What are the major Catholic arguments for the existence of God or just give your favorite

  • Thread starter Thread starter Protestor
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
P

Protestor

Guest
There are many common arguments for the existence of God. Which are the most popular in the RCC? If you are not Catholic what is your favorite one? Do you think that these arguments are just “fides quaerens intellectum” or do you find them persuasive? Do you think that they are persuasive for atheists? To be clear when I say persuasive I mean cogent. The most commonly used arguments among protestant circles are tag, kalam’s, and teleological.
 
Protestor said:
There are many common arguments for the existence of God. Which are the most popular in the RCC? If you are not Catholic what is your favorite one? Do you think that these arguments are just “fides quaerens intellectum” or do you find them persuasive? Do you think that they are persuasive for atheists? To be clear when I say persuasive I mean cogent. The most commonly used arguments among protestant circles are tag, kalam’s, and teleological.
Click to expand...
The only argument for God atheists cannot refute is Pascal’s Wager argument. Even Bertrand Russell did not attack it as he did all the other arguments.

This is the argument that comes back to bite most atheists on their deathbed.

I have personally known several atheists this happened to.

Also, two famous atheists succumbed to God shortly before they died.

Jean Paul Sartre and Antony Flew.
 
Protestor said:
There are many common arguments for the existence of God. Which are the most popular in the RCC? If you are not Catholic what is your favorite one? Do you think that these arguments are just “fides quaerens intellectum” or do you find them persuasive? Do you think that they are persuasive for atheists? To be clear when I say persuasive I mean cogent. The most commonly used arguments among protestant circles are tag, kalam’s, and teleological.
Click to expand...
The following is my favorite one -

“Supposing there was no intelligence behind the universe, no creative mind. In that case, nobody designed my brain for the purpose of thinking. It is merely that when the atoms inside my skull happen, for physical or chemical reasons, to arrange themselves in a certain way, this gives me, as a by-product, the sensation I call thought. But, if so, how can I trust my own thinking to be true? It’s like upsetting a milk jug and hoping that the way it splashes itself will give you a map of London. But if I can’t trust my own thinking, of course I can’t trust the arguments leading to Atheism, and therefore have no reason to be an Atheist, or anything else. Unless I believe in God, I cannot believe in thought: so I can never use thought to disbelieve in God.” - C.S. Lewis

*“The theory that thought is merely a movement in the brain is, in my opinion, nonsense; for if so, that theory itself would be merely a movement, an event among atoms, which may have speed and direction but of which it would be meaningless to use the words true or false.” *- C.S. Lewis

I’m not sure what it’s called, it’s sometimes recognized as Darwin’s doubt because of his following quotes -

“But then with me the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man’s mind, which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey’s mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?” - Charles Darwin

*“But then arises the doubt, can the mind of man, which has, as I fully believe been developed from a mind as low as that possessed by the lowest animal, be trusted when it draws such grand conclusions?” * - Charles Darwin

I hope this has helped

God Bless

Thank you for reading
Josh
 
Charlemagne_III said:
The only argument for God atheists cannot refute is Pascal’s Wager argument. Even Bertrand Russell did not attack it as he did all the other arguments.

This is the argument that comes back to bite most atheists on their deathbed.

I have personally known several atheists this happened to.

Also, two famous atheists succumbed to God shortly before they died.

Jean Paul Sartre and Antony Flew.
Click to expand...
Hi Charmlemagne, 🙂

Personally I don’t find Pascal’s Wager all that convincing/effective to be honest, and I am fairly certain that Anthony Flew doesn’t contribute his theism to Pascal’s Wager in any way either (at least in his book ‘There is a God’ anyway), and I know that Scott Hahn rejects Pascal’s Wager in his book, I don’t know about Jean Paul Sartre though.
strangenotions.com/flew/
Click to expand...
Antony Flew: There were two factors in particular that were decisive. One was my growing empathy with the insight of Einstein and other noted scientists that there had to be an Intelligence behind the integrated complexity of the physical Universe. The second was my own insight that the integrated complexity of life itself—which is far more complex than the physical Universe—can only be explained in terms of an Intelligent Source. I believe that the origin of life and reproduction simply cannot be explained from a biological standpoint despite numerous efforts to do so. With every passing year, the more that was discovered about the richness and inherent intelligence of life, the less it seemed likely that a chemical soup could magically generate the genetic code. The difference between life and non-life, it became apparent to me, was ontological and not chemical. The best confirmation of this radical gulf is Richard Dawkins’ comical effort to argue in The God Delusion that the origin of life can be attributed to a “lucky chance.” If that’s the best argument you have, then the game is over. No, I did not hear a Voice. It was the evidence itself that led me to this conclusion.
Click to expand...
I hope this has helped

God Bless

Thank you for reading
Josh
 
Here is one that is a little different twist. To know God is there is more of a condition of the person thinking.

