View Full Version : Proofs for the existence of God (discuss)


Nate the Grate
06-19-2002, 11:46 PM
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 ****ph. 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.

-The Summa Theologica of St. Thomas Aquinas-



[This message has been edited by Nate the Grate (edited 06-19-2002).]

Jesse
06-20-2002, 12:05 AM
no

bonsor
06-20-2002, 12:13 AM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by Jesse:
no</font>

Irrelevant
06-20-2002, 12:22 AM
that's the stupidest thing i've read in weeks.

kypper
06-20-2002, 12:24 AM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by Irrelevant:
that's the stupidest thing i've read in weeks.</font>

St Thomas Aquinas is considered some of the best works pro-god though.

Keep in mind before you flame me, I'm atheist.

Oblivious
06-20-2002, 12:27 AM
it's a shame that when someone makes a decent post about an interesting subject that no one can be bothered to make a serious reply. i guess playing punch the puppy is way more enticing. http://www.netphoria.org/wwwboard/rolleyes.gif

Irrelevant
06-20-2002, 12:27 AM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by kypper:
St Thomas Aquinas is considered some of the best works pro-god though. </font>

that argument just doesn't make any sense, though. basing actuality on human perception is ridiculous.

sawdust restaurants
06-20-2002, 12:28 AM
St. Thomas Aquinas could own all of you people posting "no" in a theological argument.

Random Female
06-20-2002, 12:29 AM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by Irrelevant:
that argument just doesn't make any sense, though. basing actuality on human perception is ridiculous.</font>
not that I want to jump in here, but is there any way for a human to perceive except humanly?

kypper
06-20-2002, 12:30 AM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by sawdust restaurants:
St. Thomas Aquinas could own all of you people posting "no" in a theological argument.</font>

Perhaps he could, but though I've read some of his stuff, I'm not up to it tonight. Perhaps tomorrow I can give a much more detailed response. http://www.netphoria.org/wwwboard/smile.gif

Irrelevant
06-20-2002, 12:33 AM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by Random Female:
not that I want to jump in here, but is there any way for a human to perceive except humanly?</font>

i mean that he takes everything at face value. nothing going beyond how he observes things. not pushing the notion that there are unseen forces at work (besides god).

Irrelevant
06-20-2002, 12:36 AM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by Nate the Grate:
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.</font>

i just don't see how natural order is a proof of god. natural order is just a proof of natural order.

how is it assumed that nature is actively, not passively, pursuing an end?

Irrelevant
06-20-2002, 12:38 AM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by Nate the Grate:
So also whatever is done voluntarily must also be traced back to some higher cause other than human reason or will</font>

why must it?

kypper
06-20-2002, 12:51 AM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by Irrelevant:
why must it?</font>

I have to concur. I see too much the attribution of anything good or insightful to god. Give people some fucking credit!

lucky_13
06-20-2002, 01:19 AM
have you seen the miracles? http://www.netphoria.org/wwwboard/smile.gif

tear stained glass
06-20-2002, 01:37 AM
If his arguments were truly convincing, there'd be no atheists. http://www.netphoria.org/wwwboard/tongue.gif

MisterSquishyHalo
06-20-2002, 03:29 AM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by lucky_13:
have you seen the miracles? http://www.netphoria.org/wwwboard/smile.gif</font>

Your right the New England Patriots beat the St Louis Rams last year, There must be a god!

frail_and_bedazzled
06-20-2002, 03:40 AM
i think people just need to expand or possibly revise what they consider the word 'god' to mean or imply.

Irrelevant
06-20-2002, 03:45 AM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by frail_and_bedazzled:
i think people just need to expand or possibly revise what they consider the word 'god' to mean or imply.</font>

god - A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe

if that's not what he meant to imply, then he should have used a different word in his proof.

frail_and_bedazzled
06-20-2002, 03:57 AM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by Irrelevant:
god - A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe

if that's not what he meant to imply, then he should have used a different word in his proof.</font>
nevermind, dood. nevermind http://www.netphoria.org/wwwboard/frown.gif

BeautifulLoser
06-20-2002, 04:01 AM
Very interesting stuff... he's got a cool way of explaining some things. I've always believed in the reasons he has for the proof that God exists, because really, how could something come out of absolutely nothing?

