Proving the Existence of God

[ManRay]

I think Christians are the most people on earth who have very limited (or none) knowledge about supernatural phenomena.
I had someone (I knew him) read my mind. He was in the next room separated by window, about 50 feet away, smiled at me after he repeated synchronously what I was singing in my mind (without any voice.) Not only once, he also laughed inside my head. No matter you believe it or not, it really happened, I witnessed it myself. Would you call him God? He knew what was actually in my hearth.

I’d suggest you to widen your perspective, go around the globe to see different things including supernatural phenomena, so that you won’t always attribute everything to God.

Interesting stuff - Is it possible you hallucinated, maybe you have early onset schizophrenia? Maybe he’s a witch!!!

I sometimes think people are watching me…possibly catholics. I think they’re after me and possibly in my head…or under my bed…or the closet…Aaaaaack!!! Help!!!

 

[Marc_Anthony]

Who’s logic? Our logic? It is quite obviously flawed. Extremely flawed.

I’m not sure what you mean…he means (I know because we’ve talked and I hold the same position) PURE logic. What you call “our logic” is our attempt to interpret logic correctly. We make errors. God does not. But logic still exists for God.

God cannot create a square circle. It is nothing. A nonsensical phrase.

There is nothing that God can’t do. A square circle is nothing. God can’t do it.

2+2=4. Forgetting semantic or mathematical tricks, God cannot make 2 and 2 equal 5. This is essentially a string of meaningless numbers. It is nonsense. It is nothing. There is nothing that God can’t do-He can’t make 2 and 2 equal 5.

 

[Chevuoi]

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.

If this were entirely true, you’d expect that people would be equally likely to be adult christians if from a christian family as from a non-christian family. Thats not the case, however. Obviously some christians do not evaluate it themselves, just as some atheists don’t.

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.

Why can’t the universe be Pure Actuality? Why can’t everything be the First Being?

 

[Chevuoi]

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.

Statistical probability doesn’t apply to theological questions.

Moreover, even if Aquinas’s arguments are true, they don’t validate any particular faith(it could be the Muslim God, or the Hindu gods)

 

[ReapReason]

Statistical probability doesn’t apply to theological questions.

Moreover, even if Aquinas’s arguments are true, they don’t validate any particular faith(it could be the Muslim God, or the Hindu gods)

I wasn’t aware that the Muslim God was a different God than the Abrahamic God that Christians worship. True, Muslims don’t believe that Jesus is God, but that is besides the point.

The purpose of the arguments are not about proving any religion; but rather the arguments are about proving the existence of the metaphysical attributes that are normally associated with the concept of God. The arguments prove that there is one non-physical timeless unmoved-mover or first cause, that is all-knowing and absolutely perfect.

 

[ReapReason]

Why can’t the universe be Pure Actuality? Why can’t everything be the First Being?

Linus, this is exactly what i was talking about. He doesn’t understand the underlying metaphysics of the arguments.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Linus, this is exactly what i was talking about. He doesn’t understand the underlying metaphysics of the arguments.

Oh, I agree, they are difficult to grasp. It takes time. And some never can. Still they come to faith. In this case there is always a valid reason. No one comes to faith without a reason that makes sense to them. It may not make sense to anyone else but God doesn’t mind. God doesn’t demand our reasons be proven to others .

 

[ivebeenshown]

Moreover, even if Aquinas’s arguments are true, they don’t validate any particular faith(it could be the Muslim God, or the Hindu gods)

Aquinas’ arguments do not stop with the first five. He demonstrates with numerous arguments the various qualities which of necessity must be attributed to God.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

If this were entirely true, you’d expect that people would be equally likely to be adult christians if from a christian family as from a non-christian family. Thats not the case, however. Obviously some christians do not evaluate it themselves, just as some atheists don’t.

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.

Why can’t the universe be Pure Actuality? Why can’t everything be the First Being?

I can only respond to your last quote, I didn’t understand what you were saying above that. It didn’t seem to apply to anything I said.

But as to your last quote, I don’t think you understand what the philosophers mean by Pure Actuality. It is opposed to what is composed of potency and act. In the material world we live in that means every THING that exists is composed of MATTER and Form. For example, a tree is composed of some type of matter and TREENESS ( i.e. its FORM ) which has existence. If you abstract from the actual tree its matter and its form what you have is simple existence. But this existence is what philosophers call ACT. It is a non material actuality but it is limited by the MATTER which receives it through the FORM.

