How can you prove the existence of God through (being)metaphysics/ontology?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Questioning_1
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Q

Questioning_1

Guest
Metaphysics/ Ontology= the study of being. I know that much.

How is it that this area of philosophy can prove the existence of God?

I don’t see it and i don’t understand it.

Any SIMPLE works one can point to, to clear up the dilemma?
 
metaphysics encompasses both ontology and cosmology. For philosophical proofs of God’s existence see St. Anselm’s ontological argument and St. Thomas Aquinas’s 5 proofs and go on line to
www.aquinasonline.com
There you will find many explanations. Good luck
 
But you should also understand that once you prove something, you know it and you no longer accept it by faith. It is actually an inferior position to be in.

I think you will also find that the arguments you will find from Philosophy will not actually accomplish proving anything as all the arguments of both Aquinas and Anselm are answerable by modern science. It is a good point to always keep in mind whenever one sees an argument that goes too far beyond the expertise (such as arguments from the physical universe by philosophers) of the arguer. Aquinas and Anselm were great theologians and philosophers and maybe even passable scientist of their day, but today their arguments are not up to the new understandings and discoveries of modern science.
 
I am not clear what you are saying.The same laws apply for without causality, contingency, motion, design we would not have any science or scientific laws. How otherwise can you explain the laws of gravity, relativety, quantum physics or even the structure of a simple cell.
 
If there is no God, nothing is right or wrong, murder is acceptable and rape can be a good thing.

Human morality comes from one of two places; 1.science or nature 2. God.

Lets suppose for the moment that God does not exist but He is rather a fantastic creation to justify a higher moral standard; essentially that there is no God.

If there is no God then nature or science reigns supreme. Since there is no God, man and what he observes must be the determinant for a sense of moral certainty and status quo. Man determines the ultimate good through their own abilities of reasoning and observation of nature. This inevitably leads us to the Darwinistic approach of survival of the fittest. Only the strong survive. If you are strong you live, if you are weak you die. There is no sense of morality demonstrated in the natural world only dominance and submission. The strong rule why the weak are ruled over. The strong make the rules while the weak follow them.

Is murder wrong? Not if you are making the rules. Those in power can make any rule they wish to make. Murder can be justified, rape can be explained, nothing can be wrong. Laws will be obeyed for reason of convenience. If murder is legal, your subjects will live in fear of one another. As a result you may have anarchy or they will not work well for you in the fields. Murder becomes wrong as a matter of convenience then actually being wrong. In the animal/natural world, creatures are killed constantly, the strong prey upon the weak. Why would taking a human life be considered wrong other than the fact that it might create instability in a society? The importance of human life and human happiness become nothing more than a social stability issue. If your people are unhappy or dying left and right chaos will ensue. Murder is wrong because it brings chaos. I do not wish someone to take your life because it would create fear, uncertainty or total anarchy if done on a large scale. Your life is only important because your living creates stability in the society, through work and social function and your death would bring instability.

If there is no God then human life is important only because it bring stability to society. So you can kill as many people as you want as long is it doesn’t upset the state of your society. Murder is fine just as long as panic does not ensue. Anything can be justified by this reasoning. Why is rape wrong? With the moral void of the natural world rape could be turned into a very positive experience with the common moral arguments against such an offense not even existing. The stronger can rape and murder the weaker. It only becomes a problem when it affects social stability, other than that, do what you want.

Humans have no natural rights. What in nature gives us automatic rights and privileges? Do the trees give us rights? Does the grass? What gives us the right not to be killed or abused? Nothing in nature gives us any rights. We have no natural rights in of themselves. The only law we see in nature is that the strong survive and the weak perish. The strong inevitably will make the rules and the laws that benefit themselves. If there is no God then the only law in this world is made by those with power.

