Proving God's Existence

[Deb]

God shall be a mystery until we are joined with him. Even then, he may still be a mystery. Praise him forever!

[dairygirl4u2c]

if God can be an uncaused cause, couldn't the universe's existence be an uncaused cause? i think it could be, but a fortiori, the bike analogy as per our empiricle view or reality and cause and effect analogy would say that there has to be a cause. but still, a particle sitting liek a time bomb if you will could just be, as much as the God could just be.

it seems like the a fortiorit argument has merit to it, but could be argued to be extra fluff just as much.

[dairygirl4u2c]

i suppose a sitting time bomb particle doens't seem intuitive though. it seems like the argument is straining to justify not proving God's existance. it's the only way i know of saying an alterantive to an uncuased cause.
it seems something would have put that particle there.
also, random chance, techincally is possible.... but it's not consistent with our view of reality taht there must be causes and effects.

random chance doesn't seem like a cause, so much as just being. if that makes sense? and an uncaused cause would just be, but not in the sense of a thing that just happens wihtout being tied to a cause. causes are tied to our empirical view of reality, and so makes more sense intuitively.

so i might say that while God can't be proven, it seems the most likely. cause something would have caused the big bang, or the first particle/particles, beyond random chance and self occurence.
intiutively anyway.

so i maintain the view i've always held, that God's existance makes more sense than saying not God's existance.

now, is "uncaused cause" a meaningful definition? not really, but it implies intelligence or some form of consicouslness... or something, i'd think, which is meaningful. this is where this line of reasoning could get dicey. uncaused cause does not neceeasrily = intelligence etc. so while we might be able to prove, or demonstrate, or however you want to put it, an uncaused cause, we might not be able to so much prove God.

Edited March 13, 2008 by dairygirl4u2c

[dairygirl4u2c]

i think if i put my recent thoughts into my essay, that i'd have the killerest essay on this matter, bar none, even men like richard dawkins.
now, they might understand it better, but just have not expressed it so concisely. i'd tend to think that implies they don't understand it though especially since i haven't seen this explained in these sorts of terms.
maybe i'm just being arrogant.

[Slappo]

We have reason to believe that God exists, and it is most surely reasonable to believe that God exists, but this does not "prove" his existence.

We may even be able to prove that there is a necessary being, or an uncaused cause, but what proves that this necessary being is what Christian theologians view as God. The attributes given to a necessary being are not nearly the same depth as the attributes given to the God of Christianity (which is of course the only true God, I don't mean to make that sound bad).

[Slappo]

[quote name='Hirsap' post='1471728' date='Mar 1 2008, 04:27 AM']Vatican I [http://www.ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/V1.HTM#5]

That's not to belittle your personal experiences as helping your faith in God, but nonetheless, His existence can be proven through reason alone without recourse to Revelation.[/quote]


I believe that here you may see a difference between "knowing God with certainty" and "proving God with certainty". I know God with certainty, I have no doubts about the existence of God, but can I then prove the existence of God, can I prove the existence of my certain knowledge?

[apparent]

[b]Proving God's Existence[/b]

[b] [/b]

[b]When I held my new born daughter in my hands for the first time, I felt God[/b]

[b]The way my wife eyes light up when she holds children, I felt God [/b]

[b]Holding hands at a Funeral with family and crying together, I know God exist[/b]

[b]No one can show you proof, you have to find it for yourself.[/b]

[b]It’s out there, if you look[/b]

[b] [/b]

[rkwright]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1476858' date='Mar 13 2008, 02:02 PM']if God can be an uncaused cause, couldn't the universe's existence be an uncaused cause? i think it could be, but a fortiori, the bike analogy as per our empiricle view or reality and cause and effect analogy would say that there has to be a cause. but still, a particle sitting liek a time bomb if you will could just be, as much as the God could just be.

it seems like the a fortiorit argument has merit to it, but could be argued to be extra fluff just as much.[/quote]

I think your question is a bit non-sensical. Its really impossible to see the universe as uncaused since most scientists believe in some sort of causation for the universe.

But the logic is fine. Everything must have a cause. This cannot go on till infinitely or else there would be no causing at all. Thus there must be one uncaused cause at the very beginning. This is God; whatever it actually is. At this point in the proof the quality of God that we know is that He is uncaused; so God could be a particle, a time bomb, whatever the uncaused thing is that is God.

Later on in say Aquinas's work he would get into the attributes of God.

