• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Whether God exists

Atomagenesis

Regina decor Carmeli, ora pro nobis
Apr 7, 2004
858
51
40
I would like a hermitage.
✟16,271.00
Faith
Catholic
Article 3. Whether God exists?

Objection 1. It seems that God does not exist; because if one of two contraries be infinite, the other would be altogether destroyed. But the word "God" means that He is infinite goodness. If, therefore, God existed, there would be no evil discoverable; but there is evil in the world. Therefore God does not exist.

Objection 2. Further, it is superfluous to suppose that what can be accounted for by a few principles has been produced by many. But it seems that everything we see in the world can be accounted for by other principles, supposing God did not exist. For all natural things can be reduced to one principle which is nature; and all voluntary things can be reduced to one principle which is human reason, or will. Therefore there is no need to suppose God's existence.

On the contrary, It is said in the person of God: "I am Who am." (Exodus 3:14)

I answer that, The existence of God can be proved in five ways.

The first and more manifest way is the argument from motion. It is certain, and evident to our senses, that in the world some things are in motion. Now whatever is in motion is put in motion by another, for nothing can be in motion except it is in potentiality to that towards which it is in motion; whereas a thing moves inasmuch as it is in act. For motion is nothing else than the reduction of something from potentiality to actuality. But nothing can be reduced from potentiality to actuality, except by something in a state of actuality. Thus that which is actually hot, as fire, makes wood, which is potentially hot, to be actually hot, and thereby moves and changes it. Now it is not possible that the same thing should be at once in actuality and potentiality in the same respect, but only in different respects. For what is actually hot cannot simultaneously be potentially hot; but it is simultaneously potentially cold. It is therefore impossible that in the same respect and in the same way a thing should be both mover and moved, i.e. that it should move itself. Therefore, whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another. If that by which it is put in motion be itself put in motion, then this also must needs be put in motion by another, and that by another again. But this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover, and, consequently, no other mover; seeing that subsequent movers move only inasmuch as they are put in motion by the first mover; as the staff moves only because it is put in motion by the hand. Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God.

The second way is from the nature of the efficient cause. In the world of sense we find there is an order of efficient causes. There is no case known (neither is it, indeed, possible) in which a thing is found to be the efficient cause of itself; for so it would be prior to itself, which is impossible. Now in efficient causes it is not possible to go on to infinity, because in all efficient causes following in order, the first is the cause of the intermediate cause, and the intermediate is the cause of the ultimate cause, whether the intermediate cause be several, or only one. Now to take away the cause is to take away the effect. Therefore, if there be no first cause among efficient causes, there will be no ultimate, nor any intermediate cause. 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. Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God.

The third way is taken from possibility and necessity, and runs thus. We find in nature things that are possible to be and not to be, since they are found to be generated, and to corrupt, and consequently, they are possible to be and not to be. But it is impossible for these always to exist, for that which is possible not to be at some time is not. Therefore, if everything is possible not to be, then at one time there could have been nothing in existence. Now if this were true, even now there would be nothing in existence, because that which does not exist only begins to exist by something already existing. Therefore, if at one time nothing was in existence, it would have been impossible for anything to have begun to exist; and thus even now nothing would be in existence — which is absurd. Therefore, not all beings are merely possible, but there must exist something the existence of which is necessary. But every necessary thing either has its necessity caused by another, or not. Now it is impossible to go on to infinity in necessary things which have their necessity caused by another, as has been already proved in regard to efficient causes. Therefore we cannot but postulate the existence of some being having of itself its own necessity, and not receiving it from another, but rather causing in others their necessity. This all men speak of as God.

The fourth way is taken from the gradation to be found in things. Among beings there are some more and some less good, true, noble and the like. But "more" and "less" are predicated of different things, according as they resemble in their different ways something which is the maximum, as a thing is said to be hotter according as it more nearly resembles that which is hottest; so that there is something which is truest, something best, something noblest and, consequently, something which is uttermost being; for those things that are greatest in truth are greatest in being, as it is written in Metaph. ii. Now the maximum in any genus is the cause of all in that genus; as fire, which is the maximum heat, is the cause of all hot things. Therefore there must also be something which is to all beings the cause of their being, goodness, and every other perfection; and this we call God.

