(Untitled)

[goldenstitch]

So there are 5 logical ways of proving that God actually exists. I read all five and I dont know if they proved his existence or ultimately denied it. Under the PNC (Principle of Non-contradiction) it states that something cannot both be and not be in the same respect

Comments

[anonymous]

You refer to Thomas Aquinas's 5 ways (out of which the fourth is slightly different, offering a neo-platonic proof), which certainly are not the only ways of proving God's existence. There are quite a few, modern and classical

[hobbitcore]

the whole point of the cosmological argument, or first mover argument, is that God is the unmoved mover--the first mover, if you will. it's this fact that is meant to prove that he exists...because if everything has a cause then obviously there must be a first cause which in turn also caused itself. of course this is flawed in several ways: for starters, we don't know that every thing has a cause and in fact there's more reason to believe this is not true than true...also, if it's true there is a first mover, does that automatically qualify this first mover as what we would categorize as "God?"

[hobbitcore]

First mover is only a version of the cosmological argument.

because if everything has a cause then obviously there must be a first cause which in turn also caused itself.

A first cause did not necessarily cause itself; that's assuming that causation has to have a foundation and that an infinite transcendental Dasein has no place in this. It also assumes that our design plan of logic is applicant to a deity which allegedly is the "first-cause" (IE. ought the first-cause Dasein be subordinate to a design plan of logical deduction if he isthe first-cause Dasein? That's assuming that universal laws apply to this metaphysical Dasein, and why ought they?).

also, if it's true there is a first mover, does that automatically qualify this first mover as what we would categorize as "God?"Aquinas explicitly writes that his ways do not intend to get at God and his characteristics, but that it is simply a demonstration of His existence. No theologian has exerted that any of the various proofs of God's existence is a full-on deductive way to get

[anonymous]

ive always been taught that God is something you cant rationally think about because as people, we cant wrap our minds around him. Just the idea of "infinity" is really unfathomable, and that is just one of his qualities. It would be like a blind person trying to imagine color... how could they know color if they had no way to perceive it?

[anonymous]

You're absolutely right; it is traditionally held that God's true being is entirely beyond our comprehension. However, the purpose of Aquinas's 5 ways is not to wrap your mind around him (eg. understand him) but simply to demonstrate his existence.

[goldenstitch]

well I didnt really mean to have such a great discusion about this subject not that I didnt enjoy the reading but please post who you are so that I can at least have a name behind the entry