Proving the Existence of God

[inocente]

inocente;11472357:

This also describes a law of nature - in fact the properties of a law of nature are that it is universal, simple, absolute, unchanging and omnipotent.

But of course a law of nature has no personality, it must always apply, it is blind. So where does intellect come in your description?

Actually, I believe many scientists regard laws of nature as contingent. “Simple” is a technical theological term, so I’m not sure what it would mean for a law of nature to be “simple” (it would have to be a concrete ontological entity, to start).

The term “laws” of nature are kind of a holdover from Newton, who thought that the laws of nature were decreed by God.

Thanks for the reply but neither you nor prodigalson have answered my question: the immutable god as described is a blind force with no possibility of it making any choices. It cannot then have any personality, and we may as well worship the law of gravity. So where does God’s intellect come in this, and how is it compatible?

 

[Linusthe2nd]

This also describes a law of nature - in fact the properties of a law of nature are that it is universal, simple, absolute, unchanging and omnipotent.

But of course a law of nature has no personality, it must always apply, it is blind. So where does intellect come in your description?

This proves that you do not understand anything about science. The " laws of nature " as explained by science, are far from immutable. It is well known, for example that neither Newton’s Laws or the theory of Relativity are demonstratibly ture outside our solar system. And it is questionable whether or not the current " laws of nature " reigned at the beginning of the expansion of the universe. I recommend you read jBankrupting Physics, by Alexander Unzicker and Sheilla Jones.

Thomas demonstrates the following qualities of the Unmoved Mover ( the First Cause ) : the Unmoved Mover is not a body, has no potency, is the first existent, is the most excellent of beings ( things which exist ), is an intelligent being ( because he is the First Cause of intelligent beings and because he created all that exists and that can only be done by an intelligent being), is pure act, having no composition of any kind, is a living being, having life in the fullest extent possible, is pure existence ( I am Who am. ), is One and simple ( all attributed to him by way of operations or qualities or acts are one with his existence and not separate from his essence but identified with it, is pure Intelligence, he is pure existence, he is pure form, he is pure Will, etc ), he is absolutely Perfect in evey way that can be imagined,

( all the perfections we observe in creatures and creation exist primordially in God, without detriment to his simpleness or oneness or his pure actuality )., he is Good without qualification and infinitely so, his Goodness is his existence, is Limiteless in every way, he operates in all creation and most intimately and by his substance, his power, and by his presence, is unchangeable in any way, is Eternal, is One and there is no other like him, he is the First cause of all that is or ever was or ever will be.

You may get all this from Part 1 of the Summa Theologiae, etc.

And this Being all call God. He is the God of Christianity of Islam, of Judaism. From the beginning of philosophy neither Catholics, nor Judaism, nor Islam considered proving the existence of God to be harmful or detracted from what God Revealed of Himself in the Scriptures. Of course the Scriptures reveal to us the full nature of God, that is without argument. But the greatest minds of Christianity, Islam, and Judaism did not view philosophy as a detriment to Revelation.

Nor should any one accept the personal opinion of certain individuals of today’s strange world as evidence to the contrary.

Linus2nd

 

[inocente]

This proves that you do not understand anything about science. The " laws of nature " as explained by science, are far from immutable. It is well known, for example that neither Newton’s Laws or the theory of Relativity are demonstratibly ture outside our solar system.

• And it is questionable whether or not the current " laws of nature " reigned at the beginning of the expansion of the universe. I recommend you read jBankrupting Physics*, by Alexander Unzicker and Sheilla Jones.

Thomas demonstrates the following qualities of the Unmoved Mover ( the First Cause ) : the Unmoved Mover is not a body, has no potency, is the first existent, is the most excellent of beings ( things which exist ), is an intelligent being ( because he is the First Cause of intelligent beings and because he created all that exists and that can only be done by an intelligent being), is pure act, having no composition of any kind, is a living being, having life in the fullest extent possible, is pure existence ( I am Who am. ), is One and simple ( all attributed to him by way of operations or qualities or acts are one with his existence and not separate from his essence but identified with it, is pure Intelligence, he is pure existence, he is pure form, he is pure Will, etc ), he is absolutely Perfect in evey way that can be imagined,

( all the perfections we observe in creatures and creation exist primordially in God, without detriment to his simpleness or oneness or his pure actuality )., he is Good without qualification and infinitely so, his Goodness is his existence, is Limiteless in every way, he operates in all creation and most intimately and by his substance, his power, and by his presence, is unchangeable in any way, is Eternal, is One and there is no other like him, he is the First cause of all that is or ever was or ever will be.

