Proofs for the Existence of God

[JohnMartin]

Apart from sentience, beardedness, interest in humanity, goodness, continued existence, ...

You just don't get it do you. God is other than a creature. Place all the creatures inside a circle and the being outside the circle is God. for God is uncreated being.

JM

[JohnMartin]

Already done. Roy clearly showed this one, and the others are similar.

Roy did not show this and no, the others are not similar.

JM

[JimL]

You just don't get it do you. God is other than a creature. Place all the creatures inside a circle and the being outside the circle is God. for God is uncreated being.

If you insist on identifying necessary existence, or uncaused cause, as a "being," then please define exactly what you mean by "being." I don't think that anyone denies the fact that an uncaused cause is necessary, though they may, like myself, object to the idea that it is distinct, external to, or differs in substance from its effects. But "being" implies a mind, intellect, will and intention. If that is what you mean to imply by the term "being" then what is your proofs for that?

[JohnMartin]

If you insist on identifying necessary existence, or uncaused cause, as a "being," then please define exactly what you mean by "being." I don't think that anyone denies the fact that an uncaused cause is necessary, though they may, like myself, object to the idea that it is distinct, external to, or differs in substance from its effects. But "being" implies a mind, intellect, will and intention. If that is what you mean to imply by the term "being" then what is your proofs for that?

Being is the actualisation of all acts. God is his own act, and thereby act by essence. Creatures participate in being, and thereby participate in act. God's essence is being. A tree has diversity of essence and being, which means a tree is composed of tree-ness + being.

The uncaused cause (UC) is not dependent upon another. Hence the UC is necessary. As necessary and UC are not dependent, then there is no requirement on the side of the UC that the UC must be joined to creation as its effect. However, because creation participates in being, then the UC must cause creation. The UC is then distinct and independent of creation. Creation is also distinct, but dependent upon the UC.

The questions regarding the intellect and will of God are associated with the fifth way. One version of the fifth way with the consequence in God being both his own intellect and will is sketched out as follows -

Things act for ends.

Things have natures that act for ends.

The nature ordered to ends, is ordered by another.

The ultimate other, knows the nature of nature and end.

To know is to have intellect.

But to have is to be ordered.

Therefore the prime orderer, does not have intellect, but is then pure intelligence.

Appetite follows upon what is known.

God is intellect, therefore God is an act of knowledge.

Therefore God is will following upon knowledge.

But in God, all is simple.

Therefore in God to know and appetize is one act.

Therefore God is both pure intellect and will.

JM

[Roy]

You just don't get it do you.

Yeah, I do get it. You're trying to prove the existence of some original supreme being of pure 'act' - and then say that this is your God, without actually demonstrating any connection between the two.

If you're willing to state that the 'God' you are trying to prove the existence of is not the God described in the bible, then that issue goes away. But it is, isn't it?.

[Roy]

The initial argument is true, but the subsequent argument does not use the words Greatness/dependency.

The initial argument is dependent on being able to determine that one entity is greater than or dependent on another, and if that's not possible then the initial argument is useless even if it's true. The subsequent argument is thus also useless.

There is nothing here to answer.

Yes there is - how to determine what being is the supreme being, and whether it actually has the characteristics you claim for it.

Even so, greater is that which has more being than another, and dependent is that which is positively influenced regarding being. So there is no problem.

Yes there is - these cannot be applied in practice.

Which of {Victoria Beckham | The Rosetta Stone | the De Lorean used in Back to the Future | The iceberg that hit the Titanic | 96747 Crespodasilva | Donald Trump's hair extension} is 'greater' than the others.

Also I note my new argument as amended on post 55 has not been rebutted either.[/quote]No problem:

"The Supreme Being is that being which has the most being. (7a)
The being with the most being is unlimited being. (7b)"

7b is an unsupported assertion. The being with the most being may still have limited being. A being with unlimited being will by definition have the (equal) most being, but the reverse is not necessarily true. Your argument is of the same form as:

The tallest man is that man who has the greatest height.
The man who has the greatest height is infinitely tall.

It's unsound.

Refuting your arguments is trivial. The only reason they haven't all been refuted is that you post so so many of them that there isn't time, and there's no point since
(i) you rarely accept the refutations even on the rare occasions that you understand them and
(ii) there's no-one other than you who believes the arguments anyway.

[JohnMartin]

Yeah, I do get it. You're trying to prove the existence of some original supreme being of pure 'act' - and then say that this is your God, without actually demonstrating any connection between the two.

If you're willing to state that the 'God' you are trying to prove the existence of is not the God described in the bible, then that issue goes away. But it is, isn't it?.

I have not yet proposed that the God of reason is the Christian God in the discussions concerning the existence of God. Nevertheless the God of reason (the supreme being) is the Christian God, which can be logically deduced in the following manner -

1) Conclude from reason that there is a supreme being.

2) The supreme being is eminently supreme above all created perfections, which includes the supreme being having a supreme life, beyond that of creation.

3) Via reason we know God does have a supreme life, but we do not know what that life consists of.

