Philosophical Proofs For the Existence of God

  • Thread starter Thread starter Fnord
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Fnord said:
Ok then, lets go on what you’re insinuating. With reason ALONE, without the Bible, without knowing about Jesus, could you reason that God exists, and that God is a triune God who exists coeternally as the father son and holy spirit? No, so what are you trying to prove? You’re reading into the Catechism something that isn’t there.
Click to expand...
You’re reading something into my post that isn’t there.

By reason alone you can know that God:
  • necessarily exists
  • is atemporal
  • is one
  • is omnipotent
  • created all that is - ex nihilo
  • is omniscient
  • is simple
  • is just
  • is incapable of being corrupted
  • is incorporeal
  • is good
  • etc.
  • etc.
  • etc.
newadvent.org/summa/1002.htm
Article 2. Whether it can be demonstrated that God exists?

Objection 1. It seems that the existence of God cannot be demonstrated. For it is an article of faith that God exists. But what is of faith cannot be demonstrated, because a demonstration produces scientific knowledge; whereas faith is of the unseen (Hebrews 11:1). Therefore it cannot be demonstrated that God exists.
…]
On the contrary, The Apostle says: “The invisible things of Him are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made” (Romans 1:20). But this would not be unless the existence of God could be demonstrated through the things that are made; for the first thing we must know of anything is whether it exists.

I answer that, Demonstration can be made in two ways: One is through the cause, and is called “a priori,” and this is to argue from what is prior absolutely. The other is through the effect, and is called a demonstration “a posteriori”; this is to argue from what is prior relatively only to us. When an effect is better known to us than its cause, from the effect we proceed to the knowledge of the cause. And from every effect the existence of its proper cause can be demonstrated, so long as its effects are better known to us; because since every effect depends upon its cause, if the effect exists, the cause must pre-exist. Hence the existence of God, in so far as it is not self-evident to us, can be demonstrated from those of His effects which are known to us.

Reply to Objection 1. The existence of God and other like truths about God, which can be known by natural reason, are not articles of faith, but are preambles to the articles; for faith presupposes natural knowledge, even as grace presupposes nature, and perfection supposes something that can be perfected. Nevertheless, there is nothing to prevent a man, who cannot grasp a proof, accepting, as a matter of faith, something which in itself is capable of being scientifically known and demonstrated.
St. Thomas Aquinas and the Catechism (paraphrasing St. Thomas) speak of the apophatic and cataphatic knowledge of God known through Natural Theology.

The Catechism speaks of God’s revelation to man as being necessary for communicating the knowledge of God that exceeds human understanding, eliminating errors in the knowledge of God and for communicating the existence and attributes of God to those who cannot grasp that knowledge by human reason.
 
wasmit said:
How is that logical?

Your reasoning is merely: “I go even further than that”.

Further, how do you come to the conclusion that the proposed first mover is the christian god, and not (for example) the triune hindu gods of Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva?
Click to expand...
My comment about going further is understood in the context of my progression of thought. I first presented that God is the First Cause of all created existence. Then I said that not only has God caused (past tense),creation to exist - but is CAUSING (present tense) existence each and every moment. If God should for one second stop thinking and willing His creation, it would cease to exist. So God not only CAUSED creation but is CAUSING creation. That is the context I meant about going further - from the past tense understanding to one of a present tense
 
jkiernan56 said:
If something cannot cause its own existence and one does not accept the idea of infinite cause-effect progression, it is VERY logical to acknowledge a BEING who is not caused and is the FIRST CAUSE of all other cause effects. .
Click to expand...
Actually I would suggest this is illogical.

The idea that something cannot “cause” it’s own existance, and that there is no infinite regression suggests that “god” cannot exist.

Since cause and effect exist, then there cannot be an effect without cause. IE…God, cannot exist without a creator, leading to an infinite regress.

Of course, we then posit that there is a “necessary” being.

The nature of that being, is the real issue. Did the universe “alway’s” exist, or did something cause it?

Before you jump on the big bang argument understand that scientists recognize this issue and are working on it.

If, the universe can be show to alway’s have existed, would there be a God?

You accept that “something” has alway’s existed. What…if that something is not your christian god, but…a simple reality? The universe.

In other words the philisophical arguments break down at this point, because humans are limited by our understandings and our observations. Anything is possible at the point of infinite regression.

You have to show, why “your” possibility, is more correct than the other.
 
Dameedna said:
Actually I would suggest this is illogical.

The idea that something cannot “cause” it’s own existance, and that there is no infinite regression suggests that “god” cannot exist.

Since cause and effect exist, then there cannot be an effect without cause. IE…God, cannot exist without a creator, leading to an infinite regress.

Of course, we then posit that there is a “necessary” being.

The nature of that being, is the real issue. Did the universe “alway’s” exist, or did something cause it?

Before you jump on the big bang argument understand that scientists recognize this issue and are working on it.

