Five Proofs: A discussion on the concept of God

[ToriAllen]

Yes, this is a repost, too.

 

Let?s try to keep in mind that this is a philosophical concept, based on ideas/logic and thinking outside the box, rather than an empirical concept, based on fact or scientific laws.

 

The following was written by St. Thomas Aquinas, born in 1225. He is one of my favorite philosophers. This translation is by Manuel Velasquez and comes out of Aquinas? work Summa Theologica. I like it because it is encompassing and does not just apply to one religions view of God. Enjoy.

 

That God exists can be proved in five ways.

The first and clearest way is the argument from motion. It is certain and evident to our senses that some things in the world are in motion. Now if something is moved, it must be moved by something else? For nothing can change from being potentially in motion to being in a state of actual movement unless something else that is in actual movement acts on it? So whatever is moving must be moved by something else. Now if that by which it is moved is itself moving, then it, too, must be moved by something else, and that by something else again. But this cannot go on to infinity because then there would be no first mover. And if there were no first mover, then nothing would move since each subsequent mover will move only to the extent that it is moved by the motion imparted by the first mover. The [other] parts of the staff, for example, will move only to the extent that the [top of the] staff is moved by the hand. Therefore, there must be a first mover that is not moved. And this first unmoved mover is what we mean by God.

The second way is based on the nature of efficient causes. In the world we see around us, there are ordered lines of efficient causes [in which each member of the line produces the next member]. But nothing can be its own efficient cause, since then it would have to exist prior to itself and this is impossible. Now it is not possible for a line of efficient causes to extend to infinity. For in any line of efficient causes, the first is the cause of the intermediate ones, and the intermediate ones cause the last one. Now if we remove any of the causes, we remove all of the remaining effects. So if there were no first cause then there would be no last cause nor any intermediate ones. But if a line of efficient causes extended back to infinity, then we would find no first cause. Consequently, if the line of causes extended back to infinity, there would be no intermediate causes nor any last causes in existence in the universe. But we know this to be false. So it is necessary to admit that there is a first efficient cause. And this we call God.

The third way is based on contingency and necessity. It proceeds as follows. We find in nature things that are contingent. These are things that are generated and that can corrupt, and which therefore can exist or can cease to exist. Now it is impossible for such contingent things to exist forever. For if it is possible for something to cease existing, then eventually a moment will come when it will cease to exist. Therefore, if everything were contingent, then eventually everything would have ceased existing. If this happened, then even now nothing would exist, because something can start to exist only through the action of something that already exists. It follows that not everything is contingent, that is, some things must exist necessarily, that is, forever. Now every necessary thing is caused to exist forever either by something else or not by anything else. But as we proved above, it is impossible for a line of causes to be infinite. So there must exist something which derives its necessary existence from itself and not from something else, and which causes the existence of all other necessary beings. This is what we all mean by God.

The fourth way is based on the degrees of perfection that we find in things. Among the objects in our world some are more and some are less good, true, noble, and the like. But to say that a thing has more or less of a certain perfection is to say that it resembles to a greater or lesser degree something which perfectly exemplifies that perfection? So there must be something which is most perfectly true, most perfectly good, most perfectly noble, and, consequently, which most perfectly exists (since, as Aristotle shows, those things that are perfectly true also exist perfectly). Now that which most perfectly exemplifies some quality, also causes other things to have that quality to a greater or lesser degree. Fire, for example, which most perfectly exemplifies the quality of heat, is the cause of the heat in hot things. Therefore, there must be something which is the cause of the being, goodness, and every other perfection in things. And this we call God.

The fifth way of proving Gods existence is based on the order in the universe. We see that things which lack knowledge, such as natural objects, act for an end. That is, their activity is always or nearly always aimed at achieving the best result. It is clear, therefore, that their activity is not produced by chance but by design. Now things that lack knowledge cannot move unerringly toward an end unless they are directed toward that end by some being that has knowledge and intelligence much like an arrow is directed toward its target by an archer. Therefore there must exist an intelligent Being Who directs all natural things toward their respective ends. This Being we call God.

[RoyalOrleans]

Anyone? Anyone?

[ToriAllen]

Anyone? Anyone?

 

No religious fanatics yet...Not much of anyone yet...

 

 

I could say: If you aren't going to add anything substantial, don't bother posting, but I would never say that to you.

[Guest sheik-yerbouti]

Sorry, sky faeries are not for me. I am a dyed in the wool atheist, with buddhist leanings

[ToriAllen]

Sorry, sky faeries are not for me. I am a dyed in the wool atheist, with buddhist leanings

 

That is the point of the thread. The 'proofs' of God are not really about a known 'God' but rather a conceptual view of what one would consider to be God. No 'sky faeries' involved.

[timesjoke]

I believe in God but not in the traditional way most do.

 

I believe God made everything including man and man made religion.

 

As a creation of man, religion is doomed to mistakes and even exagerations but even a tabloid story has some elements of truth.

 

I believe the best point the example gives us is that all things have a beginning under normal scientific study but sooner or later, if you follow every line or thread of thought backwards, you must one day come to a beginning that cannot be explained under scientific principles.

 

Where did the "beginning of the beginning" come from for example.