Proving the Existence of God

[ManRay]

The problem lies in trying to prove something by itself. It cannot work. Like building the first hammer with a hammer. I’m not trying to “prove” causality or insist on its creator. On the contrary, I’m saying it is indeed unprovable, uncaused, “axiomatic” if you prefer.

Yea because it’s basically the procedural axiom of identity

Existence
Consiousness
Identity

Hammer’s aren’t axioms. You can’t compare those as analogous. It’s ridiculous

 

[norain]

Yea because it’s basically the procedural axiom of identity

Existence
Consiousness
Identity

Hammer’s aren’t axioms. You can’t compare those as analogous. It’s ridiculous

?

 

[The_GreyPilgrim]

@The GreyPilgrim
You only exhibit the rage when a Theist has nothing more meaningful to say to defend their view.

A common response from subjectivists and relativists is to denegrate their opponents by making abosolute moral statements, accusing them of being “angry” or “full of rage”. You’ve been condescending and outright dishonest in your characterizations of not only me but other Catholics and the Church’s authority as well.

Maybe if you can’t handle a frank and passionate debate you should go to more friendly pastures.

I simply called you out on your “views” and some other fallacies that you posted. As you said, the truth can be a “bitterreality” to some."

You bring up nothing new, nothing conducive, nothing useful to the thread’s subject - God remains unproven.

Sorry, but the highlighted above, that in itself IS a dogmatic statement. You can amend it to say “According to me…”, but that would make it your opinion, your “view”. You would still be wrong, but at least you would be honestly wrong.

As far as bringing up “nothing new”, frankly neither have you. You basically have posited that “God remains unproven” and you have posited a form of universal skepticism. The latter you have after my answer retracted from the argument but seemingly not from your belief-set.

Such attitude is common in some Christians, understandable.

No, such attitude is not common for Christians, unless the people they have to deal with are people who have a penchant for intellectual dishonesty. I have many atheist, agnostic, etc who are good friends and who are honest in their disbelief. We have very good discussions about religion and God. Some are subjectivists and relativists and others are objectivists. This leads to lively discussions. But we do our homework, we follow the rules of logic, and we test our arguments to make sure that our terms are clear, our premises sound, and our conclusions are valid.

Our “attitude” is for the truth, not based on cheap, superficial, fallacious, and stereotypical “views” or arguments. It means being open to the truth, no matter where it may lead you; it means being open-minded, not close-minded by making dogmatic statements like, “God remains unproven”.

It’s real simple, you prove to me that “God remains unproven” then I’ll leave the Church tomorrow. ** I’m dead serious.** Because I’ve staked my life on the search for truth, and if Christianity is not true, or God is not true,then I want to know it.

So, express at least one meaningful, worthy, quality argumentation, instead of playing with words and using harsh words. Only then I will reply to your arguments.
Btw, I repeat, I’m not an atheist.

I, myself, along with many others here, have given you planty of good arguments. You call them “playing with words”, which makes me wonder if you are even considering the arguments at all and are just outright dismissing them beforehand.

I make you a deal, you spare me the ad-homenums, answer my questions and arguments honestly and fairly, and I’ll do the same.

 

[The_GreyPilgrim]

?

I believe this might be relevent to the discussion:
The Kalam argument.
The Arabic word kalam literally means “speech,” but came to denote a certain type of philosophical theology—a type containing demonstrations that the world could not be infinitely old and must therefore have been created by God. This sort of demonstration has had a long and wide appeal among both Christians and Muslims. Its form is simple and straightforward.

Whatever begins to exist has a cause for its coming into being.
The universe began to exist.
Therefore, the universe has a cause for its coming into being.
Grant the first premise. (Most people—outside of asylums and graduate schools would consider it not only true, but certainly and obviously true.)

Is the second premise true? Did the universe—the collection of all things bounded by space and time—begin to exist? This premise has recently received powerful support from natural science—from so-called Big Bang Cosmology. But there are philosophical arguments in its favor as well. Can an infinite task ever be done or completed? If, in order to reach a certain end, infinitely many steps had to precede it, could the end ever be reached? Of course not—not even in an infinite time. For an infinite time would be unending, just as the steps would be. In other words, no end would ever be reached. The task would—could—never be completed.

But what about the step just before the end? Could that point ever be reached? Well, if the task is really infinite, then an infinity of steps must also have preceded it. And therefore the step just before the end could also never be reached. But then neither could the step just before that one. In fact, no step in the sequence could be reached, because an infinity of steps must always have preceded any step; must always have been gone through one by one before it. The problem comes from supposing that an infinite sequence could ever reach, by temporal succession, any point at all.

Now if the universe never began, then it always was. If it always was, then it is infinitely old. If it is infinitely old, then an infinite amount of time would have to have elapsed before (say) today. And so an infinite number of days must have been completed—one day succeeding another, one bit of time being added to what went before—in order for the present day to arrive. But this exactly parallels the problem of an infinite task. If the present day has been reached, then the actually infinite sequence of history has reached this present point: in fact, has been completed up to this point—for at any present point the whole past must already have happened. But an infinite sequence of steps could never have reached this present point—or any point before it.

