Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Categories
- All Categories 13.8K
- General Category 10.9K
- General Announcements 184
- Faith Issues 3.4K
- Coptic Orthodox Church 2.5K
- Personal Issues 1.4K
- Prayer Requests 423
- Random Issues 1.8K
- Introductions 294
- Non-Orthodox Inquiries 232
- Youth Corner 606
- Hymns 2.5K
- Hymns Discussion 2.5K
- Technicial Difficulties 368
- Technical Topics 368
Philosophy and God
Does anyone know any philisophic theories that can prove the existence of God? Or support the presence of a Supreme Being?
AND
Vice versa? Any theories that argue God does not exist?
(Its for a philosophy tutorial; so it cant be based on solely the Christian Faith)
AND
Vice versa? Any theories that argue God does not exist?
(Its for a philosophy tutorial; so it cant be based on solely the Christian Faith)
Comments
nd here s somthin i hope u find ur aim in :]
God's Existence
That there is indeed a god, Augustine proved in fine Platonic fashion: Begin with the fact that we are capable of achieving mathematical knowledge, and remember that, as Plato demonstrated, this awareness transcends the sensory realm of appearances entirely. Our knowledge of eternal mathematical truths thus establishes the immateriality and immortality of our own rational souls. (So far, the argument is straight out of Plato's Phaedo.)
Augustine further argued that the eternal existence of numbers and of the mathematical relations that obtain among them requires some additional metaphysical support. There must be some even greater being that is the eternal source of the reality of these things, and that, of course, must be god. Thus, Augustine endorses a Plotinian concept of god as the central core from which all of reality emanates.
But notice that if the truths of mathematics depend for their reality upon the creative activity of the deity, it follows that god could change them merely by willing them to be different. This is an extreme version of a belief known as voluntarism, according to which 2 + 3 = 5 remains true only so long as god wills it to be so. We can still balance our checkbooks with confidence because, of course, god invariably wills eternally. But in principle, Augustine held that even necessary truths are actually contingent upon the exercise of the divine will.
Human Freedom
This emphasis on the infinite power of god's will raises a significant question about our own capacity to will and to act freely. If, as Augustine supposed, god has infinite power and knowledge of every sort, then god can cause me to act in particular ways simply by willing that I do so, and in every case god knows in advance in what way I will act, long before I even contemplate doing so. From this, it would seem naturally to follow that I have no will of my own, cannot act of my own volition, and therefore should not be held morally responsible for what I do. Surely marionettes are not to be held accountable for the deeds they perform with so many strings attached.
Augustine's answer to this predicament lies in his analysis of time. A god who is eternal must stand wholly outside the realm of time as we know it, and since god is infinitely more real than we are, it follows that time itself does not exist at the level of the infinitely real. The passage of time, the directionality of knowledge, and all temporal relations are therefore nothing more than features of our limited minds. And it is within these limitations, Augustine supposed, that we feel free, act on our volitions, and are responsible for what we do. God's foreknowledge, grounded outside the temporal order, has no bearing on the temporal nature of our moral responsibility. Once again, a true understanding of the divine plan behind creation resolves every apparent conflict.
i hope u undersood well ... coz i can`t undersatnd anythin ,,, ;D
jk , Adel
ttyl
BYE
The Origin Of the Universe. Science have eternally pondered the reality of time and space within it's limited scope and ephemeral powers of reasoning. Nevertheless, the origin of the universe has been universally accepted as a sound reality to which the physical nature of the universe has been consigned to a necessary beginning and ultimate end. The universe is not eternal, but veraciously temporal. Before all of time and space began; in accordance with the Kalam cosmological argument; all of life was condensed to a single point of infinite density--often referred to as the point of singularity. In this single point of which all matter and energy was contained, the universe derived an explosive beginning. Since the initial point of singularity the universe exploded into a ravenous bang all the more continuing to spread throughout (metaphysically) in all directions. Yet, as one may logically conclude every bang--whether large or small--must have an initial cause. Infinite density must have been provoked by an initial first cause of the universe. What could such a cause identify itself to be? Now in order for an initial first cause to create the present universe it must hold two traits; the cause must be either more or as equally powerful to the present constituents of our majestic reality and the cause must be that of a personal Mind.
For, only by a personal Mind can something emanate from absolute nothingness (as is represented by the initial point of singularity) and can an initial cause exist apart from it's ensuing effect. For an impersonal force can at most accentuate an effect that it is already formulated and must have it's effect follow contingently fromt he initial cause. Save, the very effect itself, the cause cannot be contingent to it’s effect for we have no direct evidence of the cause as we do of the effect. Now if such a Mind is not increasingly at least as powerful as the universe itself then how could He have caused such a potent effect? The origin of the universe must be an all powerful Mind that is forceful enough to mold the facets of the universe into a potential reality.