That's pretty cool.

------------------
I need a new sig.

Irrelevant
06-20-2002, 04:08 AM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by BeautifulLoser:
how could something come out of absolutely nothing?</font>

i don't get how god solves this.

adding god in there just adds the question, where did god come from?

why is it easier to accept that god made the universe, but he came from nothing in particular, than it is to accept that the universe came from nothing in particular?

Dead Frequency
06-20-2002, 04:15 AM
Corel's analysis of this document.
Flesh-Kincaid grade level:
11.47
Passive voice (% of finite verb phrases)
19
Sentence complexity (100 = very complex)
68
Vocabulary complexity (100 = very complex)
28

Mr. Rhinoceros
06-20-2002, 04:45 AM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by Oblivious:
it's a shame that when someone makes a decent post about an interesting subject that no one can be bothered to make a serious reply. i guess playing punch the puppy is way more enticing. http://www.netphoria.org/wwwboard/rolleyes.gif</font>

<font color=#007AAA>Thanks for pointing that out rather than making a serious reply.



------------------
Sometimes I think I'd be better off dead. No, wait, not me, you.

BeautifulLoser
06-20-2002, 04:51 AM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by Irrelevant:
i don't get how god solves this.

adding god in there just adds the question, where did god come from?

why is it easier to accept that god made the universe, but he came from nothing in particular, than it is to accept that the universe came from nothing in particular?</font>

Well, in Christianity, God's been there forever and will always be there forever. Of course, people can't think that way... I can't really imagine anything "always being there"... but he's God, I mean.. you just can't explain some things. *shrugs* It just makes more sense to me that God's been there forever than to say that everything came from nothing for no reason.


------------------
I need a new sig.

Irrelevant
06-20-2002, 05:37 AM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by BeautifulLoser:
Well, in Christianity, God's been there forever and will always be there forever. Of course, people can't think that way... I can't really imagine anything "always being there"... but he's God, I mean.. you just can't explain some things. *shrugs* It just makes more sense to me that God's been there forever than to say that everything came from nothing for no reason.</font>

so god's been here forever and ever, and he made the universe.

how is this simpler and more reasonable than assuming that the universe has been here forever and ever and functions without a god?

BeautifulLoser
06-20-2002, 05:43 AM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by Irrelevant:
so god's been here forever and ever, and he made the universe.

how is this simpler and more reasonable than assuming that the universe has been here forever and ever and functions without a god?</font>

*shrugs* I like the idea that God exists. It makes me comfortable. It explains the unexplainable things that happen in the world. It's just a better idea to me.


------------------
I need a new sig.

Irrelevant
06-20-2002, 05:47 AM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by BeautifulLoser:
*shrugs* I like the idea that God exists. It makes me comfortable. It explains the unexplainable things that happen in the world. It's just a better idea to me.</font>

i hate it when people use god to be comfortable.

personally, i think i'd be a lot more disturbed at the shit that goes on in this world if i thought there really WAS a benevolent god. it makes more sense to me that this is just a random hell of our own evolutionary disaster.

scouse_dave
06-20-2002, 05:48 AM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by BeautifulLoser:
*shrugs* I like the idea that God exists. It makes me comfortable. It explains the unexplainable things that happen in the world. It's just a better idea to me.
</font>

i don't know where to begin with this one

BeautifulLoser
06-20-2002, 05:49 AM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by Irrelevant:
i hate it when people use god to be comfortable.

personally, i think i'd be a lot more disturbed at the shit that goes on in this world if i thought there really WAS a benevolent god. it makes more sense to me that this is just a random hell of our own evolutionary disaster.</font>

I have my own personal reasons to think God exists... along with my belief that Jesus was the Messiah, etc.

The world's going to get worse before it gets better. That's the way the story goes. I dunno why... that's just the way it goes.

Oblivious
06-20-2002, 05:52 AM
the theory of god is just easier for people to deal with. all the science and fact would just lead to utter confusion if you tried to explain it to the masses.

BeautifulLoser
06-20-2002, 05:55 AM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by Oblivious:
the theory of god is just easier for people to deal with. all the science and fact would just lead to utter confusion if you tried to explain it to the masses.</font>

Science coincides with the Bible, if you look at it a certain way. I'm a very scientific thinking person. Science doesn't discredit God.. if anything, it reenforces the idea. I've thought it over... it's not like I came into Christianity because my parents raised me that way. They were Atheists.

