Can we know with certainty of God's existence through reason?

[snarflemike]

The Church certainly teaches so: “The same Holy mother Church holds and teaches that God, the source and end of all things, can be known with certainty from the consideration of created things, by the natural power of human reason.” -First Vatican Council

So presumably all Catholics agree with this (fingers crossed!)

What about other Christians - agree or disagree?

What about those of other religions - agree or disagree?

What about those with no religion - agree or disagree?

I’m not putting this in the Philosophy forum because it’s too intense over there for me, and I suspect many people here don’t go over there.

 

[surritter]

I can’t speak for all religions – recall that there are some pretty goofy things out there – but yes, even a non-religious person can know that God exists.

First, try this: Simply look around us. The intricate workings of our world, and the sheer beauty, cry out that there is a Creator. Suppose you were walking along a beach and found an old pocketwatch. You pick it up and marvel at the intricate workings (maybe it still even works!) and the intricate carvings on the lid. Would anyone really think to themselves, “Gee, it’s amazing that this watch created itself!” Of course not – we know that such a thing required a maker.
Well, if we know that about a watch, how much more complex is the universe? And suddenly there are people who say that it got that way by itself? Bah!

The philosophy people would say that a higher-order thing cannot be created from a lower-order thing. But I still like the watch analogy.

 

[Gods_Peace]

God is the beggining and ending of all things spiritual and corporal, so yes, if the Holy Spirit is guiding you this is very possible!

 

[snarflemike]

God is the beggining and ending of all things spiritual and corporal, so yes, if the Holy Spirit is guiding you this is very possible!

I’d be careful about interjecting the Holy Spirit into the discussion. The Vatican I quote says “by the natural power of human reason.”

 

[wmw]

Certainty of God to unbelievers should not be the goal. Always someone will have to be open to inspiration by the Holy Spirit which can happen to unbelievers, but often will not for God will not force himself on anyone.

The discussion needs to be about how the Catholic religion is fully integrable with scientific reason and findings.

Just a few years ago I’d say the propaganda war against faith being scientifically reasonable was slowing taking affect and driving more and more college age people away from believing in God. The tide now seems to be at an ebb and the work of people like Fr. Spitzer of magisreasonfaith.org is beginning a counter attack of Truth. An example taken from testimonials on his web site:

…* “The Reason: What Science Tells Us About God”, to high school students from grades 9 through 12, and asked students what they learned from it. Overall, they gained a much clearer understanding of the strengths and the boundaries of both science and religion. These were clearly differentiated - the Bible is not a science text, and science cannot measure anything outside the physical universe. The strengths of science were then applied to showing what is currently known about the origin of the universe. The scientific evidence for a beginning was very well explained, and at a level that the students could clearly understand. The power of science was shown to point to a cause, but limited only to measuring the results of the cause. This series was valuable in showing what can be known about the beginning, and also to eliminating the misconception that science and religion must somehow always conflict with each other."

Anne Perrella, Teacher, Science/Math
Holy Family Academy, Manchester, New Hampshire

With believers doubts about certainty of God can be troubling, but there is good evidence that He is there and mounting scientific proof that the Universe had a definite beginning without infinite reincarnations or multiverses. This is solid physical evidence that we couldn’t be here without Him! Check out Fr. Spitzer’s website.*

 

[wmw]

I’d be careful about interjecting the Holy Spirit into the discussion. The Vatican I quote says “by the natural power of human reason.”

Reality is reasonable for God made it so. The human mind can understand it. If the journey to the truth is helped by the Holy Spirit even if He does so everytime it does not make the church’s statement untrue.

 

[snarflemike]

Reality is reasonable for God made it so. The human mind can understand it. If the journey to the truth is helped by the Holy Spirit even if He does so everytime it does not make the church’s statement untrue.

But if you’re trying to present this concept to a non-Christian, you should not introduce the Holy Spirit into the concept.

