Can God be Proven?

[1holycatholic]

This argument presupposes that there had to be a previous mover. Aquinas asserts that regression is the way of the universe and uses that assertion to claim that there must be a prime, uncaused mover at the beginning.

He states that ***BECAUSE ***there would be no “first mover”, this cannot go on to infinity. He is axiomatically accepting that a first mover must exist and then concluding that infinite regression could not be possible due to the FACT that there is a “first mover”.

He is not proving that there IS a first mover. He is assuming that there is. That is where the fault lies. He has assumed his conclusion.

Or do I need to explain that “infinite repression” means that there IS NO “First Mover”?

Aquinas states is that without a mover there is no motion from potential to actual. A thing can’t be be both potential and actual in the same respect. A thing can’t move itself from potential to actual, motion necessarily comes from another. By logical necessity a chain of movers must have a first mover. It matters not one bit if the chain contains one or an infinite number of elements, if there is no first mover there is no subsequent motion. Q.E.D.

Bad comes to those who are stubborn.

No, bad comes from those who can’t defend their arguments.

 

[1holycatholic]

Oops… meant to say, "“infinite regression” not "“infinite repression”

Help! Help! I’m being repressed!

 

[Colgate]

James S Saint/

Correct me if I am wrong, but am I right in thinking that your refutation of St. Aquinas depends on your understanding that the Universe is eternal and had no beginning? (and therefore no prime mover, etc etc?)

But we know the Universe had a beginning, or at least we are fairly certain about it. In a fruitful combination of science and religion, the Catholic priest (and scientist) Lemaitre proposed the Big Bang theory in the 1920s.

The whole thing about the Big Bang theory is that the existence had a finite lifetime and that before it began, there was no matter, no time, no space. So wouldn’t this actually support the argument for a prime mover?

 

[James_S_Saint]

Correct me if I am wrong, but am I right in thinking that your refutation of St. Aquinas depends on your understanding that the Universe is eternal and had no beginning? (and therefore no prime mover, etc etc?)

But we know the Universe had a beginning, or at least we are fairly certain about it. In a fruitful combination of science and religion, the Catholic priest (and scientist) Lemaitre proposed the Big Bang theory in the 1920s.

The whole thing about the Big Bang theory is that the existence had a finite lifetime and that before it began, there was no matter, no time, no space. So wouldn’t this actually support the argument for a prime mover?

My only point is that Aquinas proposed no proof (or even evidence) of the impossibility of infinite reGression and thus he actually didn’t prove God.

In addition but separately, I happen to know that infinite regression is the real case. Science has not come anywhere close to providing evidence to the contrary. The Big Bang concern does not actually propose a beginning to the universe. This was mere speculation that sounded really great for those who wanted to believe it. Not only do the equations that Einstein was using NOT lead to the speculated singularity (an impossibility in itself), but even if they did, it would still not mean that such a singularity was the beginning, but merely A beginning to A bang.

The universe DID NOT begin. I have provided the logic as to how you can know this yourself. It involves logical metaphysics that is outside the normal thinking of a physicist who is immersed in practical math.

The far more real picture would be of that Bang coming from one or more extremely large objects (probably black holes) that collided and/or exploded resulting in a spreading of what we now see as “the universe” in an entropy cycle after such a huge collection.

The logically necessary future from that entropy stage will be another gathering into yet another Bang and another of something similar to what we see now as “the universe” again spreading through an entropy state.

The good news is that this cycle is not likely to continue forever in the same location, but with each cycle, something remains un-dissolved by entropy and adds to what wasn’t destroyed by the last and the next. Eventually the entire entropy-gathering cycle can be harnessed into an orbiting arrangement that no longer cycles in its entirety.

Such a state of the universe would necessarily continue eternally as at a far distance the same cycling picked up for yet another creating of another stable universe ad infinitum. It is as though the infinite space is filling with specs of sand (the universes) eternally or perhaps until some extreme time when many of the universes gather into another SUPER Bang and starts it all over again. But even that might be subject to growing and eventually not happening any longer as well.

