Proof's For God's Existence

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1303322767' post='2230568']
[img]http://i1103.photobucket.com/albums/g470/GregoryIRice/DudeWalter.jpg[/img]

. . . He's crackin.'
[/quote]
I doubt I get this joke as I've not seen that movie, but this pic alone is making me lol... The more I look at it the funnier it gets. hahahaa

[Amppax]

The main problem that I have in this contention that we can logically prove God, as many are claiming, is the fact that most of these proofs rest, at some level, upon analogies. As there is nothing analogous to God, it really seems to me that at this point most of these proofs fall apart. It also seems to me that any proof we use would naturally have to limit a limitless God, define a God that by his very nature cannot be defined.

Thank you everybody for your additions and information, its been really informative.

[dairygirl4u2c]

it'd be interesting for ya to look up the status of 'God can be proven' in the catholic church. i've always heard that it's a dogma, but others have said it's not, and others say that whatever its status as far as authoritative, that it's more like 'we can know God exists by reason' - significantly not exactly the same as 'God can be proven'.
the question is what have the popes said definiitvely on this issue.

[dairygirl4u2c]

this sounds more like "God can be proven"...

Pius X, a Pope of the Catholic Church, says: "Deum ... naturali rationis lumine per ea quae facta sunt, hoc est per visibilia creationis opera, tanquam causam per effectus certo cognosci adeoque demostrari etiam posse, profiteor." ("I declare that by the natural light of reason, God can be certainly known and therefore his existence demonstrated through the things that are made, i.e., through the visible works of creation, as the cause is known through its effects."

and i disagree with it, too. just read my posts. best. refutation. ever. if you define God in any significant terms or ask for any significant burden of proof, that is.

[thessalonian]

Rom 1
[18] For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and wickedness of men who by their wickedness [b]suppress the truth.[/b]
[19] For [b]what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them.[/b]
[20] Ever since the creation of the world his invisible nature, namely, his eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made. So [b]they are without excuse; [/b]

The answer be yes

Edited April 25, 2011 by thessalonian

[Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam]

[quote name='Amppax' timestamp='1303505138' post='2231210']
The main problem that I have in this contention that we can logically prove God, as many are claiming, is the fact that most of these proofs rest, at some level, upon analogies. As there is nothing analogous to God, it really seems to me that at this point most of these proofs fall apart. It also seems to me that any proof we use would naturally have to limit a limitless God, define a God that by his very nature cannot be defined.

Thank you everybody for your additions and information, its been really informative.
[/quote]

Ummmm.....if God is the source of all things and is nothing is greater in that He is all goodness, wouldn't everything in so far as it is good be analogous to God? Analogy seems an appropriate way to speak of God precisely because He is infinite. One certainly couldn't really make direct correlations. And no, if you really learn the Aristotelean principles St. Thomas uses in his proofs you can see the many distinctions between them and see how they necessarily speak of a infinite being.

I'll give you an example of a proof of God from Descartes that doesn't place a limit on God (paraphrased): Humans have a concept of infinity. Humans never encounter infinity on earth. In fact, here they could never get the idea of infinity since adding 1 more to a previous number will only get you another number and not the concept of infinity. In fact, infinity is not found within the human person itself since humans are finite. Therefore, the only way that humans can possibly have a concept of infinity, which we do have, is for such an idea to be innate or placed within us. Such an idea could only be done by an experience of the infinite or something infinite itself or else we would still only have experiences of finitude and would have no concept other than quantity. This infinity which puts this mark on us, if it is infinity, necessarily has no lacking. Since it has no lacking it is by definition perfect goodness. We worship this Perfectly good being as God. (Descartes was big into Math as you can tell).

Also, sorry it has taken me so long to respond Hasan. I plan on responding to your previous reply to me but I'm working on a paper on the irreducibility of consciousness and am a little swamped. I'll reply soon though.

[Fiat_Voluntas_Tua]

AMDG - I like the reference to Descartes! And many people say Descartes rejected EVERYTHING from classical philosophy...that is an utter lie! The "Causal Likeness/Resemblance Principle" is clearly clearly Aristotelian (and something held throughout classical philosophy).

Amppax - most arguments for the existence of God worth taking seriously are inductive, or abductive - inference to the best explanation- type arguments (I am not too crazy about ontological arguments). If you take Aquinas's 5 ways (I stress they are not [b]proofs[/b], even Thomas doesn't call them 'proofs'), as abductive or inference to the best explanation, then they can be reformulated in rather persuasive ways. If you take them as deductive, you run into problems. Distinguishing between different [i]types [/i] of arguments will help you to see how the 5 ways (and Descartes quasi-explanatory cosmological argument) don't run into the trouble of analogical predication of attributes of God.

