What do you consider proof of God, if anything?

[1holycatholic]

**I’ve given lots of examples of infinities in the past. There are an infinite number of paths for moving from any point on earth to another. There are an infinite number of “nows” in an hour. There are an infinite number of locations in any finite space. **Your difficulties in conceiving on infinity are no proof that time cannot proceed infinitely into the past from now. It is an unwarranted assumption in any proof that there must be a first cause.

Those are potential infinites. Can you provide an example of an actual infinite?

 

[KDB]

Hi KDB,

I think you confuse the concept of “incomprehensible” with “unprovable”. And the former does not necessarily entail the latter. And if you wish to assert that certain incomprehensible aspects of God’s nature, His omnipotence, His omniscience, etc, necessarily entail His unprovability, you would also have to concede that this would only be true … if He existed. In other words, it makes no sense to say that the unprovability of God’s existence is a necessary aspect of God’s existence. It’s like saying that one cannot prove that birds exist because they fly. They only fly IF they exist.

Bill G

Bill let me try a different angle by switching the question: Does any matter exist outside of space?
If it is outside of space we will never see any light from it or follow any shadow where it blocks some other light. We will never measure its gravity’s influence on another object. We cannot follow a cause such as looking for evidence that it once was in space because it is not subject to the cause and effect, the was-is-will be, that is true of every object in space. Assuming (boldly) that it does exist in some kind of linear time it would still not be the same line we exist in.
Not only can we not answer the question we cannot even begin to investigate it.
The “prime cause” argument is the best that I have heard so far and it suggests only that there was *something * and that it had the quality of intellect at least in an implicit form.

 

[JRKH]

Indeed, but I never meant for this to be a forum to define God. I wanted to know what people individually saw as proof, or at least that convinced them that God existed.

Yes - I understand this.

So if I may ask you a question back, how do you define the “God” that you do not believe exists?

Peace
James

 

[QuickCat]

Two words - The Jew!

 

[Leela]

Those are potential infinites. Can you provide an example of an actual infinite?

It sounds like you are taking Aquinas’ advice, “whenever you reach a contradiction, make a distinction.” That’s a sure fire way of never havig to conceed a point no matter how wrong you are.

Maybe you can explain why those examples are “potential” but not “actual”?

 

[DavidHume]

If I might, let me explain it like this: A CAUSAL SEQUENCE CANNOT REGRESS INFINITELY.

I understand what the argument is. I don’t believe it has been demonstrated through reason alone. Exactly why can’t a causal sequence regress infinitely?

 

[DavidHume]

You’re misunderstanding Thomas’ argument, actually. He is only speaking about simultaneous efficient causes in this argument. (I’ll provide the documentation, if you wish.)

Now, if you want to talk about efficient causes that are occurring before and after each other (example: hitting a pool ball that later hits another pool ball that later hits the last pool ball that gets sunk), then you would be exactly right – the argument against an infinite regression of efficient causes does not hold the same in that case, because each step in the chain is not* immediately* dependent upon its previous cause. But that doesn’t affect Aquinas’ argument at all, because this isn’t what he was talking about… and he was, in fact, very aware that his argument only applied to simultaneous efficient causes.

Thanks for clarifying this for everyone. The trouble is that it presupposes already accepting a cosmology where the notion of “simultaneous” efficient cause has some kind of meaning.

The second trouble is that simultaneous efficient causes or not, it does not show that an infinite causal chain is logically impossible.

 

[billg3436]

Bill let me try a different angle by switching the question: Does any matter exist outside of space?
If it is outside of space we will never see any light from it or follow any shadow where it blocks some other light. We will never measure its gravity’s influence on another object. We cannot follow a cause such as looking for evidence that it once was in space because it is not subject to the cause and effect, the was-is-will be, that is true of every object in space. Assuming (boldly) that it does exist in some kind of linear time it would still not be the same line we exist in.
Not only can we not answer the question we cannot even begin to investigate it.
QUOTE]

Hi KDB,

You’re correct, no matter exists outside of space. But mathematicians, logicians and others in academia as we in our daily lives set about proving and disproving concepts, ideas, theories, etc that are immaterial. I’m not sure what your point is in alluding to proof of material existence. I think it would either be, 1. Only material existence claims can be proven/disproven, or 2. Because the existence of one conceptual entitiy (non-space occupying “matter”) cannot be empirically proven/disproven, therefore the exitence of another conceptual entity, God, cannot be proven/disproven. I think history disproves the first point and the second is a non-sequitur.

Bill G

 

[DavidHume]

For example, we understand “potency to act”, but, have no affinity with statement, “potency in act”, except as some further (accidental) relationship of some privation of a quality in an extant being, such as knowledge is “potential-in-act” of say a child already in actuality. Aquinas specifically makes use of the preposition, “to”, because it is the primary way of apprehending mobile being as mobile being. Motion is a from-to proposition, not a from-in one.