The universe isn't just created out of nothing. Matter can't be created from nothing. And you can use that arguement to discredit God's existance, but I think maybe those rules don't apply in that aspect.

Oblivious
06-20-2002, 06:01 AM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by BeautifulLoser:
Science coincides with the Bible, if you look at it a certain way. I'm a very scientific thinking person. Science doesn't discredit God.. if anything, it reenforces the idea. I've thought it over... it's not like I came into Christianity because my parents raised me that way. They were Atheists.

The universe isn't just created out of nothing. Matter can't be created from nothing. And you can use that arguement to discredit God's existance, but I think maybe those rules don't apply in that aspect. </font>

i'm not saying that our universe was created from nothing. it was obviously started by atmospheric conditions. a plethera of single celled organisms that alone would have been nothing. add in the elements and voila - you have primordial ooze.

BeautifulLoser
06-20-2002, 06:04 AM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by Oblivious:
i'm not saying that our universe was created from nothing. it was obviously started by atmospheric conditions. a plethera of single celled organisms that alone would have been nothing. add in the elements and voila - you have primordial ooze. </font>

But where did the conditions come from?


------------------
I need a new sig.

Elvis The Fat Years
06-20-2002, 06:05 AM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by BeautifulLoser:
But where did the conditions come from?


</font>

wallmart.

BeautifulLoser
06-20-2002, 06:06 AM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by Elvis The Fat Years:
wallmart.</font>

http://www.netphoria.org/wwwboard/biggrin.gif

Oblivious
06-20-2002, 06:13 AM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by BeautifulLoser:
But where did the conditions come from?


</font>

why can they have not always existed? of course i believe that we are such a small part of the universal evolutionary process that we're really quite insignificant. it's only ego and arrogance that lead us to believe that there may be more and that we're part of a greater scheme. there's no reason to believe that the universe wasn't always here and that our galaxy and our solar system and life as we know it isnt't just an evolutionary fluke. a very small facet in the schematics that will eventually go on as though our consiousness never existed.

BeautifulLoser
06-20-2002, 06:17 AM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by Oblivious:
why can they have not always existed? of course i believe that we are such a small part of the universal evolutionary process that we're really quite insignificant. it's only ego and arrogance that lead us to believe that there may be more and that we're part of a greater scheme. there's no reason to believe that the universe wasn't always here and that our galaxy and our solar system and life as we know it isnt't just an evolutionary fluke. a very small facet in the schematics that will eventually go on as though our consiousness never existed. </font>

Ego and Arrogance, eh? No need to be harsh on someone else's beliefs... arguing religion goes nowhere. I'm not going to start quoting the Bible to explain myself, because most people don't think the Bible is a credible document, and no one wants to hear it anyway. But I have my reasons for believing it, you have your reasons for believing what you believe. I just explained my point of view.. and I'll leave it at that.

------------------
I need a new sig.

Oblivious
06-20-2002, 06:25 AM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by BeautifulLoser:
Ego and Arrogance, eh? No need to be harsh on someone else's beliefs... arguing religion goes nowhere. I'm not going to start quoting the Bible to explain myself, because most people don't think the Bible is a credible document, and no one wants to hear it anyway. But I have my reasons for believing it, you have your reasons for believing what you believe. I just explained my point of view.. and I'll leave it at that.

</font>

eh. i wasn't meaning to sound harsh. those are just my points of view and i honestly would never want to force my opinions on anyone. normally i would not even discuss my theories on creation because i think that something like that should be very individual and personal. even though i am firm in my beliefs i can respect anyone else with convictions just as strong even if those beliefs are different from my own. to each his own as long as i'm not imposed upon.

Irrelevant
06-20-2002, 06:36 AM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by BeautifulLoser:
because most people don't think the Bible is a credible document</font>

it's not.

Dead Frequency
06-20-2002, 06:45 AM
I think that we can not understand our beginning, or our end, it is simply too far beyond our simplistic human grasp. Everyone can argue one way or another, but the truth of the matter is that you can make anyone believe anything if you have enough evidence to support your theories.

