Can God be Proven?

[James_S_Saint]

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?

Four of Aquinas’ “proofs” require an axiomatical acceptance of something that is not only not supported in his proofs, but happens to not actually be true, and that is that the universe actually had a beginning. He offers no proof or even discussion about the fact that the universe itself has always existed other than to proclaim that he can’t imagine infinite regression and therefore it can’t be real, yet it is. He can’t imagine an eternal God either. Does that make God unreal also?

 

[1holycatholic]

Four of Aquinas’ “proofs” require an axiomatical acceptance of something that is not only not supported in his proofs, but happens to not actually be true, and that is that the universe actually had a beginning. He offers no proof or even discussion about the fact that the universe itself has always existed other than to proclaim that he can’t imagine infinite regression and therefore it can’t be real, yet it is. He can’t imagine an eternal God either. Does that make God unreal also?

You don’t understand Aquinas’ argument. Pick up Peter Kreeft’s A Summa of the Summa (ISBN-10: 089870300X, ISBN-13: 978-0898703009.) Dr. Kreeft’s excellent footnotes to the arguments should help clear things up.

 

[James_S_Saint]

You don’t understand Aquinas’ argument. Pick up Peter Kreeft’s A Summa of the Summa (ISBN-10: 089870300X, ISBN-13: 978-0898703009.) Dr. Kreeft’s excellent footnotes to the arguments should help clear things up.

Apparently you don’t understand them else you wouldn’t be referring me to someone else.

I understand that in 4 of them, he presumes that the universe had a beginning and continues from that point to build his arguments. But I also understand that such a presumption is false.

That doesn’t mean that the converse of his argument is true, that there is no God. But it does mean that he not only didn’t prove God, but presented an incorrect argument instead.

Why can’t **any **of the billion or so Christians logically prove their God? How can they blame anyone for not believing if they cannot prove it themselves, even to one who fully believes already (me)?

 

[James_S_Saint]

You don’t understand Aquinas’ argument. Pick up Peter Kreeft’s A Summa of the Summa (ISBN-10: 089870300X, ISBN-13: 978-0898703009.) Dr. Kreeft’s excellent footnotes to the arguments should help clear things up.

Just to give one example from Aquinas’ arguments (I could go through all of them, but they are all similar);

“The first and more manifest way is the argument from motion. It is certain, and evident to our senses, that in the world some things are in motion. Now whatever is in motion is put in motion by another, for nothing can be in motion except it is in potentiality to that towards which it is in motion; whereas a thing moves inasmuch as it is in act. For motion is nothing else than the reduction of something from potentiality to actuality. But nothing can be reduced from potentiality to actuality, except by something in a state of actuality. Thus that which is actually hot, as fire, makes wood, which is potentially hot, to be actually hot, and thereby moves and changes it. Now it is not possible that the same thing should be at once in actuality and potentiality in the same respect, but only in different respects. For what is actually hot cannot simultaneously be potentially hot; but it is simultaneously potentially cold. It is therefore impossible that in the same respect and in the same way a thing should be both mover and moved, i.e. that it should move itself. Therefore, whatever is in motion must be [have been]
put in motion by another. If that by which it is put in motion be itself put in motion, then this also must needs be put in motion by another, and that by another again. But this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover, and, consequently, no other mover; seeing that subsequent movers move only inasmuch as they are put in motion by the first mover; as the staff moves only because it is put in motion by the hand. Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God.”

First, some observations that weaken the argument but do not in themselves falsify this argument;

It is certain, and evident to our senses, that in the world some things are in motion.

The solipsist would claim that to be merely misperception. But also note that he specified that only *some *things are in motion. This leaves the other things to have existed forever and possibly be the cause of those that are in motion. It is what does not change that causes what does change to change.

It is therefore impossible that in the same respect and in the same way a thing should be both mover and moved, i.e. that it should move itself.

An object can be a participant in the moving of itself along with another moving it. Neither is “the mover”. An object in motion remains in motion because the object is perpetuating its own motion and therefore moving itself. The cause of its original motion can easily be understood to be merely a gathering of effects from other moving and/or not moving objects. Is it proposed that every such a gathering is God merely because it caused something to move?

But then there comes the killer;

But this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover,…
Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God.”

**Infinite time regression is not disproven. Whether it be true or false, for an argument to use it as a dependent fact, it needs support. But the fact of the matter happens to be that what is being referred to here as “the First Mover”, really doesn’t exist and is NOT what “First Cause” ever really meant.

The universe really has existed eternally and must continue to do so. Such does not remove God from the picture because it was never originally proposed, despite those who have come to believe otherwise, that God instigated the first movement before which there was no movement. Time/Changing is eternal.

Why do we limit God to not being able to cause an eternal thing? Don’t we claim that Man’s soul is eternal?

