Is there really a god?

  • Thread starter Thread starter jason69
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
The main proof is the revelations. Then prophets and their miracles. And heart, conscience, senses, experiences … Believing is not just logical but must be supported by logic and moral. And evidences which are exist in universe and also on the body of alives support that very much. The reasons to think that God is exist are more valid than to think the contrary. There are countless evidences and requirement for existence of God but there is no any reason or proof for absence.
 
jason69 said:
I really don’t know that’s why I am asking the question. When I look at plants and planets I think about there must be a God
Click to expand...
That’s a good first step. Let’s work with that.
but not when I think of humans so much.
Click to expand...
What is it about humans that makes you doubt the existence of God?
 
The Five Ways found online or even in Aquinas’ Summa Theologica are cursory arguments. The ST was basically an undergraduate text book, the Five Ways are just summaries, and they’re reliant on other background not covered in the same chapters. Furthermore, just reading the Five Ways as written might leave one scratching one’s own head about why the argument is supposed to be convincing, because they’re taken largely out of context that Aquinas’ expected audience would already know. The arguments do make sense, but it might require resources behind what’s stated in the Summa Theologica before some of them really click.

Ultimately, we do have evidence: that anything exists at all right now. How the concept of God rationally follows from that is what the “proofs” or arguments made by Aquinas and others intend to show.

I don’t know your budget, and I must say you’re not going to find anything as absolute as a mathematical proof (so don’t go in expecting one what you’ll get are rational discussions and arguments from reason), but here are some resources I found personally helpful:
  • The One and the Many by W. Norris Clarke - An introduction textbook to Aquinas’ metaphysics. It hasone major scientific example I cringed at, but the idea of that example is that a thing can be more than the sum of its parts
  • The Experience of God: Being, Consciousness, Bliss by David Bently Hart - A bit pedantic at times. It doesn’t go far enough in some places, but it does help establish the concept of God a great deal (and eliminate strawman images) and even helps illuminate arguments put forward by Feser
  • Saint Thomas Aquinas and the Principle of Sufficient Reason by Scott M. Sullivan - Exactly what it sounds like, interpreting Liebniz’ PSR in Thomistic terms. A good book.
  • Aquinas by Edward Feser - A primer on Aristotlean-Thomist metaphysics. Short, could be a bit more detailed, but then it wouldn’t be a primer…
  • Five Proofs for the Existence of God by Edward Feser - The “five proofs” are not Aquinas’ Five Ways. Feser presents his own version of arguments made by Aristotle, Plotinus, Augustine of Hippo, Thomas Aquinas, and Gottfried Liebniz. This is actually a very thorough books that, while might be beyond someone who knows absolutely nothing, is written intentionally to not require the metaphysical background and baggage that the Five Ways require. It also makes arguments that bridge the gap between “necessary first cause” and “one omnipotent, eternal, omniscient mind”.
Feser’s description can be cold and analytical. Hart’s and Clarke’s much more personal. I found all useful.

Again, I don’t mean to send you out and spend all your money. But if it’s a topic you are very interested in and have the budget for it… Also, again, let me stress that these books are helpful, but not a complete solution in themselves. If you read these books or other similar ones, it’ll be a journey. I find the arguments rational and persuasive and find atheism to be irrational in light of these arguments, but I can’t guarantee you’ll end up in the same place.
 
Last edited:
To me, it would be more conceivable to not believe in the existence of human beings in contrast with the existence of God. Human beings were not always here and will not always be here, at least in the mortal, temporal sense. God, who transcends time, space, and our senses, has always been and will always be.

Even if God were to try to convince us of His existence by literally coming down from Heaven and assuming a physical form, a manifestation that we can “hear, feel” and even see with our own eyes, us mortal beings still have the will to disbelieve. This has happened with the Person of Jesus Christ and no matter what the amount of evidence, people will still claim a lack of proof for the existence of God, one they can “hear” or “feel”.
 
Last edited:
I’m afraid your notes in your second point still don’t convince me. I don’t have an iron-bound grasp on what Aquinas means in regards to Potentiality and Actuality, but I’ll try (it’s a very Aristotelian idea). The thing is, in this argument mere constant movement can’t prove anything. It might prove something outside of the argument. For instance, where did that movement start? But that’s another question.

Change could be me turning from happy to angry (albeit, that is probably a chemical process). But that is the kind of change that Aquinas is talking about. Now not all change is caused by God (Because obviously a hot piece of wood is caused by friction), but there is a progression and God is the originator of all change).

My fingers typing this post is changed from potentially typing to actually typing by cells in my fingers. Those cells are changed from potentiality to actuality thanks to nerve impulses. Those nerves are changed from potentially firing to actually firing thanks to sodium and potassium changes. On and on, until the change from potentiality to actuality stops. Because it has to stop otherwise we have an infinite regress. And for it to stop there has to be something that has no potentiality at all but is pure actuality. Something that is pure act. Otherwise we get a “thing” that is both mover and moved. For a thing cannot have both potentiality and actuality (AKA, a fire cannot be both actually hot and potentially hot). The conclusion being that nothing can change itself. Which is why those electrons you speak about cannot be the end point. Sure, they could be in constant motion but they could never change anything since they cannot have both potentiality and actuality. And I’m sure you will agree that those elections do have potentiality for something other than itself. They could move slightly faster or slower which is a change in nature. So they must be changed by something else.

