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

[empther]

Post 15

That is incorrect. The Five Ways of Thomas assumed that the universe could always have existed.

Wrong!
Your belief that Aquinas assumed the world always existed come from a misreading of his article “On the Eternity of the World” at the end of which he is against an eternal world,
but after playing the devil’s advocate and giving the opponent’s side, which you interpreted as his side. We’ve been over this several times.

So I set out looking for a statement by Aquinas that the world isn’t eternal and guess where I found it ! Right there in the Five Ways

newadvent.org/summa/1002.htm#article3

The third way is taken from possibility and necessity, and runs thus. **We find in nature things that are possible to be and not to be, since they are found to be generated, and to corrupt, and consequently, they are possible to be and not to be. But it is impossible for these always to exist, for that which is possible not to be at some time is not. Therefore, if everything is possible not to be, then at one time there could have been nothing in existence. Now if this were true, even now there would be nothing in existence, because that which does not exist only begins to exist by something already existing. Therefore, if at one time nothing was in existence, it would have been impossible for anything to have begun to exist; and thus even now nothing would be in existence — which is absurd. Therefore, not all beings are merely possible, but there must exist something the existence of which is necessary. **But every necessary thing either has its necessity caused by another, or not. Now it is impossible to go on to infinity in necessary things which have their necessity caused by another, as has been already proved in regard to efficient causes. Therefore we cannot but postulate the existence of some being having of itself its own necessity, and not receiving it from another, but rather causing in others their necessity. This all men speak of as God.

 

[empther]

Post 16

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. :bigyikes: This makes points 3 and 4 meaningless with regards to St. Thomas since your first two points don’t represent his thought.

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. :bigyikes:

He did not, as my last post clearly shows.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

No, iit doesn’t. all it shows is that our current space-time continuum started 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.

So if the universe existed before the expansion, you need to prove that. No one has proved it.

No, Lemaitre explicitly asked the Pope Pius XII not to jump the gun because his theory had not yet been proven. By the time of his death, though, the evidence of the Big Bang was mounting all over the place.

Carl Sagan in Cosmos, 1980 A.D.

“Ten or twenty billion years ago, something happened – the Big Bang, the event that began our universe…. In that titanic cosmic explosion, the universe began an expansion which has never ceased…. As space stretched, the matter and energy in the universe expanded with it and rapidly cooled. The radiation of the cosmic fireball, which, then as now, filled the universe, moved through the spectrum – from gamma rays to X-rays to ultraviolet light; through the rainbow colors of the visible spectrum; into the infrared and radio regions. The remnants of that fireball, the cosmic background radiation, emanating from all parts of the sky can be detected by radio telescopes today. In the early universe, space was brilliantly illuminated.”

Genesis, 1200 B.C. : “In the beginning God said: ‘Let there be light.’”

As astronomer Robert Jastrow pointed out in God and the Astronomers.

“For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.”

“True science to an ever-increasing degree discovers God as though God were waiting behind each closed door opened by science.” Pope Pius XII

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Why is that? Einstein believed in God.

He obviously did not believe in the Christian God nor in the account of Creation given in Genesis. Moreover, he believed the universe was eternal, and he factored that into his equations on relativity. It was that factoring that Lemaitre exposed by correcting Einstein’s math. So it was clearly a case of Einstein allowing his philosophy to interfere with his physics, whereas Lemaitre’s religion did not interfere with his. Einstein later referred to his error is “the biggest blunder of my life,” and rightly so as he might have beaten Lemaitre to the Big Bang theory.

 

[empther]

So if the universe existed before the expansion, you need to prove that. No one has proved it.

I’m willing to concede that something existed before the Big Bang,
but it seems unlikely.
We’d have to come up with some new fundamental laws of physics to explain how whatever existed before the Bang then turned into a singularly and exploded.
While possible, it seems very unlikely.

 

[CrossofChrist]

Post 16

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. :bigyikes:

He did not, as my last post clearly shows.

No, your last post shows why (ok, to be honest I’ve never really gotten why the 3rd way “works”, but that’s not the point) the universe requires a God even if it is eternal.

 

[CrossofChrist]

He obviously did not believe in the Christian God nor in the account of Creation given in Genesis. Moreover, he believed the universe was eternal, and he factored that into his equations on relativity. It was that factoring that Lemaitre exposed by correcting Einstein’s math. So it was clearly a case of Einstein allowing his philosophy to interfere with his physics, whereas Lemaitre’s religion did not interfere with his. Einstein later referred to his error is “the biggest blunder of my life,” and rightly so as he might have beaten Lemaitre to the Big Bang theory.

