From an Agnostic Viewpoint, How Do We Know Is God the Christain God?

  • Thread starter Thread starter billy15
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
B

billy15

Guest
I was having a discussion with someone about Pascal’s Wager, as well as St. Thonams’ Aquainis’ Ways and the point was brought up about how we can’t possibly know that God is the Christian or Abrahamic God. I know this has probably been addressed on here in the past, but I couldn’t find it in the search. What proofs are there that God is the Abrahamic God? I know it can’t fully be proven, because we need to have faith, but what is a rebuttal we can possibly have? How can we assure ourselves that the God that Aquainis lays down proofs for is the Abrahamic God? Thank you.
 
If you study religion, the choice is yours to make. I cannot prove to you that I am following the right God, but it is my personal truth that I have come to the conclusion of. To each their own. I can however prove if a God/prophet is false base on their laws and ideas. Its pretty obvious that you wouldn’t follow somebody who was very sinful or had evil characteristics.
 
billy15 said:
I was having a discussion with someone about Pascal’s Wager, as well as St. Thonams’ Aquainis’ Ways and the point was brought up about how we can’t possibly know that God is the Christian or Abrahamic God. I know this has probably been addressed on here in the past, but I couldn’t find it in the search. What proofs are there that God is the Abrahamic God? I know it can’t fully be proven, because we need to have faith, but what is a rebuttal we can possibly have? How can we assure ourselves that the God that Aquainis lays down proofs for is the Abrahamic God? Thank you.
Click to expand...
The best way is probably historical evidence for the resurrection. You could look for threads on that. I’ve posted some extensive threads on it in the past, but especially suggest some books and authors, N.T, Wright is pretty good as is William Lane Craig. Check his website reasonable faith under popular articles.
 
I’ve also seen this argument from the point of view that the historical person of Jesus Christ is either a legend, liar, lunatic, or Lord. I’m not sure if this site is specifically Catholic or not, but found it on a very quick google search, and it explains that if you can eliminate the first 3 choices on that list, there is nothing left, but to declare that Jesus Christ is Lord and God. (It’s also helpful to click on the blue words, “a liar, a lunatic–or Lord and God” on the first line of the second paragraph.) They use the writings of C.S. Lewis in this.

whoisjesus-really.com/english/claims.htm
 
billy15 said:
I was having a discussion with someone about Pascal’s Wager, as well as St. Thonams’ Aquainis’ Ways and the point was brought up about how we can’t possibly know that God is the Christian or Abrahamic God. I know this has probably been addressed on here in the past, but I couldn’t find it in the search. What proofs are there that God is the Abrahamic God? I know it can’t fully be proven, because we need to have faith, but what is a rebuttal we can possibly have? How can we assure ourselves that the God that Aquainis lays down proofs for is the Abrahamic God? Thank you.
Click to expand...
Isn’t it a bit outre to qualify God with an adjective? Yes, we use adjectives and qualifiers as long as we think about God. But what the actual referent is, we have no clue, wouldn’t you say? What we believe in is an abstraction, as far as what we have in our minds and hearts, no? All of our thoughts are constructs until we meet God face to face, and even then, what can we take away into the mental realm but poor descriptions?

To say that the actual God is Abrahamic, Islamic, or Buddhist or whatever, is a qualification made for our argumentative convenience. Do they have anything to do with the God Himself?
 
danserr said:
What do you think of Licona? I’ve read N.T. Wright, who I like and Craig, but saw this and haven’t looked at it yet. What do you think of it?
Click to expand...
I agree with Keener that “This book is the most thorough treatment on the resurrection and historiography to date…” Licona explains exactly which heuristic to use when analyzing the texts, and how to use it. He applies this to all the relevant texts and uses only the most historically probable. He extracts 3 ‘facts’ from these sources which he calls the bedrock. Then he analyzes numerous competing hypotheses for these ‘facts’ and concludes that the Resurrection Hypothesis best explains them. Really good.
 
Perplexity said:
I agree with Keener that “This book is the most thorough treatment on the resurrection and historiography to date…” Licona explains exactly which heuristic to use when analyzing the texts, and how to use it. He applies this to all the relevant texts and uses only the most historically probable. He extracts 3 ‘facts’ from these sources which he calls the bedrock. Then he analyzes numerous competing hypotheses for these ‘facts’ and concludes that the Resurrection Hypothesis best explains them. Really good.
Click to expand...
Thanks, I’ll have to put it on my higher priority reading list; it sounds interesting.
 
billy15 said:
I was having a discussion with someone about Pascal’s Wager, as well as St. Thonams’ Aquainis’ Ways and the point was brought up about how we can’t possibly know that God is the Christian or Abrahamic God. I know this has probably been addressed on here in the past, but I couldn’t find it in the search. What proofs are there that God is the Abrahamic God? I know it can’t fully be proven, because we need to have faith, but what is a rebuttal we can possibly have? How can we assure ourselves that the God that Aquainis lays down proofs for is the Abrahamic God? Thank you.
Click to expand...
This is among the most relevant questions ever posted on CAF, despite the poor grammar.

