Overcoming Atheist Responses To Aquinas' First Cause Argument

[dairygirl4u2c]

the best i can make out of the explanations is that they are artificially constructed frameworks. like, we start out with the idea that there's something. okay sure we can all accept that. then it all gets into something must have made that something in an uncaused caused way, and anything that is nonGod in explaination will need another layer added to it by rule of the definitions we created.
'God is primary efficient cause... if you ever try to give antoher explanation, it will need a primary efficient cause. you can't say that there's a primary efficient cause that doesn't involve God by definition.' it's like a circular argument.
it's like when kids are arguing 'you're a booger to infinity.' 'no you're a burger to infinity plus one'.
a more academic way of always trying to top the other with artificial contructs (and i'd argue missing hte points)... eg, from Dumb and Dumber
-----------
Lloyd: [nudges Harry] You're it.
Harry: [nudges Lloyd] You're it.
Lloyd: [nudges Harry] You're it, quitsies!
Harry: Anti-quitsies. [nudges Lloyd] You're it! Quitsies, no anti-quitsies, no startsies!
Lloyd: You can't do that!
Harry: Can too!
Lloyd: Cannot, stamped it!
Harry: Can too, double stamped it, no erasies!
Lloyd: Cannot, triple stamped it, no erasies, touch blue make it true. [puts his hands over his ears and sings]
Harry: No! No! You can't triple stamp a double stamp! You can't triple stamp a double stamp, Lloyd! You can't triple stamp a double stamp! LLOYD! LLOYD! You c--
Joe: GUYS!!! ENOUGH!!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


i suppose if we look at the big bang, we would say it seems that there's something from nothing, which isn't the most rational explaination... so we'd say that something came from something, and we'll call it God given the only way we could get past the something from nothing conundrum is to say that there was something, and the end product of this process of 'well there must've been something' is God. eg, we see a blank space, and then things just start comming from it. even i'd say that's almost gotta be God. cause it didn't come from a primordial soup or anything. it just happened. the blank space, and where the stuff came from, it's all God, uncaused cause. etc
the only problem with this is that we dn't know that we can say that that 'it seems we came from nothing... so we'll say God" process is really valid. it's just a possibility. so the other possibiities have to be examined, primodial soup, ticking time bome, expanding collapsing accordian, etc.
i could agree that that process of 'it seems there's something from nothing, which couldn't ne the case, so there mustive really been something, namely God' is the best argument. not enough to say it's proven though, cause the other possibilities are too real.

Edited February 21, 2011 by dairygirl4u2c

[Jaime]

[quote name='havok579257' timestamp='1298214576' post='2214114']
well what made the big bag... ???

this argument for any belief can never be answered.
[/quote]

That is a hefty question

[dairygirl4u2c]

i'd also say that intnetionality and consciousness probably proves God... as i said, i dont think we'll every create life. and free will is too nondeterministic, as said. the world without God would it seems be determiniistic. of course, there's the possiblity that life could be made without God, that it's all robotic despite what our intutition says. tha's why God isn't proven by this 'order' argument either. (the other arguments have been about 'causual chains' as far as i know
people say that quantum physicas is random though, and this variable could give rise to nondeterministic seeming/being phenomenon.

Edited February 21, 2011 by dairygirl4u2c

[Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' timestamp='1298252727' post='2214278']
the best i can make out of the explanations is that they are artificially constructed frameworks. like, we start out with the idea that there's something. okay sure we can all accept that. then it all gets into something must have made that something in an uncaused caused way, and anything that is nonGod in explaination will need another layer added to it by rule of the definitions we created.
'God is primary efficient cause... if you ever try to give antoher explanation, it will need a primary efficient cause. you can't say that there's a primary efficient cause that doesn't involve God by definition.' it's like a circular argument.
it's like when kids are arguing 'you're a booger to infinity.' 'no you're a burger to infinity plus one'.
a more academic way of always trying to top the other with artificial contructs (and i'd argue missing hte points)... eg, from Dumb and Dumber



i suppose if we look at the big bang, we would say it seems that there's something from nothing, which isn't the most rational explaination... so we'd say that something came from something, and we'll call it God given the only way we could get past the something from nothing conundrum is to say that there was something, and the end product of this process of 'well there must've been something' is God. eg, we see a blank space, and then things just start comming from it.
[/quote]
As far as I know in the big bang, something came from something else. Something had to go bang.... but then again I could be wrong.

