Can the existence of God be demonstrated

[Linusthe2nd]

Thomas Aquinas was convinced that it could and it is a Difined Dogma of the Church that the existence of a personal God can be known by the natural light of reason. The Church does not say specifically that there is a philosophical argument or arguments which satisfy this Dogma, but she does hint at it in paragraphs 32-34 of the Catechism linked at the bottom of this pages. These are not specific arguments but point to the kinds of arguments by which human reason can come to know that God exists.

Here is the way Thomas states his case:.

" 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.

Reply to Objection 2. When the existence of a cause is demonstrated from an effect, this effect takes the place of the definition of the cause in proof of the cause’s existence. This is especially the case in regard to God, because, in order to prove the existence of anything, it is necessary to accept as a middle term the meaning of the word, and not its essence, for the question of its essence follows on the question of its existence. Now the names given to God are derived from His effects; consequently, in demonstrating the existence of God from His effects, we may take for the middle term the meaning of the word “God”.

Reply to Objection 3. From effects not proportionate to the cause no perfect knowledge of that cause can be obtained. Yet from every effect the existence of the cause can be clearly demonstrated, and so we can demonstrate the existence of God from His effects; though from them we cannot perfectly know God as He is in His essence.

Thomas gives specific arguments in part 1, question 3 of the Summa Theologiae, in the Summa Contra Gentiles and in other places.

Pax
Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Thomas Aquinas was convinced that it could and it is a Difined Dogma of the Church that the existence of a personal God can be known by the natural light of reason. The Church does not say specifically that there is a philosophical argument or arguments which satisfy this Dogma, but she does hint at it in paragraphs 32-34 of the Catechism linked at the bottom of this pages. These are not specific arguments but point to the kinds of arguments by which human reason can come to know that God exists.

Here is the way Thomas states his case:.

" 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.

Reply to Objection 2. When the existence of a cause is demonstrated from an effect, this effect takes the place of the definition of the cause in proof of the cause’s existence. This is especially the case in regard to God, because, in order to prove the existence of anything, it is necessary to accept as a middle term the meaning of the word, and not its essence, for the question of its essence follows on the question of its existence. Now the names given to God are derived from His effects; consequently, in demonstrating the existence of God from His effects, we may take for the middle term the meaning of the word “God”.

Reply to Objection 3. From effects not proportionate to the cause no perfect knowledge of that cause can be obtained. Yet from every effect the existence of the cause can be clearly demonstrated, and so we can demonstrate the existence of God from His effects; though from them we cannot perfectly know God as He is in His essence.

Thomas gives specific arguments in part 1, question 3 of the Summa Theologiae, in the Summa Contra Gentiles and in other places.

Pax
Linus2nd

 

[Winterwolf00]

So correct me if I’m wrong but you are using the Cosmological argument correct?

 

[Tomdstone]

The argument from cause and effect is pretty strong and will convince most people that God exists. However, the second question is whether that argument will prove the existence of a God worshipped by the Deists or the Christian God. Deists point to the problem of evil and the non-intervention of an all Powerful and all loving God as support for their position.

 

[Nelka]

 

[Linusthe2nd]

So correct me if I’m wrong but you are using the Cosmological argument correct?

No, Thomas is merely giving an argument that the existence of God can be demonstrated. As the post indicates there are many different kinds of arguments which serve this purpose. Some of them could be called " cosmological, " but Thomas himself never used this term. This term is of rather recent ventage. You should follow my link to the Catechism.

Pax
Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

The argument from cause and effect is pretty strong and will convince most people that God exists. However, the second question is whether that argument will prove the existence of a God worshipped by the Deists or the Christian God. Deists point to the problem of evil and the non-intervention of an all Powerful and all loving God as support for their position.

I think you should consider Thomas’ answer to the third objection. First we must learn that God exists. Then we go on from there to discover who this God is, what his nature is. Once we have done that, which Thomas does in the immediately following questions in part 1, then we can say that this God is a personal god. This is hardly a " Deist " god. The qualities of the God that Thomas finds can only be the Christian God. And of course we come to learn more about him through Revelation.

Thomas’ answer to objection 3: Reply to Objection 3. From effects not proportionate to the cause no perfect knowledge of that cause can be obtained. Yet from every effect the existence of the cause can be clearly demonstrated, and so we can demonstrate the existence of God from His effects; though from them we cannot perfectly know God as He is in His essence.