It is easier to think that our world, and everything in,on, or around it is all simply chaos at its best, than it is to think about God. Largely because once you get into God, and the belief that he created everything, how could you possibly explain his birth, or his creation? You can't. It is as simple as that. Once you get one impossible problem with no answer fixed, you have to go onto another impossible problem with no answer.

It's an endless cycle as far as I can see.

[This message has been edited by Dead Frequency (edited 06-22-2002).]

DeviousJ
06-20-2002, 07:56 AM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by BeautifulLoser:
Science coincides with the Bible, if you look at it a certain way. I'm a very scientific thinking person.

The universe isn't just created out of nothing. Matter can't be created from nothing. </font>

But it can. Particle-antiparticle pairs played a major part in the birth of the universe, as far as current scientific thinking goes - where two opposite particles (which together, add up to nothing) are able to appear, and eventually group with their own kind to form matter and antimatter. So *that* thread of reasoning doesn't hold up too well at the moment, not that the others are much better. The thing about god is that he's supposed to exist on an entirely different plane, so how can you use limits such as infinity to prove or disprove his existence, when they relate only to our own view of the universe?

That guy seems off course in a few ways - how long ago was that article written?

ratinacage
06-20-2002, 08:02 AM
In my opinion, St. Thomas Aquinas is the greatest philosopher to ever live. I think he gets shortchanged by historians, simply because we've "heard it all before," but no one comes even close to the clarity and brilliance he shows in his arguments. Nietzsche, Kant, and others who for some reason get more credit, don't hold a candle to Aquinas, or Aristotle for that matter.

mpp
06-20-2002, 08:23 AM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by Irrelevant:


simpler and more reasonable than assuming </font>

trying to "prove" god thru reason is pointless

god is almost totally unreasonable; i mean, seriously, how can something that complex exist infinitely?

without god, man is wretched; with god, true, actual bliss is possible

"The heart has its reasons which reason knows nothing of." --pascal

Lie
06-20-2002, 08:27 AM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by ratinacage:
In my opinion, St. Thomas Aquinas is the greatest philosopher to ever live. I think he gets shortchanged by historians, simply because we've "heard it all before," but no one comes even close to the clarity and brilliance he shows in his arguments. Nietzsche, Kant, and others who for some reason get more credit, don't hold a candle to Aquinas, or Aristotle for that matter.</font>

Aristotle sucks even worse. Who wants to read that drivel? If any of the above philosophers are the greatest to have ever lived, it's Kant.

ratinacage
06-20-2002, 09:12 AM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by mpp:
trying to "prove" god thru reason is pointless

god is almost totally unreasonable; i mean, seriously, how can something that complex exist infinitely?

</font>

I disagree. As humans, we cannot completely understand God Himself since He is so far above us; however, we can still comprehend the concept of God, i.e. that He exists, and we can discover things about His nature, i.e. He is omnipotent and omniscient, He can neither deceive nor be deceived. To me, the first argument for the existence of God (Original Mover argument) is the clincher.

DeviousJ
06-20-2002, 09:33 AM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by ratinacage:
I disagree. As humans, we cannot completely understand God Himself since He is so far above us; however, we can still comprehend the concept of God, i.e. that He exists, and we can discover things about His nature, i.e. He is omnipotent and omniscient, He can neither deceive nor be deceived. To me, the first argument for the existence of God (Original Mover argument) is the clincher.</font>

No - we can comprehend the concept of a god, we just can't prove that the concept is actually truth. The first argument is flawed, in that science has widely accepted theories as to the development of the universe from a static startpoint. How everything got there in the first place... is the question. But as a simple example, put two magnets close to each other, at opposite poles. Now let them go. Did they move? Has God intervened? These kind of interactions, where two potential energies become simultaneously kinetic, are very common in quantum physics

ratinacage
06-20-2002, 09:40 AM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by DeviousJ:
The first argument is flawed, in that science has widely accepted theories as to the development of the universe from a static startpoint. How everything got there in the first place... is the question.
</font>

I don't see your point. I think the scientific theories you mentioned (I assume you're referring to Big Bang etc) are a compelling argument in favor of the existence of God. A tightly wound mass of matter is compressed in one place, then explodes to form the universe. God put the material there, and formed it and the natural laws governing it so that it would create the universe as we know it. How is any of this an argument against theistic creation?

