Can God be Proven?

[alforo]

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.

Spcifically, what do you find unconvincing? Choose any of the 5 and please illucidate.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

I think God can be known to exist with certainty by the natural light of reason, but I don’t think God can be proven to exist with the same certainty. I may know with certainty that my wife loves me with with all her heart and soul, but I cannot prove that as an absolute certainty to my neighbor who is a cynical bachelor. So it is when we try to explain God to those who do not believe in Him. The evidence is clear and convincing to us, but not clear and convincing to them.

 

[punkforchrist]

Hi again Image of God,

You replied to James that your understanding of God is a “First Cause.” Let’s see if we can demonstrate the existence of a First Cause of sorts, then.

The regress of causes found in nature is either infinite or finite. If it is finite, then there must be a First Cause, so we only need to show that an infinite regress is impossible or, more modestly, unlikely. Whenever we observe nature, we find that its various attributes are finite. And, upon reflection, one realizes that the regress of causes is an attribute of nature. We can infer, then, that nature probably has a First Cause.

This is true even if nature is eternal. An eternal house would still need a foundation, and by analogy, an eternal nature/universe would still have to have a First Cause.

As for whether this First Cause is divine, I and others on this forum have had some lengthy discussions about this. Basically, I believe we can infer that the First Cause must be both unlimited and unique. For, every existing thing is either limited or unlimited. Now, the limited things we observe have the potential to be caused, but a First Cause does not have the potential to be caused. Hence, the First Cause must be unlimited.

As for the First Cause’s uniqueness, things differ only if one thing lacks something the other possesses. Yet, a thing can only lack something if it is limited, and the First Cause is unlimited. Therefore, the First Cause is both unlimited and unique (one, and not many). This is what we mean by a “Supreme Being,” so if this series of arguments is correct, as I would contend it is, it follows that a Supreme Being exists.

 

[jgr]

are you toally disregarding JESUS’ crucifiction and his rising from the dead, not to mention the miricles he has performed. you would have to not believe a word of the bible to think GOD does not exist

 

[1holycatholic]

I can disprove the 5 ways, but… God (deserving the cap G) is absolutely logically necessary.

A lot of people claim to be able to do so, but none ever have. Please start another thread and demonstrate how this can be done.

 

[Dan_Grelinger]

“Can God be Proven?” is an interesting question.

Practically every ‘proof’ that I have been taught has, at its base, assumptions that must be accepted as true, before the proof can be accepted. I would venture to say then, depending on the assumptions you are willing to make, the answer is ‘yes’; and ‘no’.

Why do we use ‘proof’ anyway? Because it is one manner of ‘knowing’ what is true, what is ‘real’. Is it the only manner? I suggest not.

The more important question is perhaps “Can God be Known?” If God can be proven, that would be ONE WAY of knowing Him. But certainly not the ONLY WAY. Try proving your parents exist. To do so, I suggest that you must make at least one assumption, and quite possibly many. But, does it really matter? Who really feels compelled to prove their parents exist? If you KNOW them to be real, isn’t that the fundamental issue?

I have had many discussions with otherwise very reasonable and intelligent ‘God believers’, atheists, and agnostics. What separates the ‘God believers’ and atheists from the agnostics, is that they compel themselves into a ‘belief’ in something. The agnostics insist on no ‘faith’, no assumptions, with respect to the existence of a god. “‘Facts’ alone, please. Until the ‘facts’ have been proven, no determination will be issued.”

Atheism, however, is a belief structure. In the absence of absolute proof as to the existence (or not) of God, athiests have chosen a position. That is a very real faith. I have found that athiests will stick with their ‘faith’ at least as staunchly and emotionally as those that believe in God cling to theirs, even as they accept that the existence of God is impossible to disprove.

For those of us who have a stated position as to the existence of God (for or against), what causes us to decide what faith to cling to? To the extent that we can, we all wish to shape the world that is around us. A world in which we have no control is a very scary place.

