Thomistic proofs for the existence of God in the light of modern science

[Logos385]

Leela,
I would say the reason this word exists is that religion would be the norm in American culture, and thus we must have a name for the minority. I would agree that technically the only names needed are theits, anti-theists and agnostics, and that Atheism is simply a lack of belief, of course, but for now at least I think the word, “Atheism,” is required, simply because such a rejection of belief is the minority, and it is hard to identify yourself as a non-believer without using such a word. If you say you are a “non-believer” you could be an agnostic, if you say you reject Christianity you could follow a multitude of other religions. The word Atheist is needed for now simply for identification’s purposes, and no other reason.

There is an interesting movement in Europe to call Atheists “Brights” instead… but I’m not sure how this is much different. Haha.

Thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut : ).

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Warpspeed- Yes, I realize the singularity existed before the Big Bang according to classical physicists, but this singularity is what is said to have caused the Big Bang, all the matter simply became too dense to remain together. Sorry if it seemed like I was speaking of the Big Bang incorrectly, I apologize

dont apologize, i was using that to point out that matter was not created in the BB.

but be careful, i dont mean to say that a singularity actually existed, we have no evidence of that. at all, it took me 43 posts to get a physicist to admit that the singularity, or monobloc is assumed as a necessity for the BB, “after all something had to explode”.

what we really know from a regression of current conditions, back to the BB is that the math hits infinite values at 1x10(-35) seconds after the point the singularity.

prior to the BB all we see is a self existent, infinity, at least in a mathematical sense. i can not say it is G-d, but that is how we described G-d millennium prior to the formulation of the BB.

as a theist it is my inclination to think that if something looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quack like a duck.

so i think there is a good chance it might well be a glimpse of G-d., but thats just my opinion on how to interpret that infinity.

i am curious though how you became an atheist a few months ago, i have been under the impression that you are a college student, i had assumed it was a matter of an experience in school, would you mind relating the process?

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Dear Warpspeedpetey,

How about directing that above cup of goodies my way. I accept subjective thinking.

Blessings,
grannymh

i would sweetie, but my cup is full of coffee right now, but there is enough room for some love :flowers:

 

[grannymh]

i would sweetie, but my cup is full of coffee right now, but there is enough room for some love :flowers:

You’ve got it – topped with lots of laughter

 

[Logos385]

Warpseed,
My impression was that the BB theory was built off of singularity, not the other way around? This is because since everything is expanding at an ever-expanding rate, in the past it must have been closer together, and we can create a regress (oh regresses… ; ) ) that would necessarily have to end at a point of singularity. Correct me if there is a flaw in that logic.

Anywho, I became an Atheist after my 9th complete read-through of the Bible. I was brought up as a Christian and very active in the Faith, and then I started to apply the same inquisitive nature within me that I had applied to all other areas of my life to the Christian religion, and it didn’t stand up to the scrutiny. I’m not done looking at either side (and never will be), but for now, after finally an objective Bible read-through, and many, many talks with Christian friends, mentors, pastors, rabbis, etc, I formed my Atheistic worldview. Two of my friends are Atheists, almost all the rest are religious in some way. I’d rather not disclose my age or schooling, because it is the intellect and inquisitive drive that matters, and the willingness to actually do the research, not necessarily my age : ). When I say I was brought up Christian, it was a very open-minded and tolerant view of Christianity and the rest of the world, which I have my parents to thank for. I am a musician mostly, haha, this religion stuff is more of a hobby/an imperative rather than a complete area of study.

My last thing in this message (back to the discussion) is that the mathematical infinity postulates something we have never observed before, and we don’t really know what it is… thus we conclude it must be supernatural. However, we haven’t observed every natural thing (and can never truly hope to)… so are you just defining “natural” as the set of physical things within our universe? Or is your definition of natural something else that eliminates the possibility of infinite qualities? I’m curious!

Thanks again.