scouse_dave
06-20-2002, 09:55 AM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by Lie:
Aristotle sucks even worse. Who wants to read that drivel? If any of the above philosophers are the greatest to have ever lived, it's Kant.</font>

*sings*

oh, emmanuel kant was a real pissant, and was very rarely stable!!

scouse_dave
06-20-2002, 09:56 AM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by ratinacage:
God put the material there, and formed it and the natural laws governing it so that it would create the universe as we know it</font>

let me guess: you're a retard right?

polecat jericho
06-20-2002, 11:51 AM
Ohnos, it's the angry Atheist Post!

Brazil.Virex
06-20-2002, 11:57 AM
if there is a god
i know he likes to rock

jukeboxphuckup
06-20-2002, 12:00 PM
That's so weird. My philosophy exam today had "Does God Exist?" as the essay question, and I was was supposed to prove it using St. Thomas of Aquinas's five proofs.

Nate the Grate
06-20-2002, 01:27 PM
the funny thing is, throughout history, religion has been a major binding force. without a belief in God, we probably wouldn't be here right now.

NinjaTurtle
06-20-2002, 01:29 PM
meatless hamburgers proves the existence of god.

------------------
'~..~CloSe this wOrld ~ tXen eht nEpO~..~'

kypper
06-20-2002, 01:44 PM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by DeviousJ:
But it can. Particle-antiparticle pairs played a major part in the birth of the universe, as far as current scientific thinking goes - where two opposite particles (which together, add up to nothing) are able to appear, and eventually group with their own kind to form matter and antimatter. So *that* thread of reasoning doesn't hold up too well at the moment, not that the others are much better. The thing about god is that he's supposed to exist on an entirely different plane, so how can you use limits such as infinity to prove or disprove his existence, when they relate only to our own view of the universe?

That guy seems off course in a few ways - how long ago was that article written?</font>

Well, really what's kind of interesting is that everybody seems to be seeing God as the beginning of the universe and the way it has gone, but if you read Stephen Hawking's work, he talks about how, because of imaginary time, there IS no beginning or end of that sort.

kypper
06-20-2002, 01:45 PM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by mpp:
trying to "prove" god thru reason is pointless

god is almost totally unreasonable; i mean, seriously, how can something that complex exist infinitely?

without god, man is wretched; with god, true, actual bliss is possible

"The heart has its reasons which reason knows nothing of." --pascal

</font>


I detest Pascal and his Wager.

kypper
06-20-2002, 01:48 PM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by scouse_dave:
let me guess: you're a retard right?</font>

He just hasn't read any Hawking or Feynman. We need more physicists in here. http://www.netphoria.org/wwwboard/tongue.gif

"There's nothing Nietzsche couldn't teach ya 'bout the raising of the wrist... Socrates himself was permanently piiiiiiiiiiiiisssssssed."

Irrelevant
06-20-2002, 02:05 PM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by ratinacage:
I don't see your point. I think the scientific theories you mentioned (I assume you're referring to Big Bang etc) are a compelling argument in favor of the existence of God. A tightly wound mass of matter is compressed in one place, then explodes to form the universe. God put the material there, and formed it and the natural laws governing it so that it would create the universe as we know it. How is any of this an argument against theistic creation?</font>

and who put god there and decided the natural laws by which he is governed? adding god into the equation of the creation of the universe does not solve anything, and is a baseless addition at that.

ratinacage
06-20-2002, 02:17 PM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by Irrelevant:
and who put god there and decided the natural laws by which he is governed? adding god into the equation of the creation of the universe does not solve anything, and is a baseless addition at that.</font>

God transcends natural laws since He wrote them. He is the Author of the universe, the First Mover. As per proof 1, since every thing currently in existence must derive its source from another thing preceding, then there must ultimately be an original catalyst, which we call God. Another alternative, as has been discussed, is the the universe simply always was, that it existed independently of an original mover. To me, however, this simply sidesteps the issue without providing a solution. Nothing in our universe can simply be, this idea contradicts all the laws of nature; it must be set in motion by some force.

