Proofs for the Existence of God

[JohnMartin]

Poppycock.

Roy's atheism causes him to reject the one true faith.

JM

[JimL]

It is given through the incarnation of the Word who was also the Messiah, who brought about the restoration of Israel, which is the Catholic Church, with her seven sacraments as efficient causes of grace.

So the word, the logos, wisdom, whatever you want to call it, just one of the attributes of god, became flesh. Does that really make sense to you?

[JohnMartin]

So the word, the logos, wisdom, whatever you want to call it, just one of the attributes of god, became flesh. Does that really make sense to you?

The Word is the second person of the Trinity, who became flesh. The Word is the Son, who became flesh.

JM

[JimL]

The Word is the second person of the Trinity, who became flesh. The Word is the Son, who became flesh.

So, god is divisible, part of god, the son, can be down here on earth, while the other part, the father, is up the in heaven?

[JohnMartin]

So, god is divisible, part of god, the son, can be down here on earth, while the other part, the father, is up the in heaven?

God is relational. The Word is a substantial relation within the divine essence. There are no parts in God, which is essentially simple.

JM

[JimL]

God is relational. The Word is a substantial relation within the divine essence. There are no parts in God, which is essentially simple.

Yes, so how is it that the son was down here on earth, while the father was in heaven? Jesus said it himself, "why do you call me good, there is only one good and that is the father who is in heaven." Paraphrasing of course.

[JohnMartin]

Yes, so how is it that the son was down here on earth, while the father was in heaven? Jesus said it himself, "why do you call me good, there is only one good and that is the father who is in heaven." Paraphrasing of course.

The Catholic faith cannot be explained rationally, but it can be defended rationally from the attacks of the rationalists. We have been told that only the Son became incarnate and not the Father, or Holy Spirit. The Father, Son and Holy Spirit are all God and do not change. Therefore they are everywhere, yet only the Son became man. We know the Son is a real, divine person, who is not the Father, nor the Holy Spirit. We also know that as God, the Son can do whatever can be done. As the Son became incarnate, and proved He was God by His miracles, we know the Son can become incarnate.

How did this happen? Nobody knows, other than God, for He can do what creatures cannot do.

We also know the Son revealed He was God incarnate, and He did not reveal that the Father and the Holy Spirit were incarnated. The union the Son had with the F and HS before the incarnation continues after the incarnation, and the Word as incarnate continues now in Heaven.

JM

[JimL]

The Catholic faith cannot be explained rationally, but it can be defended rationally from the attacks of the rationalists. We have been told that only the Son became incarnate and not the Father, or Holy Spirit. The Father, Son and Holy Spirit are all God and do not change. Therefore they are everywhere, yet only the Son became man. We know the Son is a real, divine person, who is not the Father, nor the Holy Spirit. We also know that as God, the Son can do whatever can be done. As the Son became incarnate, and proved He was God by His miracles, we know the Son can become incarnate.

How did this happen? Nobody knows, other than God, for He can do what creatures cannot do.

We also know the Son revealed He was God incarnate, and He did not reveal that the Father and the Holy Spirit were incarnated. The union the Son had with the F and HS before the incarnation continues after the incarnation, and the Word as incarnate continues now in Heaven.

Okay, so basically the idea of the trinity is irrational, at least from the human perspective, so there is no point in rational debate over its validity.

[JohnMartin]

Okay, so basically the idea of the trinity is irrational, at least from the human perspective, so there is no point in rational debate over its validity.

The Trinity is not irrational, it is supra rational. There are no contradictions in the doctrines of the Trinity, but there is no resolution to the mystery of the Trinity. For example nobody knows how there are three substantial relations in the one substance of God, or how the Father generates the Son. Such are the mysteries of the Trinity.

JM

[Tiburon]

No one knows how three leprechauns can ride on one Unicorn either.

[Roy]

1) Conclude from reason that there is a supreme being.

2) The supreme being is eminently supreme above all created perfections, which includes the supreme being having a supreme life, beyond that of creation.

Not according to your reasoning it doesn't.

Prove it Roy.

Simple.

Your reasoning that there is a supreme being was summed up thus:

Is one thing greater than another? If yes, then there is a supreme. If no, then there is a supreme. If the supreme is dependent in being, then there is another, as the prime being, which is the real supreme. How simple is that to understand?

Given your subsequent claims that creatures are supreme to inanimate objects and humans are supreme to non-humans, the supreme being of all the beings on Earth will be a human. Unless you have evidence of intelligent space aliens or can demonstrate the existence of god(s) in some other way*, the supreme being your reasoning leads to is a human.

Unless you think humans are eminently supreme above all created perfections, your argument fails.

Roy

*Assuming your God exists at this stage would lead to circular argument

[Roy]

there's no-one other than you who believes the arguments anyway.

This is false. The proofs for God have been around for centuries and used by theists to defend/promote theism. You don't even get the history of theism right.

