What do you consider proof of God, if anything?

[DavidHume]

Explain “potency-in-act.”

No thanks. I’ve had enough of your appeals to metaphysics. If it is important for it to be explained, then you should explain it, to make your own points clear.

newadvent.org/summa/1002.htm
Therefore, if there be no first cause among efficient causes, there will be no ultimate, nor any intermediate cause. But if in efficient causes it is possible to go on to infinity, there will be no first efficient cause, neither will there be an ultimate effect, nor any intermediate efficient causes; all of which is plainly false. Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God.

This is not a refutation. If the universe is uncaused, then it is itself the first cause among efficient causes. If you like, we can give it the name of God, but I find it unlikely that you wish to argue for Spinozistic pantheism.

ex nihilo nihil fit

Two points – do you have experience of “nihilo” to justify this claim?

And this statement is grammatically absurd, since “nihilo” cannot be the object of “ex”. It is meaningless to talk about nothing as if it were something, yet “ex nihilo” requires us to do so – if it were truly “nothing,” then it is incoherent to talk about something coming “out of” it even for the purposes of negation.

If you have a new solution to the problem of infinite regress please post it here.

Would you mind refreshing my memory about exactly why this so-called problem needs to be solved? Keep in mind that, like most people with mathematical education, I don’t find the idea of proper subsets having cardinality equal to their supersets absurd.

 

[coon2]

Since the original question “What do you consider proof of God…” is very general, I would say that there are 3 main ways I consider “proof of God”: Faith, Reason and Personal Experiences.

Proof of God by Faith: this implies that we “believe” that God exists because we have been given the gift of Faith which, as I understand it, is not given to all human beings.

Proof by Reason: St Thomas Aquinas’ 7 Proofs of the Existence of God are the most compelling to me. (You can Google it).

Proof by Personal Experiences: these are the least compelling to me since how do we know or how do we explain these “experiences” are from God? The Church has a most rigorous process it utilizes before it declares an experience “a miracle” which is I believe what we’re talking about here.

 

[Leela]

Perhaps you forgot to pray “specifically” for their safety in the shadow of the valley of death. God answers prayers:thumbsup: specially when you clearly know what you’re asking for.

So if someone’s son dies in a war it is because they didn’t pray the right way?

 

[1holycatholic]

No thanks. I’ve had enough of your appeals to metaphysics. If it is important for it to be explained, then you should explain it, to make your own points clear.

You’re dodging the question. There is no shame in admitting that you don’t understand the metaphysical terms you’ve been using.

This is not a refutation. If the universe is uncaused, then it is itself the first cause among efficient causes. If you like, we can give it the name of God, but I find it unlikely that you wish to argue for Spinozistic pantheism.

The universe is not uncaused.

Two points – do you have experience of “nihilo” to justify this claim?

And this statement is grammatically absurd, since “nihilo” cannot be the object of “ex”. It is meaningless to talk about nothing as if it were something, yet “ex nihilo” requires us to do so – if it were truly “nothing,” then it is incoherent to talk about something coming “out of” it even for the purposes of negation.

So you are saying that something comes from nothing? How does that work. You must have a plethora of concrete tangible examples where things just pop into existence from nothing.

Would you mind refreshing my memory about exactly why this so-called problem needs to be solved? Keep in mind that, like most people with mathematical education, I don’t find the idea of proper subsets having cardinality equal to their supersets absurd.

Now there are two for you to answer. The first is the infinite sequence of motion without a prime mover. The second is the your new claim that past time is infinite, which is a logical contradiction and is contrary to the Hilbertian prohibition on achieved infinite sequences.

 

[Thales]

So if someone’s son dies in a war it is because they didn’t pray the right way?

If someone dies in a war it is probably because they were shot, crashed, hit by shrapnel, or suffered some other trauma that befalls men in battle.

 

[DavidHume]

You’re dodging the question. There is no shame in admitting that you don’t understand the metaphysical terms you’ve been using.

See below.

So you are saying that something comes from nothing? How does that work. You must have a plethora of concrete tangible examples where things just pop into existence from nothing.

Please read what I wrote. “Something comes from nothing” is not even a well-formed sentence – its negation is necessarily ill-formed as well. “Nothing” by its definition cannot be the object of any predicate.

Since “from” implies a predicate, “from” cannot apply to “nothing,” so neither “Something can come from nothing” nor “Something cannot come from nothing” have any intellectual content.

The second is the your new claim that past time is infinite, which is a logical contradiction and is contrary to the Hilbertian prohibition on achieved infinite sequences.

Please give a proof in first-order logic of how an infinite regression of causes is a logical contradiction. Until you do this, I certainly bear no responsibility to respond to the unsupported claim that it is a logical contradiction.

I’m somewhat familiar with Hilbert but am unfamiliar with a “Hilbertian prohibition on achieved infinite sequences.” I can only assume it has something to do with the “grand hotel” paradox, which, like the “Monty Hall” paradox, the “Schroedinger’s cat” paradox, and the “birthday” paradox, does not indicate a contradiction.