The Fine-Tuning of the Universe. This argument is often called the teleological argument. Argumentation from design suggests that detailed attributes of a design are pertinent enough to explain the creative implementation of that design. Scientists and Astrophysicists will testify that when focusing upon the electromagnetic field of a nucleus within an atom, precision is saliently apparent. The fine-tuning is incredibly accurate, even to the extent that were the electromagnetic field to abberate or fluctuate even for 1 to the 10's of a millions of a percent, the entire makeup of the atom would fail and life as we know it would fail to exist. Other complementary and sophisticated examples include but are not limited to:
strong nuclear force constant
if larger: no hydrogen; nuclei essential for life would be unstable
if smaller: no elements other than hydrogen
weak nuclear force constant
if larger: too much hydrogen converted to helium in big bang, hence too much heavy element material made by star burning; no
expulsion of heavy elements from stars
if smaller: too little helium produced from big bang, hence too little heavy element material made by star burning; no expulsion of heavy elements from stars
gravitational force constant
if larger: stars would be too hot and would burn up quickly and unevenly|
if smaller: stars would be so cool that nuclear fusion would not ignite, thus no heavy element production
electromagnetic force constant
if larger: insufficient chemical bonding; elements more massive than boron would be unstable to fission
if smaller: insufficient chemical bonding
ratio of electromagnetic force constant to gravitational force constant
if larger: no stars less than 1.4 solar masses, hence short and uneven stellar burning
if smaller: no stars more than 0.8 solar masses, hence no heavy element production
ratio of electron to proton mass
if larger: insufficient chemical bonding
if smaller: insufficient chemical bonding
ratio of number of protons to number of electrons
if larger: electromagnetism dominates gravity preventing galaxy, star, and planet formation
if smaller: electromagnetism dominates gravity preventing galaxy, star, and planet formation
expansion rate of the universe
if larger: no galaxy formation
if smaller: universe collapses prior to star formation
entropy level of the universe
if larger: no star condensation within the proto-galaxies
if smaller: no proto-galaxy formation
mass density of the universe
if larger: too much deuterium from big bang, hence stars burn too rapidly
if smaller: insufficient helium from big bang, hence too few heavy elements forming
velocity of light
if larger: stars would be too luminous
if smaller: stars would not be luminous enough
age of the universe
if older: no solar-type stars in a stable burning phase in the right part of the galaxy
if younger: solar-type stars in a stable burning phase would not yet have formed
initial uniformity of radiation
if smoother: stars, star clusters, and galaxies would not have formed
if coarser: universe by now would be mostly black holes and
empty space
average distance between galaxies
if larger: insufficient gas would be infused into our galaxy to sustain star formation for a long enough time
if smaller: the sun’s orbit would be too radically disturbed,
galaxy cluster type
if too rich: galaxy collisions and mergers would disrupt solar orbit
if too sparse: insufficient infusion of gas to sustain star formation for a long enough time
average distance between stars
if larger: heavy element density too thin for rocky planets to form
if smaller: planetary orbits would become destabilized
fine structure constant (a number used to describe the fine structure splitting of spectral lines)
if larger: no stars more than 0.7 solar masses
if smaller: no stars less than 1.8 solar masses
if larger than 0.06: matter is unstable in large magnetic fields
decay rate of the proton
if greater: life would be exterminated by the release of radiation
if smaller: insufficient matter in the universe for life
12C to 16O nuclear energy level ratio
if larger: insufficient oxygen
if smaller: insufficient carbon
ground state energy level for 4He
if larger: insufficient carbon and oxygen
if smaller: insufficient carbon and oxygen
decay rate of 8Be
if slower: heavy element fusion would generate catastrophic
explosions in all the stars
if faster: no element production beyond beryllium and, hence, no
life chemistry possible
mass excess of the neutron over the proton
if greater: neutron decay would leave too few neutrons to form the heavy elements essential for life
if smaller: proton decay would cause all stars to rapidly collapse into neutron stars or black holes
initial excess of nucleons over anti-nucleons
if greater: too much radiation for planets to form
if smaller: not enough matter for galaxies or stars to form
polarity of the water molecule
if greater: heat of fusion and vaporization would be too great for life to exist
if smaller: heat of fusion and vaporization would be too small for life; liquid water would be too inferior of solvent for life chemistry to proceed; ice would not float, leading to a runaway freeze-up
supernovae eruptions
if too close: radiation would exterminate life on the planet
if too far: not enough heavy element ashes for the formation of rocky planets
if too infrequent: not enough heavy element ashes for the
formation of rocky planets
if too frequent: life on the planet would be exterminated
if too soon: not enough heavy element ashes for the formation of rocky planets
if too late: life on the planet would be exterminated by radiation
white dwarf binaries
if too few: insufficient flourine produced for life chemistry to proceed
if too many: disruption of planetary orbits from stellar density; life on the planet would be exterminated
if too soon: not enough heavy elements made for efficient flourine production
if too late: flourine made too late for incorporation in protoplanet
etc.........