Where we cannot make choices (e.g. shall I travel today at faster than the speed of light, or not), we have learned to (grudgingly, perhaps) accept what we have found to be true. Where we can make choices (do I have the steak, or the sushi) we generally will grab the opportunity to exercise our liberty, to ‘do what we want.’

Morality is all about making choices. When one does not want to be constrained as to the choices that they may make, he must neutralize anything that seeks to constrain. If one wants to be the ultimate authority on what they will do, i.e. what is ‘right’ for them, then a belief in God becomes a potential barrier. “What if God and I disagree on what is ‘right’, on what I will ultimately do?”

For those that refuse to submit to a higher moral authority than themselves, the existance of God cannot be accepted.

Dan Grelinger

 

[joebarrett]

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.

I teach philosophy and have to tell you that nobody has ever successfully debunked any of Aquinas’s five proofs of God, although it has become fashionable among the confuted to pretend to find them absurd. Aquinas’s argument from design is incontestable unless you deny the existence of design or order in the universe; which is among the lengths to which some atheists are forced to go. Dawkins, for example, invited his students (when he had any) to replace the word “design” with “designoid”. I was told some kid then asked him if he was wearing designoid jeans. I often accost such atheists with the cold statement: “You must deny design to deny the existence of God” Turned this way they are left floundering.
This school has pushed the common falsehood that David Hume denied design and order as an indication for the need for God as primary cause. They add in many text books that “admittedly this stance is rare”. Indeed it is rare. No other philosopher has made such a claim. But it is non-existent in the case of Hume who actually openly admits this “cause” many times. When a philosophy student at Glasgow University pointed the facts out to his tutor he was told “but you are not thinking philosophically”! You could not make it up! The fraud in question had the cheek to give that brilliant law student a low C grade. Why? He is an active Marxist, like too many of his fellows who hide their political agendas behind the screen of academic freedom and avert any argument by insulating themselves in what they insolently claim to be departmental competence – another way of denying the competence of the opposition.
Another ruse is to subject one of the five proofs to a test whose basis is the denial of anything existing which is not physical – in short a test which denies, de facto, philosophy.
If you have no training in philosophy then trust Aquinas (and the Church). You will simply make a spectacle of yourself among learned people, and by adding to the great drift of anti-rationalist modernism damage the faith of our weaker brethren. To repeat, these movements are not driven by science but by political will.
People may justly enquire if a person unlearned in maths is wise to set up as an expert in, say, quantum physics. Why enter an intellectual domain which is obviously far above one’s talents?
Meanwhile, why not get a real philosopher to take you through the five proofs, step by step.
Or you could get your hands on Prof. Chris Martin’s excellent God and Explanations.
Joe Barrett

 

[ewiliam]

Indeed he can, but I think it’s better to leave it to faith, otherwise everyone becomes like robots, which is what God didn’t want, he wants people to love him and do what he asks without being ‘forced’ to, i.e.: through proof.

I do know a proof for God though (which came into my head, possible through divine intervention , after I was sure in my faith). It lies with time.

Time must have a beginning, and because it has a beginning, it must have been created, since there logically has to be something that exists forever (in our case, God, in an atheist’s case, some strange void of some sort, but inevitably, there has to be some precedent).

So now that it must have had a medium through which it can be created, what could have been that Creator? It couldn’t be an alien, in our sense, because that creates a paradox in that it must have been created. A void relies on the human assumptions about there existing time outside of space. A void would need too much of this universe’s forces, physics and properties (which happen to be infeasible outside of this universe) to exist.

In essence, you need a conscious creator who is eternal and all that exists for a universe to be created. Then he would create a universe with a beginning. This may cause some to question whether this is paradoxical, i.e.: that when would the beginning have been, but this is still assuming that time exists outside of this universe. A conscious being can create a universe with time as a dimension that has a beginning, however a universe cannot have always existed with time, and nor can a big-bang void have caused it, because that necessitates the void having a beginning, because the theory states that the void randomly, at some point in time, fluctuates. The only feasible way that we exist today in time, is that we have a creator. And obviously, an eternally-existent, conscious being is God.

