God has provided us a preponderance of evidence for His existence

[JDaniel]

It is my contention that God, through the five Proofs of His Existence from Thomas Aquinas, has provided us with a preponderance of evidence of His existence. (In fact, I contend that each proof stands alone, and that each, of itself, provides the same preponderances of evidence.)

Now, while the above contentions are my beliefs, accepting them as “all that is necessary to fully know God exists as humans”, would seem to put an end to the need for faith.

Therefore, if the last sentence is true, then there must be – of necessity – some area (or areas) of inconsistency with the knowable, or, perhaps some fallacy, or error, that prevents our complete assumption of those proofs potentially resulting in the demotion of Faith.

I would like to hear opinions as to what those incongruities might be or, if in fact, it does not matter and one can know and still have ”faith”.

I will ask that participants of this thread restrict their assertions and responses to Aquinas’ 2nd proof only, that being, the proof from efficient causality. Further, it would be very nice if anyone wishing to povide (name removed by moderator)ut herein, become familiar with the definitions involved with this subject.

This is his proof:

“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.”
- New Advent - Summa

JD

 

[Jefe_Wyatt]

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.

That’s the flaw in the argument. What it’s saying is that it’s not possible for there to be an infinite amount of causes, because causes are finite.

Without providing a proof that causes are finite, you can’t make that conclusion.

 

[JDaniel]

That’s the flaw in the argument. What it’s saying is that it’s not possible for there to be an infinite amount of causes, because causes are finite.

Without providing a proof that causes are finite, you can’t make that conclusion.

Well, we have no knowledge of anything that actually is infinite. We have surmises, conjectures, and speculations, but, not a single even probable exigency that is infinite. The proof, therefore, is from consideration of the universe.

Secondly, and I’m not a quantum mathematician, even quantum mathematics proves that there can be no per se infinity. There can be a quantum aggregate (of numbers) that is “growing” to infinity, but, if we took a snapshot at this moment, it would merely be a transfinite number. (Silly word, in this instance, “merely”!)

The only Absolute Infinity that exists would be God. And, only because It would have to exist outside of the physical universe.

But, this is exactly what I want. Thank you.

Respectfully,

JD

 

[Namesake]

Well, we have no knowledge of anything that actually is infinite. We have surmises, conjectures, and speculations, but, not a single even probable exigency that is infinite. The proof, therefore, is from consideration of the universe.

Secondly, and I’m not a quantum mathematician, even quantum mathematics proves that there can be no per se infinity. There can be a quantum aggregate (of numbers) that is “growing” to infinity, but, if we took a snapshot at this moment, it would merely be a transfinite number. (Silly word, in this instance, “merely”!)

The only Absolute Infinity that exists would be God. And, only because It would have to exist outside of the physical universe.

But, this is exactly what I want. Thank you.

Respectfully,

JD

So then, what you believe is that quantum mechanics can’t prove God exists. That’s OK because quantum mechanics isn’t interested in proving anything about God.

 

[JDaniel]

So then, what you believe is that quantum mechanics can’t prove God exists. That’s OK because quantum mechanics isn’t interested in proving anything about God.

Respectfully, no. What I clearly said was that quantum mathematics proves that infinities do not exist (in the physical universe).

That God exists is from me, not QM.

JD

 

[Namesake]

Respectfully, no. What I clearly said was that quantum mathematics proves that infinities do not exist (in the physical universe).

That God exists is from me, not QM.

JD

Maybe I don’t understand it so well, but from what I know, contemporary cosmology suggests that the universe had no beginning and therefore will have no end. I think the most useful idea is that the universe is expanding (inflation) and it will eventually collapse into itself into another singularity. Then the whole thing starts again, maybe.

 

[Jefe_Wyatt]

That God exists is from me, not QM.

Hopefully I’m not misunderstanding your intent, but I think that’s a great way to look at it. I find it as pointless to attempt to prove that God exists as it is to try to prove that he doesn’t. I don’t think it’s going to be possible either way. God and religion is a faith-based matter, and that’s how it should be.

 

[JDaniel]

Maybe I don’t understand it so well, but from what I know, contemporary cosmology suggests that the universe had no beginning and therefore will have no end. I think the most useful idea is that the universe is expanding (inflation) and it will eventually collapse into itself into another singularity. Then the whole thing starts again, maybe.

Yeah, I don’t understand too well either. Current science says the universe started with the big bang, about 13.7 billions years ago. Science is pretty convinced of that.

The other thing, about the expansion and contraction, has been posited as one of several possibilities. The jury is out on this, probably permanently, due to the fact that we can’t know anything from the other side of the big bang.

Thinking of a “universe” that explodes, expands for countless years, sibsides and contracts back down to a pin point of ultra-compressed matter/energy does not sound like anything I’d even want to be a part of.

JD

 

[Namesake]

Hopefully I’m not misunderstanding your intent, but I think that’s a great way to look at it. I find it as pointless to attempt to prove that God exists as it is to try to prove that he doesn’t. I don’t think it’s going to be possible either way. God and religion is a faith-based matter, and that’s how it should be.

I wish more people could see it that way.

Quantum mechanics is a threat to people who choose to remain somewhere in the distant past. For me it is just like evolution theory in that it shows us the wonder of creation.

God gave us this intellect and allows us to use it to understand the universe we are a part of. We should honor God by trying to understand the universe.

 

[JDaniel]

Hopefully I’m not misunderstanding your intent, but I think that’s a great way to look at it. I find it as pointless to attempt to prove that God exists as it is to try to prove that he doesn’t. I don’t think it’s going to be possible either way. God and religion is a faith-based matter, and that’s how it should be.

However, the Catholic priests were the scientists of the world for nearly the last 2,000 years. For the most part, they still kept their faith in God and their love of discovery.

