Looking for a "proof" of God's existence?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Hortenzie
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Hortenzie said:
I have been trying to “prove” myself the existence of God for most of my lifetime. This video helped me to see the error of my way and pointed me in a different direction.
I thought that many on this Forum might find this info useful:

youtube.com/watch?v=1zMf_8hkCdc&feature=youtube_gdata_player

Let me know what you think.
Click to expand...
That was an excellent discussion. And The Experience of God, Being, Consciousness, and Bliss by David Bently Hart looks like a book worth reading.

Of course you do not have to prove to yourself that God exists, in the sense that you have to have a proof that everyone agrees with. And once you find a proof or reason that means something to you, stick with it no matter what and don’t demand that others agree with you. Because you see, we all have different levels of intellect and each of our minds function in a slightly different manner ( for whatever reason ). So what seems great to me, may not seem great to you. I can give you 20-25 reasons why I think God exists. In fact Dr. Peter Kreeft has a book by a similar title.

You can’t beat the Book of Job where God is lecturing Job’s tormentors. Try that. You can also take a look at some of my threads in this Forum.

Linus2nd
 
The proof of God’s existence is to be found in an open mind along with an equally open heart.
 
Linusthe2nd - Thanks for your answer. I’m just trying to convince myself. I really liked this video because it shows the folly of endless debates especially with those who are trying to “prove” the existence of God by scientific means.
I used to listen to those debates, too, hoping to find answers but finally realised that using science to prove that God exists is like using a measuring tape to find out how much I weigh…

CharlemagneIII - Thanks for your time. An open mind and an open heart is not enough. You also need to fill it with something worthwhile otherwise you end up with an empty mind and an empty heart. And I’m trying to fill it with positive information and reasonings that help me to build my faith in God and to grow in love for Him.
 
Hortenzie said:
Linusthe2nd - Thanks for your answer. I’m just trying to convince myself. I really liked this video because it shows the folly of endless debates especially with those who are trying to “prove” the existence of God by scientific means.
I used to listen to those debates, too, hoping to find answers but finally realised that using science to prove that God exists is like using a measuring tape to find out how much I weigh…

CharlemagneIII - Thanks for your time. An open mind and an open heart is not enough. You also need to fill it with something worthwhile otherwise you end up with an empty mind and an empty heart. And I’m trying to fill it with positive information and reasonings that help me to build my faith in God and to grow in love for Him.
Click to expand...
O.K. Here are a couple of things that speak o God to me. The first is evidence from the natural world that is non-scientific, from the beauty of God.
youtube.com/watch?v=vvVt4lDSPeY

The second is scientific based on astronomy and the Star of Bethlahem, I think it is pretty convincing. youtube.com/watch?v=zPHKg0M3mEo

The third is from reason or philosophy. Aquinas, a very good book by Dr Edward Feser. Also from Dr. Peter Kreeft. peterkreeft.com/audio/08_arguments-for-god.htm He has a lot of Books, etc which you can explore by searching under his name.

peterkreeft.com/books.htm

Linus2nd :
 
Quite often God is the answer when no other explanation exists for a particular subject.
 
Hortenzie said:
CharlemagneIII - Thanks for your time. An open mind and an open heart is not enough. You also need to fill it with something worthwhile otherwise you end up with an empty mind and an empty heart. And I’m trying to fill it with positive information and reasonings that help me to build my faith in God and to grow in love for Him.
Click to expand...
I didn’t say an open heart and open mind are enough. That would imply welcoming garbage into both. But you have to start with open mind and open heart. This is the main reason for atheism … the heart closed to God will rule the mind closed to God.
 
Linus the2nd - Thanks for the links. I put the videos on my ‘Watch later’ list and will see them soon, hopefully over the weekend.

oldcelt - Your comment could be read either way. What do you mean? And what do you think about the info in the video?

CharlemagneIII - Sorry, I read your first post differently (English is not my first language). And yes, you are right.
 
I still can’t find a better proof than this ( Aquinas’s Five Proofs distilled down to plain English )
  1. The universe could not have existed through an infinite past.
  2. It had to start.
  3. It couldn’t start itself.
  4. God had to start it.
 
empther - Anybody can make statements like Aquinas did. A statement is not a ‘proof’.
What do you think about the video?
 
Hortenzie said:
empther - Anybody can make statements like Aquinas did. A statement is not a ‘proof’.
What do you think about the video?
Click to expand...
Exactly, Aquinas offers no backing facts, he just makes un-backed declarations.
 
empther said:
I still can’t find a better proof than this ( Aquinas’s Five Proofs distilled down to plain English )
  1. The universe could not have existed through an infinite past.
  2. It had to start.
  3. It couldn’t start itself.
  4. God had to start it.
Click to expand...
Aquinas disagrees with 1 and 2, hence 3 and 4 are meaningless.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by empther View Post
I still can’t find a better proof than this ( Aquinas’s Five Proofs distilled down to plain English )
Click to expand...
  1. The universe could not have existed through an infinite past.
  2. It had to start.
  3. It couldn’t start itself.
  4. God had to start it.
Click to expand...
Aquinas disagrees with 1 and 2, hence 3 and 4 are meaningless.
Click to expand...