Potency-in-act: potency in the process of becoming actual, i.e. motion. In English “potency to act” is less clear, it can be construed as just “potency.” Even if one construes it as some kind of motion or transition from potentia to acta, it falsely implies a chronological ordering of the two. In English, “in” does not carry this same trouble – if understood incorrectly, it only implies containment, which is clearly not what is intended. Understood correctly, it has a similar sense as “caught in the act” or “in flight” or something similar – an instantaneous description of an uncompleted action.

One translation of Aristotle has

Of these processes, then, we must call the one set movements, and the other actualities. For every movement is incomplete-making thin, learning, walking, building; these are movements, and incomplete at that. For it is not true that at the same time a thing is walking and has walked, or is building and has built, or is coming to be and has come to be, or is being moved and has been moved, but what is being moved is different from what has been moved, and what is moving from what has moved. But it is the same thing that at the same time has seen and is seeing, seeing, or is thinking and has thought. The latter sort of process, then, I call an actuality, and the former a movement.

I am amazed that the languages of the world even have these four words in them, especially when, as you assert, they are essentially not useful, or are, irrelevant, (at least) to you.

Insofar as they are descriptive and explanatory of experienced phenomena, of course they are relevant and useful. But there is no need to reify them in order to use them.

It is also interesting that the languages of the world have the noun, “nothing”, in them and use it in the manner of, “ex nihilo nihil fit” with great regularity, and have done so for some 2,500 years, give or take.

They do not use it in that way.
Q:“What did you get at the store today?” A:“Nothing.” → two normal people
Q:“What are you going to pull out of that nothing?” A:"???" → metaphysician and a normal person

(“nothing” is not a correct answer to the second question, since “to pull out of nothing” is a meaningless concept. Mu might suffice as an answer if you are inclined that way.)

then one can grasp that infinity is dynamic, that is, it is continuously moving, progressing, adding another real number, or thing, to it, never stopping and unstoppable. There can be no stopping point.

True.

Therefore, we could not have arrived at this moment, or sequential spot.

Why does this follow? (We haven’t yet “arrived,” by the way, unless you found a way to freeze time while writing that.)

edit: added allusion to pop Zen.

 

[Leela]

Thanks for clarifying this for everyone. The trouble is that it presupposes already accepting a cosmology where the notion of “simultaneous” efficient cause has some kind of meaning.

The second trouble is that simultaneous efficient causes or not, it does not show that an infinite causal chain is logically impossible.

Hi David,

Right. I think the chain metaphor for causality is also problematic. When we look for causes, we don’t see a single chain of causes and we don’t see any norrowing down to a smaller and smaller set of causes to a single first cause. What we see is an ever expanding web of causes extending into the unknown past.

Best,
Leela

 

[DavidHume]

I just caught this and am curious:

We know that you do not really have the philosophical background for a sane discussion of scholastic philosophy.

I understand that the Church teaches that the existence of God can be demonstrated through reason alone, but is there any teaching that this reason must be found in the scholastic arguments, or that the arguments of the scholastics indeed satisfy this requirement?

It seems to me that William James’s ideas have far more insight, relevance and staying power than Aquinas. I guess the only way to be sure would be to check back in 700 years, though.

 

[liquidpele]

Yes - I understand this.

So if I may ask you a question back, how do you define the “God” that you do not believe exists?

Peace
James

Thank you for asking!

I define “God” like I do “Love”. I see it as an idea that individuals and groups have. It is real in that it moves us, inspires us, and encourages us, but it is only real because we exist to keep the idea around. However, I don’t think that is the only option… it just seems the most natural for me from what I’ve seen and experienced in life. I don’t deny others may see things differently, or that a God-like being might exist… that’s why I’m Agnostic.

 

[1holycatholic]

It sounds like you are taking Aquinas’ advice, “whenever you reach a contradiction, make a distinction.” That’s a sure fire way of never havig to conceed a point no matter how wrong you are.

tinyurl.com/lk2uya
Another Leela-ism :doh2:

Maybe you can explain why those examples are “potential” but not “actual”?

OK

There are an infinite number of paths for moving from any point on earth to another.

A potentially infinite number of paths between two points on the earth exists. An actual infinite number of paths between two points on the earth does not exist.

If an actual infinite number of paths between to points on the earth exists then you should be able to list them here.

 

[liquidpele]

A potentially infinite number of paths between two points on the earth exists. An actual infinite number of paths between two points on the earth does not exist.

If an actual infinite number of paths between to points on the earth exists then you should be able to list them here.

hahahahaha… this actually made me laugh out loud
I tell you what, when you show that pi or e have repeating patterns, I will post the infinity of paths here on this forum.

 

[KantianAgnostic]

I’m curious what people consider as proof that there is a God, or if you even think proof is possible. Has anyone had what they would consider a miracle happen, seen an angel, seen a person healed by prayer, etc? I don’t believe because I have never seen any proof, so I am curious what others have seen or what they would even consider proof. My purpose is not to try and explain anything away, I’m actually just genuinely curious about other’s experiences and logic on this subject.

I do not think any sort of observation that could be made, even if it were repeatable, would be sufficient to convince me that God exists.

