Aquinus's five reasons that prove god

[cc42]

I agree that grace plays a large role, but it could be that some people do not accept logically valid arguments because they are also rejecting the grace of God.

 

[Gaber]

I agree that grace plays a large role, but it could be that some people do not accept logically valid arguments because they are also rejecting the grace of God.

Great. Being that they don’t recognize that, and gr\ace is felt, how is logic meant work as even a nearly useful substitute? Even Aquinas, after a particular insight, was, it seems, ready to burn his work, that which got him to where he could have such an insight. But the work wasn’t the insight, only the scaffolding. And the primary thing there, as with others who offer “proofs” is that the motivation is from interior work. Their “proofs” came first, or their work? And while it served for them, for what it meant to them, when was the last time you heard an atheist say–“Oh, I read a proof, and it convinced me!”??? On the other hand, I know of atheists and non Catholics who by all descriptions enjoyed a glimpse of the Beatific Vision, or more, and stopped arguing with Reality. How can the ALL be a matter of being “proved” by the infinitesimal scope of a fractional function of mortal mind?

 

[billcu1]

Great. Being that they don’t recognize that, and gr\ace is felt, how is logic meant work as even a nearly useful substitute? Even Aquinas, after a particular insight, was, it seems, ready to burn his work, that which got him to where he could have such an insight. But the work wasn’t the insight, only the scaffolding. And the primary thing there, as with others who offer “proofs” is that the motivation is from interior work. Their “proofs” came first, or their work? And while it served for them, for what it meant to them, when was the last time you heard an atheist say–“Oh, I read a proof, and it convinced me!”??? On the other hand, I know of atheists and non Catholics who by all descriptions enjoyed a glimpse of the Beatific Vision, or more, and stopped arguing with Reality. How can the ALL be a matter of being “proved” by the infinitesimal scope of a fractional function of mortal mind?

Insight as I understand it comes from faith and it is insight that leads to discoveries like Aristolean metaphysics in which Aquinas was a scholar. To me all knowledge comes from faith.

 

[atheistgirl]

Go to YOU TUBE : type in Peter Kreeft ; go to his video on “Rationality for reason”, watch his explanation of above, plus 10 “other” proofs for GOD.

Thanks for bringing this guy to my attention. I’ve enjoyed watching his lectures on youtube. He does say there is no way to scientifically, mathemetically or physically prove God in any sense, but you can prove Him in a philosophical sense.

I have to say, I found what he argued in the videos ‘On the existence of God’ wholely unconvincing, and I was disappointed he pulled out a really weak card - namely after listening to him, if you don’t now at least agree God can be known in a philosophical sense, then you’re just being beligerant. That just doesn’t wash, and it was kinda disappointing to see someone who is obivously a very intelligent and honest person, pulling such a stunt.

He did get an extra credit though for admitting there is just no way, in any sense, to prove God is a personal God, and loves someone. That alone has to be taken purely on Faith.

Thanks again for bringing this guy up. I’ve really enjoyed watching his videos.

Sarah x

 

[tonyrey]

Thanks for bringing this guy to my attention. I’ve enjoyed watching his lectures on youtube. He does say there is no way to scientifically, mathemetically or physically prove God in any sense, but you can prove Him in a philosophical sense.

I have to say, I found what he argued in the videos ‘On the existence of God’ wholely unconvincing, and I was disappointed he pulled out a really weak card - namely after listening to him, if you don’t now at least agree God can be known in a philosophical sense, then you’re just being beligerant. That just doesn’t wash, and it was kinda disappointing to see someone who is obivously a very intelligent and honest person, pulling such a stunt.

He did get an extra credit though for admitting there is just no way, in any sense, to prove God is a personal God, and loves someone. That alone has to be taken purely on Faith.

Thanks again for bringing this guy up. I’ve really enjoyed watching his videos.

Sarah x

Forgive me, Sarah, for pointing out that God loves everyone…

 

[atheistgirl]

Forgive me, Sarah, for pointing out that God loves everyone…

Unless your argument is better than his, which I doubt, you can’t prove that. It’s just what you accuse others of - an unsubstantiated assertion.

