Proof God Doesn't Exist

[MagiDragon]

[quote]Volcanos, earthquakes, tornados, hurricanes, disease, pestilence, etc. We consider all of these "bad" because they harm our species and cause us to die, or in some cases with other species, die out completely.[/quote]

Yes, because they cause suffering, but Chris and i have already fought over this one. End result: Though they may be bad things, bad does not constitute evil.

[quote]Your agruments are lost to an atheist. You cannot prove or disprove God's existence or nonexistence. That is why it is called "faith".[/quote]

i'm gonna go out on a limb here. Apologists: correct me if i'm erring.

I can only prove to myself that there is upwards of a 99% chance that God exists. i cannot personally prove 100% to that God exists. Therefore, i use faith to make up that last <1 percent. This i believe is what faith does. It allows us to make far deeper conclusions than we could without the use of faith. I could have chosen to have faith that God does not exist, but to do this, i must first overcome the 99% of reason supporting His existence, and then ignored pascal's wager.

[Hananiah]

It is Catholic dogma that we can know with certainty that God exists through reason.

"If anybody says that the one true God, Our Creator and Lord cannot be known with certainty in the light of human reason by those things which have been made, anathema sit." (Vatican I, Denzinger 1806)

[DojoGrant]

[quote name='Pio Nono' date='Apr 2 2004, 11:53 AM'] JMJ
4/2 - St. Francis of Paola

DojoGrant,

Well done! Do you mind if I continue to play devil's advocate?

I believe the atheist objection may run thus:

Though atheism may not posit a metaphysical superlative, a merely phyical one is possible. The Philosopher makes this claim on numerous occasions: for instance, men are superior to the animals because of the ability to reason (Nich. Ethics). An ability implies a responsibility - since I can reason, I must use that reason. How do I best use my reason? By controlling my environment as best as I am able (perhaps this could be placed in a communal setting as well). The infringement of nature upon this is a genuine evil in my life. No omnibenevolent God would allow actual evil. Therefore, there is no omnibenevolent God.

---

I also think we've got a false equivocation in here; we're thinking "evil = bad." However, St. Thomas (Summa I, Q.2, a.3, ad 2) tells us that, while evil=bad is legitimate in our minds, it is not necessarily so in the mind of God. Whatcha think? [/quote]
First part:

It seems like you're kind of saying the same thing over. I have no doubt that one may individually see and understand something as evil, be that being stabbed by someone or a tornado destroying one's home. However, one cannot objectively state, beyond one's own understanding, that it was in fact "evil." After all, perhaps some development firm has been trying to get your home property for some time, and without the money to rebuild, say you finally give in to selling them the property. The action of you losing the house was GOOD for them. Good and evil is relative in the eyes of the beholder unless there is a supreme governing authority that supercedes man's interpretation.

If one wishes to rest on the notion that some universal law exists (i.e., karma) that governs moral and ethical actions as right or wrong, good or evil, then one still presupposes something existing 1) beyond matter and 2) beyond all scientific understanding. Something like karma is an assumption based on observation, taken in faith. If one could accept universal laws of governance that simply exist because they exist, then God's existence (the uncaused cause) is equally possible if not probable.

Second part:

I think this is what I'm getting at. Evil is misinterpreted by man outside of the will of God, and apart from that, it is impossible to label something as objectively evil. Only with a moral lawgiver (whom we call God), can evil be objectively understood, much less exist.

[ironmonk]

Study Fatima.

70,000 witnesses.

Find at the videos... read the books.

3 children said "this or that" would happen and it did. If there is no God, then there is no such thing as prophesy. He can't [b]logically [/b]believe in prophesy without God.


The logic in the article also. Do you think your monitor could just happen in nature? No, it must have had a creator because it is complex. The Choas theory is weak when looked at with just a little biological knowledge. Looking at the adaptations of animals proves that something (God) had to make the change happen.

There is so much proof, it just takes a little thought.



