Can God be Proven?

[Image_of_God]

…or is His existence known by faith?

I asks this question because it appears to me that we cannot arrive at God by our natural reason alone.

 

[James_S_Saint]

Not without first defining “God”. Without a clear and undisputed definition, nothing can be “proven” logically.

Provide a definition, and I will prove it for you. But in any case, one must be willing to forgive other misunderstood concepts, get humble, and “get real with and about God” (remove thy sandles).

 

[hatsoff]

…or is His existence known by faith?

I asks this question because it appears to me that we cannot arrive at God by our natural reason alone.

Some philosophers (e.g. Craig, Swinburne, Plantinga, etc.) believe that natural theological arguments (e.g. the cosmological, ontological, teleological, etc. arguments) constitute rational warrant for God-belief. Many other philosophers disagree, and there is no consensus on the matter.

I myself have found all such arguments to be entirely unconvincing when they aren’t laugh-out-loud ridiculous. But then, perhaps mercifully, I am no philosopher.

 

[James_S_Saint]

But then, perhaps mercifully, I am no philosopher.

And philosophers around the world thank GOD for that… :extrahappy:

…justeasn… :hug1:

 

[Image_of_God]

Not without first defining “God”. Without a clear and undisputed definition, nothing can be “proven” logically.

There are so many ways to refer to or define God, but I will say, in this first instance, that God is defined as the First Cause.

Provide a definition, and I will prove it for you. But in any case, one must be willing to forgive other misunderstood concepts, get humble, and “get real with and about God” (remove thy sandles).

I don’t understand what you mean by this. Can you please explain to me?

 

[Image_of_God]

Some philosophers (e.g. Craig, Swinburne, Plantinga, etc.) believe that natural theological arguments (e.g. the cosmological, ontological, teleological, etc. arguments) constitute rational warrant for God-belief. Many other philosophers disagree, and there is no consensus on the matter.

I myself have found all such arguments to be entirely unconvincing when they aren’t laugh-out-loud ridiculous. But then, perhaps mercifully, I am no philosopher.

Would you consider St. Thomas Aquinas’ “proofs” ridiculous?

 

[hatsoff]

Would you consider St. Thomas Aquinas’ “proofs” ridiculous?

It would be inappropriate for me to accuse in a Catholic forum its favorite Saint of ridiculousness. However, I will say that, as with all such God arguments, I find Aquinas’s five ways (as I have encountered them second-hand) entirely unconvincing.

 

[James_S_Saint]

There are so many ways to refer to or define God, but I will say, in this first instance, that God is defined as the First Cause.

If that is the entire definition you wish to accept, I can easily prove that one, but is it really THE definition for You?

I don’t understand what you mean by this. Can you please explain to me?

To “remove one’s sandles”, a metaphor from the story of Moses, means to remove your current “under-standing”, or to be humble to the apparent facts regardless of what you have always understood to be true. Most people insist that this or that is true and then try to see the proof that something else is true based on those presumptions when those presumptions are often flawed. To see anything new, one usually must consider that what he has come to believe regarding many other things might not be true as they haven’t really been proven either.

I tend to seek out the minimum and most grounded (“sound”, “understood”) to accept just to start a proof, but even that requires a limited audience. Anything said can be disputed by someone. Given a large enough audience and nothing can be universally agreed upon.

An example is that very definition, “First Cause”. You might be like many who have always assumed that the word “Cause” in that title refers to the first instigational event. But it really meant the first logic, the logos, or the first step in reasoning, the “First BEcause”. ref: God is the Reason, not the Instigation.

 

[SugarMagnolia]

Just because Aquinas is a saint, doesn’t mean his philosophical proofs are sound. They’re not. St Anselm also tried to offer a logical proof for the existence of God and his argument was disproven by his contemporary, Gaunilo–a Catholic monk!

