1. Preamble to the Premise to Causal Argument

  • Thread starter Thread starter SoylentGreen
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

SoylentGreen

Guest
The argument for God’s existence that I will put forth here as concisely as possible will be numbered for reference. Thus, post 1, is the preamble to the premise.

Why a preamble?

Perhaps the following will explain.

The four universal concepts utilized by the Causal Argument that I’ll be putting forth are: space, time, mass, and mind.

These are the only universal concepts that need to be utilized for the purpose of grasping this argument. The argument is given in the form of an abstract, conceptual system. This conceptual system can be applied to the world of our immediate experience in order to make sense of this world of experience.

The causal argument is called a causal argument because it expounds a causal process. This causal process purports to account for the origination of the four universals of space, time, mass, and mind.

This causal process is explained in terms of a series and by employing the concept of cause and effect and their necessary relation/connection.

The explanation is also a priori, in that it is grounded on pure reason, as opposed to concrete experience and observation. Though while it is a priori, this causal process makes sense out of the world of our personal experience in that it offers an account of change by means of the explanation it puts forth for space and time. This will be clarified more fully toward the end of this argument.

Most importantly this argument necessitates the existence of a Supreme, or an Absolute Mind, and Absolute Being to whom we may attribute the apparent intelligent design of the universe. This Absolute Being we may also call God.

The two attributes of God that are rationally justified by this argument are the attributes of omnipotence and omniscience. To understand how these attributes are rationally attributable to God one must take into account all four of the a priori principles put forth in this causal argument.

The first principle to be advanced is the Causal Principle. Refer to post 2 for the explanation of this principle.

The other three principles to be advanced from the Causal Principle, are:

The principle of divergence, the principle of equal relation, and the principle of progressive design, in that order.

The first three principles constitute the Formative Phase of the causal process here expounded, and that accounts for the emergence and possibility of the four universals of space, time, mass, and mind.

The fourth principle, the progressive principle of design, can be called the Design Phase, and this principle provides an account of the Absolute Mind/Being to whom we may attribute the intelligent design of the universe. It is the argument overall, however, that provides a strictly philosophical, rational, a priori proof for the existence of this Absolute Being.

This is the end of the preamble.

If anyone has any immediate questions, I’ll take them into consideration. But I’d like to keep these threads down to a bare minimum of postings, until the argument has been fully presented.
 
" Pure reason" does not exist within the human being - it is impossible for that very reason that humans are incapable of pure reason,all human reasoning has a degree of flaw from extremely miniscule to potentially fatal…that would also include you and me my friend!
I suggest you argue / prove God’s existence by concrete experience and observation…after a suitable period of observation, let’s say 60 years or so you will begin to recognise “pure reason” aka “God”. P.S. I’m 62.
May the Supreme, Absolute Mind and Absolute Being be with you.
 
" Pure reason" does not exist within the human being - it is impossible for that very reason that humans are incapable of pure reason,all human reasoning has a degree of flaw from extremely miniscule to potentially fatal…that would also include you and me my friend!
I suggest you argue / prove God’s existence by concrete experience and observation…after a suitable period of observation, let’s say 60 years or so you will begin to recognise “pure reason” aka “God”. P.S. I’m 62.
May the Supreme, Absolute Mind and Absolute Being be with you.
I think that human reason is too commonly and too easily underestimated. Human beings are composed of flesh and blood but they are also gifted with an immaterial characteristic and this is proved by their ability to reason. Of course reason can be directed to misunderstanding and error, but this all depends on how we go about utilizing this reason, does it not?.

If we believe there is an Absolute Being, whom we call God, then is it not this same God who gave us minds with which to reason? Given my belief in God, I lean toward a more positive outlook toward this reason that God has given us, even though I must leave room for a certain skepticism to keep from falling into error. So I thank you for you post as you bring up an important and crucial point to which I offer this response.

If employed in a positive manner our reason can guide us to a better understanding of God, which is why I believe God has bestowed us with this gift of reason.

I minister of a church to which I once belonged told me the very same thing you’ve mentioned in response to my argument, before he read it, but our natural skepticism should not close us off in the search for further understanding, or to arguments in defense of theism, which is what my argument provides. I have never looked at my capacity to reason as anything other than a gift from God with which I can move toward a better/fuller understanding of God. While this minister stated more or less the same thing you’ve stated, another minister of this same church reserved his judgment and then after reading it stated, “you’re probably right that this is the way things worked,” and he went on to suggest that I take English courses to improve my writing so that I could improve the presentation of the argument; which is just what I happened to be doing at the time.

The argument is the product of pure reason and I cannot have been the product of anything else as its principles are a priori, not a posteriori. The cosmological problem here is such that it transcends the empirical method employed by even such far-reaching sciences as theoretical physics. Further, if God is a Spirit as opposed to a physical being, then we cannot find God only by utilizing our five senses, which are directed more to the physical world around us that can, much more than reason, induce us to draw away from God. So to deny that there can be any such thing as pure reason I think is to underestimate reason, and this may lead us to deny or fail to utilize this gift that God has given us.

This power to reason I argue can reach a pure level it is purposefully directed toward furthering our understanding of God, but you’re caution is nevertheless well taken, for it can also become something less than pure if it is directed to draw us away from God (which is how Richard Dawkins utilized his reason in his book “The God Delusion”).

Again, my argument offers a rational proof of God, not a rational disproof of God, so it is employed to the opposite end that Dawkins has employed his reason, which I view as an abuse of reason. I’ve actually sent off an essay a month or so ago to a philosophy journal refuting Richard Dawkins. The paper is called “The Effect for Cause of the What for Why Fallacy.”

If my reason were employed to refute God then I would agree somewhat with you and concede that my reason is not then pure, but as I have employed it to the end of furthering my understanding of God, I argue that the reasoning I’ve employed to this end is indeed pure.

For a more extended explanation of what I mean by pure reason, I also qualify the phrase pure reason in the term a priori, as the principles of my argument are indeed a priori as opposed to a posteriori. The distinction is given a much more full explanation in Kant’s “Critique of Pure Reason,” but I’m avoiding any reference to Kant here as this would draw out these posts to an unnecessary and an unreasonable length.

And I thank you again for your post. I’m sure others may be thinking the very same thing you’ve mentioned, and this is my only possible response.

By the way, I’m 64 in another two months time. Getting much too old in an awful hurry.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top