Proving the Existence of God

[Linusthe2nd]

There are many " proofs " for the existence of God. None of them are so full proof that no one can object to them. They are more like " convergent and convincing arguments ( Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 31). " These " ways " of approaching God from creation have a two fold departure: the physical world and the human person. "(ibid.para. 32)

From the world, its movement, becoming, contingency, order and beauty. ( ibid, para 32)
From the human person by his openness to truth and beauty, his sense of moral goodness, his freedom and the voice of conscience, and his longing for the infinite and happiness. Through all of which he discerns signs of his siritual soul, which can only come from God. ( ibid, para 32)

“The world, and man, attest that they contain within themselves neither their first principle nor their final end, but rather that they participate in Being itself, which alone is without origin or end. Thus, in different ways, man can come to know that there exists a reality which is the first cause and final end of all things, a reality “that everyone calls God”.”
(ibid, para 35)

“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.”( para 36)

But one must realize that " you cannot beat a dead horse " or " you can lead a horse to water but you can’t make him drink. " Don’t waste time on people who are " professional doubters " even if they are operating " on their own. " There is more than one that appears on this forum from time to time. You have given them enough time but each to his own.

                                   Twenty Proofs for the Existence of God
                                                       Peter Kreeft

peterkreeft.com/topics-more/20_arguments-gods-existence.htm#1

Twenty Arguments For The Existence Of God
More Featured Writing
The Argument from Change
The Argument from Efficient Causality
The Argument from Time and Contingency
The Argument from Degrees of Perfection
The Design Argument
The Kalam Argument
The Argument from Contingency
The Argument from the World as an Interacting Whole
The Argument from Miracles
The Argument from Consciousness
The Argument from Truth
The Argument from the Origin of the Idea of God
The Ontological Argument
The Moral Argument
The Argument from Conscience
The Argument from Desire
The Argument from Aesthetic Experience
The Argument from Religious Experience
The Common Consent Argument
Pascal’s Wager

But my favorite argument is from Scripture itself, from the facts, content, and inner coherence, and sublimity of the History of Salvation and continued on after Christ through the founding and growth of the Church and the Magisterium of Catholic Church. A religious phenomenon of over 5,000 years unparalled in the history of mankind. Only God could accomplish such a work.

*----------------------------------

 

[mymamamary]

I agree. I have used quite a few of these methods when debating Atheists. They are almost always fool-proof. Especially St. Thomas Aquinas’s first cause principles…

 

[JerryZ]

 

[atheistgirl]

They are almost always fool-proof. Especially St. Thomas Aquinas’s first cause principles…

Far from it:

kiekeben.com/firstcause.html

Sarah x

 

[Chevuoi]

I agree. I have used quite a few of these methods when debating Atheists. They are almost always fool-proof. Especially St. Thomas Aquinas’s first cause principles…

The problem I have with the ‘proofs’ is that people agree with them after they join the faith, not before. They seem a little ingenue considering, as they aren’t the reason you joined the faith but rather a justification. It seems more honest to talk about why you joined the faith instead of the words of a philosopher who just confirmed what you already agreed with.

And, first cause is persuasive, but its also a problem in Christian theology - Both atheism and Christianity have to assume that something existed without a first cause (God was just ‘there’ without a first cause)

 

[padrepio_2012]

atheistgirl:

i read the article you posted and i must say; its plain silly. the writer makes no sense and their argument is futile and in no way disproves aquinas’ way. it seems to have been done in vain.

 

[bitterreality]

There are many " proofs " for the existence of God. None of them are so full proof that no one can object to them.

Finally, a written confirmation by a Theist. Hostile atheists (not all atheists) probably will mock/insult. Btw I’m not an atheist.

But one must realize that " you cannot beat a dead horse " or " you can lead a horse to water but you can’t make him drink. " Don’t waste time on people who are " professional doubters " even if they are operating " on their own. " There is more than one that appears on this forum from time to time. You have given them enough time but each to his own.

This paragraph has some sense of hatred. Did Jesus teach hatred? No, he taught unconditional love towards other. You seem to be no different than hostile atheist. What a hypocrisy.