If you take the arguments in the ways I have been stressing (and which most competent Thomistic scholars suggest) then several problems go away. Furthermore, an abductive argument for the existence of God does not need to define God first. The way the run is as follows:
(1) Some phenomenon is recalcitrant for naturalism.
(2) The best explanation of this phenomenon is (or presuppose) the existence of God.
(3) It is [i]highly likely[/i] that God exists given that phenomenon.

You don't need to discuss much at all what God is like in arguing that He exists.

Edited April 25, 2011 by Fiat_Voluntas_Tua

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam' timestamp='1303769041' post='2232872']
I'll give you an example of a proof of God from Descartes that doesn't place a limit on God (paraphrased): Humans have a concept of infinity. Humans never encounter infinity on earth. In fact, here they could never get the idea of infinity since adding 1 more to a previous number will only get you another number and not the concept of infinity. In fact, infinity is not found within the human person itself since humans are finite. Therefore, the only way that humans can possibly have a concept of infinity, which we do have, is for such an idea to be innate or placed within us. Such an idea could only be done by an experience of the infinite or something infinite itself or else we would still only have experiences of finitude and would have no concept other than quantity. This infinity which puts this mark on us, if it is infinity, necessarily has no lacking. Since it has no lacking it is by definition perfect goodness. We worship this Perfectly good being as God. (Descartes was big into Math as you can tell).
[/quote]
For such a proof to even make sense requires prior philosophical and theological commitments. I'd say pretty considerable ones. What the concept of infinity even means is a huge question. How you go from infinity in the abstract to a concrete agent (the "infinity which puts this mark on us"), and how this personified infinity "places" ideas or capacities into the mind is unclear. This is an invitation to elaborate and not a critique btw. Also, how familiar are you with Bolzano and Cantor? I ask because I wouldn't mind discussing infinity with someone who is similarly interested in the topic.

[AudreyGrace]

HOKAY SO here's what Youcat has to say (the shiny new CCC for youth -( yes, it is the catechism, just written easier for youth and such)

[u]4- Can we know the existence of God by our reason? [/u]
[b]Yes. Human reason can know God with certainty. [/b]
The world cannot have its origin and its destination within itself. In everything that exists, there is more than we see. The order, the beauty, and the development of the world point beyond themselves toward God. Every man is receptive to what is true, good, and beautiful. He hears within himself the voice of conscience, which urges him to what is good and warns him against what is evil. Anyone who follows this path reasonably finds God.

[u]5- Why do people deny that God exists, if they can know him by reason? [/u]
[b]To know the invisible God is a great challenge for the human mind. Many are scared off by it. Another reason why some do not want to know God is because they would then have to change their life. Anyone who says that the question about God is meaningless because it cannot be answered is making things too easy for himself. [/b]

[u]6- Can we grasp God at all in concepts? Is it possible to speak about him meaningfully? [/u]
[b]Although we men are limited and the infinite greatness of God never fits into finite human concepts, we can nevertheless speak rightly about God. [/b]
In order to express something about God, we use imperfect images and limited notions. And so everything we say about God is subject to the reservation that our language is not equal to God's greatess. Therefore we must constantly purify and improve our speech about God.

Also remember: Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the proof of things not seen. -Hebrews 11:1
Is God "seen"? No. So, faith is the hardcore legit proof that God exists.

"The noblest power of man is reason. The highest goal of reason is the knowledge of God." - Saint Albert the Great

"They (men) should seek God, in the hope that they might feel after him and find him. Yet he is not far from each one of us, for 'In him we live and move and have our being.'" -Acts 17:27-28a

"Something incomprehensible is not for that reason less real." - Blaise Pascal

[Laudate_Dominum]

Sweet. Is Youcat online at all Audrey?

[AudreyGrace]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' timestamp='1303777771' post='2233002']
Sweet. Is Youcat online at all Audrey?
[/quote]

Don't think so.
I copied that old school, book to type. lol.

[Ice_nine]

The universe is so big.

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='AudreyGrace' timestamp='1303777947' post='2233005']
Don't think so.
I copied that old school, book to type. lol.
[/quote]
Wow. Thanks for taking the time to do that!

[Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' timestamp='1303775775' post='2232951']
For such a proof to even make sense requires prior philosophical and theological commitments. I'd say pretty considerable ones. What the concept of infinity even means is a huge question. How you go from infinity in the abstract to a concrete agent (the "infinity which puts this mark on us"), and how this personified infinity "places" ideas or capacities into the mind is unclear. This is an invitation to elaborate and not a critique btw. Also, how familiar are you with Bolzano and Cantor? I ask because I wouldn't mind discussing infinity with someone who is similarly interested in the topic.
[/quote]

I don't know of those individuals I'm sorry. However, it was just a summary of his proof so I'm sorry if I may have skipped a few steps. I don't think it requires too many philosophical or any theological commitments. Knowledge begins in the senses. We do not have an experience of infinity here on earth. So where could we possibly have understood this idea from? It must be innate in the mind since we are "thinking things" according to Descartes. Innate ideas are the only possibly way we know a concept of infinity since it is not possible to come to know it through the senses in that the senses will only give you quantity and more of it but only an amount not infinity the idea. The only way to have innate ideas is for it to be placed on, formed in, or impressed into us by something bearing that quality. Such a thing giving us that idea must be infinite since it is also irrational to say we come to know in idea from something which does not have the quality the idea is based on. Since by definition infinitude is not lacking and evil is a lack or privation this infinity which gives us the idea must be good. I don't think it makes many assumptions and seems to me to be very similar to St. Anselm's proof.

One goes from "infinity in the abstract to a concrete agent (the "infinity which puts this mark on us")" through necessity and understands "how this personified infinity "places" ideas or capacities into the mind" is through an experience of it. Knowledge comes from experience for the human person in that knowledge of things prior to experiencing them is odd for humanity to say the least. If we have this innate idea of infinity, then we must have had an experience of it. Infinity is not lacking and must exist since we have the innate idea within us. If it did not exist we wouldn't have the idea we do, therefore in some way have had an encounter with the infinite. It would be impossible to encounter an ethereal infinity as a human person (since we are thinking things and extended thing). As such, the infinity must be able to be experienced in a manner appropriate to us (think that which is received is received not according to the giver but according to the receiver). As such, this infinity must have been experienced as one/concretely, but infinite also in order to give us a unified idea of the infinite since an ethereal infinite would not do. Descartes has more to say about it if you want to read his meditations.

Edited April 26, 2011 by Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam' timestamp='1303794466' post='2233249']
I don't know of those individuals I'm sorry. However, it was just a summary of his proof so I'm sorry if I may have skipped a few steps. I don't think it requires too many philosophical or any theological commitments. Knowledge begins in the senses. We do not have an experience of infinity here on earth. So where could we possibly have understood this idea from? It must be innate in the mind since we are "thinking things" according to Descartes. Innate ideas are the only possibly way we know a concept of infinity since it is not possible to come to know it through the senses in that the senses will only give you quantity and more of it but only an amount not infinity the idea. The only way to have innate ideas is for it to be placed on, formed in, or impressed into us by something bearing that quality. Such a thing giving us that idea must be infinite since it is also irrational to say we come to know in idea from something which does not have the quality the idea is based on. Since by definition infinitude is not lacking and evil is a lack or privation this infinity which gives us the idea must be good. I don't think it makes many assumptions and seems to me to be very similar to St. Anselm's proof.

One goes from "infinity in the abstract to a concrete agent (the "infinity which puts this mark on us")" through necessity and understands "how this personified infinity "places" ideas or capacities into the mind" is through an experience of it. Knowledge comes from experience for the human person in that knowledge of things prior to experiencing them is odd for humanity to say the least. If we have this innate idea of infinity, then we must have had an experience of it. Infinity is not lacking and must exist since we have the innate idea within us. If it did not exist we wouldn't have the idea we do, therefore in some way have had an encounter with the infinite. It would be impossible to encounter an ethereal infinity as a human person (since we are thinking things and extended thing). As such, the infinity must be able to be experienced in a manner appropriate to us (think that which is received is received not according to the giver but according to the receiver). As such, this infinity must have been experienced as one/concretely, but infinite also in order to give us a unified idea of the infinite since an ethereal infinite would not do. Descartes has more to say about it if you want to read his meditations.
[/quote]
Thanks man. I like where this is going. I do have some recollection of Descartes' [i]Meditations[/i] but considering how long it's been since I last read them, or really thought much about them, I might as well give them a quick read before continuing in this discussion. I'd hate to hold back the convo with simple knowledge gaps or statements based on inaccurate impressions.