I was reading a philosophy book this week and...

(side note deviation:  Borders going out of business was a boon for me.  I went in and bought a shelf full of philosophy books)

...was reading about the ontological argument and Aquinas.  I was shocked because Aquinas had said some of the same things that I had said.  I thought I had original thoughts, yet here they were written by him over 800 years ago.


An interesting view by Aquinas was that the ontological argument is impossible due to the infirmity of the human mind.  We cannot prove God, which is defined as something "which nothing greater can be thought."

Despite this view, Aquinas put forth "proofs" of the existence of God, which is probably more accurate to call "evidences."  In other words, he believed the existence of God requires argumentation but cannot be proven to a certainty.

Anyway, what struck me as similar to what I've posted on these forums is similar to the hang up I get when I talk about the objective proof issue.

For instance, Aquinas said:

It seems that the existence of God cannot be demonstrated. For it is an article of faith that God exists. But what is of faith cannot be demonstrated, because a demonstration produces scientific knowledge; whereas faith is of the unseen (Hebrews 11:1). Therefore it cannot be demonstrated that God exists.

My comments previously were that knowledge destroys faith, and the more we become like God, the more we are replacing faith with knowledge, until faith is no longer required because we have full knowledge.  But some of this knowledge first requires faith, which is consistent with Aquinas. Aquinas just fails to acknowledge that once the faith leads to knowledge, the faith is not necessary.
This message was last edited by the GM at 18:04, Tue 11 Oct 2011.

I would disagree with the idea that a belief which is held on faith cannot be proven or disproven.  It would no longer be an article of faith after it was proven or disproven, but I don't really see that as a problem.  The "belief in God is based on faith, faith is belief in something unproven, therefor God cannot be proven" argument is a bit circular in my mind.  Why is belief in God based on faith?  Because you can't prove it.  Why can't you prove it?  Because it's based on faith.  It's more accurate (in my view, at least) though less dramatic, to simply say that something which is based on faith hasn't been proven, rather than that it can't be proven.  It would, however, make sense in the opposite direction:  if something can't be proven, then belief in it requires faith.

It seems more like to me that people don't intellectually understand that there is a God because they rejected him in the first place. It's proven to those who have God literally living inside them that he's there. Proving that you have the Holy Spirit inside you to someone else who just says "Prove it" isn't going to work since they aren't approaching God the right way, so coming up with some kind of argument that you can't prove an article of faith and thus it isn't factually correct is a fallacious assumption.

What makes you say that?  Why do you feel that those who don't believe in God have "rejected Him in the first place?"

Anyone who has reached past a certain age in life has become spiritually dead. This is because everyone has sinned against God in one way or another. Sin is what I"m reffering to by rejecting God.

So, people don't understand that there is a God because they have sinned?  But everyone has sinned, but only some people "don't understand there is a God," it seems like this can't be a cause/effect relationship, no?

That's my point exactly.


I think he is saying that you can't prove something that is beyond you or your mind to comprehend, and faith fills in the gap.  Therefore, God is unprovable TO US, but obviously not to God.  So my argument is that the closer we get to God, the more the faith is replaced by knowledge, and if we could ever become just like God, the faith would not be necessary at all.


No, I think he's saying you can't prove it because our minds cannot comprehend it completely and therefore faith becomes an article of faith.  Of course, he was also working in the confines of the Bible, and proving God to him would be contradictory to biblical passages--meaning only one or the other is true.


I agree.

However, I think given the resources and mental capability, anything can be proven--we are just too weak and powerless to prove very much.

People don't necessarily understand that there is a real God the way the Bible has mentioned. Along time ago unbelief manifested it'self in the belief of many gods, these days it manifests it'self in the belief of "No god". They might say there is no god, but then they might decide to stick to their belief in transpermia and aliens seeding the planet, or the Evolutionary Process. "Gods" might not be anthropomorphic but they have definitely replaced the pagan gods of previous centuries.

Hmm...not sure I'm following you here.  Are you saying any explanation for the universe, or life, or whatever, is a replacement for the pagan gods?  I'd tend to see it the other way around: the pagan gods (and the Christian God, and pretty much all other gods as well) were ideas used to explain life, the universe, whathaveyou, at a time when we didn't have other explanations.  So, I suppose if you mean scientific answers to certain questions are a replacement for answers to the same questions that religions gave us in the past (and which many still prefer), then I could agree.  But if you're saying that scientific answers/theories are only there to fill a need left by those leaving religions, I'd disagree.

No, what I"m saying is that they aren't Scientific Theory, at best their Hypothesies (spelling?). Concocted by pure pseudo-scientific methods in order to replace God.

Depends on which theories you're talking about, I suppose, but what do you mean "replace God?"  If you mean "answer questions about where the universe/life/whatever came from, which other people have used God to answer" then I would agree with you.  But if you mean they're a religion, then I'd disagree.  Religions are more than just creation myths and explanations for why the sky is blue.  That's part of what they are (or at least were in the past, some people are less worried about those parts of their religions these days), but it's not all they are.