Do you know that there are many Christians (out there, plus in this forum) have doubt in their faith? You probably don’t care of them. What are you gonna call them, “unprofessional doubters”? Because they tend to be passive, they watch the forum for anything new in order to free their hearth from doubt.
You need to differentiate between attackers and those who care. Those who care are motivated by loving kindness, with willing to try to free people from dogma, so that they can see realities as they actually are.
Or do you want their doubt remains unresolved, their question never get answered forever? If no one can come up with any single undisputed proof, there’s only two possibilities: either their doubt rots until they die (everyone dies, right,) or they change faith (in other words, you lose follower.) I know Christians are happy and proud when they get new follower, it’s a disgrace to lose follower.

                                   Twenty Proofs for the Existence of God
                                                       Peter Kreeft

peterkreeft.com/topics-more/20_arguments-gods-existence.htm#1

Twenty Arguments For The Existence Of God
More Featured Writing
The Argument from Change

Why in the world do you think you have the right to associate “Change”, one of the most fundamental natural law, to a personified entity (who is all-knowing, all-etc, creates things, decides human faith to be born in hell or heaven, etc) you called God? And ask others to agree with you? (if they don’t, you call them atheists and think they’re stupid)

 

[Pricklegoose]

Atheistgirl:

Aquinas wrote in the 1200s. It would be silly to assume that, by now, no one had found a way around his logic. It is, in many ways, superior, but like any science and/or philosophy, our abilities now have been built on the foundations of those who came before. Aquinas’s arguments are foolproof, but not (anymore) philosopher-proof.

That said, I agree that the article you posted was rather silly. There were several problems with it, one being that it did not follow its thoughts to their conclusions but focused on refuting Aquinas’s arguments, which, as I’ve said, are a fine building block, but not complete in themselves. His arguments are good, but not perfect. As far as I know, there are no perfect arguments for the existence of God.

However, I think we can agree that much of modern science (indeed, most of particle physics and chaos theory) is made up of the evaluation of statistics and the subsequent inference of probable facts that are, by themselves, not measurable or observable. Now, if you treat the existence of a creator (not necessarily the God we know, but a creator of some kind) as yet another kind of non-measurable, non-observable possibility of the universe, then you must allow that the intricacy and elegance of the universe, down to the smallest particle, and especially considering the complicated ways parts of it interact with other parts to ensure continued existence, would be almost infinitely more likely to occur with an intelligent mind behind it.

The ONLY way to believe that there is no creator is to enter the argument with that belief already lodged in your mind. Scientifically, in all matters other than the existence of God, it is commonly accepted to follow the probabilities to their natural conclusion. In the “existence of God” discussion, however, all that seems to go out the window as people suddenly decide that probability and statistics aren’t good enough, and that if it’s POSSIBLE that the universe could have come into existence without an intelligent creator, then that’s what must have occurred, however IMPROBABLE it is.

Forgive me if I come on strong. It’s just the way God made me.

 

[Pricklegoose]

BTW, let’s not be antagonistic towards atheistgirl. Her argument was not too bad. It encouraged thought and discussion, which helps people to grow in their faith (or not, but you only need to worry about that if you’ve got some false beliefs. “The truth shall set you free” is in the bible somewhere, I think, and if our faith is right, we should not fear the truth. When we find the end of any logic-based path, it will validate us).

Atheistgirl, you are welcome here. Nitpick to your heart’s content. Keep us on our toes. That’s how we grows.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

The problem I have with the ‘proofs’ is that people agree with them after they join the faith, not before. They seem a little ingenue considering, as they aren’t the reason you joined the faith but rather a justification. It seems more honest to talk about why you joined the faith instead of the words of a philosopher who just confirmed what you already agreed with.

And, first cause is persuasive, but its also a problem in Christian theology - Both atheism and Christianity have to assume that something existed without a first cause (God was just ‘there’ without a first cause)

Of course not all people will be persuaded. And indeed people come up with their own reasons ( and they may never tell anyone what these are). And I think you missjudge people who were born into the faith. They do reach a point in the maturing process where they face the problem of the reasonableness of the faith. At that point non of the above arguments may be in play. And indeed they may look at the arguments and say " O.K., that makes sense. " But they have already decided on other grounds. In fact that was my case. Like I said my favorite argument is the one I added at the end. That was my personal reason. I’ve never doubted it.

