Your best argument that god exists

[kepha31]

Excuse me, but what is this god thing that suddenly got thrown into the mix?


Don't know who this A.L. is, but his rambling ideas got more incomprehensible with every sentence. In particular is his silliness concerning the "First Mover." "the Unmoved First Mover alone answers the true idea of a mover. " I've seen better from freshman philosophy students, but maybe that's what he is.

FYI, Just because it appears on the internet doesn't make it worth repeating.

(Oh yes, quoting to this extent could be interpreted as plagiarism.)

I suggest you read the entire link, Thomistic Approaches for the Existence of God by A.L. ,, and I will submit to the moderators interpretation of plagiarism.
What you find incomprehensible is the first of Thomas Aquinas 5 Ways on the existence of God. Since your position, repeatedly stated by you, is "don't know", how are you in a position to dismiss my post as "rambling ideas... incomprehensible with every sentence"??? Thomas Aquinas 5 Ways are classics, they didn't have the internet in the 12th century. Here is a summary of a summary of a summary that is easier to follow:

First Way: The Argument From Motion
St. Thomas Aquinas, studying the works of the Greek philosopher Aristotle, concluded from common observation that an object that is in motion (e.g. the planets, a rolling stone) is put in motion by some other object or force. From this, Aquinas believes that ultimately there must have been an UNMOVED MOVER (GOD) who first put things in motion. Follow the argument this way:

1) Nothing can move itself.
2) If every object in motion had a mover, then the first object in motion needed a mover.
3) This first mover is the Unmoved Mover, called God.

Seriously, it's not "rambling ideas... incomprehensible with every sentence". It's very simple. It seems to me that making baseless remarks to derail an argument that cannot be refuted is the style of discussion, which is partly why discussion with atheists is nearly impossible. While I am at it:

Second Way: Causation Of Existence
This Way deals with the issue of existence. Aquinas concluded that common sense observation tells us that no object creates itself. In other words, some previous object had to create it. Aquinas believed that ultimately there must have been an UNCAUSED FIRST CAUSE (GOD) who began the chain of existence for all things. Follow the agrument this way:

1) There exists things that are caused (created) by other things.
2) Nothing can be the cause of itself (nothing can create itself.)
3) There can not be an endless string of objects causing other objects to exist.
4) Therefore, ther must be an uncaused first cause called God.

Third Way: Contingent and Necessary Objects
This Way defines two types of objects in the universe: contingent beings and necessary beings. A contingent being is an object that can not exist without a necessary being causing its existence. Aquinas believed that the existence of contingent beings would ultimately necessitate a being which must exist for all of the contingent beings to exist. This being, called a necessary being, is what we call God. Follow the argument this way:

1) Contingent beings are caused.
2) Not every being can be contingent.
3) There must exist a being which is necessary to cause contingent beings.
4) This necessary being is God.

Fourth Way: The Argument From Degrees And Perfection
St. Thomas formulated this Way from a very interesting observation about the qualities of things. For example one may say that of two marble sculptures one is more beautiful than the other. So for these two objects, one has a greater degree of beauty than the next. This is referred to as degrees or gradation of a quality. From this fact Aquinas concluded that for any given quality (e.g. goodness, beauty, knowledge) there must be an perfect standard by which all such qualities are measured. These perfections are contained in God.

Fifth Way: The Argument From Intelligent Design
The final Way that St. Thomas Aquinas speaks of has to do with the observable universe and the order of nature. Aquinas states that common sense tells us that the universe works in such a way, that one can conclude that is was designed by an intelligent designer, God. In other words, all physical laws and the order of nature and life were designed and ordered by God, the intelligent designer.
St. Thomas Aquinas' Five Ways
If you don't like reading all that, watch a video:

Is it my best argument for the existence of God? No, but it's a good one, and more reasonable that the atheists argument by silence for the existence of the universe, and our place and purpose in it.

