Proving the Existence of God

[inocente]

This is, however, precisely the problem with your idea that God is completely ineffable and unknowable. Since, as humans, we cannot know anything at all about God, then revelation would, indeed, be our only source of knowledge about him, so we would have to rely completely on “every doctrine thrown at us.” Our thoughts about God would be utterly inconsequential and error-filled, so doctrine (aka revelation) would be the ONLY means by which God could make himself known.

You push Thomas’ position far beyond what he obviously intended because Thomas wrote a great deal about what can be known about God. We can “know,” as in “draw conclusions about” God from his creative activity. Our capacity to reason is a tool, when used properly, to correctly make conclusions about God. This is “knowledge” we can have. We can also draw conclusions about God from what is known about his activity in history - the Scriptures, Tradition, and through the authority of the Church.

We are not in some intellectual netherworld left floundering in the dark by God - that would certainly be a lost condition because we would have absolutely no means by which to make sense of the “revealed” stuff either. We would have no starting point, at all.

This poses another false dilemma: we can either know everything about God or nothing about God, it’s got to be either-or, it can’t be in between.

But no, we can obviously know something about God without knowing everything. Surely it is standard Catholicism that God is ultimately so great that He is beyond our understanding (Job 36, etc.)? Surely also that anything which we think reason tells us about God must necessarily be false if it contradicts revelation?

 

[inocente]

Judging from the rest of your posts today you seem to be in one of your " moods. " I apologize for polluting the planet with my presence. But then, your presence creates a balance, of sorts.

This depiction of me as a gushy girl with PMS is unjust to women and, as I keep telling you, I’m male. Perhaps it is my fault that other people understood my question and you didn’t. Perhaps.

But anyway, your apology is accepted.

 

[tonyrey]

It seems to have escaped your notice that there are a wide range of possibilities between God knowing everything and God knowing nothing. See en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma

Non sequitur.

For me, one issue with the doctrine of omniscience is that if God knows everything then there’s no point praying, for instance, since God has no choice but to act according to His knowledge.

So the truth doesn’t make God free? If He is compelled to act according to what He knows He is enslaved by the truth…

Also, are you playing the CAF game of quote mining?

Unnecessary and discourteous question which could bring this forum into disrepute.

Jesus could have meant truth as opposed to falsehood, or truth as opposed to ignorance. But in context, if we read the passage instead of just a couple of words, He means the truth of the gospel frees us from the slavery of sin.

Did Jesus intend to exclude every other form of truth? He referred to the devil as “the father of lies” which implies that any false beliefs or ignorance restrict our freedom.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

This depiction of me as a gushy girl with PMS is unjust to women and, as I keep telling you, I’m male. Perhaps it is my fault that other people understood my question and you didn’t. Perhaps.

But anyway, your apology is accepted.

I was unaware that " moods " were limited to females . You should know very well that males have " moods " too. You surely recognize that I have my " moods " and it has nothing to do with testasterone. I usually has to do with a bad night’s sleep, the " humors " or some idiotic remark by someone here.

Gee whiz, I’m glad you finally cleared up the question of sexual identification. Now I won’t feel so guilty when I am having one of my " moods .

What I would like to know now is how it came about that you represent one of the 2% in Spain self identifying as a non-Catholic Christian?

Linus2nd

 

[Peter_Plato]

This poses another false dilemma: we can either know everything about God or nothing about God, it’s got to be either-or, it can’t be in between.

But no, we can obviously know something about God without knowing everything. Surely it is standard Catholicism that God is ultimately so great that He is beyond our understanding (Job 36, etc.)? Surely also that anything which we think reason tells us about God must necessarily be false if it contradicts revelation?

The problem isn’t so much with the statements that you do make, it is that the statements you DO make are inconsistent with EACH OTHER.

Read the red bold-faced words from your statement above and the red bold-faced words from your statement below.

Twas not my point. My issue is we can say we can relate to God, and He is unchanging, is omniscient, is simple. No problem as long as we keep those statements separate. But put them together and there are contradictions.

So to know everything, God must be a great library (not simple) or must be able to look when and where (not unchanging) or must be all (but that’s pantheism) or so on.

