Proof of God's existence

[Uzor_Oliver]

By using the famous five ways, Thomas Aquinas tells us that God does in fact exists. My question is: How fact can we say that he did actually prove the existence of God in the real sens of “proving” thing" What connection is there between material things and metaphysical realtiy?

 

[jerrythetrucker]

Proof God exists ; Nothing has stopped the ‘Way’ , What He says ‘works’, And has changed the world. ALL of the souls and those ‘believers’ that have lived before we on this planet were born numbered in the billions. He; ‘is with us till the very end’.
BELIEVE and you will be saved, seek and you will find, ask and the door WILL be opened. Proof ? Its everywhere if you look.

 

[JerryZ]

First you need to examine what the concept of “proof” is.

Like in a court case 2 sides expound their facts, one lays out the case for and the opposition lays it against.

Then the jury needs to reach a verdict by weighing the testimony/facts for and against.
If the the jury is deadlocked then we cannot reach a verdict.

Apply this to the case for God’s existance.
Can we test for His existance from a purely materialistic approach?
I would postulate that we cannot since God is not a physical being but a metaphysical one.
Therefore we will need to use inductive reasoning, that is indirect material proofs, as well as some philosophical proofs. We will need to use our reason and logic to ascertain the inductive proofs.

–

 

[polytropos]

Physical and metaphysical are not contrary to each other. Metaphysics is just the science of being.

I would say one has to look at the metaphysical principles involved in the proof. If the definitions and inferences made seem to reflect reality, then we can be reasonable in saying that Aquinas’s proofs go through. If we can find a good reason for believing that the definitions and inferences made are not in accordance with reality, then we ought not to believe his arguments.

 

[Peter_Plato]

By using the famous five ways, Thomas Aquinas tells us that God does in fact exists. My question is: How fact can we say that he did actually prove the existence of God in the real sens of “proving” thing" What connection is there between material things and metaphysical realtiy?

Material things do not account for why they continue to exist from moment to moment. They do not exist “essentially” or necessarily because of what they are. Since everything that exists in the universe is of this kind of thing - each may or may not exist at any time - then it is possible for everything in the universe to not exist.

Big Bang cosmology actually demonstrates that the universe (and everything in it) came into existence 13.7 billion years ago.

In order to properly explain why things which might not exist actually do exist, it is necessary to posit an Uncaused Cause which exists by its very nature necessarily, i.e., it exists by the very nature of what it is, and in that way alone properly or sufficiently explains the existence of everything else. It cannot BUT exist. It’s essence is “to exist,” or it exists necessarily.

Aquinas and others have suggested that God fits this description. Ipsum ess subsistens. God is the necessity of Existence or Being itself from whom all contingent things come to be.

In short, material reality does not, of itself, explain why it does exist, so some other SUFFICIENT reason must account for the existence of material reality - presuming, of course, that explanation is required.

It is possible to claim that no explanation is required. In which case, Aquinas’s arguments are not compelling to such a person. The problem is this position undermines a logical or reasonable view of existence by claiming things just don’t require explanation.

 

[JerryZ]

Material things do not account for why they continue to exist from moment to moment. They do not exist “essentially” or necessarily because of what they are. Since everything that exists in the universe is of this kind of thing - each may or may not exist at any time - then it is possible for everything in the universe to not exist.

Big Bang cosmology actually demonstrates that the universe (and everything in it) came into existence 13.7 billion years ago.

In order to properly explain why things which might not exist actually do exist, it is necessary to posit an Uncaused Cause which exists by its very nature necessarily, i.e., it exists by the very nature of what it is, and in that way alone properly or sufficiently explains the existence of everything else. It cannot BUT exist. It’s essence is “to exist,” or it exists necessarily.

Aquinas and others have suggested that God fits this description. Ipsum ess subsistens. God is the necessity of Existence or Being itself from whom all contingent things come to be.

In short, material reality does not, of itself, explain why it does exist, so some other SUFFICIENT reason must account for the existence of material reality - presuming, of course, that explanation is required.

It is possible to claim that no explanation is required. In which case, Aquinas’s arguments are not compelling to such a person. The problem is this position undermines a logical or reasonable view of existence by claiming things just don’t require explanation.

Ahh the proverbial pushing the problem under the carpet. To avoid dealing with it.

–

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Aquinas’ proofs are certainly not compelling to atheists, or we would not have so many atheists among us.

However, I believe the Big Bang theory has given some support to the First Cause argument, scientific support Aquinas could never have imagined coming down the road 8 centuries later.

Today atheists have more difficulty now than they had 100 years ago when they supposed that the universe is eternal and uncreated, and supposed that therefore God is not a helpful or useful hypothesis so far as looking for a First Cause was concerned…

 

[polytropos]

Material things do not account for why they continue to exist from moment to moment. They do not exist “essentially” or necessarily because of what they are. Since everything that exists in the universe is of this kind of thing - each may or may not exist at any time - then it is possible for everything in the universe to not exist.

Big Bang cosmology actually demonstrates that the universe (and everything in it) came into existence 13.7 billion years ago.

In order to properly explain why things which might not exist actually do exist, it is necessary to posit an Uncaused Cause which exists by its very nature necessarily, i.e., it exists by the very nature of what it is, and in that way alone properly or sufficiently explains the existence of everything else. It cannot BUT exist. It’s essence is “to exist,” or it exists necessarily.

Would this not be more of the kalam cosmological argument than one of Aquinas’s Five Ways?

 

[Linusthe2nd]

By using the famous five ways, Thomas Aquinas tells us that God does in fact exists. My question is: How fact can we say that he did actually prove the existence of God in the real sens of “proving” thing" What connection is there between material things and metaphysical realtiy?

Peter has given you a good answer. Except that Fr. Lamaitre, author of the Big Bang theory, would not agree that this event was proof that the universe had a unique beginning. In fact Fr. Lamaitre told Pius XII not to use this theory to say that the universe had a unique beginning, because we cannot and never will, in principle, be able to see what, if anything, happened before the Big Bang. If it was God’s act of creation we could not see that and if there was some kind of matter existing prior to the Big Bang we will never have the scientific ability to detect this matter.

Thomas’ Five Ways are rather described as very good " reasons " rather than " proofs. " They are good enough to justify a high degree of certitude in their validity, but not the same degree of certitude that comes with Faith.

This is why the Kalam argument is so weak and why Thomas’ Five Ways will never be replaced, because they hold true even for an eternally existing universe.

Nothing has been " swept uneder the carpet, " in response to those who don’t understand the value of philosophy as an explanation for the fundamental underlying reality of existening substances.

Linus2nd