watch this video, then discuss

SmitEvo

GOOGLE TIME>>>sponsored by TJAMZ

Philosophical Proofs on the Existence of God

"If you remain in my word, you will truly be my disciples, and you will know the truth and the truth shall set you free"

—Gospel according to St. John 8:31-32

The truths of Christianity lead us to salvation and light. We have the Word of God to present the truth to those who walk in darkness, so that they too may be set free. But often in our materialistic, skeptic modern world it is difficult to preach the gospel to those who are blinded by pride of intellect or resistance to a change of heart. Many people honestly do not believe in a God, and will of course reject Sacred Scripture and Church Tradition. All Christians should be well versed in the teachings of Christ and his Church, but it also helps to be familiar with the theological and philosophical writings of members of the Church. Many of the treatises of theologians and Christian philosophers can shed much light on the existence of God, the problem of evil and other objections raised by modern unbelievers.

A brief philosophical introduction to intellectual arguments regarding the existence of God can help in disseminating the truth and presenting Christianity as a rational religion and way of life to others. Here, we will focus on three famous arguments regarding God’s existence: the ontological argument, cosmological argument and teleological argument. These proofs have been endlessly debated over the centuries between various philosophers and theologians. I will present these classic proofs and leave it to the reader to judge their accuracy and logical cohesion.

St. Anselm’s Ontological Argument

St. Anselm, the Catholic archbishop of Canterbury and a Doctor of the Church, first formulated the Ontological Argument. This philosophical argument is perhaps the strangest and most hotly debated of the proofs. The argument has attracted the attentions of such notable philosophers as Immanuel Kant (who attacked St. Anselm’s proof) and G.W.F Hegel (who defended Anselm’s proof).

The proof is most notable because it alone claims to prove the existence of God by relying independently on human reason without the need for perception or evidence. The proof itself relies on the defined concept of God as a perfect being. St. Anselm’s proof is summarized here:

God exists in our understanding. This means that the concept of God resides as an idea in our minds.
God is a possible being, and might exist in reality. He is possible because the concept of God does not bear internal contradictions.
If something exists exclusively in our understanding and might have existed in reality then it might have been greater. This simply means that something that exists in reality is perfect (or great). Something that is only a concept in our minds could be greater by actually existing.
Suppose (theoretically) that God only exists in our understanding and not in reality.
If this were true, then it would be possible for God to be greater then he is (follows from premise #3).
This would mean that God is a being in which a greater is possible.
This is absurd because God, a being in which none greater is possible, is a being in which a greater is possible. Herein lies the contradiction.
Thus it follows that it is false for God to only exist in our understanding.
Hence God exists in reality as well as our understanding.
Study the above proof carefully. It is an intriguing proof because it states that God, a perfect being, must exist in all possible circumstances in order to satisfy the definition of his perfection. A God that can exist in only some circumstances, but fails to exist in others is a less than perfect being.

St. Thomas Aquinas’ Cosmological Argument

The great Catholic thinker, philosopher and theologian St. Thomas Aquinas summarized his cosmological argument in the Summa Theologia. In this theological masterpiece, St. Thomas writes five "ways" that we can know God exists. His first three ways deal with the cosmological argument:

St. Aquinas argues that there are things in the world in motion (this simply means that things are changing) and that whatever is in motion must have been put in motion by another thing in motion. Aquinas holds that, "whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another," and that, "this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover." Hence St. Thomas argues that in order to eliminate the infinite chain of motions, there must be a first mover and source of all motion, God.
The second way is very similar to the first. It argues that," 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." By this he means that any thing, circumstance or event cannot change itself, but can only change something else (concept of efficient cause). Since there is a string of causes in which the string cannot be infinite (see premise #1), then all causes must attribute themselves to a first cause: God.
The third way also argues using the notion of a chain of causes. St. Thomas notes that things in our world owe their existence to something else in the world. Aquinas calls this the way of "possibility and necessity," meaning that all things made possible, necessarily attribute their existence to some pre-existing thing. Only God can be the source of all things since he is a being having its own necessity and does not need a pre-existing thing to cause him to exist. All things existing can trace themselves in a chain back to God.
A second shorter version of the cosmological argument can be formulated as:

