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

[Logos385]

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

Well, that would be your opinion, and clearly Barnes and Noble disagrees with you. Whether or not the religious claims are scientifically valid, there are great chapters on Evolution some containing well-written history.

There are many variants of Hinduism, some may very well be monotheists or pantheistic monists.

Mhmm. So, why again is Hinduism a “false faith?”

newadvent.org/summa/1011.htm#article3
Through human reason alone we have apophatic and cataphatic knowledge about God.

Many of these claims are simply ridiculous. The only ones that hold validity automatically assign the qualities of YWHW to the polytheistic Gods, and then evaluate. Which is quite the facetious assumption.

 

[Logos385]

Leela, I like the stamp analogy : ).

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.

Actually, I definitely agree. I was just so used to speaking in terms of cause and effect in this discussion I couldn’t step out of the mindset : ).

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.

You have a very interesting idea here… something for me to definitely think about.

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.

Hmmm… then, when asked, would you simply say, “The God Hypothesis remains unproven?”

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.”

I agree, especially as these strange tracts attempt to make claims about things that, as of yet, can not be explained.

Finally, to Warpspeed and the “cup” discussion (“Hand me a cup of thoughts”)… So then this would have no significance? Because I mean, it’s nothing but a cup, right?

 

[JDaniel]

This is exactly the sort of question begging I was talking about. If someone isn’t convinced by the First Cause argument, they must not understand it?

So, if a moron truly does not understand something that you’ve said, he can refute you by merely saying that you are “begging the question”? (Actually, it really isn’t question begging at all.)

I actually didn’t copy and paste here but I have read the criticisms of the thinkers you mentioned as well as Dawkins and Harris. But so what? I guess accusing someone of plagiarism is easier than trying to argue that the First Cause argument actually constitutes proof?

This proves nothing except that there might be some grapes that are a tad sour.

If God has been proven by this argument, then why is it not accepted in the academic community?

As I remember, you were always good at using sweeping generalizations as proof of something.

Why is faith so emphasized in Christianity?

There is such a word as “illusion”. There are those that will, even after stubbing their toe on a rock, continue to say, “. . . all is merely illusion.”

If we actually have such knowledge. why would anyone need faith? It seems that if faith is central to Christianity and if the First Cause argument is proof of God’s existence, then it follows that Christianity is false.

Unless a person is a recalcitrant individual and refuses to see even that which is in front of his very nose. But, your logic here defines a measurable failure to grasp the rules of logic.

Sorry if I sound a little testy herein, but, the tone level you set started it and requires a measure for measure response.

God Bless,
jd

 

[warpspeedpetey]

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.

how is an accident a privilege? it would ultimately mean that we are collections of biochemical nanobots, slaves to the laws of mathematical determinism. you would have no free will, of any kind. that is the kind of ‘meaning’ that only lasts until one really begins to suffer, its easy to have until the pleasure of life is outweighed by some external factor like illness, or depression. and i know of no one that does not reach that point somewhere on the path. everyone suffers, at some point.

a chance occurrence arising from nothingness (not even a possibility actually) would not be a life, it would be series of mathematical equations, from which you could never escape. if it was in the cards for you to be rich, famous, and beautiful that would be fine, but for the mass of humanity that is not any of these things, that would be horrible.

which makes my point that free will proves a god

further let me make the point that when i say that we exist from nothingness by chance its a little tongue in cheek.

what do you think the odds would be that a universe were to arise from literally nothing? none, no odds, but for the sake of argument lets say 1:million, what are the odds that all these impossible to exist particles woud interact in such a way as to create life, lets say 1:2 or fifty/fifty.

what are the odds that you would have free will? back to darn near impossible, and thats only a string of 3 variables.

what i am actually saying is that it is impossible.

as a young man i thought it possible, more because it relieved me of any real morality, than because i literally thought atheism was true. personally i wanted to be able to have sex with anyone i wanted, drink as i wished and behave as i wished with no guilt or authority saying i was doing wrong, i wanted to freely exercise my will, plus i got to stick it to my foster folks who were not capable of arguing against my fallacious reasoning, and made me go to church 3 times a week (they were protestants)

to this day i suspect all atheists of similar motives, as i said all the same things that i hear here on the forums. but that may have just been me.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

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

yet the universe is so much mor than simply biological evolution,

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.

i assume you grew up protestant, catholicism is a lot more cerebral, you would have grown up with a lot more sources to rely on in our faith, 2000 years of extremely intelligent people form an excellent bedrock of reasoning from which to operate, at least you are here now, i can only encourage you seek out and read our rich tradition.

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

sure, but thats an argument for a whole other thread, theological arguments are really outside the scope here but if you start a new thread, please let me know, i can show that christianity is a near mathematical certainty.

