Philosophical Proofs For the Existence of God

[Xuan]

I agree if you mean, far more then the nature of what we understand to be personal in our selves. However; that doesn’t mean that God is not personal; it means that God is the Greatest-Person. If God doesn’t have a “personal nature” then God is less then what God has produced; and thus is not perfect.

What we conclude logically about Gods perfection really depends on our conception of what perfection is. My conclusions are based on a conceptual and qualitative understanding of the hierarchy of being; this is what justifies me saying that something is greater in “quality” then something else. Its only with this understanding that we can meaningfully speak of “perfection”. Outside of these concepts, qualitative distinctions are subjective illusions like moral truth. It seems evident to my experience, that a “person” is qualitatively greater then an object, since a person knows; has knowledge of self. To say God is other then a person, rather then a perfect person, would be to degrade God to the nature of an object. This would mean that perfection is less then a person; which is absurd.

I agree that personhood is the highest qualitative form of being among earthly things, but we’re not talking about earthly things. We’re talking about something that’s way outside that little box.

Personhood is something we know; it’s something we’re familiar with. But we don’t know anything about the essence of the first cause. To call it “personhood” simply because that’s the highest form of being that we’re familiar with among earthly things, does it a great disservice.

We would be much more honest if we would acknowledge our ignorance and not try to label it with terms that refer to earthly things. Instead we assign human attributes to it, because they’re all we know, so we can talk about it. Then we use these to build elaborate constructs and pretend we know what we’re talking about.

As I said in my first post of this series, I don’t really like to argue. So I’m going to just let it go at that.

Good luck,
Xuan

 

[JDaniel]

I agree that personhood is the highest qualitative form of being among earthly things, but we’re not talking about earthly things. We’re talking about something that’s way outside that little box.

Personhood is something we know; it’s something we’re familiar with. But we don’t know anything about the essence of the first cause. To call it “personhood” simply because that’s the highest form of being that we’re familiar with among earthly things, does it a great disservice.

We would be much more honest if we would acknowledge our ignorance and not try to label it with terms that refer to earthly things. Instead we assign human attributes to it, because they’re all we know, so we can talk about it. Then we use these to build elaborate constructs and pretend we know what we’re talking about.

As I said in my first post of this series, I don’t really like to argue. So I’m going to just let it go at that.

Good luck,
Xuan

Xuan:

A long time ago, a famous American by the name of Ben Franklin said, “Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy.” In that sense, want is not a defect. In other senses, want may be a defect, but, our language usage is not what determines whether God has a defect or not.

When we say, “God wants us to love him,” that statement is not admitting defect. It is stating an obvious. He gave us free will. We have the power to go to him, or, not go to him. The gift of “free will” presumes that the giver would hope for something in return. This does not, by its nature, translate into imperfection in an otherwise “perfect being”. Here it is merely the expression of another’s indebtedness. But, it comes without demand.

jd

 

[RobbyS]

warpspeedpetey
though i do wonder what you think could be superior to a omniscient, omnipotent, Christain G-d? (now we are into theology here)
Today 12:15 pm

I fumbled around with the quote thingy, but I didn’t see any picture of mountains. Anyway, here’s my response.You’re right, it’s probably theology, but it pertains to the breakdown of Aquinas’ “proofs.”

When you ask a Christian whether or not God is perfect, the answer will be a resounding “yes.” Of course, then they attach all sorts of human/animal attributes to him: personality, emotions, etc. And they pretend that even with all these limitations “he” is still perfect. And the next thing we hear is that God wants us to do this or God wants us to avoid doing that.

I would propose the following:

The perfect being has the maximum amount possible of happiness, contentment, satisfaction, etc. If it didn’t, there would be room for improvement, and it wouldn’t be perfect.

