Existence of God

[CWBetts]

I am a Roman Catholic convert from New Age Protestantism and have immense faith in God. In school, however, we are constantly bombarded with evolutionary theory and empirical methodology. The modern world, particularly in my generation, is left with no room for faith. Because of my conversion and my visible religious beliefs, I have become a figure on whom to rely for theological questions (and objections). Seeing as I am being challenged at school by my peers, I have several questions which I need help with.

1. What philosophical logic do we have to prove God, and why is this more reliable than science?
2. Assuming there is one god, why is the Christian faith in general preferable to other religions? Why is Christianity correct and other religions false mythological stories?
3. Any other advice for dealing with agnostics or atheists? I was speaking with an atheist teacher. I argued Aquinas’ uncaused cause theory: that since all matter must be created from other matter, there physically must be a god to create the original particles of matter. He replied that this logic is infinitely regressive, because if all things must have a creator, then God must be created. Second, he said that he would rather assume that the universe always existed rather than a higher being that simply always “was.”

I will get in touch with you at the end of the semester. I am studying metaphysics right now (a subject I have never tackled before). I should be able to provide you with St. Thoma Aquinas’s proofs on the existence of God

 

[wanstronian]

“New discoveries” as in a new posture to take and dodge in defense against your chosen foe? A dodge no more valid than the last and one to which you will return when it becomes clear again?

Politics and posturing has exactly what to do with philosophy and the seeking of real truth?

You display no more than politics, not the behavior of a philosopher or even an honest observer.

So now we clearly observe a situation where you cannot even read a comment from me without feeling compelled to attack it! In this case, you have had to set up a huge straw man to do so. You’ve arrived at the point where your ill-fitting mask of intellectual credibility has badly slipped. It was only a matter of time.

You consistently demonstrate nothing more than a desire to misrepresent people’s comments in an endeavour to make them conform to your erroneous, dogmatic beliefs about what they think. Which is real ironic given that this is exactly the behaviour you ascribe to those very people.

“Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye…”

You clearly have a massive inferiority complex. You’re just a sad little troll who cannot cope with seeing your own self-important opinions held up to the light. I suspect that the majority of theists on this forum are glad that you claim your religion to be “None of the above.”

Go home, little boy.

 

[tonyrey]

There is no evidence of a rational, purposeful Creator (and I note that you remove the words “arbitrary backstop” from your third option, despite it being clearly thus). However, there is abundant evidence for what you call process.

There is plenty of evidence for Design in the universe, particularly the existence of creative, rational, autonomous beings. Knowledge of irrational, physical processes presupposes the power of reason. Atheists use their power of reason to attribute their power of reason to irrational, physical processes! A most remarkable feat… That is why it is an arbitrary backstop.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

What you are calling “gravity” has nothing to do with classical mechanics. If you are asking why I doubt that there is some kind of transcendent substance in the universe guiding matter to behave the way it does, that’s because there’s absolutely no evidence for the existence of such a thing.

what i am calling gravity is a force that is defined as an attraction between 2 massive bodies, relateted to mass and inversely related to distance. the standard description taught in physics classess around the world.

no one said anything about a “substance” transcendant or otherwise. we were talking about a force called gravity, much like magnetism, unseen, yet knowable from its effects. im relatively confused how this is a problem? did you just assume we were talking about a “transcendant substance”? why in the world would we be talking about that? though that explains why you brought up Thomism. so to be clear, we are not talking about “transcendant substances” thats an almost insulting assumption on your part. we are not talking about Thomism. we do not buy that unsupportable assertion called “scientism” that does not mean that we lack an understanding or an education in the sciences.

so would you care to continue to deny the existence of gravity? until we are thrown off the planet like sling stone, i think gravity exists. whether it be a magnetic style force or a distortion of space by mass, gravity exists.

 

[hatsoff]

what i am calling gravity is a force that is defined as an attraction between 2 massive bodies, relateted to mass and inversely related to distance. the standard description taught in physics classess around the world.

no one said anything about a “substance” transcendant or otherwise. we were talking about a force called gravity, much like magnetism, unseen, yet knowable from its effects. im relatively confused how this is a problem? did you just assume we were talking about a “transcendant substance”? why in the world would we be talking about that? though that explains why you brought up Thomism. so to be clear, we are not talking about “transcendant substances” thats an almost insulting assumption on your part. we are not talking about Thomism. we do not buy that unsupportable assertion called “scientism” that does not mean that we lack an understanding or an education in the sciences.

so would you care to continue to deny the existence of gravity? until we are thrown off the planet like sling stone, i think gravity exists. whether it be a magnetic style force or a distortion of space by mass, gravity exists.