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.)

the anthropic principle doenst hold much weightr with me, it just says things must be this way, as a reason to sidestep, how things got this way.

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.

why would a loving G-d be any less likely than random particles arising from nothing?

it depends on how you mean love, the human idea of Love? like love equals comfort, or freedom from suffering?

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.

ever heard of planned obsolescense? it when the manufacturers of certain products, say cars, make the car in such a way as it will only last so long, and then you must buy a new one.

my point being, that if you dont know what something is designed for than you dont really know if its well designed, you can assume you know, but then we all know about assumption

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

is it possible that the root of your atheism is grounded in a lack of understanding about the bad things that happen in the world? thats pretty common, its very easy to answer but very difficult to accept.

is it because the bible didnt make sense as you reread it? if so you will find a lot of help here on the scripture forums, protestants are real bad about deciding what the bible means, and then ignoring the parts that dont agree with their view, but thatsw under the assumption you grew up protestant( yes i know about assuming, i will risk it here )

 

[warpspeedpetey]

if all we needed were words like reason, evidence and common sense, there would be no atheists, because something cannot come from nothing

 

[JDaniel]

Alright, thanks to everyone involved for showing me I got off track, I apologize to all : ).

Back to the argument, and something you said. You said, “we can only observe 1 thing, physical matter” and I would completely agree. Physical matter was, by definition, created with the Big Bang. This most definitely begs the question, “What caused the big bang?” However, this is a question we may never be able to answer. This is because no one knows. It’s true that nothing in our universe can cause itself, yet we can’t hope to make any statements, especially postulate that our Universe’s laws apply, to anything that isn’t within our own Universe, because that is all we know/have ever known/have evolved to perceive.

To say that there must have been cause and effect without (possibly) space, without (possibly) time, without (possibly) matter, without (possibly) natural law is to make a statement that we, by any stretch of the imagination, cannot make. That would be where the argument fails for me. What is before the Universe I think is simply beyond explanation, thus the Thomistic proofs, which attempt to explain it, simply cannot in my mind. EDIT: And since we can’t postulate anything about before, the causality we are familiar with would have had to have begun with the Big Bang itself.

I think that’s all?

 

[grannymh]

My Irish Mother, bless her soul, would say: “There is more than one way to skin a cat!”

The impression I get from threads is that science is limited to the physical universe. I don’t believe that kind of limitation is applicable to scientific minds. So, why can’t scientists look at other disciplines to find the answer to the fundamental question–
Does God really and truly exist?

Isn’t the scientific method one of observation, examination, comparison, evaluation, probable conclusion, and repetition of the foregoing? I don’t believe it is limited to one area only.

My second impression of the threads is that some people seem to be hung up on having the perfect evidence for the perfect proof. My reply, one that was often used at the university, is “Come down from your ivory tower.” In real life, there can be five theories or 500 theories and never the completely perfect one. So what!

A good friend of mine would say: “Sometimes second best is first best.”

Blessings,
grannymh

 

[JDaniel]

Plese disregard my post # 204 as it was the result of a wireless connection failure. (Oh, sure!)

God Bless,
jd

 

[1holycatholic]

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

Plagiarizing again?

How many books are written on not collecting stamps?
How many churches of “not collecting stamps” are there? There are atheist churches. These atheist churches refer to themselves as a religion.

Not Collecting Stamps:
I like the idea of a passive, non-confrontational symbol for my non-belief. And I do think there is more to being an atheist than just an absence of belief in the supernatural. While the American Heritage Dictionary defines religion as:

Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe
an alternate definition is also listed:
A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.
You can’t pursue not collecting stamps with zeal or conscientious devotion. You wouldn’t want to blog about it either.​

 

[1holycatholic]

Well, that would be your opinion, and clearly Barnes and Noble disagrees with you. Whether or not the religious claims are scientifically valid, there are great chapters on Evolution some containing well-written history.

What does evolution have to do with the existence or non existence of God?

Mhmm. So, why again is Hinduism a “false faith?”

I said atheism is false.
Summa Theologica - First Part, Question 1, Article 1
St. Thomas Aquinas:

It was necessary for man’s salvation that there should be a knowledge revealed by God besides philosophical science built up by human reason. Firstly, indeed, because man is directed to God, as to an end that surpasses the grasp of his reason: “The eye hath not seen, O God, besides Thee, what things Thou hast prepared for them that wait for Thee” (Isaiah 64:4). But the end must first be known by men who are to direct their thoughts and actions to the end. Hence it was necessary for the salvation of man that certain truths which exceed human reason should be made known to him by divine revelation. Even as regards those truths about God which human reason could have discovered, it was necessary that man should be taught by a divine revelation; because the truth about God such as reason could discover, would only be known by a few, and that after a long time, and with the admixture of many errors. Whereas man’s whole salvation, which is in God, depends upon the knowledge of this truth. Therefore, in order that the salvation of men might be brought about more fitly and more surely, it was necessary that they should be taught divine truths by divine revelation. It was therefore necessary that besides philosophical science built up by reason, there should be a sacred science learned through revelation.