So, either the present day has not been reached, or the process of reaching it was not infinite. But obviously the present day has been reached. So the process of reaching it was not infinite. In other words, the universe began to exist. Therefore, the universe has a cause for its coming into being, a Creator.

 

[ManRay]

The problem with the Kalam cosmological argument is that while the first premise in and of itself may be true, It makes the categorical mistake of confusing a set with a subset, and vice versa. The theist says that whatever “thing” - the word thing is important - that begins to exist must have a cause. The theist, then, switches that “thing” to “the universe.” The problem, here, is that it may be inappropriate to treat the universe in the same way one treats some “thing” within the universe. Let’s say that I have a number set in the form of 2,4,6,8… From studying “inside” the set, I can draw the conclusion that every thing is two counts away from the next thing. My statement is perfectly valid inside the set. Two is two counts from four, four is two counts from six, etc. The problem is that the rule that is valid within a particular set is not necessarily valid of the whole set itself. Let’s say that my set above is in a list of sets. Set 1 is in the form 1,2,3,4 … the set I mentioned above is Set 2, the next set in the list, Set 3, is in the form 3,6,9,12 . . …and so on, and so on. The Kalam argument is attempting to presuppose an axiom where none exists. A rule from the subset 2 says everything is two counts away from the next thing, but if I applied this rule to the whole set itself, however… my statement would not be true. Set 2 is neither two counts away from Set 1 nor two counts away from Set 3. This is exactly what the theist is doing when he goes from the statement that “Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its existence,” leading to his next statement and conclusion that “The universe began to exist. Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence.” but this argument treats the universe as a “thing,” and not* “the set of all things.”* This is a categorical mistake. This always falls back on my argument that in my opinion no theist has ever reconciled. You can’t appeal to logic that exists within the parameters of the physical universe to explain this god thing that exists outside of it all. IT’S ABSURDITY OF THE HIGHEST KIND. Clearly - If I asked a theist to prove his statement, “Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its existence,” he would have to appeal to things inside the physical universe. He might say that a flood is caused by torrential rains…etc…etc… This statement is a physical statement that relies on induction and on physical laws. In other words, the first premise is not a tautology (though it may seem to be one), but rather an empirical statement demonstrated by induction. The problem comes when the theist tries to apply natural laws to the universe itself. He is doing the same thing that I did with the number sets above. He is finding a rule that is true inside the universe (i.e. inside “the set”) and saying that it must apply to the universe itself (i.e. to “the set” itself). There is no way to prove that this is the case, though. No way at all. There is no way to prove that a rule inside the set (i.e. the universe) must apply to the set itself. The Kalam argument falls apart if the first premise cannot be maintained categorically.

I believe this might be relevent to the discussion:
The Kalam argument.
The Arabic word kalam literally means “speech,” but came to denote a certain type of philosophical theology—a type containing demonstrations that the world could not be infinitely old and must therefore have been created by God. This sort of demonstration has had a long and wide appeal among both Christians and Muslims. Its form is simple and straightforward.

Whatever begins to exist has a cause for its coming into being.
The universe began to exist.
Therefore, the universe has a cause for its coming into being.
Grant the first premise. (Most people—outside of asylums and graduate schools would consider it not only true, but certainly and obviously true.)

Is the second premise true? Did the universe—the collection of all things bounded by space and time—begin to exist? This premise has recently received powerful support from natural science—from so-called Big Bang Cosmology. But there are philosophical arguments in its favor as well. Can an infinite task ever be done or completed? If, in order to reach a certain end, infinitely many steps had to precede it, could the end ever be reached? Of course not—not even in an infinite time. For an infinite time would be unending, just as the steps would be. In other words, no end would ever be reached. The task would—could—never be completed.

But what about the step just before the end? Could that point ever be reached? Well, if the task is really infinite, then an infinity of steps must also have preceded it. And therefore the step just before the end could also never be reached. But then neither could the step just before that one. In fact, no step in the sequence could be reached, because an infinity of steps must always have preceded any step; must always have been gone through one by one before it. The problem comes from supposing that an infinite sequence could ever reach, by temporal succession, any point at all.

Now if the universe never began, then it always was. If it always was, then it is infinitely old. If it is infinitely old, then an infinite amount of time would have to have elapsed before (say) today. And so an infinite number of days must have been completed—one day succeeding another, one bit of time being added to what went before—in order for the present day to arrive. But this exactly parallels the problem of an infinite task. If the present day has been reached, then the actually infinite sequence of history has reached this present point: in fact, has been completed up to this point—for at any present point the whole past must already have happened. But an infinite sequence of steps could never have reached this present point—or any point before it…

.

 

[markeverett49]

The problem with the Kalam cosmological argument is that while the first premise in and of itself may be true, It makes the categorical mistake of confusing a set with a subset, and vice versa. The theist says that whatever “thing” - the word thing is important - that begins to exist must have a cause. The theist, then, switches that “thing” to “the universe.” The problem, here, is that it may be inappropriate to treat the universe in the same way one treats some “thing” within the universe. .