 

[Bunyip]

I suggest you read the entire link, Thomistic Approaches for the Existence of God by A.L. ,, and I will submit to the moderators interpretation of plagiarism.
What you find incomprehensible is the first of Thomas Aquinas 5 Ways on the existence of God. Since your position, repeatedly stated by you, is "don't know", how are you in a position to dismiss my post as "rambling ideas... incomprehensible with every sentence"??? Thomas Aquinas 5 Ways are classics, they didn't have the internet in the 12th century. Here is a summary of a summary of a summary that is easier to follow:

First Way: The Argument From Motion
St. Thomas Aquinas, studying the works of the Greek philosopher Aristotle, concluded from common observation that an object that is in motion (e.g. the planets, a rolling stone) is put in motion by some other object or force. From this, Aquinas believes that ultimately there must have been an UNMOVED MOVER (GOD) who first put things in motion. Follow the argument this way:

1) Nothing can move itself.
2) If every object in motion had a mover, then the first object in motion needed a mover.
3) This first mover is the Unmoved Mover, called God.

Seriously, it's not "rambling ideas... incomprehensible with every sentence". It's very simple. It seems to me that making baseless remarks to derail an argument that cannot be refuted is the style of discussion, which is partly why discussion with atheists is nearly impossible. While I am at it:

Second Way: Causation Of Existence
This Way deals with the issue of existence. Aquinas concluded that common sense observation tells us that no object creates itself. In other words, some previous object had to create it. Aquinas believed that ultimately there must have been an UNCAUSED FIRST CAUSE (GOD) who began the chain of existence for all things. Follow the agrument this way:

1) There exists things that are caused (created) by other things.
2) Nothing can be the cause of itself (nothing can create itself.)
3) There can not be an endless string of objects causing other objects to exist.
4) Therefore, ther must be an uncaused first cause called God.

Third Way: Contingent and Necessary Objects
This Way defines two types of objects in the universe: contingent beings and necessary beings. A contingent being is an object that can not exist without a necessary being causing its existence. Aquinas believed that the existence of contingent beings would ultimately necessitate a being which must exist for all of the contingent beings to exist. This being, called a necessary being, is what we call God. Follow the argument this way:

1) Contingent beings are caused.
2) Not every being can be contingent.
3) There must exist a being which is necessary to cause contingent beings.
4) This necessary being is God.

Fourth Way: The Argument From Degrees And Perfection
St. Thomas formulated this Way from a very interesting observation about the qualities of things. For example one may say that of two marble sculptures one is more beautiful than the other. So for these two objects, one has a greater degree of beauty than the next. This is referred to as degrees or gradation of a quality. From this fact Aquinas concluded that for any given quality (e.g. goodness, beauty, knowledge) there must be an perfect standard by which all such qualities are measured. These perfections are contained in God.

Fifth Way: The Argument From Intelligent Design
The final Way that St. Thomas Aquinas speaks of has to do with the observable universe and the order of nature. Aquinas states that common sense tells us that the universe works in such a way, that one can conclude that is was designed by an intelligent designer, God. In other words, all physical laws and the order of nature and life were designed and ordered by God, the intelligent designer.
St. Thomas Aquinas' Five Ways
If you don't like reading all that, watch a video:

Is it my best argument for the existence of God? No, but it's a good one, and more reasonable that the atheists argument by silence for the existence of the universe, and our place and purpose in it.

If nothing can not move itself -how could god come to exist?

 

[kepha31]

No, I reject metaphysical arguments on their own merits, in 65 years on this planet I've yet to see a single on that deserved anything else.

Not seeing a single one or refusing to see any?

T'aint necessarily so. You can have reason without faith, that's easy. You can have faith without reason, that's common. But reason AND faith, that's rather much harder, you see reason demands "proof" (I'd rather say likelihood) whilst faith does not require proof, in fact if often exists in the face of clear falsification.

That may be true due to the damage caused by Protestantism but it has nothing to do with Catholic faith. I apologize for the long post but I have to make my point. because atheists are constantly equating "faith" with stupidity.

First, that the "faith" I am talking about appeals to the intellect and is founded, not on mere sentiment or conjecture, or blind prejudice, but upon the rock of reason.