Also for Being, it is not something extrinsic or contrived or artificial. If you negate all of the qualities from an organism all you are left with is its being. The thing that seems to make it what it is, that which limits its being, is its essence or nature (the essence or nature is what we come to know when we see something as a thing of a kind or as a kind of thing). These two things seem to make an entity what it is. However, there seems to rationally be a being with no essence which is absolute being and is unlimited. Such a being would be the cause of all other beings and their natures. Such a being would be God and would be absolute and unconditioned. This seems to me not to be artificial but a simple negation and abstraction from reality.

Edited February 21, 2011 by Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam

[Cruce]

AMDG,

Thank you so much for all your thought out responses. Sadly I have to go to work now but give me some time to read them a few more times and give them the attention they deserve.

[Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam]

[quote name='Cruce' timestamp='1298258817' post='2214300']
AMDG,

Thank you so much for all your thought out responses. Sadly I have to go to work now but give me some time to read them a few more times and give them the attention they deserve.
[/quote]

I hope what I have said has helped and not just confused the issue further.

One more quick post on being though and how one seems to come to know objects. When one comes to know an object one does to know it in its very being. Rather one experiences it in a sensory way through the body. The mind then abstracts and apprehends the essence/nature of a thing and understands it to be a thing of a kind (we encounter an animal and recognize it as a dog). We understand the kind of thing it is and know its essence. We can see its limits in its essence through our encounter with it and the world around us. Through negation we can take all these potentials away and all we are left with is being in itself. This hylomorphic structure of being and essence/nature is the foundation for the framework that Aristotle uses and from which St. Thomas draws.

Edited February 21, 2011 by Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam

[MarkKurallSchuenemann]

[quote name='Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam' timestamp='1298240659' post='2214191']
I highly disagree. My first point is that you don't need to have faith to believe [i]that[/i] God exists. [/quote]

Not true.

[sup][/sup][quote][sup]1[/sup][b]Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.[/b][/quote]
[b]
[/b]Since, God is never seen - the only evidence of him in our world is the faith of his people - and the only substance of him in our world is our hope.

[quote] [sup]2[/sup]For by it the elders obtained a good report. [sup]3[/sup]Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.

[sup]4[/sup]By faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, by which he obtained witness that he was righteous, God testifying of his gifts: and by it he being dead yet speaketh.

[sup]5[/sup]By faith Enoch was translated that he should not see death; and was not found, because God had translated him: for before his translation he had this testimony, that he pleased God.

[sup]6[/sup]But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.

[sup]7[/sup]By faith Noah, being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house; by the which he condemned the world, and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith.

[sup]8[/sup]By faith Abraham, when he was called to go out into a place which he should after receive for an inheritance, obeyed; and he went out, not knowing whither he went.

[sup]9[/sup]By faith he sojourned in the land of promise, as in a strange country, dwelling in tabernacles with Isaac and Jacob, the heirs with him of the same promise:

[sup]10[/sup]For he looked for a city which hath foundations, whose builder and maker is God.

[sup]11[/sup]Through faith also Sara herself received strength to conceive seed, and was delivered of a child when she was past age, because she judged him faithful who had promised.

[sup]12[/sup]Therefore sprang there even of one, and him as good as dead, so many as the stars of the sky in multitude, and as the sand which is by the sea shore innumerable.

[sup]13[/sup]These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them, and embraced them, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth.

[sup]14[/sup]For they that say such things declare plainly that they seek a country.

[sup]15[/sup]And truly, if they had been mindful of that country from whence they came out, they might have had opportunity to have returned.

[sup]16[/sup]But now they desire a better country, that is, an heavenly: wherefore God is not ashamed to be called their God: for he hath prepared for them a city.

[sup]17[/sup]By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten son,

[sup]18[/sup]Of whom it was said, That in Isaac shall thy seed be called:

[sup]19[/sup]Accounting that God was able to raise him up, even from the dead; from whence also he received him in a figure.

[sup]20[/sup]By faith Isaac blessed Jacob and Esau concerning things to come.