Every being (that exists or ever did exist) is either a dependent being or a self-existent being.
Not every being can be a dependent being.
So there exists a self-existent being.
Finally, a third rendition of the cosmological argument (extracted from the book Philosophy for Dummies by Dr. Tom Morris):

The existence of something is intelligible only if it has an explanation.
The existence of the universe is thus either:
a. unintelligible or
b. has an explanation
No rational person should accept premise (2a) by definition of rationality
A rational person should accept (2b), that the universe has some explanation for its being.
There are only three kinds of explanations:
a. Scientific: physical conditions plus relevant laws yield the Event explained.
b. Personal: Explanations that cite desires, beliefs, powers and intentions of some personal agent.
c. Essential: The essence of the thing to be explained necessitates its existence or qualities (for example, if you ask why a triangle has 3 sides, I would respond that it is the essence and necessity for a triangle to have 3 sides by its definition.
The explanation for the existence of the whole universe can’t be scientific because there can’t be initial physical conditions and laws independent of what is to be explained. Event the Big Bang theory fails to explain the existence of the universe because modern science cannot explain where the original Big Bang singularity came from. The universe as a sum total of all natural conditions and laws cannot be explained unless we have an Archimidean reference point outside the system.
The explanation for the existence of the universe can’t be essential because the universe cannot exist necessarily. This is because, it could have been possible for the universe not to have existed (if the Big Bang had been slightly different it is possible for large-scale structures to not have existed). Thus the universe is not something the must necessarily or essentially exists.
Thus a rational person should believe that the universe has a personal explanation.
No personal agent but God could create the entire universe.
A rational person should believe that there is a God.

The Teleological Argument

The teleological argument, or argument from design, is also summarized by St. Thomas Aquinas in the Summa Theologica. Here is the extract from the Summa:

"The fifth way is taken from the governance of the world. We see that things that 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."

Perhaps this is the most common form of reasoning behind the existence of God. The average theist will argue for the existence of God with the teleological argument.

Conclusion

Of course, these three proofs have their share of proponents and opponents. The proofs do not definitively prove the existence of God because they can be argued. Even the greatest truth can be masked behind a veil of innocent ignorance or blindness of pride. It is faith that provides the bedrock for belief in God and the cornerstone for ultimate happiness. Nevertheless, these three proofs can help show that Christianity is a rational religion, as well as an endlessly controversial one.

ichibankilla

Can't have a religious discussion without something from the legend himself.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MeSSwKffj9o"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MeSSwKffj9o[/ame]

fdfreak

Joel;279698 wrote:
LOL, I can see this is going to starts a huge discussion. I'll start it out.
How can you believe in something that you don't know is real. Do you still believe in The easter bunny or santa clause?

Your right, I cant prove that God is real.

but let me ask you this, do you love your parents? if you do, prove it? Prove that love is tangible and its really there.

we could make this thread into another 200+ post thread, but we all know that neither side will give. You believe what you want, try and find a point to your meaningless life and I will stick to believing in Jesus and live my life in bliss.

you all (athiests) can let me know when you want your life to mean something.

fdfreak

SPANISH-RICE;279699 wrote:
youre sorry that i dont need an imaginary freind to make me feel secure about how life begins and ends? Im sorry you dont understand basic biology. You must not believe in evolution?

no i dont believe in evolution. if evolution was real, then why arent species still evolving? why arent there neaderthals still running around? And if you beleive that we are all fully evolved then why are monkeys in existance?

Sweet-WRX-Lovin

I like the evolution vs religion/faith argument, it's funny. Who says God did not use evolution as a process to get us to where we are today? There that should add at least another page.

SPANISH-RICE

fdfreak;279708 wrote:
no i dont believe in evolution. If evolution was real, then why arent species still evolving? Why arent there neaderthals still running around? And if you beleive that we are all fully evolved then why are monkeys in existance?

lol. ha i will not argue about evolution, its obvious. askign why monkeys are around is pointless and off topic. use common sense instead of your imagination

I just think its funny when you say life is meaningless without jesus(or religion). Sounds like a waste of time to me. One thing all religions have in common is to not worship any other gods, right? How many religions are there? Hmm but only one can be right? That means you could be the most religious person in the existance and live your life "how you should" (btw by random peoples ideas that youve never met). But still end up having not "chosen" the right religion and end up in hell.