I have to say, he got worse as he went on, which was disappointing. He reached the point all people of faith do at some point or other - I can’t explain it, so it must be a miracle, and my favorite, you can’t explain it, so God did it. Disappointing.

But I did enjoy listening to him, I don’t know if it was his manner, or voice, or what, but he’s very easy and enjoyable to listen to.

Sarah x

 

[tonyrey]

Unless your argument is better than his, which I doubt, you can’t prove that. It’s just what you accuse others of - an unsubstantiated assertion.

I have to say, he got worse as he went on, which was disappointing. He reached the point all people of faith do at some point or other - I can’t explain it, so it must be a miracle, and my favorite, you can’t explain it, so God did it. Disappointing.

Sarah x

How do you think love originated?

 

[atheistgirl]

How do you think love originated?

Erm, I asked you if you had a better argument than him?

He’s a professional Doctor of Philosophy, and a Catholic convert, and his philosophical position is it’s not possible to prove God loves an individual.

If you have a better argument than he does, perhaps you should contact him, as he’s only been studying philosophy for some 50 years and he might not have heard it before

Sarah x

 

[tonyrey]

Erm, I asked you if you had a better argument than him?

He’s a professional Doctor of Philosophy, and a Catholic convert, and his philosophical position is it’s not possible to prove God loves an individual.

If you have a better argument than he does, perhaps you should contact him, as he’s only been studying philosophy for some 50 years and he might not have heard it before

Sarah x

That is a better argument - if one goes by the principle of the best available explanation!
It is unscientific and unphilosophical to reject an explanation if it cannot be shown to be defective - especially if there is no intelligible alternative.

Since there is no logical or mathematical proof in science the best available explanation is based on probability in the light of all the evidence.

 

[atheistgirl]

That is a better argument - if one goes by the principle of the best available explanation!

Inserting ‘‘God’’ into anything is not an explanation. I can’t explain it, Science can’t explain it, (yet) so God must have done it. Nope, doesn’t wash.

It is unscientific and unphilosophical to reject an explanation if it cannot be shown to be defective - especially if there is no intelligible alternative.

Lol. Luckily for mankind, some of us never subscribed to that way of thinking, or we’d still be offering sacrifices to the god of thunder to appease him.

Since there is no logical or mathematical proof in science the best available explanation is based on probability in the light of all the evidence.

What evidence? There is none that I can see. And when believers are challenged with examples that refute their position of a loving God who individually loves everyone, I’m served up the ususal, God’s ways are above our ways, God must have had His reasons, that we can’t possibly know, and all that stuff.

At least Kreeft has the professional integrity to admit it can’t be done.

Sarah x

 

[tonyrey]

Inserting ‘‘God’’ into anything is not an explanation. I can’t explain it, Science can’t explain it, (yet) so God must have done it. Nope, doesn’t wash.

It is not a question of inserting “God” but of regarding Love as the Ultimate Reality.

Lol. Luckily for mankind, some of us never subscribed to that way of thinking, or we’d still be offering sacrifices to the god of thunder to appease him.

Thunder has nothing whatsoever to do with Love.

What evidence? There is none that I can see. And when believers are challenged with examples that refute their position of a loving God who individually loves everyone, I’m served up the ususal, God’s ways are above our ways, God must have had His reasons, that we can’t possibly know, and all that stuff.

What do you consider to be more important than love?

At least Kreeft has the professional integrity to admit it can’t be done.

Sarah x

Kreeft was referring to “proof”, not the best available explanation in the light of existing evidence. He is certainly not a fideist!

 

[Aelred_Minor]

If I may insert a few tentative thoughts here (in case Gaber replies extensively, I don’t want to get too entangled in multiple lines of debate), might we draw a connection between God’s infinite perfection (if this can be known from reason) and love?

Also, might we draw some conclusion about love from the fact that God created the universe?

 

[atheistgirl]

What do you consider to be more important than love?

Demonstrating it.

Words are cheap.

Kreeft was referring to “proof”, not the best available explanation in the light of existing evidence.

So you can’t prove a personal God who loves everyone individually. Which is what I said.

Incoming Appeal to Authority: Kreeft agrees with me. You can’t prove it.