Even if a society is built upon the premise of stability it would not stand. There is no higher morality then the frame of a suspension bridge across a river. Everything is for structure and stability not right or wrong. The terms right and wrong entirely depend upon who retains control. As long as those in power can maintain control anything goes. If our society was based upon this premise I could kill whoever I wanted to just so long as it didn’t upset the balance of society. I could go into the inner cities or go after the homeless and take whoever’s life I wished
 
Would almost anything be right in our society if we live by the laws of nature? Why do I not have a right to make you do something you don’t want to? Why do I not have the right to take everything you own? Nothing could ever be really wrong with anything we did unless the strong said otherwise.

In some countries women are almost considered property. They are treated as sub human. Many of their societies are stable. Who are we to tell them that women are not cattle? What makes our sense of justice and morality superior to theirs? Again, survival of the fittest. Clearly women are inferior to men because they are ruled by the stronger men.
Inevitably all questions about right and wrong are asked best by little kids. “WHY?” Why is this so or why is this wrong. From a natural perspective all the “Why’s” are answered with “because they are in power and they say so” “because it messes up the balance of our society” which are selfish hedonistic answers indeed. You’re alive simply because the strong have not killed you or you serve a purpose in the wheels of the machine, your existence is only in service to the strong and the strong’s sense of order. You live because it would be too much trouble if you died and too much trouble makes things unpleasant for me and we seek pleasure not pain.
Human beings have come to the understanding that murder is wrong, but the explanation from a natural perspective as oppose to a theological perspective are completely different.

No matter how the reasoning goes for a moral understanding from a natural perspective the results boils down to nothing ever possibly being wrong unless those in power say so. Very little can be objected to because might makes right. This is a very ambiguous sense of morality and justice. All can be wrong and all can be right depending on which way the wind blows.

Compassion, kindness, empathy are all then contrary to our natural understanding of the world. Our sense of morality, justice and understanding is contrary to natural law and science. We know that just because one is strong does not make them right. Simply because someone in power says that gravity does not exist does not mean it is so. There must be a higher authority and it clearly cannot be natural law. If it can not be natural law because much of human understanding is contrary to that natural law, then there must be a God. For if there is no God, then nothing can be morally wrong. If there is no God, then all morality we have, even our own “CONSCIENCE” (which is an interesting term itself CON-SCIENCE… AGAINST SCIENCE) must be an illusion.

There must be a God. Look at the world around us, there is order, not chaos. The earth is a self contained biosphere with incredible order. The human body has incredible order and sophistication. The universe itself is very ordered, not chaotic. Simple order denotes the presence of a higher authority. One does not come across a highway system and think to yourself that it is spontaneously occurring order but rather the plan and deliberate actions of a higher being. The more we learn about this world through science, the more we come to the conclusion that it is not possible for God not to ex
 
michael_legna said:
But you should also understand that once you prove something, you know it and you no longer accept it by faith. It is actually an inferior position to be in.

I think you will also find that the arguments you will find from Philosophy will not actually accomplish proving anything as all the arguments of both Aquinas and Anselm are answerable by modern science. It is a good point to always keep in mind whenever one sees an argument that goes too far beyond the expertise (such as arguments from the physical universe by philosophers) of the arguer. Aquinas and Anselm were great theologians and philosophers and maybe even passable scientist of their day, but today their arguments are not up to the new understandings and discoveries of modern science.
Click to expand...
 
40.png
avpadriga:
Greater understanding can be obtain by studying and research, Study more and search more then you will come out arguing with God and His existence.

But wisdom can be thought with divinity. Just think about that even the modern science still cannot figure it out on how the bee’s fly. Then they have to claim that they can prove something?

Today and tomorrow are still the same, the same sins that we committed since from the early world, the same ego that we encounter. Our human nature of thinking is purely human and we are trying to talk about spiritual matter. The human ways is not the same as of God. His ways of understanding is not like of human.

If you prove something in a human way you need something that can be seen or can be touch and feel or by explaination of some theoritical calculations. Who invented the time? Who decided that there is only 24 hrs a day? and all those measurements of distance, weight, speed and etc… all of these were of human way.

They human measurement cannot measure the word “ETERNITY” AND THE TIME BEFORE TIME. If we cannot imagine what is eterniy then you will end up with something that cannot be answered nor can be explain by barely human. May be somebody or someone is up there and that’s what we call GOD.