4) Also via reason we know God is, but we cannot know who God is. For there is nothing within the effects of Gods action within creation such as God as the first cause and necessary being, which concludes to the knowing the name of God. For the supreme being to make revelation, that revelation should then include the name of God and the life that God has above creation.

5) The fitting manner by which God should make a revelation to mankind is through a process in history, which involves events which can only be controlled by God. Such as God making a promise that men will be blessed through a human genealogy. In this way, only God can control the future of the geneology, hence when the geneology promised, comes true, then the divine revelation is affirmed through the power of God acting within history. Such is the process we witness in the promises God makes to Abraham and his descendants. As only God is the ultimate controller of world history, then when the future generations appear just as He said they would then the historical process verifies the truth God gives at any point in history.

6) The New Testament is given as a fulfillment of the promises made to Abraham, Moses and David in an historical event which verifies the truths revealed by God in 1) the name of God and 2) the divine life God has in himself, above creation. The name of God is Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and the divine life is the life of the Trinity. These truths are verified by both reason and the history of revelation.

7) Hence the God of reason is the Christian God as know via the process summarised above.

Another argument would include the claims made by Jesus, who aid He was God and proved it via the miracles and the resurrection. Jesus taught that God was a Trinity, hence God is a Trinity. And the Trinity is the God known by reason and revealed to have a Trinitarian life above reason.

JM

[JohnMartin]

Originally Posted by JohnMartin View Post
The initial argument is true, but the subsequent argument does not use the words Greatness/dependency.

The initial argument is dependent on being able to determine that one entity is greater than or dependent on another, and if that's not possible then the initial argument is useless even if it's true. The subsequent argument is thus also useless.

An argument that is useless does not mean that it is not true, as you imply. So if the argument is true, then God is, and atheism is false, so you must embrace the truth presented to be in accord with reason. The definitions of great and dependence have also been given, so your problem with the initial argument is resolved.

There is nothing here to answer.

Yes there is - how to determine what being is the supreme being, and whether it actually has the characteristics you claim for it.

Do follows be. That which has the more be has the more do. A man can think, walk and talk, and a rock cannot. Therefore the man has more do than the rock, and then more be. God as the supreme being has the most do and then the most be, and vice versa.

Even so, greater is that which has more being than another, and dependent is that which is positively influenced regarding being. So there is no problem.

Yes there is - these cannot be applied in practice.

Which of {Victoria Beckham | The Rosetta Stone | the De Lorean used in Back to the Future | The iceberg that hit the Titanic | 96747 Crespodasilva | Donald Trump's hair extension} is 'greater' than the others.

Victoria Beckham, for she has an immortal soul which can do beyond all the others. De Lorean is fictional, the iceberg and Donald Trump's hair extension are both inanimate and a man is animate. There you go, its been applied successfully.

Also I note my new argument as amended on post 55 has not been rebutted either.

No problem:

"The Supreme Being is that being which has the most being. (7a)
The being with the most being is unlimited being. (7b)"

7b is an unsupported assertion. The being with the most being may still have limited being. A being with unlimited being will by definition have the (equal) most being, but the reverse is not necessarily true.

The fundamental modes of being are act and potency. Being is the most fundamental perfection, upon which all other perfections rely. To say the supreme being is the being with limited being, means the supreme being is composed of potency and act. But to be composed, implies diversity of cause within the thing, whilst the thing is a unity. The complex of diversity and unity within the thing implies a cause of unity other than the diversity. The implied dependence of a composite thing means the supreme thing cannot be a limited being.

Or another argument is - Any thing composed of potency and act is receptive of being. Reception of being implies another act, which infers the composed thing is not the supreme being.

7b is true, because the affirmation of the supreme being as limited is false, and the affirmation of the supreme being as unlimited is true from the nature of being and causation.

Your argument is of the same form as:

The tallest man is that man who has the greatest height.
The man who has the greatest height is infinitely tall.

It's unsound.

No your reasoning is false for the reasons given above. The tallest man is only a species of being. God is not in a genus, or a species. God is simply being. Furthermore there is nothing accidental in God, so your tallest man example, which uses an accidental perfection of tall is also wrong.

More importantly, being is not divided according to species, but modes. Your tallest man example treats being as an accidental species, when being is modally diverse.

Refuting your arguments is trivial.

Answering your rebuttals is trivial because you don't get it. You never will because your atheism is false. You claim I don't understand atheism. In part I agree with you because atheism is an error which cannot ever be understood in itself. So neither do you understand atheism. But you don't understand theism, nor the argument made, for you make simple errors about ontology, which do not apply to your inductive/observation based examples, such as that given above.

The only reason they haven't all been refuted is that you post so so many of them that there isn't time, and there's no point since

The reasons they have not been refuted is because they are true and you are unfamiliar with ontology and natural theology.

(i) you rarely accept the refutations even on the rare occasions that you understand them and

I don't accept the refutations, because they are only pseudo refutations, such as we see above.

(ii) there's no-one other than you who believes the arguments anyway.

This is false. The proofs for God have been around for centuries and used by theists to defend/promote theism. You don't even get the history of theism right.