So then Pure Actuality is a non material Being, sort of like an IDEA which is non material but which has real EXISTENCE and which can and does ACT on everything else which has act in a limited way.

This Being, Pure Actuality, has no potency ( Because it Perfect Act - it needs nothing and indeed can have nothing else, it already has every Perfection possible and absolutely so). The world/universe cannot be Pure Actuality because it is limited in its existence and therefore must receive its actuality from the Being who has the power to give it.

So then, there can only be ONE BEING who is FIRST BEING because it is PURE ACTUALITY. There can only be ONE BEING that is ACT without limitation. To suggest othewise is a contradiction not only of logic but of reality as well.

And of course this FIRST BEING is indeed what christians call God and Who has been Revealing Himself in all creation from the beginning in a confused way. But Who 5,000 years ago began to Reveal Himself Personally through the history a people he chose to transmit the knowledge of His existence in an unconfused and absolute way, ending with the appearance of His Son in these last days.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

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

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.

 

[markeverett49]

The problem I have with the ‘proofs’ is that people agree with them after they join the faith, not before.

Aristotle didn’t belong to a church of any sort when he argued for an Unmoved (or Prime) Mover. The Catholic Church INSISTS that the existence of God can be known through reason alone, without faith or revelation.

 

[JDaniel]

To be clear, i hope by “objection” you only mean that it is not self evident that the arguments are correct?

It is evident to me at least, that once you understand the underlying metaphysical principles of the five ways, and how those principles reflect the nature of reality as an act, you will know that the arguments are irrefutable and provide **certain knowledge **of the existence of an intelligent unmoved mover.

The reason why people reject the five ways is because they don’t understand or know the metaphysics that justifies the conclusion; and you cannot learn the metaphysics simply by reading the five ways. Neither can one hope to convince somebody that the five ways are correct unless the person you are trying to convince already interprets and understands reality in a metaphysical sense. Once a person understands metaphysics and agrees with it, they will know that you cannot reject a metaphysical argument without rejecting the act of reality itself. This is the power of a metaphysical argument. It is not a probabilistic Argument.

The five ways taken apart from metaphysics is easy to understand and easy to refute. However the metaphysics is not easy to understand and it is impossible to refute.

RR:

Interesting. I’m not sure yet that I completely agree with this thesis, but it’s certainly worth a closer look.

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

If this were entirely true, you’d expect that people would be equally likely to be adult Christians if from a Christian family as from a non-Christian family. Thats not the case, however. Obviously some Christians do not evaluate it themselves, just as some atheists don’t.

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.

Why can’t the universe be Pure Actuality? Why can’t everything be the First Being?

Chevuoi:

Well, because, with our five senses, especially our sense of sight, we See that they are not any kind of First being. They are all sequentially on down the line from a First being. Furthermore, they are temporally way on down the line from being a First being.

Moreover, God is not the First being. God is not A “being” at all. God must be understood as Being as Being. This may seem strange, but remember, God is not in posession of properties qua properties. Attributes are not properties. Attributes are determinants. (These terms can be looked up online for their respective definitions.) Being that God has attributes, one can say that God IS His attributes. Since He IS His attributes, He is the ground of His attributes’ ontologically. E.g., because God IS Existence as Existence, you and I (and everything else) have existence. Because He IS Being as Being, you and I (and everything else) are beings. And so on. (To deny this is to possess a very muddied thinking process.)

But further, from a physics (and astrophysics) point of view, the Universe cannot be Pure Actuality. Why? Because EVERYTHING in the Universe, including the Universe as a whole, came to be where there was nothing. I.e., the Universe was created or caused. There existed an Efficient Cause/Creator, which is God, that had to exist before (sequentially and temporally) any effect, the Universe. A finished house does not exist before its general contractor or any of his/her subs. (And, to deny this is to possess a very muddied thinking process, also.)

God bless,
jd

 

[bitterreality]

Again, no offence meant. Pius VI once alluded to the " …Smoke of Satan…" having entered the Church and Benedict XVI recently made a similar comment. Do you know that Satan works through real people? He sews confusion and division through human action. Should we not expect the same Smoke to appear ( through the actions and words of real peole of couse) in every institution, even in these forums? This action is evident in the words and acts of people who get some kind of kick out of being obstructionists. It is some kind of game with them. But it is none the less causing real harm and may even cause people to loose their faith. To me that is a danger to be alert to.