 

[1holycatholic]

Please give a proof in first-order logic of how an infinite regression of causes is a logical contradiction. Until you do this, I certainly bear no responsibility to respond to the unsupported claim that it is a logical contradiction.

I already have.

You’re still avoiding the question about “potency-in-act.”

 

[DavidHume]

I already have.

You have not. Let me refresh your memory about first-order logic and proofs in a first-order logic, and what a logical contradiction is. Please specify exactly which axioms lead to a contradiction if “there is an infinite causal regress” is substituted for “there is no infinite causal regress,” and demonstrate what sequence of deductions leads to this contradiction.

You’re still avoiding the question about “potency-in-act.”

It is not my responsibility to explain some metaphysical axiom that you accept and I do not; it is yours. You have avoided nearly every challenge to your attempts at a Socratic-style restatement of Craig. If I wanted to know Craig’s arguments, I can find them in much greater detail in Craig’s work. Craig appeals to intuition – not logic – to justify his belief in the impossibility of an infinite chain of causes.

But here you are, claiming that an infinite chain of causes is logically impossible. It is incumbent upon you to demonstrate that claim using a proof expressed in first order logic, rather than dropping phrases you’ve read here and there and stalling for time by asking me to define the axioms of your own argument for you.

 

[liquidpele]

If someone dies in a war it is probably because they were shot, crashed, hit by shrapnel, or suffered some other trauma that befalls men in battle.

Did you totally miss her point? (Assuming Leela is a “her” of course)
Is it really acceptable for someone to claim that only the good things are due to prayer or God?

 

[Leela]

Did you totally miss her point? (Assuming Leela is a “her” of course)
Is it really acceptable for someone to claim that only the good things are due to prayer or God?

I doubt that Thales thinks so, but the person I was responing to seems to think so.

 

[MindOverMatter]

So the argument is self defeating – MindOverMatter implies that the motivation for hypothesizing an unmoved mover is that “otherwise motion as a universal whole is left unexplained and unjustified in its motion,” yet the hypothesis itself negates the possibility of “motion as a universal whole,” since it makes an exception for this unmoved mover.

When i say “universal whole” in respect of motion, I do not mean this in the same sense of logical universals or some unknown priniciple of sciencfic law. I apoligise for the confuesion, but I meant “everything that is changing” or all of that which is in “motion”. In otherwords, i am trying to give an ultimate explaination for “change” in general. There can be no such thing as a universal whole of motion as in the sense of a “complete” whole, since motion is “becoming”, thus motion time or change, can never explain itself in the sense of its becoming. It is therefore reliant on something else for its motion. And so, in terms of an ultimate explaination, there cannot be an explaination for change that is its self “changing”, since one still has to explain that which is changing, and i am trying to explain change in general. Thus the notion and neccesity of an unmoved mover

The big bang needs no more and no less explanation than any other unmoved mover, including God.

You have not explained why and how the BigBang is an unmoved mover from nothing. Assuming there isn’t a multiverse, the BigBang represents the beginning of change and thus all that is physical and inert. The very principle of ***“inert”***cause and effect comes into being or rather begins only when the nature of change begins. Thus one cannot apeal to some inert cause or chance event, as we are speaking of the beginning of all events. That is all that can be said of the bigbang. To speak of it as a “cause”, makes no sense, since there was nothing changing or physical “before” the Bigbang, and thus no potentiality for its existence. In terms of physics, we can only assume the existence of that which comes after; in other words “change”.

If you can ask “what caused the big bang?” then I can ask “what caused God?” and we are at the same impasse that we were before Aquinas entered the picture.

You have no understanding of God or Aquinas, and yet the concept and justification of an unomoved mover has already been explained to you.

You are obviously incapable of understanding anything that defeats your world-veiw. Its not suprising

 

[Eucharisted]

Hebrews 11:1 Faith is the realization of what is hoped for and evidence of things not seen.

 

[DavidHume]

MindOverMatter:

You have not explained why and how God is an unmoved mover from nothing. Assuming there isn’t an infinite number of Gods, God represents the beginning of change and thus all that is physical and inert. The very principle of inert cause and effect comes in to being or rather begins only when the nature of change begins. Thus one cannot apeal to some inert cause or chance event, as we are speak of the beginning of all events. That is all that can be said of God. To speak of Him as a “cause”, makes no sense, since there was nothing changing or physical “before” God, and thus no potentiality for His existence.

I’ve made a few selective edits to your statement and it is now a fair representation of one of my criticisms. What justification do you have for making a causal exception for God, and not for the universe itself?

 

[MindOverMatter]

Many contemporary empiricists* would agree with you. The idea that knowledge must be based on certainty to be called knowledge has been replaced with fallibilism, the idea that all claimed knowledge could be in error. Peirce, Quine, and Rorty are all good reads.

• One definition of the word “empiricist” might include foundationalism, in which case these philosophers are not empiricists. I use the word “empiricist” to describe someone who values experience over deduction, and verifiable claims over metaphysical ones.

