Proof's For God's Existence

[AudreyGrace]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' timestamp='1303777771' post='2233002']
Sweet. Is Youcat online at all Audrey?
[/quote]

Don't think so.
I copied that old school, book to type. lol.

[Ice_nine]

The universe is so big.

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='AudreyGrace' timestamp='1303777947' post='2233005']
Don't think so.
I copied that old school, book to type. lol.
[/quote]
Wow. Thanks for taking the time to do that!

[Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' timestamp='1303775775' post='2232951']
For such a proof to even make sense requires prior philosophical and theological commitments. I'd say pretty considerable ones. What the concept of infinity even means is a huge question. How you go from infinity in the abstract to a concrete agent (the "infinity which puts this mark on us"), and how this personified infinity "places" ideas or capacities into the mind is unclear. This is an invitation to elaborate and not a critique btw. Also, how familiar are you with Bolzano and Cantor? I ask because I wouldn't mind discussing infinity with someone who is similarly interested in the topic.
[/quote]

I don't know of those individuals I'm sorry. However, it was just a summary of his proof so I'm sorry if I may have skipped a few steps. I don't think it requires too many philosophical or any theological commitments. Knowledge begins in the senses. We do not have an experience of infinity here on earth. So where could we possibly have understood this idea from? It must be innate in the mind since we are "thinking things" according to Descartes. Innate ideas are the only possibly way we know a concept of infinity since it is not possible to come to know it through the senses in that the senses will only give you quantity and more of it but only an amount not infinity the idea. The only way to have innate ideas is for it to be placed on, formed in, or impressed into us by something bearing that quality. Such a thing giving us that idea must be infinite since it is also irrational to say we come to know in idea from something which does not have the quality the idea is based on. Since by definition infinitude is not lacking and evil is a lack or privation this infinity which gives us the idea must be good. I don't think it makes many assumptions and seems to me to be very similar to St. Anselm's proof.

One goes from "infinity in the abstract to a concrete agent (the "infinity which puts this mark on us")" through necessity and understands "how this personified infinity "places" ideas or capacities into the mind" is through an experience of it. Knowledge comes from experience for the human person in that knowledge of things prior to experiencing them is odd for humanity to say the least. If we have this innate idea of infinity, then we must have had an experience of it. Infinity is not lacking and must exist since we have the innate idea within us. If it did not exist we wouldn't have the idea we do, therefore in some way have had an encounter with the infinite. It would be impossible to encounter an ethereal infinity as a human person (since we are thinking things and extended thing). As such, the infinity must be able to be experienced in a manner appropriate to us (think that which is received is received not according to the giver but according to the receiver). As such, this infinity must have been experienced as one/concretely, but infinite also in order to give us a unified idea of the infinite since an ethereal infinite would not do. Descartes has more to say about it if you want to read his meditations.

Edited April 26, 2011 by Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam' timestamp='1303794466' post='2233249']
I don't know of those individuals I'm sorry. However, it was just a summary of his proof so I'm sorry if I may have skipped a few steps. I don't think it requires too many philosophical or any theological commitments. Knowledge begins in the senses. We do not have an experience of infinity here on earth. So where could we possibly have understood this idea from? It must be innate in the mind since we are "thinking things" according to Descartes. Innate ideas are the only possibly way we know a concept of infinity since it is not possible to come to know it through the senses in that the senses will only give you quantity and more of it but only an amount not infinity the idea. The only way to have innate ideas is for it to be placed on, formed in, or impressed into us by something bearing that quality. Such a thing giving us that idea must be infinite since it is also irrational to say we come to know in idea from something which does not have the quality the idea is based on. Since by definition infinitude is not lacking and evil is a lack or privation this infinity which gives us the idea must be good. I don't think it makes many assumptions and seems to me to be very similar to St. Anselm's proof.