[sup]21[/sup]By faith Jacob, when he was a dying, blessed both the sons of Joseph; and worshipped, leaning upon the top of his staff.

[sup]22[/sup]By faith Joseph, when he died, made mention of the departing of the children of Israel; and gave commandment concerning his bones.

[sup]23[/sup]By faith Moses, when he was born, was hid three months of his parents, because they saw he was a proper child; and they were not afraid of the king's commandment.

[sup]24[/sup]By faith Moses, when he was come to years, refused to be called the son of Pharaoh's daughter;

[sup]25[/sup]Choosing rather to suffer affliction with the people of God, than to enjoy the pleasures of sin for a season;

[sup]26[/sup]Esteeming the reproach of Christ greater riches than the treasures in Egypt: for he had respect unto the recompence of the reward.

[sup]27[/sup]By faith he forsook Egypt, not fearing the wrath of the king: for he endured, as seeing him who is invisible.

[sup]28[/sup]Through faith he kept the passover, and the sprinkling of blood, lest he that destroyed the firstborn should touch them.

[sup]29[/sup]By faith they passed through the Red sea as by dry land: which the Egyptians assaying to do were drowned.

[sup]30[/sup]By faith the walls of Jericho fell down, after they were compassed about seven days.

[sup]31[/sup]By faith the harlot Rahab perished not with them that believed not, when she had received the spies with peace.

[sup]32[/sup]And what shall I more say? for the time would fail me to tell of Gedeon, and of Barak, and of Samson, and of Jephthae; of David also, and Samuel, and of the prophets:

[sup]33[/sup]Who through faith subdued kingdoms, wrought righteousness, obtained promises, stopped the mouths of lions.

[sup]34[/sup]Quenched the violence of fire, escaped the edge of the sword, out of weakness were made strong, waxed valiant in fight, turned to flight the armies of the aliens.

[sup]35[/sup]Women received their dead raised to life again: and others were tortured, not accepting deliverance; that they might obtain a better resurrection:

[sup]36[/sup]And others had trial of cruel mockings and scourgings, yea, moreover of bonds and imprisonment:

[sup]37[/sup]They were stoned, they were sawn asunder, were tempted, were slain with the sword: they wandered about in sheepskins and goatskins; being destitute, afflicted, tormented;

[sup]38[/sup](Of whom the world was not worthy:) they wandered in deserts, and in mountains, and in dens and caves of the earth.

[sup]39[/sup]And these all, having obtained a good report through faith, received not the promise:

[sup]40[/sup]God having provided some better thing for us, that they without us should not be made perfect.

[/quote]

I invite you into my world, where you don't need a shred of proof God exists - and people can laugh at you for saying you believe in something that they can't see, so you are a child with an imaginary friend who believes in fairy tales - and you can say that's fine - you have your beliefs, and I have mine.


[quote name='Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam' timestamp='1298240659' post='2214191']
One can come to the understanding that God exists through reason. Aristotle does this; Plato does this; other philosophers who lived solely according to reason came to this understanding through reason alone. They did not say who or what God was like but that He was. So just historically that is wrong in that people came to understand that God was through the use of their intellect and reason rather than faith (in fact such men were charged with impiety and corruption of the youth in that they were perceived not to have faith in gods. Something with which the people of Athens often charged such men). Our differences with these men over who God is stems from faith in what God has revealed to us about Himself (which is why the conception of the Covenant God of Israel differs from that of the God of the Philosophers); however, we agree with them rationally that God is and that He is absolute and uncaused.[/quote]

Here is the thing though, they can reason it out after because they first had faith to believe.

