Can God be Proven?

[Biff_Hooper]

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.

Hi Sugar,
Actually Gaunilo didn’t disprove Anselm. There were two arguments in Anselm’s Proslogion, and the modal version of the argument found in Prosl. III wasn’t addressed by Gaunilo and, as far as I am concerned, still stands.

Biff

 

[Nan_S]

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.

'scuse me? “despise and hateful disagreement?” “worship what they read?”

Even though I said that metaphysics was a human philosophy subject to serious error, I certainly was not rude or nasty to you. I can’t imagine why you would be nasty to me, unless it was because you had no better answer.

It is and always has been the clear and consistent teaching of the Catholic Church that God created the universe. He didn’t just organize the matter within it. He created it. God alone is eternal. The universe is not eternal.

Catechism of the Catholic Church
317 God alone created the universe freely, directly, and without any help.

I’m sorry that clashes with your personal interpretation of “serious metaphysics”, but your disagreement is is not with me. It is with 2,000 years of consistent Catholic metaphysics, contemplation, and scholarship.

 

[James_S_Saint]

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?

Another example, still limited, would be that of gravity and orbits. Both gravity and orbiting have been around forever, but which is dependent on which? Does an orbiting planet cause mass attraction, or does the mass attraction cause the orbiting of the planet?

Mass attraction is the “higher principle” or “more fundamental principle”. The orbiting of planets is the result of there being mass attraction along with proper velocity. Similarly, God is the higher principle to all else that is going on and thus is not dependent upon what else is happening, but rather is the cause of it happening the way it happens.

Does that clear the cloud any?

 

[grace_singh]

well, we can come to an intellectual and logical understanding that there is a fundemental, unifying Something behind the universe, from which the created world likely origined or extends…

this is basically the conclusion of Plato, Lao Tzu, and many other intelligent and thoughtful men over the centuries.

God became knowable to all as Someone, through and as His Son, Christ. He sent Himself from Himself to take on flesh, live with us, teach us, rebuke us, warn us, give Himself for us on the cross, and rise again, opening up the Way of salvation and grace through Himself.

we can logically talk about and even prove the existence of that Something, but it is when that “Something” becomes known as “Someone” that one has real understanding, peace, and rest. ideas, in and of themselves, can not satisfy us.

 

[James_S_Saint]

we can logically talk about and even prove the existence of that Something, but it is when that “Something” becomes known as “Someone” that one has real understanding, peace, and rest. ideas, in and of themselves, can not satisfy us.

I agree. But when merging the Western mindset of material existence with the ancient Hebrew understanding of God, it is best to first speak of the “something” and get those understandings agreed upon before we get into how and why that “something” is actually a “someone”. Life itself is a “something” that we refer to as a “someone” once it we give it particulars. Even a human is a “something” until we speak of a particular “someone”.

 

[fragileswan]

What was Truth is Truth now, and it always will be Truth. Truth does not change. There is One Truth. Everything else is wrong. Truth is not relative to individual beliefs. Truth remains, regardless of whether or not anyone believes it. Even if no one believed Truth, Truth would remain Truth.

The testimony against Truth are the cold dry brittle bones of the dead, while Truth remains, forever. He opens, and no one can close. He closes, and no one can open. Truth yields Immortality and Absolute Power. Heaven and earth shall pass away. But Truth shall never pass away.

If you read a 1500 page book written by someone you had never met, how well would you really know the author? Could you prove the existence of The Author by reading his book? Now, what if The Author came to you, healed your broken heart, dried the tears from your eyes, and gave you sight?

And you beheld before your eyes beauty so breathtaking to behold, and innocence so pure, that you knew He was The Atonement Sacrifice to make you Immortal. And He joined with you intimately, revealing All Truth, Complete Understanding; and the derivative of these: Absolute Power?

And, suddenly, everything seemed to happen according to your own will. Whatever you dreamed of was given to you. You could ask for anything, and it would appear. And you were never afraid, and you were never sad. And you loved Him with The Love He gave to you.

This IS Truth.

 

[James_S_Saint]

What was Truth is Truth now, and it always will be Truth. Truth does not change. There is One Truth. Everything else is wrong. Truth is not relative to individual beliefs. Truth remains, regardless of whether or not anyone believes it. Even if no one believed Truth, Truth would remain Truth.

I agree. But is Truth itself and God identically the same “thing”? Some say yes, some say no. We can resolve that issue only if we are humble to Truth and not our preferences. In the long run, everyone would win, but fear (the Devil) warns otherwise.

 

[grace_singh]

We can resolve that issue only if we are humble to Truth and not our preferences.

brilliantly and deftly spoken.

but the true leap does come when you move from “Something” to “Someone”, and the unique claims of Christ, as recorded in Scripture.

that is the whole basis of the Christian faith, that the One True God became human, dwelt among us, and hence became personally knowable. that is when God moves from plausible and fascinating theory, to Someone knowable, holy, personal, and relational.