Who says allah isnt the actual creator and savior ? You cant prove it and if you turn out to be wrong than you just wasted your entire life on false beliefs.

I believe that a higher power exists but i refuse to pick any particular one becuase your guess is as good as mine.

SmitEvo

SPANISH-RICE;279711 wrote:
lol. ha i will not argue about evolution, its obvious. askign why monkeys are around is pointless and off topic. use common sense instead of your imagination

I just think its funny when you say life is meaningless without jesus(or religion). Sounds like a waste of time to me. One thing all religions have in common is to not worship any other gods, right? How many religions are there? Hmm but only one can be right? That means you could be the most religious person in the existance and live your life "how you should" (btw by random peoples ideas that youve never met). But still end up having not "chosen" the right religion and end up in hell.

Who says allah isnt the actual creator and savior ? You cant prove it and if you turn out to be wrong than you just wasted your entire life on false beliefs.

I believe that a higher power exists but i refuse to pick any particular one becuase your guess is as good as mine.

Let me put it simple for you:

Islam and Christianity broke off of Judiasm....they all worship in the same god and all three believe in Jesus. Only the other two just believe Jesus was a prophet and not savior. So basically they are all worshipping the same god and each has their own path through faith.

ichibankilla

Ah! The old, I'm right because you can't prove god exists theory vs. the I'm right because you can't prove god doesn't exist theory.

Now, as the late great George Carlin stated. "If there really is a god may he strike me down right hear where I stand!"

ichibankilla

Hey, I'm still here! Imagine that.

SmitEvo

ichibankilla;279714 wrote:
Hey, I'm still here! Imagine that.

George Carlin isnt though...funny. :icon_rr:

SPANISH-RICE

And ill recap, im not saying a "god" doesnt exist. Im a firm believer that a higher power does exist. But "picking" a religion and living your life only by it is the most pointless guessing game you can play. Either wau supposedly millions of you will be going to hell for something anyway

SPANISH-RICE

smitevo;279712 wrote:
let me put it simple for you:

Islam and christianity broke off of judiasm....they all worship in the same god and all three believe in jesus. Only the other two just believe jesus was a prophet and not savior. So basically they are all worshipping the same god and each has their own path through faith.

now ill be the first to admit i didnt know something in a religious argument gasp. But i was not aware that islam was also part of judiasm, i never really studied into it.

PSiedTSi

Religions can easily be likened to worship of the stars/sun(or "heavens"). I used to be religious, then agnostic. The evidence of any sort of life elsewhere pretty much ices the religious debate in my mind. If you don't believe evolution, you better open a science book, religious person or not. It is a FACT that evolution is true. Things ARE still evolving today, no one said evolution happened overnight(viruses and bacteria evolve with each strain). Altho(gonna lose most of you here), some speculate that we were genetically manipulated by other intelligent civilizations in the universe. They use the lack of evidence of the so called "missing link" between apes and man. They have proof of a hairless upright walking ape walking in Africa something like 10 million years ago, that's about the closest to the missing link we have come. Some also say that religion is based on "people in the sky" or early extraterrestrial visitors. There are cave drawings and figures of space ships, "astronauts", etc from ancient times.

SmitEvo

What is set in motion, must be put in motion...

PSiedTSi

SmitEvo;279726 wrote:
What is set in motion, must be put in motion...

What exactly are you saying by this? The universe had to be created by "someone"?

Trafik Jamz

ichibankilla;279713 wrote:
Ah! The old, I'm right because you can't prove god exists theory vs. the I'm right because you can't prove god doesn't exist theory.

Now, as the late great George Carlin stated. "If there really is a god may he strike me down right hear where I stand!"

Actually, the quote was "If there is a God, may he strike this audience dead!"

SPANISH-RICE

PSiedTSi;279727 wrote:
What exactly are you saying by this? The universe had to be created by "someone"?

Then where would that "someone" have come from?