[quote name='Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam' timestamp='1298240659' post='2214191']
Also there is a problem with the way you are thinking of "just be." One cannot make a distinction between "God" and "just be." God--as understood in the Catholic, Jewish, and even Muslim Philosophic Traditions--is absolute Being. There is no potency or potential in Him as Being in itself, as that which nothing is greater than, as that which sustains all things. Now you claim that if God can "just be" so can the universe "just be." There is a problem with this in that you claim these two things "have" absolute being rather than "are" absolute being. You make "absolute Being" a quality of a being (part of the essence) rather than how the being is in itself. In doing so you introduce individuation and thus potential to be different into absolute Being by saying that two entities can have this "quality". In introducing individuation and thus potential and potency, you have said that "God" and the "universe" cannot be absolute Being and thus can't "just be" or be "always/eternally existent" and be uncaused. This follows since individuation shows that things could be other than they are since they have potency in being (making them contingent rather than necessary beings). In giving them potential you have said they are not pure actuality and pure Being and thus it is possible for something to be greater than them. In doing so you have not identified absolute Being (which would mean they would "just be" and always have been as uncaused), which has no potency and thus no individuation and thus has nothing greater than it, which we call and worship as God.

Edited for grammar and to make points clearer.
[/quote]

And that is what separates us from others, we have faith that what we believe is true - we don't need, or shouldn't need, to be able to prove it.

----------------------

Looking at what I just wrote, I now kinda feel more inspired now. We are the evidence and substance of God! If someone asks you to prove God exists, just say - I'm here talking to you about him, and that is the only evidence you will ever receive from him, and that is the only substance you will ever see of him!

Edited February 21, 2011 by MarkKurallSchuenemann

[Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam]

[quote name='MarkKurallSchuenemann' timestamp='1298314774' post='2214445']
Looking at what I just wrote, I now kinda feel more inspired now. We are the evidence and substance of God! If someone asks you to prove God exists, just say - I'm here talking to you about him, and that is the only evidence you will ever receive from him, and that is the only substance you will ever see of him!
[/quote]

So then we don't need faith to know God exists and we can know through reason and observing the world? This is what your last point seems to suggest.

Also I think I have shown how people can through reason know [b]that[/b] God is but only faith/revelation reveals [b]who[/b] God is. Reason is the first light God gave us by which to know the world and it is not opposed to faith. Faith and reason go hand in hand. Though reason is superceded by faith in that God directly reveals knowledge to us and who He is but this does not mean we don't know whether God is through reason. Also if you want more information on the topic, St. Thomas shows that one comes to know that God exists through reason in the Summa Theologica Prima Parse Question 12 Article 12. He also goes into how knowledge through Revelation and Grace supercedes and is above the of reason. They are short questions and use the Thomistic method of examining the effects and then showing what such effects reveal about their cause. He is much more eloquent than I am and does a good job of showing what human reason can know and where its limits are. [url="http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1012.htm#article12"]Prima Parse Q. 12 A. 12 &13[/url]

[quote name='MarkKurallSchuenemann' timestamp='1298314774' post='2214445']
Since, God is never seen - the only evidence of him in our world is the faith of his people - and the only substance of him in our world is our hope.
[/quote]
This seems wrong to me. You yourself testify to the fact that humans and the world around us, by our very being, show that God exists. This then at the very least allows us to know through reason that He exists though there are other proofs.

[quote name='MarkKurallSchuenemann' timestamp='1298314774' post='2214445']
I invite you into my world, where you don't need a shred of proof God exists - and people can laugh at you for saying you believe in something that they can't see, so you are a child with an imaginary friend who believes in fairy tales - and you can say that's fine - you have your beliefs, and I have mine.[/quote]
This sounds to me too close to relativism and this world view will not bring people to Christ. "You believe what you want and that is ok for you and I'll believe what I want" or "that's fine - you have your beliefs, and I have mine" does not win hearts. If someone wants to laugh at me for my beliefs and my thinking then they are welcome to but I will always be ready to give an explanation to anyone who asks me for the reason for my hope (1 Peter 3: 15-16). And with God's grace, I hope to always do this lovingly and charitably.

Edited February 21, 2011 by Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam

[MarkKurallSchuenemann]

[quote name='Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam' timestamp='1298316899' post='2214460']
This sounds to me too close to relativism and this world view will not bring people to Christ. "You believe what you want and that is ok for you and I'll believe what I want" or "that's fine - you have your beliefs, and I have mine" does not win hearts. If someone wants to laugh at me for my beliefs and my thinking then they are welcome to but I will always be ready to give an explanation to anyone who asks me for the reason for my hope (1 Peter 3: 15-16). And with God's grace, I hope to always do this lovingly and charitably.
[/quote]