[dairygirl4u2c]

if you say "whatever it actually is" then that could imply particles thought just sitting there waiting ot explode.
If God can just be, those particles can just be.... they both can be the uncaused cause.
as i say earlier, if particles are the solution, that's not calling God much of naything substnatial.
i think the answer lies in intutition.... that particles ust being there doesn't really make sense intititively. but, it could still be possible if God can just be possible.
an uncaused cause we don't see empiriaclly in everyday life, so we shouldn't be so quick to say what it would or would not be etc.

Edited March 14, 2008 by dairygirl4u2c

[Slappo]

In physics there are certain things that happen at a molecular level that are uncaused... Therefore the universe scientifically could be uncaused.

As for a particle being uncaused and God being uncaused on the same par... it doesn't make sense.
God by definition is "infinite being" according to Scotus. A particle is not "infinite being"
God's existence is necessary, a particle's existence is not necessary.

[SaintOfVirtue]

I did a report on that exact topic just recently here it is

[quote]The arguments for and against the existence of God have been debated since the beginning of time. However, even the most convincing arguments against the existence of God fall to ashes under closer consideration and examination.
The first argument for the existence of God is called the Teleological argument. This argument is based on the fact that wherever there is order or design there must be an intelligent being behind it. Despite his best efforts, nothing man has, can, or will make can surpass the beauty of order and design in the work of the universe. We know that God created the universe because of the order and plan in it. These two elements suggest the work of an intelligent being.
Many unbelievers argue that everything is the way it is because of blind chance. “If anyone supposes that this most beautiful and glorious world was made by the accidental coming together of atoms, I do not understand why he should not suppose that the Annals of Ennius might be produced by pouring out on the earth the twenty-one letters of the alphabet in countless profusion,” wrote Cicero, Fr. Laux pg. 5. This holds true no matter what it is applied to: dental floss, probably the simplest household item, consists basically of a flat string rolled-up inside a small metal or plastic box. Yet, as simple as dental floss is, everyone admits that it was created by an intelligent being. To this day, a monkey has not been able to make dental floss.
The second argument for the existence of God is the Cosmological argument. Simply put, this argument debunks the ‘Big Bang Theory’ because it is based in the reality that every event is determined by a cause. Atoms, even if they did exist by themselves, would not be able to start moving without a cause. This means that if they existed, there would have had to be something or someone to knock the two atoms together. This is even backed up by the ‘Newton Laws’ which are some of the most openly accepted laws of physics. Thus, we are able to conclude that since atoms cannot start moving without a cause there must have been an initial ‘push’ so to speak. This first ‘push’ could only have been the work of Gods hand, nothing else could have done it because nothing else existed.
The third argument is the Moral argument. This argument explains the existence of God through the fact of conscience. Every living man has a conscience that tells him what is right and what is wrong. It foretells the punishments and rewards we will receive for our actions on the spot and there is no avoiding it. It rewards or punishes by a deep sense of foreboding of what the consequences will be. We do not feel shame in front of horses, dogs, or monkeys, but we do in front of other people. “The criminal runs when no one pursues,” is a common phrase used to explain conscience; if no one is pursuing him, why does he run? The answer is that deep inside everyone’s heart the fear of the just God resides. We also know that someone had to place the law of conscience in our soul.
The fourth and last argument is the Historical argument. From civilized nations to uncivilized nations, one thing is held in common; they are religious. Though many scientists have tried to prove otherwise, they cannot. All races back to the very beginning of time have yearned for something to believe in. Because we have such a yearning to know God, this too suggests that there must be a God. A person who has never seen the ocean and its beauty, but only heard of it; will yearn to see this magnificent thing that has crystal clear waters, waves that lap onto the shore, one after the other, and the power to carve holes through solid stone cliffs. Though they have never seen it, they know that the ocean must exist, not only because they yearn to see it, but because they have heard of it through a legitimate source of its wonder. So in an even more fascinating way, it is with God. Without God, there is a great void that cannot be filled within us. “Without God marriage is without dignity, the family without authority, education without its highest appeal, the state without a basis for law or right” (Catholic Apologetics by Fr. John Laux pg.18).
In so many ways the existence of God is evident. It is defendable by all these arguments. Those who continue to claim that God does not exist are in denial of the facts. Everything God has made tells its own story in the tale of the existence of God.