 

[1holycatholic]

Hi Logos,

For one thing, in this day and age is a wonder to me that we are still even having this debate. But the main reason I think the word is unneeded is the same reason that we don’t have a word for someone who is not a racist.

Atheism is not a philosophical position. It is simply the absence of a particular belief. People don’t generally define themselves by which things they do not believe but rather by what they do.

Best,
Leela

Your posts here assert that there is no God. Atheism is the dogmatic religious belief that asserts that there is no God.

Atheism is an aberration.

“Atheism is indeed the most daring of all dogmas . . . for it is the assertion of a universal negative.”

 

[Writer]

Greetings,

Would you please be able to provide me with resources on the question of the Thomistic proofs for the existence of God (particularly the first three) in the light of modern science (especially quantum physics)?

God bless,

DQ

In Thomas Merton’s The Seven Storey Mountain, he suggests that the Thomistic proofs are not the ideal way for “proving” God. The passage is in within the first one hundred pages, or so. I would recommend you read his concerns, as he made some very good points concerning the nature and limitation of metaphysical arguments such as these,

 

[Logos385]

1holycatholic:

Atheism is not a religious belief. At all. It is the lack of said belief. It is not dogmatic… show me the universal Atheistic dogma? It’s not a faith issue for Atheists, it is the lack of evidence for the extra. Atheism is the default of a human being with regards to religion, it is only after birth and upbringing that one can become a religious believer. Religious belief is the extra, the addition, to the default worldview: Atheism.

When I call myself an Atheist, I don’t mean to say that I am absolutely 100% sure that God does not exist, I mean to say I am around 99% sure that God does not (a completely arbitrary percentage, used to get my point across). I am assuming you don’t believe in Vishnu, Zoraster… etc… Even though there is a small possibility that these beings do exist. Since the probability is so small in your mind, you would count them among the set of non-existent entities… (Once again, I assuming you reject these Gods, correct me if I am wrong). It is the same for me, I reject YWHW because the probability is small enough in my mind that I can say “God doesn’t exist,” the same as I can say, “Fairies do not exist.”

I hope that helps you understand? If you take issue with what I said above, please comment on it : ).

 

[Logos385]

In Thomas Merton’s The Seven Storey Mountain, he suggests that the Thomistic proofs are not the ideal way for “proving” God. The passage is in within the first one hundred pages, or so. I would recommend you read his concerns, as he made some very good points concerning the nature and limitation of metaphysical arguments such as these,

Writer, would you care to add these to the discussion? I am very interested in the ideas within the book you speak of, but won’t have access to it for a while (As I have no money, haha).

 

[Writer]

Writer, would you care to add these to the discussion? I am very interested in the ideas within the book you speak of, but won’t have access to it for a while (As I have no money, haha).

I will if I can… Was reading it on our flight from Dallas, TX a few days ago. Unfortunately, we were hit with a bad case of the flu as soon as we got home, and I can’t find the book now.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Warpseed,
My impression was that the BB theory was built off of singularity, not the other way around? This is because since everything is expanding at an ever-expanding rate, in the past it must have been closer together, and we can create a regress (oh regresses… ; ) ) that would necessarily have to end at a point of singularity. Correct me if there is a flaw in that logic.

yeah when the expansion was noticed, they regressed back from current conditions. when the math hit infinite they assumed a singularity had to have existed. the only thing we actually know is there was expansion, ran forward we only see an explosion, not a bomb, so to speak.

my mental video of the event is something like a fish in a lake at night, if he looked up at the surface as an insect lands he sees no bug, rather he sees ripples spreading out from a central point, thats how he knows a bug is there to eat!

Anywho, I became an Atheist after my 9th complete read-through of the Bible. I was brought up as a Christian and very active in the Faith, and then I started to apply the same inquisitive nature within me that I had applied to all other areas of my life to the Christian religion, and it didn’t stand up to the scrutiny. I’m not done looking at either side (and never will be), but for now, after finally an objective Bible read-through, and many, many talks with Christian friends, mentors, pastors, rabbis, etc, I formed my Atheistic worldview. Two of my friends are Atheists, almost all the rest are religious in some way.

yeah that seems a pretty common scenario, i was there once, twenty years or so ago, keep an open heart and mind, maybe you will find your way back someday.

