posted
During a Creed meeting a few weeks ago (Creed is an on-campus Catholic organization), the topic of St Thomas Aquinas' 5 proofs of God (motion, cause, contingency, perfection, and order) came up. Obviously, his proofs have been refuted many times by people. So, out of pure curiosity, do you think there is any real way to prove the existence of a deity, excluding faith? What are your thoughts on the five proofs?
Posts: 106 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
In general, I believe the question must revolve around a preliminary assertion as to the nature of deity.
If a (or The) deity is defined narrowly enough that its existence can be proved, then I doubt it is a deity worthy of serious regard. (E.g., I believe that God is smog, or this fork, or even something intangible such as 'all the appreciation of beauty experienced by citizens of North Carolina on April 9, 1987.' These things certainly exist.)
If, on the other hand, deity is by definition (a) greater than humankind (and it seems likely to be, if it conceived of humankind to begin with), and (b) at least in part beyond, outside, or of a nature other than the physical universe itself (including outside all conceptions of space and time), then I don't see how its existence could be proven by any accepted notion of the term 'proof'; since such a proof would by definition be bound to the scope of human intellect and logic, and to the scope of observed reality.
As you say, this debate must exclude what is to me the mostly credible avenue for proof at a personal level, and that is simply personal revelation. To anyone receiving such a revelation, it is sufficient 'proof.' To an observer, it is faith (or delusion). This dichotomy is not resolvable in the language of logic, because the frames of reference are mutually exclusive.
If deity exists, it may be known. If it is known, it is known to man; and to man's mind, spirit, and soul. But none can say where man's mind, spirit, or soul reside; if they reside solely in electrical discharges within gray matter, we are back to a deity no greater than a fork.
If they are other, then they are a part of God's nature, and our 'knowing God' is in some sense a case of deity knowing itself. You may find this idea exalting, or discouraging, but either way, it is no proof.
Posts: 431 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think something might be proof to one person while not to another. One might look at nature, the stars or something like that and see it as proof that there is a God. "Some one had to organize it. It couldn't just happen by chance." Then someone else will say that it is just chance.
I spent two years telling people that I knew there was a God, that the Holy Ghost let me know there was a God. To me this was the proof I needed, but to many I spoke to it was simply a feeling I got, and feelings can deceive.
It doesn't matter what someone's proof is, someone else will always see it a different way.
quote:Originally posted by BGgurl: So, out of pure curiosity, do you think there is any real way to prove the existence of a deity, excluding faith?
Are we using "prove" in the logical sense or the common sense? The common sense tends to connote a preponderance of evidence. That's much too mushy and subjective - it tends to muddle ideas into uselessness. So I'll go with the logical sense.
In the logical sense, we'd start with a set of axioms that everyone agrees on and build them up into a Theory of the Existence of God that nobody can deny. The trick is getting everyone to agree on those axioms - they'd all need to believe the same things about life, the universe, and everything (42!), and that's just not going to happen.
Without axioms (assumptions you strongly believe in), you can't even prove that you exist, or that you think, or that your socks aren't a complex illusion created by super-powerful aliens who like to mess with your head by making one disappear in the dryer every once in a while. Real proofs can only exist in the abstract, not in reality.
So the answer is no, there's no way to do it.
Posts: 73 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by lord trousers: [QUOTE] In the logical sense, we'd start with a set of axioms that everyone agrees on and build them up into a Theory of the Existence of God that nobody can deny. The trick is getting everyone to agree on those axioms - they'd all need to believe the same things about life, the universe, and everything (42!), and that's just not going to happen.
Even if you somehow were able to convince everyone to agree, you still would not be able to prove God's existance. Unfortunately, the belief in something, even if it is widely believed, does not make it true. At most, you could argue very convincingly for God's existence.
I suppose the easiest way to convince people would be for God to simultaniously announce his existance, accompanied by a miracle or two. Even then, we still can't prove God's existance, since there is the remote posibility that it is all some sort of trick.
So basically, I agree that God's existance cannot be conclusively proven.
Posts: 2437 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't believe there is proof of God, including faith. To me, "faith" isn't proof. In fact, it's the opposite. It is belief in the absence of "proof".
Like "?" above, I spent two years telling people I "knew" there was a God. At the time, I believed the stories I had been told growing up. I believed the "logical" arguements that the apparent "order" of the universe itself testified of God's existence. Because of my upbringing, I felt there had to be a God. But I never had a "witness" of such in any identifiable way. I always wanted one, at times desperately. I believed the scriptures that say "ask and ye shall receive" but couldn't understand why, despite all my asking, I wasn't receiving. At my own darkest hour, at a point in my life where it seemed to me I had to know or die, I had the closest thing I've every had to an epiphany or witness, or what most people describe when they talk about a "witness" from the holy ghost, and what I felt was completely contrary to everything I had ever been taught about God.