 

[1holycatholic]

My only point is that Aquinas proposed no proof (or even evidence) of the impossibility of infinite reGression and thus he actually didn’t prove God.

Aquinas states that a prime mover, first efficient cause etc. is logical necessary even if the chain is infinitely long.

You can set up your dominoes in any size array that you like, you still need the prime mover (first efficient cause etc…) An infinitely large set is not immune from this logical necessity. You’re claiming that you can prove the existence of actual infinities. Since a first cause (prime mover…) is logically necessary, if your claim is that actual infinities exist then what is the first element in an existent actual infinite set?

 

[James_S_Saint]

Aquinas states that a prime mover, first efficient cause etc. is logical necessary even if the chain is infinitely long.

You can set up your dominoes in any size array that you like, you still need the prime mover (first efficient cause etc…) An infinitely large set is not immune from this logical necessity. You’re claiming that you can prove the existence of actual infinities. Since a first cause (prime mover…) is logically necessary, if your claim is that actual infinities exist then what is the first element in an existent actual infinite set?

An actual infinite time line has no beginning, nor does it need one. That is what “infinite” means - no beginning and no end. It is only your imagination telling you that it had to have a beginning. But since you do not believe that, put a proof together for it. Don’t just keep stating it. Prove it logically. It doesn’t matter how obviously flat the Earth looks to people. It is only what it really is.

 

[alforo]

Iholycatolic January 15, 2007 hit it right on!. Cause is required to explain change or movement. Since beings change, cause must exist because that which moves can only be moved by another. Otherwise that which is non being is the cause of being. This is an absurdity. It can’t be otherwise without denying the principle of noncontradiction. A first cause cannot be obtained from an infinite regress of causes. It is an impossibility. Thus, in order to explain movement, a cause is required.

Furthermore, Aquinas did not begin with a preconceived notion of God and then proceeded to fashion his proofs thereafter. His analysis arguing for a first cause concluded with the necessity of a first cause. And this he called God. He did not begin with a preconcieved notion of God and then proceeded to demonstrate the necessity of a first cause as a result as so many erroneosly claim to be the case.

Carefully note also that to begin with the concept of being and the princples of noncontradiction and sufficient reason is not to argue from unproven prior principles. It is these principles that are the beginning of any logical demonstration. They are self evident and cannot be proven. To refute or dismiss them is to commit yourself to total silence.

I woold like to end by paraphrasing something Dan Gerlinger said in an earlier comment. “The existence of God cannot be accepted by those who refuse to submit to a higher moral (I would substitute the word ‘theological’) authority”. That would be extreme arrogance, heretical, unchristian, and typical of today’s “I make my own rules” mentality.

 

[1holycatholic]

An antual infinity has no beginning, nor does it need one. That is what “infinite” means - no beginning and no end. It is only your imagination telling you that it had to have a beginning. But since you do not believe that, put a proof together for it. Don’t just keep stating it. Prove it logically. It doesn’t matter how obviously flat the Earth looks to people. It is only what it really is.

(Let’s limit the infinite regress argument to causality for brevity’s sake. There’s no point in repeatedly typing out each argument to which this is applicable to.)

The definition of infinity not the point. Even if an actual infinite chain existed in reality it would necessarily require a first cause otherwise there would be no intermediate effect and no final effect.

You claim that at least one actual infinity exists in reality. Please explain what this actual infinity is. You claim to have knowledge known by no other human being.

Cause is sine qua non for effect. Any causal chain requires a first efficient cause otherwise there will be no effect. What is the first efficient cause in an actually infinite causal chain (which you have yet to prove exists in reality.)?

 

[James_S_Saint]

Cause is required to explain change or movement. Since beings change, cause must exist because that which moves can only be moved by another. Otherwise that which is non being is the cause of being. This is an absurdity. It can’t be otherwise without denying the principle of noncontradiction.

None of that is in question.

A first cause cannot be obtained from an infinite regress of causes. It is an impossibility.

And That is not in question either.

Thus, in order to explain movement, a cause is required.

And not even that.

His analysis arguing for a first cause concluded with the necessity of a first cause. And this he called God.

