Can someone help critique this proof for God I wrote?

[Dmac]

Hi, I wrote my understanding of Aquinas’ proofs for God and I’d like it to be refined. Could someone help me out? Thanks!

Is the universe God and did it cause itself? Or did God cause it to exist?

1. From the Christian perspective, God is Being itself, which is Actus Purus, pure actuality.
2. The universe, all of matter, energy, spacetime, gravity, and quantum states, exist, but they do not have any inherent need to exist.
3. The “act of being” inherently needs to exist.
   -If it did not, then the universe would not exist because there is no act (or state, fact, quality, etc.) of being.
4. The universe is not the act of being because it does not have an inherent need to exist.
5. The act of being is pure actuality without any potentiality, so the act of being is Being itself, which is the Christian definition of God.
6. The universe is not God.
7. Being, actually existing, is the only thing that exists that can give the universe (and all its contents), which can exist, the ability to exist.
   • By analogy: light, actually bright, is the only thing that can give a dark room (and all its contents), which can be bright, the ability to be bright.
8. The universe exists because Being, also known as God, gave it the ability to exist.

On another note, an atheist may claim that the universe might not need a cause, which is not a very scientific answer and makes materialism pretty implausible… So I feel free to dismiss that claim.

 

[Wesrock]

1. From the Christian perspective, God is Being itself, which is Actus Purus, pure actuality.

True. But this is not self-evident.

1. The universe, all of matter, energy, spacetime, gravity, and quantum states, exist, but they do not have any inherent need to exist.

Whether or not space should be considered a thing in itself is something that could be discussed more, but otherwise this is true. But again, this is not self-evident.

1. The “act of being” inherently needs to exist.
   -If it did not, then the universe would not exist because there is no act (or state, fact, quality, etc.) of being.

True. But this is not self-evident. And I think we could work on how to word this a bit more.

1. The universe is not the act of being because it does not have an inherent need to exist.

True. But this is not self-evident. I will add the things that comprise the universe have acts of being, but they are not Subistent Being, meaning what they are is not the same as that they are.

1. The act of being is pure actuality without any potentiality

I’d call it Subsistent Being, and otherwise true. That this exists is not self-evident, though.

so the act of being is Being itself, which is the Christian definition of God.

We identify Subsistent Being as God. I’d hesitate to call it a definition of God, though.

1. The universe is not God.

True.

1. Being, actually existing, is the only thing that exists that can give the universe (and all its contents), which can exist, the ability to exist.

I’d call it Subsistent Being, and otherwise true, but not self-evident.

• By analogy: light, actually bright, is the only thing that can give a dark room (and all its contents), which can be bright, the ability to be bright.

The effects (contingent being) of Subsistent Being bear some similitude with Subsistent Being. Your metaphor applies in a similar way

1. The universe exists because Being, also known as God, gave it the ability to exist.

I’d use the word Subsistent Being, but true, though not self evident.

So you’ll have noticed I wrote “not self-evident” a lot. That isn’t a bad thing, but it does mean as an argument you’d need to do a lot more leg work to show how each follows. These are really a list of various conclusions rather than premises you can present to someone who doesn’t already have the requisite background.

But you do seem to have a general understanding of the theology his arguments develop.

 

[Dan_Defender]

On another note, an atheist may claim that the universe might not need a cause, which is not a very scientific answer and makes materialism pretty implausible… So I feel free to dismiss that claim.

Yes I agree. I would add that atheism is inconsistent with the scientific method, as they cannot prove scientifically that God does not exist.

 

[Dan123]

Yes I agree. I would add that atheism is inconsistent with the scientific method, as they cannot prove scientifically that God does not exist.

I don’t hear many if any atheists claiming to know scientifically that God does not exist. I do not know scientifically that there isn’t a Starbucks on Mars, but I find no good reason to believe one does, and would expect sufficient evidence from someone who wanted me to believe there was one.

 

[Zake]

I don’t hear many if any atheists claiming to know scientifically that God does not exist.

It all depends of the definition of “God”. If the definition is logically incoherent or internally contradictory then God logically cannot exist. The problem is with the attributes. On one hand, God is supposed to be “simple” - that is does not have any attributes, on the other hand, God has all sorts of “super” attributes - see the so-called omnimax attributes.

So, to prove God’s existence logically is an impossible job.

As for the nonexistence of Starbucks on Mars, it is not logically impossible. On the other hand a “married bachelor” is logically impossible, and as such cannot exist.

But that is A-OK. The belief in God is based upon faith, not some proof. As a matter of fact, pretty much no one doubted God’s existence, until some philosophers attempted to prove it.

 

[Dan123]

It all depends of the definition of “God”.

I generally assume when people are talking about God on this forum, they’re discussing God as described by Catholicism. It has, so far, been a pretty safe bet, even if there are plenty of details that may differ between believers the important bits are all there.

 

[Zake]

I generally assume when people are talking about God on this forum, they’re discussing God as described by Catholicism. It has, so far, been a pretty safe bet, even if there are plenty of details that may differ between believers the important bits are all there.

But of course “God is in the details”! And this is not a cutesy answer, it is all important.

 

[Dan123]

Based on the common presentation of God in Catholic and indeed most major Christian denominations I would not say he cannot logically exist. So if you ask me “Does God exist?” I would say “I don’t know”, and as such one might describe me as an agnostic.

But if you ask me if I believe God exists, then my answer is no, and as such one might describe me as an atheist.

If you ask me if I can prove God doesn’t exist, I will ask about the price of a latte on Mars.

 

[Zake]

Based on the common presentation of God in Catholic and indeed most major Christian denominations I would not say he cannot logically exist.

As I said, I am very serious. If we wish to have a conversation about the “God of the philosophers”, then all the details need to be clarified. Starting with: how can God be “simple” (which means that God has no “parts”) and then talk about the different omnimax attributes, which are “parts” of what God is supposed be? This is logically incoherent. And then, what does “omnipotence” and “omniscience” mean?

So the proper way would be presenting a list of God’s alleged attributes, and also explain, just what those attributes mean?

 

[BT3241]

I will not argue against it I can’t prove anything it comes across as more of a theory to me then proof but what do I know its based on logic.

When presenting it in logic it has to follow all the rules of logic and proof.