Proving the Existence of God

  • Thread starter Thread starter Linusthe2nd
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Charlemagne_III said:
It’s very true that reason is not up to the job of our discovering all the truths that faith gives us. That is why faith is different from reason. It is consent built upon our best possible reasoning. We believe in the Trinity, for example, not because it appeals to reason, but because it appeals to faith as delivered to us by Christ and the apostles. Faith is necessary for salvation. Reason is an adjunct of faith and at the service of faith. Reason can assist us in the realm of natural theology by looking at nature and seeing elements of design, which powerfully suggest an Intelligent Designer. Or in the case of the Big Bang, by looking at the origins of the universe, seeing that it is not eternal, and deucing that there is a First Cause.

But reason that denies God is a whore who will sell herself to the highest bidder.

These bidders have many names. Fame. Power. Riches. Sex. Etc.
Click to expand...
Excellent point and I was with you up to the ID bit. Then, as your previous incarnation was aware, we part company. 😃
 
Linusthe2nd said:
Inocente

You said, " But suppose somehow it could, there is a far greater problem. An absence of revelation would mean that God has never spoken, never inspired any writing, never given any sign whatsoever. It would mean He has chosen not to reveal anything of Himself at all. That is something very different about God, something which no amount of human reasoning can change. "

No one here ever suggested that Philosophy could or should replace Revelation. That is why I suggested you read S.T., Part 1, Ques. 1.
Click to expand...
:confused: Correct, no one has suggested philosophy can replace revelation. We’re talking about one argument made by one philosopher, I don’t understand how you could conflate that to all philosophy ever. Wouldn’t that be like me saying 1 + 1 doesn’t equal -73.6 and you saying I’m undermining all arithmetic ever?

However, you seem to be flying in circles as all this started at ST 1, 1, 1. Here it is again, let’s wave at it as we go past :D. Thomas says that in the absence of revelation some truths could be discovered. I’m merely taking him up on that and seeing what it would imply, and the obvious thing is it would mean God never speaking.

We’re not doing philosophy if we never challenge what is said.
 
inocente said:
If you edit the uncharitable remarks out and make your post again, I’ll answer it.
Click to expand...
Okay…

You are absolutely the most long suffering and charitable poster on any of these fora.

I am a heartless and superficial cad who has no justifiable reason to think myself worthy or capable of disputing your posts.

Could you kindly offer a small portion of your wisdom for those, like me, who subsist in the wretched squalor of what we misapprehend to be right thinking?

Please, sir?

Oooooh, that does feel better.

Now…
Peter_Plato said:
Your argument amounts to an attempt at refuting the “some things” that Thomas claims can be known about God by appealing to his claim that not all things can be known about God.

You are ambiguating “God is ultimately unknowable” with “nothing can ultimately be known about God.” That is not what Thomas is claiming. If he implies anything like “God is ultimately unknowable,” what is meant is that some features of God are not knowable and not accessible to human reason, while others are. These “others” are clearly laid out in his writings, otherwise why would he have bothered writing them?

By focusing on anomalies, you are, possibly, pitting assertions that are NOT knowable against those which are and finding only apparent contradictions, but then claiming these apparent contradictions are damning to all knowable assertions.

If X is an unknown or uncertain feature about God and Y is a known or very likely feature of God, we cannot use X to argue against Y and then claim Y is problematic because it is not supported by X.

Furthermore, you are making a claim that since there exist, possibly, an infinite number of features like X that are unknowable, therefore, all Y, or similar, claims are false. I see no reason to accept this.
Click to expand...
Thank you in advance, kind sir, for any answer you can provide to this logical conundrum, that appears to my limited understanding, a seemingly insurmountable one.

How did I do?😊
 
inocente said:
:confused: Correct, no one has suggested philosophy can replace revelation. We’re talking about one argument made by one philosopher, I don’t understand how you could conflate that to all philosophy ever. Wouldn’t that be like me saying 1 + 1 doesn’t equal -73.6 and you saying I’m undermining all arithmetic ever?

However, you seem to be flying in circles as all this started at ST 1, 1, 1. Here it is again, let’s wave at it as we go past :D. Thomas says that in the absence of revelation some truths could be discovered. I’m merely taking him up on that and seeing what it would imply, and the obvious thing is it would mean God never speaking.

