What do you consider proof of God, if anything?

[JRKH]

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.

Thank you for that response. So, if I provide proof that my belief in God moves and inspires and encourages me then I have provided proof for the existance of God by your definition. Would you agree with this statement?

Peace
James

 

[Kristopher]

… proof that there is a God, or if you even think proof is possible. …

God’s existence is supposed to be able to be deduced from creation; I have grown-up with God, as a family member it seems–his existence simply has always been part of my life, from before baptism, which occurred within the month I was born. In addition to God’s existence being able to be deduced from creation, acceptance of God’s existence, as a person such as the Holy Spirit, or Holy Ghost, can allow for knowledge of God’s existence, without having to deduce much from creation about God’s existence.

You mentioned some difficulty believing, because the evidence is unclear to you. Some people deny, and I believe that it is a denial, that Jesus ever existed; however, even if this is true, it has to be accepted that Jesus does exist as a person within literature, as a character. What possible beliefs can stem from this?

How do you conclude: God exists? Hearing other people’s stories, experiences, might do it for you. Probably the greatest challenge to me, personally, was when I became confirmed Catholic at the age of eleven. The Eucharist, the Real Presence, the host physically becoming God in mass, to me–this is a very great confirmation of God’s existence, as is the forgiveness experienced with confession, through such a sacrament.

Having a relationship with God is important–I think, that if you look at the Bible, the Old Testament, and the story of salvation, God’s relationship with Jews, in the past, and the present–it might help, and reading the Catechism of the Catholic Church; it does a lot to help understand the Bible. You can look at your own existence, and try to deduce from it, that God exists: in addition to being grateful to your parents for your life, you can perhaps find ways to be grateful to God for it, and perhaps through acknowledging the existence of justice, in the world as well,.

It can be quite a slow process as I understand it: to deduce that God exists without simply accepting it; nonetheless, it has been done throughout many communities in one manner or another: prayer is powerful, and there seems to be more mounting evidence to support, scientifically, the power of prayer, of church attendance, and there are books about miracles, concerning Jesus’, the Eucharist, and the assassin of Pope John Paul II is free, and apparently in the Vatican square, St. Peter’s, he will announce to the world his conversion to Catholicism. I believe, that he was Islamic; I think.

 

[masterjedi747]

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

…it does show that an infinite regression of simultaneous efficient causes is logically impossible. It does not show that an infinite regression temporally-sequenced efficient causes is logically impossible; and in fact it’s not logically impossible.

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.

Yes… I mean, even Aristotle and Aquinas attributed no less than 4 different kinds of causes to everything (and even then there could be more than one cause of the same kind acting together). But even so, that doesn’t really affect the chain analogy, since you could follow any (or each) individual path of the “web” back and simply consider that path as one particular “chain”.

 

[DavidHume]

…it does show that an infinite regression of simultaneous efficient causes is logically impossible.

Thank you for taking the time to make this distinction. I think that by explicitly setting aside temporal causation, you have made the metaphysical commitments involved more clear.

I don’t think your analogy is very good, because there is no simultaneity involved in the box-pushing situation you described. There is certainly a temporal ordering of the various movements involved in transmitting the motion from one box to the next. Is there some other analogy that might be better – an efficient cause that is not related to motion?

 

[liquidpele]

Thank you for that response. So, if I provide proof that my belief in God moves and inspires and encourages me then I have provided proof for the existance of God by your definition. Would you agree with this statement?

Peace
James

Of course, but you need not have to do that. I’ve already seen it, which is why I define God the way I do and related it to Love rather than other less positive ideas. However, lets not confuse my definition of “God” with the biblical God, if that’s where you were going.

 

[1holycatholic]

I don’t think your analogy is very good, because there is no simultaneity involved in the box-pushing situation you described. There is certainly a temporal ordering of the various movements involved in transmitting the motion from one box to the next. Is there some other analogy that might be better – an efficient cause that is not related to motion?

That’s just silly. The pushing and being pushed are concurrent.

DavidHume:

Aquinas:

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.

This is a category mistake. While it is true that in an infinite chain of causes, no cause can be designated as “first” or “ultimate” (and hence “intermediate” is a rather meaningless term if defined as between “first” and “ultimate”), this is not the same as negating the existence of any causes.

Your explanation is utter piffle. There has to be an ordinal first cause or there will be no effect.

DavidHume:

If the universe is uncaused, then it is itself the first cause among efficient causes.

That would be an effect without a cause which is, of course, a contradiction.

 

[JDaniel]

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.

Absurd. Let us just see how thinly you can carve a slice of earth and have it hold together. Let’s see how thinly we can slice a sheet of paper. You’re talking about a concept, a conceptual scheme, not a real exigency. But, there is a mathematical problem with slicing up a point to infinity. It can’t be done!

