How do you know God exists?

[adrift]

gods. It is possible that a lower order god could have created the Earth under the command of a higher order God.

Jeremiah 10:11 " The gods that have not made the heavens and the earth, even they shall perish from the earth, and from under these heavens."

This verse which you provided states that “gods” did not create earth or anything else.

 

[Khalid]

Lucifer is perfect. “EZEK 28:15 Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day of thy creation, until iniquity was found in thee.” Now, he is obviously no longer perfect. So how do you define perfect?

It doesn’t seem less reasonable that a perfect being could destroy himself than that a perfect being could create perfect beings that destroy themselves.

Lucifer wasn’t perfect, because he was a created being: being created is the lack of a perfection, as eternity is a perfection, and that which is created is temporal, not eternal.

Mr Contrarian, are you capable of interpreting the Bible? Are you blind to form, to genre? And of using a modern translation? The KJV inserted “Lucifer” several places incorrectly (namely Is 14:12) in the OT.

The matter has been settled: you keep proof-texting as a Protestant sola scripturist. I have no desire to continue to make my point. If you wish me to destroy sola scriptura or the historical-grammatical method of literalistic interpretation, just ask.

Is it possible that THE GOD (the First Cause, the Unmoved Mover, the Ontological Necessity) created lower-order “gods” (Christians would call them “angels”) to do his bidding? Yes. He did. Could he have used them to fashion part of the universe? Yes. But he could not have caused them to create the universe itself, because from nothing comes nothing - they could not create ex nihilo, as they had already been created themselves (in order for the angels to exist, they by definition must have been created by the First Cause): they would be the first of creation, but that which is created can not create separate from its creator. (Jehovah’s Witnesses argue along these lines, and, with some modifications, it’s much what the Valentinian Gnostics believed in regards to the emanation of aeons, and is similar to Plotinus’ belief in some ways) This is explicit in the First Way. Did God do this, create lesser beings to create the world? No. The eternal and uncreated Word did. The fact that angels/“lesser gods” could not have created except by the will of the ONE GOD is available to nothing but unaided, fallen human reason alone - it is that self-evident.

If I said you’re not Catholic, it’s because you were excommunicated by the First Vatican Council. Christians are not polytheists: there is no simpler tautology, except for “bachelors are not married”. Do you not realize that your fideism and hatred of philosophy/reason stretches to such a degree that you are willing to do damage to God’s word by using it improperly, while arguing as an infidel and a pagan does against the basic truths of the Christian faith in order to attempt to defend that fideism and hatred of reason?

Thanks for the reply. However, the sense of perfectness without completeness is why it is possible (discounting revelation) that there be multiple gods. It is possible that a lower order god could have created the Earth under the command of a higher order God.

No, the entire point of this is that it is possible for nothing but unaided human reason to determine that there is ONE GOD, and ONLY ONE GOD, and that he is the Creator.

To repeat:

** “If anyone says that the one, true God, our creator and lord, cannot be known with certainty from the things that have been made, by [the natural light](Natural theology - Wikipedia) of human reason: let him be anathema.”**

 

[Khalid]

Thanks for the reply. However, the sense of perfectness without completeness is why it is possible (discounting revelation) that there be multiple gods. It is possible that a lower order god could have created the Earth under the command of a higher order God.

No, the entire point of this is that it is possible for nothing but unaided human reason to determine that there is ONE GOD, and ONLY ONE GOD, and that he is the Creator.

To repeat:

** “If anyone says that the one, true God, our creator and lord, cannot be known with certainty from the things that have been made, by the natural light of human reason: let him be anathema.”**

 

[LovePatience]

No, the entire point of this is that it is possible for nothing but unaided human reason to determine that there is ONE GOD, and ONLY ONE GOD, and that he is the Creator.

To repeat:

** “If anyone says that the one, true God, our creator** and lord, cannot be known with certainty from the things that have been made, by [the natural light](Natural theology - Wikipedia) of human reason: let him be anathema.”