We’re not doing philosophy if we never challenge what is said.
Click to expand...
??? I was responding to that one paragraph.

But in regard to your other comment. The fact that you do not accept that " one argument " does not demonstrate anything about its validity or invalidity for reasons I have stated many times and for reasons Thomas addressed int Part 1, ques 1 of the S.T.

You have made lots of noise but it is all " tinkling and brass, " merely noise.

Linus2nd
 
Charlemagne_III said:
But reason that denies God is a whore who will sell herself to the highest bidder.
Click to expand...
Charlie, you are forgetting an important point:

“Reason is a whore, the greatest enemy that faith has; it never comes to the aid of spiritual things, but more frequently than not struggles against the divine Word, treating with contempt all that emanates from God.” - Martin Luther
 
tonyrey said:
Charlie, you are forgetting an important point:

“Reason is a whore, the greatest enemy that faith has; it never comes to the aid of spiritual things, but more frequently than not struggles against the divine Word, treating with contempt all that emanates from God.” - Martin Luther
Click to expand...
Well, Luther seems to be anticipating the rise of modern atheism which calls upon reason to debunk God. And reason, without the least authority, is glad to do so … for a price.
 
inocente said:
Except for your constant attacks on my integrity I would not say this, but even if I felt like evading, it would never be even remotely necessary with you. You are by a long way the least challenging of all regular posters, whether or not you think naming yourself after a philosopher and sticking his bust on your posts might work some magic. If you were capable of making good arguments, you wouldn’t need to keep falling back on your ad hominem, would you?

See, I can make uncharitable personal remarks too, I just don’t keep having to do it post after post like you do.

If you edit the uncharitable remarks out and make your post again, I’ll answer it.
Click to expand...
In the spirit of the season and in an effort to further the cause of peace on earth, I am going to refrain from any further remarks that might be construed as uncharitable by you. My apologies for any distress I may have caused to you.

May God walk with you all the days of your life.

Have a wonderful Christmas!

Peace!

PP
 
Linusthe2nd said:
There is a popular book on sale that proposes to prove the existence of God. Yet one of the main arguments is that we live in a finite universe that had a beginning, therefore God exists ( a brief summary ). That is a serious error. Thomas Aquinas demonstrated, in the thirteenth century, that we cannot prove the universe had a beginning in time, we must accept that on Faith alone. Therefore his famous Five Ways argue from the position that the universe always existed ( even though it is finite in detail and contingent ), and he argued quite successfully.

This is not to say that there is nothing of value in the book. It is simply to say that it fails on one of its fundamental tenants. I did not mention the title because it may make good friends a little peeved. Buy it and read it, just keep in mind that any cosmological argument that assumes the universe had an absolute beginning, fails on that point, because it cannot be proven that the universe had a unique beginning in time. That is why the Church has declared De Fide that it did indeed have a unique beginning in time, and from nothing, by the Power of God’s Will…

Linsu2nd
Click to expand...
Hi Linus! 🙂

To the contrary, science has now proven that the universe, at least that which we can possibly hope to access of it (leaving out any “multiverse”) did indeed have a beginning in time. 13 - 1/2 billion years ago is the current estimate to the best of my knowledge.

Saint Thomas Aquinas couldn’t prove it one way or the other, because Saint Thomas Aquinas did not have access to modern scientific data.

But his statement that it could not be proven cannot be taken as dogmatic. It was not, nor could it ever be, since truth cannot contradict truth. Science, properly done, can never contradict Catholicism, and vice versa. And the temporal beginning of our universe has been proven beyond any reasonable doubt.

Peace, Linus! Carry on!

Joe.
 
JoJoWasAMan said:
Hi Linus! 🙂

To the contrary, science has now proven that the universe, at least that which we can possibly hope to access of it (leaving out any “multiverse”) did indeed have a beginning in time. 13 - 1/2 billion years ago is the current estimate to the best of my knowledge.

Saint Thomas Aquinas couldn’t prove it one way or the other, because Saint Thomas Aquinas did not have access to modern scientific data.

But his statement that it could not be proven cannot be taken as dogmatic. It was not, nor could it ever be, since truth cannot contradict truth. Science, properly done, can never contradict Catholicism, and vice versa. And the temporal beginning of our universe has been proven beyond any reasonable doubt.