Jesus learns in the Temple, he grows up. He is not unchanging or omniscient or simple. And it’s the very fact that he’s none of those things which help us relate to Christ.

“The wind blows where it will”, i.e. the Spirit interacts with us. If all our thoughts are known then there’s no interaction, the Spirit may as well be a book.

So my point is that “proofs” of these attributes only function when kept isolated, when put together they generate lots of anomalies. Which is fine for those who say God is ultimately unknowable, but means that attempts to prove the existence and attributes of God must always ultimately fail.

In case that inconsistency is not glaring enough, take these two statements (of yours) and try to merge them under “false dilemma.”

1. …attempts to prove the existence and attributes of God must always ultimately fail.
2. …to know everything, God must be a great library (not simple) or must be able to look when and where (not unchanging) or must be all (but that’s pantheism) or so on.

Explain, if you will, why

1. all attempts to show the attributes of God must always ultimately fail,

but your attempt,

1. that God’s omniscience means he must be a great library or be all,

does not, in fact, ultimately fail to show anything at all about God?

The difficulty, in your case, is that you are proposing a false dilemma in order to support one side of your argument and then denying that a false dilemma exists, necessarily, in order to assert just the opposite. When you think it will bolster one or other of your inconsistently held beliefs you are quite content to make an absolute claim, but then, in the next breath, throw away any absolute claim because you have found it too constraining.

That is what I have claimed is the problem with posting a refutation of any one of your arguments. You feel it is your prerogative to throw away rules, definitions, and arguments at any time to suit a point you are making, but then apply those same discarded rules, definitions and arguments to counter an opposing viewpoint.

Apparently, your non-compliance to the logical law of non-contradiction is all a part of the “mystery” that is you.

So, come clean, which of these is your actual position?

1. God is ultimately unknowable which means we can know nothing about him.
2. God has some aspects which are ultimately unknowable but there are some things which can be known about him by revelation or deduction.
3. God is completely knowable.

If 2) is true then it is possible that omniscience might be one of those aspects of God which is ultimately unknowable precisely because we are not omniscient. So it would be misconceived to draw conclusions about omniscience, i.e. that omniscience does not necessarily entail he requires a great library. (A great library seems to deny omniscience because the facts in the library would not be facts “known” to God but must be sought. So a “great library” would actually contradict omniscience and not be deducible from it.)

Feel free to tactically evade the argument once again, but, before doing so state your position regarding the alternative views of God above, so that we will, at least, know when you are being self-contradictory.

It is possible to appear to succeed in arguments by taking on what can loosely be described as “fluid” thinking, but assuming the role of Muhammad Ali on CAF forums does not mean “float like bee, sting like a butterfly.”

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Many people speak with absolute assurance about something and are absolutely wrong. Thomas Aquinas clearly felt we could demonstrate the existence of God and his essential attributes. Hundreds of Thousands ( perhaps millions ) of Christians, Catholic and non-Catholic alike, as well as Jews and Muslims have agreed with him. The fact that someone will not accept these demonstrations does not mean they are invalid. It simply means they will never be accepted by certain individuals, some because they cannot follow the arguments, some because they are ideologically opposed to the arguments, or are opposed to them on some other matter of principle.

For people of Faith to reject the arguments is inconsistent. For clearly St. Paul and the Old Testament teach us that God can be known with certainty from the things He has created. All St. Thomas and others have done is to place this common sense conclusion on an intellectual level. Those Christians who reject the arguments at the intellectual level demonstrate an irrational prejudice of some type or that they simiply cannot follow the arguments. Of course there are always those who appear here, from time to time, who are not who they claim to be. I have run into two actual cases of that and those two people have been banned. Other subtrefuges are more difficult to unearth.

On the othe hand, the prejudices and or difficulties of atheists and non-Christians are more easily understood and contenanced.

Linus2nd

 

[inocente]

The problem isn’t so much with the statements that you do make, it is that the statements you DO make are inconsistent with EACH OTHER.

Read the red bold-faced words from your statement above and the red bold-faced words from your statement below.

You realize that the first statement you put in red was me reading back what you had said to me?