One goes from "infinity in the abstract to a concrete agent (the "infinity which puts this mark on us")" through necessity and understands "how this personified infinity "places" ideas or capacities into the mind" is through an experience of it. Knowledge comes from experience for the human person in that knowledge of things prior to experiencing them is odd for humanity to say the least. If we have this innate idea of infinity, then we must have had an experience of it. Infinity is not lacking and must exist since we have the innate idea within us. If it did not exist we wouldn't have the idea we do, therefore in some way have had an encounter with the infinite. It would be impossible to encounter an ethereal infinity as a human person (since we are thinking things and extended thing). As such, the infinity must be able to be experienced in a manner appropriate to us (think that which is received is received not according to the giver but according to the receiver). As such, this infinity must have been experienced as one/concretely, but infinite also in order to give us a unified idea of the infinite since an ethereal infinite would not do. Descartes has more to say about it if you want to read his meditations.
[/quote]
Thanks man. I like where this is going. I do have some recollection of Descartes' [i]Meditations[/i] but considering how long it's been since I last read them, or really thought much about them, I might as well give them a quick read before continuing in this discussion. I'd hate to hold back the convo with simple knowledge gaps or statements based on inaccurate impressions.

[Mr.Cat]

[quote name='Amppax' timestamp='1302060513' post='2226326']I have spent my religion class this last year studying proofs for God's existence (we have used the text [u]The Question of God[/u] by Michael Palmer). Through arguing back and forth about the various proofs, I have realized that I have not yet run into a proof that was without flaws.[/quote]This is why in philosophy they are discussed as arguments, neither proofs or disproofs. I personally find this to be a more accurate assessment.[quote name='Amppax' timestamp='1302060513' post='2226326']It seems to me at this point that the existence of God cannot be rationally proved or disproved. So, like my topic description says, waddya think? Can we truly prove or disprove the existence of God?[/quote]If one was to follow the Church, one would argue that the existence of god is not self-evident, and cannot be proven or demonstrated. But that there exists sufficient reason to reconcile faith. Because for Catholics the only relevant faith is that which god gives, that humans can neither create or understand.

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote name='Mr.CatholicCat' timestamp='1303860487' post='2233657']If one was to follow the Church, one would argue that the existence of god is not self-evident, and cannot be proven or demonstrated.
[/quote]


this sounds more like "God can be proven"...

Pius X, a Pope of the Catholic Church, says: "Deum ... naturali rationis lumine per ea quae facta sunt, hoc est per visibilia creationis opera, tanquam causam per effectus certo cognosci adeoque demostrari etiam posse, profiteor." ("I declare that by the natural light of reason, God can be certainly known and therefore his existence demonstrated through the things that are made, i.e., through the visible works of creation, as the cause is known through its effects."

and i disagree with it, too. just read my posts. best. refutation. ever. if you define God in any significant terms or ask for any significant burden of proof, that is.

[Mr.Cat]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' timestamp='1303940610' post='2234002']this sounds more like "God can be proven"...

Pius X, a Pope of the Catholic Church, says: "Deum ... naturali rationis lumine per ea quae facta sunt, hoc est per visibilia creationis opera, tanquam causam per effectus certo cognosci adeoque demostrari etiam posse, profiteor." ("I declare that by the natural light of reason, God can be certainly known and therefore his existence demonstrated through the things that are made, i.e., through the visible works of creation, as the cause is known through its effects."

and i disagree with it, too. just read my posts. best. refutation. ever. if you define God in any significant terms or ask for any significant burden of proof, that is.[/quote]Eh... Not my problem. But I find the claim absurd.

[dairygirl4u2c]

do you agree or disagree that the pope said that God can be proven, while you said he can't be proven?
if you take it all to the tee literally, you said God cannot be 'demonstrated', but the pope used that exact word to say he could be 'demonstrated'.
also if you say that God cannot be proven or demonstrated, are you even disagreeing with me?
what is 'not your problem'? just to be sure

im not followin ya

[Mr.Cat]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' timestamp='1304034471' post='2234380']do you agree or disagree that the pope said that God can be proven, while you said he can't be proven?
if you take it all to the tee literally, you said God cannot be 'demonstrated', but the pope used that exact word to say he could be 'demonstrated'.
also if you say that God cannot be proven or demonstrated, are you even disagreeing with me?
what is 'not your problem'? just to be sure

im not followin ya[/quote]What I posted above is the explanation that was given to me by those more relevant and competent in teaching Catholic theology. But if Pius provided what he claimed, then more power to him.

