Proof's For God's Existence

[Amppax]

I have spent my religion class this last year studying proofs for God's existence (we have used the text [u]The Question of God[/u] by Michael Palmer). Through arguing back and forth about the various proofs, I have realized that I have not yet run into a proof that was without flaws. It seems to me at this point that the existence of God cannot be rationally proved or disproved. So, like my topic description says, waddya think? Can we truly prove or disprove the existence of God?

[dairygirl4u2c]

i'd start here if i were you, and perhaps look in phatmass archives

http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=96494&st=0&p=1925268&hl=existence&fromsearch=1&#entry1925268

http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=106621&st=0

god's existence
god

[Amppax]

oh thanks, sorry about that, I didn't even look to see if there had been similar threads.

[SaintOfVirtue]

Thomas Aquinas's five proofs for the existence of God are found in the summa theologia.

Also I think the existence of God can be proved from the fact that mankind seems to observe a very similar moral code regardless of cultural influences.

[AudreyGrace]

[quote name='SaintOfVirtue' timestamp='1302140160' post='2226557']
Thomas Aquinas's five proofs for the existence of God are found in the summa theologia.
[/quote]

this.

here's a sample: [url="http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1002.htm"]http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1002.htm[/url]

and a pretty good summary list: [url="http://www.mnstate.edu/gracyk/courses/web%20publishing/aquinasFiveWays_ArgumentAnalysis.htm"]http://www.mnstate.edu/gracyk/courses/web%20publishing/aquinasFiveWays_ArgumentAnalysis.htm[/url]

[Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam]

This is also a good link to read.
http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=111223&hl=existence&st=0

[Amppax]

thanks for the links, sorry about starting a thread w/o checking for old ones first

pax

[4588686]

[quote name='Amppax' timestamp='1302060513' post='2226326']
I have spent my religion class this last year studying proofs for God's existence (we have used the text [u]The Question of God[/u] by Michael Palmer). Through arguing back and forth about the various proofs, I have realized that I have not yet run into a proof that was without flaws. It seems to me at this point that the existence of God cannot be rationally proved or disproved. So, like my topic description says, waddya think? Can we truly prove or disprove the existence of God?
[/quote]

I wouldn't say that you can't. I would say with a lot of confidence that no proof has yet been made.

[quote name='Amppax' timestamp='1302060513' post='2226326']
I have spent my religion class this last year studying proofs for God's existence (we have used the text [u]The Question of God[/u] by Michael Palmer). Through arguing back and forth about the various proofs, I have realized that I have not yet run into a proof that was without flaws. It seems to me at this point that the existence of God cannot be rationally proved or disproved. So, like my topic description says, waddya think? Can we truly prove or disprove the existence of God?
[/quote]

I wouldn't say that you can't. I would say with a lot of confidence that no proof has yet been made.

[Amppax]

Good point Hasan, I would probably agree with that position.

[regina_coeli]

Isn't this where we turn to FAITH?

[Socrates]

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

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

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

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

[Winchester]

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

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

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

Atheistic materialism is utterly incapable of dealing with the issue of being itself, why things exist, rather than not exist. It avoids the issue altogether, or declares existence to be absurd (via the atheistic existentialists).
Philosophically, atheism creates far more problems that it resolves. Material things cannot ultimately cause themselves.
[/quote]
[img]http://i527.photobucket.com/albums/cc358/WRCedric/bill-and-ted-socrates1.jpg[/img]

[img]http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Z6M91hqCdb4/0.jpg[/img]

[4588686]

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

I'm sure many atheists dismiss Aquinas's arguments without understanding

[QUOTE] Material things cannot ultimately cause themselves.
[/quote]


Kind of like how some right-wing Catholics who lack the scientific-intellectual background to actually understand theoretical physics or cosmology make sweeping and unsupported claims about a very contentious issue in theoretical-physics and cosmology.

[Tally Marx]

I have to agree with what Socrates is getting at.
Firstly, it depends on what one considers "proof". Scientific proof? And what sort of scientific proof? If one is looking for the Mathmatical equation for God, he will never find it. ....Now let us prove that miracles can and do occur. This is possible. The Tilma of Juan Deigo, for example, speaks for itself. But for an atheist, this will be nothing more than a proof of ignorance. "We cannot explain it, and one needn't make up fairy-tales to try" is a mentality that can dismiss even the most glaring evidence. When one only accepts physical proof, he will never find evidence for a metaphysical reality.

Now, in the area of Logic and Philosophy one can make better headway. Science studies what is there and, understanding only that it is there, why it is the way it is. Philosophy, on the other hand, dares to question why something IS in the first place. It often works backward: with philosophy, you can prove what is, by looking at what is not (for instance, and to put it very simply, we can know the effects and essence of, say, unselfishness, by studying selfishness: they are opposites, and whatever one is the other isn't) and you can learn characteristics of one thing by studying the characteristics of another. It takes a radical thought-process, and most don't accept it. But if one is open to it... Then they will find plenty of "proof" for "God". We can, for example, by looking at the existence of the universe and the order in it come to the conclusion that 1) there must have been a First Cause 2) and there must be a Maintainer of Order. 2a) this Maintainer must also be an Intelligent Entity (omniscient, in fact) who is everywhere in order to keep said Order, and 2b) powerful enough to do it. Eternal, omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent: the four characteristics of God, proven merely by proving the necessity of something existing in that capacity. I suppose one can liken it to proving a black hole. We've never seen one or heard one and can't study it, but by looking at the effects it has on other objects, we can know SOME of its characteristics. (Stress on some: we can never fully know God. Some charactertics cannot be conceived of)

But, again, what is proof? An undeniable surety? One cannot trust the conclusions of a fallible mind, no matter how reasonable said conclusions may seem now. "Proof", then, is a more relative term, determined by whatever reasons the individual chooses to accept. With this in mind, even if there is proof (in an objective sense) there may still be no proof. So, I voted no, despite the fact that very compelling arguments appealing very strongly to reason do, in fact, exist. Please forgive me if this entire post is incoherent. It's very late and I am certain I am a bit befuddled, though it makes perfect sense in MY head.

[Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam]

[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1303074336' post='2229559']
Material things cannot ultimately cause themselves.
[/quote]

[quote name='Hasan' timestamp='1303097884' post='2229687']
Kind of like how some right-wing Catholics who lack the scientific-intellectual background to actually understand theoretical physics or cosmology make sweeping and unsupported claims about a very contentious issue in theoretical-physics and cosmology.
[/quote]

Do you Hasan understand how particles seem to move from particle to energy(wave) and back to particle and as such seem to pop in an out of existence but don't really? It is some pretty complex stuff. Do you understand how things in quantum mechanics underdetermine the results that we actually get when we do experiments? No one really does. However, it is a philosophic axiom that of the things we encounter, nothing brings itself into existence but rather has a cause. This seems to be a fairly logical axiom and not at all "some right-wing Catholic" unscientific claim. I think that this logical claim is what Socrates was asserting and not some sweeping unsupported cosmological claim.