Let me quickly say that I pity a person who does not recognize God in life. I know some people have sociological conditions that robs them of this truth. I pray for those people.
St. Thomas Aquinas said: The truth of our faith becomes a matter of ridicule...if any Catholic, not gifted with the necessary scientific learning, presents as a dogma what scientific scrutiny show to be false.
AQUINAS CAME UP WITH 5 PROOFS OF THE EXISTENCE OF GOD:
Read St. Thomas Aquinas' 5 proofs of Gods' existence in the Great Books of the Western World that can be found in the reference section of any descent library. In short God was not created. Here is an abbreviated version of what Aquinas wrote:
1. Whatever is moved (subsequent mover) is moved by another. (One of Newton's laws of motion) But this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover, and consequently, no other mover... Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover which is moved by no other.
2006-09-01 02:00:46 · 24 answers · asked by Search4truth 4 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
2. CAUSE AND EFFECT OR EFFICIENT CAUSE: There is no case known (nor indeed, is it possible) in which a thing is found to be the efficient cause of itself, because in that case it would be prior to itself, which is impossible... Now, to take away the cause is to take away the effect.... Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everone gives the name of God.
3. POSSIBILITY & NECESSITY OR TO BE OR NOT TO BE: ...if at one time nothing was in existence, it would have been impossible for anything to have begun to exist; and thus even now nothing would be in existence -- which is clearly false. Therefore, not all beings are merely possible, but there must exist something the existence of which is necessary.... Therefore we must admit the existence of some being having of itself its own necessity, and not receiveing it from another, but rather causing in others their necessity. This all men speak of as God!
2006-09-01 02:01:26 · update #1
4. GRADATION TO BE FOUND IN THINGS: see reference
5. GOVERNANCE OF THINGS: We see that things which lack knowledge, such as natural bodies, act for an end... Hence it is plain that they achieve their end NOT BY CHANCE BUT BY DESIGN. Now whetever lacks knowledge cannot move towards an end, unless it be directed by some being endowed with knowledge and intelligence, as the arrow is directed by the archer. [NOTE: This means that inanimate objects (earth, wind, fire etc.) in nature are directed by angels] Therefore some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are ordered to their end; and this being we call God.
2006-09-01 02:02:08 · update #2
You prove the existence of God through science, which is the way it should be done. The real question here is "is our understanding of God correct?" If God is proven with science, then why is there sin? How can one sin against the laws of physics, the very universe itself? God is not as most people understand it-it is something that we cannot fully understand.
2006-09-01 02:07:32 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
Proof of the existence of Santa Claus.
1. Houses have chimney's. Houses wouldn't need chimneys if there were no Santa Claus.
2. People get presents on Christmas. Some of them say "From: Santa" on them.
3. There is such a thing as reindeer so that must mean Santa is real.
4. The north pole is a real place, and it is called just like the say.
5. Santa manages to get presents to the entire world and knows who is naughty and nice at all times. Santa must be God.
2006-09-01 09:47:54 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 0⤋
Aquinas' so-called proofs have been proven to be wrong hundreds of years ago. The logic is flawed. I'll explain that with the first example:
It is true that whatever moves has been moved by another. But Aquinas also assumes that this can't go on to infinity. Why not? - This assumption is just that, an assumption, and not a fact. His so-called proof doesn't prove anything, because there is no proof that there HAS to be a first mover, he just assumes that.
2006-09-01 09:09:14 · answer #3 · answered by lindavankerkhof 3 · 6⤊ 0⤋
"Many statements about God are confidently made by theologians on grounds that today at least sound specious. Thomas Aquinas claimed to prove that God cannot make another God, or commit suicide, or make a man without a soul, or even make a triangle whose interior angles do not equal 180 degrees. But Bolyai and Lobachevsky were able to accomplish this last feat (on a curved surface) in the nineteenth century, and they were not even approximately gods." [Carl Sagan, Broca's Brain]
2006-09-01 09:16:29 · answer #4 · answered by Sweetchild Danielle 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
there are many great authors out there say Mark twain,for instance how do Athiests know that someone a VERY VERY long time ago didn't decide to sit down one day and write an interesting book all about some guy called God and how he created heaven and earth,is it fiction or not that is for those who believe or dont believe to decide,i personally believe there is a God,but i can see Athiests point as well,maybe you should stop trying to push your religion on unwilling people and try to see the big picture,seeing is believing to some people,live and let live and get over yourself
2006-09-01 09:21:06 · answer #5 · answered by onyxpryzm 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
You arguments are bound by the constraints of your mind. To simply assess everything to a "God" is, well, too easy. Why isn't the answer "retrixicality"? This is the theory that all things are moved from a sub-atomic level that escapes our current levels of knowledge and science, but allows for things to just 'happen'.
But I just made up that word. Just like God was made up. It's so easy to be logical when you make up the unknown, yes?
And don't bother praying for me. You don't really care. That is just egotisitical self-importance being inflicted on others.
2006-09-01 09:12:11 · answer #6 · answered by DDR 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I took the time to read your post. I gave your benefit of doubt. Unfortunately, instead of spreading your knowledge you attacked atheisists in your first sentance. This is not the way to get your point accross. I am proof as I clicked on it with an open mind. Your post, unfortunately, was just a slam against atheisists and not an eye opener like you intended.....
2006-09-01 09:09:10 · answer #7 · answered by TropicalSun 5 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Oh, whatever! Thomas Aquinas was not a scientist and obviously did not understand anything about it. This doesn't prove anything but that you are desperate to make others believe what you do. Why is that?
2006-09-01 12:35:10 · answer #8 · answered by irenaadler 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
aHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH too much to read
no but serisouly i cant answer ur question cause im not athesit srry
anyway u should respect otheres veiws becauseu can only live for so long atheists arnt hurtin u or anthing right so just let them be gosh if people keep ranting about this stuff then preety soon its gana turn into another KKK kinda thing
2006-09-01 09:03:59 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
A collection of arguments from incredulity. No one is responsable for your inability to understand basic science.
These "proofs" appear to be the same argument repeated over and over. Try again.
2006-09-01 09:10:57 · answer #10 · answered by Scott M 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