I’d rather not disclose my age or schooling, because it is the intellect and inquisitive drive that matters, and the willingness to actually do the research, not necessarily my age : ).

how true

When I say I was brought up Christian, it was a very open-minded and tolerant view of Christianity and the rest of the world, which I have my parents to thank for. I am a musician mostly, haha, this religion stuff is more of a hobby/an imperative rather than a complete area of study.

i buy the imperative explanation.

it is really the search for meaning, either we are a creation and have intrinsic meaning and value, or we are an accident and have no meaning or value other than what we choose to assign ourselves, though that says nothing about the logical outcome.

My last thing in this message (back to the discussion) is that the mathematical infinity postulates something we have never observed before, and we don’t really know what it is… thus we conclude it must be supernatural.

only if you mean supernatural in the sense of non-physical, which is what it means metaphysically,

if you mean like spirits and so forth than i dont agree.

we only know first cause must necessarily be non-physical, we cant say anything else about it. thats why i prefer to use the terms physical and non-physical.

However, we haven’t observed every natural thing (and can never truly hope to)… so are you just defining “natural” as the set of physical things within our universe?

as there is no evidence of anything that is not physical in nature, and we have no evidence of any other environments, im afraid that is the only definition that the evidence supports.

Or is your definition of natural something else that eliminates the possibility of infinite qualities? I’m curious!

there are no actual infinities, if there were the universe would be full up of those things,

take marbles, if you had an infinite number of marbles, there would be no room in the universe for anything else.

one cannot reach an infinity of time for a variety of reasons

1. time began in the BB, nothing with a beginning can be infinite.
2. it would take an infinite number of days to reach today, good luck with that
3. time is just a measurement of motion, really just a concept

and others

in fact the only things one can call infinite are imaginations, if you consider those are actually chemical interactions in the brain, they are finite imaginations of infinities, weird huh?

 

[warpspeedpetey]

1holycatholic:

Atheism is not a religious belief. At all.

it takes an awful lot of faith to think that the universe is an accident. or that some eternal universe exists for no reason, or that something comes from nothing.

atheism allows no reason to exist except chance, takes alot of faith to swallow that.

It is the lack of said belief.

that is technically known as weak or negative atheism, its a way to claim atheism without the burden of intellectual endeavor

Atheism is the default of a human being with regards to religion, it is only after birth and upbringing that one can become a religious believer. Religious belief is the extra, the addition, to the default worldview: Atheism.

how so?, no atheistic culture has ever been found, no matter how isolated they were or for how long, every culture has a religion or spiritual belief,

give me a 1000 babies, 100 years and a deserted isle, i assure you, when we come back they will have religion of some kind. it is human nature to search for meaning to our existence, it will be no different for them

i would say that the default state of humanity is belief.

When I call myself an Atheist, I don’t mean to say that I am absolutely 100% sure that God does not exist, I mean to say I am around 99% sure that God does not (a completely arbitrary percentage, used to get my point across).

now that you have found that nothing can cause itself, and that it is ridiculously against the odds to think that a universe such as this exists for no reason other than chance, i assume that the actual percentage of disbelief would be somewhat lower than when you first came here.

I am assuming you don’t believe in Vishnu, Zoraster… etc… Even though there is a small possibility that these beings do exist. Since the probability is so small in your mind, you would count them among the set of non-existent entities… (Once again, I assuming you reject these Gods, correct me if I am wrong).

we reject them not because they cant exist, but rather because they are false faiths, to us.

It is the same for me, I reject because the probability is small enough in my mind that I can say “God doesn’t exist,” the same as I can say, “Fairies do not exist.”

and yet the probability of something like the universe being created from absolutely nothing (as in no, space, time, aether absolutely nothing) simply by chance, in violation of all that we know, seems more probable to you?

it seems most probable to me that no thing at all should exist, if one does it seems more probable from design than from chance.

if probability is the only reason one has for atheism, than i would love to see you at the poker table, i have some things to show you, bring plenty of money

funnily enough probability is the largest reason i left atheism, i just didnt have that kind of faith.