The fifth way is taken from the governance of the world. We see that things which lack intelligence, such as natural bodies, act for an end, and this is evident from their acting always, or nearly always, in the same way, so as to obtain the best result. Hence it is plain that not fortuitously, but designedly, do they achieve their end. Now whatever lacks intelligence cannot move towards an end, unless it be directed by some being endowed with knowledge and intelligence; as the arrow is shot to its mark by the archer. Therefore some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are directed to their end; and this being we call God.

Reply to Objection 1. As Augustine says (Enchiridion xi): "Since God is the highest good, He would not allow any evil to exist in His works, unless His omnipotence and goodness were such as to bring good even out of evil." This is part of the infinite goodness of God, that He should allow evil to exist, and out of it produce good.

Reply to Objection 2. Since nature works for a determinate end under the direction of a higher agent, whatever is done by nature must needs be traced back to God, as to its first cause. So also whatever is done voluntarily must also be traced back to some higher cause other than human reason or will, since these can change or fail; for all things that are changeable and capable of defect must be traced back to an immovable and self-necessary first principle, as was shown in the body of the Article. (ST I., Q.2 A.3)
 

Atomagenesis

Regina decor Carmeli, ora pro nobis
Apr 7, 2004
858
51
40
I would like a hermitage.
✟16,271.00
Faith
Catholic
I have read most of them, would you care to debate? One can claim they are refuted, but that doesn't mean they are. Every argument I have read against them is weak. And it is very silly to just claim something has been refuted and not give any evidence for your position or why you hold a certain position.

How do you explain perfections, forms, causality, harmony, miracles, truth?
 
Upvote 0

IzzyPop

I wear my sunglasses at night...
Jun 2, 2007
5,379
438
51
✟30,209.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
I'll bite.

Point 1: Big Bang started all motion.
Point 2: Either Infinite Regression or Occam's Razor. Your pick.
Point 3: See Point 2
Point 4: Prove that 'good' has an objective value.
Point 5: TOE, more specifically, natural selection.

Reply 1 is only valid if Point 4 can be proven.
Reply 2 requires an unsupported presupposition.
Since nature works for a determinate end under the direction of a higher agent


 
Upvote 0

Atomagenesis

Regina decor Carmeli, ora pro nobis
Apr 7, 2004
858
51
40
I would like a hermitage.
✟16,271.00
Faith
Catholic
Point 1: Big Bang started all motion.
Point 2: Either Infinite Regression or Occam's Razor. Your pick.
Point 3: See Point 2
Point 4: Prove that 'good' has an objective value.
Point 5: TOE, more specifically, natural selection.

Reply 1 is only valid if Point 4 can be proven.
Reply 2 requires an unsupported presupposition.

And so what started the big bang? Itself? Nothing material can give existence to itself, neither you nor I.

Infinite regression is a fallacious argument. Thomas proves that in his first cause argument. God is infinite and eternal, the cause and end of all things. Not some abtract infinite flux, that makes no sense.

Prove that good has an objective value? It is valuable because it exists, something is good in so far as it is has existence and essence. Anything that does not exist cannot be said to be good because it does not exist. Value is determind by the perfections of a thing and perfections are the determinate goodness of a thing, how much it participates in existence and essence per se. I could go on if thats not sufficient.

What does natural selection have to do with anything? It doesn't prove God doesn't exist, its a theory.

Hope that sufficient for your conversion! Please ask more! Reason is a beautiful thing because it points to the Holy Trinity.

Pax Domini sit semper vobiscum.
 
Upvote 0

IzzyPop

I wear my sunglasses at night...
Jun 2, 2007
5,379
438
51
✟30,209.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
And so what started the big bang? Itself? Nothing material can give existence to itself, neither you nor I.
I don't know. But that is not a valid reason to throw an infinitely complicated being into the mix as an answer.

Infinite regression is a fallacious argument. Thomas proves that in his first cause argument. God is infinite and eternal, the cause and end of all things. Not some abtract infinite flux, that makes no sense.
Nothing infinite make sense. That is my greatest issue with the existence of God.