I’m not sure this is much help. I get the argument that if you explain EACH thing’s existence and someone then asks you to explain the existence of ALL of them together you may be at a loss to know what they’re after. But that is easily remedied: how did the FIRST thing that came into existence in the history of the universe come into existence?This is problematic because our understanding of the Big Bang is that, well, MANY things came into existence simultaneously. I think most theists would be content with an explanation of that. Indeed, with how a universe of things could come into existence all the sudden.

 

[Bayoubeefmaster]

Scientists say that the universe is like 13 billion yrs old (not sure). Makes me wonder what was there 15 billion yrs ago. How can all this great universe come into existence all of a sudden? One explanation GOD!

 

[The_GreyPilgrim]

I’m not sure this is much help. I get the argument that if you explain EACH thing’s existence and someone then asks you to explain the existence of ALL of them together you may be at a loss to know what they’re after. But that is easily remedied: how did the FIRST thing that came into existence in the history of the universe come into existence?This is problematic because our understanding of the Big Bang is that, well, MANY things came into existence simultaneously. I think most theists would be content with an explanation of that. Indeed, with how a universe of things could come into existence all the sudden.

I know that the Kalam argument doesn’t say everything believers say about God, that’s not the point of it.

The theist’s position is that space an time must be part of that creation. So the cause cannot be the universe or part of it, it must somehow stand outside the limits and constraints of space and time.

It does demonstrate something essential: that the universe IS a created thing that exists in time. That the universe could not have created itself without being moved by something outside of it. And therefore it destroys the image that many materialists/atheists like to posit: self-sustaining matter, endlessly-changing, in endless time.

 

[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)

No. A First Cause is not assumed it is a necessary conclusion. Unless it exists the universe has no reason for its existence. That is it cannot exist. But it does exist, so there has to be a First Cause, and this is God.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

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.

The experiment does not prove that nano reality is random. It simply proves that the experiment itself interrupts the reality being observed. Depending on the way it is set up, it will exhibit wave or particle characteristics.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

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.

Of course you can have opinions just like anyone. But I can assure you that most people do have reasons for their faith. Granted they may not be " philosophical. " Probably most of them are more like my own personal reason ( last paragraph of my original post).

The alternative to the invalidity of any or the reasons I have given is a causeless universe, which is impossible because it doesn’t make sense. In fact, such a universe, if it could exist would be absolutely chaotic, nothing would make sense, at best there would be no reason for anything to be one way or another, certainly there could be no reliable organization in society or morality either and no possibility of any either. At best it would be a Darwinian nightmare.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

God cannot create himself.

That’s right, he always was.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Fair enough but if we follow that logic then Zoroastrianism, and Hinduism to name a couple should be convincing also - both predate Christianity, and Yahweh.

Yes that is true but they lacked the Revelation that came to the Hebrew children. God reveals himself slowly according to the conditions of man. From the earliest times men in most societies had a concept of god but in a confused way.

 

[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 don’t think you interpreted what I said correctly.

Also I don’t think you understand what Pure Actuality is. It is a non material reality and cannot be limited. The universe is composed of material beings which are limited in their existence. Therefore Pure Actuality is radically other than the material universe and exists outside of it. It cannot therefore be a part of the universe but is its cause and directing force.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

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)

No. Muslim philosophy does not accept everything Thomas argues. One of his arguments may apply to the God of Islam but I am not familiar enough with their philosophy to tell you which. And I don’t think the Hindu religion has a Transcendent God. So you could not conclude to the Hindu " gods " using Thomas’ arguments.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

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.

Reap, this is really good. You see I am not short on complements when due. I think I should carry this over to your thread on " esse-monism," just to remind you.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Scientists say that the universe is like 13 billion yrs old (not sure). Makes me wonder what was there 15 billion yrs ago. How can all this great universe come into existence all of a sudden? One explanation GOD!

Exactly. Ordinary people throughout history, with no philosophical or scientific education, perhaps no education, have always seen the truth just by opening their eyes and making a valid judgment on what they saw. God caused it all.

 

[ManRay]

Linus makes a little - to convince himself that he actually made some kind of point…I think it’s great. When no one else believes in you - it’s paramount that you at least believe in yourself. bam!

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Linus makes a little - to convince himself that he actually made some kind of point…I think it’s great. When no one else believes in you - it’s paramount that you at least believe in yourself. bam!

Well, you have made a rather wild generalization here. Anything particular in mind? And by the by, I never asked anyone to " believe " in me. I asked them to use the " noodle " God gave them to see the light of reason.

 

[ManRay]

And by the by, I never asked anyone to " believe " in me. I asked them to use the " noodle " God gave them to see the light of reason.

I know - that’s the problem. The average person has a hard time balancing a check book. The average person is a closeted bigot, and homophobe. The average person thinks that cheetos, and twinkie’s are part of a food group. The average person can’t drive a car. The average person is the person at the cash register who is really upset about what happened on jerry springer yesterday…These average people…the 80 percent of america. 30% catholic…yea…these are the people that god gave the light of reason…uhmm…yea…beautiful…no reason our world is in shambles…the light of reason…uh huh…