For example, we have a much better understanding of lightning now that we did a few thousand years ago, so as far as explanations of lightening go, the scientific theories have replaced "Zeus throwing thunderbolts" and "dragons fighting" and the like, but that doesn't mean electromagnetic theory is just another version of the Greek pantheon.  The phrase "replace God" is somewhat ambiguous, and carries a lot of connotations.  If you could be a bit more precise with your wording, it may be easier to figure out how much we agree on, and how much we disagree on.  It would also help me if you could tie this back into your original statement, as I'm a bit confused about how all of what you're saying is meant to link together.

What I"m saying is, that they are used as excuses for not having to face God as real.

Excuses or not, the idea is worth exploring.

I think what you are suggesting is that the existence of something which is wholly dependent on a third party's observation/perception is inherently unprovable.  I accept that premise.

But that person also cannot prove that God exists within himself.  He just "feels" or has "faith" that it is so.  Perhaps it is neurons firing a certain way in his brain, or hormonal changes, or dopamine...a number of factors could produce a 100% believable condition in the individual that is not provable to anyone, even himself.

For this reason, the ontological argument is important to at least examine.

What do you mean by "used as excuses?"  That phrasing has some fairly negative connotations, and sort of sounds to me like you're saying that people don't actually believe these things, they just say they do "as an excuse."  Is that really what you mean?  If not, can you explain what you mean a bit better?

They might not have believed it to begin with, but overtime, they could have fooled themselves into thinking that they believed it so hard, that they ended up doing so.

Hmm, what makes you think that's the case?

No one in the world is without excuse. Claiming "There is no God" is just an excuse for rejecting him.

But why do you think these people "convinced themselves" of something they didn't actually believe in?  Do you really find it impossible that some people just aren't convinced by the same things as you?  I must admit, this whole "deep down, you know I'm right, and are just acting like you don't to be difficult" position is one of my pet peeves with evangelicals (or, with anyone who holds it, though it usually seems to be evangelicals who do).  I don't mind you thinking someone is wrong, but it seems fairly arrogant (to me at least) that you don't even grant that they really believe what they say they do.  It seems like a great lack of imagination to be completely unable to put oneself into someone else's shoes and try to understand their point of view.

But then, what would convince you that someone really, honest, sincerely believes something other than the Christian story of things?  How could they prove to you, that whether they're right or wrong, they at least actually believe they're right?  Is your position based on evidence (and thus able to be changed if new evidence comes along), or is it simply an axiom of your belief system?

In reply to Tycho (msg #30):

---

Spoiler text: (Highlight or hover over the text to view)

But then, what would convince you that someone really, honest, sincerely believes something other than the Christian story of things?  How could they prove to you, that whether they're right or wrong, they at least actually believe they're right?  Is your position based on evidence (and thus able to be changed if new evidence comes along), or is it simply an axiom of your belief system?

---

Since there is no proof I"m wrong, why should I bother with a useless what if scenario?

Well, to my mind, that's how I know if you're just making an assumption, or if you're making an evidence-based decision.  If you can't imagine a scenario that would change your mind, then it sounds to me like your position is more axiomatic rather than a conclusion.  In such cases, it's usually not worth debating, because you can only really debate conclusions, not axioms.

You can't debate an axiom if you don't believe in absolute truth.

But I do.

Exactly.  If either (or worse yet, both) of us feel ourselves to be infallible (i.e., we couldn't possibly have made a mistake in our reasoning), we'll get no further than "I'm right!" "No, I'm right!" debates.  Sounds like you're asserting the perfection of your position as an axiom, so I'll bow out.

I don't like the use of the word "excuse" above.  A valid "excuse" is something that validly excuses someone from an action or belief.  In other words, it is completely justified, and therefore the conclusion is justified.

Kathulos seems to be using it in a negative connotation so that it essentially means a nonsensical method of reaching a conclusion not supported by any reasoning or facts.

Technically, an "excuse" means a justification proving the outcome/conclusion is proper.

I don't think either of these definitions is accurate here.  Kathulos seems to be making an unsupportable premise:

PREMISE:  Those who do not believe in God are simply denying what they know is true.

This is an impossible premise to prove and is too overbroad and categorical to be accepted as true in a logical debate.

Heath and others don't really seem to grasp what I"m really saying.

Some things can't be understood by those who are incapable of spiritual discernment.

I actually agree with that.  Often that is referred to as "spiritual maturity" or some similar term.  It is similar to the man who meditates and receives better brain function than one who is in a crowded subway station.

But the topic of this thread is the "ontological argument."  By definition, that means it is a way to prove God through using only logic.  So my point is that your statements are off topic.  That would probably go in the faith thread or something.