These 'proofs' for God are garbled versions of the originals that have been around for a few days and promote only your demonstrable incompetence.

More alleged incompetence. The proofs are based upon those of Thomas Aquinas made in the 14th C.

Yes, I know. But your presentation is a garbled version of the originals that has been around for a few days and promotes only your demonstrable incompetence.

Unless you'd like to show us where Thomas Aquinas committed the fallacy of the inverse?

A creature is contingent
Therefore a creature is composed of potency and act.
God is not a creature
Therefore God is not composed of potency and act.

[JohnMartin]

Simple.

Your reasoning that there is a supreme being was summed up thus:

Is one thing greater than another? If yes, then there is a supreme. If no, then there is a supreme. If the supreme is dependent in being, then there is another, as the prime being, which is the real supreme. How simple is that to understand?

Given your subsequent claims that creatures are supreme to inanimate objects and humans are supreme to non-humans, the supreme being of all the beings on Earth will be a human. Unless you have evidence of intelligent space aliens or can demonstrate the existence of god(s) in some other way*, the supreme being your reasoning leads to is a human.

Unless you think humans are eminently supreme above all created perfections, your argument fails.

Roy

*Assuming your God exists at this stage would lead to circular argument

Humans are composed of potency and act, which according to previous arguments given on this thread in posts 31 and 55, imply a first being, which is pure act.

Post 31

If the 'Ultimate Natural Existence' is a creature, then 'Ultimate Natural Existence' is contingent.
But what is contingent, is dependent
But what is dependent is not supreme
But 'Ultimate Natural Existence is the supreme 'Source'
Therefore 'Ultimate Natural Existence' is not a creature.

A creature is contingent
Therefore a creature is composed of potency and act.
'Ultimate Natural Existence' is not a creature
Therefore 'Ultimate Natural Existence' is not composed of potency and act.
What is not composed is simple
Only pure act is simple, as a being in act
Therefore 'Ultimate Natural Existence' is pure act.

Post 55

Part 3 – Demonstrate the Supreme Being has an identity of nature and being.

Arguments are to incorporate some truths already proven above –

Supreme Being is pure act. (12a) (see 10c)
Pure act is not receptive of being. (12b) (see 10b)
Therefore Supreme Being is not receptive of being. (12c)

What is in act and not receptive of being is a nature in act, which is not receptive of being. (13a) (follows from 2a, c)
Supreme Being is in act and not receptive of being. (13b) (See 10a)
Therefore Supreme Being is a nature in act, which is not receptive of being. (13c)

What is a nature in act, and not receptive of being is a nature in act without potency. (14a) (self evident after understanding points 1-6).
Supreme Being is a nature in act, which is not receptive of being. (14b)
Therefore Supreme Being is a nature without potency. (14c)

A nature without potency is a nature unreceptive of being. (15a)
Supreme Being is a nature without potency. (15b)
Therefore Supreme Being is a nature that is unreceptive. (15c)

A nature that is unreceptive of being is a nature that is being. (16a)
Supreme Being is a nature that is unreceptive of being. (16b)
Therefore Supreme Being is a nature that is being. (16c)

A nature that is being is a nature that has identity of nature and being. (17a)
Supreme Being is a nature that is being. (17b)
Therefore Supreme Being has a nature identical with being. (17c)

JM

The prime being is pure act, which is also the Supreme being. Anything composed of potency and act is not the supreme being.

Its all very easy to prove the existence of the supreme being, which is pure act.

JM

[JohnMartin]

Yes, I know. But your presentation is a garbled version of the originals that has been around for a few days and promotes only your demonstrable incompetence.

Unless you'd like to show us where Thomas Aquinas committed the fallacy of the inverse?

The fallacy of the inverse says there is insufficient reason to reach the conclusion, even if all the premises are true. There are only two ways a thing can exist. Either as a creature and then composed. Or as the supreme being and then not composed, but only of pure act. As potency and act are the fundamental modes of being, then if a thing is not 1 then it is 2. Sufficient reason is implied within the syllogism, provided one understands being, modally diverse according to potency and act.

Hence the fallacy of the inverse is avoided.

Wiki gives the following example of denying the antecedent -

If it is raining, then the grass is wet.
It is not raining.
Therefore, the grass is not wet.

But this example has a false similitude demonstrated by noting there is more than one cause of the grass being wet, but there is no other outcomes for a thing of pure act, if the thing is not composed of potency and act. From the nature of being it follows that if not (P and A), then A. Or similarly, if not creature, then Supreme being (God).

JM

[Roy]

Humans are composed of potency and act, which according to previous arguments given on this thread in posts 31 and 55, imply a first being, which is pure act.

Post 31

Post 55

The prime being is pure act, which is also the Supreme being.

You haven't demonstrated that the two are the same.

Its all very easy to prove the existence of the supreme being, which is pure act.

Then why do you keep assuming it?