 

[Norminha]

“I do not feel obliged to believe the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use.” Galileo Galilei.
To believe the unbelievable, one must have “The Leap of Faith.” says Danish philosopher Kierkegaard. He adds: “The absurd is the object of faith and the only object that can be believed.”
He realized that a rational proof for the existence of God would only make God’s existence probable.
Faith, according to the American Heritage Dictionary, is “belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.”

 

[Colgate]

I am far from being a philosopher.

My position on the existence of God, and whether it can be proven or not, is this;

We know the Universe did not just exist eternally, it was created in what we know as the Big Bang.

→ So before that, nothingness that we cannot even imagine was the rule of the day.

→ And from this nothing, something was created.

→ What can possibly be responsible for this act of creation? Clearly, a being of omnipotent power. That’s God for me.

 

[joebarrett]

To speak of “assumptions you are willing to make” evades the point that proof is based on previous elements. Proofs are not based upon what you will them to be but upon what they are.
To put your proposal correctly; No proof or demonstration can be made at all unless based upon previous proofs or demonstrations. Where you go wrong is in inserting the notion of possible exceptions, like “practically” every proof.
You make your base relative and conclude with a relative statment; and that is no proof at all.
Cheers,
Joe Barrett

“Can God be Proven?” is an interesting question.

Practically every ‘proof’ that I have been taught has, at its base, assumptions that must be accepted as true, before the proof can be accepted. I would venture to say then, depending on the assumptions you are willing to make, the answer is ‘yes’; and ‘no’.

Why do we use ‘proof’ anyway? Because it is one manner of ‘knowing’ what is true, what is ‘real’. Is it the only manner? I suggest not.

The more important question is perhaps “Can God be Known?” If God can be proven, that would be ONE WAY of knowing Him. But certainly not the ONLY WAY. Try proving your parents exist. To do so, I suggest that you must make at least one assumption, and quite possibly many. But, does it really matter? Who really feels compelled to prove their parents exist? If you KNOW them to be real, isn’t that the fundamental issue?

I have had many discussions with otherwise very reasonable and intelligent ‘God believers’, atheists, and agnostics. What separates the ‘God believers’ and atheists from the agnostics, is that they compel themselves into a ‘belief’ in something. The agnostics insist on no ‘faith’, no assumptions, with respect to the existence of a god. “‘Facts’ alone, please. Until the ‘facts’ have been proven, no determination will be issued.”

Atheism, however, is a belief structure. In the absence of absolute proof as to the existence (or not) of God, athiests have chosen a position. That is a very real faith. I have found that athiests will stick with their ‘faith’ at least as staunchly and emotionally as those that believe in God cling to theirs, even as they accept that the existence of God is impossible to disprove.

For those of us who have a stated position as to the existence of God (for or against), what causes us to decide what faith to cling to? To the extent that we can, we all wish to shape the world that is around us. A world in which we have no control is a very scary place.

Where we cannot make choices (e.g. shall I travel today at faster than the speed of light, or not), we have learned to (grudgingly, perhaps) accept what we have found to be true. Where we can make choices (do I have the steak, or the sushi) we generally will grab the opportunity to exercise our liberty, to ‘do what we want.’

Morality is all about making choices. When one does not want to be constrained as to the choices that they may make, he must neutralize anything that seeks to constrain. If one wants to be the ultimate authority on what they will do, i.e. what is ‘right’ for them, then a belief in God becomes a potential barrier. “What if God and I disagree on what is ‘right’, on what I will ultimately do?”

For those that refuse to submit to a higher moral authority than themselves, the existance of God cannot be accepted.