Secondly, that it provides suitable and effective means to enable the individual to deal with the problems and difficulties of life; that is, it provides a practical working system whereby each one can, with reasonable diligence, save his soul from the contamination of sin, lead a pure, honest, upright life, and thus secure his eternal salvation.

I assert, then, in the first place, that Catholicism is sane, because it appeals to man's intellect and is founded on reason, and does not shrink from or fear the closest critical or scientific investigation.

First let us consider the act of faith, which lies at the root of Catholicism. An act of faith is, in the Catholic sense, an act of reason, an assent on adequate grounds to certain intellectual propositions. Outsiders constantly misunderstand and frequently misrepresent the Catholic act of faith. Hence, to avoid confusion, I will treat the matter in two ways.

First. - I will try to tell you what faith is not.

Second. - Then I will try to explain more fully what it actually is, and to show you how reasonable it is, and how it benefits a sane man to make acts of faith.

(1) First, then, a Catholic act of faith is not mere credulity or a blind acceptance of the marvellous without reasonable grounds. Non-Catholics often credit Catholics with this kind of thing; they imagine Catholics to be folk gaping openmouthed for any strange story to swallow it down whole.

(2) Nor is faith mere sentimentalism - i.e., accepting things as true because they give you a comfortable feeling. The Catholic, in believing, is not guided by emotion, but by conviction.

(3) Nor, again, does Catholicism appeal, as the Modernists did, to a special sort of instinct whereby one reaches out after the Supernatural - apart from intellectual conviction. Modernists taught that the department of faith was so distinct from that of science that while by faith you believe the Resurrection of Christ to be true, scientifically you might deny its truth; and so with other Christian dogmas. If we Catholics taught that kind of thing we could hardly claim that ours is a sane religious system.

Hence, I repeat, faith is not mere blind superstition, not sentimentalism, not the functioning of a special subconscious faculty, whereby the soul grasps the Divine. No! in the true Catholic sense, faith is conviction. The Catholic says, "I KNOW."

What is Faith?

Now we come to the positive declaration of what faith really is. Religious faith in the reasonable and Catholic sense is an extension or application to the spiritual world of an ordinary intellectual process which all exercise daily, and without the exercise of which our lives as social beings would be impossible. This process consists in assenting to the truth of propositions on the testimony of others. We may acquire knowledge in two ways - either by direct observation (you see a man knocked down by a car in the street), or through the testimony of others (you read an account of the accident in the evening paper, or learn it from a friend).

The last intellectual operation, whereby we assent to the truth of facts (which are, perhaps, beyond the reach of our own observation) because other men testify to their truth, plays an incessant part in our lives. It is in this way most of our knowledge comes to us - on the authority of others. If you reflect on the method whereby people as a rule acquire scientific, geographical, historical, philosophical knowledge, or if you think of the part which books and newspapers play in our lives, you will, I think, admit the truth of what I say. We each of us investigate a very small portion of the earth's surface on which we live - namely, the part traversed by the tiny track of our perambulations through life. All the other knowledge we have of the world - or of the universe - rests on the testimony of others.

Now, who will say that such faith, such willingness to accept testimony, is unscientific, or unworthy of a rational being? Who will suggest that it is not based on sound intellectual principles? It may not be easy for you to trace the process whereby you have come to believe without any doubt in the existence of Jupiter's satellites, or of icebergs in the Antarctic, or of Hitler or Mussolini. The evidence has come through many almost imperceptible channels, but is such that it excludes all doubt from your mind. If you analyze the process, it comes to this: You convince yourself by direct examination or reasoning of the reliability of the witness; then you accept his testimony as true. Two things must be clear to you about the witness -
(1) That he had ample opportunity to learn the facts;
(2) that he is telling the truth.
In other words, that he is not deceived himself, nor wants to deceive you. In a court of law, the judge and jury must test these two points: Is the witness truthful? Has he knowledge of the facts? Once they are convinced of these two things, then they accept his evidence, and believe his statements to be true.
To a Catholic believer Faith is just this process. It is not conjecture, nor is it credulity. It means assenting to the truth of certain facts on the evidence of a reliable witness...

