How do you know God exists?

[Khalid]

Originally Posted by LovePatience

You are taking what has been revealed and trying to show that it was logically apparent and did not need to revealed. If so, I doubt it would have ever needed to be revealed. More than that, it starts to conflict with free will by assuming necessity instead of choice.

Imagine that a God existed as a being with all perfections and all power. Being able to do all things, he could do away with himself or create other beings like him. Thus, there would be no God or multiple Gods.

He could not create another being like him, as it would be him. Since he already possesses all perfections, it is an absurdity. For the same reason, he could not cease to exist.

If you read my post, you will see that I am in no way saying that which has been revealed (Christ, the Trinity) could have been deduced by unaided human reason. I am saying that the existence of God, as a first cause etc., etc., can be deduced by unaided human reason: the first part of my post deals with unaided reason (natural theology), and the second part with divine revelation that is beyond the grasp of unaided human reason (sacred theology).

God can be deduced without ever having been a revelation, by mere observation of nature and familiarity with the rules of logic as presented in the Organon of Aristotle. Paul says as much in Romans 1:19-20. That God is a Trinity, or Incarnate, or died for our sins, could never be deduced by natural reason: those aspects of religion had to be revealed to us by God, "for it is not you, Peter, who say this, but my Father in Heaven who gave you to say it" (that is, he could never have realized it using his own reason, but required divine revelation), as Jesus replies to Peter's declaration "Amen, you are the Christ, the Son of the Living God!"

Vatican I speaking on natural theology:

"If anyone says that the one, true God, our creator and lord, cannot be known with certainty from the things that have been made, by the natural light of human reason: let him be anathema."

Vatican I speaking on sacred theology:

"If anyone says that in divine revelation there are contained no true mysteries properly so-called, but that all the dogmas of the faith can be understood and demonstrated by properly trained reason from natural principles: let him be anathema. "

"If anyone says that it is impossible, or not expedient, that human beings should be taught by means of divine revelation about God and the worship that should be shown him: let him be anathema."

"If anyone says that a human being cannot be divinely elevated to a knowledge and perfection which exceeds the natural, but of himself can and must reach finally the possession of all truth and goodness by continual development: let him be anathema."

"If anyone says that divine faith is not to be distinguished from natural knowledge about God and moral matters, and consequently that for divine faith it is not required that revealed truth should be believed because of the authority of God who reveals it: let him be anathema."

Canons of the Third Session of Vatican I Council

Which states the sufficiency of unaided human reason to know that there is God, he is one, and that he is Creator, and the insufficiency of human reason to achieve knowledge of the divine mysteries apart from divine revelation.

[mexilad]

To quote instein, We couldn't have been an accident and there is no way we created ourselves.

[soylatte3]

Originally Posted by Samuel Monosov

To preface, this is not a thread about atheism. If it becomes a thread about atheism, I request that the moderators remove it immediately. Also, I do not want there to be debates. I simply want to ask questions, to find out why Catholics believe God exists. It will just be my honest questions, honest questions from others, and Catholic answers.

No fighting. No atheism. No evolution.

Here is the first question:

How do you know God exists?

How confident are you that God exists?

Hello

1. The more I know about Science and human history, the more I am convinced that God exists.
2. Faith is our response to God and it falls outside and beyond the confines of confidence.

[LovePatience]

Originally Posted by Khalid

He could not create another being like him, as it would be him. Since he already possesses all perfections, it is an absurdity. For the same reason, he could not cease to exist.

If you read my post, you will see that I am in no way saying that which has been revealed (Christ, the Trinity) could have been deduced by unaided human reason. I am saying that the existence of God, as a first cause etc., etc., can be deduced by unaided human reason: the first part of my post deals with unaided reason (natural theology), and the second part with divine revelation that is beyond the grasp of unaided human reason (sacred theology).

God can be deduced without ever having been a revelation, by mere observation of nature and familiarity with the rules of logic as presented in the Organon of Aristotle. Paul says as much in Romans 1:19-20. That God is a Trinity, or Incarnate, or died for our sins, could never be deduced by natural reason: those aspects of religion had to be revealed to us by God, "for it is not you, Peter, who say this, but my Father in Heaven who gave you to say it" (that is, he could never have realized it using his own reason, but required divine revelation), as Jesus replies to Peter's declaration "Amen, you are the Christ, the Son of the Living God!"