There are an infinite number of “nows” in an hour.

Absurd. Same problem as above and another cute conceptual scheme.

There are an infinite number of locations in any finite space.

Absurd. Same problem as above and another cute conceptual scheme.

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.

**"An infinite regress in a series of propositions arises if the truth of proposition P1 requires the support of proposition P2, and for any proposition in the series Pn, the truth of Pn requires the support of the truth of Pn+1. There would never be adequate support for P1, because the infinite sequence needed to provide such support could not be completed.

Distinction is made between infinite regresses that are “vicious” and those that are not. One definition given is that a vicious regress is “an attempt to solve a problem which re-introduced the same problem in the proposed solution. If one continues along the same lines, the initial problem will recur infinitely and will never be solved…”** - Wikipedia

You’re wrong, again. You can’t possibly prove a single one of your conceptual scheme assertions. All you can do is say, “Well, I can conceive of them.” And, I’ll say, “Well, I can’t.” You really didn’t expose any kind of strength propounding this absurdity . . . unless, unless you’ve actually taken the time to mark the earth an infinite number of times! Perhaps you did. I wonder…was it and odd number or an even number? Do you remember? Could you measure the thickness of the slices? Were all of the slices of exactly the same width? When you got to the part where you had to cut the atom that was the final width, did you use a Hatori Hanzo sword? :banghead:

jd

 

[tonyrey]

Is there some other analogy that might be better – an efficient cause that is not related to motion?

How about a decision by a person?

 

[DavidHume]

That’s just silly. The pushing and being pushed are concurrent.

Why don’t you learn some basic physics and come back to this conversation?

 

[JRKH]

Of course, but you need not have to do that. I’ve already seen it, which is why I define God the way I do and related it to Love rather than other less positive ideas. However, lets not confuse my definition of “God” with the biblical God, if that’s where you were going.

Actually I wasn’t “going” anywhere. Not trying to lay any traps.
I was just expressing that, by looking at how you define “God” we know better how to define “Proof” to that definition.

Relating God to Love is a perfectly legitimate definition and one that I like very much. Of course Love itself can be a very difficult thing to pin down. Would you agree though that a good definition of Love (one person to another) is when we want the very best for another person? When we seek the highest good in and for another?

Getting back to our determining a definition of “God”. You define God as an Idea like Love (if I remember correctly) which is perfectly fine with me. I would expand upon that just a bit and say that Love, true Love, is a mnifestation of God within the world. When we properly seek peace, harmony and good among our fellow men - even to the point of forgiving our enemies, - we are acting in a way that is contrary to our “human animal nature”. Therefore Love, the kind that Christ taught, the “Do unto others” kind of Love is a point at which we "touch God’, or “Feel God”. A higher and more powerful idea/force/reality than we can comprehend. So where you correctly see the principle of God and correctly relate it to Love, you stop short of seeing Love as a part of the “God force” (for lack of a better word). I’m not explaining this well. I hope you’ll forgive my poor attempts, but hope you will see what I am trying to say.

I am curious to ask how you define the “Biblical God”. Again - I’m not a trap layer. I’m just trying to understand where you are and how you see things.

Peace
James

 

[DavidHume]

You’re wrong, again. You can’t possibly prove a single one of your conceptual scheme assertions. All you can do is say, “Well, I can conceive of them.” And, I’ll say, “Well, I can’t.” You really didn’t expose any kind of strength propounding this absurdity . . . unless, unless you’ve actually taken the time to mark the earth an infinite number of times! Perhaps you did. I wonder…was it and odd number or an even number? Do you remember? Could you measure the thickness of the slices? Were all of the slices of exactly the same width? When you got to the part where you had to cut the atom that was the final width, did you use a Hatori Hanzo sword? :banghead:

She no more needs to mark the earth an infinite number of times than you need to provide an observational record of the first cause. (Perhaps you were there! What color was the void? How big was it? Did the first motion occur instantaneously or at the speed of light? When you got to the part where you had to see God, did you only see a bush on fire?)

 

[DavidHume]

How about a decision by a person?

I think those are still a form of motion in the Aristotelian sense. Before a decision is made, the thoughts and circumstances of the decider make up a potential, and when the form of the thing being decided is impressed on the decider’s mind, this potential is made actual.

I don’t know much about this philosophy of mind, aside from that Aristotle’s God is eternally thinking about thinking, thus making philosophers the most Godlike people.

 

[1holycatholic]

She no more needs to mark the earth an infinite number of times than you need to provide an observational record of the first cause. (Perhaps you were there! What color was the void? How big was it? Did the first motion occur instantaneously or at the speed of light? When you got to the part where you had to see God, did you only see a bush on fire?)