If, the universe can be show to alway’s have existed, would there be a God?

You accept that “something” has alway’s existed. What…if that something is not your christian god, but…a simple reality? The universe.

In other words the philisophical arguments break down at this point, because humans are limited by our understandings and our observations. Anything is possible at the point of infinite regression.

You have to show, why “your” possibility, is more correct than the other.
Click to expand...
Infinite regression is irrational.
 
Dameedna said:
Actually I would suggest this is illogical.

The idea that something cannot “cause” it’s own existance, and that there is no infinite regression suggests that “god” cannot exist.

Since cause and effect exist, then there cannot be an effect without cause. IE…God, cannot exist without a creator, leading to an infinite regress.
Click to expand...
nothing physical can cause itself to exist, St. Aquinas, as all Christains, understood G-d to be spirit, transcendant, non-physical. even the implication of physical natures inability to not be its own cause leads to the logical necessity of a non-physical first cause.

so many atheists miss this most fundamental understanding of the nature of G-d and its implications conserning causality, by dint of being atheist. they simply don’t know what we actually believe. so they have to make assumptions about such things
Of course, we then posit that there is a “necessary” being
Click to expand...
The nature of that being, is the real issue. Did the universe “alway’s” exist, or did something cause it?
Click to expand...
the laws of physics deny always existing matter. i.e. the second law of thermodynamics.
Before you jump on the big bang argument understand that scientists recognize this issue and are working on it.
Click to expand...
whats wrong with the BB?, it is the evidence of the act of creation, the problem is with interpretation that denies that on no reasonable basis.

do you have any argument showing that it is not the Creation?
If, the universe can be show to alway’s have existed, would there be a God?
Click to expand...
the physical universe cant always have existed for the reason above, the second law of thermodynamics.
You accept that “something” has alway’s existed. What…if that something is not your christian god, but…a simple reality? The universe.
Click to expand...
we accept the logical necessity of a non-physical first cause. being non-physical, it does not possess any of the qualities of the physical, and as a result it cannot be held to physical, or temporal laws, which in turn means it cannot be held to causality.

thats a simplistic argument assuming that first cause is physical, with no force of logic or evidence.

opposed to that we have the universe which could not have always exised without violating the second law of thermodynamics. thats why your propisition is false.
In other words the philisophical arguments break down at this point, because humans are limited by our understandings and our observations. Anything is possible at the point of infinite regression.
Click to expand...
we understand the arguments fine, i just explained why the infinite regression is not logically possible.
You have to show, why “your” possibility, is more correct than the other.
Click to expand...
once again, among many problems, always existing matter violates the second law of thermodynamics.

thats why.
 
1holycatholic said:
Then why would you propose that the universe has always existed?
Click to expand...
Well…if something can alway’s have existed…

The universe could alway’s have existed. In one form or another.

The whole “something must exist” clause , philisophically has nothing to do with god. It is THE question.
 
Dameedna said:
Well…if something can alway’s have existed…

The universe could alway’s have existed. In one form or another.

The whole “something must exist” clause , philisophically has nothing to do with god. It is THE question.
Click to expand...
Always implies temporality. God exists atemporally. The universe exists temporally. Infinite past time is a logical contradiction, therefore it is not possible for the universe to have always existed.
 
Dameedna said:
Well…if something can alway’s have existed…

The universe could alway’s have existed. In one form or another.

The whole “something must exist” clause , philisophically has nothing to do with god. It is THE question.
Click to expand...
If you use your REASON Damneedna, you would understand that SOMETHING cannot come from NOTHING. (That is why I do not buy into the Nihilistic understanding of Creation - but that is a subject for another thread).

So for SOMETHING to exist is PRECISELY and ACTUALLY what Philosophy is ALL ABOUT. Now for you (please correct me if I am wrong) that SOMETHING that always existed is the Universe. For others including myself, that SOMETHING is the CAUSE of all Existence but whose Existence is NOT CAUSED by something else (ie - the Primary Mover or BEING).
 
jkiernan56 said:
If you use your REASON Damneedna, you would understand that SOMETHING cannot come from NOTHING. (That is why I do not buy into the Nihilistic understanding of Creation - but that is a subject for another thread).

So for SOMETHING to exist is PRECISELY and ACTUALLY what Philosophy is ALL ABOUT. Now for you (please correct me if I am wrong) that SOMETHING that always existed is the Universe. For others including myself, that SOMETHING is the CAUSE of all Existence but whose Existence is NOT CAUSED by something else (ie - the Primary Mover or BEING).
Click to expand...
they know that, thats why they are desperate for a way to deny causality.

even if it violates the laws of physics or logic.

there just cant be a G-d, there just cant be! :rolleyes:
 
jkiernan56 said:
If you use your REASON Damneedna, you would understand that SOMETHING cannot come from NOTHING. (That is why I do not buy into the Nihilistic understanding of Creation - but that is a subject for another thread).