Interesting.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Post 15

Wrong!
Your belief that Aquinas assumed the world always existed come from a misreading of his article “On the Eternity of the World” at the end of which he is against an eternal world,
but after playing the devil’s advocate and giving the opponent’s side, which you interpreted as his side. We’ve been over this several times.

So I set out looking for a statement by Aquinas that the world isn’t eternal and guess where I found it ! Right there in the Five Ways

newadvent.org/summa/1002.htm#article3

He is not implying an absolute beginning of the universe here. I don’t care to debate the point. If you want to disagree with every reliable Thomist of note, go ahead. But first you should do two things. One, you should read his commentary on Aristotle’s Physics in which he agrees with Aristotle’s argument for the existence of God from the existence of the eternal motion of the universe.

Second, you should read S.T., Part 1, Ques 46, Art. 2, which reads in part, " I answer that, By faith alone do we hold, and by no demonstration can it be proved, that the world did not always exist, as was said above of the mystery of the Trinity (Question [32], Article [1]). The reason of this is that the newness of the world cannot be demonstrated on the part of the world itself. For the principle of demonstration is the essence of a thing. Now everything according to its species is abstracted from “here” and “now”; whence it is said that universals are everywhere and always. Hence it cannot be demonstrated that man, or heaven, or a stone were not always. Likewise neither can it be demonstrated on the part of the efficient cause, which acts by will. For the will of God cannot be investigated by reason, except as regards those things which God must will of necessity; and what He wills about creatures is not among these, as was said above (Question [19], Article [3]). But the divine will can be manifested by revelation, on which faith rests. Hence that the world began to exist is an object of faith, but not of demonstration or science. And it is useful to consider this, lest anyone, presuming to demonstrate what is of faith, should bring forward reasons that are not cogent, so as to give occasion to unbelievers to laugh, thinking that on such grounds we believe things that are of faith. "

Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Post 16

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. :bigyikes:

He did not, as my last post clearly shows.

My post # 28 answers your objections.

Linus2nd

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Second, you should read S.T., Part 1, Ques 46, Art. 2, which reads in part, " I answer that, By faith alone do we hold, and by no demonstration can it be proved, that the world did not always exist, as was said above of the mystery of the Trinity (Question [32], Article [1]). The reason of this is that the newness of the world cannot be demonstrated on the part of the world itself. Linus2nd

This, of course, is no longer true since the discovery of the Big Bang. We cannot date the history of the universe beyond 14+ billions of years. There are those who hold the universe may be older, but they cannot prove there was anything before the Big Bang because there does not seem to be any before.

 

[Peter_Plato]

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.

The following video is a conversation between David Bentley Hart and Richard Norman on the concept of God presented in Hart’s book. (This is the book discussed by Fr. Barron in the video you linked to in your opening post.

youtu.be/RqE7QqUakoo

It is well worth a listen.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

This, of course, is no longer true since the discovery of the Big Bang. We cannot date the history of the universe beyond 14+ billions of years. There are those who hold the universe may be older, but they cannot prove there was anything before the Big Bang because there does not seem to be any before.

But the point of the O.P. was that Thomas Aquinas’ arguments for the existence for God, as presented in the Five Ways, began with the universe beginning in time. That is incorrect. Thomas designed his arguments on the assumption that it was impossible to prove that the universe had a beginning in time ( i.e. that it was created rather than being eternal). In spite of the handicap he argued from, he demonstrated that God exists, using arguments which assumed an eternal universe. Of course, he personally believed that the universe had an absolute beginning. He was making a rational argument for the existence of God, he was not arguing about the beginning or the non-beginning of the universe. That would be a different argument.

I happen to disagree with you view that the Big Bang argues for a beginning of the universe. Fr. Lamaitre agreed with that view and advised Pius XII not to use it as an argument for a beginning of the universe. From a scientific point of view the case is var from settled. From a perspective of Revelation and Faith, it has been settled, as Thomas pointed out.

Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Here is an excellent video of a talk given by Edward Feser explaining the Aristotelian/Thomastic proof for the existence of God. I bring it up because it is equivalent to a three hour college survey course on the topic in 64min. Not only that but in the last five minutes or so he address the very issue we have been talking about.