Also, no offense meant. This all is because of your blind faith. It’s as if your Church told you to eat poop with the list of its nutrition facts provided, you would follow what they told you to do too. I wonder whether you’ll be able to realize that.

Of course we want you to resolve your doubts, just ask your questions. Your second comment is unclear. Christians want only for everyone to know the Truth. That is what God wants. Of course we are sorry when someone looses their faith. But it is no disgrace unless we have been the cause.

I was talking about your fellow Christians’ doubts, not mine.
The italic sentence is problematic since you use the word (God) which is still in question. The dogma inhibits your rationality, which cause you to keep using that kind of sentence.
The cause of someone looses their faith is because you fail to convince them. It should have been clear by itself.

Alright then, who causes movement/change if not God? Who causes existence if not God?

Ah, finally someone asks me this question.
There’s change because there are things. If there’s nothing, nothing changes. Since nothing changes, there’s no change.
There’s movement because there are things. Object with greater mass pulls object with smaller mass (natural law of gravity.) As the result, we see movement. The law of cause and effect also counts.

Who causes existence? We need to consider a few things for the clear answer.
Theists resort to the concept of God, they have problem proving God.
Some atheists resort to science, e.g. the Big Bang Theory. Theory needs to be proven, and up to this day the theory remains unproven. So, this answer is no different than the theist’s, problematic. Both answers aren’t close to reality, remain under assumption, speculation, hypothesis.
But some other atheists choose the middle position, their answer is: “no one knows” or “no one will ever know”, which is the closest (even sticks) to reality. The fact that no-one-knows makes it the safest answer. Any argument are welcome. My view regarding the cause/origin of existence is coincidently the same as this view, but different regarding other things (out of topic.)

 

[ivebeenshown]

The fact that no-one-knows makes it the safest answer. Any argument are welcome. My view regarding the cause/origin of existence is coincidently the same as this view, but different regarding other things (out of topic.)

Consider the act of stealing: if there were no act of stealing, nobody could participate in the act, thus there could not possibly exist a thief – but if the act of stealing were a potential thing, an agent could participate in this act, thus causing a movement or motion from potentiality to actuality in the act of stealing. Likewise, when the agent ceases to participate in the act, he causes the act to change from actual to potential.

If you object so far, stop reading this post and reply with your objection so that our discussion might be contained and not splintered across too many notions.

So, along the same lines, if there were no act of being in which beings might participate, there could not possibly exist any being – thus the act of being itself must precede the motion of all other beings. Now, the act of being could not exist in a state of potentiality, for if it exists at all, it has actuality in its own being.

In this way, it is demonstrated that the act of being depends upon no other being for its existence or actuality, and is before the motion of all other beings.

 

[bitterreality]

Consider the act of stealing: if there were no act of stealing, nobody could participate in the act, thus there could not possibly exist a thief – but if the act of stealing were a potential thing, an agent could participate in this act, thus causing a movement or motion from potentiality to actuality in the act of stealing. Likewise, when the agent ceases to participate in the act, he causes the act to change from actual to potential.

If you object so far, stop reading this post and reply with your objection so that our discussion might be contained and not splintered across too many notions.

Ok, sounds good. Let’s focus on the first paragraph. But before expressing any objection, I want to make sure I completely understand what you say. Is “an agent” a thief? Does “participate” mean doing the act of stealing? Please explain both terms.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Also, no offense meant. This all is because of your blind faith. It’s as if your Church told you to eat poop with the list of its nutrition facts provided, you would follow what they told you to do too. I wonder whether you’ll be able to realize that.

I was talking about your fellow Christians’ doubts, not mine.
The italic sentence is problematic since you use the word (God) which is still in question. The dogma inhibits your rationality, which cause you to keep using that kind of sentence.
The cause of someone looses their faith is because you fail to convince them. It should have been clear by itself.

Ah, finally someone asks me this question.
There’s change because there are things. If there’s nothing, nothing changes. Since nothing changes, there’s no change.
There’s movement because there are things. Object with greater mass pulls object with smaller mass (natural law of gravity.) As the result, we see movement. The law of cause and effect also counts.

Who causes existence? We need to consider a few things for the clear answer.
Theists resort to the concept of God, they have problem proving God.
Some atheists resort to science, e.g. the Big Bang Theory. Theory needs to be proven, and up to this day the theory remains unproven. So, this answer is no different than the theist’s, problematic. Both answers aren’t close to reality, remain under assumption, speculation, hypothesis.
But some other atheists choose the middle position, their answer is: “no one knows” or “no one will ever know”, which is the closest (even sticks) to reality. The fact that no-one-knows makes it the safest answer. Any argument are welcome. My view regarding the cause/origin of existence is coincidently the same as this view, but different regarding other things (out of topic.)