From the book addressed to Autolycus by Saint Theophilus of Antioch, bishop

Blessed are the clean of heart, for they will see God

If you say, “Show me your God,” I will say to you, “Show me what kind of person you are, and I will show you my God.” Show me then whether the eyes of your mind can see, and the ears of your heart hear.

It is like this. Those who can see with the eyes of their bodies are aware of what is happening in this life on earth. They get to know things that are different from each other. They distinguish light and darkness, black and white, ugliness and beauty, elegance and inelegance, proportion and lack of proportion, excess and defect. The same is true of the sounds we hear: high or low or pleasant. So it is with the ears of our heart and the eyes of our mind in their capacity to hear or see God.

God is seen by those who have the capacity to see him, provided that they keep the eyes of their mind open. All have eyes, but some have eyes that are shrouded in darkness, unable to see the light of the sun. Because the blind cannot see it, it does not follow that the sun does not shine. The blind must trace the cause back to themselves and their eyes. In the same way, you have eyes in your mind that are shrouded in darkness because of your sins and evil deeds.

A person’s soul should be clean, like a mirror reflecting light. If there is rust on the mirror his face cannot be seen in it. In the same way, no one who has sin within him can see God.

But if you will you can be healed. Hand yourself over to the doctor, and he will open the eyes of your mind and heart. Who is to be the doctor? It is God, who heals and gives life through his Word and wisdom. Through his Word and wisdom he created the universe, for by his Word the heavens were established, and by his Spirit all their array. His wisdom is supreme. God by wisdom founded the earth, by understanding he arranged the heavens, by his knowledge the depths broke forth and the clouds poured out the dew.

If you understand this, and live in purity and holiness and justice, you may see God.
 
CompSciGuy said:
I am surprised nobody has brought up Aquinas.

Basically Aquinas argued that none of us or any of the world has to exist, so by his logical induction all must have been caused by a necessary cause (something that must exist and does not itself have a cause).

Here is a link to the “five ways” that Aquinas cites for being able to know God’s existence.
web.mnstate.edu/gracyk/courses/web%20publishing/aquinasFiveWays_ArgumentAnalysis.htm
Click to expand...
This is my personal favorite.

Put simply, without an external creator we could not exist, because any existence which does not have a creator would itself have to come from something. Nothing comes from nothing, and anything, even a low-energy field, is something which could not come from nothing.

I once had a friend try to argue that the universe could be a self-repeating loop, which recreates itself as its dying. I tried to point out the issue with this, that no matter how many successive iterations may have happened, there still had to be a first instance to set the whole thin in motion; but he didn’t seem to understand how it’s impossible to have an infinite loop with no start.
 
My reasoning is: We can only understand the universe because we have intelligence. It must have taken intelligence to create it.

Still, I do not believe there is any argument to prove the existence nor prove the non-existence of God. My thinking on this is simple. We are given the choice. Without God - without a creator, there is no purpose for existence. Everything is chance and then based on mathematical equations.

Deuteronomy 30:19 “I call heaven and earth today to witness against you: I have set before you life and death, the blessing and the curse. Choose life, then that you and your descendants may live.”

This scripture, perhaps more than any other scripture, has defined for me the choice. I make that choice, not because I worry about the hereafter, but because I choose to live life here and now.

There may be many people who are able to find joy and purpose in a purposeless existence. But I am not such a person. I choose life. I choose God.
 
I would like the add the thought that equations are based on rational thought. They speak of a rationale creator.
 
HelenRose said:
Still, I do not believe there is any argument to prove the existence nor prove the non-existence of God. My thinking on this is simple. We are given the choice. Without God - without a creator, there is no purpose for existence. Everything is chance and then based on mathematical equations.
Click to expand...
I would argue against this, because even if everything is random mathematical chance, the fact still remains that it exists. Since we know that nothing comes from nothing, anything that is “something,” must have been created at some point.
 
josh987654321 said:
Hi Charmlemagne, 🙂

Personally I don’t find Pascal’s Wager all that convincing/effective to be honest, and I am fairly certain that Anthony Flew doesn’t contribute his theism to Pascal’s Wager in any way either (at least in his book ‘There is a God’ anyway), and I know that Scott Hahn rejects Pascal’s Wager in his book, I don’t know about Jean Paul Sartre though.
Click to expand...
Pascal’s Wager is not that convincing as a proof for God. It is not convincing at all.

What it does, or ought to do, is to give the atheist a chance to consider whether his own interests are possibly advanced or destroyed by accepting or rejecting God.

We know the atheist, because he cannot prove there is no God, is gambling that God does not exist.

Why not gamble that he does exist? What has he got to lose? Everything!

What has he got to gain? Everything!

By the way, why does Scott Hahn reject Pascal’s Wager?

