Is He/Isn't He: The God Thread

[quankanne]

ID has nothing whatsoever to do with reality. It's a political movement, not a scientific one.

 

I get ya ... so I'll amend my words to say this: I don't believe God and science are mutually exclusive ... I think there's room for both. For me, anyway

 

I'm sure that in 2000 years the Bible will be reduced to nothing more than an interesting book of myths.

 

the Bible? It's possible. Anything's possible. However, true faith is a gift that is sustainable throughout all time, IMO, because it's up to the person to accept or reject. And for every person who rejects God, there are many more who quietly go about their business believing, and knowing it's not going to be impacted by change, by scientific explanation, etc., simply because it's theirs

[marlena]

However, true faith is a gift that is sustainable throughout all time, IMO, because it's up to the person to accept or reject. And for every person who rejects God, there are many more who quietly go about their business believing, and knowing it's not going to be impacted by change, by scientific explanation, etc., simply because it's theirs

 

Yes, this is true. Faith in a god/gods has sustained the test of time. It always will. It is man's deperate and very understandable need to believe that there is a life beyond death. That's what it really boils down to. Fear of death.

[quankanne]

depends on the culture, IMO – people *are* afraid of the unknown (and death can be considered The Great Unknown), but some religions have a less scary pitch on death. Catholicism (and am only using this as an example because I'm Catholic, therefore it's what I know best) preaches that the afterlife isn't something to fear, but the pinnacle of your spiritual journey, which is to join God forever. I know it doesn't quell all fear of death, but it makes it a less harsh topic to consider ...

 

somehow, I can't see my faith in God as a "desperate need" ... just a natural outcome of our relationship. LOL, I'm not co-dependent on the guy, just cool with sharing about my belief in him.

[Isolde]

Trying to pitch science against religion is like trying to compare blueberries to spinach. Two completely different facets of the human experience.

 

I think a lot of people when arguing about the existence of God, think of it in a very literal way, which is strange because I think the concept of God is in itself, vast and dynamic and fluid: some religions believe He's anthropomorphic and others, incorporeal. But in no religion is the idea of God static and narrowly defined. That is what I find compelling.

 

I can't help thinking that asking "Is there a God?" is missing the main point anyway. When I read about religion, I'm far less interested in facts and more interested in the role of faith. If one's concerned with the logical process of, for example, how humans came about, IMO, that's not directly related to questioning one's faith.

For the same reason, it confuses me when people don't believe in evolution, because of their faith and the Bible. I know not everyone will agree but I think taking the Bible too literally has taken a lot of the focus away from where it should be...and gotten faith all mixed up with scientific questions that can be addressed independently.

[Trojan John]

Trying to pitch science against religion is like trying to compare blueberries to spinach. Two completely different facets of the human experience.

 

I think a lot of people when arguing about the existence of God, think of it in a very literal way, which is strange because I think the concept of God is in itself, vast and dynamic and fluid: some religions believe He's anthropomorphic and others, incorporeal. But in no religion is the idea of God static and narrowly defined. That is what I find compelling.

 

I can't help thinking that asking "Is there a God?" is missing the main point anyway. When I read about religion, I'm far less interested in facts and more interested in the role of faith. If one's concerned with the logical process of, for example, how humans came about, IMO, that's not directly related to questioning one's faith.

For the same reason, it confuses me when people don't believe in evolution, because of their faith and the Bible. I know not everyone will agree but I think taking the Bible too literally has taken a lot of the focus away from where it should be...and gotten faith all mixed up with scientific questions that can be addressed independently.

 

 

The reason that science comes up in the topic is because of this creation argument and the burden of proof. Intrinsic in the scientific method are rigourous testing and observable and reproducable conclusions. This is not a requirement for faith, where all one has to do is believe and feel strongly enough. Like you say, the concept of "god" can be vast, dynamic and fluid -- much like the concept of what makes one "human" -- but in the end, it's not physically testable or observable, and is different things to different people.

 

In the spirit of science, it could be simply that "god" is currently beyond our testing abilities. But given the fact that "god" has been seen as responsible for everything from solar eclipses to World Cup wins, I'm not going to put much faith in its existence.

[always_searching]

Just stopping by to say "Thank you" for all of your replies and for keeping to the general guidelines (for the most part)!

 

I am not quite ready to post my reflections on some of those comments that I disagree with, or at least would like more details concerning, because (1) it's 6am and (2) I have to read for class at 9am.