In other words they have no epistemologically justified basis for prefering one from the other. Its just a battle of ideologies. Thank you for being honest. And as for metaphysics; metaphysics forms the only justified basis for making true claims about reality. In fact; Science itself, if it is to remain honest, is reliant on metaphysics; since the epistemological strength of metaphysics stops the principles, that science pressupposes, from becoming mere tuatologies.

I would explain why, but you probably will not believe me; or rather you will not understand.

 

[billg3436]

I’m curious what people consider as proof that there is a God, or if you even think proof is possible.

Hello LiquidPele,

I apologize if my answer has already been given by someone else. Usually I come to these threads after a lot of water has gone under the bridge and I don’t thave the time to thoroughly review the previous posts.

I believe that the proof for God’s existence is that, without Him, it would be impossible to prove anything.

Bill G

 

[liquidpele]

Hello LiquidPele,

I apologize if my answer has already been given by someone else. Usually I come to these threads after a lot of water has gone under the bridge and I don’t thave the time to thoroughly review the previous posts.

I believe that the proof for God’s existence is that, without Him, it would be impossible to prove anything.

Bill G

I don’t follow… perhaps you can expand on that a bit? For instance, why would it be impossible to prove anything if there was no God?

 

[Leela]

In other words they have no epistemologically justified basis for prefering one from the other. Its just a battle of ideologies. Thank you for being honest. And as for metaphysics; metaphysics forms the only justified basis for making true claims about reality. In fact; Science itself, if it is to remain honest, is reliant on metaphysics; since the epistemological strength of metaphysics stops the principles, that science pressupposes, from becoming mere tuatologies.

I would explain why, but you probably will not believe me; or rather you will not understand.

Scientific paradigms involve postulating “the way things really are” but science also involves the creation of new paradigms. The history of science and such metaphysical jetsom as ether, phlogiston, and light corpuscles shows that science has tossed aside many old paradigms in favor of new ones. We’s have to think that our current paradigms will probably go the same way at some point, yet science will go on. It needs no metaphysical foundation to function and progress.

If you follow the authors DavidHume cited in thinking of progress in inquiry in terms of what we can do rather than what we can say we know, we need no foundational dogmas to progress and we can see that science has done just fine without any fundamental metaphysical basis.With their feet firmly planted in mid air (as theists like to characterize so-called relativists) scientists have nevertheless made great strides. Humanity is far better able to cope with its environment than it was hundreds of years ago thanks to science.

 

[MindOverMatter]

MindOverMatter:

I’ve made a few selective edits to your statement and it is now a fair representation of one of my criticisms. What justification do you have for making a causal exception for God, and not for the universe itself?

You are showing me that you have no understanding of anything that i have written.
My arguements and justifications have been shown, and they are irrefutable.

I am going to give you more chance. If you still don’t see why my arguement is valid, then agree to disagree.

Being & Change
Anything that begins to change, does so by the nature of existing in a pre-existent being.
To put it another way; anthing which begins to change, has a cause.
Or, anything which begins to move has been moved by something or has moved because of something other then itself. If something is unchanging, and has not been caused to exist by something changing, or does not have the reality of existence by the nature of something else existent, then the explanation for its existence neccesarilly lies in its own nature of existing. It has always existed timelessly by its own nature.
In order to explain change, there has to be an unmoved mover that exists outside of change; it has to be timeless, unchanging. In otherwords, existence has to transcend physical reality. Its an arguement to a necessary cause. It is justifed in its necessity.

Anything which begins to exist needs a cause. It needs to begin in being; it cannot be being by its own nature, but rather it participates in the nature that is being. Otherwise it would have always had being. There must first be a timeless being that is being by its very nature. To say that nothing or change is the foundation of being, is the biggest fallacy that has ever entered the mind of a human being.

If you wish to suggest otherwise, i would rather you did not reply, as such ideas make no sense to me.

 

[MindOverMatter]

. It needs no metaphysical foundation to function and progress.

That depends on what you mean by progress.
It does need a metaphysically justified foundation if it wishes to speak about “true reality” and dictate to people with epistemological and empirical authority about the nature of true reality; instead of spewing out scientific faith dogma about some tuatological paradigm; some virtual fantasy that they assume to be reality. The point is, you can’t use science as a justifcation for some kind of epistemological atheism, when the very act of science itself is based on nothing more then a belief.

With their feet firmly planted in mid air (as theists like to characterize so-called relativists)

Their feet are planted firmly on nothing with out metaphysical justification.

. Scientists have nevertheless made great strides.
Humanity is far better able to cope with its environment than it was hundreds of years ago thanks to science.

They have made great strides in munipulating what appears to be real.
But they they have made no progress in knowing what is real.
You need metaphysics and logic for that.

 

[KDB]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignosticism

Some argue that the term “God” is not well defined. In my humble opinion it is by nature outside human ability to understand it so it will remain undefined.
This means that the question “Is there a God?” cannot be approaced logically. The tools of philsophy and science are not equiped to answer the question.

Try developing an experement to test the truth of the statment “I love you.”

You are using the wrong toolkit.