God Bless,
ironmonk

[Jake Huether]

[quote name='Pio Nono' date='Apr 2 2004, 12:01 PM'] JMJ
4/2 - St. Francis of Paola

Jake Huether,

If you're right, then the entire Christian philosophical system is moot. St. Thomas tells us that the existence of God is not an object of faith, but of [u]knowledge[/u]. Aquinas says that I am able to know, without a shadow of a doubt, that God exists; he says I could know this even if God had chosen not to reveal anything about Himself to us. That it can be demonstrated philosophically removes it from the field of faith and places it within the realm of philosophical knowledge.

However, he does also admit that there is no problem with simply having faith in God's existence, since there's nothing wrong with having faith in what can be proven philosophically. [/quote]
Althought St. Thomas is one of many philosophers who have posed their opinion on this question, I will concede to this idea. However, it must be noted that not all Atheists are really "open minded". And it is much more than simply "proving God's existence". Because if such clear irrefutable proof existed, then we must admit that "the entire Christian philosophical system WOULD BE ACCEPTED".

In other words, if it has been proven - then why doesn't this proof convert the heathen?

So in addition to what St. Thomas says, we must take into account that proving God's existence is more than the "knowledge" of one party, but the acceptance of that conveyed knowledge on the part of the party in question.



And to an extent, acceptance of conveyed knowledge (whether understood or not) is, in part, faith itself. If you didn't have faith in the "proof", then the proof does no good.

So we return to the argument that the belief really does rest on faith. Or should we say, "faith first, knowledge later".


For one who believes, it is knowledge. We know for a fact that God exists. And there is plenty of proof for this fact. I totally agree. But in the mind of someone trained to believe in His non-existence, proof just might be inadiquate. And that is where the Grace of God takes over.

[MagiDragon]

[quote]3 children said "this or that" would happen and it did. If there is no God, then there is no such thing as prophesy. He can't logically believe in prophesy without God. [/quote]

This particular atheist does not say that *no* supernatural being could exist, but simply that God cannot exist. Any supernatural being could provide prophecy. In fact, this plays right into his chaos theory: any being that has the capability to understand everything that goes on at one time would be capable of predicting exactly what would happen, and when it would happen in the future.

[quote]Looking at the adaptations of animals proves that something (God) had to make the change happen. [/quote]

The trouble i see with this is that for us to have this conversation there are minimum criteria that must be met: one of these is our personal existence and complexity. Although it is *not probable* for us to exist as complex as we are, we do exist. This unfortunately proves nothing because to have this debate, we have to exist.

the assumption that our complexity proves God's existence by sheer probability is false because without the complexity we would not care.

imagine for a minute that you are a math nerd. (I'm a computer programmer, so i am a math nerd.) now imagine for a minute that only upper triangular matrices can think

(for those of you not familiar with the term, an upper triangular matrix is in the form of:

2by2
XX
0X

3by3
XXX
0XX
00X

4by4
XXXX
0XXX
00XX
000X

and so on, where X = any number, and 0 = 0

)

now, i write a program that generates random integer (whole number) matrices. With our assumption that only the upper triangulars can think, they will be the only ones to realize that they were created "special."

The problem is, they *weren't* created special; they were merely a random chance that happened, but since they couldn't see the thouseands of other random chances that also happened but did not think, they assumed they were created specially.

so what this amounts to, is that divine plan doesn't *prove* anything except that we are able to have this discussion. But then, we already knew that anyway.

i'm sorry, this is horribly convoluted, but i can't really think of a way to make it clearer.

[quote]In other words, if it has been proven - then why doesn't this proof convert the heathen?[/quote]

ever read Thomas? He's *deep.* It's not easy to get through all of his understanding, even in the summas. It takes so much effort for me, that though i can usually understand for short periods of time, i forget exactly how everything works as soon as i stop grappling with it.

The answer to your question then is: It doesn't convert the heathen because the heathen can't make it through everything. This is due in part to their lack of faith, faith simplifies things by allowing us to not question certain variables.

Edited April 3, 2004 by MagiDragon

[jrndveritatis]

[quote]It is Catholic dogma that we can know with certainty that God exists through reason.