You may get all this from Part 1 of the Summa Theologiae, etc.

And this Being all call God. He is the God of Christianity of Islam, of Judaism. From the beginning of philosophy neither Catholics, nor Judaism, nor Islam considered proving the existence of God to be harmful or detracted from what God Revealed of Himself in the Scriptures. Of course the Scriptures reveal to us the full nature of God, that is without argument. But the greatest minds of Christianity, Islam, and Judaism did not view philosophy as a detriment to Revelation.

Nor should any one accept the personal opinion of certain individuals of today’s strange world as evidence to the contrary.

Thanks for the reply but neither you nor polytropos nor prodigalson have answered my question: the immutable god as described in post #45 and the linked article is a blind force with no possibility of it making any choices. It cannot then have any personality, and we may as well worship the law of gravity. So where does God’s intellect come in this, and how is it compatible?

I’m not interested in anyone’s opinions on how physics may pan out, or the life history of Thomas, or any of his other arguments, or the unfolding theology of theistic religions, or any other diversionary tactics.

All I wanted is an answer to the question I asked.

Sheesh, this is like getting blood out of a stone. :coffeeread:

 

[tonyrey]

Yes. Everything must comply with a law of nature, there cannot be even one exception. So for instance the law of gravity applies to all matter, nothing can escape its clutches.

Everything is not the same as every one…

God is certainly not included in either category - unless one is a pantheist.

 

[inocente]

Everything is not the same as every one…

Wot, gravity doesn’t apply to you?

God is certainly not included in either category - unless one is a pantheist.

Yes, that was my point too. Good to have you on board.

 

[tonyrey]

Wot, gravity doesn’t apply to you?

It doesn’t apply to my mind. When I descend on an escalator there are no obvious effects on my thoughts, emotions or decisions.

Yes, that was my point too.

Great minds think alike!

BTW Does God always “comply” with the laws of nature?

 

[Peter_Plato]

It doesn’t apply to my mind. When I descend on an escalator there are no obvious effects on my thoughts, emotions or decisions.

I get depressed every time I use a down escalator.

Thanks for demonstrating what I now know must be the (universal, simple, absolute, unchanging and omnipotent) logical cause of that - the law of gravity.

Of course, by simple implication, the cure is to always use the “up” escalator since the overcoming of the apparent omnipotence of the law of gravity by the escalator, logically, will produce the opposite of depression: exhilaration.

Who needs a psychiatrist when we have the ever trustworthy laws of physics!

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Thanks for the reply but neither you nor polytropos nor prodigalson have answered my question: the immutable god as described in post #45 and the linked article is a blind force with no possibility of it making any choices. It cannot then have any personality, and we may as well worship the law of gravity. So where does God’s intellect come in this, and how is it compatible?

I’m not interested in anyone’s opinions on how physics may pan out, or the life history of Thomas, or any of his other arguments, or the unfolding theology of theistic religions, or any other diversionary tactics.

All I wanted is an answer to the question I asked.

Sheesh, this is like getting blood out of a stone. :coffeeread:

Sheesh, I’m talking to someone who can’t read You actually have to make a little effort. The explanation I gave should be sufficient. Or, you can read Part 1 of the S.T… Of course you don’t have to agree with it. But in that case you will have to explain why.

By golly, your views on the infallibility of science have sure changed. At the moment your views appear rather eccentric. But each to his own. You really are the only " christian " I know or have run into that holds the views you do with regard to Thomas’ First Way.

We await proof for your various positions We need something besides loud and repeated assertions without proof.

Linus2nd

 

[tonyrey]

I get depressed every time I use a down escalator.

Thanks for demonstrating what I now know must be the (universal, simple, absolute, unchanging and omnipotent) logical cause of that - the law of gravity.

Of course, by simple implication, the cure is to always use the “up” escalator since the overcoming of the apparent omnipotence of the law of gravity by the escalator, logically, will produce the opposite of depression: exhilaration.

Who needs a psychiatrist when we have the ever trustworthy laws of physics!

We obviously have to put all our hope and trust in neuroscience!