As Dr Hugh Ross, a specialist in astophysical calculation puts it "Over thirty parameters of the universe have been identified that must be carefully fixed in value for any kind of conceivable life (not just life as we know it) to exist at any time in the history of the universe."
Yet, this is only in regard to the necessary nodes or calculations that must exist for life to exist. The support for the fine-tuning of the universe is undauntingly abundant for various sophistications of reality and it's constants
The focalized significance falls upon the origin of such fine-tuning in our present universe. The argument progresses as one identifies the need not only for a extremely powerful Mind at work, but a mind so personally entwined (an extension to the need for personality) within our existence for every facet of the known universe to hold such meticulous adjustments in an unfathomable manner.
The argumentation leads up into three more logical reasons that impart support for the extant reality of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. If any reader finds that the remaining parts would be of use or benefit to him, please email me with a request and I will take the opportunity stake value. As always I am pleased to provide whatever means of support I can for those interested in intellectually defending the faith once and forevermore preserved by the saints.
God bless.
The arguments listed above may be posited as suggestions or indications of God's existence, but certainly not evidence or proof. God is in fact beyond existence; He is, yet He is not for He cannot fit within our system of logic which gives rise to the very concept of being in the first place.
1-The simple mind can comprehend God's existence but NOT GOD Himself. Even nature speaks of His existence, Ps 19 and others.
2-There is usually 3 approaches when we speak of this subject:
A- The philosophical appraoch (freedom, justice, good and evil, etc)
B- The scientific approach (stars, foramations, neutrons, nuclear forces, probabilities, etc)
C- The faith approach, simply you do not need to prove anything you just need to believe. Yet there are things that proof His existence.
If I understood the main question properly, you are looking for a proof that falls in approach A (above). This is answered "mere Christianity".
God's existence is certainly not comprehensible; can you comprehend the concept of an existence beyond, and hence not part of, existence as we know it?
Biblical passges such as Ps. 19 and the corresponding passage in the book of Romans speak of nature demonstrating the work of God; they do not speak of nature logically evidencing His existence.
Philosophy and science can be used to indicate or suggest God's providential work, but they cannot prove that God exists. Philosophy is limited insofar as it operates within a system of logic that is by no means absolute and hence one that by no means constrains the being and operations of God. Science is limited insofar as it is unable to test the hypothesis that God exists since God is not part of the natural order.
FAITH SAYS
-Ps 19 (and other reference in Is and Psalms), says that nature speaks about Him clearly day and night(vers 4). Nature is speaking to say that He exists. I think this is a conclusion that we can simply draw. Same conclusion St. Greogory of Nazianzus came to in Oration 28 section 16 (in the last few lines). Yet, we can't comprehend how and in what way He exists (I think this is different than His existence). I hope I'm expresing myself clear. But again this is all bible and probably can't be used for philosophical argument, but for sure good for the faith.
-Moses for sure comprehended that He existed, yet didn't know How, what way, etc. And yes, these CAN NOT BE UNDERSTOOD.
Philosophy says
-Philosophy can't proof that He exists as we can proof a geometry theory, but reason + philosophy could come up to a conclusion that He exists.
-Anyway, if anyone gets the chance to read the first few chapters of the book you might find couple of things that are of value.
Thank you all this thread has been usefull to me personelly. Forgive me all, because I wrote too long.
"VI. Now our very eyes and the Law of Nature teach us that God exists and that He is the Efficient and Maintaining Cause of all things: our eyes, because they fall on visible objects, and see them in beautiful stability and progress, immovably moving and revolving if I may so say; natural Law, because through these visible things and their order, it reasons back to their Author. For how could this Universe have come into being or been put together, unless God had called it into existence, and held it together? For every one who sees a beautifully made lute, and considers the skill with which it has been fitted together and arranged, or who hears its melody, would think of none but the lutemaker, or the luteplayer, and would recur to him in mind, though he might not know him by sight. And thus to us also is manifested That which made and moves and preserves all created things, even though He be not comprehended by the mind. And very wanting in sense is he who will not willingly go thus far in following natural proofs; but not even this which we have fancied or formed, or which reason has sketched for us, proves the existence of a God. But if any one has got even to some extent a comprehension of this, how is God's Being to bedemonstrated? Who ever reached this extremity of wisdom? Who was ever deemed worthy of so great a gift? Who has opened the mouth of his mind and drawn in the Spirit, so as by Him that searcheth all things, yea the deep thing of God, to take in God, and no longer to need progress, since he already possesses the Extreme Object of desire, and That to which all the social life and all the intelligence of the best men press forward?"