First, in an earlier post, I would give my answer is, my worth is eternal - because my worth is what Christ did on the cross! He thought I was worth it then, he thinks I'm worth it now, and he will always think I am worth it. It gives me a peace that passes all understanding and I will cleave unto it because of the healing it has given me. That is the evidence you seek of God - if it weren't for what Christ did on the cross, I would be very mentally ill right now - but his love pierces through all the evil of this world, all the uncaring attitudes, and all the pain and suffering I have suffered through because people target me because of my learning disability - trust me - I was targeted a lot in high school and in places where cliques easily form. And that is the only substance of the hope I have because of God. My reason for believing in Christ is that nobody loved me like he did until I read the gospels and read how much he truly loved me - and it healed a very broken heart - I would lay my life down for him!

[quote name='Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam' timestamp='1298316899' post='2214460']
So then we don't need faith to know God exists and we can know through reason and observing the world? This is what your last point seems to suggest.[/quote]

Atheists say this - seeing is believing. I say - believing is seeing. You can only see God in the creation if you first believe in him - if not, you will never see him in the creation. All you can do for that person is say, you have one way to see the world, and I have my own, lets agree to disagree.

[quote name='Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam' timestamp='1298316899' post='2214460']
Also I think I have shown how people can through reason know [b]that[/b] God is but only faith/revelation reveals [b]who[/b] God is. Reason is the first light God gave us by which to know the world and it is not opposed to faith. Faith and reason go hand in hand. Though reason is superceded by faith in that God directly reveals knowledge to us and who He is but this does not mean we don't know whether God is through reason. Also if you want more information on the topic, St. Thomas shows that one comes to know that God exists through reason in the Summa Theologica Prima Parse Question 12 Article 12. He also goes into how knowledge through Revelation and Grace supercedes and is above the of reason. They are short questions and use the Thomistic method of examining the effects and then showing what such effects reveal about their cause. He is much more eloquent than I am and does a good job of showing what human reason can know and where its limits are. [url="http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1012.htm#article12"]Prima Parse Q. 12 A. 12 &13[/url] [/quote]

First, you are thinking through the eyes of a believer. But even then, our minds are not God's mind. How can a person who doesn't believe in God be able to reason it out except that God first reveals himself to them, and he does so through his followers. Lee Strobel is a famous ex-atheist. He had a wife who was a Christian, and because he didn't like Christianity or any kind of belief, he went about to try to prove to his wife that what she believed was a fairy tale, and did so by being the profession he was - a journalist. He sought out any and all evidence to prove to her that she was wrong, but over a year - all the evidence pointed to yes Christ was who he said he was, and that God exists. The only reason he could come up with that conclusion was first seeing his wife, i.e. - her faith and hope gave him evidence and substance to her arguments - because of the peace of knowing her saviour created in her, so as the evidence mounted that he was wrong, and seeing the peace of his wife, he turned to God and asked Jesus to be his saviour as well!

So her faith and hope was the first step of him learning to love Christ. She didn't need to write the books the Case for Christ or the Case of Faith, he did - to solidify his part of the Kingdom.

[quote name='Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam' timestamp='1298316899' post='2214460']
This seems wrong to me. You yourself testify to the fact that humans and the world around us, by our very being, show that God exists. This then at the very least allows us to know through reason that He exists though there are other proofs. [/quote]

People can only learn to believe in God through us - we are the doorway to that belief and to trust in God - in fact, we are the only doorway - because nobody can believe except that God sends out messengers - us!

Edited February 21, 2011 by MarkKurallSchuenemann

[Laudate_Dominum]

oh my, whats diss thred? teal deer atm but I'm intristed. k, peace.

[Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam]

[quote name='MarkKurallSchuenemann' timestamp='1298319164' post='2214473']
First, you are thinking through the eyes of a believer. But even then, our minds are not God's mind. How can a person who doesn't believe in God be able to reason it out except that God first reveals himself to them, and he does so through his followers. Lee Strobel is a famous ex-atheist. He had a wife who was a Christian, and because he didn't like Christianity or any kind of belief, he went about to try to prove to his wife that what she believed was a fairy tale, and did so by being the profession he was - a journalist. He sought out any and all evidence to prove to her that she was wrong, but over a year - all the evidence pointed to yes Christ was who he said he was, and that God exists. The only reason he could come up with that conclusion was first seeing his wife, i.e. - her faith and hope gave him evidence and substance to her arguments - because of the peace of knowing her saviour created in her, so as the evidence mounted that he was wrong, and seeing the peace of his wife, he turned to God and asked Jesus to be his saviour as well!