 

[snarflemike]

Certainty of God to unbelievers should not be the goal.

And yet the Church says this is possible. And if it is possible, atheists might be in for a rude shock.

Just a few years ago I’d say the propaganda war against faith being scientifically reasonable was slowing taking affect and driving more and more college age people away from believing in God. The tide now seems to be at an ebb and the work of people like Fr. Spitzer of magisreasonfaith.org is beginning a counter attack of Truth. An example taken from testimonials on his web site:

I like what I’ve seen of Fr. Spitzer’s work also. And I get the sense that the Catholic intellectual tradition is indeed pushing back against the “conventional wisdom” that faith is only for the ignorant and feeble-minded.

 

[wmw]

But if you’re trying to present this concept to a non-Christian, you should not introduce the Holy Spirit into the concept.

Are you wanting only partial truth? Maybe my talking about the Holy Spirit working in the life of the non-believer will help them recognize Him in their life. If not I’m still being fully truthful with them and that is better than keeping things from them. No, I am free to support my point of view from my point of view rather than tie myself in the restrictions they may want to impose.

 

[snarflemike]

Are you wanting only partial truth? Maybe my talking about the Holy Spirit working in the life of the non-believer will help them recognize Him in their life. If not I’m still being fully truthful with them and that is better than keeping things from them. No, I am free to support my point of view from my point of view rather than tie myself in the restrictions they may want to impose.

I give up. You bring in the Holy Spirit. I look forward to hearing answers from others to the question as asked.

 

[wmw]

“And yet the Church says this is possible. And if it is possible, atheists might be in for a rude shock.”

It is true as I said before, but intellectual victory would be a hollow victory. Intellectual openness and Spiritual awaking and hopefully conversion is where the harvest is.

 

[Taestron]

The Church certainly teaches so: “The same Holy mother Church holds and teaches that God, the source and end of all things, can be known with certainty from the consideration of created things, by the natural power of human reason.” -First Vatican Council

So presumably all Catholics agree with this (fingers crossed!)

What about other Christians - agree or disagree?

What about those of other religions - agree or disagree?

What about those with no religion - agree or disagree?

I’m not putting this in the Philosophy forum because it’s too intense over there for me, and I suspect many people here don’t go over there.

It depends what you mean by “with certainty.” If you want to say that 100% without a shadow of a doubt there is a god, then no we cannot have that certainty because we cannot be sure that reason is infallible when executed perfectly and we certainly don’t know if humans can exercise reason perfectly. If you mean there is sufficient evidence to know that there is a god, then yes I believe you can have that certainty.

 

[thistle]

The Church certainly teaches so: “The same Holy mother Church holds and teaches that God, the source and end of all things, can be known with certainty from the consideration of created things, by the natural power of human reason.” -First Vatican Council

So presumably all Catholics agree with this (fingers crossed!)

What about other Christians - agree or disagree?

What about those of other religions - agree or disagree?

What about those with no religion - agree or disagree?

I’m not putting this in the Philosophy forum because it’s too intense over there for me, and I suspect many people here don’t go over there.

peterkreeft.com/topics/gods-existence.htm
peterkreeft.com/topics/design.htm
peterkreeft.com/topics/first-cause.htm
peterkreeft.com/topics/conscience.htm
peterkreeft.com/topics/history.htm
peterkreeft.com/topics/pascals-wager.htm
peterkreeft.com/topics/desire.htm

 

[cranster]

Certainty of God to unbelievers should not be the goal. Always someone will have to be open to inspiration by the Holy Spirit which can happen to unbelievers, but often will not for God will not force himself on anyone.

The discussion needs to be about how the Catholic religion is fully integrable with scientific reason and findings.