I do wish there was a proof of God’s existence because I suffer from doubt. I wish I had the firm belief of other Catholics I know. Forget about convincing true atheists. It’s those of us who want to believe, but don’t, who seek proof.

 

[Image_of_God]

Just because Aquinas is a saint, doesn’t mean his philosophical proofs are sound. They’re not. St Anselm also tried to offer a logical proof for the existence of God and his argument was disproven by his contemporary, Gaunilo–a Catholic monk!

I do wish there was a proof of God’s existence because I suffer from doubt. I wish I had the firm belief of other Catholics I know. Forget about convincing true atheists. It’s those of us who want to believe, but don’t, who seek proof.

I think that that God could be known implicitly through reason as opposed to explicitly. Perhaps Aquinas’ proofs are not sound, but his overall Summa is an amazing work. Who, but God could have inspired it?

 

[Image_of_God]

It would be inappropriate for me to accuse in a Catholic forum its favorite Saint of ridiculousness. However, I will say that, as with all such God arguments, I find Aquinas’s five ways (as I have encountered them second-hand) entirely unconvincing.

Perhaps so, but I have heard proofs against God that are ridiculous. Perhaps God is known implicitly through reason and explicitly through faith.

 

[Image_of_God]

If that is the entire definition you wish to accept, I can easily prove that one, but is it really THE definition for You?

I don’t know. There are infinitely many ways to define an infinite God. Perhaps you could prove God as an actual infinite? (Which I think He must be).

To “remove one’s sandles”, a metaphor from the story of Moses, means to remove your current “under-standing”, or to be humble to the apparent facts regardless of what you have always understood to be true. Most people insist that this or that is true and then try to see the proof that something else is true based on those presumptions when those presumptions are often flawed. To see anything new, one usually must consider that what he has come to believe regarding many other things might not be true as they haven’t really been proven either.

I tend to seek out the minimum and most grounded (“sound”, “understood”) to accept just to start a proof, but even that requires a limited audience. Anything said can be disputed by someone. Given a large enough audience and nothing can be universally agreed upon.

I respond to this by saying that we must understand the limits of logic. Somethings are necessarily taken to be true due to intuition (postulates in geometry for example). They cannot be proven in themselves. But I agree we should take of our sandals, but we can only do so to a certain extent since we are not blank slates.

An example is that very definition, “First Cause”. You might be like many who have always assumed that the word “Cause” in that title refers to the first instigational event. But it really meant the first logic, the logos, or the first step in reasoning, the “First BEcause”. ref: God is the Reason, not the Instigation.

If something is the reason for something, does that not also mean that it instigated it?

For example, if I say that I am the reason for this painting, does that not mean that I painted it or had some connection to its being painted? Or if I say that I am the reason for this box being here, does it not follow that I brought it there or was involved with its being brought there?

 

[James_S_Saint]

If something is the reason for something, does that not also mean that it instigated it?

4-2=2 because of the truth that 2+2=4

But 2+2=4 did not instigate a case of 4-2=2, it only caused the truth of it.

God, being the cause of the universe, did not instigate the universe, but is the reason the universe exists, as pointed out in that thread. Additionally, God creates (in time) each and every little thing within the universe, but it is important to first realize that God did not initiate or instigate the universe. The universe, just as God, has always been and is eternal. There can never be a “no universe state” of reality. It takes some serious metaphysics to understand exactly why that is true and I don’t expect you to just take my word for it. I pointed it out because it is said that God creates, which is correct, and it is said that God causes which is correct as long as you understand that God never began the universe, but is the reason it exists. God is the Truth that causes all else to be truth that really is true.

 

[JDaniel]

Just because Aquinas is a saint, doesn’t mean his philosophical proofs are sound. They’re not. St Anselm also tried to offer a logical proof for the existence of God and his argument was disproven by his contemporary, Gaunilo–a Catholic monk!

I do wish there was a proof of God’s existence because I suffer from doubt. I wish I had the firm belief of other Catholics I know. Forget about convincing true atheists. It’s those of us who want to believe, but don’t, who seek proof.

