Benedict XVI’s 5 Ways of Demonstrating the Existence of God | Catholic Answers Conference 2023

Joe's Channel: @shamelesspopery

In the Summa Theologiae, St. Thomas Aquinas famously offers his quinque viae, or “five ways,” for demonstrating the existence of God. Throughout the work of Joseph Ratzinger / Benedict XVI, we find five other ways for demonstrating the existence of God. Over the course of his public career, he variously pointed to (1) science (and the intelligibility of the universe more broadly); (2) the meaning of life; (3) philosophy, and particularly, great philosophical questions like “where does everything come from?”; (4) the witness of the Saints; and (5) the role of beauty. Of these last two, then-Cardinal Ratzinger once observed that “the only really effective apologia for Christianity comes down to two arguments, namely the saints the Church has produced and the art which has grown in her womb.” So how do these five things point to God, and how can we present these in a compelling way to the non-believers in our lives?"

This talk was presented at the 2023 Catholic Answers Conference: I Believe in God. To attend this year’s 10th Annual Conference “Learn from Me: The Parables, Sermons, and Conversations of Jesus Christ,”

[almacarminaa]

I miss Pope Benedict so much. What a holy and intelligent man!

[tvrtkosrdoc]

What a beautiful conclusion! Thank you and God bless!

[JenniferMoyer-fgwg]

Thank you for posting this 2023 video clip. Are you aware that there was a film in 2016 titled "God's Not Dead" that introduced the intelligent design theory? It was an excellent film and 3 additional films were made since 2021.
Thank you for presenting updated information in this 2023 video presentation since my Catholic high school education in Pennsylvania in the mid 1980s.

[buglepong]

there's still about 5 more layers to this topic that hasnt been covered. 1)is god is reasonably intelligible to man? 2) then what is god's purpose? 3) then what is its interest in man? 4) what is its interest in the individual? 5) the catholic creed is the correct creed to answer 1-4.

[ShaneShelldriick]

Meh, IDK, it seems that most arguments don't really prove God, they just set up philosophical/metaphysical categories for defining what you mean by God

[kevs]

Life has meaning, even in suffering. We have forgotten as a society. Assisted suicide is a great evil

[papuciowy]

The claim 'there is no truth' is false, because if it were true, the very fact that the statement would be true would mean that truth exists, which creates a paradox.

[Bill_Garthright]

Five ways of demonstrating the existence of God, huh? I'd be happy with just *one.* Do you have *anything* distinguishable from wishful-thinking backing up your religious beliefs? Just *one* piece of good evidence, but specific enough and in enough detail that I can judge it for myself?

Spoiler alert: Apparently not, huh?

_"1. Science and Intelligibility"_

What does that have to do with a god? _Any_ god, let alone a particular one? Did he forget what he was supposed to be demonstrating with the very first example?

Obviously, this is indistinguishable from wishful-thinking. You _want_ your god to exist, so you look for reasons to justify your existing belief. But you need *evidence.* You need something that _is_ clearly distinguishable from wishful-thinking. Obviously, this isn't it.

Note I can quote Albert Einstein, too. For example, "The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish."

And yeah, it's amazing that mathematics works in the real world _when mathematics was created by human beings to be useful to us in the real world, _ huh? <LOL> Sorry, but this is just a whole lot of wishful-thinking.

_"2. The Meaning of Life"_

First, you have to demonstrate that there _is_ a "meaning of life" - a particular meaning, not just that life is important to most people. You can't do that, but if you _could_ do that, you'd still need to demonstrate some connection with your god.

Of course, that's not the argument _here._ The argument here seems to be that you really, really _want_ your god to be real (the specific god you were taught to believe as a baby, right?). Seriously, that seems to be the whole argument here. It's not distinguishable from wishful-thinking, because the entire argument is just wishful-thinking.

Sorry, but that's why I don't believe your claims in the first place. It's because you seem to have nothing that _isn't_ wishful-thinking backing up your religious claims. (And no, even if your god existed, what he found meaningful would _still_ be "subjective." But it hardly matters, as this doesn't demonstrate that he exists, anyway.)

_"3. Existence Itself"_

Existence is evidence that things exist. Obviously, it's not evidence that a _particular_ thing - like your god - exists.

"Where does everything come from?" _Everything?_ I don't know. _You_ don't know, either. So the answer to that question is, "We don't know." Simple, huh? And no god required.

Of course, you really, really _want_ your god to exist, right? You're just _desperately_ looking for an excuse to believe... what you started off believing, because you were taught to believe it from infancy? But "I don't know" doesn't mean "God done it." It just doesn't. Sorry.

_"4. Beauty"_

And is ugliness evidence that all gods are simply imaginary, then? :)

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, so beauty requires a mind. But human beings _have_ minds. And we _all_ agree that human beings are real.

I love your misrepresentation of evolution, though. (Not really.) Even the Catholic Church, which is supposed to be more reasonable about science than the fundies, doesn't really like evolution very much, huh? No, adaptations aren't "meant" to be useful. Don't be silly! They aren't "meant" to be anything at all.

And there _is_ such a thing as sexual selection, because it makes no difference - in evolution - how well you can survive if you leave no offspring. Obviously, that can make survival itself harder for the individual, in some cases. So what? Evolution isn't about planning, and species _do_ go extinct.

And again, all of this is simply indistinguishable from wishful-thinking. That's why it's not evidence.

_"5. Saints"_

First, you have to demonstrate that "saints" are real. People actually exist, but do "saints"? Maybe you should _define_ "saint" first? After that, why not pick *one* supposed "saint" and *make your case.* (Go ahead with Mother Teresa, if you wish. As it turns out, I think that would be a _particularly_ silly example, but that's up to you.)

Well, I didn't expect much. This was a former pope, after all. I didn't expect brilliance. But I have to say that this didn't even reach to the very low level of my expectations. _This_ is all you've got?

But I've got to mention what was probably the _silliest_ part of all of this: those syllogisms. Aren't those the absolute silliest thing you've ever seen? Obviously, they're worthless, because you can't demonstrate that the premises are true. In fact, for many of them, you're committing the logical fallacy of Begging the Question. You're assuming that your conclusion is true in your premises! Heh, heh.

Well, _this_ is why I'm an atheist. _Maybe_ a god exists. _Maybe_ it's even the particular god/gods you were taught to believe as a baby. But the time to believe that is _after_ there's good evidence it's actually true.