Just a few years ago I’d say the propaganda war against faith being scientifically reasonable was slowing taking affect and driving more and more college age people away from believing in God. The tide now seems to be at an ebb and the work of people like Fr. Spitzer of magisreasonfaith.org is beginning a counter attack of Truth. An example taken from testimonials on his web site:

…* “The Reason: What Science Tells Us About God”, to high school students from grades 9 through 12, and asked students what they learned from it. Overall, they
gained a much clearer understanding of the strengths and the boundaries of both science and religion. These were clearly differentiated - the Bible is not a science text, and science cannot measure anything outside the physical universe. The strengths of science were then applied to showing what is currently known about the origin of the universe. The scientific evidence for a beginning was very well explained, and at a level that the students could clearly understand. The power of science was shown to point to a cause, but limited only to measuring the results of the cause. This series was valuable in showing what can be known about the beginning, and also to eliminating the misconception that science and religion must somehow always conflict with each other."

Anne Perrella, Teacher, Science/Math
Holy Family Academy, Manchester, New Hampshire

With believers doubts about certainty of God can be troubling, but there is good evidence that He is there and mounting scientific proof that the Universe had a definite beginning without infinite reincarnations or multiverses. This is solid physical evidence that we couldn’t be here without Him! Check out Fr. Spitzer’s website.*

I love father Spitzer. This is only about 30 minutes…
youtube.com/watch?v=hYfaOJATh_U&feature=youtube_gdata_player

Here’s another one by Dr. Gerard Schroeder of MIT I really like youtube.com/watch?v=yV-LzTO-xdg&feature=youtube_gdata_player
who ties a lot of things together from the big bang, the fine tuning of the universe, the galaxy, the solar system, the immediate emergence of live on earth as soon as it was capable of supporting life, through the cambrian explosion up through man.

 

[surritter]

I give up. You bring in the Holy Spirit. I look forward to hearing answers from others to the question as asked.

To be honest, I’m not sure why you two are wrangling over the Holy Spirit. The OP asked if an atheist or someone of another religion can know for certain about God.

The answer is yes. But the light bulb may click on for the atheist because of the working of the Holy Spirit, even if the Holy Spirit works incognito. So I’d say in a sense you’re both right.

 

[jochoa]

The Church certainly teaches so: “The same Holy mother Church holds and teaches that God, the source and end of all things, can be known with certainty from the consideration of created things, by the natural power of human reason.” -First Vatican Council

So presumably all Catholics agree with this (fingers crossed!)

What about other Christians - agree or disagree?

What about those of other religions - agree or disagree?

What about those with no religion - agree or disagree?

I’m not putting this in the Philosophy forum because it’s too intense over there for me, and I suspect many people here don’t go over there.

Thank you very much for sharing this teaching and questions! Would you please share the source of the teaching?

To answer the question in the topic:
According to the teaching, more than just the existence of God can be known with certainty. I am very glad you ask this question because I am seeking spiritual and reasoned guidance in validating a concept which is in perfect alignment with this teaching. Here is the concept:
Consider and find the reasonable solution to the creation of an Ever-lasting Society of True Friends, in which you get to participate as a friend and given you are the only being, living or non-living, in existence.
The How-to will be in alignment with Catholic Theology.
The Story of Creation will be in alignment with the Holy Bible.
The Rules of the heavenly society will be in-alignment with Jesus’ Greatest Commandments.
The Rules of the earthly society will be in-alignment with the Greatest Commandments and the Sacraments of the Catholic Church

I am very interested in sharing and developing ideas with anyone to the proposed concept.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

And yet the Church says this is possible. And if it is possible, atheists might be in for a rude shock.

I like what I’ve seen of Fr. Spitzer’s work also. And I get the sense that the Catholic intellectual tradition is indeed pushing back against the “conventional wisdom” that faith is only for the ignorant and feeble-minded.

SM
I think the deeper question for you is what is this all about - why are such dry truths exciting food for you and for what purpose?

Realities you may have overlooked, that other contributors here are attempting to flag, are:
(1) The objective possibility of reason discovering god says nothing about whether anyone (or even most) persons can in practice - esp with a wounded nature.
(2) Whether this is the best (or commonest) path to faith.
(3) Whether that god has much recognisably in common with the God of christian history.

