CreedFeed Community

CreedFeed Community (http://www.creedfeed.com/community/index.php)
-   Faith / Religion (http://www.creedfeed.com/community/forumdisplay.php?f=11)
-   -   Proofs For The Existence Of God (http://www.creedfeed.com/community/showthread.php?t=9207)

no_fixd_address 06-04-2005 10:49 AM

Proofs For The Existence Of God
 
Proofs of the Existence of God:

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.

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 argument 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, there 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.
( a person who really likes any form of art should understand this one)

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.

I)Teleological Argument:

i.)The basic premise, of all teleological arguments for the existence of God, is that the world exhibits an intelligent purpose based on experience from nature such as its order, unity, coherency, design and complexity. Hence, there must be an intelligent designer to account for the observed intelligent purpose and order that we can observe.

ii.)Paley's teleological argument is based on an analogy: Watchmaker is to watch as God is to universe. Just as a watch, with its intelligent design and complex function must have been created by an intelligent maker: a watchmaker, the universe, with all its complexity and greatness, must have been created by an intelligent and powerful creator. Therefore a watchmaker is to watch as God is to universe.

II)Paley's Teleological Argument:

1.)Human artifacts are products of intelligent design.

2.)The universe resembles human artifacts.

3.)Therefore the universe is a product of intelligent design.

4.) But the universe is complex and gigantic, in comparison to human artifacts.

5.)Therefore, there probably is a powerful and vastly intelligent designer who created the universe.

Follow St. Anselm's Argument Point By Point:

1) God is defined as the being in which none greater is possible.

2) It is true that the notion of God exists in the understanding (your mind.)

3) And that God may exist in reality (God is a possible being.)

4) If God only exists in the mind, and may have existed, then God might have been greater than He is.

5) Then, God might have been greater than He is (if He existed in reality.)

6) Therefore, God is a being which a greater is possible.

7) This is not possible, for God is a being in which a greater is impossible.

8) Therefore God exists in reality as well as the mind.

Everywhere in our daily life we encounter artifacts that intrigue us. When something is obviously man-made, we automatically assume that there was a designer. You would never dream that your computer "just happened" by a random combination of silica and plastic. Nor would you assume that the programming was accomplished by dropping marbles on a keyboard. Yet, even my hamster's brain is more complicated then the most sophisticated computers. To assume that hamster brains are no more than a random mix of chemicals is considerably less reasonable than the dropping of marbles. This proof also includes an important twist: if you believe that your brain is the result of random combinations of chemicals, how can you trust your reasoning? Since there is no design to your brain you cannot assume that it is capable of determining the truth.

Of course, an atheists' denial of God has little to do with reason. He knows that if he accepts that there is a God, and that that God has given certain precepts for living life on this earth, then he will be responsible for his actions at the end of his life. Many find it easier to deny that God exists than to change their lifestyles.They have created a god in their own image and everyone elses image of God is not theirs, so they reject it, but deify their own image of god which they also reject. But I think they have really rejected themselves first, and denial of God is just an elaborate excuse to justify self worship, or self hatred.

uncertaindrumer 06-04-2005 12:16 PM

Wow. You must not be a Christian, because Christians are lazy, and this must have taken you like ten minutes to write!

lol, jk, of course.

Great post man. I especially like the fourth argument.

NakedSmurf 06-04-2005 04:15 PM

I commend you on a well researched well thought out post No fixed address


But I will have to say

"First Way: The Argument From Motion"
The Big Band

"Second Way: Causation Of Existence"
Ummm The Big Bang

"Third Way: Contingent and Necessary Objects"
Proteins and amino acids formed the first life and it evolved from there


"Fourth Way: The Argument From Degrees And Perfection”
perfection?? No I am not even gonna bother with this one it’s too easy


"Fifth Way: The Argument From Intelligent Design"
If there was intelligent design then it must not have been very intelligent because everything was kind thrown together in a haphazard manner.

uncertaindrumer 06-04-2005 05:10 PM

The Big bang? You missed the point compeltely naked smurf. HOW DID THE BIG BANG HAPPEN? There is no answer to that.

Proteins and amino acids... Do you have any idea the sort of complexity it reuqires for proteins and amino acids to come togther to form a life even in the usual way? And so you want something RANDOM to create life?

If the fourth argument is so easy, defeat it. Otherwise, you just look like you know no reponse.

The universe is not haphazard at all, anyone who has done high school chemistry knows jsut how ridiculously complex and ordered the universe is.

JulieCitySlicker 06-04-2005 08:32 PM

The big bang was God clapping his hands after a job well done ;)

no_fixd_address 06-04-2005 09:38 PM

Evolution Arguments Do Not Disprove The Existence Of God
 
Quote:

I commend you on a well researched well thought out post No fixed address
But I will have to say
"First Way: The Argument From Motion"
The Big Bang

Thank you. I have no problem with the Big Bang Theory. But it is just that, a theory. Even the most advanced astro-physicists in the world say its a theory. I think it takes a great deal more faith to believe the Big Bang started spontaneously all on its own. That defies reason. The Big Bang cannot be a first cause, but the theory itself is reasonable.