*In case that inconsistency is not glaring enough, take these two statements (of yours) and try to merge them under “false dilemma.”

1. …attempts to prove the existence and attributes of God must always ultimately* fail.
2. …to know everything, God must be a great library (not simple) or must be able to look when and where (not unchanging) or must be all (but that’s pantheism) or so on.

Explain, if you will, why

1. all attempts to show the attributes of God must always ultimately fail,

but your attempt,

1. that God’s omniscience means he must be a great library or be all,

does not, in fact, ultimately fail to show anything at all about God?

The difficulty, in your case, is that you are proposing a false dilemma in order to support one side of your argument and then denying that a false dilemma exists, necessarily, in order to assert just the opposite. When you think it will bolster one or other of your inconsistently held beliefs you are quite content to make an absolute claim, but then, in the next breath, throw away any absolute claim because you have found it too constraining.

That is what I have claimed is the problem with posting a refutation of any one of your arguments. You feel it is your prerogative to throw away rules, definitions, and arguments at any time to suit a point you are making, but then apply those same discarded rules, definitions and arguments to counter an opposing viewpoint.

Apparently, your non-compliance to the logical law of non-contradiction is all a part of the “mystery” that is you.

So, come clean, which of these is your actual position?

1. God is ultimately unknowable which means we can know nothing about him.
2. God has some aspects which are ultimately unknowable but there are some things which can be known about him by revelation or deduction.
3. God is completely knowable.

If 2) is true then it is possible that omniscience might be one of those aspects of God which is ultimately unknowable precisely because we are not omniscient. So it would be misconceived to draw conclusions about omniscience, i.e. that omniscience does not necessarily entail he requires a great library. (A great library seems to deny omniscience because the facts in the library would not be facts “known” to God but must be sought. So a “great library” would actually contradict omniscience and not be deducible from it.)

Feel free to tactically evade the argument once again, but, before doing so state your position regarding the alternative views of God above, so that we will, at least, know when you are being self-contradictory.

It is possible to appear to succeed in arguments by taking on what can loosely be described as “fluid” thinking, but assuming the role of Muhammad Ali on CAF forums does not mean “float like bee, sting like a butterfly.”

You realize that the statement I put in red above was me listing a few possibilities for how I thought the doctrine of omniscience might work, and it was an open list, hence the “or so on”?

As I said “we can obviously know something about God without knowing everything. Surely it is standard Catholicism that God is ultimately so great that He is beyond our understanding (Job 36, etc.)? Surely also that anything which we think reason tells us about God must necessarily be false if it contradicts revelation?”

Incidentally no one has even tried to answer the points in the second of my posts you quoted yet you accuse me of evasion. If I missed answering something, please ask it again but you’ve wasted too much of my time in the past for me to try to disentangle your convoluted arguments about things I never said from your uncharitable remarks.

 

[inocente]

What I would like to know now is how it came about that you represent one of the 2% in Spain self identifying as a non-Catholic Christian?

I moved to Spain.

 

[inocente]

So the truth doesn’t make God free? If He is compelled to act according to what He knows He is enslaved by the truth…

Correct.

Unnecessary and discourteous question which could bring this forum into disrepute.

You know that posters quote a couple of words out of context and think it proves something. Silently accepting such behavior could bring this forum into disrepute.

Did Jesus intend to exclude every other form of truth? He referred to the devil as “the father of lies” which implies that any false beliefs or ignorance restrict our freedom.

It wouldn’t help to mine different quotes and paste them together.

 

[inocente]

Many people speak with absolute assurance about something and are absolutely wrong. Thomas Aquinas clearly felt we could demonstrate the existence of God and his essential attributes. Hundreds of Thousands ( perhaps millions ) of Christians, Catholic and non-Catholic alike, as well as Jews and Muslims have agreed with him. The fact that someone will not accept these demonstrations does not mean they are invalid. It simply means they will never be accepted by certain individuals, some because they cannot follow the arguments, some because they are ideologically opposed to the arguments, or are opposed to them on some other matter of principle.