 

[1holycatholic]

1holycatholic:

Atheism is not a religious belief. At all. It is the lack of said belief. It is not dogmatic… show me the universal Atheistic dogma? It’s not a faith issue for Atheists, it is the lack of evidence for the extra. Atheism is the default of a human being with regards to religion, it is only after birth and upbringing that one can become a religious believer. Religious belief is the extra, the addition, to the default worldview: Atheism.

When I call myself an Atheist, I don’t mean to say that I am absolutely 100% sure that God does not exist, I mean to say I am around 99% sure that God does not (a completely arbitrary percentage, used to get my point across). I am assuming you don’t believe in Vishnu, Zoraster… etc… Even though there is a small possibility that these beings do exist. Since the probability is so small in your mind, you would count them among the set of non-existent entities… (Once again, I assuming you reject these Gods, correct me if I am wrong). It is the same for me, I reject YWHW because the probability is small enough in my mind that I can say “God doesn’t exist,” the same as I can say, “Fairies do not exist.”

I hope that helps you understand? If you take issue with what I said above, please comment on it : ).

You are mixing monotheism (Zoroastrians) with polytheism (Hindu - Vishna).

The existence of more than one God, or the non-existence of God are both logically impossible. This can be known through human reason alone. Logically, Vishnu cannot exist.

Do you believe that past time is infinite, or that the universe is infinite?

 

[Logos385]

my mental video of the event is something like a fish in a lake at night, if he looked up at the surface as an insect lands he sees no bug, rather he sees ripples spreading out from a central point, thats how he knows a bug is there to eat!

Well said : ).

yeah that seems a pretty common scenario, i was there once, twenty years or so ago, keep an open heart and mind, maybe you will find your way back someday.

Like I said, I won’t stop searching!

it is really the search for meaning, either we are a creation and have intrinsic meaning and value, or we are an accident and have no meaning or value other than what we choose to assign ourselves, though that says nothing about the logical outcome.

I would disagree… to me, it seems that if chance dominates, it’s even more of a “miracle” (and I use the term lightly) that we are actually here : ). This would give meaning to life because we were privileged to be here, and would allow me to focus on this life and this life only, rather than something beyond it. That, to me, is meaning.

there are no actual infinities, if there were the universe would be full up of those things, take marbles, if you had an infinite number of marbles, there would be no room in the universe for anything else.

Yup.

one cannot reach an infinity of time for a variety of reasons

1. time began in the BB, nothing with a beginning can be infinite.

Not necessarily. A mathematical ray is infinite, and that has a beginning.

1. it would take an infinite number of days to reach today, good luck with that

I believe this can be explained with the mathematical principle of infinite series converging on a limiting value… Because there are many finite sets within an infinity.

1. time is just a measurement of motion, really just a concept

Well, infinity can only exist within the conceptual world, eh? Don’t worry, I’m not saying I’m okay with an infinite timeline, just looking at the arguments on the surface. That’s all : ).

in fact the only things one can call infinite are imaginations, if you consider those are actually chemical interactions in the brain, they are finite imaginations of infinities, weird huh?

Yum.

 

[Logos385]

atheism allows no reason to exist except chance, takes alot of faith to swallow that.

I dunno, “chance” does a pretty a pretty good job with the whole Evolution thing. : P.

how so?, no atheistic culture has ever been found, no matter how isolated they were or for how long, every culture has a religion or spiritual belief,
give me a 1000 babies, 100 years and a deserted isle, i assure you, when we come back they will have religion of some kind. it is human nature to search for meaning to our existence, it will be no different for them
i would say that the default state of humanity is belief.

