James Kidd has proven God's existence?


#1

James Kidd, the author of this article purports to ‘paraphrase’ Thomas Aquinas and offers to demonstrate God’s existence with the “metaphysical certitude of a mathematical proof.”

I’m not convinced that he is successful, or that he’s really offering a fair interpretation of Aquinas. What do you think?


#2

Nope. Interesting, though – I wouldn’t have thought to see a Catholic article show up with a panentheist conclusion. As usual, it’s useless for Christians in any case, concluding only that a vague, nebulous, impersonal deity exists (which case I actually think most likely, if there is one; but it won’t bring people to church…).

The bigger problems:

  • treating the state of being as a thing instead of a state or a property of things
  • assuming that being excludes potential
  • step 6, a beautiful logical circle: existence-thing exists and must exist because, uh, why now?
  • there are plenty more, but they all flow from these three.

#3

I think you misinterpreted the article.

The article is an explanation of one of St. Thomas Aquinas’ proofs. It is not that God is impersonal, or some being that is disconnected. The article and proof just explain what God is in basic common and logical terms…that is, not yet arriving at the complexity of the Truth, which logically formulates that Christ is God.

God says I AM. God is eternal being. He has no beginning nor end, for He is eternal.

Now, Christians can use this if they could just get someone to sit through the whole proof. The problem is that atheists typically don’t define God. First, they try and define a Christian God which, to them, must be a myth. I know this is a problem, but they don’t see it.

See, back when we were but Jesus’ plan (medieval times) “proofs” were logical proofs. Now “proofs” are physical proofs. Whereas before reason prevailed, now sense prevailed when it comes to the science of God. The problem is that Jesus’ kingdom is not of this world, and atheists apply the physics of this world to Jesus’ extra-terrestial (not of this world) kingdom, and to Jesus Himself.

So the proof is correct logically, and rationally; even if one is not Christian one can see that. Unfortunately atheists want to see or taste or touch or smell God, and this is only possible if they accept He exists, because then they can go through some catechism and receive the Body of Our Lord.

I don’t know if this all makes sense. God bless,
Aaron


#4

I’ve read my Aquinas, and he’s wrong too :wink: The only God Aquinas can prove is not necessarily the God of Abraham. Each proof is entirely open-ended on that question. Worse yet for the Christian cause, none of them go into the divinity of Jesus.

Now, Christians can use this if they could just get someone to sit through the whole proof. The problem is that atheists typically don’t define God. First, they try and define a Christian God which, to them, must be a myth. I know this is a problem, but they don’t see it.

This particular argument defines God as Being – in other words, ‘that which contains the Universe’. The most famous Aquinian proof defines God as the Uncaused Cause. Anselm’s Ontological Argument merely says ‘that which is greater than all else’. We are not lacking for definitions; however, none of the definitions presented in an attempt at a logical proof have said anything about a trinity of three Persons sharing one divine Nature, one Person of which also happens to be human, came to Earth, told his followers to eat his flesh and drink his blood, and then got crucified and rose from the dead. There’s none of that. There’s nothing about having a chosen people or declaring things clean or unclean or laying down moral laws.

These arguments therefore, if they were logically sound and built on strong postulates, could not prove the God of Abraham or the rectitude of Catholicism, only Being or the Uncaused Cause or the generic Supreme Being.

So the proof is correct logically, and rationally; even if one is not Christian one can see that. Unfortunately atheists want to see or taste or touch or smell God, and this is only possible if they accept He exists, because then they can go through some catechism and receive the Body of Our Lord.

This is in no way, shape, or form rationally correct, for the primary reasons I outlined in my previous post.


#5

With all respect, and I agree with you to a point:yup:, it is correct as to whether God exists.

However: the thing of God is His existence.

Actually, if you read the Summa, you’ll find fair proof for all of that, obviously based on definitions, that Jesus is God (based on the idea of the Highest Good, then getting into that which is morally sound, and that which does not sin and is one in being with God.)

But as far as accepting the definitions, that’s what faith is. In that sense God does not rely on physical proof.

And faith, as I see it (similar but not exact to what St. Thomas says) is more reliable than intellect because intellect can only work based on what one knows, and faith works exactly through what one does not know. When you go deeper into that idea, one might ask about faith being proven wrong more easily…but my Faith has never been proven wrong.

So I guess I have to heed to what I think you implied:clapping:, that it cannot be physically proven except in personal-thus-independent emperical observations. And by nature, those can only be verified if one has experienced them in cooperation with faith in what they were. Thus if one doesn’t have faith, God-as-Jesus cannot be proven to that person. If one does have faith, however, proving God is through a different science:knight2: .

God bless,
Aaron:yup: :yup:


#6

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.