For people of Faith to reject the arguments is inconsistent. For clearly St. Paul and the Old Testament teach us that God can be known with certainty from the things He has created. All St. Thomas and others have done is to place this common sense conclusion on an intellectual level. Those Christians who reject the arguments at the intellectual level demonstrate an irrational prejudice of some type or that they simiply cannot follow the arguments. Of course there are always those who appear here, from time to time, who are not who they claim to be. I have run into two actual cases of that and those two people have been banned. Other subtrefuges are more difficult to unearth.

On the othe hand, the prejudices and or difficulties of atheists and non-Christians are more easily understood and contenanced.

Linus2nd

That is shameful cowardice. To insinuate that I’m not a Christian because I don’t agree with you is thoroughly despicable. Shame on you.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

That is shameful cowardice. To insinuate that I’m not a Christian because I don’t agree with you is thoroughly despicable. Shame on you.

First of all I did not address you. Secondly, I didn’t insinuate anything. Thirdly, it is absolutely true. As far as you know I am an Atheist just trying to get everyone all stirred up. But all I said is true. There are only three reasons for rejecting Thomas’ arguments. All were covered in my remarks. You shouldn’t jump to conclusions, that is rash judgment.

I know you think all your objections are perfectly air tight. But that simply is not true at all. Most of them are completely unrelated to the issue, they cannot effect the validity of Thomas’ arguments. Any honest, moderately intelligent high school student can see them for what they are - smoke screens, red herrings, evasions, off the mark, etc.

Linus2nd

 

[oldcelt]

First of all I did not address you. Secondly, I didn’t insinuate anything. Thirdly, it is absolutely true. As far as you know I am an Atheist just trying to get everyone all stirred up. But all I said is true. There are only three reasons for rejecting Thomas’ arguments. All were covered in my remarks. You shouldn’t jump to conclusions, that is rash judgment.

I know you think all your objections are perfectly air tight. But that simply is not true at all. Most of them are completely unrelated to the issue, they cannot effect the validity of Thomas’ arguments. Any honest, moderately intelligent high school student can see them for what they are - smoke screens, red herrings, evasions, off the mark, etc.

Linus2nd

Having read Aquina’s “proofs” many times I would disagree that there are only 3 reasons to find them lacking as proof. In each of his five points he uses statements that are very much up for debate. Usually about 6 or 7 of the statements re formed before he declares that this is obvious proof for the thing that all men call God.
Nowhere does he show how a person who had not been taught of this God’s existence would be convinced. His first mover notion is perhaps the weakest. Where does he get the information that only God could be responsible for the initial movement of the universe?

Aquinas was commissioned to prove the existence of God. He tried, but it is hardly conclusive in any way.

 

[oldcelt]

First of all I did not address you. Secondly, I didn’t insinuate anything. Thirdly, it is absolutely true. As far as you know I am an Atheist just trying to get everyone all stirred up. But all I said is true. There are only three reasons for rejecting Thomas’ arguments. All were covered in my remarks. You shouldn’t jump to conclusions, that is rash judgment.

I know you think all your objections are perfectly air tight. But that simply is not true at all. Most of them are completely unrelated to the issue, they cannot effect the validity of Thomas’ arguments. Any honest, moderately intelligent high school student can see them for what they are - smoke screens, red herrings, evasions, off the mark, etc.

Linus2nd

Then it is incumbent on you to prove it, since you are asking people to believe in something that cannot be tested.

Oh, and for the poster who said that atheists act from emotion, I’d like you to re-read most of the posts on this forum. Father, love, care, etc. are all highly emotional terms that prove nothing other than the poster believes it.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Having read Aquina’s “proofs” many times I would disagree that there are only 3 reasons to find them lacking as proof. In each of his five points he uses statements that are very much up for debate. Usually about 6 or 7 of the statements re formed before he declares that this is obvious proof for the thing that all men call God.
Nowhere does he show how a person who had not been taught of this God’s existence would be convinced. His first mover notion is perhaps the weakest. Where does he get the information that only God could be responsible for the initial movement of the universe?

Aquinas was commissioned to prove the existence of God. He tried, but it is hardly conclusive in any way.

