Does God Exist?

[Resurrexi]

I of coruse believe in God and believe that He can be known through reason.

[Maggyie]

For some reason the ontological argument has always been the most satisfying to me. I know about the "Gaunilo's island" criticism and all, but it's still my favorite.

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

The fact that there is existence, as opposed to nothing, implies that something big is going on. Atheism ultimately requires that some lifeless force or universe or matter just "existed" always. I do not see how that makes any sense.

[Mr.Cat]

[quote][b]Cosmological argument[/b]
"The cosmological argument is a metaphysical argument for the existence of God, traditionally known as an "argument from universal causation," an "argument from first cause," and also as an "uncaused cause" argument. Whichever term is used, there are three basic variants of this argument, each with subtle but important distinctions: the argument from causation in esse, the argument from causation in fieri, and the argument from contingency. The cosmological argument does not attempt to prove anything about the first cause or about God, except to argue that such a cause must exist. This cause is known in Latin as 'causa sui.'"
[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_argument"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_argument[/url][/quote][quote][b]Teleological argument[/b]
"A teleological argument (or a design argument) is an argument for the existence of God or a creator based on perceived evidence of order, purpose, design and/or direction in nature. The word "teleological" is derived from the Greek word telos, meaning end or purpose. Teleology is the supposition that there is purpose or directive principle in the works and processes of nature."
[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teleological_argument"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teleological_argument[/url][/quote][quote][b]Ontological argument[/b]
"An ontological argument for the existence of god is one which uses the method of a priori proof, that is, using intuition and reason alone.[1] In the context of the Abrahamic religions, it was first proposed by the medieval philosopher Anselm of Canterbury in his Proslogion, and important variations have been developed by philosophers such as René Descartes, Gottfried Leibniz, Norman Malcolm, Charles Hartshorne, and Alvin Plantinga. A modal logic version of the argument was devised by mathematician Kurt Gödel. The ontological argument has been a controversial topic in philosophy. Great philosophers such as David Hume, Immanuel Kant, Gottlob Frege, and Gaunilo of Marmoutiers, have openly criticized the argument.

The argument works by examining the concept of God, and arguing that it implies the actual existence of God; that is, if we can conceive of God, then God exists — it is thus self-contradictory to state that God does not exist. This is obviously a controversial position, and the ontological argument has a long history of detractors and defenders.

The argument's different versions arise mainly from using different concepts of God as the starting point. For example, Anselm starts with the notion of God as a being than which no greater can be conceived, while Descartes starts with the notion of God as being maximally perfect (as having all perfections)."
[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontological_Argument"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontological_Argument[/url][/quote]

[theculturewarrior]

Does our opinion really matter? :

[I'm Mr. Snikkers]

Of coarse God exists. How'd we be hear today? God created us.

[Anomaly]

Reasonable atheistic arguments would be any and/or all arguments against the 3 basic arguments for a God.

Cosmological: How can "God" be the First Cause unless there was a cause for God. If God always existed, then existience always existed.

Telelogical: No true randomness exists because of scale. Fractals.

Ontological: Logical and reasonable philosophical arguments for God are met solidly with logical and reasonable philosophical arguments against the existence of God. (David Hume, Immanuel Kant, Gottlob Frege, and Gaunilo of Marmoutiers).

The bottom line is we choose to believe in God or not. If God exists, He exists in a level of complexity that humans would be incapable of completely comprehending. By the same logic, if God does not exist, humanity is incapable of comprehending and proving His non-existence.

[Semalsia]

[quote]For the purposes of this thread God is a Being than which no greater being can be imagined[/quote]

But you can always imagine a greater being. Just like you can always imagine a greater number. Infinity isn't a actual number, it doesn't exist.

I'm not saying god doesn't exist, just that he/she might not be infinite or the only one.

[N/A Gone]

I think an atheist should take medical genetics and then answer tests I give them and answer them without a faith-based response.

/rant

often times someone just doesnt care. Or is bitter. There are hardly any pure atheists anymore.

[Hirsap]

Perhaps a good and solid starting point lies in the argument of Saint Thomas Aquinas from motion, in which the existence of the Being that is not put into motion by another is argued. This establishes that the Cause of all motion has no potency, being [b]Pure Act[/b]. ( A mug on a table has potential to be moved to the other end of the table, or being smashed into pieces. It is not until this occurs through some interference (motion) that these potentialities are actualised. Whereas with the Unmoved Mover, there is not such distinction between potentiality and actuality.) From the Unmoved Mover being Pure Act, it follows that the Being is [b]immutable[/b] or unchangable in every way. From this, it can be argued that the Unmoved Mover [b]has and always will exist[/b]. From this argument, one can establish these attributes of the Unmoved Mover: immutability and eternity.

Since this Being must exist, and essentially must exist, it can be said that Existance is one with this Being's Essence. Perhaps, from this, it can be said that the Being is one with Pure and Perfect Existance (eg: in the same way a circle MUST be round without compromise; a weak comparison, but still helpful perhaps). Perfect Existence is existence without any defect whatsoever, existence without limit; hence this Being is perfect in every way: omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, omnipresent, and all the attributes of God (who this Being IS).

Edited February 22, 2007 by Hirsap

[cmotherofpirl]

I didn't know what it was called but this is it: Telelogical.

CS Lewis's Mere Christianity made me Catholic.