JM

[Doug Shaver]

6) The New Testament is given as a fulfillment of the promises made to Abraham, Moses and David in an historical event which verifies the truths revealed by God

That is not given. It is alleged by a dogma of Christian orthodoxy.

[JohnMartin]

That is not given. It is alleged by a dogma of Christian orthodoxy.

It is given through the incarnation of the Word who was also the Messiah, who brought about the restoration of Israel, which is the Catholic Church, with her seven sacraments as efficient causes of grace.

JM

[Roy]

The initial argument is dependent on being able to determine that one entity is greater than or dependent on another, and if that's not possible then the initial argument is useless even if it's true.

An argument that is useless does not mean that it is not true, as you imply.

I imply no such thing. I state that an argument can be both true and useless.

So if the argument is true, then God is,...

No, if the argument is true then some form of supreme being is, which is almost certainly not your God. You seem incapable of distinguishing the two concepts.

Do follows be. That which has the more be has the more do. A man can think, walk and talk, and a rock cannot. Therefore the man has more do than the rock, and then more be.

A parrot can think, walk, talk and fly, and a man cannot.

Victoria Beckham, for she has an immortal soul...

Unsupported assertion.

The fundamental modes of being are act and potency. Being is the most fundamental perfection, upon which all other perfections rely. To say the supreme being is the being with limited being, means the supreme being is composed of potency and act.

Yes. Based on your argument for there being a supreme being, that is almost certainly the case. You appear to be unconsciously eliding between an actual supreme being, as demonstrated by your argument, and a hypothetical supreme being which nothing can exceed. They are not the same.

No your reasoning is false for the reasons given above.

My reasoning mirrors yours. If mine is false, yours is too. Have you forgotten that your 'logic' showed that you were dumber than a turnip?

The tallest man is only a species of being. God is not in a genus, or a species.

'Species' on cluelessness list.

I don't accept the refutations, because they are only pseudo refutations, such as we see above.

You don't accept the refutations because you are a blithering idiot with a preconceived bias.

there's no-one other than you who believes the arguments anyway.

This is false. The proofs for God have been around for centuries and used by theists to defend/promote theism. You don't even get the history of theism right.

These 'proofs' for God are garbled versions of the originals that have been around for a few days and promote only your demonstrable incompetence.

[Roy]

I have not yet proposed that the God of reason is the Christian God in the discussions concerning the existence of God. Nevertheless the God of reason (the supreme being) is the Christian God, which can be logically deduced in the following manner -

1) Conclude from reason that there is a supreme being.

2) The supreme being is eminently supreme above all created perfections, which includes the supreme being having a supreme life, beyond that of creation.

Not according to your reasoning it doesn't.

[Roy]

It is given through the incarnation of the Word who was also the Messiah, who brought about the restoration of Israel, which is the Catholic Church, with her seven sacraments as efficient causes of grace.

Poppycock.

[JohnMartin]

Do follows be. That which has the more be has the more do. A man can think, walk and talk, and a rock cannot. Therefore the man has more do than the rock, and then more be.
A parrot can think, walk, talk and fly, and a man cannot.

Man is in an order of being other than the parrot. For the parrot only has a material soul, and cannot speak in the universal. Any speech attributed to the parrot is merely an imitation of speech.

Victoria Beckham, for she has an immortal soul...
Unsupported assertion.

See a philosophical psychology text for a good intro to the spirituality of the intellect.

The fundamental modes of being are act and potency. Being is the most fundamental perfection, upon which all other perfections rely. To say the supreme being is the being with limited being, means the supreme being is composed of potency and act.

Yes. Based on your argument for there being a supreme being, that is almost certainly the case. You appear to be unconsciously eliding between an actual supreme being, as demonstrated by your argument, and a hypothetical supreme being which nothing can exceed. They are not the same.

They are the same. You have merely made a distinction without a difference in your own thinking. And my argument for the supreme being is pure act still stands.

No your reasoning is false for the reasons given above.

My reasoning mirrors yours. If mine is false, yours is too. Have you forgotten that your 'logic' showed that you were dumber than a turnip?

Your reasoning was answered. Now you are dumber than the guy who is dumber than the turnip.

The tallest man is only a species of being. God is not in a genus, or a species.

'Species' on cluelessness list.

I don't think so.

I don't accept the refutations, because they are only pseudo refutations, such as we see above.

You don't accept the refutations because you are a blithering idiot with a preconceived bias.

You routinely make mistakes on things philosophical and theological because you don't know your stuff. When your trivial observations are answered you return to ad hominems because you have nothing further to offer.

there's no-one other than you who believes the arguments anyway.

This is false. The proofs for God have been around for centuries and used by theists to defend/promote theism. You don't even get the history of theism right.

These 'proofs' for God are garbled versions of the originals that have been around for a few days and promote only your demonstrable incompetence.

More alleged incompetence. The proofs are based upon those of Thomas Aquinas made in the 14th C.

JM

[JohnMartin]

Not according to your reasoning it doesn't.

Prove it Roy.

JM