Can You Prove that God exists?

Good points. These are the basic lines of reasoning that do show that God exists. I think what you are trying to say is that we cannot make people believe........we can only show them that it is logical to believe, and that there is good evidence to believe. I agree.

 

Did you actually read the content on the use of sacred doctrine or just the headlines? I've got other things to do than prod people to actually read Thomas on his own terms than perusing him for points to score in subsequent philosophical debates.

BJ

 

Yes, I read them. I'll paste two of his questions below.
I am not interested in scoring points. This section of Thomas seems rather clear, and I gave short summaries of them in my note above. I typically bow out of these threads when they reduce down to points-scoring, for I do not have time for it either.

 

Summa Theologica, 1.2
Whether sacred doctrine is a science?

Objection 1: It seems that sacred doctrine is not a science. For every science proceeds from self-evident principles. But sacred doctrine proceeds from articles of faith which are not self-evident, since their truth is not admitted by all: "For all men have not faith" (2 Thess. 3:2). Therefore sacred doctrine is not a science.

Objection 2: Further, no science deals with individual facts. But this sacred science treats of individual facts, such as the deeds of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and such like. Therefore sacred doctrine is not a science.
On the contrary, Augustine says (De Trin. xiv, 1) "to this science alone belongs that whereby saving faith is begotten, nourished, protected and strengthened." But this can be said of no science except sacred doctrine. Therefore sacred doctrine is a science.

I answer that, Sacred doctrine is a science. We must bear in mind that there are two kinds of sciences. There are some which proceed from a principle known by the natural light of intelligence, such as arithmetic and geometry and the like. There are some which proceed from principles known by the light of a higher science: thus the science of perspective proceeds from principles established by geometry, and music from principles established by arithmetic. So it is that sacred doctrine is a science because it proceeds from principles established by the light of a higher science, namely, the science of God and the blessed. Hence, just as the musician accepts on authority the principles taught him by the mathematician, so sacred science is established on principles revealed by God.

Reply to Objection 1: The principles of any science are either in themselves self-evident, or reducible to the conclusions of a higher science; and such, as we have said, are the principles of sacred doctrine.

Reply to Objection 2: Individual facts are treated of in sacred doctrine, not because it is concerned with them principally, but they are introduced rather both as examples to be followed in our lives (as in moral sciences) and in order to establish the authority of those men through whom the divine revelation, on which this sacred scripture or doctrine is based, has come down to us.

 

Summa Theologica, 1.8

Whether sacred doctrine is a matter of argument?

Objection 1: It seems this doctrine is not a matter of argument. For Ambrose says (De Fide 1): "Put arguments aside where faith is sought." But in this doctrine, faith especially is sought: "But these things are written that you may believe" (Jn. 20:31). Therefore sacred doctrine is not a matter of argument.

Objection 2: Further, if it is a matter of argument, the argument is either from authority or from reason. If it is from authority, it seems unbefitting its dignity, for the proof from authority is the weakest form of proof. But if it is from reason, this is unbefitting its end, because, according to Gregory (Hom. 26), "faith has no merit in those things of which human reason brings its own experience." Therefore sacred doctrine is not a matter of argument.

On the contrary, The Scripture says that a bishop should "embrace that faithful word which is according to doctrine, that he may be able to exhort in sound doctrine and to convince the gainsayers" (Titus 1:9).

I answer that, As other sciences do not argue in proof of their principles, but argue from their principles to demonstrate other truths in these sciences: so this doctrine does not argue in proof of its principles, which are the articles of faith, but from them it goes on to prove something else; as the Apostle from the resurrection of Christ argues in proof of the general resurrection (1 Cor. 15). However, it is to be borne in mind, in regard to the philosophical sciences, that the inferior sciences neither prove their principles nor dispute with those who deny them, but leave this to a higher science; whereas the highest of them, viz. metaphysics, can dispute with one who denies its principles, if only the opponent will make some concession; but if he concede nothing, it can have no dispute with him, though it can answer his objections. Hence Sacred Scripture, since it has no science above itself, can dispute with one who denies its principles only if the opponent admits some at least of the truths obtained through divine revelation; thus we can argue with heretics from texts in Holy Writ, and against those who deny one article of faith, we can argue from another. If our opponent believes nothing of divine revelation, there is no longer any means of proving the articles of faith by reasoning, but only of answering his objections---if he has any---against faith. Since faith rests upon infallible truth, and since the contrary of a truth can never be demonstrated, it is clear that the arguments brought against faith cannot be demonstrations, but are difficulties that can be answered.

Reply to Objection 1: Although arguments from human reason cannot avail to prove what must be received on faith, nevertheless, this doctrine argues from articles of faith to other truths.