If you subscribe to Thomism*, Platonism or some other variant similar in this regard, then why are you objecting to my comments about transcendent substances (or perhaps “form” would be a better word)? If not, then the above language is entirely inappropriate. As I have pointed out, “force” is a vector in a math model. It does not “exist” except on paper.

What exists is the material world, and that we can indeed see, touch and rigorously quantify. Its behavior is not caused by the equations of Newton, but instead its behavior caused Newton to formulate his equations.

*- I have not assumed that you subscribe to Thomism, by the way, even though I suspect as much. If you look back at my posts in this thread, you will see that I continually have used appropriate qualifiers such as “if/then”. I have never claimed that you were arguing for a transcendent substance, but rather have been attempting to get you to confirm or deny my suspicions–something you have yet to do.

 

[JDaniel]

I am a Roman Catholic convert from New Age Protestantism and have immense faith in God. In school, however, we are constantly bombarded with evolutionary theory and empirical methodology. The modern world, particularly in my generation, is left with no room for faith. Because of my conversion and my visible religious beliefs, I have become a figure on whom to rely for theological questions (and objections). Seeing as I am being challenged at school by my peers, I have several questions which I need help with.

Congratulations and welcome to CAF. Your questions are not unusual or uncommon. Neither are some of the answers you have, and will, receive herein. It is important to keep in mind that some answers have substance and some are nothing more than assertions. Assertions, as you well know, are not arguments, nor are they normally logical. They should not be regarded with any more authority than any attempt to brow-beat an opponent.

Remember, the real burden of proof is always borne by the believer. The unbeliever has no burden whatsoever and may continue to make invalid assertions thus seeming to provide grounding for their belief that your beliefs are without grounding and, therefore, absurd.

If one boils down the few assertions (quasi-logic) of the atheist you come to the resolution that all they are asserting is, “I can’t possibly know, therefore, you can’t possibly know.” This stands to reason because they are, to some degree or other, devoid of “Faith”. Faith prevents you and I from making completely unfounded assertions. You and I must consider the affect doing so might have on the Church, God, Christ, and its members.

1. What philosophical logic do we have to prove God, and why is this more reliable than science?

The logic for God is most carefully, and cogently, stated in St. Thomas’s Five Ways. You can find them iterated in the New Advent Encyclopedia online. Anyone who says that they have no veracity or validity either has not read them, completely mis-understands them, or purposely distorts them.

1. Assuming there is one god, why is the Christian faith in general preferable to other religions? Why is Christianity correct and other religions false mythological stories?

Christ gave the keys to the kingdom of heaven and the power to bind and loose to Peter, the first head of the Church - not to anyone else. This is very significant in regard to your query.

1. Any other advice for dealing with agnostics or atheists? I was speaking with an atheist teacher. I argued Aquinas’ uncaused cause theory: that since all matter must be created from other matter, there physically must be a god to create the original particles of matter.

Close, but, perhaps part of your problem with said teacher. The “uncaused cause” , attributed to Aquinas is the factical of the Efficient cause. Simply described, it is that cause that is essentially external to the material and formal causes, which brings about the transition from privation to the possession of the final form. It has to do primarily with being, particularly any kind of being that “comes-to-be”. It transitions instantaneously with all parts of the thing moving, or transitioning simultaneously. The full transition occurs within the “now”. Thus, there can be no infinite regression. It is totally wrong to think of the “now” regressing backward to infinity as the “now” would never arrive at either that destination or the current destination since there can be no destinations in an actually infinite continuum. Therefore, the infinity spoken of here is a “potential” infinity. Now, a “potential infinity” must have a beginning, since the potential toward infinity is still into the future. Thus, that potential infinite beginning we call God.

That being said, St. Thomas says we call this cause of causes, “God”, but, inasmuch as the first cause is the first cause, we have yet to give it a name other than First Cause. There are other reasons why we name Him “God”, which have not been discussed as yet.