Vatican I speaking on natural theology:



Vatican I speaking on sacred theology:



Canons of the Third Session of Vatican I Council

Which states the sufficiency of unaided human reason to know that there is God, he is one, and that he is Creator, and the insufficiency of human reason to achieve knowledge of the divine mysteries apart from divine revelation.

You are adding too much to what can be known. Your "etc. etc." is subject to debate and not all of this can be deduced. Psalm 82:1 "God standeth in the congregation of the mighty, he judgeth among the gods." So it seems that multiple gods do exist. But what does the word gods mean?

Genesis 1:26 "And God said, let us make man in our image. "

Jeremiah 10:11 " The gods that have not made the heavens and the earth, even they shall perish from the earth, and from under these heavens."

John 10:34 "Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?"

So who are all these gods if multiple gods cannot exist?

[Khalid]

You are not even reading my posts, are you? Do you understand terms such as "ontological necessity" (which doesn't mean necessity in the sense we normally speak of), or "possessing of all perfections"? Existence is a perfection; uniqueness is a perfection; impassibility is a perfection; omniscience is a perfection; so on. The "etc." where you seem to take objection, was actually a rhetorical flourish: take it out and re-read it without the "etc.", and my point still stands; it infers nothing.

The first one is translated incorrectly or misleadingly. It says, "God stands in the congregation of the elohim; he judges amongst the elohim". Same word both times.

Elohim is also applied to the (human) judges of the Book of Judges. Much like the dual eloah in Job, it can refer to judges, angels, the "sons of God", mighty ones, or God - but never gods (look it up in the BDB or Koehler-Baumgartner). John 10:24 is ripped out of context, and refers to the Judges reference: he is referring to the Judges who were called elohim. We in English use a similar phrase, such as in the game "Rock God", or saying, "that man is a tennis god!". We do not ascribe divinity to those men (unless they're faithful non-celibate LDS on the way to exaltation.)

For context:

Jeremiah is translated incorrectly or misleadingly. I see that "elohim" underlay those references you give (even though the best "polytheist" references are actually in the book of Job, with the "divine court"); look up "elohim" in the BDB (the standard Biblical Hebrew dictionary) and read.

What translation are you using? KJV? Try comparing translations for a change, with, maybe, the Douay-Rheims, the NRSV, the RSV, the NASB, the ESV, etc.

You are quoting the verses that every Mormon uses in the Mormon translation-of-choice that very few Catholics use, along with starting with the premise of sola scriptura - it's a dead giveaway. And the lack of familiarity with or rejection of the canons of ecumenical councils. Why is your religion listed as "Catholic"? Catholics aren't polytheists (or "divine pluralists", or "monolatrists"), and there are other Mormons on this forum who are accepted and are honest about their religion.

Gen 1:26 refer to the Trinity, or, according to Jews, God speaking in the majestic plural.

[LovePatience]

Originally Posted by jochoa

The question becomes how do you define all perfections?

Please consider a few concepts:
If you were the only being that existed, and you could create or destroy whatever you wanted, and you decided to destroy yourself...would you consider that a state of perfection?
or
Do you consider creating something that could destroy you a state of perfection?

Lucifer is perfect. "EZEK 28:15 Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day of thy creation, until iniquity was found in thee." Now, he is obviously no longer perfect. So how do you define perfect?

It doesn't seem less reasonable that a perfect being could destroy himself than that a perfect being could create perfect beings that destroy themselves.

[LovePatience]

Originally Posted by Khalid

You are not even reading my posts, are you? Do you understand terms such as "ontological necessity" (which doesn't mean necessity in the sense we normally speak of), or "possessing of all perfections"? Existence is a perfection; uniqueness is a perfection; impassibility is a perfection; omniscience is a perfection; so on. The "etc." where you seem to take objection, was actually a rhetorical flourish: take it out and re-read it without the "etc.", and my point still stands; it infers nothing.