And your last line is not true at all. We do not assume God existed without a cause. All of the causality arguments above end in or can conclude to a First Being who is Pure Actuality which has to exist or nothing in the universe will exist. That conclusion is not an assumption, it is a valid conclusion from a valid argument in which all the terms are absolutely true.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Atheistgirl:

Aquinas wrote in the 1200s. It would be silly to assume that, by now, no one had found a way around his logic. It is, in many ways, superior, but like any science and/or philosophy, our abilities now have been built on the foundations of those who came before. Aquinas’s arguments are foolproof, but not (anymore) philosopher-proof.

That said, I agree that the article you posted was rather silly. There were several problems with it, one being that it did not follow its thoughts to their conclusions but focused on refuting Aquinas’s arguments, which, as I’ve said, are a fine building block, but not complete in themselves. His arguments are good, but not perfect. As far as I know, there are no perfect arguments for the existence of God.

However, I think we can agree that much of modern science (indeed, most of particle physics and chaos theory) is made up of the evaluation of statistics and the subsequent inference of probable facts that are, by themselves, not measurable or observable. Now, if you treat the existence of a creator (not necessarily the God we know, but a creator of some kind) as yet another kind of non-measurable, non-observable possibility of the universe, then you must allow that the intricacy and elegance of the universe, down to the smallest particle, and especially considering the complicated ways parts of it interact with other parts to ensure continued existence, would be almost infinitely more likely to occur with an intelligent mind behind it.

The ONLY way to believe that there is no creator is to enter the argument with that belief already lodged in your mind. Scientifically, in all matters other than the existence of God, it is commonly accepted to follow the probabilities to their natural conclusion. In the “existence of God” discussion, however, all that seems to go out the window as people suddenly decide that probability and statistics aren’t good enough, and that if it’s POSSIBLE that the universe could have come into existence without an intelligent creator, then that’s what must have occurred, however IMPROBABLE it is.

Forgive me if I come on strong. It’s just the way God made me.

Nicely said and it was a little strong. But that is also one of my failings. Atheist Girl is an old hand, she understands.

 

[Pricklegoose]

I have noticed that some people consider the Big Bang a non-Creator possibility when discussing the beginning of all things. Please note: the big bang CANNOT have been the beginning of all things because it must have started with 1) an infinitely dense clump of undifferentiated MATTER and 2) a group of physical LAWS moderating material interaction. Without MATTER and LAWS, the Big Bang by itself is an incomplete explanation of the existence of the universe as it is. (Especially, consider the physical laws which we all know and love. Without them, particles of matter would not even be able to interact with each other. And if we had different laws instead, two molecules might meet, turn into a giant mutant fish-bear, and beat us all to death on a space-rock. I don’t think any of us want that! )

 

[Pricklegoose]

Nicely said and it was a little strong. But that is also one of my failings. Atheist Girl is an old hand, she understands.

Good to know, and thank you. I’m painfully new, still learning my way around, and I appreciate the tip. I’ll try not to be offensive.

 

[Marie1234]

I have noticed that some people consider the Big Bang a non-Creator possibility when discussing the beginning of all things. Please note: the big bang CANNOT have been the beginning of all things because it must have started with 1) an infinitely dense clump of undifferentiated MATTER and 2) a group of physical LAWS moderating material interaction. Without MATTER and LAWS, the Big Bang by itself is an incomplete explanation of the existence of the universe as it is. (Especially, consider the physical laws which we all know and love. Without them, particles of matter would not even be able to interact with each other. And if we had different laws instead, two molecules might meet, turn into a giant mutant fish-bear, and beat us all to death on a space-rock. I don’t think any of us want that! )

Haha exactly! There is no way to explain WHERE matter came from or HOW it was created in the first place. Atheists say the universe and life formed by “chance”. Even if they could somehow be true, which I don’t believe it could ever be, it still doesn’t explain how the matter that formed the universe came into existence.

 

[atheistgirl]

Nicely said and it was a little strong. But that is also one of my failings. Atheist Girl is an old hand, she understands.

You’re a sweetie

No problem with any of you guys giving it to me straight - I have teenage children - there’s nothing I can’t cope with

Sarah x

 

[atheistgirl]

BTW, let’s not be antagonistic towards atheistgirl.

Yes, let’s not

I’m a delicate little flower

Her argument was not too bad.