Bibliography: Catholic Apologetics; by Fr. John Laux; Copyright 1934 by Benziger Brothers.[/quote]

(FYI: I didn't read any of the previous posts all the way through so this might have already been covered)

[rkwright]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1477253' date='Mar 14 2008, 10:49 AM']if you say "whatever it actually is" then that could imply particles thought just sitting there waiting ot explode.
If God can just be, those particles can just be.... they both can be the uncaused cause.
as i say earlier, if particles are the solution, that's not calling God much of naything substnatial.
i think the answer lies in intutition.... that particles ust being there doesn't really make sense intititively. but, it could still be possible if God can just be possible.
an uncaused cause we don't see empiriaclly in everyday life, so we shouldn't be so quick to say what it would or would not be etc.[/quote]

You're exactly right... in this point of the Summa, Aquinas has only proved that there is a God. At this point he hasn't proved that there is only one God (there could be many gods, like your particles) God could be dead, God could be anything at this point.

I think people put too much into this proof. It only proves that there is an uncaused cause, and this uncaused cause is God. It doesn't prove the type of uncaused cause, nor the quantity. It only proves that there is a God. It alone doesn't say anything of the Christian God.

[rkwright]

[quote name='SaintOfVirtue' post='1477402' date='Mar 14 2008, 05:22 PM']I did a report on that exact topic just recently here it is



(FYI: I didn't read any of the previous posts all the way through so this might have already been covered)[/quote]

I'm surprised at the beginning you claim these 'fall to ashes'. I think these arguments are a little bit more robust that you give them credit for, thats why theres so much thought that goes on with them. The arguments are nothing new, yet we continually discuss them.

You left out the ontological argument my favorite one

[Guest perelandra]

[quote name='rkwright' post='1476774' date='Mar 13 2008, 09:48 AM']How do you two reconcile these beliefs with the Vatican I quote provided by Hisarp above?[/quote]

The two points of view could be reconciled by the fact that they are referring to two different facts. Many Christians hold the position that man is absolutely dead in regards to any sort of spirituality. This is where the point of view that "it takes a God-given faith to know Him" stems from. Catholicism definitely teaches that our spiritual relationship with God was severed, no doubt about it. However, Romans 1 clearly states that those who are severed from God in terms of relationship, nonetheless have known His existence and hardened their hearts towards Him. Everything is revelation, even knowing what "color" is, or the fact that you exist is a general revelation from God. But that's not what anyone is talking about. The same mental faculties that allow you to clearly define your existence and the idea of color, etc. can be used (according to Vatican I and Romans 1) to see that there is a God. As far as the questions of why we were created and how far His infinite love for us extends, and the fact that we are to have a personal relationship with Him... that is special revelation. That is what the Word of God (Scripture) and the Word of God (Jesus) are here to reveal. It takes the eyes of faith to see these things as Truth and that faculty of faith is indeed a Gift from God.

As far as proof of the Existence of God... I do believe that it is the prevenient Grace of the Holy Spirit that draws you into accepting what is presented at the doors of reason. It is just as reasonable to see an Infinite Creator Being as it is to see an infinite piece of matter that collides with another infinite piece of matter. Atheism is not a lack of evidence, it is a moral issue. To stand the two infinites side by side presents you with Pascal's Wager (a quadrilemma) where it would never seem reasonable to accept the Atheist point of view. But once again, reason then, is not the problem.

There are many arguments for God's existence, Causal, Teleological, Existential, etc. and yet there's only one decent argument against. (All others boil down to arguing that a God doesn't necessarily exist, only the Existence of evil argument actually attacks God's existence definitely). See St. Augustine's treatment of this issue or C.S. Lewis' treatment in the Problem of Pain.

St. Peter says we need to have answers for the defense of our faith. We need to be ready with reasons to believe so we can be sacred vessels of the Holy Spirit. It will always be the Holy Spirit working on the inside of the person, but he will use what we have to get the job done. That's just the way God has decided to work. We need to be familiar with all the reasons, and can't just say, "It's no use arguing because God is the one who saves people." All you have to do is bring truth to their door of reason, who knows what will happen after that. That's God's territory.