I see.

We go no further than that the universe started? 🤷 We stop there? 🤷
Aquinas stopped there? 🤷

The remarks I find on this forum never cease to amaze me. :whacky:
 
empther said:
I still can’t find a better proof than this ( Aquinas’s Five Proofs distilled down to plain English )
  1. The universe could not have existed through an infinite past.
  2. It had to start.
  3. It couldn’t start itself.
  4. God had to start it.
Click to expand...
That is incorrect. The Five Ways of Thomas assumed that the universe could always have existed. Rather, it is its activity, everywhere, at this very moment that requires an Unmoved Mover, Immaterial, Eternal, Intelligent, All Powerful, Uncomposed by parts, Utterly Simple, and One Who has no Equal, upon Whom depends all the action and movement in the universe at this very moment, upon Whose Existence all other extents depend absolutely. However, the eternity into the past of the universe, which his arguments assume, would require that God be eternally creating. I don’t see how you could escape that. For if He weren’t the universe could not exist, neither eternally nor in time.

Linus2nd
 
empther said:
I see.

We go no further than that the universe started? 🤷 We stop there? 🤷
Aquinas stopped there? 🤷

The remarks I find on this forum never cease to amaze me. :whacky:
Click to expand...
Ok, I’ll explain what I mean. 😛

(This is assuming your points 1-4 were trying to capture the thought of St. Thomas)

As to your first point, Thomas didn’t think you could philosophically prove that the universe had a beginning in time. He believed that the world was created ex nihilo because he was a good Catholic, but he maintained against Bonaventure that it wasn’t possible to come to knowledge of this without faith. So that also shows why your second point is wrong, because Aquinas didn’t think it had to start; he granted for the sake of the argument that the universe is eternal. This makes points 3 and 4 meaningless with regards to St. Thomas since your first two points don’t represent his thought.

Now, we could argue that modern science proves the universe had a beginning in the Big Bang, which is something I personally agree with but wouldn’t use it as “proof” of God, since there are other explanations that exist. But this has nothing to do with Aquinas’ 5 ways.
 
CrossofChrist said:
Now, we could argue that modern science proves the universe had a beginning in the Big Bang, which is something I personally agree with but wouldn’t use it as “proof” of God, since there are other explanations that exist. But this has nothing to do with Aquinas’ 5 ways.
Click to expand...
What the Big Bang does show, however, is that the universe was created. And this is consistent with Genesis. Whereas before the Big Bang was discovered it was assumed by many scientists, including Einstein, that the universe is eternal. Einstein was not at all happy with Father Lemaître’s correction of his math which resulted in the discovery of the Big Bang.
 
Charlemagne_III said:
What the Big Bang does show, however, is that the universe was created. And this is consistent with Genesis. Whereas before the Big Bang was discovered it was assumed by many scientists, including Einstein, that the universe is eternal. Einstein was not at all happy with Father Lemaître’s correction of his math which resulted in the discovery of the Big Bang.
Click to expand...
*Do we have here the point at which we should insert our belief in a creator? Do we introduce him as it were at the limit reached by science? Does the creator begin to act beyond this threshold? Let us be careful! We must not be too quick to assume that God produced the big bang, as if in the smallest fraction of the very first second we come up against the wall behind which we find the creator, or reach the point where only the creator can explain what happened. This idea flits around in many scientific and even in some theological discussions. It is defended vigorously by some and attacked by others. Is God at work at the beginning in the sense that he gave the signal for the great game of the universe to begin?

…We will see that the Church’s teaching on creation is at once quite simple but also very deep and demanding, and that we have to get beyond many of our ideas and images if we are going to enter into the mystery of creation and to approach it by faith and also by reason.* - Cardinal Schonborn

Basically, this isn’t the best way to approach things IMO because it gives credence to the popular opinion that we believe in the “god of the gaps”, and that our belief in God is only because science hasn’t found an answer. Can we use the Big Bang to our advantage? Of course. But it shouldn’t be seen as the ultimate answer that there really is a God, and if poorly presented it could make God seem like he merely is the first cause among a series of causes that has no active power in the world anymore. And we surely shouldn’t present it as something that Aquinas used as his support for God.
 
Charlemagne_III said:
What the Big Bang does show, however, is that the universe was created.
Click to expand...
No, iit doesn’t. all it shows is that our current space-time continuum started to expand.
And this is consistent with Genesis. Whereas before the Big Bang was discovered it was assumed by many scientists, including Einstein, that the universe is eternal. Einstein was not at all happy with Father Lemaître’s correction of his math which resulted in the discovery of the Big Bang.
Click to expand...
Einstien may not have been too happy with this, but not because it somehow proved the universe was created, which BTW was not Georges Lemaître’s intention at all. Lemaître was a scientist and a priest, but he explicitly warend against using scientific discovery to prove God.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top