To “want” something to happen denotes that if it happens, the “wanter” expects to somehow be better off … feel better, be happier, be more pleased, whatever. Even if the “wanter” wants something altruistic, like “less suffering or starving in the world”, he/she will feel better knowing that he/she wants good for people, even if it will have absolutely no effect on him/her whatsoever. The knowledge that he/she wants “good” makes him/her feel better. Of course, if the “want” came to pass, then he/she would really feel good.

For this reason, the perfect being isn’t capable of wanting. It’s a contradiction in terms (like God being able to sin). Perfection already includes the maximum amount of happiness, satisfaction, contentment, etc. Perfection cannot “want.” Any being that “wants” is less than perfect. There is room for its condition to improve. This applies to your condition of the independent actor having a motive. To have a motive is to “want” a particular outcome.

When you take a being that is supposedly perfect and attach all kinds of limitations to it, especially the huge limitation of wanting, words like omnipotent and omniscient become little more than platitudes.

Aquinas’ arguments led to the Christian God, a very limited being. Such a being could not have caused the universe. The cause of the universe is the source of everything: good, bad, large, small, beautiful, ugly… everything. It has everything possible. It does not want. It cannot want.

Now you’re probably going to disagree with everything I’ve said, but the inescapable fact is that perfection cannot “want.” If it “wants,” it’s not perfect.

Nort sure what you mean by “perfection.” The basic meaning is “wholly without flaw,” that is to say, holy. We think that we, indeed the whole universe can be made perfect, but we can’t do it, nor can we imagine it.
Odd to try to make God beyond our reach when talking about the idea of God, which is a human concept.

 

[Bruno_Schulz]

**There are no philosophical proofs of God. There is no proof at all of God. Can’t be!
Neither would agnosticism, who’s credo is a simple “I DON’T KNOW” be a position of reason, nor logic or insight. What’s so great about Protagoras (5th century bC.) theorem, which T.H.Huxley 1869 repeated in his “The question if there is a God, doesn’t matter”.

If agnostics had the slightest clue, they’d recognize that this question does matter to their very personal life to the extend as to be or not to be.

Those who believe however, those who have faith in God, find God in EVERYTHING. They find proofe of God EVERYWHERE

God had revealed himself, long before Jesus Christ to Abraham, the Prophets, to Moses, later Elijah.

Human race was (and still is) too self-absorbed, to recognise God as the one and only God being – the “I am who am.”
(not …who I am, but who am) – the being. Being itself (Exodus 3,14)

So God revealed Himself anew again, though His only Son, so that everyone who believes in him might not perish but might have eternal life (John 3,16).

So; God is no human concept, but He Is! Reason must tell us. Reason does tell us this truth, if we have the grace of God to be allowed and able to believe. Reason does not tell us, if we doubt.

God doesn’t want to reveal Himself fully, for then earth wouldn’t make any sense as place for probation for heaven, as everyone would know there’s God, which would make believe superfluous.
So – Jesus said so many times, that believe and faith in God only, is the connection and the insight, that God is. Believe and faith plus works: For just as a body without a spirit is dead, so also faith without works is dead - James 2,26:

In fact – it’s all very simple. Believe is a simple thing as Pope Benedict said.

**

 

[1holycatholic]

There are no philosophical proofs of God.

:hypno:

 

[MindOverMatter]

I agree that personhood is the highest qualitative form of being among earthly things, but we’re not talking about earthly things.

Thanks for your reply. As usual, like all the people I’ve debated on this forum, you have managed to annoy me. And heres the reason why.

Through out your post you have been making groundless assertions which seem to be challenging the power of “inductive inferences”; which is the idea that we can know something about a cause from its effect. But your whole argument is purely a semantic fallacy. First of all, induction and deduction, are perfectly legitimate tools for attaining knowledge. Such tools are the interpretive ground of all human knowledge including science. Secondly; we were never talking about “earthly things”. We are talking about the hierarchy of Quality and Being. We are talking about “existence” and the things which “exist” within existence. The term “earth” is a subjective term we give to the object upon which we exist. In reality, it is merely an entityupon which we find various qualities. But there is simply no reason to confine “person-hood” to “earthly” things just because we find person-hood on the planet-earth. Location has nothing to do with understanding the qualitative difference between **non-personal **and personal. “Earthliness” is not a **real **objective category that you can place various attributes into. This is the fallacy of composition. You are not talking about anything thats real. My arguments flow logically and consistently from a correct idea of perfection and the things that we “know” to be true.