Do you feel better now?

 

[ivebeenshown]

Ok, sounds good. Let’s focus on the first paragraph. But before expressing any objection, I want to make sure I completely understand what you say. Is “an agent” a thief? Does “participate” mean doing the act of stealing? Please explain both terms.

“An agent” signifies a rational being that might decide to participate in an act, where “participate in” means “engage in” or, as you have said, “do”.

You might find that I was also sloppy in my wording in other ways – for instance, instead of saying that ‘if the act of stealing were a potential thing’, it would have been better to say ‘if the act of stealing were an actual form in which agents may potentially partake’. But I digress, this is why it is good that we come to a common understanding of terms before ‘reeling in the big one’.

 

[The_GreyPilgrim]

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)

Sorry, but this is incorrect. Even if what you say IS true, it doesn’t invalidate the arguments. Suppose Einstein was working for the Nazis and with them developed the atomic bomb, would that mean that E=mc2 is not true? Hardly. Its the same with Aquinas’ “proofs”, his previous beliefs don’t necessarily negate his philosphical conclusions.

 

[The_GreyPilgrim]

Also, no offense meant. This all is because of your blind faith. It’s as if your Church told you to eat poop with the list of its nutrition facts provided, you would follow what they told you to do too. I wonder whether you’ll be able to realize that.

Intellectual dishonest remarks like this are what makes apologetics a near impossibility. This is proof that you simply haven’t done the homework to find out exactly what the Church’s authority is, how it is defined and exercised, and the laity’s proper response to her authority.

The remark just simply demonstrates your ignorance.

I was talking about your fellow Christians’ doubts, not mine.

Human doubts don’t even come close to being “proof” against God’s existence. God is not subject to a Gallup poll.

The dogma inhibits your rationality, which cause you to keep using that kind of sentence.

So then you must agree that the “dogma”(discovered truths) of gravity inhibits the rationality of the science of physics.

The cause of someone looses their faith is because you fail to convince them. It should have been clear by itself.

Another baseless charge.

Motives for unbelief are manifold. Many of them simply have to do with some people’s refusal to “be converted”, to submit their lives to something bigger than themselves. Instead they’re addicted to “freedom”, or license, to “do your own thing”, “looking our for number 1”-IOW acting like a self-centered child and calling it the psychology of maturity.

Others are addicted to power, to lust, or to greed.

All of these are moral issues, matters of the heart, that manifest their disbelief as intellectual symptoms. The fact is that the head informs while the “heart” chooses. And if the heart is addicted to something it loves more than anything else no amount of intellectual proof will sway it.

Disbelief is a matter of the heart, not the head. If atheism was merely an intellectual problem then all anyone would need to do is hand every atheist/materialist Thomas Aquinas’ Summa and they would be converted.

Or to flip it on its head, the reason why we retain our faith is because of YOUR failure to convince us. Therefore atheism/materialism(or whatever your position) is false.

Ah, finally someone asks me this question.
There’s change because there are things. If there’s nothing, nothing changes. Since nothing changes, there’s no change.
There’s movement because there are things. Object with greater mass pulls object with smaller mass (natural law of gravity.) As the result, we see movement. The law of cause and effect also counts.

Who causes existence? We need to consider a few things for the clear answer.
Theists resort to the concept of God, they have problem proving God.
Some atheists resort to science, e.g. the Big Bang Theory. Theory needs to be proven, and up to this day the theory remains unproven. So, this answer is no different than the theist’s, problematic. Both answers aren’t close to reality, remain under assumption, speculation, hypothesis.
But some other atheists choose the middle position, their answer is: “no one knows” or “no one will ever know”, which is the closest (even sticks) to reality. The fact that no-one-knows makes it the safest answer. Any argument are welcome. My view regarding the cause/origin of existence is coincidently the same as this view, but different regarding other things (out of topic.)

Your answer is self-refuting. If “no one will ever know” then there’s no way you can know that positively, because to know that “no one will ever know” necessarily requires the ability to think outside of thought’s limits. IOW-is your belief probable or certain? If certain, it contradicts itself; if probable, then is that certain or probable? Etc, ad-infinitum.