The first one is translated incorrectly or misleadingly. It says, "God stands in the congregation of the elohim; he judges amongst the elohim". Same word both times.

Elohim is also applied to the (human) judges of the Book of Judges. Much like the dual eloah in Job, it can refer to judges, angels, the "sons of God", mighty ones, or God - but never gods (look it up in the BDB or Koehler-Baumgartner). John 10:24 is ripped out of context, and refers to the Judges reference: he is referring to the Judges who were called elohim. We in English use a similar phrase, such as in the game "Rock God", or saying, "that man is a tennis god!". We do not ascribe divinity to those men (unless they're faithful non-celibate LDS on the way to exaltation.)

For context:

Jeremiah is translated incorrectly or misleadingly. I see that "elohim" underlay those references you give (even though the best "polytheist" references are actually in the book of Job, with the "divine court"); look up "elohim" in the BDB (the standard Biblical Hebrew dictionary) and read.

What translation are you using? KJV? Try comparing translations for a change, with, maybe, the Douay-Rheims, the NRSV, the RSV, the NASB, the ESV, etc.

You are quoting the verses that every Mormon uses in the Mormon translation-of-choice that very few Catholics use, along with starting with the premise of sola scriptura - it's a dead giveaway. And the lack of familiarity with or rejection of the canons of ecumenical councils. Why is your religion listed as "Catholic"? Catholics aren't polytheists (or "divine pluralists", or "monolatrists"), and there are other Mormons on this forum who are accepted and are honest about their religion.

Gen 1:26 refer to the Trinity, or, according to Jews, God speaking in the majestic plural.

If you want to spend your time insulting me or telling me that I am not a Catholic, perhaps we do not need to continue the discussion.

[Anthony V]

Originally Posted by LovePatience

Lucifer is perfect. "EZEK 28:15 Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day of thy creation, until iniquity was found in thee." Now, he is obviously no longer perfect. So how do you define perfect?

It doesn't seem less reasonable that a perfect being could destroy himself than that a perfect being could create perfect beings that destroy themselves.

All qualities exist in a manner that is proper to the being's nature. Perfection of any nature (that is not supernatural) is not necessarily in the sense that the being's nature is complete. However, being perfect does not necessitate being complete in the sense of the relationship being complete. If you imagine two jigsaw puzzle pieces that go together, the nature of the puzzle piece can be perfect, insofar as its nature is flawless. So, if the nature of the puzzle piece was imperfect, it would be disfigured. But even if the puzzle piece is perfect, and flawless, it's still not complete, because the nature has not met its desired end; the nature is not immediately efficacious in the sense of its created role.
In this way, Lucifer's original angelic nature was perfect in the sense that his nature was fully angelic, but his nature was not yet completed in God through beatific vision. Therefore, he did not share in the eternal perfection of God, but rather had his free choice of eternity in sanctifying grace, or not.

[LovePatience]

Originally Posted by Anthony V

All qualities exist in a manner that is proper to the being's nature. Perfection of any nature (that is not supernatural) is not necessarily in the sense that the being's nature is complete. However, being perfect does not necessitate being complete in the sense of the relationship being complete. If you imagine two jigsaw puzzle pieces that go together, the nature of the puzzle piece can be perfect, insofar as its nature is flawless. So, if the nature of the puzzle piece was imperfect, it would be disfigured. But even if the puzzle piece is perfect, and flawless, it's still not complete, because the nature has not met its desired end; the nature is not immediately efficacious in the sense of its created role.
In this way, Lucifer's original angelic nature was perfect in the sense that his nature was fully angelic, but his nature was not yet completed in God through beatific vision. Therefore, he did not share in the eternal perfection of God, but rather had his free choice of eternity in sanctifying grace, or not.

Thanks for the reply. However, the sense of perfectness without completeness is why it is possible (discounting revelation) that there be multiple gods. It is possible that a lower order god could have created the Earth under the command of a higher order God.