All things decay unless held up something else.
The fact that cultures and civilizations have come and gone, but the Catholic Church remains, proves to me SOMEONE is in charge besides us.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Semalsia' post='1201602' date='Feb 21 2007, 09:58 AM']But you can always imagine a greater being. Just like you can always imagine a greater number. Infinity isn't a actual number, it doesn't exist.

I'm not saying god doesn't exist, just that he/she might not be infinite or the only one.[/quote]
Not much time to go into all the philosophy here, but a god who is finite or limited, or could be one of many, would not by nature be the One True God, at least not in the Christian understanding of God as the Source of All Being.
God by His very nature is infinite and unlimited.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Anomaly' post='1201600' date='Feb 21 2007, 09:50 AM']Reasonable atheistic arguments would be any and/or all arguments against the 3 basic arguments for a God.

Cosmological: How can "God" be the First Cause unless there was a cause for God. If God always existed, then existience always existed.

Telelogical: No true randomness exists because of scale. Fractals.

Ontological: Logical and reasonable philosophical arguments for God are met solidly with logical and reasonable philosophical arguments against the existence of God. (David Hume, Immanuel Kant, Gottlob Frege, and Gaunilo of Marmoutiers).[/quote]
Those atheistic "arguments" are not reasonable, and are not even coherent.

1) God is Existance Himself. All finite beings get their existance from something else (ultimately God), but God, being Pure Esse, or Act, is the cause of His own existance.

2) This makes no sense.

3) This is not an argument - one can deny anything.

[quote]The bottom line is we choose to believe in God or not. If God exists, He exists in a level of complexity that humans would be incapable of completely comprehending. By the same logic, if God does not exist, humanity is incapable of comprehending and proving His non-existence.[/quote]
God does not "exist in a level of complexity that humans would be incapable of completely comprehending."
God is not complex - complex means having many different parts - God is absolutely simple, being composed of no parts of any kind.
An atheist recently used the "God as an inconceivably complex being" argument here, but it is simply false - it shows an understanding of God as being some kind of physical "thing", rather than Pure Spirit.

[Anomaly]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1202812' date='Feb 22 2007, 09:47 PM']Those atheistic "arguments" are not reasonable, and are not even coherent.

1) God is Existance Himself. All finite beings get their existance from something else (ultimately God), but God, being Pure Esse, or Act, is the cause of His own existance.

2) This makes no sense.

3) This is not an argument - one can deny anything.
God does not "exist in a level of complexity that humans would be incapable of completely comprehending."
God is not complex - complex means having many different parts - God is absolutely simple, being composed of no parts of any kind.
An atheist recently used the "God as an inconceivably complex being" argument here, but it is simply false - it shows an understanding of God as being some kind of physical "thing", rather than Pure Spirit.[/quote]
LOL. They are not complete arguments and you obviously are chosing to misinterpret what I wrote. The are referring to 3 arguments Cat provided, all of which have their educated and reasonable detractors. Otherwise, there would not be alternative arguments. The existence of God is not completely undeniable and unreasonable. It is reasonable to beleive in God, as it is reasonable to disbeleive. I'm not arguing 'most reasonble'.
And I am not an atheist. You've attempted to use semantics and your bias to discredit what I wrote by misrepresenting what I wrote. I find it ludicrous that you believe God is so simple, humanity (or even an indivicual human) can completely understand God. You need to let the RC Church know of your accomplishment.

Edited February 23, 2007 by Anomaly

[Socrates]

[quote name='Anomaly' post='1202853' date='Feb 22 2007, 10:26 PM']LOL. They are not complete arguments and you obviously are chosing to misinterpret what I wrote. The are referring to 3 arguments Cat provided, all of which have their educated and reasonable detractors. Otherwise, there would not be alternative arguments. The existence of God is not completely undeniable and unreasonable. It is reasonable to beleive in God, as it is reasonable to disbeleive. I'm not arguing 'most reasonble'.
And I am not an atheist. You've attempted to use semantics and your bias to discredit what I wrote by misrepresenting what I wrote. I find it ludicrous that you believe God is so simple, humanity (or even an indivicual human) can completely understand God. You need to let the RC Church know of your accomplishment. [/quote]
Glad you find my post so hilarious.
And to think that people told me I'd never make it in comedy!

Anyway, this should be a real howler for you:
[quote][b]C. SIMPLICITY OF GOD[/b]

God is a simple being or substance excluding every kind of composition, physical or metaphysical. Physical or real composition is either substantial or accidental -- substantial, if the being in question consists of two or more substantial principles, forming parts of a composite whole, as man for example, consists of body and soul; accidental, if the being in question, although simple in its substance (as is the human soul), is capable of possessing accidental perfections (like the actual thoughts and volition of man's soul) not necessarily identical with its substance. Now it is clear that an infinite being cannot be substantially composite, for this would mean that infinity is made up of the union or addition of finite parts -- a plain contradiction in terms. Nor can accidental composition be attributed to the infinite since even this would imply a capacity for increased perfection, which the very notion of the infinite excludes. There is not, therefore, and cannot be any physical or real composition in God.

Neither can there be that kind of composition which is known as metaphysical, and which results from "the union of diverse concepts referring to the same real thing in such a way that none of them by itself signifies either explicitly or even implicitly the whole reality signified by their combination." . . .[/quote]
[url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06612a.htm"]From [i]The Catholic Encyclopedia [/i]- "The Nature and Attributes of God"[/url]

The Simplicity of God does not mean that His nature is capable of being easily understood by humans, of course, but that He is not made up of different "parts."

I'd recommend the complete article to anyone interested in the Catholic understanding of the nature of God.

Edited February 24, 2007 by Socrates