5 proofs for God's existence

These are the 5 ways as proposed by St Thomas Aquinas to demonstrate God's existence. All of these proofs are a posteriori and can be known to every human being. This is not to say that pure reason ought to be the foundation of faith, but it certainly is an element of it. These proofs are known as natural theology for they do not rely on any Biblical foundation.

Category:

Education

Tags:

• Aquinas
• ways
• syllogism
• philosophy
• of
• religion
• God
• Summa
• Theologica
• natural
• theology

[SuperMrAtheist]

Well this is just stupid. Why does it have to be a unmoved mover? lol which is just a stupid way of saying A uncreated creator. It's stupid.

God had to move at one point to move everything in the universe. It's impossible for a non-moving object to move another unless it's influence by another object. So if god was the "mover" of everything. Then something had to move god.

[AdversusHaereses]

@SuperMrAtheist Unmoved is not the same as immovable. God is pure act, therefore He relies on nothing but His essence to move and create a series of things.

[lautz73]

@AdversusHaereses What I was trying to get across to the person is that procreation is a viable method for the supposed "intelligent design". The 5th way excludes evolution as a means of how living things have come to fulfill thier purposes. It doesn't mean that they were designed to fit in that role.

[AdversusHaereses]

@lautz73 Oddly enough, non of these arguments have anything to do with intelligent design. Actually the 5th argument is more about teleology and how things have final causes. This presupposes a law of causality which governs all things. The supreme guide in the cosmos is therefore God, who governs all things towards their ends.

[lautz73]

@pippochap The "painting needs a painter" fallacy. Do engines have children? Engines don't breed the way that humans do. Once you understand that it takes actual procreation to bring evolutionary change then you'll finally understand just how foolish "intelligent design" is.

[pippochap]

@lautz73 Complexity of life and the apparent design behind it ARE proofs of intelligence. It is FACT that anything that has order has to be put in order by an intellect. Order needs intellect to cause it. If you throw a bunch of engine parts of a cliff they won't land in order to form a functional engine, they will be scattered in chaos. One must through intellect put the engine parts logically together to form a functioning engine. Hence, logical proof of a intelligence at work "God"

[lautz73]

@pippochap The proofs were being used to prove that there is an intelligent designer, aka god. Complexity of life and the apparent design behind it aren't proof of anything. Along with neatures systematic orders there is also disorder and chaos. Everything in balance.

[pippochap]

@lautz73 Its not about belief in these proofs, Its not about believing!!! This is where u lack understanding of what is being reasoned in the proofs. Yes, Intelligent design has bin stated in error by protestants, but this does not mean there is not clearly intelligence in nature? Nature displays gigantic systematic orders working in logical and reasonable movements to accomplish and acquire progress, this displays intelligence beyond our own. This power of intelect is what we call God.

[lautz73]

@pippochap What you miss is the fact that there is no proof for that higher intelligence outside of the beliefs of the "faithful". The "higer intelligence" is the arguement used in "intelligent design" and has been proven to be just another rebranding of creationism. Try again with some actual proof and maybe you'll be believed.

[pippochap]

@lautz73 LOL You fail to understand the context of the treatise, know wonder you are all baffled! The 5 proofs is a reasoning that there is a higher intelligent force at work. Hence, what is and has been called "God". This recognizable force and higher intelligence that is labeled as "God" is not a created thing, there for not in sequence of the created world of matter which relies on a mover, this is with in the context of the proofs. There is NO error in St. Thomas's reasoning.

[SuperMrAtheist]

@pippochap you say I sound like a dumb ass but you never said why. Just throwing out insults. Like a child. Maybe one day you can think on a much higher level than you are now.

[pippochap]

Its funny how up tell this very day the haters still can't discredit these five proofs. They try and think they have, but fail to understand true philosophy and the contex in which the proofs exist. The "Haters" are filled with such pride as to consider themselves smarter then St. Thomas Aquinas who is amongst the top 10 greatest thinkers of all time! Will any of you "Haters once dead be amongst this list? NO... you will be known as the pridefull hater you were. It's sad that you can't see it.