Announcement

Collapse

Christianity 201 Guidelines

orthodox Christians only.

Discussion on matters of general mainstream evangelical Christian theology that do not fit within Theology 201. Have some spiritual gifts ceased today? Is the KJV the only viable translation for the church today? In what sense are the books of the bible inspired and what are those books? Church government? Modern day prophets and apostles?

This forum is primarily for Christians to discuss matters of Christian doctrine, and is not the area for debate between atheists (or those opposing orthodox Christianity) and Christians. Inquiring atheists (or sincere seekers/doubters/unorthodox) seeking only Christian participation and having demonstrated a manner that does not seek to undermine the orthodox Christian faith of others are also welcome, but must seek Moderator permission first. When defining “Christian” or "orthodox" for purposes of this section, we mean persons holding to the core essentials of the historic Christian faith such as the Trinity, the Creatorship of God, the virgin birth, the bodily resurrection of Christ, the atonement, the future bodily return of Christ, the future bodily resurrection of the just and the unjust, and the final judgment. Persons not holding to these core doctrines are welcome to participate in the Comparative Religions section without restriction, in Theology 201 as regards to the nature of God and salvation with limited restrictions, and in Christology for issues surrounding the person of Christ and the Trinity. Atheists are welcome to discuss and debate these issues in the Apologetics 301 forum without such restrictions.

Additionally and rarely, there may be some topics or lines of discussion that within the Moderator's discretion fall so outside the bounds of mainstream orthodox doctrine (in general Christian circles or in the TheologyWeb community) or that deny certain core values that are the Christian convictions of forum leadership that may be more appropriately placed within Unorthodox Theology 201. NO personal offense should be taken by such discretionary decision for none is intended. While inerrancy is NOT considered a requirement for posting in this section, a general respect for the Bible text and a respect for the inerrantist position of others is requested.

The Tweb rules apply here like they do everywhere at Tweb, if you haven't read them, now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

How Do We Know that God Exists?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • How Do We Know that God Exists?

    See the title, but this is a question that I've been thinking about recently. More specifically, while Aquinas' Five Ways are very strong arguments, what necessarily makes them apply to reality?

  • #2
    Um, unless you are arguing for a steady state universe, Number Three inherently applies to material reality as we know it (arguably, so do the rest but I'd argue Five as the second strongest).

    I suspect - not a philosopher and don't play on on TV - the existence of God is where we should wind up following Plato's forms to their logical conclusion but I would not argue it as I'm not well enough read in the two.
    "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot

    "Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman

    My Personal Blog

    My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)

    Quill Sword

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Teallaura View Post
      Um, unless you are arguing for a steady state universe, Number Three inherently applies to material reality as we know it (arguably, so do the rest but I'd argue Five as the second strongest).

      I suspect - not a philosopher and don't play on on TV - the existence of God is where we should wind up following Plato's forms to their logical conclusion but I would not argue it as I'm not well enough read in the two.
      Unless I'm misreading them*, there are Thomists who think that the metaphysical arguments are not at all dependent on a physical understanding of the natural world. Given my understanding of the nature of the Thomistic 5 Ways, I disagree. I've been reading a translation of Summa Theologica, and I've come across several arguments he makes that only work if his physics are right. I'll have to go back and find it, but one relied on the concept of aether, and how "action at a distance" was wrong. Both of these concepts have been found to be false**. The way I see it, the arguments relying on these concepts are false because of this.

      Unlike some modern Thomists, Thomas Aquinas didn't seem to divide his physics and metaphysics in a way that made them into non-overlapping magisteria.

      *Those like Edward Feser, and our own Nick Peters. I also read one a while back claiming that even if there was no such thing as motion Thomas would still be right.

      An example of this from Edward Feser's blog.

      "Moreover, the philosophy of nature, as modern Scholastics have understood it, tells us what the natural world must be like whatever the specific laws of physics, chemistry, etc. turn out to be. And the Scholastic position is that the distinction between actuality and potentiality, the principle of causality, and other fundamental elements of the Aristotelian conception of nature are among the preconditions of any possible material world susceptible of scientific study.

      That is why no findings of empirical science can undermine the claims of metaphysics and the philosophy of nature. It is also why no findings of empirical science can undermine the Aristotelian-Thomistic arguments for the existence of God, for these are grounded in premises drawn, not from natural science, but from metaphysics and the philosophy of nature. "

      **Quantum mechanics, gravity, and light going through a vacuum are falsifications of these.

      Comment


      • #4
        Perhaps you could post them for non-Thomists?
        Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

        Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
        sigpic
        I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by psstein View Post
          See the title, but this is a question that I've been thinking about recently. More specifically, while Aquinas' Five Ways are very strong arguments, what necessarily makes them apply to reality?
          We don't know God exists. When someone says they know God exists, what they really mean is "I strongly believe God exists". Conviction and proof are two different things. Of course we can claim evidence for our beliefs, but the evidence still falls significantly short of furnishing any sort of rational certainty.