Here is a short replay of my previous argument so that you cannot accuse me of assertion…

If the first cause is not a person, then the first cause is qualitatively similar to that of an object since it does not “know”; thus the first cause is less then a person given the premise that knowing is greater then not knowing. This means that the first cause is qualitatively less then what it produces. This would also mean that perfection is less then a person, which doesn’t make any sense. Perfection cannot be less then what it creates.

The only way you can undermine this argument is to deny that there is such a thing as qualitative differences in existence. But we experience qualitative differences; and this is proven imminently by the simple fact that we conceive of being qualitatively greater then an object. We are compelled by our experiences to affirm this as an objective fact about reality.

If you are going to repeat the same thing as before, please don’t waste another post. Lets just agree to disagree.

We would be much more honest if we would acknowledge our ignorance and not try to label it with terms that refer to earthly things.

Its funny. You seem to know allot about what you claim to know nothing about. Perhaps it would be more honest if you didn’t put unfounded limitations on what we can or cannot know. You seem to hold to an agnostic principle which isn’t really grounded in logic or experience. You just like the idea of it.

 

[jkiernan56]

Existence itself is proof enough for me to the existence of God.

It amazes me to realize at this very moment God is thinking and willing my existence and that of all created reality!!!

If God should stop thinking of you and me, we would cease to exist.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Existence itself is proof enough for me to the existence of God.

It amazes me to realize at this very moment God is thinking and willing my existence and that of all created reality!!!

If God should stop thinking of you and me, we would cease to exist.

i wish he would quit thinking about the 75 lbs i gained when i quit smoking!

 

[MindOverMatter]

i wish he would quit thinking about the 75 lbs i gained when i quit smoking!

Me too:yup: Truth is harsh.

 

[Xuan]

Nort sure what you mean by “perfection.” The basic meaning is “wholly without flaw,” that is to say, holy. We think that we, indeed the whole universe can be made perfect, but we can’t do it, nor can we imagine it.
Odd to try to make God beyond our reach when talking about the idea of God, which is a human concept.

I agree that God is a human concept. In fact I would say it’s a human construct. Take all the good qualities you can think of (pure love, pure good, etc.), add in a whole litany of “omni’s”, and there you have it. The problem comes in trying to reconcile this character with the character Yahweh, a Bronze Age tribal war god, filled with anger and jealousy, and responsible for countless atrocities. The case can’t be made.

I tried for more than sixty years, as a Catholic, to get past all the discrepancies and believe that a Bronze Age tribal war god was actually the cause of the universe. Everywhere I looked there were discrepancies, from the time that I was a little kid and was told that if I ate meat on Fridays I’d go to hell (at that time hell was still a firepit), not because God prohibited it, but because a man prohibited it. A man could really do that? I tried, though, for a long long time. But there was one discrepancy after another, and some of them were just plain nonsensical. When I finally admitted that it was a big house of cards, albeit some of it very elaborately constructed, I left it alone.

I didn’t walk away from the more constructive aspects, though. Christ was a truly beautiful person, as were a few others in history. He spent three years showing us the way to live virtuously. The lessons he taught are worth living, not for some kind of reward (I don’t know whether there’s an afterlife or not), but because they make life so much more fulfilling… But I’m rambling.

 

[Xuan]

Thanks for your reply. As usual, like all the people I’ve debated on this forum, you have managed to annoy me. And heres the reason why.