He replied that this logic is infinitely regressive, because if all things must have a creator, then God must be created.

Shoddy logic. If the potentially infinite continuum cannot go to Infinity, then it cannot go to infinity. He can’t force it to, or say it to make it so. That would be moronic.

Second, he said that he would rather assume that the universe always existed rather than a higher being that simply always “was.”

Well, as others have said, that would ignore - and violate - the most commonly believed cosmology for the beginning of the universe - the Big Bang.

jd

 

[therealobadiah]

Geez…

Gravity is NOT the model. Gravity is the force - the energy. It is “governed” by a principle that we also call “Gravity” or the “principle of gravity”. It is merely expressed as a formula so as to be able to measure it.

If it didn’t exist, you wouldn’t be able to measure it.

ok, so now gravity doesnt exist, just a model exists? and what of magnetism? its another mathematically quantifiable set of behaviors of matter, yet we can quite simply describe the lines of magnetic force with some iron filings.

Actually, Hatsoff is correct. As has been pointed out at another thread, gravity is defined by what is measured, not by the physical object of ‘gravity’ itself. Technically, on earth gravity is defined by the nomenclature gc, or 32 ft lbs/sec2. Gravity is a description of a property mass’ have, it is not an actual object that can or will be discovered because it is tied into the property of a mass, like volume.

What you are calling “gravity” has nothing to do with classical mechanics. If you are asking why I doubt that there is some kind of transcendent substance in the universe guiding matter to behave the way it does, that’s because there’s absolutely no evidence for the existence of such a thing.

On the other hand, there is evidence of such a thing.

 

[lil_flower_luv]

The existence of God is found in your heart. That is, if you truly want to find Him there.

Then Christ will make His home in your hearts as you trust in Him. Your roots will grow down into God’s love and keep you strong. And may you have the power to understand, as all God’s people should, how wide, how long, how high, and how deep His love is. Ephesians 3:17-18

:heart:Bless you.
Therese

 

[warpspeedpetey]

If you subscribe to Thomism*, Platonism or some other variant similar in this regard, then why are you objecting to my comments about transcendent substances (or perhaps “form” would be a better word)? If not, then the above language is entirely inappropriate. As I have pointed out, “force” is a vector in a math model. It does not “exist” except on paper.

i object that you assume that we are speaking about Thomism, as though i generally ascribe scientific realities to Thomistic ideas.

do you not know the difference between Thomistic metaphysics and science?

and yes, i understand the idea of “force”. you seem to assume an unknown method of transmission equals non-existence. however vector fields describe quite adequately the magnetic force. not knowing the the physical form of said forces, does not prevent their actual existence. hence, our empirical observations of their effects on matter.

What exists is the material world, and that we can indeed see, touch and rigorously quantify. Its behavior is not caused by the equations of Newton, but instead its behavior caused Newton to formulate his equations.

and your point? i suspect that magnets and gravity operate quite independently of newton

*- I have not assumed that you subscribe to Thomism, by the way, even though I suspect as much.

i freely admit i am a Thomist. so what? how does that have anything to do with what we are discussing? see, that is the insulting part right there. you keep assuming that Thomism has something to do with this.

If you look back at my posts in this thread, you will see that I continually have used appropriate qualifiers such as “if/then”. I have never claimed that you were arguing for a transcendent substance, but rather have been attempting to get you to confirm or deny my suspicions–something you have yet to do.

what suspicions?, that i am a Thomist?, merely ask and i will tell you, yes i am a Thomist. but again, what does that have to do with the topic of conversation?

and yes you did imply that i was arguing for some transcendant substance in the matter of gravity.

 

[tonyrey]

There is plenty of evidence for Design in the universe, particularly the existence of creative, rational, autonomous beings. Knowledge of irrational, physical processes presupposes the power of reason. Atheists use their power of reason to attribute their power of reason to irrational, physical processes! A most remarkable feat… That is why it is an arbitrary backstop.

I mean of course that to attribute one’s power of reason to irrational, physical processes by using one’s power of reason is an arbitrary (and irrational) backstop…

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Actually, Hatsoff is correct. As has been pointed out at another thread, gravity is defined by what is measured, not by the physical object of ‘gravity’ itself. Technically, on earth gravity is defined by the nomenclature gc, or 32 ft lbs/sec2. Gravity is a description of a property mass’ have, it is not an actual object that can or will be discovered because it is tied into the property of a mass, like volume.