Believed in God and abide in His teaching then you will find eternity. You want some proof? There is only one way of proving and no turning back and that is DEATH.

God bless you

Tony
 
Joyousguard said:
Human morality comes from one of two places; 1.science or nature 2. God.
Click to expand...
Isn’t that three places? “Nature” is separate, as in the basic CC acceptance of natural-law ethics.

Seems a bit off topic, anyway. 🙂
 
cpayne said:
Isn’t that three places? “Nature” is separate, as in the basic CC acceptance of natural-law ethics.

Seems a bit off topic, anyway. 🙂
Click to expand...
The way I would classify nature and science as being similiar is that science is the means through which we study nature in addition to it being a study of the natural world itself. That being said, it could be said that nature exists unto itself but science is the translation of the natural state into something objective rather than simply observation for no real reason. Nature is the existence but science is the explanation and reasoning of that existence.

Any critiques would be most appreciated. My post was just something I have been trying to flesh out over the years and it is always best to have other people look at the methodology.👍

What I have found most helpful when talking with atheists and non catholics is to use as few religious refernces as possible but rather appeal to their intellect rather than their spirituality. I have noticed on these forums, particulalry when christians are talking with atheists or pagans that they use a religious method rather than one of logic which would suit them better until the other person finally relents or at least becomes less sure of their stance, then a religious discussion can occur.
 
Science/ nature/ man/ knowledge/ research etc etc etc.

All of these have had (thru the centuries) a beginning, growth, change,(with a myriad of retractions, mistakes, oversights, errors) continuing change and change and change.

Perishable!! did I mention perishable? What remains and to what purpose (of what remains if anything) when all of these pass into oblivion. All, for the exception of man’s soul, will pass and go into non-existence. And don’t even try to claim that “facts and figures” of science remain in some whirlpool of interchangeability of energy and matter…Our current scientific knowledge is borrowed from our observations of what God has created. He (being the origen of all knowledge and wisdom) is unaffected by our puny scientific understanding of the “universe”. Sure we get wrapped around the cosmic axle with our fancy, philosophical phraesology that seeks to elevate it mind above the existence of God. It’s been tried! ask Lucifer. Pointless.

You want proof?.. you are sustained in existence along with everything in the universe by His very word. And all your denying, rejecting and reasoning God away is futile. God is love…it’s the reason He still sustains you in existence, long enough for you to deny Him or eventually drop all your “elevated” reasoning and believe in the One who believes in you.
Pax Domini sit semper vobiscum.🤷
 
:confused: To whom is the previous post directed?

I think we all agree that God is unaffected by our understanding of Him or his creation. True?
 
Maybe my biggest concern is with motion.

Why does there have to be a mover behind everything?

I move myself nothing is moving me and nothing is moving the computer on my desk that i type on. The keys themselves are moved by my fingers but not the entity of “computer.”

I cannot fathom the concept of first causes. Is the proof from motion the same as cause or am I just mixing them up? Why can’t everything just cause themselves?

Thank you so far, because it is helping.
 
I am sorry I posted that last reply under the wrong thread, perhaps they are similar but not quite.

I am not posting the same question under another thread of the 5 proofs.
 
Questioning said:
Maybe my biggest concern is with motion.

Why does there have to be a mover behind everything?

I move myself nothing is moving me and nothing is moving the computer on my desk that i type on. The keys themselves are moved by my fingers but not the entity of “computer.”

I cannot fathom the concept of first causes. Is the proof from motion the same as cause or am I just mixing them up? Why can’t everything just cause themselves?

Thank you so far, because it is helping.
Click to expand...
Follow your description of typing alittle bit further: What causes your fingers to move? Your “will” causes your fingers to move( or your desire to type or electrical signals from the brain, regardless, whatever it might be) What causes your will to move? The desire for the good causes your will to move. Whats causes you to desire the good? Human nature has been imbuned by God to always desire the good. (this is simplified tremendously for brevity)

If we trace everything back anything far enough we come to God and God alone. Trace all the causes and affects that led you to marry your wife/husband. You can literaly trace the end result of your marriage or the current state of your marriage to a cause five years ago, 1000 years ago and finally to God himself.