St. Gregory seems to be calling for the subtle distinction I have been appealing to all along: the distinction between indication/suggestion/demonstration and proof/evidence.
-The same text bolded before, reads the following in my translation(On God and Christ), "But still, whatever we imagined or figured to ourselves or reason delineated is not the reality of God". Otherwise St. Gregory would contradicting what he had just mentioned in the first line of this same section (that is oration 28 section 6). That's why he goes on and say who is he that might comprehend God. This was the introduction to the first sentence in section 7. The way I understood this section of the oration is, that nature tell us He exists But DOESN'T tell us fully about who He is and we CAN NOT COMPREHEND HIM.
-I'm not sure if we can go any further over the "forms" with this.
Thank you all and Pray for me.
Subsequentially, reason accompanied by Divine revelation is all that may bring about absolute certainty of any propositional truth. For one to claim that reason autonomously may bring truth, he must first account for the interminable joust against reason ungirded by absolutes. For unless an Absolute God exists, reason holds no value. By the same token, for one to declair that Divine revelation is able to reveal truth aside from reason, he must implicitly ignore an unavoidable misnomer--not only has such a man made his decleratiion based on reasonable presumptions, but the very notion of reason is innate to the person of God....it is an inseperable force integral to God's nature.
The Christian speaks not only in terms of reason and not only in terms of faith, but in terms of reasonable faith that is founded first and foremost by the person of Jesus Christ.
I would recommend, in order to understand how to properly approach works like C.S. Lewis' Mere Christianity, that you start off with reading the first Chapter of Kallistos Ware's introductory book to Orthodox Theology: 'The Orthodox Way'. He discuss this issue more than adequately and more articulately than I could.
That's a great qualification which I believe reasonably balances your previous posts. Nature only proves the existence of God to the mind that has already come to believe in the Author of Nature. As such, it does not really "prove" nature in the "logical" sense of what "proof" entails, for if we were to understand "proof" within a strict logical framework, the idea that Nature proves the existence of God to one who has already come to faith in God would be quite problematic since the conclusion to that proof is already presumed beforehand.
Philosophical argumentation has become a tool for the expostion of faith....yet even as such, the idea of untainted human reasoning is simply unfounded. For every tool may be used in accoradance with light or darkness; and philosophy has had it's fair share of both.
God Bless.
Philosophy and science can be used to indicate or suggest God's providential work, but they cannot prove that God exists. Philosophy is limited insofar as it operates within a system of logic that is by no means absolute and hence one that by no means constrains the being and operations of God. Science is limited insofar as it is unable to test the hypothesis that God exists since God is not part of the natural order.
When Arguing with my atheist friend i brought up this point too, but he just said that that was too convenient to be believable, That somebody could have just made that attribute of God up so that Christians could believe in God undettered what should i say?
We are not "making up" attributes for God; this is simply the definition of the God we believe in--One who is "Super-natural" i.e. beyond the realm of nature. If He were not so, then He would not be God. Your friend can't reasonably expect us to provide evidence for a God we don't believe in, hence He cannot demand that we provide evidence for a God who is part of the natural order--we don't believe such a God exists so why would we bear an onus to prove that such a God exists?
The Super-Naturality of God is not an attribute ascribed to Him for convenience sake, it simply defines the nature of the God we proclaim to have faith in. We are the ones who are proclaiming Faith in God, surely then it is for us to stipulate the nature of the One we are claiming exists. I think it seems a little convenient, and absolutely absurd, that your atheist friend seek to restrict the conception of a God he doesn't even believe exists, just because the conception we Christians hold of Him deems Him beyond being the subject of scientific investigation and hence beyond his ability to disprove.
Such corruptability would be integral to the nature of "god". Finite reality would co-exist with a supposed infinitum of power labeled within this god....yet how could God be both finite and infinite? The dillemah pours into rational conflict with the law of non-contradiction. Furthermore, the idea of many gods is a logically self-refuting proposition. For, there simply can not be more than one infinite truth existing within the same reality. The infinty of one god would contend against the infinity of another; nullifying the potential of infinite potency of one or the other. A natural divinity is one in which all of nature is diefied--all of truth relativised. However, this also includes the truth of relativising all truths. Does your friend's pre-suppositions hold their ground or are they logically incoherent?
God Bless.