On the other hand, there is evidence of such a thing.

yes, we know. we arent claiming it to be a physical thing, something with physical substance itself, rather that it exists. hence, it is something that can be known from its effects. just like G-d can be known from His effects.

 

[James_S_Saint]

yes, we know. we arent claiming it to be a physical thing, something with physical substance itself, rather that it exists. hence, it is something that can be known from its effects. just like G-d can be known from His effects.

Non-existence would mean that it could have no effect.

So technically, even if you were so blind as to believe that gravity was only the model, it would still exist, because the model has effect. That is how and why they use it.

 

[hatsoff]

i object that you assume that we are speaking about Thomism, as though i generally ascribe scientific realities to Thomistic ideas.

do you not know the difference between Thomistic metaphysics and science?

and yes, i understand the idea of “force”. you seem to assume an unknown method of transmission equals non-existence. however vector fields describe quite adequately the magnetic force. not knowing the the physical form of said forces, does not prevent their actual existence. hence, our empirical observations of their effects on matter.

Force is not “describe[d]” by a vector. Force is a vector–and vectors exist on paper, in our minds, etc., not in the physical world.

and your point? i suspect that magnets and gravity operate quite independently of newton

My point is to help clarify for you what force is and what it is not.

i freely admit i am a Thomist. so what? how does that have anything to do with what we are discussing? see, that is the insulting part right there. you keep assuming that Thomism has something to do with this.

what suspicions?, that i am a Thomist?, merely ask and i will tell you, yes i am a Thomist. but again, what does that have to do with the topic of conversation?

and yes you did imply that i was arguing for some transcendant substance in the matter of gravity.

Here is what I would like you to clearly answer: Do you not envision force as some kind of transcendent stuff in the universe? If not, then what do you think it is? And if so, then why are you complaining?

 

[James_S_Saint]

Force is not “describe[d]” by a vector. Force is a vector–and vectors exist on paper, in our minds, etc., not in the physical world.

This is pure solipsism and a notably useless philosophy.

Hatsoff, you have clearly convoluted the map and the terrain. How much of it you actually believe and how much you merely choose to use to support argumentation is a question, but the bottom line is simply that it is a dead philosophy born in ignorance of even the most basic rationale.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Non-existence would mean that it could have no effect.

Bingo! give the man his prize! a

So technically, even if you were so blind as to believe that gravity was only the model, it would still exist, because the model has effect. That is how and why they use it.

yup. hmmm hmmmm :aok:

 

[wanstronian]

I mean of course that to attribute one’s power of reason to irrational, physical processes by using one’s power of reason is an arbitrary (and irrational) backstop…

Yet we have evidence that we can reason, whereas we have no evidence for God. Your analogy is not analogous.

And yes, there is the **appearance **of design in the universe - nobody has denied this. The physical laws of nature ensure that chaos does not reign at the macro level. If this were not the case, the universe could (probably) not exist. Order is necessary. As someone on this thread or another recently noted - a Mandelbrot set appears ordered and designed. But it is purely the result of a mathematical progression. It has not been designed to look the way it does.

 

[James_S_Saint]

Yet we have evidence that we can reason,

Excuse me???

I don’t see the evidence.

 

[hatsoff]

This is pure solipsism and a notably useless philosophy.

It has nothing whatsoever to do with solipsism. I have no idea why you would think so.

In science, force is a vector. Hopefully you can agree at least with that.

If you want to develop some metaphysical philosophy where there is some transcendental element causing matter to behave as it does, and call that element “force,” then that’s up to you, but of course I will have to wonder about the evidence supporting such a philosophy. More importantly, your philosophy will not be tied to a proper scientific understanding of force.

 

[Zebedee]

No amount of reason alone will ever prove the existence of God, because it only provides a flawed understanding at best.

What is needed is faith, accompanied by reason, to uncover the truths of the Catholic Faith.

Zebedee

 

[hatsoff]

Bingo! give the man his prize! a

yup. hmmm hmmmm :aok:

I thought you agreed that the model is descriptive, and not prescriptive. Is that not so?

If you think Newton’s equations have some effect on the behavior of matter, then I must voice my disagreement.