Proving God's Existence

[rkwright]

[quote name='petrus_scholasticus' post='1475094' date='Mar 10 2008, 04:37 PM']Sorry, Dairygirl, I didn't read this post before commenting. I might do so later. I just saw the title and thought to myself:
I know that sounds like a crazy thing to think, but that was my first thought [i]verbatim et literatim[/i].[/quote]


[quote name='Deb' post='1476267' date='Mar 12 2008, 12:56 PM']I guess you can't prove it then. It all comes back to faith. If an atheist knows about Christ and just blows him off, that is his choice and I guess he will just have to wait til he dies to find out. I would think that if people really look at the miraculous world around them, they would have to come to the conclusion that God exists.[/quote]

How do you two reconcile these beliefs with the Vatican I quote provided by Hisarp above?

[Deb]

[quote name='rkwright' post='1476774' date='Mar 13 2008, 09:48 AM']How do you two reconcile these beliefs with the Vatican I quote provided by Hisarp above?[/quote]

Catechism,

Our holy mother, the Church, holds and teaches that God, the first principle and last end of all things, can be known with certainty from the created world by the natural light of human reason."[sup][url="http://www.usccb.org/catechism/text/pt1sect1.htm#11"]11[/url][/sup] Without this capacity, man would not be able to welcome God's revelation. Man has this capacity because he is created "in the image of God."[sup][url="http://www.usccb.org/catechism/text/pt1sect1.htm#12"]12[/url]

Man's faculties make him capable of coming to a knowledge of the existence of a personal God. But for man to be able to enter into real intimacy with him, God willed both to reveal himself to man and to give him the grace of being able to welcome this revelation in faith. The proofs of God's existence, however, can predispose one to faith and help one to see that faith is not opposed to reason.

[/sup]I can look at the world around me and reason that there is a God. I was given the gift of faith and I believe.

[rkwright]

[quote name='Deb' post='1476775' date='Mar 13 2008, 08:57 AM']Catechism,

Our holy mother, the Church, holds and teaches that God, the first principle and last end of all things, can be known with certainty from the created world by the natural light of human reason."[sup][url="http://www.usccb.org/catechism/text/pt1sect1.htm#11"]11[/url][/sup] Without this capacity, man would not be able to welcome God's revelation. Man has this capacity because he is created "in the image of God."[sup][url="http://www.usccb.org/catechism/text/pt1sect1.htm#12"]12[/url]

Man's faculties make him capable of coming to a knowledge of the existence of a personal God. But for man to be able to enter into real intimacy with him, God willed both to reveal himself to man and to give him the grace of being able to welcome this revelation in faith. The proofs of God's existence, however, can predispose one to faith and help one to see that faith is not opposed to reason.

[/sup]I can look at the world around me and reason that there is a God. I was given the gift of faith and I believe.[/quote]

Yes but.... above you said 'I guess it can't be proven'. I'm not saying faith can be proven, but it seems that God can be proven. Whether we enter into that relationship is another question.

Dairy is asserting that certainty of God cannot be proven.

[dairygirl4u2c]

well, i'm pretty sure people would argue a fortiori that if the uinverse exists, something caused it... taking the a fortiori argument from the never ending chain to where we are with the big bang. it can be augmented with the cuase and effect thing... of course i'm not sure why you'd assume something had to cause our existance if that cause didn't have an initial cause.

[rkwright]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1476804' date='Mar 13 2008, 10:55 AM']well, i'm pretty sure people would argue a fortiori that if the uinverse exists, something caused it... taking the a fortiori argument from the never ending chain to where we are with the big bang. it can be augmented with the cuase and effect thing... of course i'm not sure why you'd assume something had to cause our existance if that cause didn't have an initial cause.[/quote]

You're following the argument well to that point; the next line says that the infinite regress is impossible. So there must be an uncaused cause. That uncaused cause is God.

Edited March 13, 2008 by rkwright

[Deb]

God shall be a mystery until we are joined with him. Even then, he may still be a mystery. Praise him forever!

[dairygirl4u2c]

if God can be an uncaused cause, couldn't the universe's existence be an uncaused cause? i think it could be, but a fortiori, the bike analogy as per our empiricle view or reality and cause and effect analogy would say that there has to be a cause. but still, a particle sitting liek a time bomb if you will could just be, as much as the God could just be.

it seems like the a fortiorit argument has merit to it, but could be argued to be extra fluff just as much.