Peter Kreeft, a Catholic apologist, acknowledges merit in Pascal’s Wager as a way to get the atheist thinking about what he has got to lose or gain. True, the Wager may appeal to venal or selfish motives as Kreeft admits some people will think (probably Hahn is one of those people), but then our salvation is a self driven motive to have faith isn’t it?
 
ProdglArchitect said:
I would argue against this, because even if everything is random mathematical chance, the fact still remains that it exists. Since we know that nothing comes from nothing, anything that is “something,” must have been created at some point.
Click to expand...
Oh, I agree. I believe that nothing comes from nothing. I believe in the existence of God. But if one is wanting to prove to an atheist (and I often tried to convince my nephew who is an avowed atheist) these arguments don’t work. It is especially difficult to discuss God with exceptionally smart mathematicians because they have turned to logic as their supreme god.

To be honest, there is nothing logical about God coming to Earth to be crucified. So for me logic is not my supreme god. For me logic is simply a convenient tool. Like any tool given to us by God it can be used for good or for evil. But, try explaining that to anyone who worships logic and denies the existence of God.
 
Here is another testimony that substantiates what St. Theophilus said in post #6.

whyimcatholic.com/index.php/conversion-stories/atheist-converts/item/103-atheist-convert-jennifer-fulwiler

It was hurtful to think that God might be out there but just withholding comfort from me. I was tired of pressing forward in this pursuit with no sense of his presence. I could be miserable and feel alone in the universe as an agnostic – why bother with this religion business if that didn’t change anything?

My feelings of frustration and resentment towards God reached a head. And then, just at the right time, I happened to come across a quote from C.S. Lewis in which he pointed out:

[God] shows much more of Himself to some people than to others – not because He has favorites, but because it is impossible for Him to show Himself to a man whose whole mind and character are in the wrong condition. Just as sunlight, though it has no favorites, cannot be reflected in a dusty mirror as clearly as in a clean one.

Of course. I’d been walking around talking trash, watching TV shows that portrayed all types of nastiness, indulging in selfish behavior…and yet wondering why I couldn’t feel the presence of the source of all goodness. I realized that, if I were serious about figuring out if God exists or not, it could not be an entirely intellectual exercise. I had to be willing to change.
 
HelenRose said:
Oh, I agree. I believe that nothing comes from nothing. I believe in the existence of God. But if one is wanting to prove to an atheist (and I often tried to convince my nephew who is an avowed atheist) these arguments don’t work. It is especially difficult to discuss God with exceptionally smart mathematicians because they have turned to logic as their supreme god.
Click to expand...
I’ve noticed this too about mathematicians.

It strikes me as odd that mathematicians, who see all the infinitely complex laws of mathematics that govern the universe, would see no infinitely complex Mind behind the creation of those laws. Do they think these laws just willy-nilly made themselves up? 🤷 Pascal, who was a great mathematician, did not think so and said as much in his Pensees.
 
If you want to examine the problem from a purely reason and logic viewpoint I would say look at Aquinas. Dr. Edward Feser does a good job of explaining it. See here edwardfeser.com/mediaappearances.html

If you are looking at persuasiveness I find the persuasiveness of creation to be quite compelling. And, one can not discount personal experience of God either. As well as testimonies and miracles are persuasive. Not to mention the Resurrection of Christ.

I also find the arrogance of many atheists to be compelling for the existence of God. Some of them are downright demonic.
 
It seems illogical to think a bunch of inert matter could create a living universe all by itself
 
Charlemagne_III said:
I’ve noticed this too about mathematicians.

It strikes me as odd that mathematicians, who see all the infinitely complex laws of mathematics that govern the universe, would see no infinitely complex Mind behind the creation of those laws. Do they think these laws just willy-nilly made themselves up? 🤷 Pascal, who was a great mathematician, did not think so and said as much in his Pensees.
Click to expand...
👍 🙂
 
HelenRose said:
Oh, I agree. I believe that nothing comes from nothing. I believe in the existence of God. But if one is wanting to prove to an atheist (and I often tried to convince my nephew who is an avowed atheist) these arguments don’t work. It is especially difficult to discuss God with exceptionally smart mathematicians because they have turned to logic as their supreme god.

To be honest, there is nothing logical about God coming to Earth to be crucified. So for me logic is not my supreme god. For me logic is simply a convenient tool. Like any tool given to us by God it can be used for good or for evil. But, try explaining that to anyone who worships logic and denies the existence of God.
Click to expand...
See, all the people I know who view logic or math as their supreme truth tend to Bellevue some of the most illogical things, such as the self refuting position that everything is relative, and there are no absolutes. The issue is that they’ve just asserted, absolutely, that there are no absolutes. You might try asking your nephews why math works. There’s no way to empirically explain why math works, but people use it as the basis for all other empirical study…
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top