God's Existance

[dairygirl4u2c]

ty. nothing to see here, move along.

[T-Bone _]

It can be proven and [i]has[/i] been proven using logic.

[Deus te Amat]

[quote name='T-Bone _' post='1313136' date='Jul 5 2007, 01:05 AM']It can be proven and [i]has[/i] been proven using logic.[/quote]

*tacklehug!*

i missed you :

i'm done spamming now... i vote yes

ever heard of Pascals wager?

[White Knight]

On a simple note, a very breif note.

God existance can be proven through faith, common sense, and logical reason.


Life is too complex for there not to be a creator of life. everything, works too well together, from the smallest to the largest.

[goldenchild17]

Vatican Council - 1870 Dogmatic constitution on the Catholic faith Session 3, Chapter 2:

[b]On revelation[/b]

1. The same Holy mother Church holds and teaches that God, the source and end of all things, can be known with certainty from the consideration of created things, by the natural power of human reason : ever since the creation of the world, his invisible nature has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made. [13] 2. It was, however, pleasing to his wisdom and goodness to reveal himself and the eternal laws of his will to the human race by another, and that a supernatural, way. This is how the Apostle puts it : In many and various ways God spoke of old to our fathers by the prophets; but in these last days he has spoken to us by a Son [14].

3. It is indeed thanks to this divine revelation, that those matters concerning God which are not of themselves beyond the scope of human reason, can, even in the present state of the human race, be known by everyone without difficulty, with firm certitude and with no intermingling of error.

4. It is not because of this that one must hold revelation to be absolutely necessary; the reason is that God directed human beings to a supernatural end, that is a sharing in the good things of God that utterly surpasses the understanding of the human mind; indeed eye has not seen, neither has ear heard, nor has it come into our hearts to conceive what things God has prepared for those who love him [15].


[13] Rm 1, 20.

[14] Heb 1, 1-2.

[15] 1 Cor 2, 9.

Edited July 5, 2007 by goldenchild17

[heshmafluff]

if it can be proven, please do so.

[Sojourner]

Depends on the level of proof you'll accept ... the kind of evidence, the standard of proof, etc.

[heshmafluff]

if the proof makes sense I will accept it. I am really not sure what you mean, so pick something and start there, we'll see where we end up

[Sojourner]

[quote name='heshmafluff' post='1314562' date='Jul 5 2007, 09:11 PM']if the proof makes sense I will accept it. I am really not sure what you mean, so pick something and start there, we'll see where we end up [/quote]
So you'll accept anecdotal evidence?
Verifiable repeatable scientific evidence?
Historical evidence?
Textual?
What kind of proof?


And do you want it proven to a "more likely than not" standard?
Beyond a reasonable doubt?
Beyond all doubt?

[Resurrexi]

[quote][b]Summa Theologica, Prima Pars, Question II, Article III:[/b]
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.
[url="http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1002.htm"]http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1002.htm[/url][/quote]

[jeffpugh]

Wewt. And StTomas Whips out the summa... now take that one to Religion tactics...

[dairygirl4u2c]

i think it might come down to what i said in the other thread, religion tactics.
you see the big bang. we could speculate that something else caused it, an infinite chain of causes. or, empiraclly we take what we know. it just seems to have happened. why? God, if that floats your boat. there's a problem when defining God so loosely though that you could just as easily say random chance, out of nothing.
but then, nothing has ever just happened that we know of. so, i guess you could say God in more substantial terms than just random chance.
but i think you could still speculate as to an infinite chain of events. or random chance. even though we never see something that doesn't havea cause, we never see things that have a first cause either.
so, if you accept that standard as given by the atheist, tehre ya go. if not what can ya do.

[dairygirl4u2c]

i think it might come down to what i said in the other thread, religion tactics.
you see the big bang. we could speculate that something else caused it, an infinite chain of causes. or, empiraclly we take what we know. it just seems to have happened. why? God, if that floats your boat. there's a problem when defining God so loosely though that you could just as easily say random chance, out of nothing.
but then, nothing has ever just happened that we know of. so, i guess you could say God in more substantial terms than just random chance.
but i think you could still speculate as to an infinite chain of events. or random chance. even though we never see something that doesn't havea cause, we never see things that have a first cause either.
so, if you accept that standard as given by the theist argument here, tehre ya go. if not what can ya do.

[heshmafluff]

[quote]So you'll accept anecdotal evidence?
Verifiable repeatable scientific evidence?
Historical evidence?
Textual?
What kind of proof?


And do you want it proven to a "more likely than not" standard?
Beyond a reasonable doubt?
Beyond all doubt?[/quote]

Proofs such as what you list are perfectly acceptable, so long as they are worded such as to be understandable. I am not a scientist so a document full of scientific terms would be useless to me; taking said document and simplifying it is great.

Beyond all doubt would be best, but I'll stick with "Beyond a reasonable doubt" because it is most, well, reasonable.

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote]i think it might come down to what i said in the other thread.
you see the big bang. we could speculate that something else caused it, an infinite chain of causes. or, empiraclly we take what we know. it just seems to have happened. why? God, if that floats your boat. there's a problem when defining God so loosely though that you could just as easily say random chance, out of nothing.
but then, nothing has ever just happened that we know of. so, i guess you could say God in more substantial terms than just random chance.
but i think you could still speculate as to an infinite chain of events. or random chance. even though we never see something that doesn't havea cause, we never see things that have a first cause either.
so, if you accept that standard as given by the theist argument here, tehre ya go. if not what can ya do.
the theist argument isn't definitive, but it's the most reasonable given our experience. [quote][/quote][/quote]

what's wrong with the proof shown here?
also add apparitions and messages for reasonable proof. www.nderf.org etc