 

[snarflemike]

SM
I think the deeper question for you is what is this all about - why are such dry truths exciting food for you and for what purpose?

In the first place, prove your assertion that such truths are “dry”.

Such a possibility - no, such a teaching of the Church - is exciting to me because I feel I am rather well equipped to explain and defend the Catholic Church to/from Protestants, but less so to/from atheists. The first step in the latter endeavor, I’m sure you will agree, is to show them, WITHOUT RESORT TO DIVINE REVELATION, that natural reason points to the existence of God, not away from it.

A further quote:
“The Catholic doctrine on this question is in accord with history and philosophy. Rejecting both rationalism and fideism, it teaches that human reason is capable (physical ability) of knowing the moral and religious truths of the natural order; that it can prove with certainty the existence of God, the immortality of the soul, and can acknowledge most certainly the teaching of God…”
newadvent.org/cathen/06068b.htm

"

Realities you may have overlooked, that other contributors here are attempting to flag, are:
(1) The objective possibility of reason discovering god says nothing about whether anyone (or even most) persons can in practice - esp with a wounded nature.

Some have, that’s enough for me. Check out Edward Feser for a good example.

(2) Whether this is the best (or commonest) path to faith.

One should always evangelize with the tools most suitable for the person at hand.

(3) Whether that god has much recognisably in common with the God of christian history.

The claim, which I am investigating, is that the God so revealed does indeed have the attributes of at least the Old Testament God, which cannot contradict the “God of Christian history” and which is a very good starting point IMO.

Is it your view that Aquinas was wrong to waste time discoursing on his (dry?) Five Ways?

 

[Blue_Horizon]

In the first place, prove your assertion that such truths are “dry”.

Such a possibility - no, such a teaching of the Church - is exciting to me because I feel I am rather well equipped to explain and defend the Catholic Church to/from Protestants, but less so to/from atheists. The first step in the latter endeavor, I’m sure you will agree, is to show them, WITHOUT RESORT TO DIVINE REVELATION, that natural reason points to the existence of God, not away from it.

A further quote:
“The Catholic doctrine on this question is in accord with history and philosophy. Rejecting both rationalism and fideism, it teaches that human reason is capable (physical ability) of knowing the moral and religious truths of the natural order; that it can prove with certainty the existence of God, the immortality of the soul, and can acknowledge most certainly the teaching of God…”
newadvent.org/cathen/06068b.htm

"

Some have, that’s enough for me. Check out Edward Feser for a good example.

One should always evangelize with the tools most suitable for the person at hand.

The claim, which I am investigating, is that the God so revealed does indeed have the attributes of at least the Old Testament God, which cannot contradict the “God of Christian history” and which is a very good starting point IMO.

Is it your view that Aquinas was wrong to waste time discoursing on his (dry?) Five Ways?

snarflemike
A rationalistic holding of “moderate realism” still ends up being … rationalism.
Its still a distortion - especially because it is fuelled by the personal “buzz” that you get out of it.

Excessive attatchment of the will to any “idea” is a worshipping of idols and so there is probably nothing I can say at the level of reason that will bring these distortions into better balance for you.

"I feel I am rather well equipped to explain and defend the Catholic Church to/from Protestants, but less so to/from atheists."
This isn’t the healthiest understanding/holding/praxis of Catholic Missiology.

"The first step in the latter endeavor, I’m sure you will agree, is to show them, WITHOUT RESORT TO DIVINE REVELATION, that natural reason points to the existence of God, not away from it."
No, I defintely do not.

"Is it your view that Aquinas was wrong to waste time discoursing on his (dry?) Five Ways?" Aquinas himself eventually thought so. It makes even less practical sense now. Good for a personal, Anselm-ian approach for increasing one’s own faith if it rings your bells - but being attached to the buzz is not spiritually healthy in the long term.