[dairygirl4u2c]

i suppose a sitting time bomb particle doens't seem intuitive though. it seems like the argument is straining to justify not proving God's existance. it's the only way i know of saying an alterantive to an uncuased cause.
it seems something would have put that particle there.
also, random chance, techincally is possible.... but it's not consistent with our view of reality taht there must be causes and effects.

random chance doesn't seem like a cause, so much as just being. if that makes sense? and an uncaused cause would just be, but not in the sense of a thing that just happens wihtout being tied to a cause. causes are tied to our empirical view of reality, and so makes more sense intuitively.

so i might say that while God can't be proven, it seems the most likely. cause something would have caused the big bang, or the first particle/particles, beyond random chance and self occurence.
intiutively anyway.

so i maintain the view i've always held, that God's existance makes more sense than saying not God's existance.

now, is "uncaused cause" a meaningful definition? not really, but it implies intelligence or some form of consicouslness... or something, i'd think, which is meaningful. this is where this line of reasoning could get dicey. uncaused cause does not neceeasrily = intelligence etc. so while we might be able to prove, or demonstrate, or however you want to put it, an uncaused cause, we might not be able to so much prove God.

Edited March 13, 2008 by dairygirl4u2c

[dairygirl4u2c]

i think if i put my recent thoughts into my essay, that i'd have the killerest essay on this matter, bar none, even men like richard dawkins.
now, they might understand it better, but just have not expressed it so concisely. i'd tend to think that implies they don't understand it though especially since i haven't seen this explained in these sorts of terms.
maybe i'm just being arrogant.

[Slappo]

We have reason to believe that God exists, and it is most surely reasonable to believe that God exists, but this does not "prove" his existence.

We may even be able to prove that there is a necessary being, or an uncaused cause, but what proves that this necessary being is what Christian theologians view as God. The attributes given to a necessary being are not nearly the same depth as the attributes given to the God of Christianity (which is of course the only true God, I don't mean to make that sound bad).

[Slappo]

[quote name='Hirsap' post='1471728' date='Mar 1 2008, 04:27 AM']Vatican I [http://www.ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/V1.HTM#5]

That's not to belittle your personal experiences as helping your faith in God, but nonetheless, His existence can be proven through reason alone without recourse to Revelation.[/quote]


I believe that here you may see a difference between "knowing God with certainty" and "proving God with certainty". I know God with certainty, I have no doubts about the existence of God, but can I then prove the existence of God, can I prove the existence of my certain knowledge?

[apparent]

[b]Proving God's Existence[/b]

[b] [/b]

[b]When I held my new born daughter in my hands for the first time, I felt God[/b]

[b]The way my wife eyes light up when she holds children, I felt God [/b]

[b]Holding hands at a Funeral with family and crying together, I know God exist[/b]

[b]No one can show you proof, you have to find it for yourself.[/b]

[b]It’s out there, if you look[/b]

[b] [/b]

[rkwright]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1476858' date='Mar 13 2008, 02:02 PM']if God can be an uncaused cause, couldn't the universe's existence be an uncaused cause? i think it could be, but a fortiori, the bike analogy as per our empiricle view or reality and cause and effect analogy would say that there has to be a cause. but still, a particle sitting liek a time bomb if you will could just be, as much as the God could just be.

it seems like the a fortiorit argument has merit to it, but could be argued to be extra fluff just as much.[/quote]

I think your question is a bit non-sensical. Its really impossible to see the universe as uncaused since most scientists believe in some sort of causation for the universe.

But the logic is fine. Everything must have a cause. This cannot go on till infinitely or else there would be no causing at all. Thus there must be one uncaused cause at the very beginning. This is God; whatever it actually is. At this point in the proof the quality of God that we know is that He is uncaused; so God could be a particle, a time bomb, whatever the uncaused thing is that is God.

Later on in say Aquinas's work he would get into the attributes of God.

[dairygirl4u2c]

if you say "whatever it actually is" then that could imply particles thought just sitting there waiting ot explode.
If God can just be, those particles can just be.... they both can be the uncaused cause.
as i say earlier, if particles are the solution, that's not calling God much of naything substnatial.
i think the answer lies in intutition.... that particles ust being there doesn't really make sense intititively. but, it could still be possible if God can just be possible.
an uncaused cause we don't see empiriaclly in everyday life, so we shouldn't be so quick to say what it would or would not be etc.

Edited March 14, 2008 by dairygirl4u2c

[Slappo]

In physics there are certain things that happen at a molecular level that are uncaused... Therefore the universe scientifically could be uncaused.

As for a particle being uncaused and God being uncaused on the same par... it doesn't make sense.
God by definition is "infinite being" according to Scotus. A particle is not "infinite being"
God's existence is necessary, a particle's existence is not necessary.