Prove that good has an objective value? It is valuable because it exists, something is good in so far as it is has existence and essence. Anything that does not exist cannot be said to be good because it does not exist. Value is determind by the perfections of a thing and perfections are the determinate goodness of a thing, how much it participates in existence and essence per se. I could go on if thats not sufficient.
You missed the point. I was talking objective versus subjective. What make something good? What make one thing 'gooder' than the next thing. Quantify good.

What does natural selection have to do with anything? It doesn't prove God doesn't exist, its a theory.
But it answers the fifth point without having to bring God into the equation. Therefore, the fifth point is not a proof that God exists.
 
Upvote 0

Atomagenesis

Regina decor Carmeli, ora pro nobis
Apr 7, 2004
858
51
40
I would like a hermitage.
✟16,271.00
Faith
Catholic
I don't know. But that is not a valid reason to throw an infinitely complicated being into the mix as an answer.

Its perfectly valid, and proves the existence of God, whether you accept it or not.

Nothing infinite make sense. That is my greatest issue with the existence of God.

No one can fully comprehend God or His greatness as He can. We can only understand according to our nature.
You missed the point. I was talking objective versus subjective. What make something good? What make one thing 'gooder' than the next thing. Quantify good.

Nothing I said was a subjective or relativistic claim. It's just the way things are. Reality is not based on my perception of it, it is what it is in its essence, and I receive all my knowledge from the senses through reality, not the other way around. I already quantified what good is, look at my previous posts.

But it answers the fifth point without having to bring God into the equation. Therefore, the fifth point is not a proof that God exists.

I don't see what you're saying. That makes no sense to me.
 
Upvote 0

IzzyPop

I wear my sunglasses at night...
Jun 2, 2007
5,379
438
51
✟30,209.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Its perfectly valid, and proves the existence of God, whether you accept it or not.
Then prove it. Your simple assertation does nothing other then stat that you believe it.



No one can fully comprehend God or His greatness as He can. We can only understand according to our nature.
And my nature requires proof. Nothing you have stated even approaches that threshold.


Nothing I said was a subjective or relativistic claim. It's just the way things are. Reality is not based on my perception of it, it is what it is in its essence, and I receive all my knowledge from the senses through reality, not the other way around. I already quantified what good is, look at my previous posts.
You can measure for the hottest heat source. You can measure the highest peak. You can weigh the heaviest object. The most noble, prettiest, most good, etc. is a subjective term until you can measure it. Then what is the basic, measurable unit of 'good'? Anything else is a subjective, relative comparison.



I don't see what you're saying. That makes no sense to me.
Maybe I misunderstood the fifth point, but it seemed to me to be talking about animals. Why they act as they do and the purpose behind those actions can and is explained through evolution. There is no God required. Therefore it cannot prove the existence of God.
 
Upvote 0

Atomagenesis

Regina decor Carmeli, ora pro nobis
Apr 7, 2004
858
51
40
I would like a hermitage.
✟16,271.00
Faith
Catholic
Then prove it. Your simple assertation does nothing other then stat that you believe it.

St. Thomas already did. I throughly proved it, just like Aristotle, Plato, Thomas and all the greatest philosophers. God is not something you can just pick up and throw into a pond like a rock, He is immaterial, and until you realize that, you will never believe He exists. But, lucky for you, He is infinitely patient with you and ready when ever you decide to embrace Him.

And my nature requires proof. Nothing you have stated even approaches that threshold.

Your nature is to know through the senses. You can know God through your intellect by contemplating His creation, but he also gave you free will in order to deny Him, its your choice. Man's nature is limited, we have to accept that.

You can measure for the hottest heat source. You can measure the highest peak. You can weigh the heaviest object. The most noble, prettiest, most good, etc. is a subjective term until you can measure it. Then what is the basic, measurable unit of 'good'? Anything else is a subjective, relative comparison.

You can certainly measure it, but not with a meter stick. It based on existence (that it is) and essence (what it is), which one has to accept in order to come to the realization that somethings are more real than others and have graeter actuality. God is infinite actuality, infinite goodness (essence and existence). He gives it to all things that are; therefore, they are good because they are and you can measure them based upon their nature and pariticpation in their end, Who is.