Edited April 29, 2011 by Mr.CatholicCat

[mortify]

There are proofs for God's existence, but most want a scientific proof. In other words, they need a material entity that could be subject to scientific experimentation. We know however, that this is impossible. God is transcendent, and ultimately unknowable, and therefore beyond the scope of material science. What this type of endeavor reveals is that people are seeking the face of God, i.e. they want to see Him. But only the Saints in heaven are worthy to see the face of God, for us, we must be content with faith. Faith exists because God demands an exercise of our free will in choosing him. Enough evidence is given to each soul, coupled with grace, to accept Him, but never so much that God's existence becomes self evident.

The initial "proof" that motivated me to return to Christianity was neither rational nor irrational. It was something beyond reason all together. I had recognized the beauty of Christ and his message, and was so drawn to him and his way, that is was PAINFUL for me to resist. It was after some reflection that i realized truth is beautiful, and that it is also rational.

God knows each soul intimately, we should look into ourselves and our memories for proofs unique to us.

[Nunsense]

He has proven Himself to me. I'm not sure I could prove His existence to someone else, but I know He could.

[MarkKurallSchuenemann]

I believe believing is seeing. So I don't think there is a purely logical way to prove God, and there shouldn't be. After all, God gave us both hemispheres of our brain for a reason, and that is to be able to imagine - to see what can't be seen, to hope for things that are yet to come - all things that only come from the right hemisphere. So there is no proof of God's existence other than our belief in him!

After all, faith is the evidence of things unseen (like God - faith being part of the imagination of people - therefore right brained), and the substance of things hoped for (again right brained activity) - and purely scriptural too!

We are the only proof God exists!

Edited May 5, 2011 by MarkKurallSchuenemann

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1303074336' post='2229559']
I don't think most modern-day atheists who blithely dismiss Aquinas's proofs for God have the philosophical-intellectual background to actually understand them (nor do most present day "theists," for that matter). Rather than address the real argument, they shoot down weak straw-men caricatures.

For the dogmatic materialist, who will only accept as proof that which uses the scientific method, God can indeed be neither proved nor disproved. But that is do to the self-imposed limitations of one's own materialist dogma (which is in itself extremely philosophically flimsy), not to any flaw in the proofs themselves.

God is Pure Act, the Source of all Being, utterly above and beyond any material thing, and thus cannot be proved in any scientific experiment designed to prove or disprove the existence of something material. You can't go into the lab and perform some experiments or physical procedures and cause God to appear in physical form, where you can shake His hand, and measure and record His physical characteristics. Such a "god" would be by nature utterly different from the Judaeo-Christian concept of God, and thus be no God at all.

Atheistic materialism is utterly incapable of dealing with the issue of being itself, why things exist, rather than not exist. It avoids the issue altogether, or declares existence to be absurd (via the atheistic existentialists).
Philosophically, atheism creates far more problems that it resolves. Material things cannot ultimately cause themselves.
[/quote]


Well you'd be amazed how upset people get when you point out that Science is a philosophical system with ts own set of givens and such.

[LuigiZolli]

Check out these videos.

http://www.magisreasonfaith.org/library/videos/

[xSilverPhinx]

[quote]For such a proof to even make sense requires prior philosophical and theological commitments. I'd say pretty considerable ones. What the concept of infinity even means is a huge question. How you go from infinity in the abstract to a concrete agent (the "infinity which puts this mark on us"), and how this personified infinity "places" ideas or capacities into the mind is unclear. This is an invitation to elaborate and not a critique btw. Also, how familiar are you with Bolzano and Cantor? I ask because I wouldn't mind discussing infinity with someone who is similarly interested in the topic.[/quote]

I think this topic is interesting, but don't know anything about maths (just not my forté). Can the concept of infinity even go from abstract to concrete?

Wouldn't that place a limit on a concept of something limitless?

But at the same time, what about finite infinity?