"If anybody says that the one true God, Our Creator and Lord cannot be known with certainty in the light of human reason by those things which have been made, anathema sit." (Vatican I, Denzinger 1806) [/quote]

Now correct me if I am wrong, but it does not say you can PROVE that God exists. Rather, I read it as saying that numerous converging arguments, none in itself entirely certain beyond any shadow of a doubt, lead one to know that God exists with certainty. No one argument is certain, but taken together they are. Newman discusses this in Grammar of Assent.

After all, even rationalists/materialists have faith that only what is known or seen physically or scientifically is valid or true. You have to have faith (or common sense) to know you aren't living in an illusion. Reason cannot prove with absolute certainty that we don't live in an illusion or dream world.

[MagiDragon]

glad you could join the fray jim.

-Joe

[Pio Nono]

JMJ
4/3 - Fifth Saturday of Lent

Jake Huether,

The only "faith" is in the laws of logic, and I wouldn't be inclined to call that part of the supernatural virtue of faith. Complete sceptics may have to be convinced to have "faith" in logical laws, but the vast majority of people would submit to a [i]tollens[/i] argument.

---

DojoGrant,

(to play the advocate) Is it entirely impossible to believe that the Natural Law is good in and of itself? For:

(1) There are moral actions.
(2) An action is moral either because God says it is or God says that it is moral because it is in and of itself.
ASM: Something is moral because God says it is.
(a') If something is moral because God says it is, then we could suppose that, in some possible world (I hate modality, but I have to use it here), God could choose to change the moral law.
(b') We are able to suppose that God is able to change the moral law. {ex a'}
(c') But the moral law is the will of God {asm}.
(d') If the moral law is the will of God and God is able to change the moral law, then there has been a change in God Himself (namely, His will).
(e') But, according to Thomas, God cannot change as He is complete action incapable of potency.
(f') Therefore, God cannot change the moral law.
(g') Therefore, it is not the case that something is moral because God says it is {contra ASM}.
(3) Therefore, God says an action is moral because it is moral in and of itself.

It seems that the atheist can hold the Natural Law without holding God's existence. (I love playing devil's advocate, you must forgive me If this is getting annoying, just tell me to shut up and I will )

[MagiDragon]

[quote]It seems that the atheist can hold the Natural Law without holding God's existence. (I love playing devil's advocate, you must forgive me  If this is getting annoying, just tell me to shut up and I will  ) [/quote]

no, please continue. you are saving me the trouble of explaining these things myself. Also, you might just give me a chance to pre-empt some of Chris's arguments by allowing me to see more from his point of view. (Maybe not though: i've got a pretty good idea of what he believes.)

[DojoGrant]

[quote name='Pio Nono' date='Apr 3 2004, 08:06 AM'] (1) There are moral actions.
(2) An action is moral either because God says it is or God says that it is moral because it is in and of itself.
ASM: Something is moral because God says it is.
(a') If something is moral because God says it is, then we could suppose that, in some possible world (I hate modality, but I have to use it here), God could choose to change the moral law.
(b') We are able to suppose that God is able to change the moral law. {ex a'}
(c') But the moral law is the will of God {asm}.
(d') If the moral law is the will of God and God is able to change the moral law, then there has been a change in God Himself (namely, His will).
(e') But, according to Thomas, God cannot change as He is complete action incapable of potency.
(f') Therefore, God cannot change the moral law.
(g') Therefore, it is not the case that something is moral because God says it is {contra ASM}.
(3) Therefore, God says an action is moral because it is moral in and of itself.

It seems that the atheist can hold the Natural Law without holding God's existence. (I love playing devil's advocate, you must forgive me If this is getting annoying, just tell me to shut up and I will ) [/quote]
Responses:

1) Isn't it begging the question to state that there are moral actions (from an atheistic point of view)?

2) Why is there no choice of "An action is moral because God says it is and thus it ACTUALLY is (i.e., it has become a natural law by God's unchanging institutions)"? Choice one implies that it is not a natural law but merely the whim of God, while choice to removes God from the picture. The new choice allows God to instantiate an unchanging natural law.