Maybe I misunderstood the fifth point, but it seemed to me to be talking about animals. Why they act as they do and the purpose behind those actions can and is explained through evolution. There is no God required. Therefore it cannot prove the existence of God.

Reread it a few times, it will all make sense. God is required for all things to be. That is reality.
 
Upvote 0

IzzyPop

I wear my sunglasses at night...
Jun 2, 2007
5,379
438
51
✟30,209.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
St. Thomas already did. I throughly proved it, just like Aristotle, Plato, Thomas and all the greatest philosophers. God is not something you can just pick up and throw into a pond like a rock, He is immaterial, and until you realize that, you will never believe He exists. But, lucky for you, He is infinitely patient with you and ready when ever you decide to embrace Him.
Then help me see. I do not see these as proofs. There are logical fallacies in each of these.



You can certainly measure it, but not with a meter stick. It based on existence (that it is) and essence (what it is), which one has to accept in order to come to the realization that somethings are more real than others and have graeter actuality. God is infinite actuality, infinite goodness (essence and existence). He gives it to all things that are; therefore, they are good because they are and you can measure them based upon their nature and pariticpation in their end, Who is.
That is not measuring. That is judging. Show me a 'gooditon' and I can accept that good is a measurable quality.



Reread it a few times, it will all make sense. God is required for all things to be. That is reality.
I did reread it several times and I stated what I found to be wrong with it.


You are not explaining nor defending these positions. You are merely reiterating them as they can stand up to any scrutiny. I have shown you where they lack and you merely say "No. That is not a flaw. If you believe, then you will see that." Well, guess what? If you believe that the CIA is beaming radio waves into your head to listen to your thoughts, then wearing a foil hat is perfectly rational.
Belief should not preclude or precede knowledge. Belief should be the outgrowth of knowledge.
 
Upvote 0

Atomagenesis

Regina decor Carmeli, ora pro nobis
Apr 7, 2004
858
51
40
I would like a hermitage.
✟16,271.00
Faith
Catholic
Then help me see. I do not see these as proofs. There are logical fallacies in each of these.

That is why I prayed for you last night and the night before, and will do so again tonight. There is nothing illogical about them, other than your stating it.

That is not measuring. That is judging. Show me a 'gooditon' and I can accept that good is a measurable quality.

Metaphysics is something entirely different than regular physics, we cannot approach it in the same way. And I have already made it clear hwo to measure good, but it is immaterial, so thats something that has to be accepted.

I did reread it several times and I stated what I found to be wrong with it.


You are not explaining nor defending these positions. You are merely reiterating them as they can stand up to any scrutiny. I have shown you where they lack and you merely say "No. That is not a flaw. If you believe, then you will see that." Well, guess what? If you believe that the CIA is beaming radio waves into your head to listen to your thoughts, then wearing a foil hat is perfectly rational.
Belief should not preclude or precede knowledge. Belief should be the outgrowth of knowledge.

I have thoroughly explained and defended them for three pages, which is blatantly obvious my friend. I have said much more than mere the quoted phrase that you claim. I entirely egree that Belief should not preclude knowledge and belief should be the outgrowth, that is what is so beautiful about God. You have to know Him as He is in things in order to believe in Him, which I proved by defending Thomas and Aristotle, and Plato and 2500 years of philosophical tradition.
 
Upvote 0

IzzyPop

I wear my sunglasses at night...
Jun 2, 2007
5,379
438
51
✟30,209.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
That is why I prayed for you last night and the night before, and will do so again tonight. There is nothing illogical about them, other than your stating it.
Most of them presuppose God. That is circular reasoning. Circular reasoning is a logical fallacy.



Metaphysics is something entirely different than regular physics, we cannot approach it in the same way. And I have already made it clear hwo to measure good, but it is immaterial, so thats something that has to be accepted.
Then can you provide the ontology for good?