 

[James_S_Saint]

but the true leap does come when you move from “Something” to “Someone”, and the unique claims of Christ, as recorded in Scripture.

that is the whole basis of the Christian faith, that the One True God became human, dwelt among us, and hence became personally knowable. that is when God moves from plausible and fascinating theory, to Someone knowable, holy, personal, and relational.

My only problem with that and my concern for Christianity is that the road to understanding is a LONG road and requires more intellect than that of Judaism or Islam. Thus short beginning to end paragraphs don’t cut it. Many thoughts must be straightened out and built upon, one at a time over a much longer discussion if real and meaningful “Proof” is to be had (for those in doubt and who are humble and seriously want to know the real God).

 

[bridgeforsale]

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.

Their arguments aren’t any less laugh-out-loud ridiculous for those who have a decent academic foundation in philosophy.

 

[kooldood]

I do not believe that God can be proven by reason alone. There is a required leap of faith for anyone that wishes to believe in God. This does not mean that belief in God is unreasonable, but rather, that belief in God is allowed by reason but not mandated by it. So no, I do not believe that God can be proven by reason alone.

 

[James_S_Saint]

I do not believe that God can be proven by reason alone. There is a required leap of faith for anyone that wishes to believe in God. This does not mean that belief in God is unreasonable, but rather, that belief in God is allowed by reason but not mandated by it. So no, I do not believe that God can be proven by reason alone.

How do you explain those of us, as few as we are, who believe in God strictly by reason alone, never having had faith?

 

[bridgeforsale]

How do you explain those of us, as few as we are, who believe in God strictly by reason alone, never having had faith?

I’d say it can be quite reasonable to believe in some sort of transcendent consciousness (call it a god if you like); as long as you don’t say god is logically necessary (at least not based on outdated ideas like the “Five Ways”).

 

[James_S_Saint]

I’d say it can be quite reasonable to believe in some sort of transcendent consciousness (call it a god if you like); as long as you don’t say god is logically necessary (at least not based on outdated ideas like the “Five Ways”).

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

Your problem, like so many others, is merely not having a good definition of God.

The first time someone asked me if I believed in God, I couldn’t answer. I was an altruist and honest. I had to figure out what a god is first, then what The God must be. From that, it was a small step to knowing, not believing, but knowing that God was real enough. My next concern was what to do about it.

 

[bridgeforsale]

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

Your problem, like so many others, is merely not having a good definition of God.

Usually when someone starts out using language like “your problem is” their credibility nosedives (because such an assumptive presupposition is such terrible form; that it’s rare for someone with a real grasp of philosophy and logic to resort to it). Hopefully it was a fupa on your part.

The first time someone asked me if I believed in God, I couldn’t answer. I was an altruist and honest.

You were honest because you were an altruist?

I had to figure out what a god is first, then what The God must be. From that, it was a small step to knowing, not believing, but knowing that God was real enough. My next concern was what to do about it.

OK, then by all means, please elaborate?

 

[James_S_Saint]

Usually when someone starts out using language like “your problem is” their credibility nosedives (because such an assumptive presupposition is such terrible form; that it’s rare for someone with a real grasp of philosophy and logic to resort to it). Hopefully it was a fupa on your part.

Well actually I hesitated at that very phrase and thought about trying to reword it. I thought what forum we are on, what we are talking about, who I was talking to, and so on, then a little devil on my shoulder whispered, “ah go ahead. Just say it.”

You were honest because you were an altruist?

Don’t knock it 'til you’ve tried it. - Both

OK, then by all means, please elaborate?

Well if I do that, you will want me to PROVE that my definition is the one that YOU want to agree to. I have no intention of proving to you what you want.

What I concluded, by means that I will not go into, is that “a god” is something that has absolute authority over something and thus is the god of that something (like a god of war has authority over war). It is just a concept thing. But “The God”, by common and Scriptural usage, would refer to what/whoever has authority over ALL things. I then had to determine whether there is anything at all that has such authority. Being a logician, that didn’t take much.

But of course, you want whatever definitions you want for sake of your desires. What I meant by a “good” definition is one that actually fits the Scriptures most significantly and the educated religious as well. What the not so educated religious and the atheist accepts as a definition was a bit irrelevant to me.

 

[bridgeforsale]

Well actually I hesitated at that very phrase and thought about trying to reword it. I thought what forum we are on, what we are talking about, who I was talking to, and so on, then a little devil on my shoulder whispered, “ah go ahead. Just say it.”

Is that where the devil is? I keep wondering where’s this irresistible impulse to sin is that Christians keep telling me I should have all the time - but I guess the devil’s preoccupied with you eh (do me a favor, keep him preoccupied; according to Pat Robertson the people of Haiti will greatly thank you )

Don’t knock it 'til you’ve tried it. - Both

that’s what I keep saying about common sense (but you’d be amazed how hard it is to sell logic and reason to people)

Well if I do that, you will want me to PROVE that my definition is the one that YOU want to agree to. I have no intention of proving to you what you want.

Yeah, that’s what I was hoping for

What I concluded, by means that I will not go into, is that “a god” is something that has absolute authority over something and thus is the god of that something (like a god of war has authority over war). It is just a concept thing. But “The God”, by common and Scriptural usage, would refer to what/whoever has authority over ALL things. I then had to determine whether there is anything at all that has such authority.