She can’t mark the earth an infinite number of times because there are no actual infinities.

There is a potential to achieve an infinite number of future days. Past days have actually occurred (been achieved) and can be accounted for. By definition counting to infinity cannot be achieved. Therefore stating that past time is infinite and countable is stating that an achieved unachievable exists, which is, of course, a contradiction. :doh2:

 

[JDaniel]

She no more needs to mark the earth an infinite number of times than you need to provide an observational record of the first cause. (Perhaps you were there! What color was the void? How big was it? Did the first motion occur instantaneously or at the speed of light? When you got to the part where you had to see God, did you only see a bush on fire?)

Completely different and unnecessarily argumentative. You seem to be more intelligent than to have to resort to this. YOU KNOW there’s a difference. And, you don’t know my history with Leela.

jd

 

[DavidHume]

That’s just silly. The pushing and being pushed are concurrent.

To me it seems sillier to believe that the particles transmitting the force from one end of the chain to the other move instantaneously, rather than being limited to the speed of light. But that’s just me.

 

[tonyrey]

I think those are still a form of motion in the Aristotelian sense. Before a decision is made, the thoughts and circumstances of the decider make up a potential, and when the form of the thing being decided is impressed on the decider’s mind, this potential is made actual.

 

[DavidHume]

Completely different and unnecessarily argumentative. You seem to be more intelligent than to have to resort to this. YOU KNOW there’s a difference.

As far as my namesake knows, both “there is an uncaused cause” and “there are an infinite number of paths from one point to another on earth” are both metaphysical nonsense and should be committed to the flames.

Personally I will evaluate them by their explanatory and predictive value, neither of which has any apparent to me at the moment.

 

[Leela]

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

OK

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.

I don’t follow your bit about Leelaism. I was quoting Aquinas.

So the difference between a potential infinity and an actual infinity is that an actual infinity exists? I think I see the game. Whatever examples of infinities I give you will simply say that they don’t actually exist.

Of course I could list several examples of paths from one point to another, and of couorse I could not list all of them without taking an infinite amount of time.

 

[Leela]

Yes… I mean, even Aristotle and Aquinas attributed no less than 4 different kinds of causes to everything (and even then there could be more than one cause of the same kind acting together). But even so, that doesn’t really affect the chain analogy, since you could follow any (or each) individual path of the “web” back and simply consider that path as one particular “chain”.

But when we follow all the chains they don’t converge to a single first cause, they spread out to more and more preceding causes.

 

[Leela]

Absurd. Let us just see how thinly you can carve a slice of earth and have it hold together. Let’s see how thinly we can slice a sheet of paper. You’re talking about a concept, a conceptual scheme, not a real exigency. But, there is a mathematical problem with slicing up a point to infinity. It can’t be done!

Now you want to define “actual” as something that can be sliced. I already know the game. Whatever examples I give of infinities, you will come up with some new distinction to say that those aren’t really infinities. Aquinas taught you well. “Whenever you meet a contradiction ,make a distinction.” See how easy it is to come up with a self-consistent philosophy or religion? That;'s why they are a dime a dozen.

Absurd. Same problem as above and another cute conceptual scheme.

Absurd. Same problem as above and another cute conceptual scheme.

What could we possibly be talking about if not concepts?

**"An infinite regress in a series of propositions arises if the truth of proposition P1 requires the support of proposition P2, and for any proposition in the series Pn, the truth of Pn requires the support of the truth of Pn+1. There would never be adequate support for P1, because the infinite sequence needed to provide such support could not be completed.
**

This is a different issue. We aren’t talking about supporting a proposition but rather a “chain of causality.” Obviously the Catholic answer for avoiding such a reggress in support of a proposition is faith. I can’t figure out how that sort of bootstrapping is supposed to work either.
JDaniel;5262751:

You’re wrong, again. You can’t possibly prove a single one of your conceptual scheme assertions.

They are examples, not assertions to be proven.

All you can do is say, “Well, I can conceive of them.” And, I’ll say, “Well, I can’t.” You really didn’t expose any kind of strength propounding this absurdity . . . unless, unless you’ve actually taken the time to mark the earth an infinite number of times! Perhaps you did. I wonder…was it and odd number or an even number? Do you remember? Could you measure the thickness of the slices? Were all of the slices of exactly the same width? When you got to the part where you had to cut the atom that was the final width, did you use a Hatori Hanzo sword? :banghead:

I’ve already pointed out your game where you just say, “no, I can’t conceive of that” or “well here’s a new distinction between what is actual and what is X.” You can keep saying, “no, no, no” to every example I can think of and you still haven’t proven that it is impossible for anyone to ever come up with an example of an infinity. All you can say is that you don’t know of any infinities which is no proof that they cannot exist.

Best,
Leela