 

[prodigalson2011]

Prior denotes time, prodigalson, so, no there can’t.

From dictionary.com: prior (adj.) - preceding in time or in order.

The word prior can but does not necessarily denote time. In the case of the Creator’s priority to His creation, the priority is ontological rather than temporal, though temporal priority exists within the creation itself.

The first point is the beginning in time of the universe, but since the first point itself did not begin, it is obviously no beginning.

Yes, it is. A beginning is a point of origin. That first point of space-time is the point from which all other space-time events have followed, therefore it is the beginning of space and time. That there was never “a time when it did not exist” does not make it eternal. This is, again, a misunderstanding of what is meant by the word eternal. You are trying to frame the relationship between time and eternity in strictly temporal terms, and this is simply a category error. Simply put, the beginning of time is not a temporal beginning, but an ontological beginning. The absolute beginning of time lies not in the fact that there was a time when it didn’t exist (a notion which is self-contradictory), but in the fact that it proceeds, ontologically, from a higher source of which it is not a part.

 

[prodigalson2011]

This also describes a law of nature - in fact the properties of a law of nature are that it is universal, simple, absolute, unchanging and omnipotent.

But of course a law of nature has no personality, it must always apply, it is blind. So where does intellect come in your description?

“Omnipotent” means being of unlimited power. A law of nature is not of unlimited power. Strike one.

There is no way to prove, scientifically, that the laws of nature must remain unchanged. They simply haven’t done so in our observation. Moreover, the “rapid expansion event” that seems to have taken place in the early universe suggests at least one instance of these forces being changed or overridden. Strike two.

The immutability of God is only one angle from which we view his nature–not the whole picture–and it is not the same kind of changelessness as that of which you are thinking. Strike three.

You’re already out, but to add to the point, this very passage clarifies that this “changelessness” is not meant in the sense of being a static force, as are, to the best of our knowledge, the laws of nature.

Finally, if you were to read more of Aquinas you would find that Aquinas defines intellect as “existence free of matter.” Since God is totally immaterial, He is pure intellect. The laws of nature are not free of matter; they only exist in relationship to matter. More could be added, but that’s enough to answer your question.

 

[belorg]

From dictionary.com: prior (adj.) - preceding in time or in order.

The word prior can but does not necessarily denote time. In the case of the Creator’s priority to His creation, the priority is ontological rather than temporal, though temporal priority exists within the creation itself.

Yes, it is. A beginning is a point of origin. That first point of space-time is the point from which all other space-time events have followed, therefore it is the beginning of space and time. That there was never “a time when it did not exist” does not make it eternal. This is, again, a misunderstanding of what is meant by the word eternal. You are trying to frame the relationship between time and eternity in strictly temporal terms, and this is simply a category error. Simply put, the beginning of time is not a temporal beginning, but an ontological beginning. The absolute beginning of time lies not in the fact that there was a time when it didn’t exist (a notion which is self-contradictory), but in the fact that it proceeds, ontologically, from a higher source of which it is not a part.

Exactly my point.

 

[prodigalson2011]

Exactly my point.

If that’s exactly your point, I fail to see how you think this poses a problem for Thomistic cosmology.

However, I don’t think it’s exactly your point because you were arguing that the idea of priority necessarily entailed time, which it does not.

Ontological priority is every bit as real as temporal priority, which means the beginning of the universe, per Thomism, is a real beginning.

 

[belorg]

If that’s exactly your point, I fail to see how you think this poses a problem for Thomistic cosmology.

However, I don’t think it’s exactly your point because you were arguing that the idea of priority necessarily entailed time, which it does not.

Ontological priority is every bit as real as temporal priority, which means the beginning of the universe, per Thomism, is a real beginning.

I have never claimed it poses a problem for Thomistic cosmology. It odes pose a problem for Catholic theology though.
And in the context you were orginately using it (a point prior to which…) priority does entail time. “The universe began at t0” means that there was no point prior to t0 at which the universe existed, but the same can be said about God. There was no point prior to t0 at which God existed, in that case, from a temporal POV,both the universe and God “began”, form a non-temporal POV, neither “began”. So the beginning of the universe is not a real beginning, unless you you are talking in a completely tautological way. Because of course if God created the universe, the universe was created. If that’s what you mean by beginning, then you are correct, but that is not the sense in which it is used when talking about a beginning versus an eternal universe. The point Thomas makes is that even if the universe is eternal, it can be argued that God is the creator.