Interesting point… I guess I meant the default in the sense that when you are born, you do not have a religious belief. After that, you may find one, yet if you do it is an addition to the worldview, not the basis.

now that you have found that nothing can cause itself, and that it is ridiculously against the odds to think that a universe such as this exists for no reason other than chance, i assume that the actual percentage of disbelief would be somewhat lower than when you first came here.

I am very happy to find some theists who are actually willing to discuss things, but I would say my disbelief applying to YWHW is the same, yet maybe I would more readily accept a Deist worldview than before. Maybe ; P.

we reject them not because they cant exist, but rather because they are false faiths, to us.

? I’m curious- can you explain to me why they are “false faiths?”

and yet the probability of something like the universe being created from absolutely nothing (as in no, space, time, aether absolutely nothing) simply by chance, in violation of all that we know, seems more probable to you?

I’m really not sure. I have not done enough research to make that statement as of yet, but even with ridiculous improbability, the Anthropic principle would make that not really matter. (This would mostly apply to an Omniverse/Multiverse theory… the probability I was speaking of above.) And I would find any form of loving God highly improbable, maybe moreso than the chance explanation… for I don’t think this is a Universe of love or design.

it seems most probable to me that no thing at all should exist, if one does it seems more probable from design than from chance.

Nature can fake design quite well… but I don’t think a world where 99% of species that have existed are now extinct is designed… or at least designed well : P.

if probability is the only reason one has for atheism, than i would love to see you at the poker table, i have some things to show you, bring plenty of money

I do love poker… but really, there are many more reasons, I was just using that as a way to explain “how” I felt, it is far and away inadequate when speaking to the “why.”

funnily enough probability is the largest reason i left atheism, i just didnt have that kind of faith.

That’s very interesting… well, we shall see.

 

[Logos385]

:
Atheist dogma: “There is no God.”

That would be lack of a belief, rather than a dogma. A dogma is a set of beliefs, usually speaking to how one should act. Atheism is a lack of belief… if you want to call the lack of something a type of something… feel free, but I would prefer not to. : ).

Go to the public library. Books on atheism are located in the Religion section.

That would be because many of them make commentary upon religion, not because Atheism itself is a religion. And I was just at Barnes and Noble actually, and The God Delusion was in the Science section… haha.

Infants can’t speak. Therefore by your logic not speaking a language must be the default and normative human condition.

That is a very interesting point. Well done : ). But I would say that yes, language would in fact be thrust upon someone… at least which language to learn. The difference in the two scenarios to me are that the human body has a huge part devoted to the activity of speaking/singing (the vocal chords), while religion is a conceptual idea that is nominative. (I realize there might be a crack about the human body part, “the brain” devoted to religion, but let’s refrain from these, shall we? : P)

You are mixing monotheism (Zoroastrians) with polytheism (Hindu - Vishna).

And? Btw- Hinduism is in fact monotheistic… all of the different deities are simply faces of a single one. Much like the trinity : ).

The existence of more than one God, or the non-existence of God are both logically impossible. This can be known through human reason alone. Logically, Vishnu cannot exist.

I realize you believe God to be logically necessary, and I am still researching these arguments, so I won’t make commentary on that right now. But how is polytheism logically impossible? And even if polytheism is impossible, who is to say that any single god, picked at random from a bunch within a polytheistic religion, isn’t possible?

Do you believe that past time is infinite, or that the universe is infinite?

My, I realize completely unsatisfying in a discussion sense, answer would be I don’t know. I really don’t know, but I’m working on forming that belief all the time. I’ll let ya know when I reach my conclusion. : ).

 

[1holycatholic]

That would be lack of a belief, rather than a dogma. A dogma is a set of beliefs, usually speaking to how one should act. Atheism is a lack of belief… if you want to call the lack of something a type of something… feel free, but I would prefer not to. : ).
That would be because many of them make commentary upon religion, not because Atheism itself is a religion. And I was just at Barnes and Noble actually, and The God Delusion was in the Science section… haha.

It is filed in the religion section at the library. I am a scientist. The God Delusion isn’t science.