 

I do, however, wish to address this:

 

Trying to pitch science against religion is like trying to compare blueberries to spinach. Two completely different facets of the human experience.

 

I think a lot of people when arguing about the existence of God, think of it in a very literal way, which is strange because I think the concept of God is in itself, vast and dynamic and fluid: some religions believe He's anthropomorphic and others, incorporeal. But in no religion is the idea of God static and narrowly defined. That is what I find compelling.

 

I can't help thinking that asking "Is there a God?" is missing the main point anyway. When I read about religion, I'm far less interested in facts and more interested in the role of faith. If one's concerned with the logical process of, for example, how humans came about, IMO, that's not directly related to questioning one's faith.

For the same reason, it confuses me when people don't believe in evolution, because of their faith and the Bible. I know not everyone will agree but I think taking the Bible too literally has taken a lot of the focus away from where it should be...and gotten faith all mixed up with scientific questions that can be addressed independently.

 

I don't agree that "trying to pitch science against religion is like trying to compare blueberries to spinach. Two completely different facets of the human experience" for three main reasons:

 

1. Assuming that the religion allows for reason to play a role in its understanding of the universe while not contradicting faith (i.e. all the reputable sects of monotheistic religions--not to suggest there isn't something to pure mysticism), rather than just relying on faith alone: both are applying reason (yes, Thaddeus, religion is included in this intellectual dictation) in order to explain the world around them i.e. God as "first mover," "first efficient-cause," "necessary being," etc. for the theologians, and particles having somehow exploded and later mutated into what we now perceive as the universe today for the scientists--forgive my poor articulation of the scientific reasoning, I'm certainly not an expert in the realm of natural science.
   
2. Both require faith. Oh, yes: science too. Scientists require empirical evidence (right, Trojan John?) in order to claim any knowledge about the universe. Well, where does that empirical knowledge come from? Our senses. Faith that our senses aren't deceiving us is assumed in all of our experiential knowledge. This world and all the "scientific evidence" in it could be figments of our imagination--we could be dreaming; or it could be God is malevolent and is deceiving us (but, of course, I don't hold that is the case, and neither did Descartes who uses this same example); or there could be an evil scientist who is electrocuting our brains in such a manner as to produce illusory phenomena. All that being said, there are even some branches of science that has less empirical evidence for their claims than most any religion does: quantum physics, for example: quantum physicists make hypothesis that makes claims in religion seem much more plausible comparitively.
   
3. As some others have stated (quankanne, for one), religion and science don't have to be exclusive. Why is it that if one holds to one, the other automatically becomes some sort of antagonist? Yes, the radical creationists hold to a view that is not compatible with pure evolution. However, for the most part, science and religion are allies in trying to find valid reasons for existence and doing so employing some aspect of reason, whether innate or empirical. Still, why can't a creationist say that God created everything AND that certain things evolved? The problem arises when you get extremists in either field saying their rational knowledge is the definitive knowledge--I'm not including claims that require religious faith, because there is a kind of definitiveness in such claims. Humanity can be so audacious, but it seems especially apparent in the field of science i.e. empirical human-knowledge is the end all. There are things in the universe that still baffle us, and if humanity is around for another millennia, I'm convinced that no human-being will ever have full knowledge regarding the universe--that's just pure human-conceit.
   

As far as asking whether there is a God: I can't think of a question that is more the point of existence, our actions, our life, etc.. It is the question that has driven humanity since we've had the capacity to inquire, "Why are we here?" Yes, faith is important--no doubt about it. But, yet, regardless of faith, we have been looking for answers since our existence and (most of us) continue, even in this 21st century, to ask the big questions, one of which is "Is there a God?" Whatever your answer to this question, is seems to indicate where you'll fall on a number of different areas: morality, metaphysics i.e. explanations for mysterious events, explanations for our existence, etc..

 

I'm not sure someone could go his/her entire existence without assuming something about God: either He is, He isn't, or we just can't know--which I must say that I am suprised at the number of agnostics here. Either way, an assumption about God is being made. Whereas a person can go his/her entire life without having faith in the religious sense.

 

Okay, that's all I have time for right now! Thanks again for posting, and keep the discussion coming. No matter where you stand on this sensitive topic, your considerations are vastly interesting to me!