So for SOMETHING to exist is PRECISELY and ACTUALLY what Philosophy is ALL ABOUT. Now for you (please correct me if I am wrong) that SOMETHING that always existed is the Universe. For others including myself, that SOMETHING is the CAUSE of all Existence but whose Existence is NOT CAUSED by something else (ie - the Primary Mover or BEING).
Click to expand...
Dameedna has claimed that something can come from nothing. I have asked Dameedna about the claim and have had no response.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=4777005&postcount=59
 
warpspeedpetey said:
thats the pattern, common around here. if you can t find a logical reply, your argument might get some traction on another thread.
Click to expand...
Thank you for the link to where you asked Daamedna about SOMETHING coming from NOTHING. I had a nice chuckle when you asked for the link to her claim … and then I laughed when I saw the icon of drinking coffee reading the newspaper !!! LOL

Sorry Daamedna, the laugh was not at your expense - but rather WarpspeedPetey’s reply …

By the way, the CCC does state that God created the Universe out of NOTHING. I think that is way too simplistic of an answer.
 
Dameedna said:
Actually I would suggest this is illogical.

The idea that something cannot “cause” it’s own existance, and that there is no infinite regression suggests that “god” cannot exist.

Since cause and effect exist, then there cannot be an effect without cause. IE…God, cannot exist without a creator, leading to an infinite regress.

Of course, we then posit that there is a “necessary” being.

The nature of that being, is the real issue. Did the universe “alway’s” exist, or did something cause it?

Before you jump on the big bang argument understand that scientists recognize this issue and are working on it.

If, the universe can be show to alway’s have existed, would there be a God?

You accept that “something” has alway’s existed. What…if that something is not your christian god, but…a simple reality? The universe.

In other words the philisophical arguments break down at this point, because humans are limited by our understandings and our observations. Anything is possible at the point of infinite regression.

You have to show, why “your” possibility, is more correct than the other.
Click to expand...
Just speaking for myself, I’d say that entropy and the loss of information in the universe pretty much nail shut any hopes of the universe being eternal.
 
jkiernan56 said:
Thank you for the link to where you asked Daamedna about SOMETHING coming from NOTHING. I had a nice chuckle when you asked for the link to her claim … and then I laughed when I saw the icon of drinking coffee reading the newspaper !!! LOL

Sorry Daamedna, the laugh was not at your expense - but rather WarpspeedPetey’s reply …

By the way, the CCC does state that God created the Universe out of NOTHING. I think that is way too simplistic of an answer.
Click to expand...
sorry, i think you mean 1holycatholic
 
Fnord said:
Just speaking for myself, I’d say that entropy and the loss of information in the universe pretty much nail shut any hopes of the universe being eternal.
Click to expand...
that says it all, they just want to avoid the need for a cause, their argument is driven by desire not logic.
 
warpspeedpetey said:
that says it all, they just want to avoid the need for a cause, their argument is driven by desire not logic.
Click to expand...
It seems to me that, since our observations seem to show that the universe wasn’t around forever, we can either speculate that it was caused or uncaused.

The reasons for holding it to be caused seem much more reasonable for obvious logical points.

I’ve never heard why holding it to have no cause is more logically reasonable. All I’ve ever heard is “yeah well but it COULD have been uncaused!”

Ok sure, but why would I be more reasonable in holding that view? They never have an answer for that. The truth is simply that those who hold this view do so on purely personal grounds and not under the scrutiny of logic and science they always put Christians through. A double-standard.
 
Fnord said:
It seems to me that, since our observations seem to show that the universe wasn’t around forever, we can either speculate that it was caused or uncaused.

The reasons for holding it to be caused seem much more reasonable for obvious logical points.

I’ve never heard why holding it to have no cause is more logically reasonable. All I’ve ever heard is “yeah well but it COULD have been uncaused!”

Ok sure, but why would I be more reasonable in holding that view? They never have an answer for that. The truth is simply that those who hold this view do so on purely personal grounds and not under the scrutiny of logic and science they always put Christians through. A double-standard.
Click to expand...
yup.

when they run out of answers to the logic, the typical argument they fall back on is some version of “you might be wrong”, yet they dont stop biologists, or theoretical physicists and say the same thing. any theory may be wrong from evolution to relativity. big deal. prove me wrong.

its a double standard. they want a higher standard of proof for G-d than for an electron

you can see neither, but the logic that says an electron, or a virtual particle, must exist is somehow more trustworthy than the logic that says we are a deliberate creation.

as there is no difference in the logic between either G-d or an electron, as mathematics is logic, than they have no reason to believe in an electron, much less a virtual particle.

they have no rational reason to not believe in G-d.

atheism is about desire not rationalism, i wish they would all stop pretending to rationalism and science, when they really dont like either one when we show that they both point to G-d
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top