I think that you are not reading my posts. If you are not reading them, then why answer. Please try to control your anger; there is no reason to question someone’s faith, say I have fidesm, or say I hate philosophy/reason because you disagree. Jumping to all these conclusions is the reason I disagree in the first place. You start with A, which is true, then conclude B, C, D without proof.

The passage that you quote so frequently does not say that your proof must be accepted. “If anyone says that the one, true God, our creator and lord, cannot be known with certainty from the things that have been made, by the natural light of human reason: let him be anathema.” This says that it is possible to prove this through natural reason, not that the proof that you have given is a sufficient one that must be accepted. I am not asserting that it cannot be proven; I am asserting that I have not seen a convincing proof yet outside of revelation. If you want to convince me, respond to the objections without bringing in anything that is from the revelation or tradition.

Because St. Aquinas stated it, does not mean it is true. Do we still believe limbo definitively exists though St. Aquinas proved that it existed? Do we still think that slavery among men is natural because St. Aquinas said so?

William of Ockham pointed out some quite good criticisms of Aquinas’s arguments that you lay out there, - some of the same ones that I thought of without reading him first: that a lot of things are being assumed that should be proved before they are assumed - and Pope Innocent IV definitely considers him a Catholic. That’s enough to show that questioning this reasoning is NOT sufficient to excommunicate you as he is DEFINITELY in good standing for doing the SAME THING.

And this is why I believe in the Church, because it is logically 100% coherent. This is not some Church where a random person on the internet can tell me that I am excommunicated because I critique the logic of their argument. And this is not a Church that excommunicates people for logical thinking; in fact, it shepherded Universities and has two orders: Dominicans and Jesuits that help with logical defense of the faith.

 

[mdisse]

What changed?

Started with fear that i was wrong, which led to inspiration, then to not wanting to live in a world without God

 

[Khalid]

I think that you are not reading my posts. If you are not reading them, then why answer. Please try to control your anger; there is no reason to question someone’s faith, say I have fidesm, or say I hate philosophy/reason because you disagree. Jumping to all these conclusions is the reason I disagree in the first place. You start with A, which is true, then conclude B, C, D without proof.

The passage that you quote so frequently does not say that your proof must be accepted. “If anyone says that the one, true God, our creator and lord, cannot be known with certainty from the things that have been made, by the natural light of human reason: let him be anathema.” This says that it is possible to prove this through natural reason, not that the proof that you have given is a sufficient one that must be accepted. I am not asserting that it cannot be proven; I am asserting that I have not seen a convincing proof yet outside of revelation. If you want to convince me, respond to the objections without bringing in anything that is from the revelation or tradition.

Because St. Aquinas stated it, does not mean it is true. Do we still believe limbo definitively exists though St. Aquinas proved that it existed? Do we still think that slavery among men is natural because St. Aquinas said so?

William of Ockham pointed out some quite good criticisms of Aquinas’s arguments that you lay out there, - some of the same ones that I thought of without reading him first: that a lot of things are being assumed that should be proved before they are assumed - and Pope Innocent IV definitely considers him a Catholic. That’s enough to show that questioning this reasoning is NOT sufficient to excommunicate you as he is DEFINITELY in good standing for doing the SAME THING.

And this is why I believe in the Church, because it is logically 100% coherent. This is not some Church where a random person on the internet can tell me that I am excommunicated because I critique the logic of their argument. And this is not a Church that excommunicates people for logical thinking; in fact, it shepherded Universities and has two orders: Dominicans and Jesuits that help with logical defense of the faith.

Okay. I had a tract made for situations like this. I’m going to upload it and link to it.

img196.imageshack.us/img196/990/linje.jpg

Familiarize yourself with the terminology, and you will find my explanations so far to be surpassingly sufficient. Pope Innocent IV lived 600 years before that anathema was decreed at the Vatican I Council: how could he have known to apply it? Much of Ockham’s philosophy derives from his nominalism-cum-conceptualism: “a house built on sand…”, as our Lord says.