So her faith and hope was the first step of him learning to love Christ. She didn't need to write the books the Case for Christ or the Case of Faith, he did - to solidify his part of the Kingdom.
[/quote]

Your own example is actually a counter example. This atheist encounters his wife's faith and is clearly not thinking through the eyes of a believer. The atheist (who does not have the eyes of faith) sees reasons and counts them as proofs for the existence of God and accepts the grace and gift of faith from God. His wife was a reason as was everything he found. Clearly he did not have faith first but came to it. He accepted God's gift of love once he was convinced God existed. Don't get me wrong. I do believe faith is a grace and a gift. I believe that faith in who God is as loving and merciful is definitely a gift and a grace, but God is so powerful that He created beings that could reason a conclusion to the question of whether He exists or not. Your own example seems to confirm this.

[MarkKurallSchuenemann]

[quote name='Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam' timestamp='1298320257' post='2214479']
Your own example is actually a counter example. This atheist encounters his wife's faith and is clearly not thinking through the eyes of a believer. [/quote]


But he can't accept those proofs, except it happens just like how Peter accepted Jesus was Christ.

Who did Christ say revealed that to him - was it Peter's reasoning, or God's revealing? Man can't reason out God's existence, only God can reveal himself and only through his followers.

[quote name='Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam' timestamp='1298320257' post='2214479']
The atheist (who does not have the eyes of faith) sees reasons and counts them as proofs for the existence of God and accepts the grace and gift of faith from God. His wife was a reason as was everything he found. Clearly he did not have faith first but came to it. He accepted God's gift of love once he was convinced God existed. Don't get me wrong. I do believe faith is a grace and a gift. I believe that faith in who God is as loving and merciful is definitely a gift and a grace, but God is so powerful that He created beings that could reason a conclusion to the question of whether He exists or not. Your own example seems to confirm this.
[/quote]

But it was his wife's faith and hope that gave him evidence and substance. She could never give the empirical proof of God's existence, because there is none - he could only see that she had peace that she knew her saviour - and that was the only evidence he had to begin with. As he realized his reasoning that God and the Bible were just fairy tales could be wrong as he got so much historical evidence that Christ existed - that gave God enough room to reveal himself through his wife, and how do we know he wasn't a 'little jealous' that she has peace in this world and he didn't - and so there was just a bit of stirring of faith in him to begin with.

Maybe we are just splitting hairs here - which comes first, reasoning or faith - I would say faith comes first and then the reasoning second - which would kinda go with how the spirit interacts with me - sometimes I just feel I should or shouldn't do something in the spirit for no apparent reason (faith), and later I find out through reasoning, God was warning or moving me towards something!

[dairygirl4u2c]

we have 'being' and 'nature', as we negate the nature we are left with being of something. as we do that with the universe as we know it, we are left with the being of it, sure.
i don't think 'God' is proven. something is proven, maybe absolute being even. but that's not enough to call it God so much as it's soemthing, absolute being sure. saying it's God is just playing word games.
same as saying the 'uncaused cause' that must exist, is God.

[Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' timestamp='1298322524' post='2214491']
we have 'being' and 'nature', as we negate the nature we are left with being of something. as we do that with the universe as we know it, we are left with the being of it, sure.
i don't think 'God' is proven. something is proven, maybe absolute being even. but that's not enough to call it God so much as it's soemthing, absolute being sure. saying it's God is just playing word games.
same as saying the 'uncaused cause' that must exist, is God.
[/quote]

That is an interesting approach. I would argue that admitting the proof of an uncaused cause or absolute being and refusing to call absolute being/the uncaused cause God is playing word games. If God is not absolute being with no potential/not pure act or power/not the uncaused cause then He is no God at all.

Edited February 21, 2011 by Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam

[PaladinSoG]

Way too many things that have shot over my head here. I'll just leave all this to you learned people. I prefer to fight with my fists anyway.