 

[inocente]

Sheesh, I’m talking to someone who can’t read You actually have to make a little effort. The explanation I gave should be sufficient. Or, you can read Part 1 of the S.T… Of course you don’t have to agree with it. But in that case you will have to explain why.

By golly, your views on the infallibility of science have sure changed. At the moment your views appear rather eccentric. But each to his own. You really are the only " christian " I know or have run into that holds the views you do with regard to Thomas’ First Way.

We await proof for your various positions We need something besides loud and repeated assertions without proof.

Linus2nd

I’ll let you know when I’d like some of your childish attempts at sarcasm.

I wasn’t trying to make a point. All I wanted was a straight answer to a straight question. Any chance of just answering the question, without the attitude?

 

[inocente]

“Omnipotent” means being of unlimited power. A law of nature is not of unlimited power. Strike one.

I didn’t realize my question would be so very difficult to answer.

Incidentally, I know what that word means, I too can google . Nothing has the power to overcome a law of nature, which is why they are called omnipotent. However, that is incidental and off-topic.

There is no way to prove, scientifically, that the laws of nature must remain unchanged. They simply haven’t done so in our observation. Moreover, the “rapid expansion event” that seems to have taken place in the early universe suggests at least one instance of these forces being changed or overridden. Strike two.

Fine, but again that’s not what I was asking about.

*The immutability of God is only one angle from which we view his nature–not the whole picture–and it is not the same kind of changelessness as that of which you are thinking. Strike three.

You’re already out, but to add to the point, this very passage clarifies that this “changelessness” is not meant in the sense of being a static force, as are, to the best of our knowledge, the laws of nature.

Finally, if you were to read more of Aquinas you would find that Aquinas defines intellect as “existence free of matter.” Since God is totally immaterial, He is pure intellect. The laws of nature are not free of matter; they only exist in relationship to matter. More could be added, but that’s enough to answer your question.*

I’ve found that some Thomists play a game which is unique to them. For example, they will say God has one property when viewed from one angle, and a completely incompatible property when viewed from another. When asked how this can be, they wave their arms in the air and say it’s all very sophisticated and it can only be understood by people who can see the Emperor’s new clothes, and aren’t the clothes magnificent.

I am hoping you are not one of those Thomists.

I’ll try this one last time in the forlorn hope that someone is capable of giving a straight answer (meaning information, only information, and nothing but information) to my question: The immutable god as described in post #45 and the linked article is a blind force with no possibility of it making any choices. It cannot then have any personality, and we may as well worship the law of gravity. So where does God’s intellect come in this, and how is it compatible?

Shirley this is not such a difficult question that it had to be asked so many times with so little result?

 

[Peter_Plato]

I have never claimed it poses a problem for Thomistic cosmology. It odes pose a problem for Catholic theology though.

I am not clear that this is the case.

And in the context you were orginately using it (a point prior to which…) priority does entail time. “The universe began at t0” means that there was no point prior to t0 at which the universe existed, but the same can be said about God. There was no point prior to t0 at which God existed, in that case, from a temporal POV,both the universe and God “began”, form a non-temporal POV, neither “began”.

Return to the book analogy again. The “universe” that is contained within the narrative of the story begins with the first word as an aspect of the first event. The story as a narrative could be said to begin here. However, that beginning does not preclude that the story as an idea began to take conception in the writer’s mind in various forms on a timeline completely independent of the timeline of the story.

If the author “writes himself into the story” as God does with creation, it is not true that the author “began” to exist when he entered the story. The story is not such an exhaustive account of the author that it fully encapsulates the reality of the author inside of it. The same can be said with creation. God did not “begin” to exist at t0, he simply exists eternally, independent of time.

The analogy breaks down because any human author does indeed exist in A-Theory time, the same paradigm of time that exists within any story, whereas God, as eternal, does not.

Now, it would be true to say that both God and the universe could be said to simply exist, although the universe does in a causally contingent sense, whereas God not so much. However, to say that the universe “has a beginning” does not imply that that beginning is not a real beginning of the story. Just as saying it “has an ending” does not necessarily imply that the ending of the story inside of a book means the book itself vapourizes when the reader gets to the end, or that the book “pops” into existence when a reader begins to read it.