          This is why we as humans all doubt at times, and this is why we continue to debate worldviews, evidences, and interpretations because at the end of the day, no one can prove with certainty that their answers to "ultimate questions" are the correct ones.
          Last edited by Scrawly; 12-03-2017, 07:21 PM.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by psstein View Post
            See the title, but this is a question that I've been thinking about recently. More specifically, while Aquinas' Five Ways are very strong arguments, what necessarily makes them apply to reality?
            Originally posted by Scrawly View Post
            We don't know God exists. When someone says they know God exists, what they really mean is "I strongly believe God exists". Conviction and proof are two different things. Of course we can claim evidence for our beliefs, but the evidence still falls significantly short of furnishing any sort of rational certainty.

            This is why we as humans all doubt at times, and this is why we continue to debate worldviews, evidences, and interpretations because at the end of the day, no one can prove with certainty that their answers to "ultimate questions" are the correct ones.
            Dogmatic statements in support of agnosticism(?). Are you truly that certain about the uncertainty of the existence of God? These are self-refuting assertions, Scrawly.
            For Neo-Remonstration (Arminian/Remonstrant ruminations): <https://theremonstrant.blogspot.com>

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by The Remonstrant View Post
              Dogmatic statements in support of agnosticism(?).


              No. Statements that support the limitations and realities of human reasoning and fallibility.

              Are you truly that certain about the uncertainty of the existence of God?
              I am certain about the limitations of our beliefs when attempting to produce rational certainty.

              These are self-refuting assertions, Scrawly.
              I think you are refuting a straw man.
              Last edited by Scrawly; 12-03-2017, 07:53 PM.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Scrawly View Post
                We don't know God exists. When someone says they know God exists, what they really mean is "I strongly believe God exists". Conviction and proof are two different things. Of course we can claim evidence for our beliefs, but the evidence still falls significantly short of furnishing any sort of rational certainty.

                This is why we as humans all doubt at times, and this is why we continue to debate worldviews, evidences, and interpretations because at the end of the day, no one can prove with certainty that their answers to "ultimate questions" are the correct ones.
                Originally posted by The Remonstrant View Post
                Dogmatic statements in support of agnosticism(?).
                Originally posted by Scrawly View Post
                No. Statements that support the limitations and realities of human reasoning and fallibility.
                And would not these purported ‘limitations and realities of human reasoning and fallibility’ be applicable to you and your reasoning as well? Are you certain that your (admittedly) fallible, limited reasoning is cogent?

                Originally posted by The Remonstrant View Post
                Are you truly that certain about the uncertainty of the existence of God?
                Originally posted by Scrawly View Post
                I am certain about the limitations of our beliefs when attempting to produce rational certainty.
                Conclusion: You are certain that human beings cannot know whether God exists with ‘rational certainty’ (whatever it is you mean by that). You are certain of the limitations of human knowledge. Presumably you know with precision where human knowledge begins and ends, or are you merely guessing?

                Originally posted by The Remonstrant View Post
                These are self-refuting assertions, Scrawly.
                Originally posted by Scrawly View Post
                I think you are refuting a straw man.
                I do not believe so. You are making faith-claims as to what human beings can and cannot know, and more or less treating the key tenet to your agnostic belief system of incertitude as indubitable fact. Do you not see the slightest hint of possible contradiction or irony here?

                Finally, I will simply say that I believe a discussion of this nature belongs on another forum (though the moderators may disagree). I doubt that I will carry on much longer, in any event.
                Last edited by The Remonstrant; 12-03-2017, 08:26 PM.
                For Neo-Remonstration (Arminian/Remonstrant ruminations): <https://theremonstrant.blogspot.com>

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Scrawly View Post
                  We don't know God exists. When someone says they know God exists, what they really mean is "I strongly believe God exists". Conviction and proof are two different things. Of course we can claim evidence for our beliefs, but the evidence still falls significantly short of furnishing any sort of rational certainty.

                  This is why we as humans all doubt at times, and this is why we continue to debate worldviews, evidences, and interpretations because at the end of the day, no one can prove with certainty that their answers to "ultimate questions" are the correct ones.
                  Yes, I'm not in the certainty camp by any stretch of the imagination. I'm asking more of an epistemological question.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by The Remonstrant View Post
                    And would not these purported ‘limitations and realities of human reasoning and fallibility’ be applicable to you and your reasoning as well? Are you certain that your (admittedly) fallible, limited reasoning is cogent?
                    I am certain that we have doubts in regards to claims that do not have incontrovertible proof, yes. Our interpretations of data and our experiences as fallible human beings is limited and prone to error, including mine, yes.

                    Conclusion: You are certain that human beings cannot know whether God exists with ‘rational certainty’ (whatever it is you mean by that).
                    Yes. We as Christian's cannot provide rational, incontrovertible proof of God's existence to an "outsider".

                    You are certain of the limitations of human knowledge.
                    Yes.

                    Presumably you know with precision where human knowledge begins and ends, or are you merely guessing?
                    I never said that. I am speaking in terms of rational certainty/ incontrovertible proof.