But right there is the problem. He concluded with the necessity for a “first cause” (i.e God). But look at his logic for that conclusion;

***BECAUSE ***there would be no “first mover”, this cannot go on to infinity.

Read it in the order he says it.

He states it clearly that the ONLY reason there can be no infinity is BECAUSE there would be no first mover (his presumption that there must be one). He uses the premise that there MUST be a first mover in order to declare that there can be no infinity.

That means that he DID assume there must be a first mover, because he never provided any proof that there HAD to be one before he concluded that an infinite time line could not have been the case DUE TO having to have a first mover.

 

[James_S_Saint]

Even if an actual infinite chain existed in reality it would necessarily require a first cause otherwise there would be no intermediate effect and no final effect.

Stop right there. THAT is a false claim. Prove that is true and I will submit to Aquinas’ 1st proof.

It is EXACTLY the same as saying OBVIOUSLY the Earth is flat, else everyone would fall off! Floating in Space??? WHAT could *POSSIBLY *hold up the Earth from the nothingness in space??

 

[Nan_S]

The universe DID NOT begin. I have provided the logic as to how you can know this yourself. It involves logical metaphysics that is outside the normal thinking of a physicist who is immersed in practical math.

Your logic makes sense to you. But as I have said before, your interpretation of logical metaphysics is limited by the ability of your personal fallible human mind to grasp these concepts. We all have limits in our ability to understand; we err when we come to conclusions in isolation and do not admit the possibility that our individual interpretations may be flawed.

I offer you two scripture verses, which I imagine you will probably dismiss with self-affirming alternative explanations, but here they are anyway. The literal reading of the Greek in both is “before eternal times”:

Titus 1:1-4 Paul, a slave of God and apostle of Jesus Christ for the sake of the faith of God’s chosen ones and the recognition of religious truth, in the hope of eternal life that God, who does not lie, promised before time began, who indeed at the proper time revealed his word in the proclamation with which I was entrusted by the command of God our savior, to Titus, my true child in our common faith: grace and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our savior.

2 Timothy 1:9-10 He saved us and called us to a holy life, not according to our works but according to his own design and the grace bestowed on us in Christ Jesus before time began, but now made manifest through the appearance of our savior Christ Jesus, who destroyed death and brought life and immortality to light through the gospel.

There is an illustration normally used when determining whether someone has an optomistic or pessimistic point of view. Put water in a glass to the halfway point, and ask whether the glass is half-full or half-empty.

But there is a different way of looking at this illustration: the glass is too large.

I suggest to you that when you visualize an eternally existing universe upon which your god is codependent, your god is too small.

Theopholis of Antioch, writing in a work called “To Autolycus” in AD 181, had this to say:

"Plato and those of his school do indeed acknowledge that God is unbegotten, and that He is the Father and Creator of all things; but then they posit that matter as well as God is uncreated, and maintain that matter is coeval with God. But if God is uncreated and matter is uncreated, then, according to the Platonists God is no longer the Creator of all things; nor, insofar as their opinion holds, is the monarchy of God established.
“Furthermore, inasmuch as God is uncreated, He is also unchangeable; so also, if matter were uncreated, it would be unchangeable and equal to God; for that which is created is alterable and changeable, while that which is uncreated is unalterable and unchangeable. And what great thing were it, if God made the world out of existing matter? Even a human artist, when he obtains material from someone, makes of it whatever he pleases. But the power of God is made evident in this, that He makes out of what does not exist whatever He pleases; and the giving of life and movement belongs to none other, but to God alone.”

There are plenty of other citations I can quote from the Early Church Fathers which make the same point. God is greater than the universe. God created the universe out of nothing, and is not codependent upon any eternally existing thing, not even time itself.

So what we have here is NOT any high-level “logical metaphysics” after all. The theories you propose are merely a repackaging of Plato and other pre-Christian philosophy. This Platonic metaphysics was aligned with Greek mythology, in which an eternally existing universe known as Chaos spawned its absolute opposite, a primal creator-god who organized it and spawned a pantheon of god-descendants.

