Metaphysics: What do you like about it?

  • Thread starter Thread starter squirt
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

squirt

Guest
What’s your favourite ‘proof’ of God’s existence? Why?

I’m not looking for debates about the merits of various proofs … that would make for a nice auxiliary thread … just interested in seeing what various people like.

I guess I would vote for those based on a ‘first cause’ à la Aristotle and Aquinas.

No, I don’t find them completely compelling … for me, there’s nothing obvious about the nature of God’s ‘personality’ that follows from them or His many of HIs characteristics or even His existence, but they’re a good starting point for ‘wondering’ about Him.

Who’s next?
 
Aquinas could write 100 Summas… and that wouldnt mean zero to me for proof of God when compared to seeing and reading THESE:
  1. Incorrupt bodies of Saints
  2. Eucharistic Miracles
  3. Miriads of mystics, stigmatics, blessed, venerable and sainted who have shared their visions.
  4. Church approved revelations…ie, Fatima, Lourdes, etc…
  5. The BIGGEST 2 “proofs” of all for (me) comes in the light of ALL past and current scientific study of the Shroud of Turin defying even the hardest atheists, scientists, etc to simply state, there is no explanation that could be given for that image to exist the way it does… every philosopher in the world couldnt reach me until I read and seen stories of the miraculous…second for my “proof” is the cloak of Juan Diago of Guadalupe…especially NOW that we are finding out her image is allegedly pregnant, AND powerful microscopes have detected images of PEOPLE reflected in her EYES on the Tilma as the miracle took place!.. So…Turin Shroud, Guadalupe, and the above others are what I use for my proof and to keep my faith alive. 👍
 
Faithful 2 Rome:
Aquinas could write 100 Summas… and that wouldnt mean zero to me for proof of God when compared to seeing and reading THESE:
  1. Incorrupt bodies of Saints
  2. Eucharistic Miracles
  3. Miriads of mystics, stigmatics, blessed, venerable and sainted who have shared their visions.
Well yes, there are so many validated miracles throughout the life of the Church that they are almost expected.

But since you asked about metaphysical proofs, I like the proof from contingency. Nothing else in the universe HAD to exist. It’s existence is contingent. It might not have been. The likelihood of a universe of purely contingent beings nevertheless coming to exist, argues for the existence of a being who is non-contingent. A being who HAD to exist, and that being we call God.

I also like the argument from design; except that lately it’s tried to become a scientific proof instead of a metaphysical proof, which makes me wary of citing it.

JimG
 
Greetings all,

In case you are interested, Peter kreeft and Ronald Tacelli’s Handbook on Christian Apologetics has a good chapter on the various theological proofs.

I once was rather taken with the ontological argument as later reformulated by AN Whitehead, Charles Hartshorne (see Anselm’s Discovery), et al. A purely logical and metapysical proof. Unfortunately it does not necessarily lead to a belief in a personal God. But I still find it useful in discussions with atheists because it causes them to question their underlying assumptions.

I am rather enjoying the resurgence of the argument from design and the fact that it is gaining empirical support, but I realize that this could change. But, for now, I am enjoying the spectacle of all the atheistic materialists on any number of fronts being completely befuddled by the evidence of design and all that that implies. A pretty cool book is the Creator and the Cosmos by Ross. My favorite story is that of Francis Crick, co-discoverer of the structure of DNA, who has thrown in the towel adn admitted that DNA is to complex to have arisen by chance out of the primodial soup. But do you think he then wouldl acknowledge the obvious? Noooooo. Life arose on earth because some aliens seeded DNA to get life going. What a hoot.

Because no single argument seems to work on everyone, I like to simply cite the great number of proofs to show folks that belief in God is reasonable. I also cite what the Catechism calls the clear and converging proofs argument. See George Weigel’s book The Truth of Catholicism. I also like to direct folks to their own experience and use sociologist Peter Berger’s idea of the “rumor of angels,” those little reminders that we all get that there is more to reality than what our senses can detect.

Cordially adn metaphysically,

Ferd
 
Metaphysics drives me up the wall. Chalk me up as a fan of epistemology instead. 👍

ken
 
I like the flawed but audacious attempt by William Lane Craig to resurrect the Kalam Cosmological argument. I once clobbered a learned mathematical physicist with this argument at a Christmas party a few years ago. It was unmitigated sophistry on my part, but onlookers took it for brilliance.

The most cogent argument for God’s existence is detailed in David Braine’s *The Reality of Time and the Existence of God (Oxford U. Pr.). *This is a heavy-going work, but worth the effort.
 
On a slightly different tack,

in terms of ‘problem of evil’ arguments, Alvin Plantinga has written some good stuff on whether or not God can create ‘all possible worlds’ … tough slogging, but fun to read.
 
Mornin’ All,

This is veering slightly off topic, but it is something that has been bothering me for some time. Christians talk about God as being outside of time, transcending time, changeless, etc. I have never understood this. How can something exist if it isn’t in time? How can something exist if it is changeless? Is this not nonsense? This is core of Charles Hartshorne’s critique of the Christian understanding of the divine attributes.

Anybody got any ideas on this?

Cordially,

Ferd
 
I guess I don’t need all this big positive proof, and more than likely I will not convince others of God’s existance. However, I can come to believe in God simply through the little miracle in my life, and desperate prayers that have been answered. As far as understanding how God can exist outside of time, in my opinion is just one of the mysteries that will be solved at our death. A lot of belief is based on the faith in our Catholic heritage. That doesn’t mean that I don’t enjoy reading about how some of these beliefs came to be.
 
40.png
ferdgoodfellow:
Mornin’ All,

This is veering slightly off topic, but it is something that has been bothering me for some time. Christians talk about God as being outside of time, transcending time, changeless, etc. I have never understood this. How can something exist if it isn’t in time? How can something exist if it is changeless? Is this not nonsense? This is core of Charles Hartshorne’s critique of the Christian understanding of the divine attributes.

Anybody got any ideas on this?

Cordially,

Ferd
Ferd,

Wanna start a thread on this? It could be interesting. I don’t have time now … but on the weekend I could join in …
 
My favorites:
  1. Aquinas’ argument in De Ente et Essentia
  2. Moral Argument
  3. Argument from abstract objects (Plantinga
  4. The argument which tells us that the unity in the universe can only be thought of in a Divine Mind.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top