Sarah x

 

[Gaber]

Demonstrating it.

Words are cheap.

So you can’t prove a personal God who loves everyone individually. Which is what I said.

Incoming Appeal to Authority: Kreeft agrees with me. You can’t prove it.

Sarah x

An’ das da trooooth.

 

[Perplexity]

Just a thought on god’s alleged perfections: it’s not clear to me that the atheist or naturalist could grant that things like omniscience, omnipotence, or even maximal love are perfections. If the theist is correct, and such things are invariably woven together in god’s nature, then such things couldn’t possibly exist if atheism or naturalism were true. But, what is impossible is certainly no perfection. Thus, it appears, the theist merely begs the question when she asserts that maximal goodness, rationality, love (or whatever) are perfections.

 

[tonyrey]

Demonstrating it.

You need to explain what it is you’re demonstrating! Otherwise it could be a myth…

So you can’t prove a personal God who loves everyone individually. Which is what I said.

Incoming Appeal to Authority: Kreeft agrees with me. You can’t prove it.

I pointed out that it is unreasonable to reject the best available explanation in the light of the available evidence…

 

[atheistgirl]

You need to explain what it is you’re demonstrating! Otherwise it could be a myth…

If I’m demonstrating it, it’s not a myth.

Oh wait, I think I understand what you’re driving at here.

I need to explain the ‘‘love’’ that would allow me to burn witches to death with a clear conscience. The same ‘‘love’’ that demands a man picking up sticks on a Sunday be stoned to death. A love so pure and objective I can give over my virgin daughters to the mob without a second thought. A love so true I would keep a pledge to sacrifice the first thing I see when my door opens, even if it’s my daughter. A love that cares to instruct me not to kill, and two days later orders me to slaughter a whole tribe of people, men women and children but keeping the virgins for myself. A love so objectively moral, when I don’t quite slaughter everyone, I’m chastized and ordered back to do the job properly!

You’re right. I couldn’t explain that kind of love.

Because that’s not how I love.

I pointed out that it is unreasonable to reject the best available explanation in the light of the available evidence…

And I pointed out filling in the gaps with ‘‘God’’ is not a reasonable explanation for anything we don’t currently know.

 

[Gaber]

If I’m demonstrating it, it’s not a myth.

Oh wait, I think I understand what you’re driving at here.

I need to explain the ‘‘love’’ that would allow me to burn witches to death with a clear conscience. The same ‘‘love’’ that demands a man picking up sticks on a Sunday be stoned to death. A love so pure and objective I can give over my virgin daughters to the mob without a second thought. A love so true I would keep a pledge to sacrifice the first thing I see when my door opens, even if it’s my daughter. A love that cares to instruct me not to kill, and two days later orders me to slaughter a whole tribe of people, men women and children but keeping the virgins for myself. A love so objectively moral, when I don’t quite slaughter everyone, I’m chastized and ordered back to do the job properly!

You’re right. I couldn’t explain that kind of love.

Because that’s not how I love.

And I pointed out filling in the gaps with ‘‘God’’ is not a reasonable explanation for anything we don’t currently know.

:clapping:

Point of clarification: A myth is meant to be a multi-leveled map disguised as a story for mnemonic purposes. Unfortunately, the word has come to mean “lie” or “fabrication.”

…And it might have been better spelled “troooothp.” I love Lily Tomlin. I hope you understood AG, that I was agreeing with you.

 

[tonyrey]

You need to explain what it is you’re demonstrating! Otherwise it could be a myth…

What does your love entail?

I pointed out that it is unreasonable to reject the best available explanation in the light of the available evidence…

And I pointed out filling in the gaps with ‘‘God’’ is not a reasonable explanation for anything we don’t currently know.

Love doesn’t fill in the gaps: it is the reason for our existence.

 

[cc42]

How could logically speaking all powerful, all knowing, and all loving not be perfections?

Also to Gaber and atheist girl: The proofs put forward demonstrate the existence of God with the pefections listed above if you don’t like something that has happened in history or something written in the Bible that doesn’t disprove the existence of God it only demonstrates that you don’t like something written in the Bible or that happened during the course of history.