 

[LovePatience]

Okay. I had a tract made for situations like this. I’m going to upload it and link to it.

img196.imageshack.us/img196/990/linje.jpg

Familiarize yourself with the terminology, and you will find my explanations so far to be surpassingly sufficient. Pope Innocent IV lived 600 years before that anathema was decreed at the Vatican I Council: how could he have known to apply it? Much of Ockham’s philosophy derives from his nominalism-cum-conceptualism: “a house built on sand…”, as our Lord says.

Thanks. That page was fascinating.

Question 1) “Something purely actual cannot come into or go out of being, as these would be unrealized potentials.” “Something that is purely actual, with no unrealized potentials must be omnipotent. To not be able to do something is to have an unrealized potential.” If God is omnipotent, it seems God can choose to go out of existence since God can do anything. Thus, God can go out of being. If God cannot choose to go out of being, God cannot do anything. Thus, God is not omnipotent.

Question 2) Vatican’s Chief Exorcist Fr. Amorth said that God did not create Hell. Satan created Hell. Thus, if it is possible for Satan to create Hell, why is not possible for a lower order god to create Earth?

One day Father Candido was expelling a demon. Toward the end of the exorcism, he turned to the evil spirit and sarcastically told him, “Get out of here. The Lord has already prepared a nice, well-heated house for you!” At this, the demon answered, “You do not know anything! It wasn’t he [God] who made hell. It was us. He had not even thought about it.” Similarly, on another occasion, while I was questioning a demon to know whether he had contributed to the creation of hell, I received this answer: “All of us cooperated.”

Question 3) “The only way to tell the difference between two purely actual things is if one of them had something that another one lacked. But something of pure actuality does not lack anything. Therefore, there is only one.”

You point to one cause. But why just one? Why not “at least” one? A preliminary glimpse at the literature suggests by this logic then the actual infinity that Cantor (haven’t read him other than wikipedia) defined is God. But two things can approach infinity at different speeds. One is greater than the other, but both are equal and have nothing that the other lacks.

Question 4) Saying that God is our Lord implies that he is good. These theories of actuality have nothing to do with good and evil. How does a good and omnisicent God create evil things?

Question 5) Einstein’s theory on the speed of light has just been broken. Is it possible that there are other states in nature besides “actual” and “potential?” For example, we are analyzing a cause in the “present”, but time travel may one day be possible then we could have a cause in the future. Already, we have apparitions of the Virgin Mary that show her knowing the future, but she is not God.

 

[LovePatience]

Other questions about God that Ockham raises.

1. God is the Father
2. Jesus is God

Then isn’t Jesus the Father?

But theology tells us that Jesus is the Son. How do we know that we are capable of understanding God?

It seems that to logically deduce the existence of God would also cause a logical deduction that Jesus is the Father by the same rules of logic, but Jesus is not the Father so something is limited about our rules of logic. So how can we trust that we’ve reached the correct conclusion; that the existence of God is not also a mystery other than through revelation?

 

[Khalid]

That is no longer natural theology, but is sacred theology. If you refer to sacred theology alone, you are correct in asserting that human reason unaided can not grasp it (refer to the list of anathemas I posted, which includes this very proposition). But, you become confused, when you believe that anything relating to God - including natural theology, which is based on human reason alone: it is human philosophy pondering God - is impotent except for divine revelation, which it is not. These truths (about God, not including things like original sin) can be known without one iota of divine revelation.

God exists.
God created everything.
God is necessarily one, and only one, God.
God is eternal.
God is impassable.
God is the first cause.
God is pure act.
God is the unmoved mover (or “unchanging changer”, in modern terminology).
God is omniscient.
God is non-corporeal.
(Which fall under the heading) God is perfect in all ways.