The answer is simple: You cannot.

Aquinas and ongoing theologists do not address the properties of God, perhaps assuming that the Catholic/Christian definition of God as an omnipotent, omnipotent, omnipresent spiritual being is absolutely correct.

The reality is that this definition, devised IMO as an exercise in theological one-upmanship, is inherently illogical. I’ve pointed out elements of this elsewhere-- for example, if God is omniscient, He cannot think. If God is all-powerful, He cannot utilize that power without destroying the universe.

Were Christian theologists to take their work in a spirit similar to that of scientists, they would re-investigate their definition of God in the context of current information. That won’t happen, and you will not get your answers.

Rather than seek the answer to your question in a place where it does not exist, why not investigate the question yourself? Ask yourself what are the minimal properties that an entity requires in order to create the universe?

Physics can help you out here. The First Law of Thermodynamics, for example, informs you that the stuff of the universe, energy, cannot be created (or destroyed). Therefore, you do not need to invent a God who can create the universe from nothing, but rather from a raw material readily at hand.

Keep that agnostic friend handy and try kicking around ideas with him instead of against him.
 
greylorn said:
Physics can help you out here. The First Law of Thermodynamics, for example, informs you that the stuff of the universe, energy, cannot be created (or destroyed). Therefore, you do not need to invent a God who can create the universe from nothing, but rather from a raw material readily at hand.
Click to expand...
Does’t entropy demonstrate this energy is not reusable when maximum entropy is reached? Correct me if I am wrong.
 
greylorn said:
Physics can help you out here. The First Law of Thermodynamics, for example, informs you that the stuff of the universe, energy, cannot be created (or destroyed). Therefore, you do not need to invent a God who can create the universe from nothing, but rather from a raw material readily at hand.
Click to expand...
ITEM: The steady state universe was disproven a long time ago. (By a priest.)

ITEM: The Second Law of Thermodynamics (among other things) disproves what you are claiming.
 
billy15 said:
I was having a discussion with someone about Pascal’s Wager, as well as St. Thonams’ Aquainis’ Ways and the point was brought up about how we can’t possibly know that God is the Christian or Abrahamic God. I know this has probably been addressed on here in the past, but I couldn’t find it in the search. What proofs are there that God is the Abrahamic God? I know it can’t fully be proven, because we need to have faith, but what is a rebuttal we can possibly have? How can we assure ourselves that the God that Aquainis lays down proofs for is the Abrahamic God? Thank you.
Click to expand...
Well, the God Aquinas describes (i.e., the way that God must logically be) is, as a matter of logical necessity, a single being which is all-powerful, all-present, all-knowing, particular, willing, conscious, self-aware, sustaining all that exists in every moment of its existence, and full of limitless love for His creation. If that’s not the God of Christianity, I dunno what is.
 
greylorn said:
This is among the most relevant questions ever posted on CAF, despite the poor grammar.

The answer is simple: You cannot.

Aquinas and ongoing theologists do not address the properties of God, perhaps assuming that the Catholic/Christian definition of God as an omnipotent, omnipotent, omnipresent spiritual being is absolutely correct.
Click to expand...
Erm, no, I’m pretty sure this is false. Aquinas demonstrates that God is pure act, i.e., unqualified being. This means God possesses all the properties of being without limitation and to their highest perfection.

He is limitless with respect to the material – therefore spiritual (that is, utterly unbounded by physical dimensions) and completely present at every point in space and every moment in time (omnipresent). He is limitless with respect to the vital – therefore capable of actualizing every potentiality which may exist in the world (omnipotent). And he is limitless with respect to the rational – therefore possesses every rational faculty (intellect, will, personality, etc.) to the highest degree possible (omniscient). If Aquinas does not address these properties directly they certainly follow logically from his conclusions.