Quote:

"Second Way: Causation Of Existence"
Ummm The Big Bang

Ummm, The Big Bang Theory affirms that no object can create itself, it does not dismiss Causation of Existence. Please provide the name of any reputable astro-physicist that claims matter came from itself.

Quote:

"Third Way: Contingent and Necessary Objects"
Proteins and amino acids formed the first life and it evolved from there.

So what. Protiens and amino acids are not contingent beings. You didn’t get it. Humans probably did evolve, but the first human souls were created. Now you have to shift your argument that you are nothing more than a collection of cells. Go ahead. Obviously, you are too young to have children. ( one or more collections of cells)

Quote:

"Fourth Way: The Argument From Degrees And Perfection”
perfection?? No I am not even gonna bother with this one it’s too easy.

Too bad. It's my favorite one too. It's easy to explain, easy to understand, but not so easy to refute. If you have absolutely no beauty in your life, or cannot appreciate anything, not even music, or have no hobbies, or don't think a glorious sunset is anything worth looking at, I don't understand why you haven't blown your brains out by now.

Quote:

"Fifth Way: The Argument From Intelligent Design"
If there was intelligent design then it must not have been very intelligent because everything was kind thrown together in a haphazard manner.

This is not a reply, but an unintelligent cop-out. On one hand you argue from the standpoint of supposed science, and on the other you deny science completely. The Laws of Physics pre-existed and were explained, not invented, and all laws require a Law-Maker. You want a lawless world-view so you don't have to be responsible for your behavior. I bet you've heard that before.

Basically, I think you are trying to dismiss me using evolutionary arguments. Sorry, but I believe that faith and science is compatible. Your argument is with literalists who think they are creationists, not with me.

http://www.catholic.com/library/faith_science.asp >click on “Adam, Eve, and Evolution”. Copy and paste into the board the parts that you object to, and we can discuss it.

Science can purify religion from error and superstition. Religion can purify science from idolatry and false absolutes.” Pope John Paul II

creedsister 06-05-2005 03:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by uncertaindrumer
Wow. You must not be a Christian, because Christians are lazy, and this must have taken you like ten minutes to write!

lol, jk, of course.

Great post man. I especially like the fourth argument.

Well Its Cool Of Him To Do A Long Post A Lot Of People Need Information Like That** :) TO study and show thy self aproved B/c Lord Knows I Dont :

Ana4Stapp 06-06-2005 08:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JulieCitySlicker
The big bang was God clapping his hands after a job well done ;)


:roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :clap: :clap: :clap:

Lunar Shadow 06-09-2005 06:30 PM

All these arguments No fixd address are the same old straw men…if they haven’t been disproved they have been labeled implausible.

Yes the big bang is a theory that is true but God in the realm of science is at best a hypothesis

I subscribe to the oscillating Universe theory myself which is a causality loop which means there is no beginning and no end so... no God

JulieCitySlicker 06-09-2005 09:43 PM

Hmm? I think its funny how people get tiked off due to the fact that they claim to be forced religion,then all of a sudden none of its true anymore :rolleyes: Then you come up with all these other fast scientific mumo jumbo to ustify yourself in not believing in God anymore.

Lunar Shadow 06-09-2005 09:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JulieCitySlicker
Then you come up with all these other fast scientific mumo jumbo to ustify yourself in not believing in God anymore.



Science is not mumbo jumbo. what you are saying is the cry of the Fundamentalist Christian.

Try reading something scientific

Richard Carrier is a good place to start

JulieCitySlicker 06-09-2005 09:53 PM

I am far from a fundamentalist christian,and if I wanted your advice I would have asked for it,but since I didn't...Well there ya go ;)

Lunar Shadow 06-09-2005 09:54 PM

*shakes head* some people just don't get it

JulieCitySlicker 06-09-2005 09:59 PM

I think its you that doesn't get it :rolleyes: I'm out of here as of now,I'm not getting into a verbal war about this with you or anyone for that matter. I know what I believe in and that is all that matters! I don't need anyone throwing books about "How God doesn't exhist" In my face, because the only response you'll get out of me is :horseshit

Lunar Shadow 06-09-2005 10:04 PM

actually I have not thrown out books on how god doesn't exist I actually refered you to an autor woh is a historian and a physicist it may be true that he himself is an atheist but he is not out to prove the non-existance of "God"

regaurdless if you wanna stay in you little box there I can't make you leave


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:29 AM.

Powered by vBulletin Version 3.5.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2004 Steve Caponetto. All Rights Reserved.