Dan Grelinger

 

[1holycatholic]

I teach philosophy and have to tell you that nobody has ever successfully debunked any of Aquinas’s five proofs of God, although it has become fashionable among the confuted to pretend to find them absurd.

Every supposed refutation that I’ve seen of the quinque viae relies upon a misrepresentation or misunderstanding of the arguments.

 

[Dan_Grelinger]

To speak of “assumptions you are willing to make” evades the point that proof is based on previous elements. Proofs are not based upon what you will them to be but upon what they are.
To put your proposal correctly; No proof or demonstration can be made at all unless based upon previous proofs or demonstrations. Where you go wrong is in inserting the notion of possible exceptions, like “practically” every proof.
You make your base relative and conclude with a relative statment; and that is no proof at all.
Cheers,
Joe Barrett

Yes, I likely mispoke when I said ‘practically’ every proof. I do not know of any exceptions; that insertion was driven by a fear of being absolute, when I had not spent time to really know or determine.

I’m not yet sold however, on your premise that no proof or demonstration can be made unless based upon previous proofs or demonstrations. That would imply that all proofs involve circular reasoning, would it not? Or that supporting proofs and demonstrations are infinite, i.e. you reach no ‘first proof’, which would seem to mean that there is no proof comprehenable by man, in his finiteness. In the few proofs that I have been taught, there always were assumptions that had to be made, ‘accepted as true’, the givens. It was only upon those that the proof could then be built.

I don’t think I was being evasive. Perhaps what I call ‘assumptions’ are just members of the set of ‘previous elements’ to which you refer.

Back to my core suggestion… I don’t believe that God has ever suggested that we could ever ‘prove’ that He exists. In fact, there seems to be much within our teachings that tell us such efforts are folly. What we are told, is to ‘know’ God. From my days of preparing for my First Communion, I was taught that God created us, first to know Him.

It is certainly possible (and infinitely more possible) to know without being able to prove.

Dan Grelinger

 

[1holycatholic]

I don’t believe that God has ever suggested that we could ever ‘prove’ that He exists. In fact, there seems to be much within our teachings that tell us such efforts are folly. What we are told, is to ‘know’ God. From my days of preparing for my First Communion, I was taught that God created us, first to know Him.

The Catechism states that God can be known with certainty by human reason.

There are plenty of proofs for God. Peter Kreeft has a nice summary online:

Can You Prove God Exists?
“God exists, we can know that, we can give reasons, and those reasons amount to proof, but not scientific proof, except in an unusually broad sense.”

 

[Dan_Grelinger]

The Catechism states that God can be known with certainty by human reason.

There are plenty of proofs for God. Peter Kreeft has a nice summary online:

Can You Prove God Exists?
“God exists, we can know that, we can give reasons, and those reasons amount to proof, but not scientific proof, except in an unusually broad sense.”

I think we are in agreement, as long as you do not equate ‘knowing’ with ‘proving’. I consider those two things as very different.

Yes, we can ‘know’ God with certainty by human reason. God also wills us to know him. However, the concept of a ‘proof’ is much different. I can know so much more than I can prove.

I am not familiar with Peter Kreeft, but by his quote, he has at least two separate definitions of ‘proof’. In this thread, I believe the one that most are assuming is what he calls ‘scientific proof’.

Dan Grelinger

 

[1holycatholic]

I think we are in agreement, as long as you do not equate ‘knowing’ with ‘proving’. I consider those two things as very different.

Yes, we can ‘know’ God with certainty by human reason. God also wills us to know him. However, the concept of a ‘proof’ is much different. I can know so much more than I can prove.

I am not familiar with Peter Kreeft, but by his quote, he has at least two separate definitions of ‘proof’. In this thread, I believe the one that most are assuming is what he calls ‘scientific proof’.

Dan Grelinger

In the linked article Dr. Kreeft discusses different kinds of proof, and, as he states God can be proven. On the other hand demanding a proof for God by the scientific method is scientism and it reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of metaphysics and of science on the part of those demanding such proofs.