I find that the Argument from desire is intriguing. It goes hand in hand with the moral argument. It goes that there is a satisfaction for every natural desire that man has. Man is hungry, there's food; man is thirsty, there's drink; man has sexual desire, there's sex; etc. But for one desire there would be no satisfaction if there was no God. That is the desire for eternal joy. It is in the midst of being satisfied of all of the other desires that you desire something profoundly greater and everlastingly satisfactory that you get a sense of this desire which is in itself indescribable, but existent. It would be too diabolical if every other natural desire were met, but this one. It would at least prove the devil if that were true. But you can conceive of general principles such as "all men die" even if you've only experienced a small number of deaths. You don't have to experience every humans' death to latch on to the general principle that "all men die". Therefore, it is reasonable to accept the general principle that there is satisfaction for all natural desires, and so for this desire that has eternal implications.

[dairygirl4u2c]

[url="http://macroevolution.narod.ru/delusion/delusion.htm"]http://macroevolution.narod.ru/delusion/delusion.htm[/url]

dawkin's "god delusion"
good for any database on proving God or not
there's a good argument about moths in there i'll get to later

[SienaWA]

Do athiests then believe that there isn't anything or anyone that always was, is and will be?
They also must not believe in a soul or spirit.

In the beginnning was the word. Is that not from intelligence? The breath gives it life?

I thought about Thomas Aquinas and the Summa immediately while reading all this and and thought ....he has already done all this. I need to pull it out again. Instead of getting a headache, reading it is mind boggling enough, let alone doing it on my own.

Faith and Reason; they do go together I think, too many reasons to believe in one Supreme God. Every "thing" has a source and the one ultimate source, ground zero..in my little mind has to be God.

[SienaWA]

Another thought. What would proof be exactly that would be acceptable. If God were to show Himself saying He was God, (not in the form of man/Jesus, which he's already done) noone "has to believe it" or call it proof, miracles weren't proof, so what do they want?

[dairygirl4u2c]

well, one thing i'd like to add on there.

if you consider the big bang as a premise. the atheist would argue, that there was a ticking time bomb of stuff just waiting to explode. or, for the theist, you could assume there was nothing, or something not waiting to explode but not having anything to explode it.

a ticking time bomb, or random chance even, though, as a matter of good judgment, seems weird. random chance, is not from our everyday world (even if an infinite chain isn't at least there's cause and effect going on) and the ticking time bomb as an alterantive to random chance, is just random, weird. though, i don't see how you can't say not possible, and so God isn't necessarily proven.
i guess it's no more weird than God who could just be, but that's the ultimate argument an atheist would have to accept, random chance or a ticking time bomb oddity.
(or if you read into what's being shown on face value... they could argue that the world might have always existed bt in a different form, and so it's the unending chain.... but remember, this is reading into what's given, ie it appears empiracally to be big bang or from nothing)
when i say "can't be proven" i'm talking more about strict proof, ie, it's not a logical deduction, and at most inductive, and not necessarily true, althought one might argue probable or whathaveyou.

Edited July 28, 2008 by dairygirl4u2c

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote name='SienaWA' post='1610193' date='Jul 27 2008, 07:10 PM']Another thought. What would proof be exactly that would be acceptable. If God were to show Himself saying He was God, (not in the form of man/Jesus, which he's already done) noone "has to believe it" or call it proof, miracles weren't proof, so what do they want?[/quote]

If God were to show himself, in a physical sense, and they denied it,,, saying there's other plausible explanations for what's causing the proof etc... that would in my mind be undeniable bad judgment and they'd be wrong.
a lot of atheists would accept it, from my experience talking ot them, if he did show himself like that. the ones i've talked to, would think atheists who would deny God, to be wrong. i think it's important to remember that we shouldn't pigeon hole the other side to be the least common denominator or whatever, the worst argument etc. for theroetical purposes anyway, it might be okay, but practically you shouldn't do that.

the level of judgment at the current knowledge, is reasonable for either side to express what they believe. i happen ot lean against saying it's proven, cause it's not very substantial level of proof being given, at most an intutive appeal can be given but i'm not sure even there it's warranted necessarily.

Edited July 28, 2008 by dairygirl4u2c

[dairygirl4u2c]

the fall back that most theists go to, is that there probably was a first cause of a sort,,, even if the ticking time bomb was aalways there, thats' teh first cause.
and random chance is just less in par a theist would argue, with our experience with cause and effect, even if conceding a first cause or infinite chain alternatives aren't that common either.
so if you call that first cause God, by definition, and all it is is a ticking time bomb or something, that's not defining God very meaningfully, so that's my beef with that.

i sense a friction with calling random chance a first cause. but if the first particle etc or thing to knock the next or whatever is called first cause, that'd not be very meaningful either.