Through out your post you have been making groundless assertions which seem to be challenging the power of “inductive inferences”; which is the idea that we can know something about a cause from its effect. But your whole argument is purely a semantic fallacy. First of all, induction and deduction, are perfectly legitimate tools for attaining knowledge. Such tools are the interpretive ground of all human knowledge including science. Secondly; we were never talking about “earthly things”. We are talking about the hierarchy of Quality and Being. We are talking about “existence” and the things which “exist” within existence. The term “earth” is a subjective term we give to the object upon which we exist. In reality, it is merely an entityupon which we find various qualities. But there is simply no reason to confine “person-hood” to “earthly” things just because we find person-hood on the planet-earth. Location has nothing to do with understanding the qualitative difference between **non-personal **and personal. “Earthliness” is not a **real **objective category that you can place various attributes into. This is the fallacy of composition. You are not talking about anything thats real. My arguments flow logically and consistently from a correct idea of perfection and the things that we “know” to be true.

Here is a short replay of my previous argument so that you cannot accuse me of assertion…

If the first cause is not a person, then the first cause is qualitatively similar to that of an object since it does not “know”; thus the first cause is less then a person given the premise that knowing is greater then not knowing. This means that the first cause is qualitatively less then what it produces. This would also mean that perfection is less then a person, which doesn’t make any sense. Perfection cannot be less then what it creates.

The only way you can undermine this argument is to deny that there is such a thing as qualitative differences in existence. But we experience qualitative differences; and this is proven imminently by the simple fact that we conceive of being qualitatively greater then an object. We are compelled by our experiences to affirm this as an objective fact about reality.

If you are going to repeat the same thing as before, please don’t waste another post. Lets just agree to disagree.

Its funny. You seem to know allot about what you claim to know nothing about. Perhaps it would be more honest if you didn’t put unfounded limitations on what we can or cannot know. You seem to hold to an agnostic principle which isn’t really grounded in logic or experience. You just like the idea of it.

There’s no need to be frustrated; it’s only a conversation.

When I use the term “person” I mean a “self-conscious rational being.” I would think that the first cause, if there is one, is probably conscious of itself, but I don’t think it would have to rely on reason. There are beings that don’t know (rocks), there are beings that can know through reason (persons), and there may well be a being that simply knows (first cause). I don’t know of a word that denotes such a being; if I did I’d use it. But that’s why I don’t use the word “person.” I think there may well be a form that’s qualitatively higher than person.

No, the word isn’t “god” because that carries a whole lot of other connotations that don’t necessarily apply to the first cause.

No, I certainly don’t have all the answers. But if an answer doesn’t sound plausible, I’m reluctant to buy into it.

 

[MindOverMatter]

There’s no need to be frustrated; it’s only a conversation.

I would think that the first cause, if there is one, is probably conscious of itself, but I don’t think it would have to rely on reason…

Personally i think its a matter of necessity that the first cause is conscious of self; but in general, I agree with your statement.

But that’s why I don’t use the word “person.” I think there may well be a form that’s qualitatively higher than person…

So long as that doesn’t mean becoming less then a person, i agree with this statement.

No, the word isn’t “god” because that carries a whole lot of other connotations that don’t necessarily apply to the first cause…

Well…i am talking about the Aquinian concept of God as it is propounded in his philosophy. I think there are in fact necessary attributes that must apply to a first cause; and this we can know by logic. But without out going into whether or not God is a person, my most basic descriptions of God is, “Ground of all being”, “Root of all being” or simply “Existence”. God is simply the highest being. God is that which sustains and creates all other beings. I think that kind of God is the only God worth knowing, and I don’t think we really have to use the term God, so long as we are clear about what we mean. Its just that when most people talk about “ultimate reality” they describe that reality as God.

No, I certainly don’t have all the answers.

Thats a shame.

But if an answer doesn’t sound plausible, I’m reluctant to buy into it.

Personally, based on your style of argument, I doubt that you will buy anything that doesn’t suit your taste.