To you, how, as precisely as you can possibly word it, do you find the “proofs” of St. Thomas unsound? Forget about Anselm for the present, just concentrate on Aquinas. Also, ignore the standard, crass interruptions from the non-religious. They are here for the sole purpose of disruption. It is far more important to try to impart good Catholic apologetics to you than to continuously wrestle with them to no avail.

God bless,
jd

jd

 

[Nan_S]

I’ve gone through the Bible looking for what it says proving the existence of God to those who would question. In a nutshell, the Bible says that we can know of and believe in the existence of God by seeing what He has done.

The same could be said for all of us. I am here in body, but unless I have done something that has an impact on you, and you notice it, then as far as you are concerned I really don’t exist. If you were to try to prove that I do or have existed, the proof you would need would be some evidence of the impact I have. That impact might be you seeing me walk into a room, or reading something I wrote, or finding something I built when you conducted an archaeological dig.

So scripture provides evidence for the existence of God by pointing to the world He has made, a complex, well-organized creation far beyond the capability of any lesser intelligence or power. I know some argue that pure random chance could have done the job also, but if there is any evidence of that, outside of pure theory, no one has ever made a convincing case for random chance. Given enough time and enough raw material you might find a little bit of brief organization, but most of the time you merely have overwhelming chaos which quickly scatters whatever tenuous organization happens. And the random chance theory never addresses the problem of where all the raw material came from in the first place.

Many years ago an argument was advanced that if you put monkeys into a room with typewriters, and they poked at the keys long enough, eventually they would be able to reproduce the complete works of Shakespeare. At first it sounded like a logical argument for random chance. Well, I have read the works of Shakespeare, which were composed in a few short years by a single man (or perhaps two), and no one has yet produced a single page typed by monkeys. From this I conclude that we have some reasonable evidence that an intelligent being named Shakespeare existed.

Here are the most pointed scripture quotes telling us that that the evidence for the existence of God is found by examining His handiwork:

Psalm 19:1-4 (or 2-5)
The heavens declare the glory of God;
the sky proclaims its builder’s craft.
One day to the next conveys that message;
one night to the next imparts that knowledge.
There is no word or sound; no voice is heard;
Yet their report goes forth through all the earth,
their message, to the ends of the world.

Romans 1:16-24
For I am not ashamed of the gospel: it is the power of God for salvation to every one who has faith, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. For in it the righteousness of God is revealed through faith for faith; as it is written, “He who through faith is righteous shall live.”
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and wickedness of men who by their wickedness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. Ever since the creation of the world his invisible nature, namely, his eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse; for although they knew God they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking and their senseless minds were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man or birds or animals or reptiles.
Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever! Amen.

 

[Image_of_God]

4-2=2 because of the truth that 2+2=4

But 2+2=4 did not instigate a case of 4-2=2, it only caused the truth of it.

Yes, this is true, but only if you look at it from one direction. In that case, they are the cause of or reason for each other. If 4-2=2 were not true, then it would follow that neither would 2+2=4 be true.

God, being the cause of the universe, did not instigate the universe, but is the reason the universe exists, as pointed out in that thread. Additionally, God creates (in time) each and every little thing within the universe, but it is important to first realize that God did not initiate or instigate the universe. The universe, just as God, has always been and is eternal. There can never be a “no universe state” of reality. It takes some serious metaphysics to understand exactly why that is true and I don’t expect you to just take my word for it. I pointed it out because it is said that God creates, which is correct, and it is said that God causes which is correct as long as you understand that God never began the universe, but is the reason it exists. God is the Truth that causes all else to be truth that really is true.

If I apply the previous analogy here, then God would be the cause of the universe and the universe would also be the cause of God. God would depend on the universe and the universe on God. Am I understanding correctly?