There are also arguments to the effect that God must be singular (namely because distinction is only meaningful with respect to relative superiority or inferiority, such that another God would have to be different from the first God by way of some defect – the possession of which would make “second God” not really God at all) and all-loving.
The reality is that this definition, devised IMO as an exercise in theological one-upmanship, is inherently illogical. I’ve pointed out elements of this elsewhere-- for example, if God is omniscient, He cannot think. If God is all-powerful, He cannot utilize that power without destroying the universe.
Click to expand...
I’d be interested in seeing a link to where you’ve made these arguments before. They don’t sound reasonable, and like most such arguments, they probably equivocate on an improper understanding of terms like “omniscient” and “omnipotent.”
 
greylorn said:
The reality is that this definition, devised IMO as an exercise in theological one-upmanship, is inherently illogical. I’ve pointed out elements of this elsewhere-- for example, if God is omniscient, He cannot think. If God is all-powerful, He cannot utilize that power without destroying the universe.

.
Click to expand...
You must be joking. By omnipotent you seem to be thinking of God as some enormous giant who cannot pet the kitty cat without killing it.

Omnipotence is not a matter of raw power as you seem to think; rather, to say that God is omnipotent simply means that he can actualize all logically possible states of affairs (taking into account time and counterfactuals of creaturely freedom).

Omniscience means that God knows all true propositions. Knowledge of facts does not prevent one from thinking. None of the first five definitions of “think” at dictionary.com entail that an omniscient God could not think. Likewise with the OED. (For example: To form or hold in the mind (an idea, image, or intuition); to carry out (something) as a mental operation…)
 
danserr said:
Omniscience means that God knows all true propositions. Knowledge of facts does not prevent one from thinking. None of the first five definitions of “think” at dictionary.com entail that an omniscient God could not think. Likewise with the OED. (For example: To form or hold in the mind (an idea, image, or intuition); to carry out (something) as a mental operation…)
Click to expand...
Nonetheless, if by “think”, Greylorn means “think in the way that humans do”, then he’s right – God doesn’t “think” in that way. However, that’s an unreasonable limitation on God (just like the other limitation he proposes, on God’s omnipotence, is likewise unreasonable, as you point out).
 
sw85 said:
Erm, no, I’m pretty sure this is false. Aquinas demonstrates that God is pure act, i.e., unqualified being. This means God possesses all the properties of being without limitation and to their highest perfection.
Click to expand...
If God is pure act, then there are no unrealized potentialities in God. That is, there’s nothing that God could have done which he has not done. But, this quickly reduces to absurdity:
  1. God is pure act. [Premise]
  2. If God is pure act, then if God could X, God does X. [Premise]
  3. Therefore, if God could X, God does X. (2), (1), M.P.]
  4. Therefore, if God does not X, God could not X. (3), Trans.]
Nothing immediately absurd? Well, check this out…
  1. God has not refrained from creating this universe. [Premise]
  2. Therefore, if God hasn’t refrained from creating this universe, then God could not refrain from creating this universe. (4), E.I.]
  3. Therefore, God could not refrain from creating this universe. (6), (5) M.P.]
So, apparently, our universe exists necessarily. Reductio ad absurdum. There are all sorts of other reductios that could be made, we’d just list them as 5’, 6’, 7’;…,n*.

P.S. here’s where I got the idea from:

appearedtoblogly.wordpress.com/2012/01/27/if-god-is-pure-act/

and this is the article the blog author refers to:

st-andrews.academia.edu/RyanMullins/Papers/573386/Something_Much_Too_Radical_To_Believe_Towards_a_Refutation_of_Divine_Simplicity
 
I don’t see any reason to accept premise 2.

Having the ability to do something but not doing it is not the same thing as having an unrealized potentiality, at least according to my understanding of Thomistic philosophy. The ability to do X is itself an actuality. X’s not being actualized means it is an unactualized potential in the object, not the actor.
 
sw85 said:
I don’t see any reason to accept premise 2.

Having the ability to do something but not doing it is not the same thing as having an unrealized potentiality, at least according to my understanding of Thomistic philosophy. The ability to do X is itself an actuality. X’s not being actualized means it is an unactualized potential in the object, not the actor.
Click to expand...
I’m not familiar with this notion of potency.
 
Perplexity said:
I’m not familiar with this notion of potency.
Click to expand...
It seems intuitively appealing. Am I only strong once I lift something heavy? That seems to be analogous to what premise 2 is claiming. But if it’s possible for me to be strong even without ever lifting something, it follows that my strength is an actual property of myself, not an unrecognized potentiality. It can reasonably be said that my not acting on my being strong leaves a potentiality unactualized in the heavy object (namely the potential for it to be lifted from the ground and raised into the air), but that says nothing about me.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top