2a) Yes, modality is terrible. The problem is that in this possible world, God DOES change. In the actual world, God does not change. Therefore, the possible world can never be the actual world.

2b) Because we are able to suppose it does not mean that it is in existence.

2c) Moral law is the will of God because he established it as the natural law. Nature is subordinate to its creator, after all.

2d) This is a correct inference. But it implies the possibility of a changing God, which negates the God we are speaking of.

2e) Correct.

2f) Correct, not because God is not all powerful, but because God in His power made it unchangable.

2g) This doesn't follow, because of the faulty premise of only two possible choices at the beginning, leaving out that in choosing moral law to be His will, God also established it in actuality.

3) True again, but only because of the limited choices at the beginning. It is also possible that an action is moral because God actually established an unchangable moral law, is it not?

Conclusion response: An atheist can indeed hold that the Natural Law can exist without God's existence. His falacy, though, is that in holding to Natural Law, an unprovable assertion based purely on the speculation of his own mind, and being an immaterial concept, the existence of God becomes wholly POSSIBLE as well. If Natural Law CAN exist, then God too CAN exist.

Therefore, the atheist assertion of "God DOES NOT exist" is without cause, assuming he believes in a Natural Law.

P.S. I love playing devil's advocate.

[MagiDragon]

[quote]1) Isn't it begging the question to state that there are moral actions (from an atheistic point of view)?[/quote]

not from Chris's. he says that morality just has to be based purely on reason.

for example:
while he's not opposed to having extramarital sex because of the act itself, the effects of the act would cause many difficulties. Thus he believes extramarital (By marital he means a lifelong commitment by both people) sex is something that people should avoid. (But he doesn't believe this should be forced on people because there may be cases where it doesn't cause any problems.)

He believes that people should always tell the truth because otherwise we would have a world where truth is unknown.

these are a couple of examples of his morality.

MagiDragon

[Pio Nono]

JMJ
4/4 - Palm Sunday

DojoGrant,

Remember that in contemporary philosophy (actually, since William of Ockham, and one might be able to assign this to Aquinas in some instances) that conceivability = possibility. I can conceive of God changing, therefore, it is possible (but from a Christian perspective, I seem to be conceiving an impossibility, and thus we run into a paradox, but that's another argument).
Therefore, it is not [u]necessary[/u] that God be unchanging. In some possible world, He changes - whether that world is accessible from the actual world @ is another question.

[quote]2c) Moral law is the will of God because he established it as the natural law. Nature is subordinate to its creator, after all.[/quote]

You haven't gotten around the objection - I've said, "Either A or B" and you've chosen A*. Your modified form of A can easily be reduced to simply A, since you still say that the Natural Law is good because God created it. That's precisely the crux of the issue, and the atheist will say that the Natural Law is good independent of God using the argument above. I don't think the atheist would be out to prove that God doesn't exist by this argument, but that it is reasonable to think that the moral law can exist without a Divine Being (thus making His existence a non-issue when it comes to ethics), which would address this issue:

[quote]If one wishes to rest on the notion that some universal law exists (i.e., karma) that governs moral and ethical actions as right or wrong, good or evil, then one still presupposes something existing 1) beyond matter and 2) beyond all scientific understanding. Something like karma is an assumption based on observation, taken in faith. If one could accept universal laws of governance that simply exist because they exist, then God's existence (the uncaused cause) is equally possible if not probable.[/quote]

Thoughts?

[DojoGrant]

I'll respond more later, cause I have some work to do, but I thought that Aquinas was unimpressed with the notion of conceivability = actuality. I had heard he did not like Anselm's Ontological proof for God which does just that. I could be wrong, of course; although Thomas Aquinas is my confirmation saint, I still have tons of reading to do to understand him well enough.

[Pio Nono]

JMJ
4/5 - Monday of Holy Week

Conceivability = Possibility, not actuality. Aquinas had trouble with the principle, but he relied on it to a certain extent as well. It didn't come to be a hard-and-fast philosophical concept until Descartes.