Peace.

 

[Bruno_Schulz]

**„No, I certainly don’t have all the answers“ many say, and of course we don’t have all the answers; but the Church has! (because the Church is founded by Jesus and supervised by the Holy Spirit)

If we’d care to read the bible properly and with our heart, we’d get 95% of all answers we are looking for. The rest 5% Church provides.

That’s why Catholics don’t relay on scripture only, not sole scriptura, but Holy Scripture PLUS TEACHING OF THE CHURCH.

Still – every one of us can reach a very high level of “Proofs For the Existence of God”

Clear “Philosophical Proofs” For the Existence of God are not to be found, even though you reacted astonished at this statement.
But philosophy is a wide field of special sciences that in the end can logically be proofed to people who understand; for philosophy has it’s clear logic.
Mathematic, astrology, oceanography, psychology and many more had been philosophic subjects, before final prove made it a subject of science.

This final prove will never happen to our believe in God – God Himself avoids that, because believe is requirement for every friendship – how much more so for togetherness with God.

Therefore “Philosophical Proofs For the Existence of God” will never be generally accepted.
What will remain forever; is believe.

But: We have a lot more than simple “Philosophical Proofs”: Jesus Christ!
Jesus Christ is a historical person. He taught in the age of 12 the wisest. He proved TO THOSE WHO BELIEVED – that is to those who saw with the heart – that this man MUST BE GOD HIMSELF. And this is knowledge – not “Philosophical Proofs”.

Whoever reads or hears what Jesus said, whoever holds this words in his heart, will KNOW that this is God! When a dear friend tells you something – you don’t just believe, but you KNOW. How much more than a dear friend is Jesus Christ.

Now God didn’t stringent prove He was God to many (very few exceptions like Moses, Elijah) He just said so often enough (e.g. John 6,46 or John 14,9) and we are totally free to believe or deny.

But: There are manifold evidence of God to those who are given the grace of God to be allowed to believe. All Saints spoke about this evidence.
**

 

[jkiernan56]

i wish he would quit thinking about the 75 lbs i gained when i quit smoking!

He was probably thinking of the food you stuffed in your mouth as a substitute

 

[1holycatholic]

That’s why Catholics don’t relay on scripture only, not sole scriptura, but Holy Scripture PLUS TEACHING OF THE CHURCH.
…]
Clear “Philosophical Proofs” For the Existence of God are not to be found, even though you reacted astonished at this statement.

That’s explicitly contrary to the teaching of the Church.

vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__PB.HTM36 “Our holy mother, the Church, holds and teaches that God, the first principle and last end of all things, can be known with certainty from the created world by the natural light of human reason.” Without this capacity, man would not be able to welcome God’s revelation. Man has this capacity because he is created “in the image of God”.
You are contradicting yourself in your own post.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

I agree that God is a human concept. In fact I would say it’s a human construct. Take all the good qualities you can think of (pure love, pure good, etc.), add in a whole litany of “omni’s”, and there you have it. The problem comes in trying to reconcile this character with the character Yahweh, a Bronze Age tribal war god, filled with anger and jealousy, and responsible for countless atrocities. The case can’t be made.

a bronze age war G-d? not much of one always giving over to mercy, giving His only son for a sacrifice etc.

what atrocities? G-d owns everything and everyone, he can dispose of them as he sees fit, just as you or i can dispose of our property.

I tried for more than sixty years, as a Catholic, to get past all the discrepancies and believe that a Bronze Age tribal war god was actually the cause of the universe. Everywhere I looked there were discrepancies, from the time that I was a little kid and was told that if I ate meat on Fridays I’d go to hell (at that time hell was still a firepit), not because God prohibited it, but because a man prohibited it. A man could really do that?

