even though Judas had not himself made the purchase. But if we insist that the chief priest's implicitly repudiated the money, so it was really Judas' money, then we have to ignore the fact that Scripture explicitly says Judas also repudiated the money. Why do the chief priests get to repudiate the money but Judas doesn't get to?

We're back to the same problem. Scripture explicitly says Judas repented. Scripture explicitly says Judas repudiated the money. Scripture only implies Peter repented, Scripture only implies the chief priests repudiated the money (after all, they used the money, so it's not entirely clear that they really did repudiate it). We're more than happy to grant the implicit motivations, and very quick to reject the explicit Scriptural statements about Judas.

Keep in mind also that both passages agree on the name of the field. It is not called "Field of the Damned." It is called "Field of Blood." From a Scriptural perspective, this is very noteworthy. According to Scripture, blood is life. 

Only you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood. (Gen 9:4)

For the life of the flesh is in the blood (Lev 17:11)

Only be sure not to eat the blood, for the blood is the life, and you shall not eat the life with the flesh. You shall not eat it; you shall pour it out on the ground like water. (Deuteronomy 12:23)

From the perspective of Scriptural concordance and interpretation, given that blood is equated to life, the name of the field could as easily be translated either "Field of Blood" or "Field of Life." Does this mean Judas' blood is life-giving? Not at all. We just need to remember that for the Scripturally knowledgeable and Scripturally observant Jew, the word "blood" has entirely different connotations than it does for 21st century Christians. Blood was holy, the blood of animal sacrifices at Passover was used to anoint the altar. Judas' blood was poured into the ground when he "burst asunder" (or the money that bought the shedding of Christ's blood was poured into the purchase, or both) to such a degree that the field was named after blood. The one thing the two passages do agree on: the money given Judas to betray Christ, one way or another, was used to purchase that field. The price of Christ's blood and the actual life-blood of Judas are co-mingled in that Field of Blood. 

If Christ is the scapegoat for our sins, then Judas' role in salvation history may be seen in another light. In Leviticus 16, two goats are given to the priests for sacrifice. One is killed, the other is assigned to have the sins of the nation put on its head and be released, it is the Escape Goat (scapegoat). The priest who lays hands on the Escape Goat and sends it out into the wilderness is, by that action, rendered unclean. He cannot return to the people of Israel until he has ritually bathed. The Jewish ritual bath (mikveh) that the Old Testament priest must undergo is a precursor to the baptism instituted by Christ. 

In the Garden, Judas' kiss sends Jesus into the wilderness of the secular world and secular judgement.
Since Jesus is the Escape Goat, this makes Judas the impure Old Testament priest who requires a ritual bath in order to return to God's people. But there is no record of Judas going through any Old Testament purification ritual or either of the New Testament purification sacraments (baptism and confession) that would restore his purity. Of course, Scripture does not explicitly describe any of the tax collectors and prostitutes who heard John as having undergone these rituals either. But, it is an interesting thing to think about. 

Scripture never explicitly tells us why Judas committed suicide. While the Church has historically dealt harshly with suicides, for example, refusing them for centuries the right to be buried in holy ground, medical advances have made it clear that some cases of suicide are deeply influenced by uncontrollable medical conditions. As a result, the Church has greatly mellowed in her treatment of suicides. 

If we accept the inerrancy of Scripture, than we must accept that Judas did, indeed, experience true repentance. We must also accept that he did, indeed, truly repudiate the payment for his betrayal of Christ. It is true that he is not known to have undertaken any ritual attempt to regain purity of life. However, given the Scriptural facts of his repentance, combined with the increased medical understanding of suicide, an understanding not possessed by the Fathers and Doctors of the Church, can Catholics in the 21st century accept that "Judas in hell" may possibly be incorrect? If the names of the twelve Apostles are written on the twelve courses of the foundation of the Heavenly City, does that mean Judas' name is written on the foundation of heaven? 

The simple answer: Yes. Just as many of the Fathers and Doctors were wrong about the Immaculate Conception, so many of them may have been wrong about Judas being in hell. 

NOTE

The Catholic Church cannot definitively say anyone is in hell because it is not part of her mission to do so. The Church shares Christ's mission. The Son of God became man so that all men might be saved. If the Church were to declare that someone was in hell, then that declaration alone would be sufficient for damnation. But Christ did not come into the world to damn men to hell, He came to save men for heaven. Thus, the Church can categorically state that specific people are in heaven (the canonized saints, the angels) because that is Christ's mission, but declaring someone to be in hell is not part of Christ's mission and so not a statement the Church can officially make about any particular person.

The Church clearly states that persons are in hell. We know that persons are in hell. Angelic persons are in hell.  Fallen angelic persons are demons, those persons are in hell. But the Church cannot say any particular human person is in hell.

The same issue applies to private apparitions. First, if we follow the advice of Doctor of the Church, St. John of the Cross, we should ignore ALL private apparition. If we decide we will not follow the spiritual advice of a Doctor of the Church, then we must at least realize that visionaries can get messages wrong or misunderstand them. Yes, even Fatima visionaries can get things wrong.