Proofs for the Existence of God

[Roy]

But God is the prime being.

Unsupported assertion.

That thing which always has existed is God.

Same unsupported assertion.

s/God/Cosmic_Yoyo/p

[JohnMartin]

Unsupported assertion. Same unsupported assertion.

s/God/Cosmic_Yoyo/p

The prime being is that which is uncaused.
Creatures have a real distinction between essence and being (established in prior arguments on this thread).
What are diverse but found united are caused by anther as the cause of unity.
For that which are diverse are of themselves diverse.
Hence creatures are caused.
Therefore the prime being is not a creature.
What is not a creature, but exists as the prime being is named with a name other than that given to a creature.
For things are named according to what they are.
Hence the prime being is not named as any creature, but properly as that thing which alone is not a creature.
That name given to the prime being, which is properly not of a creature, but properly of other than a creature is God.

Consequence - to deny that the prime being is God is to perform an exercise is nominalism, whereby the prime being is given a name other than the name that is properly descriptive of what the prime being is. The prime being is not a creature, therefore any name granted to the prime being, which is properly given to a creature is a false name. Therefore the only true name given to the prime being is that name that is not properly given to a creature, which is God.

JM

[Yttrium]

The prime being is that which is uncaused.
Creatures have a real distinction between essence and being (established in prior arguments on this thread).
What are diverse but found united are caused by anther as the cause of unity.
For that which are diverse are of themselves diverse.
Hence creatures are caused.
Therefore the prime being is not a creature.
What is not a creature, but exists as the prime being is named with a name other than that given to a creature.
For things are named according to what they are.
Hence the prime being is not named as any creature, but properly as that thing which alone is not a creature.
That name given to the prime being, which is properly not of a creature, but properly of other than a creature is God.

John, based on your logic alone, there is no reason to assume that the prime being is anything like the God of the Bible, or even sentient. You're leaping to the conclusion that it's the God of the Bible based on "divine revelation", not logic.

[JohnMartin]

The prime being is that which is uncaused.
Creatures have a real distinction between essence and being (established in prior arguments on this thread).
What are diverse but found united are caused by anther as the cause of unity.
For that which are diverse are of themselves diverse.
Hence creatures are caused.
Therefore the prime being is not a creature.
What is not a creature, but exists as the prime being is named with a name other than that given to a creature.
For things are named according to what they are.
Hence the prime being is not named as any creature, but properly as that thing which alone is not a creature.
That name given to the prime being, which is properly not of a creature, but properly of other than a creature is God.

John, based on your logic alone, there is no reason to assume that the prime being is anything like the God of the Bible, or even sentient. You're leaping to the conclusion that it's the God of the Bible based on "divine revelation", not logic.

The God of the bible is not mentioned in the argument.

JM

[JimL]

The God of the bible is not mentioned in the argument.

JM

I think what he means is that there is no reason to assume that your prime being is anything like a sentient being which is what we usually understand by the term God. If it isn't, if thats not what you are trying to prove, then whats your point?

[Yttrium]

The God of the bible is not mentioned in the argument.

Fine. Like I said before, then, something created the universe. Let's call that God, even if it wasn't sentient. Works for me.

[JohnMartin]

Fine. Like I said before, then, something created the universe. Let's call that God, even if it wasn't sentient. Works for me.

Creation is not used in the argument.

JM

[JohnMartin]

I think what he means is that there is no reason to assume that your prime being is anything like a sentient being which is what we usually understand by the term God. If it isn't, if thats not what you are trying to prove, then whats your point?

There are many argument proposed on this thread. Several arguments are dependent upon other arguments. The prime being is God, because only the prime is uncaused, and therefore has the nature of "being". The prime being is not a creature, but is being. The prime is then named with a name other than a creature. That name is God.

JM

[JimL]

There are many argument proposed on this thread. Several arguments are dependent upon other arguments. The prime being is God, because only the prime is uncaused, and therefore has the nature of "being". The prime being is not a creature, but is being. The prime is then named with a name other than a creature. That name is God.

JM

You can call it whatever you want, being, god, or cosmos, but that doesn't make it sentient or of a substance that is any different than that of its creations.

[JohnMartin]

You can call it whatever you want, being, god, or cosmos, but that doesn't make it sentient or of a substance that is any different than that of its creations.

The intellect of God is proven in the 5th way on the OP.

JM

[JimL]

The intellect of God is proven in the 5th way on the OP.

JM

Would you mind repeating the proof of an intelligent creator as spelled out in the fifth way?

[JohnMartin]

Would you mind repeating the proof of an intelligent creator as spelled out in the fifth way?

5. 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.
The Fifth way is more simply put as follows.

The action of things in the world is ordered towards an end. But the action of a thing cannot be ordered toward an end, without there being an ordering intellect. And if this ordering intellect is not its understand, it is ordered to understand (not merely to become or to be) by a higher ordering intellect, which must be in order to order and so on. But this regress cannot be to infinity, because if there is no ordering intellect which is and supplies, then such order will never be found in these members nor will the action of anything be ordered towards an end.

Therefore there must exist an orderer which causes the order of finality found in all the members of the series, and therefore is a prime orderer itself not (passively) ordered. But such prime orderer is the universal orderer, which is God.

JM

[Roy]

5. 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.

No, we don't. We do not see rocks acting so as to obtain the best result. Or seashells, clouds, winds or lightning strikes.

False premise. Rest deleted.

[JohnMartin]

No, we don't. We do not see rocks acting so as to obtain the best result. Or seashells, clouds, winds or lightning strikes.

False premise. Rest deleted.

Your truncated version of what St Thomas stated is not established.

Things act for ends. Teleology concludes to a knower of end, which implies a prime intellect.

JM

[Doug Shaver]

Things act for ends.

That is an assumption. I don't think it is a necessary assumption.