I have thoroughly explained and defended them for three pages, which is blatantly obvious my friend. I have said much more than mere the quoted phrase that you claim. I entirely egree that Belief should not preclude knowledge and belief should be the outgrowth, that is what is so beautiful about God. You have to know Him as He is in things in order to believe in Him, which I proved by defending Thomas and Aristotle, and Plato and 2500 years of philosophical tradition.
The only way those 5 'proofs' work is to presuppose God. Four of them are arguments from ignorance: 'I don't know what started motion. I will call it God.','I don't know how time started. I will call it God.', 'I don't know how the universe was created. I will call it God.', and 'I don't know how natural laws work. I will call it God.'

I did reread the fifth point and understand what he is saying. Natural laws are axiomatic. They need no creator, just matter.
 
Upvote 0
V

very_irreverand_Bill

Guest
St. Thomas already did. I throughly proved it, just like Aristotle, Plato, Thomas and all the greatest philosophers. God is not something you can just pick up and throw into a pond like a rock, He is immaterial, and until you realize that, you will never believe He exists. But, lucky for you, He is infinitely patient with you and ready when ever you decide to embrace Him..

That is why I prayed for you last night and the night before, and will do so again tonight. There is nothing illogical about them, other than your stating it..


There is lack of logic and something wrong with it.
First off, Don't throw Plato and Aristotle into the mix with Thomas; the first two were of a deistic mind a best, and they arrived at those views through reason and evidence- not setting ut to prove that god exoists but to find out whether it does or not; Thomas on the other hand was using those rational deistic arguments as ameans to prove his irrational theistic belief, setting out to prove that the "Christian" god exists, rtaher than setting out to find out "if".
As to your prayer, that is faith; and that faith dogma{and may I add very condescneding rhetorical remark} has no place in this debate about using rational argumentation and evidence to give weight to the god "theory". Nor does pretty much everything you say below

Your nature is to know through the senses. You can know God through your intellect by contemplating His creation, but he also gave you free will in order to deny Him, its your choice. Man's nature is limited, we have to accept that.



You can certainly measure it, but not with a meter stick. It based on existence (that it is) and essence (what it is), which one has to accept in order to come to the realization that somethings are more real than others and have graeter actuality. God is infinite actuality, infinite goodness (essence and existence). He gives it to all things that are; therefore, they are good because they are and you can measure them based upon their nature and pariticpation in their end, Who is.



Reread it a few times, it will all make sense. God is required for all things to be. That is reality.

Whilst something we humans may choose to label with the human made label 'god" may indeed exist; the evidence could go either way; it can only be deistic at best. If this "God" exists, and is then indeed required for all things to be; that is no argument for a personal sky-parent tribal deity.

In Reason:
Irrev.Bill
 
Upvote 0

moogoob

Resident Deist
Jun 14, 2006
700
42
✟23,582.00
Faith
Deist
Politics
CA-Others
Irreverend Bill makes some good points. Even when I was Catholic I didn't see much evidence of God intervening- when things worked out folks would say "God's blessing!" and when they didn't, "you are meant to learn a lesson from this". It seems that except in a broad sense, it's impossible to truly determine what events in one's life are acts of God and what aren't.

*pulls up seat and grabs tupperware bowl of popcorn*
 
Upvote 0

Atomagenesis

Regina decor Carmeli, ora pro nobis
Apr 7, 2004
858
51
40
I would like a hermitage.
✟16,271.00
Faith
Catholic
Most of them presuppose God. That is circular reasoning. Circular reasoning is a logical fallacy
.

If he presupposed God's existence he would have said like Ambrose "God is that which nothing greater can be concieved." So, no, Thomas is not saying that.

Then can you provide the ontology for good?

Aristotle's Metaphysics, and The Summa Theologica.

The only way those 5 'proofs' work is to presuppose God. Four of them are arguments from ignorance: 'I don't know what started motion. I will call it God.','I don't know how time started. I will call it God.', 'I don't know how the universe was created. I will call it God.', and 'I don't know how natural laws work. I will call it God.'

Right, which is the whole point of them, but they do not presuppose knowledge of God. It is a proof through natural reason that God exists without revelation revealing it; hence, Aristotle, Plato, et al. I wouldn't say its like I don't know so it must be God, its more like ok things are like this, so their cause must be God because they didn't come from nothing since nothing can't produce something etc. Its very logical indeed.