Atheists reject philosophical science built up by reason.

I did not say that everything Hindus believe is false.

Catechism of the Catholic Church
843 The Catholic Church recognizes in other religions that search, among shadows and images, for the God who is unknown yet near since he gives life and breath and all things and wants all men to be saved. Thus, the Church considers all goodness and truth found in these religions as “a preparation for the Gospel and given by him who enlightens all men that they may at length have life.”

Many of these claims are simply ridiculous. The only ones that hold validity automatically assign the qualities of YWHW to the polytheistic Gods, and then evaluate. Which is quite the facetious assumption.

The highlighted sentence is written so poorly, I can’t understand what you are trying to say. Can you rewrite it and give an example as to what you mean?

 

[Leela]

Plagiarizing again?

This is just silly. I’d say “sticks and stones…” but then you’d probably accuse me of plagiarism again. Do you think you’ve just uncovered the first person to ever use “not collecting stamps” as an example? Do you really think that we are discussing any new ideas here?

Do you really think I am here trying to achieve personal gain or fame? How could I be accused of attributing someone else’s ideas to myself when I don’t even use my real name?

Unless your real name is 1holycatholic I suppose you could be accused of forgery-attributing your work to someone else? Oh, but that would be silly.

How many books are written on not collecting stamps?
How many churches of “not collecting stamps” are there? There are atheist churches. These atheist churches refer to themselves as a religion.

Not Collecting Stamps:
I like the idea of a passive, non-confrontational symbol for my non-belief. And I do think there is more to being an atheist than just an absence of belief in the supernatural. While the American Heritage Dictionary defines religion as:

Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe
an alternate definition is also listed:
A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.
​

This definition of religion makes just about any personal interest including rooting for your favorite football team into a religion. I would expect that your Catholicism means more to you than that.

You can’t pursue not collecting stamps with zeal or conscientious devotion. You wouldn’t want to blog about it either.

You might if most of your neighbors were bent on convincing you that stamp collecting is the one and only good way to live and trying to legally enforce this practice.

Best,
Leela

 

[1holycatholic]

Do you really think I am here trying to achieve personal gain or fame? How could I be accused of attributing someone else’s ideas to myself when I don’t even use my real name?

Your posts (where you aren’t plagiarizing) make it clear that you can’t articulate why you believe what you believe. Your posts (where you are plagiarizing) make it clear that you don’t understand why Catholics believe what they believe. Are you here just to berate Catholics for their beliefs?

Leela: forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=4364747&postcount=65
People of faith often claim that the crimes of Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot were the inevitable product of unbelief. The problem with fascism and communism, however, is not that they are too critical of religion; the problem is that they are too much like religions. Such regimes are dogmatic to the core and generally give rise to personality cults that are indistinguishable from cults of religious hero worship. Auschwitz, the gulag and the killing fields were not examples of what happens when human beings reject religious dogma; they are examples of political, racial and nationalistic dogma run amok. There is no society in human history that ever suffered because its people became too reasonable.
That is an exact cut and paste from this:
Sam Harris: latimes.com/news/opinion/la-op-harris24dec24,0,3994298.story?coll=la-opinion-rightrail

You posted an unattributed word for word cut and paste of Sam Harris’ work. You presented it as your own. That’s plagiarism, and it’s wrong. A forum “handle” isn’t a Ring of Gyges.

 

[Shredderbeam]

if all we needed were words like reason, evidence and common sense, there would be no atheists, because something cannot come from nothing

I think that the debate is more about whether the something is God or an impersonal natural force.

 

[Leela]

Your posts (where you aren’t plagiarizing) make it clear that you can’t articulate why you believe what you believe. Your posts (where you are plagiarizing) make it clear that you don’t understand why Catholics believe what they believe. Are you here just to berate Catholics for their beliefs?
.

I do my best to articulate my positions, and I will continue to try and do a better job articulating them. If I understood why Catholics believe what they do, I probably wouldn’t be here.

You seem very frustrated by your inability to convince others of your positions and are unable to separate your personal frustration from attempts at sincere debate.

I will be adding you to the small list of posters on my “ignore list.”

I hope you will add me to yours.

John 13:35 (New International Version)
35By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another."

If Catholics like you really could be known by their love, charity, and other so-called gifts of the spirit, Catholicism would be far more attractive and would do more to support your positions than any clever rationale or Thomistic “proofs.”

Leela

 

[1holycatholic]

I do my best to articulate my positions, and I will continue to try and do a better job articulating them. If I understood why Catholics believe what they do, I probably wouldn’t be here.