Peace, Linus! Carry on!

It all depends on who you read or listen to. That the universe had a unique beginning in time is not settled science. Indeed, there is no way we can " see " the first few moments after the " Big Bang." Fr. Lamaitre, himself, warned Pius XII not to use that event as an argument for an absolute beginning if the universe. Indeed, there are reputable scientists who suggest that there was never a " Big Bang, " that the expansion of the universe was a wide spread and universal event. But again, what preceeded it, science still has no way of knowing. That is why I think arguments similar to the Kalam argument lack cogency.

Just my opinion of course.

Linus2nd

Joe.
Click to expand...
 
tonyrey

I liked very much the concluding paragraph of that essay you cited.

**“It would be the final error of reason—the point at which it succumbs to its own hubris and passes over into its demoniacal opposite, unreason—to deny that the Furies exist, or to strive to manipulate them out of existence. Nothing can be accomplished by denying that man is an essentially troubled being, except to make more trouble. We may, of course, be able to buy off the Furies for a while; being of the earth and ancient, they have been around much longer than the rational consciousness that would entirely supplant them, and so they can afford to wait. And when they strike, more likely than not it will be through the offending faculty itself. It is notorious that brilliant people are often the most dense about their own human blind spot, precisely because their intelligence, so clever in other things, conceals it from them; multiply this situation a thousand-fold, and you have a brilliant scientific and technological civilization that could run amuck out of its own sheer uprooted cleverness.” **
 
Charlemagne_III said:
tonyrey

I liked very much the concluding paragraph of that essay you cited.

**“It would be the final error of reason—the point at which it succumbs to its own hubris and passes over into its demoniacal opposite, unreason—to deny that the Furies exist, or to strive to manipulate them out of existence. Nothing can be accomplished by denying that man is an essentially troubled being, except to make more trouble. We may, of course, be able to buy off the Furies for a while; being of the earth and ancient, they have been around much longer than the rational consciousness that would entirely supplant them, and so they can afford to wait. And when they strike, more likely than not it will be through the offending faculty itself. It is notorious that brilliant people are often the most dense about their own human blind spot, precisely because their intelligence, so clever in other things, conceals it from them; multiply this situation a thousand-fold, and you have a brilliant scientific and technological civilization that could run amuck out of its own sheer uprooted cleverness.” **
Click to expand...
William Barrett was himself a brilliant person, Charlie, but his *Death of the Soul: From Descartes to the Computer *is certainly not one of his blind spots! It is a fitting message for Christmas. 🙂
 
Charlemagne_III said:
Well, Luther seems to be anticipating the rise of modern atheism which calls upon reason to debunk God. And reason, without the least authority, is glad to do so … for a price.
Click to expand...
But it’s summarily un-reasonable to conclude, from reason alone, that there is no God.
 
oldcelt said:
In the years I have been here I have yet to have anyone present anything but doctrine.
Click to expand...
Well, that’s like going to a medical forum and saying “In the years I have been here I have yet to have anyone present anything except medicine.”

Or like going to a math forum and saying, “In the years I have been here no one has refuted the doctrine that 2 + 2 = 4”
 
PRmerger said:
But it’s summarily un-reasonable to conclude, from reason alone, that there is no God.
Click to expand...
Quite so. That doesn’t stop reason from trying if it has sold its soul to the devil. 😉

Scientism, for example, is an ideology that makes no room for God.
 
Charlemagne_III said:
Quite so. That doesn’t stop reason from trying if it has sold its soul to the devil. 😉

Scientism, for example, is an ideology that makes no room for God.
Click to expand...
Indeed. I find almost all “Alone” ideologies to be peculiar and unnecessary.
  • Why should Science Alone be the answer for the realities of our world?
  • Why must truth be found in Scripture Alone?
  • Why must English Alone be spoken in the US
  • Why is Reason Alone the means for discerning the truths of human existence?
  • Why is Faith Alone the expression of one’s apprehension of God?
Truly, the only “Alone” that has any merit is Solus Christus–we are all saved by Christ Alone, and through His Body, the Catholic Church Alone…

and even that must be understood with some nuance and understood without absolute exclusivity.
 
My future seminarian thesis on the existence of God is “look outside.” I’m kind of simple.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top