Oblivious
06-20-2002, 02:26 PM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by ratinacage:
God transcends natural laws since He wrote them. He is the Author of the universe, the First Mover. As per proof 1, since every thing currently in existence must derive its source from another thing preceding, then there must ultimately be an original catalyst, which we call God. Another alternative, as has been discussed, is the the universe simply always was, that it existed independently of an original mover. To me, however, this simply sidesteps the issue without providing a solution. Nothing in our universe can simply be, this idea contradicts all the laws of nature; it must be set in motion by some force.</font>

yeah - and that force = enviromental conditions and atmospheric forces.

kypper
06-20-2002, 02:27 PM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by ratinacage:
God transcends natural laws since He wrote them. He is the Author of the universe, the First Mover. As per proof 1, since every thing currently in existence must derive its source from another thing preceding, then there must ultimately be an original catalyst, which we call God. Another alternative, as has been discussed, is the the universe simply always was, that it existed independently of an original mover. To me, however, this simply sidesteps the issue without providing a solution. Nothing in our universe can simply be, this idea contradicts all the laws of nature; it must be set in motion by some force.</font>

As I said, read the last 30 years of physics.
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2"> As per proof 1, since every thing currently in existence must derive its source from another thing preceding</font>
On the contrary, that proof is completely wrong, simply because not everything currently in existence must derive its source from another thing preceding. READ HAWKING.

ratinacage
06-20-2002, 02:39 PM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by kypper:
As I said, read the last 30 years of physics.

On the contrary, that proof is completely wrong, simply because not everything currently in existence must derive its source from another thing preceding. READ HAWKING.</font>

This is argument is much more fundamental and basic than anything Hawking has ever done, besides which, Hawking is a pop scientist with no credibility or legitimacy to speak of. The existence of God is a very simple matter, albeit a profound one.

mpp
06-20-2002, 02:41 PM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by kypper:

I detest Pascal and his Wager.</font>


oh i can tell by your comments on this thread that you wouldn't be a pascal fan
http://www.netphoria.org/wwwboard/smile.gif

he's one of my favorite philosophers

but the question is...are you going to refute my argument?

mpp
06-20-2002, 02:42 PM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by ratinacage:
This is argument is much more fundamental and basic than anything Hawking has ever done, besides which, Hawking is a pop scientist with no credibility or legitimacy to speak of. .</font>

you're an absolute idiot

read pascal too while you're brushing up on your physics

kypper
06-20-2002, 02:47 PM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by ratinacage:
This is argument is much more fundamental and basic than anything Hawking has ever done, besides which, Hawking is a pop scientist with no credibility or legitimacy to speak of. The existence of God is a very simple matter, albeit a profound one.</font>

Wow, I'm amazed at just how stupid you are. Hawking and Feynmen are/were among the greatest theoretical physicists of the 20th century. They have been the first to turn Einsteins problems with relativity into workable theorys, and then have taken them far beyond. Much of the revolutionary progress today is based upon the mathematical concepts they worked out in the 70s and 80s.

[This message has been edited by kypper (edited 06-20-2002).]

mpp
06-20-2002, 02:48 PM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by kypper:
Wow, I'm amazed at just how stupid you are. Hawking and Feynmen are/were among the greatest theoretical physicists of the 20th century.
</font>


for real nigga

kypper
06-20-2002, 02:50 PM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by mpp:

oh i can tell by your comments on this thread that you wouldn't be a pascal fan
http://www.netphoria.org/wwwboard/smile.gif

he's one of my favorite philosophers

but the question is...are you going to refute my argument?</font>

Oh no, I agree with you in many ways. Why would I refute that? http://www.netphoria.org/wwwboard/wink.gif

I just dislike Pascal. He made sense, yes, but he took the easy way out and stayed in the middle of this particular argument.

kypper
06-20-2002, 02:53 PM
...and before anyone says 'well, it's absurd to think that there is no beginning to the universe', just what are you proposing when you say that god created it and has no beginning? It is more absurd to consider a never beginning/ending god than it is to consider the same type of UNIVERSE, especially when we can collect evidence to that effect.