This is not available on line, but it makes a good read. It gives clarity to what faith is, and what it is not. The rest is in my files and I would be glad to share it with you if requested.

Lastly, Pope John Paul wrote an encyclical FIDES ET RATIO (Faith and Reason) and its rather extensive. It begins with:

Faith and reason are like two wings on which the human spirit rises to the contemplation of truth; and God has placed in the human heart a desire to know the truth—in a word, to know himself—so that, by knowing and loving God, men and women may also come to the fullness of truth about themselves (cf. Ex 33:18; Ps 27:8-9; 63:2-3; Jn 14:8; 1 Jn 3:2).

 

[Bunyip]

Not seeing a single one or refusing to see any?

That may be true due to the damage caused by Protestantism but it has nothing to do with Catholic faith. I apologize for the long post but I have to make my point. because atheists are constantly equating "faith" with stupidity.

First, that the "faith" I am talking about appeals to the intellect and is founded, not on mere sentiment or conjecture, or blind prejudice, but upon the rock of reason.

Secondly, that it provides suitable and effective means to enable the individual to deal with the problems and difficulties of life; that is, it provides a practical working system whereby each one can, with reasonable diligence, save his soul from the contamination of sin, lead a pure, honest, upright life, and thus secure his eternal salvation.

I assert, then, in the first place, that Catholicism is sane, because it appeals to man's intellect and is founded on reason, and does not shrink from or fear the closest critical or scientific investigation.

First let us consider the act of faith, which lies at the root of Catholicism. An act of faith is, in the Catholic sense, an act of reason, an assent on adequate grounds to certain intellectual propositions. Outsiders constantly misunderstand and frequently misrepresent the Catholic act of faith. Hence, to avoid confusion, I will treat the matter in two ways.

First. - I will try to tell you what faith is not.

Second. - Then I will try to explain more fully what it actually is, and to show you how reasonable it is, and how it benefits a sane man to make acts of faith.

(1) First, then, a Catholic act of faith is not mere credulity or a blind acceptance of the marvellous without reasonable grounds. Non-Catholics often credit Catholics with this kind of thing; they imagine Catholics to be folk gaping openmouthed for any strange story to swallow it down whole.

(2) Nor is faith mere sentimentalism - i.e., accepting things as true because they give you a comfortable feeling. The Catholic, in believing, is not guided by emotion, but by conviction.

(3) Nor, again, does Catholicism appeal, as the Modernists did, to a special sort of instinct whereby one reaches out after the Supernatural - apart from intellectual conviction. Modernists taught that the department of faith was so distinct from that of science that while by faith you believe the Resurrection of Christ to be true, scientifically you might deny its truth; and so with other Christian dogmas. If we Catholics taught that kind of thing we could hardly claim that ours is a sane religious system.

Hence, I repeat, faith is not mere blind superstition, not sentimentalism, not the functioning of a special subconscious faculty, whereby the soul grasps the Divine. No! in the true Catholic sense, faith is conviction. The Catholic says, "I KNOW."

What is Faith?

Now we come to the positive declaration of what faith really is. Religious faith in the reasonable and Catholic sense is an extension or application to the spiritual world of an ordinary intellectual process which all exercise daily, and without the exercise of which our lives as social beings would be impossible. This process consists in assenting to the truth of propositions on the testimony of others. We may acquire knowledge in two ways - either by direct observation (you see a man knocked down by a car in the street), or through the testimony of others (you read an account of the accident in the evening paper, or learn it from a friend).

The last intellectual operation, whereby we assent to the truth of facts (which are, perhaps, beyond the reach of our own observation) because other men testify to their truth, plays an incessant part in our lives. It is in this way most of our knowledge comes to us - on the authority of others. If you reflect on the method whereby people as a rule acquire scientific, geographical, historical, philosophical knowledge, or if you think of the part which books and newspapers play in our lives, you will, I think, admit the truth of what I say. We each of us investigate a very small portion of the earth's surface on which we live - namely, the part traversed by the tiny track of our perambulations through life. All the other knowledge we have of the world - or of the universe - rests on the testimony of others.