 

[Nan_S]

God, being the cause of the universe, did not instigate the universe, but is the reason the universe exists, as pointed out in that thread. Additionally, God creates (in time) each and every little thing within the universe, but it is important to first realize that God did not initiate or instigate the universe. The universe, just as God, has always been and is eternal. There can never be a “no universe state” of reality. It takes some serious metaphysics to understand exactly why that is true and I don’t expect you to just take my word for it. I pointed it out because it is said that God creates, which is correct, and it is said that God causes which is correct as long as you understand that God never began the universe, but is the reason it exists. God is the Truth that causes all else to be truth that really is true.

Just for the record, when James S Saint claims the universe is eternally co-existent with God he is NOT in accordance with the beliefs of the Catholic Church. Catholics hold that one of the basic definitions about God is that God is greater than everything. To theorize that something else co-existed with God from all eternity is to try to make God something less than what He is: the source and creator of everything. The abstract philosophy called metaphysics is something defined by man, and being a creation of man’s intellect it is subject to serious error.

Catechism of the Catholic Church
295 We believe that God created the world according to his wisdom. It is not the product of any necessity whatever, nor of blind fate or chance. We believe that it proceeds from God’s free will; he wanted to make his creatures share in his being, wisdom and goodness: “For you created all things, and by your will they existed and were created.” Therefore the Psalmist exclaims: “O LORD, how manifold are your works! In wisdom you have made them all”; and “The LORD is good to all, and his compassion is over all that he has made.” God creates "out of nothing"
**296 **We believe that God needs no pre-existent thing or any help in order to create, nor is creation any sort of necessary emanation from the divine substance. God creates freely “out of nothing”:
If God had drawn the world from pre-existent matter, what would be so extraordinary in that? A human artisan makes from a given material whatever he wants, while God shows his power by starting from nothing to make all he wants.
**297 **Scripture bears witness to faith in creation “out of nothing” as a truth full of promise and hope. Thus the mother of seven sons encourages them for martyrdom:
“I do not know how you came into being in my womb. It was not I who gave you life and breath, nor I who set in order the elements within each of you. Therefore the Creator of the world, who shaped the beginning of man and devised the origin of all things, will in his mercy give life and breath back to you again, since you now forget yourselves for the sake of his laws. . . Look at the heaven and the earth and see everything that is in them, and recognize that God did not make them out of things that existed. Thus also mankind comes into being.” 2 Macc 7:22-23, 28
**298 **Since God could create everything out of nothing, he can also, through the Holy Spirit, give spiritual life to sinners by creating a pure heart in them, and bodily life to the dead through the Resurrection. God "gives life to the dead and calls into existence the things that do not exist."and since God was able to make light shine in darkness by his Word, he can also give the light of faith to those who do not yet know him.

 

[James_S_Saint]

Nan S,

I disagree that what I have said disagrees with what you quoted. But despise and hateful disagreement is the destiny of those who worship what they read but don’t understand what they read.

 

[James_S_Saint]

Yes, this is true, but only if you look at it from one direction. In that case, they are the cause of or reason for each other. If 4-2=2 were not true, then it would follow that neither would 2+2=4 be true.

If I apply the previous analogy here, then God would be the cause of the universe and the universe would also be the cause of God. God would depend on the universe and the universe on God. Am I understanding correctly?

No, the “4-2=2” example can’t be taken to that degree of analogy. It was just to express how cause of reason has nothing to do with time of change. I might be able to think of a better example if you want to extend the analogy so that it can be more exactly as the God case.

 

[Image_of_God]

No, the “4-2=2” example can’t be taken to that degree of analogy. It was just to express how cause of reason has nothing to do with time of change. I might be able to think of a better example if you want to extend the analogy so that it can be more exactly as the God case.

I think I might need one.

I understand your point that God is the cause (reason for ) the universe, not the instigator of it. If God is the reason for the universe and not vice versa, then it follows that the universe is depended on God. However, if the universe is infinite, in what way is it dependent on God?