Pax
Linus2nd

 

[Winterwolf00]

I think you should consider Thomas’ answer to the third objection. First we must learn that God exists. Then we go on from there to discover who this God is, what his nature is. Once we have done that, which Thomas does in the immediately following questions in part 1, then we can say that this God is a personal god. This is hardly a " Deist " god. The qualities of the God that Thomas finds can only be the Christian God. And of course we come to learn more about him through Revelation.

Thomas’ answer to objection 3: Reply to Objection 3. From effects not proportionate to the cause no perfect knowledge of that cause can be obtained. Yet from every effect the existence of the cause can be clearly demonstrated, and so we can demonstrate the existence of God from His effects; though from them we cannot perfectly know God as He is in His essence.

Pax
Linus2nd

And how do you demonstrate this?

 

[oldcelt]

And how do you demonstrate this?

It cannot be done…in our rational moments, we all know this.

John

 

[Linusthe2nd]

And how do you demonstrate this?

Thomas gives five ways in the Summa Theologiae, part 1, ques 2, ans 3
newadvent.org/summa/1002.htm#article3

I answer that, The existence of God can be proved in five ways.

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 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.

The second way is from the nature of the efficient cause. In the world of sense we find there is an order of efficient causes. There is no case known (neither is it, indeed, possible) in which a thing is found to be the efficient cause of itself; for so it would be prior to itself, which is impossible. Now in efficient causes it is not possible to go on to infinity, because in all efficient causes following in order, the first is the cause of the intermediate cause, and the intermediate is the cause of the ultimate cause, whether the intermediate cause be several, or only one. Now to take away the cause is to take away the effect. Therefore, if there be no first cause among efficient causes, there will be no ultimate, nor any intermediate cause. But if in efficient causes it is possible to go on to infinity, there will be no first efficient cause, neither will there be an ultimate effect, nor any intermediate efficient causes; all of which is plainly false. Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God.

The third way is taken from possibility and necessity, and runs thus. We find in nature things that are possible to be and not to be, since they are found to be generated, and to corrupt, and consequently, they are possible to be and not to be. But it is impossible for these always to exist, for that which is possible not to be at some time is not. Therefore, if everything is possible not to be, then at one time there could have been nothing in existence. Now if this were true, even now there would be nothing in existence, because that which does not exist only begins to exist by something already existing. Therefore, if at one time nothing was in existence, it would have been impossible for anything to have begun to exist; and thus even now nothing would be in existence — which is absurd. Therefore, not all beings are merely possible, but there must exist something the existence of which is necessary. But every necessary thing either has its necessity caused by another, or not. Now it is impossible to go on to infinity in necessary things which have their necessity caused by another, as has been already proved in regard to efficient causes. Therefore we cannot but postulate the existence of some being having of itself its own necessity, and not receiving it from another, but rather causing in others their necessity. This all men speak of as God.

The fourth way is taken from the gradation to be found in things. Among beings there are some more and some less good, true, noble and the like. But “more” and “less” are predicated of different things, according as they resemble in their different ways something which is the maximum, as a thing is said to be hotter according as it more nearly resembles that which is hottest; so that there is something which is truest, something best, something noblest and, consequently, something which is uttermost being; for those things that are greatest in truth are greatest in being, as it is written in Metaph. ii. Now the maximum in any genus is the cause of all in that genus; as fire, which is the maximum heat, is the cause of all hot things. Therefore there must also be something which is to all beings the cause of their being, goodness, and every other perfection; and this we call God.

The fifth way is taken from the governance of the world. We see that things which lack intelligence, such as natural bodies, act for an end, and this is evident from their acting always, or nearly always, in the same way, so as to obtain the best result. Hence it is plain that not fortuitously, but designedly, do they achieve their end. Now whatever lacks intelligence cannot move towards an end, unless it be directed by some being endowed with knowledge and intelligence; as the arrow is shot to its mark by the archer. Therefore some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are directed to their end; and this being we call God.

Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

It cannot be done…in our rational moments, we all know this.

John

Linus2nd

 

[Winterwolf00]

It cannot be done…in our rational moments, we all know this.

John

If you cannot demonstrate it then how do you know it?

 

[Charlemagne_III]

If you cannot demonstrate it then how do you know it?

Can you demonstrate that God does not exist?

In your mind, is it possible or impossible that God should exist?

 

[Tomdstone]

Can you demonstrate that God does not exist?

In your mind, is it possible or impossible that God should exist?

