Posted by
Paco Capella on Monday, September 10, 2007 4:45:38 PM
It is with great reluctance that I write the following thoughts, because trying to reconcile the disputes between evolutionists, creationists, theists and atheists is an overwhelming task and indeed a wearying endeavor.
This is the main malfunction of those who call themselves Atheists: Theists’ God existence reasons are insufficient. Atheists have used inductive, deductive, subjective and empirical arguments against God’s existence proofs. As a person of faith and science by education and experience, I am convinced of the truth of St. Thomas Aquinas’ God existence proof, because of its simplicity.
Look at how transcendental God’s existence is that God becomes a necessity. Atheists’ experiences and actions to include the act of not believing in God’s existence, is a simplistic proof of God’s existence because God’s existence is a necessary condition for atheists’ intelligibility.
The “first cause” argument does not necessarily imply a supernatural being that put things into movement, the so-called Prime Mover; motion is a notion that is a function of another notion, which is time. Thermodynamics and Quantum Physics tend to weaken the first cause argument due to probabilities versus causes. My argumentation about these theories is that they are the best we have epistemologically speaking for their success in explaining most of our discoveries through mathematical models of the perceived reality. However, they are no absolute, they do not apply everywhere from the sub-atomic phenomena to the super-cosmos as is for example the evident effect of Gravity, nor they are complete and consistent as to effectively use them as counterarguments to the set of qualities and properties of God ontologically speaking. This is a scientifically recognized duality. Just by a simple change, manipulation or interpretation of a critical axiom in God’s existence proof can be easily used to disproof God’s existence. How an intelligent interpretation is made in the first place? Who is right?
I continue to sustain that our knowledge is limited, is not complete by any stretch of our finite imagination. "Me believe" that for our knowledge to be complete and consistent means to be God. Since I only believe in one God, not everybody and the mother that believes to have the entire necessary knowledge to disproof God’s proofs, can be God. Therefore, the proof of God existence, such as Saint Thomas of Aquinas from the cosmological point of view or such as Descartes, Leibniz, and Gödel from the ontological point of view must be something simple and trivial and they really are. No wonder unconsciously atheists at a moment of overwhelming crisis fill in the gap with God. How arrogant … how hypocrite … they can be with THEMSELVES in denying God existence. No wonder there are some atheists support groups to help them to avoid unconsciously filling the gap with God existence. Atheists have the audacity to then argue that theists are going around in circles, it is not so, actually theists from all points of views (e.g., theological, ontological, cosmological, you name it: fill the gap with God) have always a very simple approach to God’s existence proof: God exists, an always-true statement. There is no need to go around in circles.
There is no incentive in solving the existence of everything by being atheist. Thanks God they are a miniscule minority. As we find ways to unify all theories into one that is complete and consistent, as close we will get to understand God. This is an unconscious long-term goal of humankind. The conscious short-term goal is be to become a virtuous of the Theological Virtues, which is an impossibility for atheists.