Trafik Jamz

I, like many of the above, believe in a higher power, just not necessarily the stories of the bible/quran/etc... at least not literally. Do I think the bible is a great book in which to live your life by? For the most part, yes. But to take everything literally is taking things a bit too far.

For example, many anti-gay people quote the bible (or more specifically Leviticus) as saying homosexuality is an abomination (see below).....

***"You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination." (Leviticus 18:22)

"If a man lie with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them." (Leviticus 20:13)***

what they tend to gloss over is the rest of Leviticus that spells out many other abominations such as:

"For everyone who curses his father or his mother shall surely be put to death. He has cursed his father or his mother. His blood shall be upon him." (Leviticus 20:9)

"If a man lies with a woman during her sickness and uncovers her nakedness, he has discovered her flow, and she has uncovered the flow of her blood. Both of them shall be cut off from her people." (Leviticus 20:18)

"Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property." (Leviticus 25:44-45)

"Do not cut the hair at the sides of your head or clip off the edges of your beard." (Leviticus 19:27)

"...and the swine, though it divides the hoof, having cloven hooves, yet does not chew the cud, is unclean to you." (Leviticus 11:7)

"...do not plant your field with two kinds of seed. Do not wear material woven of two kinds of material." (Leviticus 19:19)

***"But all in the seas or in the rivers that do not have fins and scales, all that move in the water or any living thing which is in the water, they are an abomination to you." (Leviticus 11:10)

"They (shellfish) shall be an abomination to you; you shall not eat their flesh, but you shall regard their carcasses as an abomination." (Leviticus 11:11)

"Whatever in the water does not have fins or scales; that shall be an abomination to you." (Leviticus 11:12)***

Anyone see how the trend that people only pick/choose what they want to believe in from the bible? I'm pretty sure that all of us have done some of the abominable things spelled out in Leviticus.

So in recapping, the rules/guidelines set forth by religion are (generally) good guidelines to live by....even though the book itself is flawed and not practiced fully by any of the religions that follow it.

SmitEvo

Trafik Jamz;279735 wrote:
I, like many of the above, believe in a higher power, just not necessarily the stories of the bible/quran/etc... at least not literally. Do I think the bible is a great book in which to live your life by? For the most part, yes. But to take everything literally is taking things a bit too far.

For example, many anti-gay people quote the bible (or more specifically Leviticus) as saying homosexuality is an abomination (see below).....

"You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination." (Leviticus 18:22)

"If a man lie with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them." (Leviticus 20:13)

what they tend to gloss over is the rest of Leviticus that spells out many other abominations such as:

"For everyone who curses his father or his mother shall surely be put to death. He has cursed his father or his mother. His blood shall be upon him." (Leviticus 20:9)

"If a man lies with a woman during her sickness and uncovers her nakedness, he has discovered her flow, and she has uncovered the flow of her blood. Both of them shall be cut off from her people." (Leviticus 20:18)

"Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property." (Leviticus 25:44-45)

"Do not cut the hair at the sides of your head or clip off the edges of your beard." (Leviticus 19:27)

"...and the swine, though it divides the hoof, having cloven hooves, yet does not chew the cud, is unclean to you." (Leviticus 11:7)

"...do not plant your field with two kinds of seed. Do not wear material woven of two kinds of material." (Leviticus 19:19)

"But all in the seas or in the rivers that do not have fins and scales, all that move in the water or any living thing which is in the water, they are an abomination to you." (Leviticus 11:10)

"They (shellfish) shall be an abomination to you; you shall not eat their flesh, but you shall regard their carcasses as an abomination." (Leviticus 11:11)

"Whatever in the water does not have fins or scales; that shall be an abomination to you." (Leviticus 11:12)

Anyone see how the trend that people only pick/choose what they want to believe in from the bible? I'm pretty sure that all of us have done some of the abominable things spelled out in Leviticus.

So in recapping, the rules/guidelines set forth by religion are (generally) good guidelines to live by....even though the book itself is flawed and not practiced fully by any of the religions that follow it.

Yep...old testament stuff. Better follow that to a T. Then the new testament came around and does not state all of those things. The new way for Christians is through Jesus.

Trafik Jamz

So why keep it in the bible then?

Fargostreet.com

watch this video, then discuss