ipsum esse subsistens

[fireof god98]

I was having a discussion with an atheist friend about the existence of God. He asked me for scientific proof and i replied that if God is defined as a being,or the ground of being that is neither composed of matter nor confined to a spatial location then science cant find God seeing how how science is limited to explaining the natural, physical world.
I further explained that God is ipsum esse subsistens (Subsistent Act of Existing Itself)
God cannot be placed in any genus,even the genera of being. He replied that this God then has no power since it is no longer a being but rather just existence.
How would i argue against this position? is my position false? How does one go from being itself to the conscience and intelligent God of the bible?

 

[Philip_B]

ipsum esse subsistens

I have to admit that sounds painful, but Latin is a harsh language when it comes to theology.

I have been known to say, without doubt there is no faith which gets me in trouble, yet still I persist. Faith requires us to reach beyond what we can touch and see, and faith requires us to trust beyond what we can reach and see, and iif it was only what I can reach and see then it would be science.

Blessed Anselm in a book I highly recommend Cur Deus Homo argues at one point that faith and science both followed honestly to the end will come to the same conclusion. And I note that a number of scientists do come to a faith position along the way.

hope this helps

 

[Winken]

I was having a discussion with an atheist friend about the existence of God. He asked me for scientific proof and i replied that if God is defined as a being,or the ground of being that is neither composed of matter nor confined to a spatial location then science cant find God seeing how how science is limited to explaining the natural, physical world.
I further explained that God is ipsum esse subsistens (Subsistent Act of Existing Itself)
God cannot be placed in any genus,even the genera of being. He replied that this God then has no power since it is no longer a being but rather just existence.
How would i argue against this position? is my position false? How does one go from being itself to the conscience and intelligent God of the bible?

I grew up under the steady-state theory..... that got interrupted by the big-bang theory. From whence cometh it / these? The source of science is the investigating prowess of mind-will-emotion.

Before the beginning of space and time, God IS, without beginning or end. Not one of us can define Him. The Bible points to the gender, HE. However, He is Spirit. He is without form, without visibility. He is the epitomie. He cannot be scrutinized, or debated. He appeared to us in the Person of Jesus, the Messiah, and Savior of us all.

 

[tz620q]

I grew up under the steady-state theory..... that got interrupted by the big-bang theory. From whence cometh it / these? The source of science is the investigating prowess of mind-will-emotion.

That is actually a fascinating story. The Big Bang Theory as we know it was first proposed in 1927 by Belgian Catholic Priest and physicist, Georges Lemaitre. He did it to oppose Fred Hoyle's Steady State theory that would not admit a moment of creation and therefore a Creator. So yes, science can lead one to the existence of God.

 

[tz620q]

I was having a discussion with an atheist friend about the existence of God. He asked me for scientific proof and i replied that if God is defined as a being,or the ground of being that is neither composed of matter nor confined to a spatial location then science cant find God seeing how how science is limited to explaining the natural, physical world.
I further explained that God is ipsum esse subsistens (Subsistent Act of Existing Itself)
God cannot be placed in any genus,even the genera of being. He replied that this God then has no power since it is no longer a being but rather just existence.
How would i argue against this position? is my position false? How does one go from being itself to the conscience and intelligent God of the bible?

I think that this "God is everything" approach will inevitably lead to a moment when the atheist will point to himself and say, "I am not God. Therefore God is not everything. Do you actually think you are God?" I think the point where this has gone a little wrong is by confusing God the Creator with what he creates. This distinction has to be held and a good analogy is to point to a sculptor and a block of stone. The sculptor sculpts the stone into a new creation; but beyond his thought, the creation exists independent of the Creator. The analogy breaks down because in this case God creates the stone before sculpting it; but I don't think this destroys the analogy. It will show how Christians can view God in everything because everything shows us the mind of God without confusing creation with the Creator.

Finally, I think that any denial of God as a being and of having some essence (substance and person) actually denigrates God into simply a set of scientific principles that can be used to explain the world. So you have lost the argument by accepting all the atheist's principles without countering any of his conclusions. It might be better to start with God as the author of order and therefore of the principles that science "discovers". Point out that these laws exist independent of the discoverer and prior to the discoverer, therefore they could not have been created by the scientist. So do we live in a completely random world where any scientific experiment is mere foolishness because the result will randomly vary or does the existence of science not imply the act of an ordered creation? How does a random act of creation yield an ordered creation? It would mean that there was a moment where randomness suddenly changed to orderliness without a sufficient cause.

 

[Mediaeval]

One thing to recognize before trying to prove anything is that the atheist has no foundation for knowledge. He can't so much as prove he isn't a brain in a jar. If the atheist wanted to be logically consistent, he should be skeptical about everything outside his own consciousness or a solipsist. If he is a materialist and chooses to believe that non-intelligence produced intelligence and all else, then, again to be logically consistent, he should hold that everything is the necessary product of physics and mechanical processes, people included. People would therefore be automatons without moral duties, free will would be an illusion, and certainty (if any) and morality itself would be just amoral feelings produced by the brain in response to amoral electro-chemical stimuli. So it might be worthwhile to probe a little and see what kind of atheist you are dealing with and see if he can identify, admit, and defend his own presuppositions. It is possible that he won't be willing to follow out the logical consequences of his own worldview and will instead resort, incongruously, to unreflective common sense whenever convenient. In any case, all logical arguments rest on self-evident truths, basal assumptions or basic beliefs that cannot be proven. As Chesterton said, “The relations of logic to truth depend, then, not upon its perfection as logic, but upon certain pre-logical faculties and certain pre-logical discoveries, upon the possession of those faculties, upon the power of making those discoveries. If a man starts with certain assumptions, he may be a good logician and a good citizen, a wise man, a successful figure. If he starts with certain other assumptions, he may be an equally good logician and a bankrupt, a criminal, a raving lunatic. Logic, then, is not necessarily an instrument for finding truth; on the contrary, truth is necessarily an instrument for using logic—for using it, that is, for the discovery of further truth and for the profit of humanity. Briefly, you can only find truth with logic if you have already found truth without it.” Also, if you have the time and inclination, it might be worthwhile to check out the philosophical school known as idealism (the works of George Berkeley and Borden Parker Bowne in particular), which shows the baselessness of materialistic assumptions right at the outset.