And? Btw- Hinduism is in fact monotheistic… all of the different deities are simply faces of a single one. Much like the trinity : ).

I have a several coworkers who are Hindu. They are polytheists. There are many variants of Hinduism, some may very well be monotheists or pantheistic monists.

I realize you believe God to be logically necessary, and I am still researching these arguments, so I won’t make commentary on that right now. But how is polytheism logically impossible? And even if polytheism is impossible, who is to say that any single god, picked at random from a bunch within a polytheistic religion, isn’t possible?
My, I realize completely unsatisfying in a discussion sense, answer would be I don’t know. I really don’t know, but I’m working on forming that belief all the time. I’ll let ya know when I reach my conclusion. : ).

:coffeeread:
newadvent.org/summa/1011.htm#article3
St. Thomas' Summa Theologica:

If then many gods existed, they would necessarily differ from each other. Something therefore would belong to one which did not belong to another. And if this were a privation, one of them would not be absolutely perfect; but if a perfection, one of them would be without it. So it is impossible for many gods to exist.

Through human reason alone we have apophatic and cataphatic knowledge about God.

 

[Leela]

That would be lack of a belief, rather than a dogma. A dogma is a set of beliefs, usually speaking to how one should act. Atheism is a lack of belief… if you want to call the lack of something a type of something… feel free, but I would prefer not to. : ).

Exactly. If atheism is a religion, “not collecting stamps” must be some sort of hobby.

 

[Leela]

To Leela: I would say, I think, that really (without calling it materialism or pragmatism or muddling up the conversations with that sort of terminology) everything can be explained through matter and energy. Matter is moved by energy, and this, as well as energy stimulating certain types of matter (Ex. the brain), is what drives all that occurs. Higher “concepts” as warpspeed states, do exist, but they are simply manifestations of natural occurrences.

I would think, at the heart of all we experience, there is in fact that bottom-line cause. However, God is not necessarily needed to sustain anything natural… although I am still researching whether or not an eternal entity is required for our origins. It’s quite the big, mysterious question. : ).

I can’t see how matter and energy are more “bottom-line” than anything else we experience. Why should we think that by chopping things up into smaller and smaller bits we get closer to the essence of what something actually is? Can you disect a brain and find any thoughts? Can you explain the plot of a novel in terms of matter and energy? If you chop up a human being, do you get any closer to the essence of what humanity is?

Matter and energy works well in creating physical laws that make good predictions, but saying that is quite different from saying that that is what reality really is and everything else is just appearance. This appearance/reality distinction is unneeded. We don’t have to think of any particular property as being closer to an essence than any other property.

Best,
Leela

 

[Leela]

Leela,
I would say the reason this word exists is that religion would be the norm in American culture, and thus we must have a name for the minority.

I understand that, but I think that people who do not believe in gods don’t need to label themselves, and doing so buys into the idea that this is a choice that is somehow forced upon us (i.e. the question ammounts to presuming that God exists and can either be believed in or not). Words like reason, evidence, and common sense are all we need. Using everyday language to describe religious rituals put things into the proper perspective.

I would agree that technically the only names needed are theits, anti-theists and agnostics, and that Atheism is simply a lack of belief, of course, but for now at least I think the word, “Atheism,” is required, simply because such a rejection of belief is the minority, and it is hard to identify yourself as a non-believer without using such a word. If you say you are a “non-believer” you could be an agnostic, if you say you reject Christianity you could follow a multitude of other religions. The word Atheist is needed for now simply for identification’s purposes, and no other reason.

I generally side-step the God/no-God question and say that I like to base my beliefs on evidence and reason, and try to begin a discussion in those terms where the default position (as you say) is a lack of belief, and in oder to accept this God hypothesis we must have good reason.

While atheism makes no assertions, agnosticism make the assertion that one cannot know whether or not there is a God. I can’t imagione the basis for making such a claim. It certainly seems to me that if God exists, then it is possible for this God to make himself known in ways that are far less ambiguous than Thomistic “proofs.”

Best,
Leela