 

[Biff_Hooper]

Greeting all,

With regard our present ability to demonstrate God’s existence, I believe the Catechism uses the phrase “clear and converging arguments,” or something like it. Just in terms of rational arguments I see it this way: a priori arguments—> God Exists<---------- a posteriori arguments.

In this day an age I see progress from both directions. The new and improved (modal) ontological argument is still in play. Empirical-based arguments, such as the argument from design, have been given a boost by scientific discoveries.

So I think we see theism gaining more and more warrant as time goes on.

But finding incontrovertible proof is still an elusive goal. We still need faith.

We perhaps come closest to definitive proof with the modal ontological argument which I formulate this way:

1. The definition “God is the Greatest Conceivable Being” makes sense.
2. There two modes of existing, contingently or necessarily.
3. Only necessary existence is compatible with greatness.
4. Therefore, God necessarily exists.

Framed this way, it is clear that there only two choices: God exists necessarily or the very idea of God is nonsense. Charles Hartshorne calls this insight from St. Anselm a great discovery because it clears a lot of ground in the debate. If we have the right idea about God, some arguments become nonsensical. For example, both empirical atheism and empirical atheism, premised as they are on the idea that God’s existence could be proved or disproved by some contingent emprical fact, turn out to be confused.

God bless you all!

Biff Hooper

 

[alforo]

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.

Aquinas ‘proofs’ are not considered valid because he is a saint. At the time he fashioned them he was not a saint. The ‘proofs’ are a philosophical attempt to help the intellect understand revelation. Jesus Christ came to reveal to us that which our intellect was not able to discover on it’s own… Thus you must either accept what was revealed on it’s own or reject it outright. There is no ‘proof’ scientific or otherwise for that which was revealed. Revelation must be accepted, if it is to be accepted at all, on faith alone and not on any proof(s) to validate it.

Most people who reject Aquinas’ proofs reject them outright without ever explaining what it is specifically about them that they find in error. For example, tell us exactly what you find unacceptable about the concept of first cause. Which is “that which moves is moved by another”. ‘Movement’ in Scholastic language means ‘change’. What do you find unaceptable about that?

Either you accept change in things, which is obvious according to our experience or you deny change, which is absurd. What is the difficulty that a change relies on causation as is used in one of the 5 proofs?

 

[Biff_Hooper]

corrected last paragraph of my last post:

Framed this way, it is clear that there only two choices: God exists necessarily or the very idea of God is nonsense. Charles Hartshorne calls this insight from St. Anselm a great discovery because it clears a lot of ground in the debate. If we have the right idea about God, some arguments become nonsensical. For example, both empirical theism and empirical atheism, premised as they are on the idea that God’s existence could be proved or disproved by some contingent emprical fact, turn out to be confused.

 

[James_S_Saint]

1. The definition “God is the Greatest Conceivable Being” makes sense.

Emm… “makes sense”?? How so?

Firstly, the idea of “greatest” would require some reference. What constitutes greatness? Why exactly, is a tree not the greatest existence? What makes one thing greater than another? It seems just a relative term for anyone to determine to their own satisfaction. What is great to one would be not so great to another. Everyone has their own God???

Secondly, the greatest “conceivable being” does not necessarily exist and I would suspect that most people would think that it necessarily didn’t as anything more than a dream goal or fantasy. I can conceive of the greatest conceivable automobile, but does not that mean it actually exists or ever will?

1. There two modes of existing, contingently or necessarily.

That leaves out “potentially”. Theology is filled to the brim with the “potential”.

1. Only necessary existence is compatible with greatness.

I have to take it that by “necessary” he means “logically necessary”, but is logic necessary?

1. Therefore, God necessarily exists.

So the conclusion is that because logic dictates that the greatest conceivable being must exist and God is what we call that being, then God exists.

But where is the logic that dictates that the “greatest conceivable being” exists at all?