 

Oh, and JamesM: I enjoyed your posts a great deal--I think you pretty much hit the nail on the head, so to speak.

[Isolde]

Thanks for your intelligent response always_searching. I definitely agree to some extent with all of your points. I don't think I'm really smart enough to address the bulk of your argument that science and religion go hand in hand but I do agree they shouldn't have to be exclusive. However I think as technology has advanced people need religion less to explain things, and more for pure reasons of faith, than they did in the Dark Ages.

 

Blueberries vs. spinach (to use my terrible metaphor, lol) was more my way of saying that people have gone too far in trying to directly compare the attributes of science, with those of faith. So we're not in complete disagreement here.

 

Without bringing my personal beliefs into this, I still hold to my original statement that people should spend less time worrying about whether God is or isn't, and more time exploring what they have faith in. Less time on the negative or the uncertain, more time on what they consider certain.

[abd]

1. Too much of the debate revolves around a focus of what is "rational." But humans are not rational. Rationality is a useful reductionistic assumption in economics and other social sciences, not an accurate description of how humans really behave, or how they think. It may not be rational for millions of people to cling in faith to the idea of an old bearded man in the sky, but they do, and that makes for a powerful social force. By comletely ignoring religion as irrational, we shut ourselves off from a more complete understanding of human interaction and behavior. It is just as hard for a person to stop believing in a god because someone tells them it is "irrational" as it is for someone else to start believing in a god because Pascal's wager tells them the payoff may be higher if they do.

 

2. Evolution vs. creationism, etc. is a red herring. Evolution is not a serious

religious/theological problem for any sophisticated conception of God. Plenty of mainstream Christian denominations accept evolution; denying it is neither a prerequisitie for religion, nor does accepting evolution mean you cannot believe in a god.

 

3. Religious texts are collections of stories and myths, but they're more, too - they're cultural memory, expressions of people at their best and worst, stories about how people used to think things should be, etc. And regardless of what we as individuals think of them, for better or worse they are very important to millions of other people on the planet, meaning we can't just brush them off or ignore them.

 

My own personal beliefs? I used to really struggle over whether I believed in a god or not. I was saved a few times when I was younger :-) Now I just don't really think about it. The question just isn't as important to me, probably because I don't think it matters what I believe. There is a strong moral component to my personal beliefs about human beings, and that influences my politics and the work I do in the rest of my life. I admire certain social teachings of certain religions, and I feel like I can relate to them when they are rooted in a general compassion for one's fellow human beings. I guess that might make me a "humanist", but I don't really care for that designation because it's often associated with people who are antipathetic towards religion.

[Isolde]

By comletely ignoring religion as irrational, we shut ourselves off from a more complete understanding of human interaction and behavior.

 

EXACTLY. That's what I was saying. Rationality isn't the be all and end all. Science has its limitations.

[Tayla]

Interesting comments!

Keep them going. Find difference and facts to be enlightening.

Science is un limited otherwise progress would stop.

[always_searching]

1. Too much of the debate revolves around a focus of what is "rational." But humans are not rational.

 

Well, slap me Western and call me Aristotelian, because I define a (presumably human) person as "Rational Animal."

 

So, yes: most all of my considerations just assume that fact prima facie. LOL, but clearly you too are assuming some aspect of our being rational animals, else you wouldn't have articulated a rational argument in favor of your position.

 

Don't you have to admit to some element of reason playing into our experience of the divine? I mean, in order to make the experience intelligible to others, one must articulate it, which requires reason.

 

Yes, I suppose if you are concerned merely with the individual experiencer, then it is entirely possible that he/she could have ecstatic, purely mystical experiences which are completely inaccessible to reason.

 

However, as far as any sort of discussion of God is concerned, one most employ reason, if only by the very means of using rational argumentation in order to prove that rationality is unimportant--though, the whole idea seems irrational to me.

 

Haha, using reason to prove the unimportance of rational argumentation seems irrational...

 

Oh, man. I've been up to long. I'm gonna have to come back tomorrow when I'm more coherent.

[abd]

Well, slap me Western and call me Aristotelian, because I define a (presumably human) person as "Rational Animal."

 

So, yes: most all of my considerations just assume that fact prima facie. LOL, but clearly you too are assuming some aspect of our being rational animals, else you wouldn't have articulated a rational argument in favor of your position.

