How Do We Know that God Exists?

[psstein]

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?

[Teallaura]

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.

[Cerebrum123]

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.

[One Bad Pig]

Perhaps you could post them for non-Thomists?

[Scrawly]

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.

[The Remonstrant]

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.

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.

[Scrawly]

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.

[The Remonstrant]

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(?).

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.

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.

[psstein]

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.

[Scrawly]

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.

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!

[The Remonstrant]

Yes. We as Christian's [sic] cannot provide rational, incontrovertible proof of God's existence to an "outsider[.]"

[Scrawly]

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.

[Cerebrum123]

Perhaps you could post them for non-Thomists?

From Summa Theologica.

[Christianbookworm]

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.

[Sparko]

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.