The Instigator
segovia
Pro (for)
The Contender
felldows
Con (against)

Can we know if god exists?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Debate Round Forfeited
felldows has forfeited round #1.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/1/2018 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 weeks ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 48 times Debate No: 107393
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)

 

segovia

Pro



Can we know if god exists?


In this debate, i will defend the idea that god's existence is cognoscible, based in logical arguments.

A little introduction to the theme:

As the Holy Scriptures says, we can understand that god exists through his creation.


"For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse." (Romans 1:20)

The ways in direction to god's existence are also known as "proofs", not in the sense that maths sciences and naturals sciences give to this term, but with philosophical arguments that are convincents and convergents. Obvious that the proofs of god's existence cannot be understood in the same sense of the proofs used by experimental sciences, so we deduce clearly that God isn't object of our empirical knowledge, but God's existence can be undestood completely by our intellect, as we can understand abstract concepts (pure mathematics and logic, as examples).

So, what are the "proofs" of god's existence?

For St. Thomas Aquinas (catholic philosopher, theologian and jurist in the tradition of scholasticism) the existence of God can be proved in five ways:


I - the argument from motion;
II - the argument from caustion;
III - the argument from contingency;
IV - the argument from degree;
V - the teleological argument.

But, in this debate, i will try to use ONLY the argument from motion.

The argument from motion

It is certain, and evident to our senses, that in the world some things are in motion. Now whatever is in motion is put in motion by another, for nothing can be in motion except it is in potentiality to that towards which it is in motion; whereas a thing moves inasmuch as it is in act. For motion is nothing else than the reduction of something from potentiality to actuality. But nothing can be reduced from potentiality to actuality, except by something in a state of actuality. Thus that which is actually hot, as fire, makes wood, which is potentially hot, to be actually hot, and thereby moves and changes it. Now it is not possible that the same thing should be at once in actuality and potentiality in the same respect, but only in different respects. For what is actually hot cannot simultaneously be potentially hot; but it is simultaneously potentially cold. It is therefore impossible that in the same respect and in the same way a thing should be both mover and moved, i.e. that it should move itself. Therefore, whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another. If that by which it is put in motion be itself put in motion, then this also must needs be put in motion by another, and that by another again. But this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover, and, consequently, no other mover; seeing that subsequent movers move only inasmuch as they are put in motion by the first mover; as the staff moves only because it is put in motion by the hand. Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God.[1]







So, this is the proof i will insist in this debate. I challenge my opponent to refute this argument.



----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] SUMMA THEOLOGIAE, Thomas Aquinas: The existence of God (Prima Pars, Q. 2 Art. 3)







This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 1
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 5
No comments have been posted on this debate.
This debate has 8 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.