Now, who will say that such faith, such willingness to accept testimony, is unscientific, or unworthy of a rational being? Who will suggest that it is not based on sound intellectual principles? It may not be easy for you to trace the process whereby you have come to believe without any doubt in the existence of Jupiter's satellites, or of icebergs in the Antarctic, or of Hitler or Mussolini. The evidence has come through many almost imperceptible channels, but is such that it excludes all doubt from your mind. If you analyze the process, it comes to this: You convince yourself by direct examination or reasoning of the reliability of the witness; then you accept his testimony as true. Two things must be clear to you about the witness -
(1) That he had ample opportunity to learn the facts;
(2) that he is telling the truth.
In other words, that he is not deceived himself, nor wants to deceive you. In a court of law, the judge and jury must test these two points: Is the witness truthful? Has he knowledge of the facts? Once they are convinced of these two things, then they accept his evidence, and believe his statements to be true.
To a Catholic believer Faith is just this process. It is not conjecture, nor is it credulity. It means assenting to the truth of certain facts on the evidence of a reliable witness...


This is not available on line, but it makes a good read. It gives clarity to what faith is, and what it is not.

Lastly, Pope John Paul wrote an encyclical FIDES ET RATIO (Faith and Reason) and its rather extensive.

Faith and reason are like two wings on which the human spirit rises to the contemplation of truth; and God has placed in the human heart a desire to know the truth—in a word, to know himself—so that, by knowing and loving God, men and women may also come to the fullness of truth about themselves (cf. Ex 33:18; Ps 27:8-9; 63:2-3; Jn 14:8; 1 Jn 3:2).

I think you misunderstand what faith means - it is the belief in things unseen. That is how the bible defines it anyway.

 

[Skwim]

I suggest you read the entire link, Thomistic Approaches for the Existence of God by A.L. ,, and I will submit to the moderators interpretation of plagiarism.

I scanned it. I also read it some years ago in college, and it hasn't improved with age one wit. Fact is, it was used to illustrate how to critically examined philosophical arguments, in this case, the existence of god. I can tell you, St Thomas didn't come out very well.

What you find incomprehensible is the first of Thomas Aquinas 5 Ways on the existence of God.

To be kind. I found them all utterly unconvincing.

Since your position, repeatedly stated by you, is "don't know", how are you in a position to dismiss my post as "rambling ideas... incomprehensible with every sentence"???

Fallacy of generalization here.

Thomas Aquinas 5 Ways are classics, they didn't have the internet in the 12th century. Here is a summary of a summary of a summary that is easier to follow:

Classics yes, but no longer taken seriously except by the Catholic church, which thrives on remaining wedded to the days of yore.

Is it my best argument for the existence of God? No, but it's a good one,

Then how about giving us your best argument.

and more reasonable that the atheists argument by silence for the existence of the universe.

Sometimes it takes more gumption to admit you don't know than pluck an explanation from religious answer bowl on the shelf.

 

[kepha31]

I scanned it. I also read it some years ago in college, and it hasn't improved with age one wit. Fact is, it was used to illustrate how to critically examined philosophical arguments, in this case, the existence of god. I can tell you, St Thomas didn't come out very well.

To be kind. I found them all utterly unconvincing.

Fallacy of generalization here.

Classics yes, but no longer taken seriously except by the Catholic church, which thrives on remaining wedded to the days of yore.

Then how about giving us your best argument.

Sometimes it takes more gumption to admit you don't know than pluck an explanation from religious answer bowl on the shelf.

More baseless, emotional remarks with "O" rigor. No discussion, just blind reaction. Like I said before, its a common tactic to derail an argument that can't be refuted. Replies with lots of nothing.

Refutation of the "Mistakes of Aquinas"
go ahead, make my day.

 

[Bunyip]

More baseless, emotional remarks with "O" rigor. No discussion, just blind reaction. Like I said before, its a common tactic to derail an argument that can't be refuted. Replies with lots of nothing.