These truths can not be known by human reason alone, but require divine revelation:

God has revealed himself to humans.
God has issued divine revelations. (This assertion requires divine revelation to assert.)
God cares about mankind and is involved in their affairs.
God is three persons in one God, a Trinity, a hyperpersonal being.
One Person of God became incarnate, and pitched his tabernacle amongst us men as one of us.
God, in human flesh, died on the cross.
God, in human flesh, died for our sins. (How? is another question for sacred theology.)
Another Person of God, the Holy Spirit, indwells all believers.
Believers are the mystical body of Christ.
God established an infallible Church to teach his truth and maintain divine revelation.

If God is omnipotent, it seems God can choose to go out of existence since God can do anything. Thus, God can go out of being. If God cannot choose to go out of being, God cannot do anything. Thus, God is not omnipotent.

This is incorrect, and belies your lack of understanding here and now, although I do appreciate that you seem to be willing to learn to understand. Simply: if God could go out of being, he would then have no actuality (or, “the potentiality of no actuality”, both a contradiction, and an unrealized potential: if God could cease to exist, the ceasing to exist would be a potential that is not actualized, so God would not be pure act). If God can choose to go out of being, God is not God, as God can not be anything but pure act.

I may go through the effort to lay it down in a series of syllogisms. Even the tract is lacking proper syllogistic format. It is much harder to write and express in syllogisms, and takes much more time, but terms are much more easily defined and fallacious reasoning is much more easily uncovered, and generally has a name, such as “denying the antecedent”, “affirming the consequent”, “excluded middle”, etc. If you wish, you should familiarize yourself with the basic form of term logic (as elucidated in Aristotle’s Organon and distilled in many textbooks and across the internet), and logical fallacies (or improper applications of term logic, which nullify the essence of logic, “when starting from correct premises, a correct conclusion follows”).

PS I know it’s confusing, but “act” and “actuality” are synonyms, as are “potential” and “potency”. I use both, incorrectly, some times (the traditional terms are act and potency, which I have found confuse many people).

 

[LovePatience]

Is it possible that THE GOD (the First Cause, the Unmoved Mover, the Ontological Necessity) created lower-order “gods” (Christians would call them “angels”) to do his bidding? Yes. He did. Could he have used them to fashion part of the universe? Yes. But he could not have caused them to create the universe itself, because from nothing comes nothing - they could not create ex nihilo, as they had already been created themselves (in order for the angels to exist, they by definition must have been created by the First Cause): they would be the first of creation, but that which is created can not create separate from its creator. (Jehovah’s Witnesses argue along these lines, and, with some modifications, it’s much what the Valentinian Gnostics believed in regards to the emanation of aeons, and is similar to Plotinus’ belief in some ways) This is explicit in the First Way. Did God do this, create lesser beings to create the world? No. The eternal and uncreated Word did. The fact that angels/“lesser gods” could not have created except by the will of the ONE GOD is available to nothing but unaided, fallen human reason alone - it is that self-evident.

Catholicism believes in a multiverse: Heaven, Hell, Earth. Since Satan created Hell, we accept that Satan created a universe. It seems that Satan did create “ex nihilo.”

 

[Khalid]

No. Heaven and Hell are merely the spiritual realm, not another universe. Hell is that state of separation from God and from sanctifying grace; Satan created nothing, but merely removed himself (or was cast out) from the grace of God. This place where he ended up is Hell, but it is not a new creation; it is merely a privation (lack) of God’s creation.

Just as we can not make “darkbulbs” analogous to lightbulbs, or darkness can never cast a shadow of light - darkness does not exist independently, but is a privation of light. Evil does not exist independently (that is not to say it is not real, and that we experience it: it is only to say it can not “exist”, except as the lack of something that does exist) but is the privation of good. Hell does not exist independently, but is the ultimate privation of good.

In any case, the Bible clearly states in Revelation that God prepared the lake of fire (Hell) for Satan and his angels, so in either case it is proved that Satan did not, and could not, create. Only deprive, or be deprived.

 

[LovePatience]

No. Heaven and Hell are merely the spiritual realm, not another universe. Hell is that state of separation from God and from sanctifying grace; Satan created nothing, but merely removed himself (or was cast out) from the grace of God. This place where he ended up is Hell, but it is not a new creation; it is merely a privation (lack) of God’s creation.