Wow, impressive (did you think that up all by yourself)

Being a logician, that didn’t take much.

Yeah, logician alright

But of course, you want whatever definitions you want for sake of your desires.

Yes, I want my god to be a pancake

What I meant by a “good” definition is one that actually fits the Scriptures most significantly and the educated religious as well.

So then you’re a Christian for the same reason virtually all other Christians are Christian? Ummm, dude sometimes less is more (I’m talking about talking).

What the not so educated religious and the atheist accepts as a definition was a bit irrelevant to me.

whatever …

 

[James_S_Saint]

So then you’re a Christian for the same reason virtually all other Christians are Christian?

The Scriptures dictate what they are talking about more than anyone else whether they are right or not.

Ummm, dude sometimes less is more (I’m talking about talking).

The same holds true of defensiveness of your "dis"belief.

 

[ContegoFides]

The original question is “Can God Be Proven?”

The complex answer is “maybe, depends on what you mean by “proven.”” The simple answer is “yes.”

If you mean by “proven” you mean “positivistically (scientifically) proven,” then the answer is no. God cannot be measured. Therefore, God, if extant, is outside of the ability of science and positivistic reason to describe.

Not everything that exists can be positivistically measured, so the mere lack of a positivistic proof is insufficient to disprove the existence of God. For example, abstract concepts like we are discussing here exist, but they cannot be measured. (If they did not exist, we would not be talking about them.) So the question becomes, is there some rational argument that compels the existence of God?

So, if you mean by “proven” a rational argument or set of arguments that compels an affirmative answer, then “yes,” God’s existence can be proven.

I’ve seen a lot of vague references to Aquinas’ proofs and how they’re not convincing or even “laughable” - but no rationale why.

Let’s address just one: The proof of first cause. Everything has a cause. You were caused by your parents. You can keep going back and back until you reach the Big Bang. However, the Big Bang must have had a cause. Even the world’s leading physicist, an atheist himself, has said, “What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe?” Stephen Hawking

The only way to break the chain of causation is to arrive at a first point that is 1) unchanging, 2) capable of creation “ex nihilo” (from nothing) and 3) capable of creating a creation that itself can change. That first cause must be outside of time, for time itself had a beginning. And the chain of causation must be broken, because infinite causation is both meaningless and contrary to scientific observation (the Big Bang).

We call that first cause “God” by definition. Yes, you could call the first cause “gizmo” or “Zeus” if you want. However, humor me for a brief moment.

Jesus claimed to be God, explicitly. Scripture tells us that “in the beginning there was the Word” and that “the Word became flesh.” This passage refers directly to Jesus. Thus, scripture tells us that Jesus was “in the beginning” and, accordingly, we can derive that Jesus effectively claimed to be the first cause. A person claimed to be the first cause.

So, Jesus was one of 1) a liar, 2) a lunatic, or 3) actually God.

We can exclude liar and lunatic given His wisdom, genteless, self-sacrifice, the fact that He had nothing to gain, and the behavior of His clearly devoted followers (not the ones who screwed up and didn’t follow His teachings). We call them saints. We can also look to the endurance of His church despite the corruption of individuals up to and including popes, despite schizms, despite plagues, and everything else that has come at the Church in 2000 years.

Therefore, not only does God exist, but Jesus is God.

From here we can know a little bit more about the nature of God, because Jesus revealed some of His nature to us. We know that God is three persons in one entity - Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. We know God is Love. We know God is Just. We know God is merciful. We know that God created us, loves us, and will judge us based on our actions and our love for Him though his mercy.

I’ve been very brief of necessity. Because of this, there are gaps in the way I expressed the arguments, but these gaps can be filled.

Also, there are limits to reason. At a certain point faith must take over. For example, we are called to have a relationship with God, and reason can only help us a very little in this department. However, I can at least prove through rational argument that God exists and prove something about his nature.

The bottom line is that there is a Truth and, if so, the Truth can be ascertainable and put to the test. Jesus and His Church will meet any rational test. Of course, you can mock it, but you will find no other institution as inherently rational as the Catholic Church - because faith and reason go hand in hand when you are dealing with the Truth.

 

[tafan]

CCC 36:

“Our holy mother, the Church, holds and teaches that God, the first principle and last end of all things, can be known with certainty from the created world by the natural light of human reason.” Without this capacity, man would not be able to welcome God’s revelation. Man has this capacity because he is created “in the image of God”.

However, that does not get us that far.

CCC 50:

By natural reason man can know God with certainty, on the basis of his works. But there is another order of knowledge, which man cannot possibly arrive at by his own powers: the order of divine Revelation. Through an utterly free decision, God has revealed himself and given himself to man. This he does by revealing the mystery, his plan of loving goodness, formed from all eternity in Christ, for the benefit of all men. God has fully revealed this plan by sending us his beloved Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit.

We can reason (i am reluctant to use the word proof, because it has different meanings in different contexts) God’s existence. After that, we are pretty much dependant on His revelation.