 

[warpspeedpetey]

He was probably thinking of the food you stuffed in your mouth as a substitute

*shhhhhhhhhhhhh…!

be vewy, vewy kwiet, thats to cwose to the twuth.*

 

[Xuan]

a bronze age war G-d? not much of one always giving over to mercy, giving His only son for a sacrifice etc.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

The time of Christ wasn’t the Bronze Age. The Jewish god morphed over time from the tribal war god to the good and loving god of today.

i dont know, the messianic prophesies stem from deep in the old testament, ive heard alot of atheists talk about a tribal war G-d, but that doesnt explain away all those messianic prophecies. it seems that there was no ‘morphing’, things were one way until the Sacrifice was made, sealing the new covenant, then things changed to that covenant that we now have

I’m talking about the original, the OT god who ordered up the atrocities listed in such places as Deuteronomy and Numbers 31. Who knows what Moses and his friends were smoking or what kind of mushrooms they were eating to bring up those kinds of visions, being ordered to carry out such atrocities.

the idea that G-d could commit atrocities is strange to me, he slew almost all of humanity in a flood, because they were wicked in His eyes, how is it any different with the midianites?

By any objective standard, men slaughtering children and babies, but saving the virgin girls for their own use, is immoral. People who say that if God orders it, it’s moral, don’t have an objective moral standard. It’s subjective, according to what people say God says, and thus relative. It may be absolute, but it’s not objective; it’s relative morality. I know Christians like to turn it around the other way, but in fact they’re as relative as anyone. Any objective moral standard would prohibit that kind of behavior.

what they mean is that G-ds morality is the objective standard, He created and owned all those people, they were His to do with as He wished. this is the part that i was talking about, you want G-d to have the morals you think are right, not what He, as creator knows to be right. more people are tripped up by the desire to fit G-d into a box of their own understanding, than any other reason. many people feel if it doesn’t make sense then it cant be G-d, yet the very existence of the universe quickly points to the fact that we are incapable of understanding even the most basic things.

My disapproval isn’t toward that god, because I don’t think that god ever existed.

i wonder how you might think we the universe got here?

My disapproval is toward those people who carried out that sort of thing, then said “Yahweh made me do it.” The reconstructed god of the NT isn’t nearly as barbaric, but apparently if you take one, you have to take the other.

there is no seperation, the dozens of messianic prophecies scattered all over the the OT show the continuous nature of the G-dhead, what changed was the covenants that He had with His people. the millenia from Abraham to Jesus were filled with His dealings with the Jews, finally He Sacrificed His son to make that broken relationship right, and to bring the rest of humanity into it.

they knew from physical observation that G-d existed, it wasn’t a case of anything but G-ds will being carried out

I’m not looking for a god to fit into a box of my understanding or approval. I’m not looking for a god. I don’t know whether there is one or not. I believe there’s something beyond human, the source of principles that govern the universe and humanity. But I don’t really know what it is. I don’t know if I’ll ever know, although I have an inkling. I can’t describe it, though, because it’s beyond any words that I can think of.

that ‘inkling’ is what i mean when i talk about people wanting the G-d that fits their ideas rather than accepting G-d as He is.

you indicated that you left because you couldn’t fit certain discrepancies to your understanding of G-d. that is exactly the situation, i was refering to, its very common among atheists, theists and anyone with half a brain, the difference is in acceptance and faith.

but its ok, it takes a long time to reach an understanding, and the first step is acceptance, the journey is long, but it is not forever.

It’s like a tangerine. Once you’ve tasted one, you know what they taste like. But it would be impossible to convey that knowledge accurately to someone who’s never tasted one. Speaking of tangerines, it’s about time for my evening one.

i assume you are refering to some sort of spiritual experience,

goodnight

 

[Namesake]

what they mean is that G-ds morality is the objective standard, He created and owned all those people, they were His to do with as He wished. this is the part that i was talking about, you want G-d to have the morals you think are right,

So then we are supposed to live according to the ten commandments but God doesn’t need to? I thought God set the standard, no?