You seem very frustrated by your inability to convince others of your positions and are unable to separate your personal frustration from attempts at sincere debate.

I will be adding you to the small list of posters on my “ignore list.”

I hope you will add me to yours.

John 13:35 (New International Version)
35By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another."

If Catholics like you really could be known by their love, charity, and other so-called gifts of the spirit, Catholicism would be far more attractive and would do more to support your positions than any clever rationale or Thomistic “proofs.”

Leela

Confirming you in your sin isn’t charity, or an act of love.

I’m sorry to hear that you reject rational thought.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Your posts (where you aren’t plagiarizing) make it clear that you can’t articulate why you believe what you believe. Your posts (where you are plagiarizing) make it clear that you don’t understand why Catholics believe what they believe. Are you here just to berate Catholics for their beliefs?

Leela: forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=4364747&postcount=65
People of faith often claim that the crimes of Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot were the inevitable product of unbelief. The problem with fascism and communism, however, is not that they are too critical of religion; the problem is that they are too much like religions. Such regimes are dogmatic to the core and generally give rise to personality cults that are indistinguishable from cults of religious hero worship. Auschwitz, the gulag and the killing fields were not examples of what happens when human beings reject religious dogma; they are examples of political, racial and nationalistic dogma run amok. There is no society in human history that ever suffered because its people became too reasonable.
That is an exact cut and paste from this:
Sam Harris: latimes.com/news/opinion/la-op-harris24dec24,0,3994298.story?coll=la-opinion-rightrail

You posted an unattributed word for word cut and paste of Sam Harris’ work. You presented it as your own. That’s plagiarism, and it’s wrong. A forum “handle” isn’t a Ring of Gyges.

strike! three!

 

[warpspeedpetey]

I think that the debate is more about whether the something is God or an impersonal natural force.

yup, pretty much. as long as we exclude anything physically existent as the cause you are correct

 

[Logos385]

it would ultimately mean that we are collections of biochemical nanobots, slaves to the laws of mathematical determinism.

Ummm… no. First of all, nanobots? What? Do you mean collections of cells? Because that is, in fact, what every human being is… Also, the naturalistic worldview does not necessarily eliminate free will. The most common system of belief that claims that something knows the whole future would be Christianity… not naturalism. Nature does not have the future all set up for us… Organisms change and grow, as does the environment, as does nature.

Secondly, you would have no free will, of any kind. that is the kind of ‘meaning’ that only lasts until one really begins to suffer, its easy to have until the pleasure of life is outweighed by some external factor like illness, or depression. and i know of no one that does not reach that point somewhere on the path. everyone suffers, at some point.

The jury is still out on free will. It at least seems like we have it, but that is possible through consciousness, a manifestation of natural brain function. How is suffering outside of life?? And I have suffered, yet life is still wonderful.

which makes my point that free will proves a god

…What?

what do you think the odds would be that a universe were to arise from literally nothing?

None. And none of the modern cosmological theories claim that. I would point to M theory as an explanation. A natural, non-physical explanation. Non-physical (because it exceeds the 3-dimension realm of physical things) and natural because no other, “supernatural” realm is required. Since the original claim is now changed, I won’t respond to the rest.

to this day i suspect all atheists of similar motives, as i said all the same things that i hear here on the forums. but that may have just been me.

That is one of the only actually deplorable things I have heard you say. I want to thank you for being so patient, willing to discuss, and grounded in your belief, for it leads to an interesting discussion. But using the, “Atheists just want to sin a lot” argument is ridiculous. I am a very good, religious person… and would be so with or without religion. I think morals derived from within and from society and observation enacted from personal drive only are MUCH better than morals derived simply from fear of retribution in the afterlife. The first is selfless, the second, selfish. Please don’t every use that argument again, I promise you my Atheism is not derived from the wish to run rampant and be a terrible person with no retribution.

 

[Logos385]

What does evolution have to do with the existence or non existence of God?

This chapter was written in response to ID proponents. I realize this does not apply to you, but simply to the book’s scientific validity as a whole. Sorry for any confusion.

I said atheism is false.

Ummm… no. After listing Hinduism as an option, you said, “we reject them not because they cant exist, but rather because they are false faiths, to us.” in post 189, and in post 190 you said, “Logically, Vishnu cannot exist.”

The highlighted sentence is written so poorly, I can’t understand what you are trying to say. Can you rewrite it and give an example as to what you mean?

My apologies for any confusion. I meant to say that the foundation for the valid proofs say that the polytheistic Gods are illogical, but only after the qualities of YWHW (Omnipotence, Omniscience, Omnipresence, etc) are applied to the polytheistic deities. The assumption is made that these Gods have the same properties as YWHW, when there is no reason for them to. I hope that makes more sense : ).