Do I believe that I received some special revelation about God that none of the other sincere seekers I've known have received? No. I have come to believe that such personal experiences are manufactured in the brain. I believe there is ample evidence that this is the case. (Not "proof" mind you, but evidence nonetheless.)
It is impossible to know if your personal answers to divine questions are divine answers or simply deep wishful thinking. The nature of the world is simply too ambiguous. Some people will note these facts and find them to be more evidence of the power of God; that he set the world up like this to preserve free will and faith. Others will see it as the vagaries of the human brain and the often insidious nature of imperfect human thought.
The bottom line is that the only thing you can know is your own sincerity - your own heart. And even that isn't necessarily something you can know at a glance.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote: The bottom line is that the only thing you can know is your own sincerity - your own heart. And even that isn't necessarily something you can know at a glance.
I agree, Karl. You can believe what you want, but we, as fallible humans, have enough trouble knowing ourselves completely. It isn't in our nature to be able to comprehend God, even if we believe in his existence.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
If you mean God by the creator of the Univese: How about messages encoaded in physical or mathmatical constants? (stealing from Contact the book). If you are talking about a perfect, all powerful entity: I can't think of a way. (you can't logically prove something all powerful, since there would be an infinite number of things you would need to prove the entity can do.)
Posts: 68 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by KPhysicsGeek: If you mean God by the creator of the Univese: How about messages encoaded in physical or mathmatical constants? (stealing from Contact the book).
Actually, I found the "message" in Contact (the book) interesting conceptually, but less than convincing. (Spoiler warning!) If you are searching the code of a truely non-repeating, non-terminating decimal, it is almost a mathematical certainty that you will find some stretch of code to which you can apply a special meaning. This is especially true when you are also open to searching the code in multiple base-systems (i.e. binary, hex, base 10, etc.) And inevitable when you are dealing with a species that on occasion finds divine meaning in the patterns on grilled cheese sandwiches.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by KPhysicsGeek: If you mean God by the creator of the Univese: How about messages encoaded in physical or mathmatical constants? (stealing from Contact the book). If you are talking about a perfect, all powerful entity: I can't think of a way. (you can't logically prove something all powerful, since there would be an infinite number of things you would need to prove the entity can do.)
Rather than defining god as all powerful, perhaps the best distinction would be to say that God is able to operate unrestricted by the laws of physics.
To me, this seems to be the most meaningful distinction between a really advanced being and an actual diety. Consider what modern technology would look like to someone from a couple thousand years ago.
That said, even with our advances we are still bound by the same physical laws as our most distant ancestors were. Therefore, even a being or group of beings who appear to have godlike powers are still at a level obtainable by humans in the best case scenario, so long as these powers are derived from manipulation of physical laws. Going beyond thos laws, however, is something that permanently sets God apart from humans.
So in theory, you would only need one example of physics being violated. Then your proof in God would be equally reliable to the test that was run. Since no test is perfect, it is still not 100% proof. That said, it is easier than an inf inite number of tests. Posts: 2437 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Just jumping in to say that I am a big fan of Aquinas and especially a couple of his five ways which jibe very well, IMO, with physics that came after him. But I have been pretty soundly ridiculed for that here, so YMMV.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by ricree101: So in theory, you would only need one example of physics being violated.
Except that this isn't possible within the framework of science. In a scientific test, an apparent "violation of physics" would actually be an indicator of our imperfect knowledge of what the physical laws are, not that we have them right and suddenly they've been broken. Additionally, how could you possibly define an experiment to measure something that truely followed no law, and how would you be able to tell the difference between following no law and following a law you are unaware of? Once again, God hides in the unknowns of science.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't believe proof is possible or, more importantly, desirable. I hope that I never have any kind of a "supernatural" experience that confirms for me the existance of God.
I would rather, every day, choose to believe.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: Just jumping in to say that I am a big fan of Aquinas and especially a couple of his five ways which jibe very well, IMO, with physics that came after him. But I have been pretty soundly ridiculed for that here, so YMMV.
*ridicules Jim-Me again for liking Aquinas*
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Regarding "Physics being violated" (as opposed to "being violated with physics"), sure: One (or more) massive violations of local, known physics would do it. Things like the sun stopping in the sky, for instance, or the moon showing us its other face every third Tuesday of the month for 5 years, or my body being suddenly healed top-to-bottom (all the various slings and arrows that flesh is heir to, etc., etc.)
These are easy things, I would say impossible to fake. And if there's some superpowerful alien out there who can do all this, then what-the-heck; I'll worsip him (or it).
Posts: 1862 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:One (or more) massive violations of local, known physics would do it. Things like the sun stopping in the sky, for instance, or the moon showing us its other face every third Tuesday of the month for 5 years, or my body being suddenly healed top-to-bottom (all the various slings and arrows that flesh is heir to, etc., etc.)
That still doesn't actually prove anything, though. It still leaves the option that we don't completely understand what we consider to be "known physics" which we readily admit already. Scientists would just go and rewrite the phsyics books to try to account for the anomalous event or theorize about possible exotic elements or forces that might allow what would seem to be impossible.