Reply to Objection 2: This doctrine is especially based upon arguments from authority, inasmuch as its principles are obtained by revelation: thus we ought to believe on the authority of those to whom the revelation has been made. Nor does this take away from the dignity of this doctrine, for although the argument from authority based on human reason is the weakest, yet the argument from authority based on divine revelation is the strongest. But sacred doctrine makes use even of human reason, not, indeed, to prove faith (for thereby the merit of faith would come to an end), but to make clear other things that are put forward in this doctrine. Since therefore grace does not destroy nature but perfects it, natural reason should minister to faith as the natural bent of the will ministers to charity. Hence the Apostle says: "Bringing into captivity every understanding unto the obedience of Christ" (2 Cor. 10:5). Hence sacred doctrine makes use also of the authority of philosophers in those questions in which they were able to know the truth by natural reason, as Paul quotes a saying of Aratus: "As some also of your own poets said: For we are also His offspring" (Acts 17:28). Nevertheless, sacred doctrine makes use of these authorities as extrinsic and probable arguments; but properly uses the authority of the canonical Scriptures as an incontrovertible proof, and the authority of the doctors of the Church as one that may properly be used, yet merely as probable. For our faith rests upon the revelation made to the apostles and prophets who wrote the canonical books, and not on the revelations (if any such there are) made to other doctors. Hence Augustine says (Epis. ad Hieron. xix, 1): "Only those books of Scripture which are called canonical have I learned to hold in such honor as to believe their authors have not erred in any way in writing them. But other authors I so read as not to deem everything in their works to be true, merely on account of their having so thought and written, whatever may have been their holiness and learning."

 

I've just found myself posting huge messages to communicate with those who give logical arguments to try to prove we can't give logical arguments. Round and round the absurd mulberry bush. I've given the several sources, and anyone that cares can investigate further.
I'm done with this thread.

 

I thought Noah in building the Ark for the flood did a pretty good job of proving it to people of his day.
Then you have Elijah and Mount Carmel did this effectively in his day.

Moses and the tabernacle did this effectively also.

Jesus was pretty impressive with the evidence He gave.

Then Apostles and their proof of God's existance.

Then you have your own personal testimony of change in your, whereby socialogical adaptations were not the cause from the exterior inward but from the inner heart exhibited externally in our lives. But then that is something no one can disprove concerning God in you. And that is just for starters.

 

Surely you can't be talking about me. I'm all for logical arguments, but I just said that a more proper reading of Thomas is that his rational arguments show that faith is weakly rational and presume faith--they answer objections against faith. Thanks for posting the quotes because they support this reading as far as I can tell.

BJ

 

I am sorry to hear that you are done with this thread H. I was looking forward to further discussion. At any rate, until the next time......

 

I feel you are misinterpreting the notion of subjective faith. The problem with the notion of proving the existence with God is that it seeks to explain the metaphysical in the existential realm. Even St. Augustine begins with the premise "we are certain that we exist and we know that we exist". He then abandons this notion in search of the metaphysical, i.e., the platonic "turning the mind's eye inward" to discover the nature of truth. Absurd in and of itself. He concludes because there are certain truths that are necessarily and unchangeably true, mainly mathematical order, coupled with that knowledge of our human existence, then by default we can affirm the existence of God.

The problem with this approach is that it does not, nor can it, take into account the various paths of existence of man. It is not that faith is separated from logic, it is that faith is based in our own personal identities and path of existence. Ortega said it quite well, "This is a dialectic not of logical but precisely historical reason.....Man is what has happened to him, what he has done." This is the nature of our being, our history. We cannot claim that because irrefutable objective truths exist all truth is therefore objectively true. Where is the logic in that? The idea of objective truth lacks flexibility, it cannot account for the various values we all must choose from, or the changing situations we all face. What is truth for me may not be truth for you. The theory of objective truth is a logical fallacy, because it is unattainable. We will never agree 100% on all facets of what is truth. This does not disprove the existence of God, nor does it make our faith refutable to others. By virtue of our personal experiences we have evidence of our faith, and that is what we show others, and what others hold us to. It has nothing to do with proving the existence of God. We can try to prove the existence of God until we are blue in the face, but the reality is that we cannot logically do so. The ancients did not even try to do so. (edited to add: at least not all of the ancients)

Look at Parmenides, he cannot give any logical or rational account for what he is saying so he creates a goddess to say it for him. This goddess then bars us from any other form of inquiry, and says quite a few times that we cannot trust the reliance of mortal opinion, that mortals know nothing (of the metaphysical that is), and that they basically cannot understand infinite beingness (for lack of a better term). This is not too far from the truth. Our finite knowledge cannot fully grasp the infinite knowledge of the existence of God, nor do I believe we were supposed to. If we could then it would be nothing to prove the existence of God. It would be a given, not open for debate. God did not intend for it to be this way. He wants us to live by our faith. To prove his existence from the aspect of our faith and the light of him shone within us. Knowledge of the existence of God is nothing without the faith that accompanies it. In fact, if we were able to prove the existence of God, then we would have absolutely no need for faith. Do you need faith to believe 2+2=4? Absolutely not, faith means nothing in this instance.

The greatness of Christians, imo, is that we are willing to live by our faith. We are willing to give up everything, believing pretty much "by virtue of the absurd", that we will gain it all back in the end. We live by virtue of our faith alone, not by virtue of reason in faith. (Please note that by absurd I am strictly speaking of how we are viewed by the rest of the unbelieving world, not that faith itself is absurd).