How to prove that God does exist?

  • Thread starter Thread starter anhphan
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
A

anhphan

Guest
Although I read many book, I can’t rejoin their arguments which makes me confused. Please help me!!
 
There has to be a First Cause no matter how the earth/universe was created.

We can know that God exists, but we can’t say with precision what He is. His fullest revelation was in the person of Jesus.
 
But how do I answer the question “what caused the First Cause”?
 
1 God caused it, 2 aliens caused it, 3 it caused itself.

=

1 God must exist to cause it, 2 God must exist to create aliens to cause it, 3 paradox.
 
If you know anything about physics, obviously, it was something omnipotent and omniscient. That can only be God. Try not to anthropomorphize God. That causes problems. You see him in a light of human emotions, e.g., liking, wanting, disliking, etc. God is utterly simple and self-contained. He neither needs nor wants anything, really. He doesn’t possess human emotions nor does he live in time. Everything is already accomplished with God.
 
They give me the book called “Beyond Belief: A Buddhist Critique Of Fundamentalist Christianity”
 
“He who denies the existence of God, has some reason for wishing that God did not exist.”

― Augustine of Hippo
 
Has anyone ever met someone who listened to one of these philosophical ‘proofs’ and became a believer as a result? The fact is, they are completely and utterly unpersuasive which demonstrates that they are not ‘proofs’ at all. When you prove something at east some people are convinced by it.
 
You should read New Proofs for the Existence of God: Contributions of Contemporary Physics and Philosophy by Robert J. Spitzer.
 
Last edited:
FiveLinden said:
Has anyone ever met someone who listened to one of these philosophical ‘proofs’ and became a believer as a result? The fact is, they are completely and utterly unpersuasive which demonstrates that they are not ‘proofs’ at all. When you prove something at east some people are convinced by it.
Click to expand...
They are VERY persuasive in the book I listed above unless one is dead-set on NOT believing, which some people are. I was convinced by the book, and I know others who were. We all fall under the category of “some people.” Conversely, no atheist has ever been able to explain a First Cause to me that wasn’t God.
 
Last edited:
You’re very welcome. I hope it helps you. It is available at Amazon in paperback at a low price.
 
“A Case for the Creator,” is a book that has helped me and others. God Bless!
 
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
@Nelka Lord Xenu! Ugh my Thetan needs audited again 😒
 
Last edited:
FiveLinden said:
Has anyone ever met someone who listened to one of these philosophical ‘proofs’ and became a believer as a result? The fact is, they are completely and utterly unpersuasive which demonstrates that they are not ‘proofs’ at all. When you prove something at east some people are convinced by it.
Click to expand...
This is not true.
First, you assume that no one has been persuaded by them, which I personally believe isn’t true.
But, you mistake proof with persuasiveness. For an argument to be persuasive, it generally needs logic, emotion, and authority. Usually these proofs are rather logical, and sometimes said in the context of authority (if one is a believer, if one is not, then the idea of a doctor of the Church might not have authority. if someone doesn’t like philosophy, then a philosopher might not have authority for such a someone). They usually lack emotive value. There are many emotive arguments but they are usually separate from proofs.

For instance, we have mathematically proofed a certain proof of God, proving the logic sound, but the “big deal” wasn’t this, but rather that we could do it with a certain type of computer.

In short, you have conflated persuasiveness with the logical consistency of an argument, when they are not the same.
 
To answer your question, the key is to not fight on the presumptions of the Buddhist, which automatically presume change, even excluding the ultimate Source for all.

The book says fundamentalist Christianity, so it might include ideas of justification or atonement theology that we don’t even agree with as Catholics.
 
Kei said:
In short, you have conflated persuasiveness with the logical consistency of an argument, when they are not the same.
Click to expand...
Proofs persuade, but proofs are not all that persuade. Nothing confused here. Good to see your use of Aristotle’s Rhetoric though.
 
Humans are not necessarily persuaded by pure logic, especially when it comes to large, big things in their lives.
 
Your definition of ‘proof’ might not match what Aquinas meant by proof: Here is an article explaining Aquinas’s definition: https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/five-ways-or-five-proofs
Third, Thomas never refers to the five arguments as “proofs” in the modern sense of the term. In the preceding article (ST 1:2:2), he asks “whether it can be demonstrated that God exists” (Utrum Deum esse sit demonstrabile). The word demonstrabile has a precise meaning in Latin as a logical, geometrical proof. Thomas then proceeds to argue that the existence of God can be established by this kind of proof. But in article 3, Thomas suddenly abandons the language of hard proof in favor of a softer term: " Deum esse quinque viis probari potest," usually translated “The existence of God can be proved in five ways.” But, unlike the narrow meaning of demonstrabile, the word probari has a wider meaning that does not necessitate a rigorous, irrefutable proof. A more accurate translation would be “The existence of God can be argued for in five ways.”
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top