Added: I do think an event like that would be strong evidence for a god-like being but not quite a proof.
Posts: 1256 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by KarlEd: Actually, I found the "message" in Contact (the book) interesting conceptually, but less than convincing. (Spoiler warning!) If you are searching the code of a truely non-repeating, non-terminating decimal, it is almost a mathematical certainty that you will find some stretch of code to which you can apply a special meaning. This is especially true when you are also open to searching the code in multiple base-systems (i.e. binary, hex, base 10, etc.) And inevitable when you are dealing with a species that on occasion finds divine meaning in the patterns on grilled cheese sandwiches.
lol, That's true, however, we could look at the chances that such a code would exist "that soon" in a number. Eventually all transendental numbers will have just about everything encoded in some way, but if there is a trillion to one chance it would happen in the first several million digits and it does, it might mean soemthing.
Posts: 68 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by KPhysicsGeek: , but if there is a trillion to one chance it would happen in the first several million digits and it does, it might mean soemthing.
Perhaps. But isn't there a rather huge leap from "might mean something" to "proof of something"?
quote:Originally posted by ssywak: These are easy things, I would say impossible to fake. And if there's some superpowerful alien out there who can do all this, then what-the-heck; I'll worsip him (or it).
You destroy your own arguement with this last part. You admit that these are things that don't prove divinity, but only superior technology. Presumably, if they were done by the superpowerful alien they aren't violations of the laws of physics but only of physics as we puny humans understand it.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by KarlEd: Perhaps. But isn't there a rather huge leap from "might mean something" to "proof of something"?
Yeah, I agree with that. I guess the question can be easily answered with a quote by a physics prof I had in college: "There are two types of proofs: math and alcohol." Since a mathematical proof of Gods existance seems out of the question (not to mention the question of how we would pick the axioms?) and most people would agree that God is not an intoxicating beverage, we are left with the idea of it's impossible to prove God. (At least in the rigid deffinition of the word)
Posts: 68 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:One (or more) massive violations of local, known physics would do it. Things like the sun stopping in the sky, for instance, or the moon showing us its other face every third Tuesday of the month for 5 years, or my body being suddenly healed top-to-bottom (all the various slings and arrows that flesh is heir to, etc., etc.)
Sounds like a subspace anomaly to me. I expect that you could reverse its effect by configuring the deflector array to emit a precisely timed tachyon pulse. Or a graviton beam. Either one would probably do the trick.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Let's assume that after an Armaggedon-type battle, someone identifying himself as Jesus Christ descends to Earth from the sky. He restores everyone you know to perfect health, including everyone you know who was dead. He then proceeds to judge each individual based on what appears to be a perfect knowledge of each person's life. (Yes, you have to stand in line a long time for your turn, since it's being done in chronological order by birth. But you're not getting any older.)
Now, it is possible that this is just a giant hoax by a technologically very advanced alien with nothing better to do than to pretend he's God by resurrecting billions humans and judging their lives. It's also possible that you are delusional, and none of it is really happening.
But under such circumstances, I think that most reasonable people would take the existence of God as being "proved."
Therefore, to say that the existence of God cannot be proved is to say that the above scenario is impossible. However, since the scenario does not contradict any known scientific laws, it is not impossible. Thus, if there is a God who chooses to intervene openly in human affairs, it may be possible to prove His existence.
Posts: 99 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
God has been to a hatrack book signing and met two real people. This according to hatrack rules makes him real. Proof positive.
Posts: 2845 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: But under such circumstances, I think that most reasonable people would take the existence of God as being "proved."
Out of interest, what if it WERE just a superintelligent alien who could do all these things? Would you react differently if you knew that?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
And what if it wasn't a superintelligent alien, but a group of them, say a whole superintelligent alien civilization? Would that still be "God"?
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
I define God (which is not nearly as important as how God defines me) as the creator. Here is the being who created everything, from me to Time to the Andromeda Galaxy.
I believe that if God wanted to prove he existed, it wouldn't take some earth shattering miracle of anti-physics.
Who ever he wanted to know would suddenly realize that God exists. God would speak to you in a way that left no doubt that it was God.
However, if you seek material proof of his existance---
5 Proof's that God Exists:
Chocolate Dark Chocolate Serenity Mozart Gahndi
Then again there are 10 Proofs that Satan exists
White Chocolate Cheap Chocolate Canceling Firefly the Series Polka Music Pol Pot The Success of Yakov Smirnoff The Success of Seinfeld Mimes The Infield Fly Rule William Shatners Musical Career
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was just going to say what I just read that Tom_D said:
Is there really any important difference between a God and a God-like alien being?
Of course, it would really bum people out if you asked the Alien God-Like being "What do we do when we die?" and he/she/it responds, "That's the beauty of it, you don't do anything. You're dead."
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