There is lack of logic and something wrong with it.
First off, Don't throw Plato and Aristotle into the mix with Thomas; the first two were of a deistic mind a best, and they arrived at those views through reason and evidence- not setting ut to prove that god exoists but to find out whether it does or not

It really doesn't matter because they still proved it and assented to an understanding of God and believed in their somewhat skewed view view of God as best they could.

Thomas on the other hand was using those rational deistic arguments as ameans to prove his irrational theistic belief, setting out to prove that the "Christian" god exists, rtaher than setting out to find out "if".

Thomas was just approaching the same problem in the light of Aristotle, certainly he had his knowledgeaable background and faith, but the arguments stand alone from that whether you Catholic or not because they work.


As to your prayer, that is faith; and that faith dogma{and may I add very condescneding rhetorical remark} has no place in this debate about using rational argumentation and evidence to give weight to the god "theory". Nor does pretty much everything you say below

All I said was I am praying for him, I never made that a basis for any argument my friend.


Whilst something we humans may choose to label with the human made label 'god" may indeed exist; the evidence could go either way; it can only be deistic at best. If this "God" exists, and is then indeed required for all things to be; that is no argument for a personal sky-parent tribal deity.

Thomas proves that God is a personal God by embracing Aristotle's metaphysics and expounding upon them. Plato not so much because he didn't use metaphysics as much, but I think Thomas puts up an incredibly good argument for the personal God. And the evidence does not point to atheism really, it points to divinity and eternity, so choose which you will.

Benedicite!
 
Upvote 0

Atomagenesis

Regina decor Carmeli, ora pro nobis
Apr 7, 2004
858
51
40
I would like a hermitage.
✟16,271.00
Faith
Catholic
Oh and by the way everything is a grace, the air you breathe, the car you drive, the strength to wake up in the morning, health, water, physics, everything is set in motion by God and he holds it in being, so anything that happens to you in life is meant to bring you closer to Him, God knows us perfectly and infinitely in every circumstance. That is why if you cooperate with grace like the saints, you can be totally united with Him and perfect on earth until the beatific vision, wherein you will be given a supernatural nature and mode of life, the beatific vision, nothing could be greater.

This may also help with some of the terms I have been using: http://www.wku.edu/~jan.garrett/350/aqglhapp.htm
 
Upvote 0

IzzyPop

I wear my sunglasses at night...
Jun 2, 2007
5,379
438
51
✟30,209.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
.

If he presupposed God's existence he would have said like Ambrose "God is that which nothing greater can be concieved." So, no, Thomas is not saying that.
Read the fourth argument again and substitute 'more good' for greater. That is exactly what he is saying.



Aristotle's Metaphysics, and The Summa Theologica.
Only if you read Kant. He does a pretty good job refuting this.



Right, which is the whole point of them, but they do not presuppose knowledge of God. It is a proof through natural reason that God exists without revelation revealing it; hence, Aristotle, Plato, et al. I wouldn't say its like I don't know so it must be God, its more like ok things are like this, so their cause must be God because they didn't come from nothing since nothing can't produce something etc. Its very logical indeed.
Only if you think that God exists prior to this reasoning. I can see the chain that you/he are trying to build. I do not have the critical link that is required to complete the chain...belief. There is no reason to think that the 'uncaused cause' is a sentient being. Occam's Razor.

You also have nothing to say concerning the arguments from ignorance?
 
Upvote 0

ScMay

Senior Member
Dec 5, 2004
608
36
Melbourne
✟951.00
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Single
[Parody] Oh and by the way everything is a grace, the polluted air you breathe, the nuclear weapons we explode, the murderers strength to strangle an innocent, illness, floods, everything is set in motion by God and he holds it in being, so anything that happens to you in life is meant to bring you closer to Him, God knows us perfectly and infinitely in every circumstance, especially when you're on the toilet or in the shower. That is why if you cooperate with grace like the saints, you can be a holier than thou pain in the butt on earth or else he'll beat the snot out of you in hell. [/Parody]
 
Upvote 0