No amount of evidence, no matter how solid nor how much, would be sufficient to warrant something which would be a universal metaphysical certainty.

Now, it may be possible, within my view, to come up with an argument for God as something (someone) that must be accepted in order to make sense of the world, or of certain parts of the world, as we perceive it, but all that amounts to is the necessity of accepting God for the sake of understanding or accepting consistently something else.

Though I suspect even this is not possible, if such an argument were made, even if it were flawless, this would only establish the importance of accepting God as a formal truth within the mind, for the sake of understanding what we see and consider; it would not be sufficient at all to establish that such a being actually existed apart from the mind.

 

[KantianAgnostic]

The existence of contingent beings points to the existence of a non-contingent being. Postulating that an infinite number of contingent beings does not need a non-contingent being to explain their existence is adding magical properties to the concept of infinity.

Paul

And this is an excellent beginning for an argument for God being necessary for the sake of human reason.

Though maybe there are many things that are not contingent and not caused, or maybe things that are contingent, and still uncaused (they may simply pop into existence for no reason). Human reason may not be able to handle this, but that is not sufficient, at least for me, to accept that because human reason seems to require something, it must be the case in reality.

There are other problems I have with this argument.

As for the emotional arguments, these are subjective, and so if they work for you, that’s great. They don’t work for me, yet.

 

[tonyrey]

I do not think any sort of observation that could be made, even if it were repeatable, would be sufficient to convince me that God exists.

No amount of evidence, no matter how solid nor how much, would be sufficient to warrant something which would be a universal metaphysical certainty.

Now, it may be possible, within my view, to come up with an argument for God as something (someone) that must be accepted in order to make sense of the world, or of certain parts of the world, as we perceive it, but all that amounts to is the necessity of accepting God for the sake of understanding or accepting consistently something else.

Though I suspect even this is not possible, if such an argument were made, even if it were flawless, this would only establish the importance of accepting God as a formal truth within the mind, for the sake of understanding what we see and consider; it would not be sufficient at all to establish that such a being actually existed apart from the mind.

In that case no amount of evidence, no matter how solid nor how much, would be sufficient to warrant the existence of the physical world! Nothing outside your mind can be established as existing apart from your mind - and that includes other persons.
You are committed to solipsism by your self-imposed criteria. How does it feel to exist on your own? It amounts to being a god who surveys nothing but himself !

 

[tonyrey]

And this is an excellent beginning for an argument for God being necessary for the sake of human reason.
Though maybe there are many things that are not contingent and not caused, or maybe things that are contingent, and still uncaused (they may simply pop into existence for no reason). Human reason may not be able to handle this, but that is not sufficient, at least for me, to accept that because human reason seems to require something, it must be the case in reality.

You could apply your argument to everything that exists! Human reason seems to require the existence of the physical world and even its own existence…
Any line you draw between the human mind and God is arbitrary - if everything is necessary for the sake of human reason - because it presupposes that the human mind is the ultimate reality. .

 

[KantianAgnostic]

In that case no amount of evidence, no matter how solid nor how much, would be sufficient to warrant the existence of the physical world!

This is not quite the case, as the existence of the physical world IS necessarily supposed for the sake of our understanding (though the term ‘physical’ can become muddled).

Nothing outside your mind can be established as existing apart from your mind - and that includes other persons.

This is a potential pitfall: maybe this world is an illusion; maybe my reasoning is such that it simply is impossible to live otherwise. In that sense, and properly, philosophically, I would be skeptical about the existence of other people.

However, the existence of other persons (other free wills, like my own) is developed, though through this a posteriori discovery, by analogy to my own being in myself, thus establishing logically the beings in themselves, to the point where I would have to abandon reason altogether in order to reject the existence of other free wills.

The consequence of rejecting reason in this case (beyond leading to the conclusion that there would be other free wills, along with that there would not be other free wills) would still be far from…

You are committed to solipsism

Not even close. Even if I were skeptical about the existence of other minds (which I am not), this would only amount to a sort of radical skepticism which would allow for the possibility of solipsism, but would not involve actively stating or holding to that my mind is the only mind.

You run so quickly with your conclusions, I am surprised more of them don’t fall out of your hands before they should.

 

[KantianAgnostic]

You could apply your argument to everything that exists! Human reason seems to require the existence of the physical world and even its own existence…

I’m not denying existence; I’d be denying cause… and I do agree, it is possible that nothing as it is in itself is caused, but that everything pops into and out of existence, and that we draw conclusions based on our own systems of space and time, conclusions that allow for understanding of the world, but may not be essential to things in themselves.

Any line you draw between the human mind and God is arbitrary - if everything is necessary for the sake of human reason - because it presupposes that the human mind is the ultimate reality. .

This statement must involve the supposed drawing of imaginary lines; how can I divide my mind from someone I am not sure exists?

Even if I were somehow confident in God’s existence, would there still not be a line (less imaginary) between my mind and God?

Unless, of course, you are asserting that I am God, in which case I would command you to agree with me!