6 Answers

  1. Classical arguments in favor of the existence of God were formulated in the Middle Ages. Thomas Aquinas ' famous five arguments include proof through motion, proof through causality, through necessity and possibility, proof from degrees of perfection, and proof through objective cause. In general, Thomas ' arguments are based on the philosophy of Aristotle.

    The first is that everything that moves moves because it has received that movement from someone or something. For example, a billiard ball moves because it is hit by a cue or other billiard ball. If this is so, then there must be some primary cause of movement in the universe, and it is this, according to Thomas, that we consider God.

    The second argument is that everything has its own reason for being, and there must be a first cause, which is called God.

    The third argument is to distinguish between the categories of possibility and necessity. Roughly speaking, it boils down to the traditional philosophical question: why is there something at all, and not just nothing? For example, your or my existence is possible, but not necessary, just like the existence of the Earth or the universe. What made it not just “possible”, but actual existence? According to Thomas, this is God.

    The fourth argument is to distinguish degrees of perfection. For example, there is a smart person, and there is someone smarter, there is a beautiful person, and there is a more beautiful one, etc. Now, it is logical to assume that there is something most beautiful, most reasonable and most good, and this is, so to speak, the “limit” we will call God.

    The fifth argument is that everything exists for a purpose, not meaninglessly (this is Aristotle's thesis about a goal-based cause). If so, then God, according to Thomas, can be considered as the target cause of the universe.

    It should be borne in mind that Thomas ' arguments were formulated in the context of the dominance of the Aristotelian paradigm in science, and appeal to propositions that were considered “self-evident” by scientists of that time. Therefore, taken out of the context of his time, some of Thomas ' theses may seem strange or illogical.

    But perhaps the most exotic argument for the existence of God was made by another medieval philosopher, Anselm of Canterbury. This argument is called an “ontological argument”. The classical formulation of this argument is based on the thesis that “God is something beyond which nothing can be conceived.” Simply put, God, by definition, is the most perfect being, and the concept of “perfection”, according to Anselm, also includes the concept of existence (since, for example, an existing beautiful statue is more perfect than a statue that exists only as a design, since it is not possible to create a perfect image). it has a greater fullness of being). Therefore, since God is the most perfect being, to think of God as something that does not exist would be to enter into a logical contradiction, because it would mean to think of God as both existing and non-existing at the same time, which violates the fundamental logical law of non-contradiction, according to which it is impossible to assert something that is directly opposite to

    Over time, each of these arguments has had both supporters and critics among philosophers, and these arguments have undergone numerous changes, including in connection with new scientific discoveries. For example, Descartes supported the ontological argument, but Kant criticized it.

    In general, the modern arguments of rational theism in favor of the existence of God have become much more complex than the arguments of medieval churches. A classic example of this kind of argument is Richard Swinburne's The Existence of God. In short, Swinburne's idea is to try to prove that the hypothesis of the existence of God has the greatest explanatory power over alternative hypotheses, that it is the most probable, and that it offers the simplest and most consistent description of the world.

    To get an idea of the level of current discussions in this area, you can read:

    1. Excerpt from Swinburne's The Existence of God: iknigi.net (and ideally, of course, the entire book)

    2. Shokhin's review of this book: vphil.ru

    3. Swinburne's response to Shohin: msu.ru

  2. First, existence means being. And God, by definition, has no existence in the world He created, i.e., a transcendent one.

    Just as a programmer has no being (existence) in the virtual world created by him. Therefore, if someone says that he has proved the existence of God, don't believe it, he is lying.

    Second, just because God does not exist in our world does not mean that He has no Being (existence) in His world. But, for us, another world, another reality is inaccessible for comprehension, because we belong to, relatively to it, another matter.

    It's like two formulas, God in one, us in the other. our formula is generated by the formula of God, but they are incompatible.

  3. Philosophers at various times have tried to explain the topic of GOD. Uselessly. Today, this task is beyond them. Without the introduction to the science of ” Understanding the WORD “(according to the church WORD of God), no one can give explanations on the topic of GOD. You shouldn't even try.

    The same applies to the science of Theosophy.

    I would invite anyone who wants to join this naka, but there were no people who wanted to-suffering knowledge, Wisdom.

  4. A philosopher cannot prove the existence of God, because, by definition, he uses logic, and God is known by faith, which is the fourth way to perceive the world, in addition to feelings, emotions and reason. Only theologians are concerned with this task.

  5. I really disliked philosophy. But not so long ago, I realized that philosophers, in their person, all of humanity, looking up at the heavens, were trying to prove the existence of God. Educated people understood that from a chaotic Explosion, the sun, moon, and planets are not formed so intelligently. There is a creator of all this. Philosophers in their reflections challenged humanity, so that people began to think, think about their existence.

  6. A logically complete cosmological concept.

    In order to represent boundless space initially elementally:

    1. variously (uniformly) complete – it is enough to postulate the presence of two elements with SIMPLE and COMPLEX /closed systemically manifested entities

    2. heterogeneously complete-it is enough to postulate the presence of another element in it – the Supreme and Omnipotent God – with an unclosed systematically manifested essence.

    It is not difficult to assume that even with the minimum possible expansion of the non – material component of the essence of God – the Spirit of God-beyond the level of the original downward-directed constant expansion from the material component of the essence of God, the collapse occurs SIMPLY and COMPLEXLY /i.e., the Spirit of God is constantly expanding. their disintegration occurs due to the blocking of the outcome of the ascending direction of constantly unfolding non-material components of their essences/, as the most possible heterogeneous to God's essence of the minimum possible numerically elementary homogeneity (1H), and God on the basis of material components from 1H unfolds the minimum possible heterogeneous to His essence of the maximum possible numerically elementary homogeneity (2H). The 2H rollout process will begin at a God-known point in time starting from the moment its deployment is completed. By curtailing the Spirit of God to the level of its original unfolding, 1H is once again unfolded – God's potential for making 1H into 2H and 2H into 1H changes is limitless!

Leave a Reply