                    [I do not believe so. You are making faith-claims as to what human beings can and cannot know
                    No I am not. I am making statements that certain beliefs go beyond the pale of what we can prove.

                    and more or less treating the key tenet to your agnostic belief system of incertitude as indubitable fact.
                    I don't have an agnostic belief system. I have a Christian belief system that is based on presuppositions/assumptions and conviction supported by decent evidence for some of the claims and blind faith for the other claims within the Christian worldview. I believe the Triune God of scripture exists (despite doubting), although I cannot prove that, and neither can you or anyone else, I think.

                    Do you not see the slightest hint of possible contradiction or irony here?
                    I still think you are attacking a straw man for the most part.

                    Finally, I will simply say that I believe a discussion of this nature belongs on another forum (though the moderators may disagree). I doubt that I will carry on much longer, in any event.
                    It does appear we have just about reached the point where we will have to agree to disagree and leave it at that. Good chatting with you as always!
                    Last edited by Scrawly; 12-03-2017, 09:33 PM.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Scrawly View Post
                      Yes. We as Christian's [sic] cannot provide rational, incontrovertible proof of God's existence to an "outsider[.]"
                      The problem with this line of argumentation is that it assumes the task of Christianity is to in some way demonstrate its intellectual viability (or respectability) by ushering forth ‘proofs’ of God and his existence to an unbelieving world. This contradicts what Paul sets forth in Romans 1:18–25. The notion that persons need to be ‘proven’ the existence of God is not scriptural, but misguided. As simplistic as it might sound, in their moral corruption, non-believers have suppressed (or held back) the knowledge of God as Creator. There is a sense in which even those who have heard the proclamation of the good news of salvation in Christ are blinded not only by their moral corruption, but supernaturally as well (see 2 Cor. 4:4).
                      For Neo-Remonstration (Arminian/Remonstrant ruminations): <https://theremonstrant.blogspot.com>

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by The Remonstrant View Post
                        The problem with this line of argumentation is that it assumes the task of Christianity is to in some way demonstrate its intellectual viability (or respectability) by ushering forth ‘proofs’ of God and his existence to an unbelieving world. This contradicts what Paul sets forth in Romans 1:18–25. The notion that persons need to be ‘proven’ the existence of God is not scriptural, but misguided. As simplistic as it might sound, in their moral corruption, non-believers have suppressed (or held back) the knowledge of God as Creator. There is a sense in which even those who have heard the proclamation of the good news of salvation in Christ are blinded not only by their moral corruption, but supernaturally as well (see 2 Cor. 4:4).
                        I'm not arguing that we as Christian's ought to attempt to prove God's existence. I am stating that we cannot prove the existence of God to anyone, including ourselves. What separates us as Christian's from the unbelieving world is that unbeliever's reject the gospel and Christian's accept the gospel, based on faith, not proof. As Christian's, our interpretation of why we accept the gospel is partly due to the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit, another article of faith, not proof. Naturally, therefore, we will at times doubt (some frequently, others less so) the existence of God (or our presuppositions), elements of the gospel, parts of the bible, etc. because many of these things fall into the category of "belief" and not "proof" -- because we lack rational certainty -- but that doesn't mean we cannot have faith. Some of us do, by the grace of God, I believe.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
                          Perhaps you could post them for non-Thomists?
                          From Summa Theologica.

                          Source: Thomas Aquinas

                          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 Metaph. 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.

                          © Copyright Original Source

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            For some reason, I like working back from the Resurrection. If you establish the reliability of the Gospels and examine all the possible explanations for the empty tomb and the Twelve's reports of seeing a risen Jesus, then the Resurrection is the explanation that makes the most sense. If the Resurrection happened, then Jesus is Who He claimed to be and god exists. Of course the best evidence is yet to come. It will be hard to doubt God's existence when He will be the light source for the New Jerusalem! Well, a really stupid fundy atheist at the final judgement could try to claim that God is somehow like one of those fake gods that are merely aliens from Star Trek, but I'm sure God can easily disprove something so stupid.
                            If it weren't for the Resurrection of Jesus, we'd all be in DEEP TROUBLE!

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              The fourth way is what I have been debating with Tassman and JimL regarding morals. They have both made comments that they think human kind's morals are "better" than they used to be (i.e. value of life, slavery, etc) and yet want to say morals are just relative. But they keep appealing to a "better" standard to which they measure past moral value and even present ones to. They don't seem to grasp that they are appealing to an objective moral standard of good and bad.

                              Comment

                              Related Threads

                              Collapse

                              Topics Statistics Last Post
                              Started by Thoughtful Monk, 03-15-2024, 06:19 PM
                              35 responses
                              166 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Cow Poke  
                              Started by KingsGambit, 03-15-2024, 02:12 PM
                              4 responses
                              49 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Thoughtful Monk  
                              Started by Chaotic Void, 03-08-2024, 07:36 AM
                              10 responses
                              119 views
                              1 like
                              Last Post mikewhitney  
                              Started by Cow Poke, 02-29-2024, 07:55 AM
                              14 responses
                              71 views
                              3 likes
                              Last Post Cow Poke  
                              Started by Cow Poke, 02-28-2024, 11:56 AM
                              13 responses
                              59 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Cow Poke  
                              Working...
                              X