Your logical metaphysics has already been challenged and found fatally flawed by such minds as Aristides of Athens, Justin Martyr, Tatian the Syrian, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Hippolytus of Rome, Origen, Lactantius, Athanasius, and others. I can quote them all if you like. Their statements on God and creation are in agreement. God created everything out of nothing.

Any god who is deemed to be dependent upon and create out of eternally co-existing matter is something less than the One Supreme Omnipotent God we know. Your god is too small.

 

[James_S_Saint]

Your logic makes sense to you. But as I have said before, your interpretation of logical metaphysics is limited by the ability of your personal fallible human mind to grasp these concepts. We all have limits in our ability to understand; we err when we come to conclusions in isolation and do not admit the possibility that our individual interpretations may be flawed.

I offer you two scripture verses, which I imagine you will probably dismiss with self-affirming alternative explanations, but here they are anyway. The literal reading of the Greek in both is “before eternal times”:

Rather than try to get me to see Your reasoning, which is largely based on faith, how about start from my reasoning and show me where I went wrong? You can start with the Time - for an IQ test.

ANY time you are trying to converse with someone, you must start from where THEY are, speak in THEIR language, and proceed from there, else you put the load on them to find you and your thought, verify your axioms, and then follow your new train of thought in their new doubt. On the other hand, if you are trying to convey something TO them and begin with THEIR axioms, you can go step by step to see what they have already accepted and take it from there. The Bible, I think Paul, tells you to do just that.

 

[Nan_S]

The far more real picture would be of that Bang coming from one or more extremely large objects (probably black holes) that collided and/or exploded resulting in a spreading of what we now see as “the universe” in an entropy cycle after such a huge collection.

The logically necessary future from that entropy stage will be another gathering into yet another Bang and another of something similar to what we see now as “the universe” again spreading through an entropy state.

Now you’re getting into pure theoretical speculation. The problem with your theory - eternal expansion-contraction-expansion ad nauseum - is that your have absolutely NO evidence of any contraction cycle, or any contraction force, or expansion boundary, or even tendency towards contraction. This yo-yo theory makes for nice speculation over glasses of brandy with Stephen Hawking, but in truth there is no more evidence for it than there is for string theory or multi-dimensional parallel universes. Theoretical metaphysics is so convenient, isn’t it?

As the Hubble space telescope can now peer at ever more distant objects with previously unachieved clarity, your expansion-contraction-expansion theory becomes even more groundless. The best evidence that astronomy is able to find shows that not only is the universe expanding without constraint, the rate of expansion is also increasing without constraint. THAT is the “far more real picture.”

Yet even if there was a shred of evidence for the yo-yo expansion-contraction theory, all you would have proven is that boundaries exist which we could not peer beyond in the current cycle. There still remains the unanswered question of “where did it all come from in the first place?”

You can hang onto your affinity for ancient Greek philosophy. I’ll stick with the Omnipotent God.

 

[James_S_Saint]

Now you’re getting into pure theoretical speculation. The problem with your theory - eternal expansion-contraction-expansion ad nauseum - is that your have absolutely NO evidence of any contraction cycle, or any contraction force, or expansion boundary, or even tendency towards contraction.

It is ALL theory. Everything of the past is theory. But don’t think that I “have no evidence”, quite the contrary. The most significant evidence is simple mass attraction that Einstein originally thought to be so great as to not allow the universe to expand beyond a certain point. But in addition to that is the electric effect that is seldom spoken of in the general public yet is a far greater force than mass attraction. But in the case of the universe being at a maximum entropy state where all energy has spread as far out as it can get, mass attraction becomes a great force in pulling it all back together because there is no longer anything pushing it outward or causing it to fall apart any more (the entropy). There is nothing to STOP mass attraction any more even if it were only a tiny force. The smaller the mass attraction, the longer it would take for things to begin to be attracted again.

But thus far, I have not gotten into where all of that “stuff” came from to begin with. You, as many, have assumed that it all began collected up in one spot and the universe has been formed by it spreading. But how did it get into that one spot? You are happy thinking in terms of God just putting it there. But the problem is that God doesn’t work that way. The God that magically places a universe into space from no where is only a fantasy God. The real God, the one of the Hebrews, doesn’t DO that.