Now, I completely understand your last point, and I totally get where you are coming from. Why does this thing that has no potentiality have to be God? And that’s the problem with many Christian view on God. Many think He is this loving bearded guy in the skies. In reality He is that “thing” which has no potentiality. Now Aquinas goes on in another argument to prove this “unmoved Mover” has certain characteristics such as omnipotence but that’s another argument. I apologize if the above argument is rather hard to understand. It is difficult for the modern mind to understand because we aren’t familiar with Aquinas’ understanding of change (or potentiality and actuality). I had to read the argument upward of five times.

And as Wesrock states, these arguments definitely need some further research to actually “click” in your head because of all the “foreign” terms and Aristotelian ideas.
 
I believed in Church and I believed God. If you go to Church, you would realize he really do exist… 😊
So even we missed to go to Church. He still exist…
🙏🙏
 
It’s not humans that make me doubt the existence of God, it’s just that when I am around nature or looking or thinking of planets that I think about the exsistance of God.
 
jason69 said:
I don’t think I explained myself very well. What I mean is even though you believe in God and the bible, because it is written by man then some of it could contain mistakes. So therefore what you are practicing may not have been God’s will.
Click to expand...
If God has the power to create the universe and life, then he has the power to edit the Bible. In other words, if some corrupt emperor with total power on earth wanted to corrupt the Bible, he would have to fight against God, so no contest, God wins.

To me, it does not matter who wrote the Bible, and there does seem to be uncertainty as to who some of authors are. I just trust the Bible I read today, is the Bible that God intends me to read.
 
Are you saying that every other church is wrong because they are not traceable?
 
jason69 said:
Are you saying that every other church is wrong because they are not traceable?
Click to expand...
Not solely based on historicity, but it’s part of the equation.

If one Church claims “X” and another claims “not X”, then objectively speaking, at least one is wrong, no? So, if the Catholic Church is making claims and other Christian denominations are making conflicting claims, then we’d have to assess which is correct, and what our reasons for that assessment are, don’t you think?

I think @Kei’s claim here is that, given that the Catholic Church is traceable back to Jesus – who founded the Church – and since Jesus promised protection to the Church he founded, then there would necessarily be some sort of implication there with respect to truth claims the Catholic Church makes (vis-a-vis other denominations), right?
 
Sorry but I do not agree. As long as humans respect and praise the Lord and follow the bible to the best of their ability, i dont beleive it matters what denomination you are. By saying that one church is right and the others are wrong just causes discrimination in the world. There is too much of that. I guess its a question of faith in the end.
 
jason69 said:
Sorry but I do not agree. As long as humans respect and praise the Lord and follow the bible to the best of their ability, i dont beleive it matters what denomination you are.
Click to expand...
Umm… ok. Is that what Jesus taught, though?
By saying that one church is right and the others are wrong just causes discrimination in the world.
Click to expand...
No – it’s a statement of objective fact. On the other hand, some people can take that fact and act upon it in ways that are unjust. That’s what should be rejected, not the fact that mutually exclusive statements should be smiled upon and given a “yeah, whatever”… 😉
 
It should be the same way about humans. Begin with yourself. Look at how your hands move, what they can do, with only a thought from you.

How could this come about without God?
 
Since you can not go to the realm of this deity and knock on it’s door to see if it exists or not, but it can, this makes the existence of a deity up to the deity to reveal it’s existence to you. It, also, should know what it would take to make you believe. So since it has done none of this for you, it either does not have the power to do this or is choosing not to do this for you. Either way, not your problem.
As to people saying it’s up to you to do this, not a deity…
Here’s a good analogy to what they are doing. They believe they have a friend in a different school that wants a relationship with you. Apparently their friend is also doing things in your world that they believe should convince you that their friend exists and wants a relationship with you. However, these actions are soo bad, that you can’t tell that their friend is doing anything at all and these people’s reasons for believing that their friend exists and wants a relationship are soo bad that they are not convincing you. So this implies that their friend is too inept to offer sufficient levels of communication that it exists and wants a relationship with you and they are communicating insufficient justified reasons to you for believing this. Again, not your problem.

Also, belief is not a choice and there is no middle ground between belief and disbelief. You either believe or you don’t. Belief is the conclusion you reached after running the analysis. It’s the results. The results are not something you control, only the (name removed by moderator)ut to the equation is. A + B = C. “A” and “B” is just raw data from reality as you understand it. “+” and “=” is your applied logic of how you understand reality works. “C” is just the results of that. You can’t pick your “C”. You can lie to people and tell them it’s something else than “C”, but you can’t lie to yourself. You can come to their conclusions/beliefs, but not until you feel justified in coming to that conclusion.
 
In my aspect , like the way how all the things happening with the creation of God. They all have been placed in their places with the help of our creator (God). I agree that God is always there in all the places.
 
Thank you Damian for your reply. You explain your opinion to my question in such a simplistic and understandable way so that I understand your logic. As I am on a journey into faith people’s answers to my questions can be very one sided, this making me feel that my questions are stupid and of course there is a God. I am not denying that but don’t we all ask questions? I find your answer very refreshing. Thanks again for taking time to reply. God bless you Jason.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top