 

I didn't do a great job of expressing myself on that first point, so let me try again. I think we are working with two different ideas of rationality. The first idea of rationality has to do with logic and rational argument, and this is what you're talking about. I don't deny the existence or importance of this, and as you pointed out, we can't really have a discussion of anything if we ignore logic.

 

The second idea of rationality has to do with it as a description of human beings. Saying that humans are "rational animals" is a description, and a rough one at that. I don't think many of us would say that everyone is rational all the time (otherwise mistakes would only be a result of imperfect information and limited computational ability). We recognize mistakes in judgment, i.e., instances where people behave irrationally. Other fora on LS are full of examples of what many might say are irrational people! Thus, if we fall too much in love with our description of human beings as rational, it's easy for us to forget that that description is only an approximation. Real human behavior is more complex than that; people do not always behave rationally, so it is not really "true" to say that humans are rational.

 

Now, it may be that we think people should behave rationally, or that we want people to behave rationally, but that is a prescriptive argument, and it's much more complicated. In discussions about God and religion, the imperative "Be rational!" often just means "Conform your assumptions about reality to my own, and the conclusions will flow logically." But, in discussions about economics, "Be rational!" has an entirely different meaning: often something like, "Weigh the costs and benefits of certain actions, and choose the least costly action that is most likely to achieve your preferences."

 

Nor does any of that really specify clearly why people should behave rationally. In general, we could say "Because correctly weighing costs and benefits and making logical deductions will most often achieve your desired results", but in the case of belief about God and religion, it may very well be that believing in a God that doesn't exist is more useful to someone than not believing in a god at all. If false belief helps a person achieve their desires, is it "rational" for them to believe? We might want to say that their desires are messed up, but then we're being paternalistic and saying "I know what's best for you to want." (Maybe we're OK with that.)

 

I guess if I had to sum it all up, I'd say an incessant focus on whether God A or B or C really exists misses the mark. Knowing a cold, hard fact like that won't help us understand each other any better. And just as it's useful to approximate and describe humans as "rational", maybe for many people, it's useful to approximate and describe a mishmash of ethics, tradition, law, culture, and psychology as "God".

[northstar1]

I didn't do a great job of expressing myself on that first point, so let me try again. I think we are working with two different ideas of rationality. The first idea of rationality has to do with logic and rational argument, and this is what you're talking about. I don't deny the existence or importance of this, and as you pointed out, we can't really have a discussion of anything if we ignore logic.

 

The second idea of rationality has to do with it as a description of human beings. Saying that humans are "rational animals" is a description, and a rough one at that. I don't think many of us would say that everyone is rational all the time (otherwise mistakes would only be a result of imperfect information and limited computational ability). We recognize mistakes in judgment, i.e., instances where people behave irrationally. Other fora on LS are full of examples of what many might say are irrational people! Thus, if we fall too much in love with our description of human beings as rational, it's easy for us to forget that that description is only an approximation. Real human behavior is more complex than that; people do not always behave rationally, so it is not really "true" to say that humans are rational.

 

Now, it may be that we think people should behave rationally, or that we want people to behave rationally, but that is a prescriptive argument, and it's much more complicated. In discussions about God and religion, the imperative "Be rational!" often just means "Conform your assumptions about reality to my own, and the conclusions will flow logically." But, in discussions about economics, "Be rational!" has an entirely different meaning: often something like, "Weigh the costs and benefits of certain actions, and choose the least costly action that is most likely to achieve your preferences."

 

Nor does any of that really specify clearly why people should behave rationally. In general, we could say "Because correctly weighing costs and benefits and making logical deductions will most often achieve your desired results", but in the case of belief about God and religion, it may very well be that believing in a God that doesn't exist is more useful to someone than not believing in a god at all. If false belief helps a person achieve their desires, is it "rational" for them to believe? We might want to say that their desires are messed up, but then we're being paternalistic and saying "I know what's best for you to want." (Maybe we're OK with that.)

 

I guess if I had to sum it all up, I'd say an incessant focus on whether God A or B or C really exists misses the mark. Knowing a cold, hard fact like that won't help us understand each other any better. And just as it's useful to approximate and describe humans as "rational", maybe for many people, it's useful to approximate and describe a mishmash of ethics, tradition, law, culture, and psychology as "God".

 

But do you believe in God?

[FleshNBones]

I can think of a few reasons both for and against.