As a believer, I find this astounding.

JD

 

[Namesake]

Yeah, I don’t understand too well either. Current science says the universe started with the big bang, about 13.7 billions years ago. Science is pretty convinced of that.

The other thing, about the expansion and contraction, has been posited as one of several possibilities. The jury is out on this, probably permanently, due to the fact that we can’t know anything from the other side of the big bang.

Thinking of a “universe” that explodes, expands for countless years, sibsides and contracts back down to a pin point of ultra-compressed matter/energy does not sound like anything I’d even want to be a part of.

JD

The physics involved doesn’t depend on your opinion, fortunately.

 

[JDaniel]

The physics involved doesn’t depend on your opinion, fortunately.

I know, darn it!

JD

 

[cerad]

JDaniel,
Might want to research virtual particles. These little guys pop into existence from nothing with no discernible cause. They hang around for a bit and then pop back out.

Augustine’s assertion that there are no uncaused effects is wrong.

 

[JDaniel]

JDaniel,
Might want to research virtual particles. These little guys pop into existence from nothing with no discernible cause. They hang around for a bit and then pop back out.

Augustine’s assertion that there are no uncaused effects is wrong.

This is the stuff I’m looking for. I will research it.

Thank you.

JD

 

[Namesake]

However, the Catholic priests were the scientists of the world for nearly the last 2,000 years. For the most part, they still kept their faith in God and their love of discovery.

As a believer, I find this astounding.

JD

The assertion that Catholic priests were THE scientists of the world is a stretch. Look into history and you will see that isn’t true at all. Just for starters, the most significant scientists in relatively recent history might be Newton, Einstein, Feynman, Hawking.

Others in the more distant past are Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler.

None were priests.

 

[JDaniel]

The assertion that Catholic priests were THE scientists of the world is a stretch. Look into history and you will see that isn’t true at all. Just for starters, the most significant scientists in relatively recent history might be Newton, Einstein, Feynman, Hawking.

Others in the more distant past are Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler.

None were priests.

Sorry, that was an unfortunate choice of words. I din’t mean by it “exclusivity”. However, if someone out there already has a compiled list, I imagine his would be bigger than yours. But, I could be wrong.

I read a story the other day about a group of Trappist (I believe) monks who were wiped out by the soldiers of Henry VIII who had advanced a forge that might have moved the world forward a couple hundred years, had they and the forge not been destroyed.

I believe that grouping of men, alone, overshadows your group except possibly in diversity.

I don’t want this thread to drift off into this sort of reverie. I want it to stay focused on the topic - the second proof of St. Thomas. I would respectfully ask that the responses stay focused on the topic.

JD

 

[Namesake]

Sorry, that was an unfortunate choice of words. I din’t mean by it “exclusivity”. However, if someone out there already has a compiled list, I imagine his would be bigger than yours. But, I could be wrong.

I read a story the other day about a group of Trappist (I believe) monks who were wiped out by the soldiers of Henry VIII who had advanced a forge that might have moved the world forward a couple hundred years, had they and the forge not been destroyed.

I believe that grouping of men, alone, overshadows your group except possibly in diversity.

I don’t want this thread to drift off into this sort of reverie. I want it to stay focused on the topic - the second proof of St. Thomas. I would respectfully ask that the responses stay focused on the topic.

JD

Well, the guys I mentioned are probably the most significant scientists in the history of the world and none were priests. There are many others that could be mentioned who also were not priests. Curie, Fleming, Pasteur, Salk, Sabin, Planck, Darwin, Davey, Fermi,… you get the idea!

The point is that Catholic priests might have contributed a lot to science but the most significant scientists were not priests. That’s all.

 

[JDaniel]

Well, the guys I mentioned are probably the most significant scientists in the history of the world and none were priests. There are many others that could be mentioned who also were not priests. Curie, Fleming, Pasteur, Salk, Sabin, Planck, Darwin, Davey, Fermi,… you get the idea!

The point is that Catholic priests might have contributed a lot to science but the most significant scientists were not priests. That’s all.

I can live with that.

JD

 

[JDaniel]

JDaniel,
Might want to research virtual particles. These little guys pop into existence from nothing with no discernible cause. They hang around for a bit and then pop back out.

Augustine’s assertion that there are no uncaused effects is wrong.

OK, I’ve done some research on “virtual particles”. It appears that they are “forces” said to be “particular” so that they can be explained in a way that allows us to understand the science regarding them.

It is thought that they help to keep electrons within the electron shell.

But, as their name says, they are “virtual” and not “real” in the sense of real objects from the physical universe.

As an example, light is thought to be a virtual particle, by some scientists, but, not by all. However, they don’t seem to be calling it a “real physicality”.

As you stated, they “pop into existence from nothing with no discernible cause.” The key word here is “discernable” cause.

JD

 

[Namesake]

OK, I’ve done some research on “virtual particles”. It appears that they are “forces” said to be “particular” so that they can be explained in a way that allows us to understand the science regarding them.

It is thought that they help to keep electrons within the electron shell.

But, as their name says, they are “virtual” and not “real” in the sense of real objects from the physical universe.

As an example, light is thought to be a virtual particle, by some scientists, but, not by all. However, they don’t seem to be calling it a “real physicality”.

As you stated, they “pop into existence from nothing with no discernible cause.” The key word here is “discernable” cause.

JD

I don’t know what you have been reading, but if it told you that photons are virtual particles then your source is wrong.

Virtual particles are real. And I don’t know any scientists who disagree with the dual nature of light. It behaves as a wave and a particle. That’s real.

And it’s an old and dangerous fallacy to ascribe to God that which we can’t explain today because tomorrow we might very well explain God away under that system of God.