[adrift]

Originally Posted by LovePatience

You are adding too much to what can be known. Your "etc. etc." is subject to debate and not all of this can be deduced. Psalm 82:1 "God standeth in the congregation of the mighty, he judgeth among the gods." So it seems that multiple gods do exist. But what does the word gods mean?

Genesis 1:26 "And God said, let us make man in our image. "

This is usually used to show the Trinity.

Jeremiah 10:11 " The gods that have not made the heavens and the earth, even they shall perish from the earth, and from under these heavens."

This is speaking of idols

John 10:34 "Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?"

this is from the commentary of the NAB bible

15 [34] This is a reference to the judges of Israel who,since they exercised the divine prerogative to judge (⇒ Deut 1:17), were called "gods"; cf ⇒ Exodus 21:6, besides ⇒ Psalm 82:6 from which the quotation comes.

[adrift]

Originally Posted by LovePatience

gods. It is possible that a lower order god could have created the Earth under the command of a higher order God.

Jeremiah 10:11 " The gods that have not made the heavens and the earth, even they shall perish from the earth, and from under these heavens."

This verse which you provided states that "gods" did not create earth or anything else.

[Khalid]

Originally Posted by LovePatience

Lucifer is perfect. "EZEK 28:15 Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day of thy creation, until iniquity was found in thee." Now, he is obviously no longer perfect. So how do you define perfect?

It doesn't seem less reasonable that a perfect being could destroy himself than that a perfect being could create perfect beings that destroy themselves.

Lucifer wasn't perfect, because he was a created being: being created is the lack of a perfection, as eternity is a perfection, and that which is created is temporal, not eternal.

Mr Contrarian, are you capable of interpreting the Bible? Are you blind to form, to genre? And of using a modern translation? The KJV inserted "Lucifer" several places incorrectly (namely Is 14:12) in the OT.

The matter has been settled: you keep proof-texting as a Protestant sola scripturist. I have no desire to continue to make my point. If you wish me to destroy sola scriptura or the historical-grammatical method of literalistic interpretation, just ask.

Is it possible that THE GOD (the First Cause, the Unmoved Mover, the Ontological Necessity) created lower-order "gods" (Christians would call them "angels") to do his bidding? Yes. He did. Could he have used them to fashion part of the universe? Yes. But he could not have caused them to create the universe itself, because from nothing comes nothing - they could not create ex nihilo, as they had already been created themselves (in order for the angels to exist, they by definition must have been created by the First Cause): they would be the first of creation, but that which is created can not create separate from its creator. (Jehovah's Witnesses argue along these lines, and, with some modifications, it's much what the Valentinian Gnostics believed in regards to the emanation of aeons, and is similar to Plotinus' belief in some ways) This is explicit in the First Way. Did God do this, create lesser beings to create the world? No. The eternal and uncreated Word did. The fact that angels/"lesser gods" could not have created except by the will of the ONE GOD is available to nothing but unaided, fallen human reason alone - it is that self-evident.

If I said you're not Catholic, it's because you were excommunicated by the First Vatican Council. Christians are not polytheists: there is no simpler tautology, except for "bachelors are not married". Do you not realize that your fideism and hatred of philosophy/reason stretches to such a degree that you are willing to do damage to God's word by using it improperly, while arguing as an infidel and a pagan does against the basic truths of the Christian faith in order to attempt to defend that fideism and hatred of reason?

Originally Posted by LovePatience

Thanks for the reply. However, the sense of perfectness without completeness is why it is possible (discounting revelation) that there be multiple gods. It is possible that a lower order god could have created the Earth under the command of a higher order God.

No, the entire point of this is that it is possible for nothing but unaided human reason to determine that there is ONE GOD, and ONLY ONE GOD, and that he is the Creator.

To repeat:

"If anyone says that the one, true God, our creator and lord, cannot be known with certainty from the things that have been made, by the natural light of human reason: let him be anathema."

[LovePatience]

Originally Posted by Khalid

No, the entire point of this is that it is possible for nothing but unaided human reason to determine that there is ONE GOD, and ONLY ONE GOD, and that he is the Creator.

To repeat:

"If anyone says that the one, true God, our creator and lord, cannot be known with certainty from the things that have been made, by the natural light of human reason: let him be anathema."