But as I said, whether that is true or not, he did not provide any argument to support the counter notion that he depended upon.

His other arguments are similar. They each have their own errors but all of the first 4 require a belief that the universe actually didn’t exist “at one time”, which is false and certainly unproven.

 

[1holycatholic]

Apparently you don’t understand them else you wouldn’t be referring me to someone else.

I understand that in 4 of them, he presumes that the universe had a beginning and continues from that point to build his arguments. But I also understand that such a presumption is false.

You’ve just demonstrated that you don’t understand them.

There are five arguments:

1. 
   *]The argument from motion.
   *]The nature of the efficient cause.
   *]Possibility and necessity.
   *]The gradation to be found in things.
   *]The governance of the world. (Teleological Argument)
   
   The first three arguments are similar in that infinite regress is impossible. Further, that’s noted at the end of each argument, not the beginning.
   
   Aquinas doesn’t say, or presume anything about the universe having a beginning in these arguments. Perhaps you’re confusing Aquinas’ Quinque Viae with the Kalam Cosmological Argument.
   

   That doesn’t mean that the converse of his argument is true, that there is no God. But it does mean that he not only didn’t prove God, but presented an incorrect argument instead.
   
   Why can’t **any **of the billion or so Christians logically prove their God? How can they blame anyone for not believing if they cannot prove it themselves, even to one who fully believes already (me)?

   I suggest you head for the library and pick up Dr. Kreeft’s book. :coffeeread:

 

[1holycatholic]

Just to give one example from Aquinas’ arguments (I could go through all of them, but they are all similar);

No, they’re not all similar.

newadvent.org/summa/1002.htm

 

[James_S_Saint]

You’ve just demonstrated that you don’t understand them.

You are making claims and accusing yet not supporting what you claim. You have not pointed out any flaw in my rebuttals. I am well aware of his arguments and their flaws. You seem to be merely worshiping them, taking them on faith.

The “Kalam Cosmological Argument” has its own flaws.

 

[1holycatholic]

You are making claims and accusing yet not supporting what you claim. You have not pointed out any flaw in my rebuttals. I am well aware of his arguments and their flaws. You seem to be merely worshiping them, taking them on faith.

The “Kalam Cosmological Argument” has its own flaws.

You aren’t rebutting Aquinas’ arguments, you’re rebutting James S Saint’s misunderstanding of Aquinas’ arguments.

There’s your flaw.

 

[James_S_Saint]

You aren’t rebutting Aquinas’ arguments, you’re rebutting James S Saint’s misunderstanding of Aquinas’ arguments.

There’s your flaw.

Again I ask, why can’t ***ANY ***of the billions of Christians, Jews, or Muslims actually prove the case for God?

It’s embarrassing.

 

[1holycatholic]

Again I ask, why can’t ***ANY ***of the billions of Christians, Jews, or Muslims actually prove the case for God?

It’s embarrassing.

Aquinas’ five ways still stand unrefuted.

 

[James_S_Saint]

Aquinas’ five ways still stand unrefuted.

You are merely giving foundation to the atheist’s claim against Christianity. You say “yea”, they say “nay” - end of discussion. That resolves a lot.

The term “not knowing your assdonkey from a hole in the ground” (though many people do not know this) refers to a person not being able to distinguish their stubbornness (the assdonkey) from a hole in their under-standing (ground). It is rooted in pride and presumption.

Using the “jawbone of an assdonkey” will ***not ***work these days. That should be more than apparent.

 

[AidanM32]

Nobody in the world knows the truth about “is God real” … God just wants us to believe and i think thats what brings us to heaven “Belief”.[BIBLEDRB][/BIBLEDRB]

 

[1holycatholic]

Nobody in the world knows the truth about “is God real” … God just wants us to believe and i think thats what brings us to heaven “Belief”.[BIBLEDRB][/BIBLEDRB]

From the Summa Theologica, question two, article two:
Objection 1. It seems that the existence of God cannot be demonstrated. For it is an article of faith that God exists. But what is of faith cannot be demonstrated, because a demonstration produces scientific knowledge; whereas faith is of the unseen (Hebrews 11:1). Therefore it cannot be demonstrated that God exists.
…]
I answer that, Demonstration can be made in two ways: One is through the cause, and is called “a priori,” and this is to argue from what is prior absolutely. The other is through the effect, and is called a demonstration “a posteriori”; this is to argue from what is prior relatively only to us. When an effect is better known to us than its cause, from the effect we proceed to the knowledge of the cause. And from every effect the existence of its proper cause can be demonstrated, so long as its effects are better known to us; because since every effect depends upon its cause, if the effect exists, the cause must pre-exist. Hence the existence of God, in so far as it is not self-evident to us, can be demonstrated from those of His effects which are known to us.