 

-For +1: Purpose

With some sense of purpose, a person can have some clear set of goals to work toward.

 

-For +2: Faith

Some people have a belief in God. You can talk about logic, but logic isn't proof either.

 

-For +3: Acceptance

Let's face it, the world is a hard, and unwelcoming place.

 

 

 

-Against -1: Bitterness

This applies to the disenchanted who reject (not disbelieve) God. They were probably offended by a family member or some Church official.

 

-Against -2: Complacency

These people comfortable where they are, and doing whatever they are doing. They don't want to change.

 

-Against -3: Ignorance

These people don't know anything about God. They never heard of him.

 

-Against -4: Injustice

These people reject judgment in general, and consider God unjust. They reject his authority.

 

-Against -5: Impudence

Some people have a bad attitude in general. Usually the product of bad parrenting.

 

 

Since not everybody here is honest, reading between the lines is usually a good idea.

[northstar1]

I can think of a few reasons both for and against.

 

-For +1: Purpose

With some sense of purpose, a person can have some clear set of goals to work toward.

 

-For +2: Faith

Some people have a belief in God. You can talk about logic, but logic isn't proof either.

 

-For +3: Acceptance

Let's face it, the world is a hard, and unwelcoming place.

 

 

 

-Against -1: Bitterness

This applies to the disenchanted who reject (not disbelieve) God. They were probably offended by a family member or some Church official.

 

-Against -2: Complacency

These people comfortable where they are, and doing whatever they are doing. They don't want to change.

 

-Against -3: Ignorance

These people don't know anything about God. They never heard of him.

 

-Against -4: Injustice

These people reject judgment in general, and consider God unjust. They reject his authority.

 

-Against -5: Impudence

Some people have a bad attitude in general. Usually the product of bad parrenting.

 

 

Since not everybody here is honest, reading between the lines is usually a good idea.

 

Wow, you gave 5 examples and none of them apply to why I don't believe. Guess you'll need to keep reading between the lines.

[FleshNBones]

Wow, you gave 5 examples and none of them apply to why I don't believe. Guess you'll need to keep reading between the lines.

Logic doesn't appear there for a reason.

 

 

I can give you a few more against.

 

-Against -6: Idolatry

These people already serve a master whether it be some political ideololgy, satisfying their urges, or whatever.

 

-Against -7: Prejudice

Some people reject God because they hate the people who worship, or at least try to worship him.

 

-Against -8: Not a risk taker

For whatever reason, these people won't commit to anything unless there is a risk free gaurantee of reward.

[Trojan John]

Logic doesn't appear there for a reason.

 

You don't say...

[quankanne]

Wow, you gave 5 examples and none of them apply to why I don't believe.

 

you feel no "spark" in the relationship?

 

here's something on yesterday's Catholic New Service wire: "Understanding the divine mystery will never come from study alone – one must first believe in the Christian faith in order to understand it, said Pope Benedict XVI. Theologians and Christians who wish to deepen their faith 'cannot count on just their intelligence, but must cultivate a profound experience of faith at the same time,' he said at his weekly general audience Sept. 23."

 

I think we can expand that to include ANY kind of spiritual belief: In order for it to make sense, we must first believe, otherwise the best we can do is stab in the dark trying to come up with answers ...

[FleshNBones]

You don't say...

Few people make decisions based on logic.

The logic is usually applied after.

[AlektraClementine]

I require evidence to believe in just about anything. There's one reason that I believe in God. It's a reason that I only share with people that I trust. That being said, there is no religion that I subscribe to or practice. The reason that I call what I believe in "God" is because it's the easiest thing to call it given my environment and upbringing.

 

I could say a lot regarding how I feel about Christianity but I gather that's not the premise of the thread.

[always_searching]

Wow, you gave 5 examples and none of them apply to why I don't believe.

 

you feel no "spark" in the relationship?

 

here's something on yesterday's Catholic New Service wire: "Understanding the divine mystery will never come from study alone – one must first believe in the Christian faith in order to understand it, said Pope Benedict XVI. Theologians and Christians who wish to deepen their faith 'cannot count on just their intelligence, but must cultivate a profound experience of faith at the same time,' he said at his weekly general audience Sept. 23."

 

I think we can expand that to include ANY kind of spiritual belief: In order for it to make sense, we must first believe, otherwise the best we can do is stab in the dark trying to come up with answers ...