I think that you are not reading my posts. If you are not reading them, then why answer. Please try to control your anger; there is no reason to question someone's faith, say I have fidesm, or say I hate philosophy/reason because you disagree. Jumping to all these conclusions is the reason I disagree in the first place. You start with A, which is true, then conclude B, C, D without proof.

The passage that you quote so frequently does not say that your proof must be accepted. "If anyone says that the one, true God, our creator and lord, cannot be known with certainty from the things that have been made, by the natural light of human reason: let him be anathema." This says that it is possible to prove this through natural reason, not that the proof that you have given is a sufficient one that must be accepted. I am not asserting that it cannot be proven; I am asserting that I have not seen a convincing proof yet outside of revelation. If you want to convince me, respond to the objections without bringing in anything that is from the revelation or tradition.

Because St. Aquinas stated it, does not mean it is true. Do we still believe limbo definitively exists though St. Aquinas proved that it existed? Do we still think that slavery among men is natural because St. Aquinas said so?

William of Ockham pointed out some quite good criticisms of Aquinas's arguments that you lay out there, - some of the same ones that I thought of without reading him first: that a lot of things are being assumed that should be proved before they are assumed - and Pope Innocent IV definitely considers him a Catholic. That's enough to show that questioning this reasoning is NOT sufficient to excommunicate you as he is DEFINITELY in good standing for doing the SAME THING.

And this is why I believe in the Church, because it is logically 100% coherent. This is not some Church where a random person on the internet can tell me that I am excommunicated because I critique the logic of their argument. And this is not a Church that excommunicates people for logical thinking; in fact, it shepherded Universities and has two orders: Dominicans and Jesuits that help with logical defense of the faith.

[mdisse]

Originally Posted by endoentropism

What changed?

Started with fear that i was wrong, which led to inspiration, then to not wanting to live in a world without God

[Khalid]

Originally Posted by LovePatience

I think that you are not reading my posts. If you are not reading them, then why answer. Please try to control your anger; there is no reason to question someone's faith, say I have fidesm, or say I hate philosophy/reason because you disagree. Jumping to all these conclusions is the reason I disagree in the first place. You start with A, which is true, then conclude B, C, D without proof.

The passage that you quote so frequently does not say that your proof must be accepted. "If anyone says that the one, true God, our creator and lord, cannot be known with certainty from the things that have been made, by the natural light of human reason: let him be anathema." This says that it is possible to prove this through natural reason, not that the proof that you have given is a sufficient one that must be accepted. I am not asserting that it cannot be proven; I am asserting that I have not seen a convincing proof yet outside of revelation. If you want to convince me, respond to the objections without bringing in anything that is from the revelation or tradition.

Because St. Aquinas stated it, does not mean it is true. Do we still believe limbo definitively exists though St. Aquinas proved that it existed? Do we still think that slavery among men is natural because St. Aquinas said so?

William of Ockham pointed out some quite good criticisms of Aquinas's arguments that you lay out there, - some of the same ones that I thought of without reading him first: that a lot of things are being assumed that should be proved before they are assumed - and Pope Innocent IV definitely considers him a Catholic. That's enough to show that questioning this reasoning is NOT sufficient to excommunicate you as he is DEFINITELY in good standing for doing the SAME THING.

And this is why I believe in the Church, because it is logically 100% coherent. This is not some Church where a random person on the internet can tell me that I am excommunicated because I critique the logic of their argument. And this is not a Church that excommunicates people for logical thinking; in fact, it shepherded Universities and has two orders: Dominicans and Jesuits that help with logical defense of the faith.

Okay. I had a tract made for situations like this. I'm going to upload it and link to it.

http://img196.imageshack.us/img196/990/linje.jpg

Familiarize yourself with the terminology, and you will find my explanations so far to be surpassingly sufficient. Pope Innocent IV lived 600 years before that anathema was decreed at the Vatican I Council: how could he have known to apply it? Much of Ockham's philosophy derives from his nominalism-cum-conceptualism: "a house built on sand...", as our Lord says.