But it is excellent for many philosophical reasons, one of which is the answers he gives to certain objections raised by empericists against the argument. It is also good because he discusses actuality and potentiality, the principle of causality, efficient causality, the nature of the First Cause ( really excellent here), etc.

vimeo.com/60979789

Linus2nd

 

[Hortenzie]

The following video is a conversation between David Bentley Hart and Richard Norman on the concept of God presented in Hart’s book. (This is the book discussed by Fr. Barron in the video you linked to in your opening post.

youtu.be/RqE7QqUakoo

It is well worth a listen.

Thank you. I bookmarked the video and will watch it. I was wondering if the book could be helful so I appreciate the info.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

I happen to disagree with you view that the Big Bang argues for a beginning of the universe. Fr. Lamaitre agreed with that view and advised Pius XII not to use it as an argument for a beginning of the universe. From a scientific point of view the case is var from settled. From a perspective of Revelation and Faith, it has been settled, as Thomas pointed out.

Linus2nd

Well, as usual with most of the commentators on this subject, you get half the story right. At the time that Lemaitre pleaded with Pope Pius XII not to jump the gun with his Big Bang theory, the theory was not fully vetted by the scientific community. Lemaitre was a member of that community and knew well enough how hostile that community could be if it thought a Catholic priest and the Pope were taking over the Big Bang theory as a vindication of Genesis.

Pius died in 1958, as I recall. Lemaitre died in 1967. Between those dates a great deal of movement was going on with respect to the Big Bang. Not only was background noise of the Big Bang predicted in the 50s, but Penzias and Wilson actually detected the noise and won a Nobel Prize for their efforts. All this news was brought to Lemaitre on his deathbed, and it must have been deeply gratifying to him that his theory was, in a general way at least, somewhat vindicated. Even Einstein had come to accept it before he died.

You are of course free to assume that Lemaitre went to his grave never having overcome his caution to Pius. But we are not bound by Lemaitre’s view as it existed at the time of that caution. As astronomer Robert Jastrow, by no means a Catholic, pointed out in God and the Astronomers.

“For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.”

By the way, I am not offering the Big Bang as a proof for the existence of God. I am only pointing to it as an indication that those who claim the universe is eternal (as Einstein in his youth had believed) have a hard road to travel. If anything, the Big Bang strongly suggests a Creation moment.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Well, as usual with most of the commentators on this subject, you get half the story right.

Things have not advanced any further toward certitude. In fact we seem to be at a point where we can’t go any further.

Well then, it doesn’t look as though we have advanced any further along than when Thomas existed. If science can’t say for certain, then neither can we. I would certainly welcome the day that science can definitely say that there was no " before " to the Big Bang, that it was the beginning of the universe. That would make it much easier to prove that God existed.

Linus2nd

 

[oldcelt]

Agreed.
And this man is talking in circles and circles…there’s not one declaration he makes that makes sense or is based on anything solid.

.

I truly do not understand the reverence with which he is held by some. For his era I’m sure that his thoughts sounded deep, but they have not held up well. IMHO

 

[Peter_Plato]

Agreed.
And this man is talking in circles and circles…there’s not one declaration he makes that makes sense or is based on anything solid.

.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Agreed.
And this man is talking in circles and circles…there’s not one declaration he makes that makes sense or is based on anything solid.

.

Would you recognize “solid” if you saw it?

You do understand that Aquinas’ proofs set out to define what “solid” must be like in order to sufficiently explain everything that exists?

My suspicion is that Aquinas doesn’t make sense to you because you clearly don’t understand what he is up to.

Perhaps begin with defining what “solid” would look like to you. We can then compare your understanding of “solid” to Aquinas’ and see which version is, indeed, MORE solid, in an explanatory sense.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

If science can’t say for certain, then neither can we. I would certainly welcome the day that science can definitely say that there was no " before " to the Big Bang, that it was the beginning of the universe. That would make it much easier to prove that God existed.

I don’t think science will ever be able to prove it one way or the other. What science has proven is that the universe was created 14+ billions of years ago, that the laws that govern the universe came into being at that time. But I am satisfied that what science has discovered is much closer to Genesis than what it had not discovered before the Big Bang. Especially it has overcome the steady-state eternal universe that was commonly held by scientists to exist before the Big Bang was discovered.

Science is never going to be able to prove God in a scientific way. But it may well provide, as Pope Pius suggested, clues that allow us to believe the Genesis account of creation is not so entirely absurd as our agnostic and atheist friends would have us believe. .