Reply to Objection 1. The existence of God and other like truths about God, which can be known by natural reason, are not articles of faith, but are preambles to the articles; for faith presupposes natural knowledge, even as grace presupposes nature, and perfection supposes something that can be perfected. Nevertheless, there is nothing to prevent a man, who cannot grasp a proof, accepting, as a matter of faith, something which in itself is capable of being scientifically known and demonstrated.
The CCC states as much.

 

[James_S_Saint]

From the Summa Theologica, question two, article two:
Objection 1. It seems that the existence of God cannot be demonstrated. For it is an article of faith that God exists. But what is of faith cannot be demonstrated, because a demonstration produces scientific knowledge; whereas faith is of the unseen (Hebrews 11:1). Therefore it cannot be demonstrated that God exists.
…]
I answer that, Demonstration can be made in two ways: One is through the cause, and is called “a priori,” and this is to argue from what is prior absolutely. The other is through the effect, and is called a demonstration “a posteriori”; this is to argue from what is prior relatively only to us. When an effect is better known to us than its cause, from the effect we proceed to the knowledge of the cause. And from every effect the existence of its proper cause can be demonstrated, so long as its effects are better known to us; because since every effect depends upon its cause, if the effect exists, the cause must pre-exist. Hence the existence of God, in so far as it is not self-evident to us, can be demonstrated from those of His effects which are known to us.

Reply to Objection 1. The existence of God and other like truths about God, which can be known by natural reason, are not articles of faith, but are preambles to the articles; for faith presupposes natural knowledge, even as grace presupposes nature, and perfection supposes something that can be perfected. Nevertheless, there is nothing to prevent a man, who cannot grasp a proof, accepting, as a matter of faith, something which in itself is capable of being scientifically known and demonstrated.
The CCC states as much.

Which means *what *to you?

 

[1holycatholic]

Which means *what *to you?

:ehh:
This post should help you understand Aquinas’ argument. Aquinas’ five ways neither state, or presume the universe had a beginning. That is an addition to the argument of your own making.

You should pick up a copy of Dr. Kreeft’s book on the Summa Theologica and read it. It takes time and effort to learn. If you are attempting to learn philosophy on an online forum you aren’t going to be very successful. :coffeeread:

 

[James_S_Saint]

:ehh:
This post should help you understand Aquinas’ argument. Aquinas’ five ways neither state, or presume the universe had a beginning. That is an addition to the argument of your own making.

You should pick up a copy of Dr. Kreeft’s book on the Summa Theologica and read it. It takes time and effort to learn. If you are attempting to learn philosophy on an online forum you aren’t going to be very successful. :coffeeread:

It obviously hasn’t worked for you, but then some people don’t learn but prefer to just drop a name, point credit and blame. Aquinas very clearly states that there had to be a “first Mover” - a beginning move;

Therefore, whatever is in motion must be [have been] put in motion by another. If that by which it is put in motion be itself put in motion, then this also must needs be put in motion by another, and that by another again. But this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover,

So how do YOU interpret what he says?

---

{and Dr Bonnette isn’t the best source for understanding}

 

[James_S_Saint]

Or to quote Dr Bonnette;

The fact that I may tell you that a proof is valid does not make it a proof for you, since then you are merely taking my word for it and believing in my authority. That is not reasoning for yourself.

And to quote our Leela;

You seem to be taking a position that is typical of proponents of the Five Ways, which is that taken together and with additional reasoning one can find them convincing of the existence of God. What I find so strange is that the proponents of the five proofs on this forum seem to hold that each of the five proofs taken by itself is a definitive proof of God’s existence. To that I have responded that if any of these really were definitive proof, the matter of the existence of God would be as settled in academia as the proof of Fermat’s Last Theorem.

 

[1holycatholic]

It obviously hasn’t worked for you, but then some people don’t learn but prefer to just drop a name, point credit and blame. Aquinas very clearly states that there had to be a “first Mover” - a beginning move;

So how do YOU interpret what he says?

---

{and Dr Bonnette isn’t the best source for understanding}

The mover is the sine qua non for motion: if no mover, no motion. Infinite regress doesn’t change this. If there were no prime mover there would be no second mover, third mover, fourth mover etc., even ad infinitum.

P.S. Badmouthing others is no way to prove your point.

 

[James_S_Saint]

The mover is the sine qua non for motion: if no mover, no motion. Infinite regress doesn’t change this. If there were no prime mover there would be no second mover, third mover, fourth mover etc., even ad infinitum.

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.

If that by which it is put in motion be itself put in motion, then this also must needs be put in motion by another, and that by another again. But this cannot go on to infinity, ***because ***then there would be no first mover,

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”?

P.S. Badmouthing others is no way to prove your point.

Bad comes to those who are stubborn.

 

[James_S_Saint]

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