This is a definitional matter. Another realm versus another universe. How are you differentiating the two?

Just as we can not make “darkbulbs” analogous to lightbulbs, or darkness can never cast a shadow of light - darkness does not exist independently, but is a privation of light. Evil does not exist independently (that is not to say it is not real, and that we experience it: it is only to say it can not “exist”, except as the lack of something that does exist) but is the privation of good. Hell does not exist independently, but is the ultimate privation of good.

I referenced this before in the thread. Interview with an Exorcist by Fr. Gabriel Amorth, Vatican’s Chief Exorcist.

One day Father Candido was expelling a demon. Toward the end of the exorcism, he turned to the evil spirit and sarcastically told him, “Get out of here. The Lord has already prepared a nice, well-heated house for you!” At this, the demon answered, “You do not know anything! It wasn’t he [God] who made hell. It was us. He had not even thought about it.” Similarly, on another occasion, while I was questioning a demon to know whether he had contributed to the creation of hell, I received this answer: “All of us cooperated.”

So it seems you are in conflict with the Chief Exorcist of Rome to say that Satan can’t create.

In any case, the Bible clearly states in Revelation that God prepared the lake of fire (Hell) for Satan and his angels, so in either case it is proved that Satan did not, and could not, create. Only deprive, or be deprived.

When you accuse me of being a Protestant sola scripturist, you aren’t projecting your unconscious on me in some Inception like emotional state are you?

 

[LovePatience]

Hell is that state of separation from God and from sanctifying grace…Hell does not exist independently, but is the ultimate privation of good.

More from Fr. Amorth:

Revelation tells us that demons were hurled down to earth; therefore their final damnation has yet to happen, even if it is irrevocable. This means that they still have the power that God had given them, even if only “for a brief time”. That is why they ask Jesus, “Have you come here to torment us before the time?” (Mt 8:29). Christ is the only judge; he will gather to himself his Mystical Body. This, then, is how we should interpret Paul’s statement to the Corinthians, “since we are to judge angels” (I Cor 6:3). When the “legion” of demons who possessed the man from Gerasa pleaded with Christ “not to command them to depart into the abyss” (Lk 8:31-32), they were seeking to hold on to their power. To a demon, leaving the body of a person and sinking into hell is an irrevocable death sentence; that is why the demon fights it to the last. However, his eternal pain will increase proportionately to the suffering he caused on earth. It is Saint Peter who tells us that the demons have not yet been definitively sentenced: “When angels sinned, God did not spare them; he sent them down to the underworld and consigned them to the dark underground caves to be held there till the day of judgment” (2 Pet 2:4). The glory of the angels, too, will be increased according to their good deeds; therefore, it is very useful to invoke their help.

Clearly, when a Demon is on Earth and when a Demon is in Hell, they are in different places; otherwise, a Demon could not be cast out from Earth to Hell. Thus, Hell does have an independent existence. Hell is more than that state of separation from God and from sanctifying grace as a Demon is separated from God and sanctifying grace already on Earth.

 

[LovePatience]

If God is omnipotent, it seems God can choose to go out of existence since God can do anything. Thus, God can go out of being. If God cannot choose to go out of being, God cannot do anything. Thus, God is not omnipotent.

We aren’t taking that God is pure act as true but as something to be shown true. If there is a contradiction in the definition of God, then it does not hold.

Contradiction: If God can choose to go out of being, God is not God because then he would have no actuality.
Contradiction: If God cannot choose to go out of being, God is not God because he would not be omnipotent.

You are not defining the terms precisely enough. ccel.org/a/aquinas/summa/FP/FP025.html#FPQ25A3THEP1 St. Aquinas resolves the paradox by saying that **God is said to be omnipotent in respect to His active power, not to passive power, as was shown above (Article [1]) ** not by saying that the question is incorrect because it is not.

 

[LovePatience]

If God is omnipotent, it seems God can choose to go out of existence since God can do anything. Thus, God can go out of being. If God cannot choose to go out of being, God cannot do anything. Thus, God is not omnipotent.