Your argument refutes itself, it contradicts itself.
It also addresses a truly absurd strawman notion of atheism.

 

[Jumi]

Neanderthals performed burial rituals.
That something exists beyond our finite, meaningless existence is self-evident and apriori.
It requires some specific experiential events to screw up something so obvious and create atheists ... that is why there are statistically so few (single digit percentages).

Why would we assume burials had something to do with a belief in gods?

 

[Jumi]

Baseless rhetoric is not a refutation, it's a cop out. If you are not a polytheistic Deo-Atomist, then say so.

Oh, those godless polytheists who non-believe believe nothing material. Who worship because, you know worship is just the same as thinking atoms or cells exist. Those polytheists who have no gods and whose faith is higher than Christians, when their technology is the same as superstitions in that in old Babylon and we can't see the results of modern science?

You seriously liked that article? I can't imagine why.

 

[raph]

If nothing can not move itself -how could god come to exist?

This argument always arrives at an uncreated God. The first cause must be an uncaused cause, because else we would have an infinite number of causes.

 

[raph]

How do you get from 'unmoved first mover' to God?

Because we can apply attributes to the first cause. If this cause created the universe, it must be very powerful, or we can say all powerful because it created everything. Humans cant even create a bacteria in a virtual world. The first cause created the whole universe, therefore it must be waay more intelligent than humans, or we can say all knowing because it created everything. And so on

 

[Sabour]

Don't know.

Yet you claim "One can only conclude that there is a self sufficient, self sustaining Creator." Care to explain?

I never described a way in which god can be proved. Perhaps you have me confused with someone else.


Whose definition is this, and who decided on these particular attributes?

Aside from yourself, who says so, and why should we believe them?

Sorry, but unless you explain why, this is no more convincing then the claim that unicorns exist.

I think this short video will give a better idea of what I am trying to say

 

[Sabour]

Really? How could that be the only conclusion?

If that was not the case, than there are two possibilities.

1-Creation created itself.
2- Creation existed from the beginning.




1- Creation can't create itself because something can't make itself exist if it doesn't exist.

2- Creation can't exist from the beginning because creation has a beginning and an end and everything we observe must have a cause and effect.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Identify your god and convince us that it exists.

Read Bible, Quran or writings of James Smith, Bahaullah or Mirza Ghulam Ahmad. Kindly do not read Hindu books or you will think that you are adrift in the Pacific Ocean.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

2- Creation can't exist from the beginning because creation has a beginning and an end and everything we observe must have a cause and effect.

Some cosmologists are now exploring the idea that the big bang was only the latest in a series and that there was no "beginning". Also cause and effect is an aspect of space-time, and space-time didn't exist prior to the big bang. In any case, this kind of Sunday-school logic really isn't up to the job.

 

[NulliuSINverba]

If God wants to exist God will exist.

Does it follow that if God doesn't want to exist, God will cease to exist?

 

[McBell]

Baseless rhetoric is not a refutation, it's a cop out. If you are not a polytheistic Deo-Atomist, then say so.

nice strawman.

Tell me, do you have anything to present that is not a logical fallacy?

 

[McBell]

The rules of the creation does not apply to the rules of the Creator.

Creation needs a Creator but the Creator doesn't need anything to create it.

Thank you for dismissing your whole argument.

Just a heads up, anytime you make god an exception to the rule you use to show god, you fail.

 

[Sabour]

Thank you for dismissing your whole argument.

Just a heads up, anytime you make god an exception to the rule you use to show god, you fail.

I didn't dismiss the whole argument, am just stating the rules were given for the creation by the Creator and that the Creator is not bound by any of these rules, that is my continued explanation.

If you are into reading, please have a look at this very short book. It presents the ideas in a better way and explains what I was trying to say.

http://www.al-dawah.dk/boger/engelske/pdf/Faith_and_Progress.pdf

 

[NulliuSINverba]

Simple as that.

Identify your god and convince us that it exists. ​

OK.

The God is question is the Christian God. And the most convincing argument is the Argument From Ignorance.