 

[Nan_S]

Rather than try to get me to see Your reasoning, which is largely based on faith, how about start from my reasoning and show me where I went wrong? You can start with the Time - for an IQ test.

ANY time you are trying to converse with someone, you must start from where THEY are, speak in THEIR language, and proceed from there, else you put the load on them to find you and your thought, verify your axioms, and then follow your new train of thought. On the other hand, if you are trying to convey something TO them and begin with THEIR axioms, you can go step by step to see what they have already accepted and take it from there. The Bible, I think Paul, tells you to do just that.

What you have just said, in a nutshell, is that you don’t know how to rebut the philosophical conclusions of the Early Church Fathers when they state, in agreement with other, that a god which is dependent upon any other eternally co-existing thing is no real god at all.

I have read that thread. Where you went wrong was in taking ancient Greek philosophy, which was conceived in harmony with a pantheon of gods, subtracted the offspring-gods, and then tried to apply your theory to the One Omnipotent God.

You may find your theories have some acceptance with the Mormons. They believe in eternal regression.

 

[James_S_Saint]

What you have just said, in a nutshell, is that you don’t know how to rebut the philosophical conclusions of the Early Church Fathers when they state, in agreement with other, that a god which is dependent upon any other eternally co-existing thing is no real god at all.

I have read that thread. Where you went wrong was in taking ancient Greek philosophy, which was conceived in harmony with a pantheon of gods, subtracted the offspring-gods, and then tried to apply your theory to the One Omnipotent God.

You may find your theories have some acceptance with the Mormons. They believe in eternal regression.

Your PRESUMPTIONS of what I said are WRONG (and a bit offensive). Now how about actually pointing to the actual error in the reasoning. YOUR reasoning is merely that those other people CAN’T be wrong so this other guy MUST be wrong. The problem is that neither I nor those other people are wrong, but rather YOU, in your misunderstanding of what has been said by both, are wrong. But start with me since I can explain what I have said. They cannot.

 

[Nan_S]

But thus far, I have not gotten into where all of that “stuff” came from to begin with. You, as many, have assumed that it all began collected up in one spot and the universe has been formed by it spreading. But how did it get into that one spot? You are happy thinking in terms of God just putting it there. But the problem is that God doesn’t work that way. The God that magically places a universe into space from no where is only a fantasy God. The real God, the one of the Hebrews, doesn’t DO that.

Not so. You have misinterpreted. Have you not heard the ancient Jewish summons, the first of all commandments? “Hear o Israel, the Lord our God: The Lord is One.”

Tertullian, Against Hermogenes (a Gnostic of Carthage), AD 200-206:
"Whatever special property God has, it must necessarily be unique, so that it can belong to Him who is One. But what can be unique and singular except that to which nothing can be equated? What can be principal, if not that which is above all, if not that which is before all and from which all things are? It is by being the sole possessor of these qualities that He is God; and by being the sole possessor that He is One. And if another would have them, then there will be as many gods as there are beings who possess the qualities proper to God. It is thus that Hermogenes implies two gods: he introduces matter as equal to God. God, however, must be One, because that which is supreme is God; but nothing can be supreme except that which is unique; but nothing can be unique if something else can be made its equal.

"Matter, however, will be made equal to God, if it can be reckoned as eternal. What a grand benefit matter conferred upon God, that today He should have something whereby He can be known as God and be called the Almighty - except that He is no longer almighty, if He was not able to do this also: to make all things out of nothing.

“This rule, that all things were created out of nothing, is upheld by the fact of God’s being unique. He is the unique God for this reason alone, that He is the sole God; and he is the sole God for this reason alone, that nothing existed along with Him. So too, He must be the first, because all else is after Him. All else is after Him because all else is from Him - and from Him because they are created out of nothing. The account of scripture, then, is correct: ‘Who has known the mind of the Lord? or who has been His counsellor? or whom has He consulted? or who showed Him the way of wisdom and knowledge? who gave, and recompense will made to him?’”