We aren’t taking that God is pure act as true but as something to be shown true. If there is a contradiction in the definition of God, then it does not hold.

Contradiction: If God can choose to go out of being, God is not God because then he would have no actuality.
Contradiction: If God cannot choose to go out of being, God is not God because he would not be omnipotent.

It seems that St. Aquinas approaches the issue by adding constraints to the definitions.

 

[JDaniel]

To preface, this is not a thread about atheism. If it becomes a thread about atheism, I request that the moderators remove it immediately. Also, I do not want there to be debates. I simply want to ask questions, to find out why Catholics believe God exists. It will just be my honest questions, honest questions from others, and Catholic answers.

No fighting. No atheism. No evolution.

Here is the first question:

How do you know God exists?

How confident are you that God exists?

SM:

I know God exists because all human beings desire perfect love during our lives. We intuit that perfect love exists, but we can never seem to grasp hold of it. No matter how pristine a love is, it is still far short of perfect love. I believe that only God loves us perfectly (agape).

I know God exists because all human beings desire perfect justice during our lives. We intuit that perfect justice exists, but things are quickly seen to be not so just. I believe that we can only achieve perfect justice, i.e., good, with and through God.

Further, I know God exists because all humans seek perfect beauty during our lives. We all have the intuition that perfect beauty exists, but in everything that we at first see as perfect beauty, we later invariably find imperfections. I believe only God can show us perfect beauty.

I know God exists because all humans seek perfect truth during our lives. We intuit that perfect truth exists, but, we find that everything we thought to be perfectly true, turns out to have some falseness in it.

I know God exists because we all seek perfect harmony, a state wherein we are relieved of our moment-by-moment turmoil and angst. We intuit that perfect harmony exists, but this, too, is always just out of reach. Only God will provide us with perfect harmony.

None of these things will we find, no matter how hard, or how long we seek it, here on Earth. In fact, most, if not all, of our frustration, turmoil and angst comes from our inability to find these things down here.

God bless,
jd

 

[karlaa]

hi there…how do we know? by simply beliving and trusting Him…why? simply because tyou do not have any touchable prove to and i would also say that you do not even need a touchable prove do believe…so you must simply believe

unique weddings ideas

 

[LovePatience]

This is a definitional matter. Another realm versus another universe. How are you differentiating the two?

I referenced this before in the thread. Interview with an Exorcist by Fr. Gabriel Amorth, Vatican’s Chief Exorcist.

So it seems you are in conflict with the Chief Exorcist of Rome to say that Satan can’t create.

When you accuse me of being a Protestant sola scripturist, you aren’t projecting your unconscious on me in some Inception like emotional state are you?

As a side note to this, the devil is the author of lies so he could be lying.

Yet, this statement is consistent with Christ’s statement in St. Bridget of Sweden in Revelations. St. Bridget of Sweden is one of the six patron saints of Europe. She was canonized in the year 1391 by Pope Boniface IX, which was confirmed by the Council of Constance in 1415. Because of new discussions about her works, the Council of Basel confirmed the orthodoxy of the revelations in 1436.

Book 5: Interrogation II, #3
The Judge answered: ”Friend, human pride is so long endured as to exalt humility and show forth my goodness. And since pride was not created by me but invented by the devil, it must be shunned, because it leads to hell. But humility must be kept, because it leads to heaven. I, God, taught this by my word and example.”

 

[Charlemagne_II]

I know that God exists because we have a relationship that seems to be working. If God does not exist, Who is the Being exercising so great an influence on my life?

I look at others who have no relationship with God and I see misery everywhere. The atheist cannot be happy, since he knows deep down that it all comes to nothing in the end.

There is no spiritual joy in atheism. There is only spiritual resignation.

 

[ASimon]

I know that God exists because we have a relationship that seems to be working. If God does not exist, Who is the Being exercising so great an influence on my life?

Obviously, it’s you. Congrats.