 

Yeah, that's pretty much the whole shtick of medieval i.e. Anselm, Augustine, Bonaventure, (sometimes) Aquinas, etc. philosophers (I italicize the word, because they all considered themselves to be theologians, which is probably why their arguments seem so unsatisfactory to most modern/contemporary philosophers): believe in the faith and then you will be able to articulate reasons why what you believe is correct--faith first and reason later.

 

That was (and still is, to some extent) my problem with medieval philosophers: the amount of rationalization that occurs when one wants to prove his/her beliefs.

 

All that being said, I still think there are some genuinely good proofs for God's existence--not, necessarily, for proving the Christian God as I think the trinity, for example, requires faith (reason can't explain it, or if it attempts to, something meritorious in having faith in the mystery is lost). Regardless, I think we can empirically prove a First Mover that we call "god," and even prove that in order for that god to really be God, He needs to have all perfections including love as part of His very essence making him the personal God of most all religions.

 

Now, where you fall concerning religion is an entirely different matter, and I believe it is 100% based upon faith and faith alone.

[Angel1111]

I think I believe in God because I like to believe in him. I like to think there's something bigger and better out there. There's nothing intellectual about believing in him, and there's no proof. I guess that's the part that stumps me at times. Still, I prefer to believe in him because I've noticed that there are many things that have no proof or logic. They just are.

[Trojan John]

So, essentially, what you're all saying is that you believe in a god simply because you choose to believe in a god. Is that about right?

 

Nobody has provided proof that there is a god, and no proof that there isn't a god, but the logical argument against is much more compelling for me. The burden of proof lies with you believers, especially if you're trying to convince others of your argument while admittedly throwing rationality and logic to the wind.

 

Few people make decisions based on logic.

The logic is usually applied after.

 

Even if this were true, which I don't think it is, this statement doesn't disturb you in the slightest?

[always_searching]

So, essentially, what you're all saying is that you believe in a god simply because you choose to believe in a god. Is that about right?

 

Nobody has provided proof that there is a god, and no proof that there isn't a god, but the logical argument against is much more compelling for me. The burden of proof lies with you believers, especially if you're trying to convince others of your argument while admittedly throwing rationality and logic to the wind.

 

 

 

Even if this were true, which I don't think it is, this statement doesn't disturb you in the slightest?

 

You're categorizing all the posters in this thread, when I have explicitly stated over and over again that there are rational proofs for God's existence as first mover, first efficient cause, a necessary being, etc.?

 

Read Aristotle and Aquinas if you want causal proofs and read Plato, any neo-Platonist, Descartes, Anselm, Bonaventure, etc. if you want ontological proofs.

 

I mean, if you are so unwilling to look into this on your own, I will gladly take the time to post them for you to satisfy your craving for rational argumentation.

 

It seems to me that you are the one choosing--choosing not to believe, since you are entirely ignoring many empirical i.e. scientific approaches to proving the existence of a god. Since a vast majority of people in the world do believe in God, it seems that you are the one who has the burden to disprove him.

 

Actually, since I agree with many others here that the most natural rational solution tends toward agnosticism, or a theism that doesn't predicate anything of god (which might as well be an agnosticism), I suppose the burden falls on both of our sides to prove or to disprove him. Regardless, I don't recall you giving one proof for why God does not exist, yet I've attempted to indicate quite a few for why He does.

[Thaddeus]

There are a couple of logical fallacies here:

Since a vast majority of people in the world do believe in God, it seems that you are the one who has the burden to disprove him.

Incorrect. The burden of proof falls on the person proposing the existence of something, not the non-existence of something. It's impossible to prove a negative. And just because the majority of people believe in something has no bearing on whether it's rational or not. Most people used to believe in a flat earth (some, oddly enough, still do). Plenty of people still believe in astrology. Others believe that the moon landings were a hoax, or that 9/11 was a conspiracy perpetrated by the American government.

 

All are nonsense, of course, regardless of how many people believe it.

Regardless, I don't recall you giving one proof for why God does not exist, yet I've attempted to indicate quite a few for why He does.

Again, it's impossible to prove a negative.

 

As for Aristotle, Aquinas, Plato, any neo-Platonist, Descartes, Anselm, Bonaventure and so forth, those are arguments but not proofs, just as Dawkins (The God Delusion), Hitchens (god is not great) and other non-theists don't provide proofs, just arguments.