I would have thought that Thomas’ arguments would have appealed to a Deist. How then would a Deist prove the existence of God?

Thomas’ arguments are perfectly cogent. Try reading Aquinas by Edward Feser.

Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Then it is incumbent on you to prove it, since you are asking people to believe in something that cannot be tested.

It should be perfectly obvious. There are many threads on this forum were they have been thrashed out. You can review them for yourself.

Linus2nd

 

[Peter_Plato]

We seem to be making some progress.

From your post #127, you believe that some things about God can be known, but God cannot be, ultimately, FULLY understood.

As I said “we can obviously know something about God without knowing everything. Surely it is standard Catholicism that God is ultimately so great that He is beyond our understanding (Job 36, etc.)? Surely also that anything which we think reason tells us about God must necessarily be false if it contradicts revelation?”

Excellent.

Now explain HOW the following…

But I believe there are Thomists who think everything about God is cut and dried, clear and safe,…

The Thomists I refer to are those who think God and everything about God has been proven, and God is safely pinned down, that there is no debate, that anyone who disagrees with their exaggerated doctrinal security is not a True Christian™.

…is ANY DIFFERENT from precisely what you are doing here…

So to know everything, God must be a great library (not simple) or must be able to look when and where (not unchanging) or must be all (but that’s pantheism) or so on.

…or here…

If all our thoughts are known then there’s no interaction, the Spirit may as well be a book.

Your conclusions about God certainly appear “cut and dried,” “clear and safe,” “safely pinned down” and “proven.” How are YOU not one of those True Christians™?

If it is possible for YOU to claim that God can be known to a certain extent but not fully and is ultimately unknowable, for YOU, then why is everyone else who believes God is ultimately unknowable confined to this:

Which is fine for those who say God is ultimately unknowable, but means that attempts to prove the existence and attributes of God must always ultimately fail.

Who are “those” if they do not include you? And if “they” do include you, then why can they NOT make claims about the existence and attributes of God, but YOU CAN make claims about the attributes of God that do NOT always ultimately fail , i.e…

So to know everything, **God must be a great library **(not simple) or must be able to look when and where (not unchanging) or **must be all **(but that’s pantheism) or so on.

And again…

If all our thoughts are known then there’s no interaction, the Spirit may as well be a book.

This is what I mean about your inconsistency. You do not hold yourself to the same standard as you hold anyone who makes a point contrary to a statement of yours.

 

[oldcelt]

It should be perfectly obvious. There are many threads on this forum were they have been thrashed out. You can review them for yourself.

Linus2nd

I’m not interested enough to go through thread after thread of proofs that prove nothing. In the years I have been here I have yet to have anyone present anything but doctrine.

 

[oldcelt]

I would have thought that Thomas’ arguments would have appealed to a Deist. How then would a Deist prove the existence of God?

Thomas’ arguments are perfectly cogent. Try reading Aquinas by Edward Feser.

Linus2nd

A Deist wouldn’t. Much like many of the founders of the US a Deist accepts that if there is a God there is no evidence of his involvement in the world since at least initial creation. In many ways, we have a great deal more respect for a god-figure by not involving them in the affairs of mankind.

I have no reason to read another person’s ideas on Aquinas. What Aquinas used as proofs are easy to read and understand. They just don’t prove anything.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I’m not interested enough to go through thread after thread of proofs that prove nothing. In the years I have been here I have yet to have anyone present anything but doctrine.

Now either you haven’t been paying attention, or you are just blowing smoke.

Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

A Deist wouldn’t. Much like many of the founders of the US a Deist accepts that if there is a God there is no evidence of his involvement in the world since at least initial creation. In many ways, we have a great deal more respect for a god-figure by not involving them in the affairs of mankind.

I have no reason to read another person’s ideas on Aquinas. What Aquinas used as proofs are easy to read and understand. They just don’t prove anything.

Good, you have just confirmed the comments I made. But surely the Deist has some reason for believing in God. By definition it cannot be through Divine Revelation. And if then not through reason either, how does a Deist arrive at the notion of God ? Since it is neither the one nor the other in your case, just how do you arrive at such a notion?

Linus2nd