Irrelevant
06-20-2002, 03:01 PM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by ratinacage:
Another alternative, as has been discussed, is the the universe simply always was, that it existed independently of an original mover. To me, however, this simply sidesteps the issue without providing a solution.</font>

speaking of sidestepping, you still ignore the fact that you're allowing god to exist infinitely with no cause, but debating the fact that the universe could also exist infinitely with no cause.

the two ideas are equally possible, i suppose. but it's just as likely that a monkey on a bicycle set the universe in motion as it is that god did.

Irrelevant
06-20-2002, 03:02 PM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by kypper:
...and before anyone says 'well, it's absurd to think that there is no beginning to the universe', just what are you proposing when you say that god created it and has no beginning? It is more absurd to consider a never beginning/ending god than it is to consider the same type of UNIVERSE, especially when we can collect evidence to that effect.</font>

exactly.

sarmatianus
06-20-2002, 03:38 PM
This just all proves what one can do with language, regardless of reality. If this were a standard for firing philosophy professors around this country, there'd be no more academic philosophy (a good thing, in my opinion - the university as it exists today killed proper philosophy).

In any case, you asked for proof. Which implies a scientific standard within the current paradigm. And supernatural phenomena can not fit within the current paradigm (read Thomas Kuhn on this, if you don't like what I'm saying). Therefore, whether or not there is a God, there is no way for you to prove existence of one, at least not under the current paradigm. And you can't, because anything you could observe would be explanable as a scientific phenomenon.

So there is no proof. This is not to say, though, that there is no God.

I like to think of it as the computer/creator paradox - the creator can never exist within the computer's world, nor can the computer's internal virtuality exist within the real world. As a programmer or creator, you can only operate within the defined parameters of the computer hardware and software, so you could never prove to a computer that you exist outside of the commands you give it.

So if there is a God, the only proof wouldn't proof anything, because for it to be observable, repeatable, and definable, it would have to be operating within the rules of our universe (our computer, so to speak).

I'm hungry. Let's get a taco.

DeviousJ
06-20-2002, 05:13 PM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by ratinacage:
I don't see your point. I think the scientific theories you mentioned (I assume you're referring to Big Bang etc) are a compelling argument in favor of the existence of God. A tightly wound mass of matter is compressed in one place, then explodes to form the universe. God put the material there, and formed it and the natural laws governing it so that it would create the universe as we know it. How is any of this an argument against theistic creation?</font>

Well my point was that the first argument states that the fact motion is apparent in the universe is precluded by an event which kicks it all into motion, and that only god could have done this. As I said, motion can in fact begin as an interaction of forces between particles, which exist because the particles themselves exist. Ergo, argument 1 = flawed.

<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by ratinacage
God transcends natural laws since He wrote them. He is the Author of the universe, the First Mover. As per proof 1, since every thing currently in existence must derive its source from another thing preceding, then there must ultimately be an original catalyst, which we call God. Another alternative, as has been discussed, is the the universe simply always was, that it existed independently of an original mover. To me, however, this simply sidesteps the issue without providing a solution. Nothing in our universe can simply be, this idea contradicts all the laws of nature; it must be set in motion by some force.</font>

I'm confused as to your definition of motion here. You seem to equating setting objects in motion with actually creating them out of the ether. Like I said, the qquestion is how the stuff got there in the first place - no external catalyst was needed to get things going after that. How exactly does everything 'simply being' contradict the laws of nature? Last time I looked, it wasn't considered natural for things to just appear from nowhere.

DeviousJ
06-20-2002, 05:17 PM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by kypper:
Well, really what's kind of interesting is that everybody seems to be seeing God as the beginning of the universe and the way it has gone, but if you read Stephen Hawking's work, he talks about how, because of imaginary time, there IS no beginning or end of that sort. </font>

Yeah, I was getting a little out of my depth at that point, so I couldn't really follow the concept. But like he says - it's all just a theory, it just happens to fit a few observations at the moment, so he doesn't have total faith in the model just yet.