The atheist will attempt to prove such by the existence of evil. He will say that an all powerful, all loving, all merciful, all knowing God would answer the prayers of the frantic mother praying that her baby will not have to suffer through his terrible and painful disease. The atheist will also point to the religious Puerto Rican widowed mother of four children, who has been holding down three jobs in NYC to provide for her young children. He will ask why the all Merciful God did not deflect the arm which was holding the knife of the drug addict as he slashed her to death as she was coming from one of her jobs. The robbery netted the crazed addict a few dollars to support his drug habit, but the religious Puerto Rican woman, faithful to Our Lord and to her family, lost her life as she suffered a horrific painful death by slashing.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

The atheist will attempt to prove such by the existence of evil. He will say that an all powerful, all loving, all merciful, all knowing God would answer the prayers of the frantic mother praying that her baby will not have to suffer through his terrible and painful disease. The atheist will also point to the religious Puerto Rican widowed mother of four children, who has been holding down three jobs in NYC to provide for her young children. He will ask why the all Merciful God did not deflect the arm which was holding the knife of the drug addict as he slashed her to death as she was coming from one of her jobs. The robbery netted the crazed addict a few dollars to support his drug habit, but the religious Puerto Rican woman, faithful to Our Lord and to her family, lost her life as she suffered a horrific painful death by slashing.

None of this proves it is impossible that God does exist.

At best the atheist can only assert it argues that God is malevolent or indifferent.

For the theist it proves another thing: that the Devil exists and is surely malevolent.

 

[Tomdstone]

None of this proves it is impossible that God does exist.

At best the atheist can only assert it argues that God is malevolent or indifferent.

For the theist it proves another thing: that the Devil exists and is surely malevolent.

But God cannot be malevolent according to Catholic theology. If God does exist, according to Catholic theology, He must be all powerful, all merciful , all loving, all knowing, and all good.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

But God cannot be malevolent according to Catholic theology. If God does exist, according to Catholic theology, He must be all powerful, all merciful , all loving, all knowing, and all good.

I agree. But God also gives us the gift of free will, or everything else we have is nothing.

I was speaking of the argument you raised from the atheist point of view. The atheist simply cannot argue that the problem of evil proves there is no God. The theist can as well argue that the problem of evil shows there is a Devil mucking up the details of Creation.

Atheism is powerless to explain anything. All it can say is that things are just the way they are and there is no overarching rhyme, reason or purpose for anything.

 

[Tomdstone]

I agree. But God also gives us the gift of free will, or everything else we have is nothing.

I was speaking of the argument you raised from the atheist point of view. The atheist simply cannot argue that the problem of evil proves there is no God. The theist can as well argue that the problem of evil shows there is a Devil mucking up the details of Creation.

Atheism is powerless to explain anything. All it can say is that things are just the way they are and there is no overarching rhyme, reason or purpose for anything.

Not exactly correct. The Christian God is all powerful, all loving, all merciful, all knowing and all good. The atheist will say that the existence of evil, as per the example shown, makes it very difficult for him to believe that the Christian God exists. He will ask:
Why would not an all loving and all powerful God deflect the arm of the attacker, after the crazed addict had exercised his free will and decided to slash the helpless widowed mother of four children? In many cases, Mother Nature, whether it be by tornado or earthquake, is known to have at the last minute prevented a crime from being committed, while keeping free will intact.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Not exactly correct. The Christian God is all powerful, all loving, all merciful, all knowing and all good. The atheist will say that the existence of evil, as per the example shown, makes it very difficult for him to believe that the Christian God exists. He will ask:
Why would not an all loving and all powerful God deflect the arm of the attacker, after the crazed addict had exercised his free will and decided to slash the helpless widowed mother of four children? In many cases, Mother Nature, whether it be by tornado or earthquake, is known to have at the last minute prevented a crime from being committed, while keeping free will intact.

Again, the existence of evil does not disprove the existence of God. For the atheist, this God might not be what the Christians claim their God is, but the existence of evil per se does not prove there is no God. Do you not understand this? The atheist might conclude that if there is a God, he is the cause of evil. For the Christian the cause of evil is to be found in the source called Satan, not God.

 

[Tomdstone]

Again, the existence of evil does not disprove the existence of God. For the atheist, this God might not be what the Christians claim their God is, but the existence of evil per se does not prove there is no God. Do you not understand this? The atheist might conclude that if there is a God, he is the cause of evil. For the Christian the cause of evil is to be found in the source called Satan, not God.

For the Christian, a God who is not all powerful, all knowing, all loving and all merciful is a philosophical contradiction. To be clear, what is your definition of God? The atheist may not be able to disprove an impersonal First Cause, but he will say that he has evidence that this First Cause is not the Christian God because of the existence of evil.