Proofs for the existence of God (discuss)

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).]

no

Originally posted by Jesse:
no

that's the stupidest thing i've read in weeks.

Originally posted by Irrelevant:
that's the stupidest thing i've read in weeks.

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

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

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

Originally posted by kypper:
St Thomas Aquinas is considered some of the best works pro-god though.

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

St. Thomas Aquinas could own all of you people posting "no" in a theological argument.

Originally posted by Irrelevant:
that argument just doesn't make any sense, though. basing actuality on human perception is ridiculous.

not that I want to jump in here, but is there any way for a human to perceive except humanly?

Originally posted by sawdust restaurants:
St. Thomas Aquinas could own all of you people posting "no" in a theological argument.

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

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?

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).

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.

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?

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

why must it?

Originally posted by Irrelevant:
why must it?

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

have you seen the miracles? http://www.netphoria.org/wwwboard/smile.gif

If his arguments were truly convincing, there'd be no atheists. http://www.netphoria.org/wwwboard/tongue.gif

Originally posted by lucky_13:
have you seen the miracles? http://www.netphoria.org/wwwboard/smile.gif

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

i think people just need to expand or possibly revise what they consider the word 'god' to mean or imply.

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.

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.

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.

nevermind, dood. nevermind http://www.netphoria.org/wwwboard/frown.gif

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.

Originally posted by BeautifulLoser:
how could something come out of absolutely nothing?

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?

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

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

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.

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?

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.

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.

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?

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?

*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.

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.

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.

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.

i don't know where to begin with this one

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.

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.