But this is nuts - how people believe you can prove or disprove the existence of a power which doesn't even exist in our sphere of understanding is ridiculous. If there is a god, does he have a god? Prove that either way.

frail_and_bedazzled
06-21-2002, 03:35 AM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by Oblivious:
the theory of god is just easier for people to deal with. all the science and fact would just lead to utter confusion if you tried to explain it to the masses.</font>
actually, a great deal of science is in perfect harmony with many notions of religion. not literal explanations, of course.

ratinacage
06-21-2002, 08:47 AM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by frail_and_bedazzled:

actually, a great deal of science is in perfect harmony with many notions of religion. not literal explanations, of course. </font>

Yeah, it irks me that everyone seems to see this debate as a conflict between science and religion. As far as I'm concerned, both are equally concrete; granted, they cover separate spheres, but true religion and true science will not contradict each other.

ratinacage
06-21-2002, 08:51 AM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by sarmatianus:
This just all proves what one can do with language, regardless of reality. If this were a standard for firing philosophy professors around this country, there'd be no more academic philosophy (a good thing, in my opinion - the university as it exists today killed proper philosophy).

In any case, you asked for proof. Which implies a scientific standard within the current paradigm. And supernatural phenomena can not fit within the current paradigm (read Thomas Kuhn on this, if you don't like what I'm saying). Therefore, whether or not there is a God, there is no way for you to prove existence of one, at least not under the current paradigm. And you can't, because anything you could observe would be explanable as a scientific phenomenon.

So there is no proof. This is not to say, though, that there is no God.

I like to think of it as the computer/creator paradox - the creator can never exist within the computer's world, nor can the computer's internal virtuality exist within the real world. As a programmer or creator, you can only operate within the defined parameters of the computer hardware and software, so you could never prove to a computer that you exist outside of the commands you give it.

So if there is a God, the only proof wouldn't proof anything, because for it to be observable, repeatable, and definable, it would have to be operating within the rules of our universe (our computer, so to speak).

I'm hungry. Let's get a taco.</font>

Very interesting, but I don't think the analogy holds, since we have free will while a computer can only carry out the commands of the programmer.

Dead Frequency
06-21-2002, 09:49 AM
Fuck, I hate all of you.

------------------
Needle is my God and smack is my soul.

AIM - verge miroir

sarmatianus
06-21-2002, 03:06 PM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by ratinacage:
Very interesting, but I don't think the analogy holds, since we have free will while a computer can only carry out the commands of the programmer.</font>

Ah, but you assume that free will exists! I'm not saying it absolutely doesn't, but to a certain physical degree, especially when it comes to the large universal phenomena, it doesn't.

Chrome Sandman
06-21-2002, 05:52 PM
I had an intense dream experience a few weeks ago (three weeks to the day in fact) where I was in a dark room with a television on. I turned my back and exclaimed "I want to talk to God".... When I traced my gaze back to the television I saw God revealed. It was Dave. You know from those Space Odyssey movies? Some how though, I've been left unconvinced. Perhaps my subconscious was re-circulating the memory of that online theory purporting to explain how the first Space Odyssey movie offered a powerful argument on behalf of the theist viewpoint. You know, humans are quick to conclude that a tiny black rectangular slab buried under the moon is unequivocal evidence of intelligent life elsewhere in the cosmos, yet the human embryo (which is infinitely more complex than the artifact found on the moon) seen at the end of the movie remains buried under the dogma that it is capable of being produced by mere chance. Maybe this was my subconscious’ idea of being deep… whispering “talk to God yourself, research philosophy, study the cosmos and in a sense you will be reading the mind of God.”

I think that God is a concept derived from our primitive philosophical interaction with our environment. DeviousJ is right, it lies beyond the spheres of our comprehension. <in brief>

Dead Frequency
06-21-2002, 06:37 PM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by Chrome Sandman:

DeviousJ is right, it lies beyond the spheres of our comprehension. <in brief>

</font>


Earlier when I said that I hate all of you, what I meant was that [i]<U>I really fucking hate you.</U>[/b]

Mayfuck
06-21-2002, 06:53 PM
Yeah, am I the only one that read Dead Frequency's post? Jeez.

beamish13
06-22-2002, 12:44 AM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by BeautifulLoser:
*shrugs* I like the idea that God exists. It makes me comfortable. It explains the unexplainable things that happen in the world. It's just a better idea to me.


</font>


so you like to take easy routes out of everything?

Smiley33
06-22-2002, 01:02 AM
if you want to experience profound depression, or if you're just fucking bored, read some books on existentialism.

DeviousJ
06-22-2002, 09:14 AM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by Mayfuck:
Yeah, am I the only one that read Dead Frequency's post? Jeez.</font>

Haha