It wasn’t meant to be any kind of clincher, just the first article on page after page of hits for problems with Aquinas’s arguments. Others obviously much better. It was just to show MMM his statement that Aquinas’s arguments are foolproof isn’t the case.

There are many that don’t find his arguments as persuasive as some would like.

I think the simple truth is no one can prove God exists, no one can prove God doesn’t exist.

Sarah x

 

[FaithInTheSon]

Well from a scientific perspective here’s some newer evidence.

If you send an electron (either that or a split electron can’t remember and doesn’t matter) at a wall with random gaps in it it behaves like a particle. It will hit a flat wall on the other end and spread like baseballs would spread if the same situation was set up on a larger scale. This is how a particle behaves when you do that.

Here is where it get’s really cool : It only behaves in this way if a human is watching it.
If no one is watching, the pattern will end up exactly how a wave behaves.

It gets better! If you don’t watch it while it is in flight from the first wall with the gaps in it to the second wall, it behaves like a wave. If you let it pass through part of the space between the two walls, and then start watching before it hits the second wall… It behaves like a wave up until the INSTANT someone start’s watching. It changes instantly, before the human can see, from a wave to a particle.

If you understood what I just said and didn’t know it before I’m sure you are like what in the world. Go look it up it is no lie.

The Lord told us to pay attention to the physical world and we will see what is going on in the spiritual world.

The second we look at something it changes to mask it’s true nature from us and it becomes BASED ON FAITH. Science proves what our Lord says all the time. If you believe you will understand if you don’t it is impossible to see what is really going on which further adds to your disbelief. Our Lord said “to he who has more will be given. To he who does not what little he has left will be taken from him.” He is talking about faith. These two passages, combined with this new(ish) discovery, prove the existence of God.

 

[ManRay]

How come no one ever says…“I don’t know?”

I don’t really spend my days trying to understand things that I know cannot be understood. I don’t blame people for believing in something, but I feel that realistically - it’s a type of cognitive dissonance. I don’t believe it’s possible to understand something that exists outside of time and space. It’s a farce. It’s no different than a person who believes that aliens have walked among us, and then develops a whole understanding of what gravity is like on their planet, what the air smells, and tastes like, their emotional states and so on, and so on. It’s all jive to me.

 

[ManRay]

Well from a scientific perspective here’s some newer evidence.

If you send an electron (either that or a split electron can’t remember and doesn’t matter) at a wall with random gaps in it it behaves like a particle. It will hit a flat wall on the other end and spread like baseballs would spread if the same situation was set up on a larger scale. This is how a particle behaves when you do that.

Here is where it get’s really cool : It only behaves in this way if a human is watching it.
If no one is watching, the pattern will end up exactly how a wave behaves.

It gets better! If you don’t watch it while it is in flight from the first wall with the gaps in it to the second wall, it behaves like a wave. If you let it pass through part of the space between the two walls, and then start watching before it hits the second wall… It behaves like a wave up until the INSTANT someone start’s watching. It changes instantly, before the human can see, from a wave to a particle.

If you understood what I just said and didn’t know it before I’m sure you are like what in the world. Go look it up it is no lie.

The Lord told us to pay attention to the physical world and we will see what is going on in the spiritual world.

The second we look at something it changes to mask it’s true nature from us and it becomes BASED ON FAITH. Science proves what our Lord says all the time. If you believe you will understand if you don’t it is impossible to see what is really going on which further adds to your disbelief. Our Lord said “to he who has more will be given. To he who does not what little he has left will be taken from him.” He is talking about faith. These two passages, combined with this new(ish) discovery, prove the existence of God.

Before I respond are you sure you are understanding the double slit experiment? I have a little bit of understanding of it, and it isn’t anything along the lines of what you are talking about. I’m pretty sure it’s also about 50 years old.

 

[atheistgirl]

If you understood what I just said and didn’t know it before I’m sure you are like what in the world. Go look it up it is no lie.

And I bet those scientists spent years, and billions - to find out what any mom in the world could have told them.

Put the cookie jar on the table and watch it - the cookies stay there.

Put the cookie jar on the table and turn your back - the cookies disappear.

Put the cookie jar on the table, turn your back, then turn round real quick, little pairs of hands drop cookies from the sky back into the jar.

Electrons, cookies, kids … they all behave differently depending on whether they’re being watched or not

Sarah x