So the beginning of the universe is not a real beginning, unless you you are talking in a completely tautological way. Because of course if God created the universe, the universe was created.

Again, the beginning of the universe is the beginning OF THE UNIVERSE, just as the beginning of a story is the beginning OF THE STORY. In both cases, the BEGINNING is a meaningful aspect of the story and of the universe, but simply a different sense of what the word beginning implies. The beginning of a story need not mark its origin as a story although it would mark its beginning as a narrative.

It seems to me that if the story were a story about the author writing the story, then there might be a tautology involved since the origin of the story would be the beginning of narrative. In that case they would be one and the same thing - kind of, but even then not REALLY.

I don’t think that is what we have in the case of the universe, anyhow, because we do not have any insight into “how” God undertook the creation, only “that” he did. So the beginning of the universe (in the sense of the beginning of the continuing narrative or saga) does not undertake to tell us at all HOW God goes about the act of creating from eternity. Since THAT act (the HOW of creation) is eternal and not temporal we have no reason to assume there was a time BEFORE the universe in the same sense that we mean yesterday came BEFORE today, precisely because the HOW is, presumably, not a temporal nor a contingent act.

If that’s what you mean by beginning, then you are correct, but that is not the sense in which it is used when talking about a beginning versus an eternal universe. The point Thomas makes is that even if the universe is eternal, it can be argued that God is the creator.

This is true, but does not imply what you seem to think it does.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Shirley this is not such a difficult question that it had to be asked so many times with so little result?

His name is not Shirley.

 

[inocente]

His name is not Shirley.

Elaine Dickinson: You got a letter from headquarters this morning.

Ted Striker: What is it?

Elaine Dickinson: It’s a big building where generals meet, but that’s not important.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Thanks for the reply but neither you nor polytropos nor prodigalson have answered my question: the immutable god as described in post #45 and the linked article is a blind force with no possibility of it making any choices. It cannot then have any personality, and we may as well worship the law of gravity. So where does God’s intellect come in this, and how is it compatible?

I’m not interested in anyone’s opinions on how physics may pan out, or the life history of Thomas, or any of his other arguments, or the unfolding theology of theistic religions, or any other diversionary tactics.

I’m glad to see you escaped from the Zoo, I’ll hold that in the ol’ memory bank. But " diversionary tactics? " Really ? Well, you are the local expert on that, since that is your stock in trade.

All I wanted is an answer to the question I asked.

Sheesh, this is like getting blood out of a stone. :coffeeread:

Honest to Pete, she cannot read!

:newidea: Why don’t you actually read what I said. From my post #61 :

" Thomas demonstrates the following qualities of the Unmoved Mover ( the First Cause ) : the Unmoved Mover is not a body, has no potency, is the first existent, is the most excellent of beings ( things which exist ), is an intelligent being ( because he is the First Cause of intelligent beings and because he created all that exists and that can only be done by an intelligent being), is pure act, having no composition of any kind, is a living being, having life in the fullest extent possible, is pure existence ( I am Who am. ), is One and simple ( all attributed to him by way of operations or qualities or acts are one with his existence and not separate from his essence but identified with it, is pure Intelligence, he is pure existence, he is pure form, he is pure Will, etc ), he is absolutely Perfect in evey way that can be imagined,

( all the perfections we observe in creatures and creation exist primordially in God, without detriment to his simpleness or oneness or his pure actuality )., he is Good without qualification and infinitely so, his Goodness is his existence, is Limiteless in every way, he operates in all creation and most intimately and by his substance, his power, and by his presence, is unchangeable in any way, is Eternal, is One and there is no other like him, he is the First cause of all that is or ever was or ever will be.

You may get all this from Part 1 of the Summa Theologiae, etc.

And this Being all call God. He is the God of Christianity of Islam, of Judaism. From the beginning of philosophy neither Catholics, nor Judaism, nor Islam considered proving the existence of God to be harmful or detracted from what God Revealed of Himself in the Scriptures. Of course the Scriptures reveal to us the full nature of God, that is without argument. But the greatest minds of Christianity, Islam, and Judaism did not view philosophy as a detriment to Revelation. "

So the whole world can see that I answered you. Of course you don’t have to accept my answer, that is your la re’ponse habituelle. But I did give you the best answer possible.
I’m sorry I can’t draw you a picture.

Linus2nd