If we follow this logic all the way back to God, we are left with one question; Then who caused/created God? This is the point where you almost inevitably lose those who do not believe anyways. Non believers quite accurately state that “something must have created God by that logic”. When you try to explain that God is an “uncaused ccause”, meaning that nothing caused Him, you will be met with many rolling eyes.

Using Aquinas is a good start but, as the logic above shows, is that even the spectacular reasoning of Aquinas has its limitations. Aquinas is only part of the expalaination. It is not meant to be used to prove the existence of God by itself but rather in conjuction with other aspects such as science, philosphy and human reason. What Aquinas’s proofs do demonstarte is that there is something out there that we do not quite understand and that cannot be explained by human understanding and science alone but must be incorporated into Theology. Science and theology are by no means against eachother but rather the more we learn of science the more it proves what we knew by faith to be true. Science is almost absorbed by theology and improves our understanding of God. Your not going to prove the existence of God with Theology or logic, but you can get closer and closer to that goal by having theology absorb and swallow science.

letters appear on the screen- the keys on the keyboard are pushed down- my fingers push the keys down- my brain tells my fingers to push particular keys down- my brain was taught to type in my typing class- my typing class was formed to teach people to type- people need to know how to type because computers are more efficient etc. etc.

suffice it to say, you can trace evry action you perform back to a cause and finally all the way back to God Himself although that might take a really long time
 
I am going to start a new thread on the Existence of God proved by motion. This issue continues to plague me with questions.

Please, all go there if you have comments or help for the proof of God by Thomas Aquinas’ proofs of motion.

Thank you again for you help.
 
Questioning said:
Maybe my biggest concern is with motion.

Why does there have to be a mover behind everything?

I move myself nothing is moving me and nothing is moving the computer on my desk that i type on. The keys themselves are moved by my fingers but not the entity of “computer.”

I cannot fathom the concept of first causes. Is the proof from motion the same as cause or am I just mixing them up? Why can’t everything just cause themselves?

Thank you so far, because it is helping.
Click to expand...
 
You can move yourself because you are alive, however you cannot fly yourself to Paris you would need a plane to move you. Inanimate things eg a computer cannot move itself unless moved by a force such as electricity or a car by combustion for example.

Nothing in the Universe explains itself and this is what is called contingency… If a ball came hurtling through your window you would run out to see who had thrown it- you would look for the cause. You do not explain your own existence your parents were the cause and so going back through the evolutionary process to the beginning of the universe - the universe itself cannot explain itself… From all these secondary causes we look for a cause that explains itself and is not dependant on any other cause and this we call the first cause - God. His existence is necessary, He must exist. Our existence and that of the universe is contingent neither must exist.
It is precisely because the universe is contingent that many have asked - why is there a universe rather than nothing ?!
 

Gödel’s ontological proof is a formalization of Saint Anselm’s ontological argument for God’s existence by the mathematician Kurt Gödel.

St. Anselm’s ontological argument, in its most succinct form, is as follows: “God, by definition, is that than which a greater cannot be thought. God exists in the understanding. If God exists in the understanding, we could imagine Him to be greater by existing in reality. Therefore, God must exist.” A more elaborate version was given by Gottfried Leibniz; this is the version that Gödel studied and attempted to clarify with his ontological argument.

Although Gödel was religious[citation needed], he never published his proof because he feared that it would be mistaken as establishing God’s existence beyond doubt. Instead, he only saw it as a logical investigation and a clean formulation of Leibniz’ argument with all assumptions spelled out. He repeatedly showed the argument to friends around 1970; it was published in 1987, nine years after his death.

stats.uwaterloo.ca/~cgsmall/ontology.html
 
I don’t think the existence of God has to be proven. To have faith is to establish a personal relationship with God. We can feel His guiding hand in daily life with faith. However, some people tend to keep a blind eye on God’s existence. They have eyes but do not see.
Hebrew 11:1-3
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top