Your co-dependent god from Greek philosophy is small and weak. The all-powerful One God whom the Hebrews worshipped was not dependent upon anything.

 

[James_S_Saint]

"Matter, however, will be made equal to God, if it can be reckoned as eternal.

That is a false assertion unless you believe that the only unique thing about God is eternalness. If so, you have a weak God indeed.

Your co-dependent god from Greek philosophy is small and weak. The all-powerful One God whom the Hebrews worshipped was not dependent upon anything.

I would appreciate if you would stop lying about “my god” in your attempt at degrading what I am saying and claiming God to be a mere “Greek god”.

I have said almost nothing of God. I am talking merely about one of God’s creations. YOU seem to think that God is so meek that if anything is made eternal, as God Himself has already proclaimed to have done, then God is Himself challenged to equality.

You degrade God considerably. And since you seem to not be interested in actual reasoning of either my Aquinas objection nor my proposed reasoning that time must indeed be eternal, but rather prefer mere demeaning attempts (as FAR too many Catholics seem to be tempted into), I don’t think I am interested in further discussion with you on this matter.

 

[Nan_S]

Your PRESUMPTIONS of what I said are WRONG (and a bit offensive). Now how about actually pointing to the actual error in the reasoning. YOUR reasoning is merely that those other people CAN’T be wrong so this other guy MUST be wrong. The problem is that neither I nor those other people are wrong, but rather YOU, in your misunderstanding of what has been said by both, are wrong. But start with me since I can explain what I have said. They cannot.

When we have two diametrically opposed positions, they can’t both be right. Either you are wrong, or several centuries of the most brilliant minds of Christianity are wrong. Your ideas are rooted rather heavily in ancient Greek thought. If you’d like to explore the teachings of the Early Church Fathers for yourself, free of interpretive commentary, here’s a good source:

The Faith of the Early Fathers: amazon.com/Faith-Early-Fathers-Three-Set/dp/0814610250/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1265010444&sr=1-1

You weren’t the first person to advance the theory of a god dependent upon eternally existing matter, whom the Greeks worshipped. Over the course of several centuries the Early Church Fathers directly addressed such metaphysical ideas, more than once, and strongly rebutted them. There is no misunderstanding here, except that which might be created by what appears to be an emotional attempt to obfuscate the discussion with name-calling. Given the late hour, I’ll write that off by saying you’re probably a bit tired.

YOU seem to think that God is so meek that if anything is made eternal, as God Himself has already proclaimed to have done, then God is Himself challenged to equality.

You degrade God considerably. And since you seem to not be interested in actual reasoning of either my Aquinas objection nor my proposed reasoning that time must indeed be eternal, but rather prefer mere demeaning attempts (as FAR too many Catholics seem to be tempted into), I don’t think I am interested in further discussion with you on this matter.

Your argument is not with me, but with the statements made by some of the greatest minds in Christianity. There is nothing weak nor degrading about realizing that God is supreme over everything else, time included. Quite the opposite.

I have given you direct quotes of the Early Church Fathers (Note the color-shift I use when giving the quotes.) That is not a “demeaning attempt” on my part. Get the books and read them for yourself.

I have pointed to the error in your reasoning. Any less-than-omnipotent co-dependent god is too small and weak to be the Almighty, Unique, One God whom the Hebrews worshipped and the Christians and Jews worship today. It does not surprise me that you resist the idea; I understand the struggle most people have with any significant shift in viewpoint. However, so long as you are working to learn and apply His teachings, so be it.

1 Corinthians 13:9-10, 12 For we know partially and we prophesy partially, but when the perfect comes, the partial will pass away… At present we see indistinctly, as in a mirror, but then face to face. At present I know partially; then I shall know fully, as I am fully known.

 

[1holycatholic]

Rather than try to get me to see Your reasoning, which is largely based on faith, how about start from my reasoning and show me where I went wrong? You can start with the Time - for an IQ test.

That fact that actual infinities don’t exist in reality obliterates your objection, even though your objection is completely irrelevant regarding Aquinas’ argument.

A causal chain, even an infinite one, does not require the passage of time. It does require a first cause.