Argument for God from Reason

  • Thread starter Thread starter Kei
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
K

Kei

Guest
I owe getting me thinking in this line of thought to our wonderful Pope Emeritus, in his mentioning of the Christian life having from the creation of the World the Logos, having rationality as foundational as opposed to a by product of irrationality, which itself would be irrational.

Anyway, nothing new under the sun and all, an argument like this may already be, but I don’t think it’s too popular if already well written beyond my capability in this precise way. If you have something constructive to add or a constructive critique, do not be afraid to comment. If you just have an axe to grind or something and don’t want to be productive, however, then this is not the place. Onto the argument. Please note that I am using the terms reasonable/rationality interchangeably here.

Reason exists. If the world were unreasonable, then what we think is reason is an illusionary by-product of irrational forces. If this were the case, then reason would be rather unreasonable, an absurdity. Reason is the product of mind. If reason exists and is the product of mind, then what must be behind the Universe and the reason demonstrated within is a preexisting Mind.

In summary, the argument can be proposed like this:
  1. Reason exists
  2. Reason is the product of a mind
  3. The Universe, or at least the reason contained within it, is the product of Mind
A few attacks on this argument that I can preemptively see would be the denial of 1. Humans sometimes act contrary to reason, etc. However, the very proposition of humanity acting contrary to reason implies there is reason, and humans therefore sometimes act contrary to something that exists. I find this proposition obvious, if not self-evident. If, somehow, reason were to not exist, then there is no point in these or any exercises to find truth about reality or its nature.
A second attack may come upon 2. This also seems obvious, as a lake or a rock doesn’t showcase rationality. It is only from mind that reason is shown. To imply that reason is possible without mind would be the charge of the one making this objection, as it is clear from all human experience to be truthful.
 
It’s not at all a particularly compelling argument, as far as proofs of God go, and the better ones are not particularly compelling, either. The reason that proofs for God’s existence are not convincing is that similar proofs can be used to demonstrate just about anything you want. In the 1300s, there was a craze of proofs based on reason on all sorts of topics, and they often ended up being rather silly.

True faith does not need any proof. If God hand intended there to be clear and unequivocal proof of His existence, He would have provided it Himself.
 
I disagree with your first paragraph, and you logically cannot use many of the (valid) proofs to proof “anything”.

You seem to just be someone with an axe to grind against proofs of God, who I said this thread was not for.

I find quite a few proofs very convincing. I also find the truth of God to be self-evident. However, we like to be consistent in all things, including intellect, and in an age where the intellectuability of the Christian Faith is so often put into question, it is good to return to intellectual bases for Faith amid our proud and powerful philosophical tradition.

I understand if my argument doesn’t strike as particularly powerful, I am not some professional logician. However, people certainly DO benefit from philosophical arguments. Many don’t even know that they exist.

With all due respect, I find your comment unhelpful.
 
Kei said:
I find quite a few proofs very convincing.
Click to expand...
St. Thomas Aquinas listed the five best rational proofs of God, and even he admitted that, while they were valuable in confirming the faith of those who already believe, they could fail to convince those who did not. You already believe, so they are compelling to you. I already believe, and I find them unnecessary. An unbeliever is highly unlikely to find them compelling.

The danger is that you will label unbelievers who reject these proofs as “irrational”. which will end the discussion and perhaps drive them even further from believing.

If you want to convince unbelievers of the truth of Catholicism, then lead a life worthy of emulation. That is by far the best proof.
 
Kei said:
Reason exists
Reason is the product of a mind
The Universe, or at least the reason contained within it, is the product of Mind
Click to expand...
Ear wax exists
Ear wax is the product of an ear
The universe, or at least the ear wax contained within it, is the product of Ear.
 
FiveLinden said:
Ear wax exists

Ear wax is the product of an ear

The universe, or at least the ear wax contained within it, is the product of Ear.
Click to expand...
That’s exactly the type of thing I was talking about. And it’s much easier to identify the logical error in the argument in your version.

Also, to the OP, if you are going to present Benedict’s thought on this, please be so kind as to provide a link to what he actually wrote, rather than just summarize it as you understand it.
 
But that’s the thing, they do help others come to Faith, you can ask many others
 
But the thing is…you’re correct. The ear wax contained within the universe is the product of an ear, as stated.

The difference is that reason is reasonable, and this rationality is a feature of the universe. If not, then reason is unreasonable, and there’s no point in contemplating further. I am meaning to make an objective statement and not a subjective one. Sorry if this is not well-articulated.
 
Last edited:
Kei said:
Sorry if this is not well-articulated.
Click to expand...
Not to offend you, but it is, as was your original post. That’s why I said that, if you want to discuss something that Benedict said, it would be wise to include a link to what he actually wrote.

If you want to dabble in rational proofs of God, then by all means do. However, you are not going to be able to make much sense of them without having a firm understanding of classical, scholastic and modern philosophy and theology, and that is hard to acquire without years of formal study. These arguments are A LOT more complicated than you suppose, and it takes careful analysis to understand them and all their implications.

Nonetheless, I still stand by my statement that by far the best proof is to lead a life worth emulating. That is undoubtedly the best way to bring people to God, and the way that Our Lord Himself recommended.
 
You’d really want a clear definition of reason as it’s one of those nebulous terms that can mean a few things.

As for premise two, no it’s not the burden of the denier to prove you wrong, that’s not how proofs work. You might as well say:

Premise 1: god obviously exists
Premise 2: therefore god exists

For the argument to work you’d need to establish that reason can ONLY come from a mind but also that it’s a thing that exists outside the thoughts of sentient creatures.

I’d be curious in seeing revisions if you revisit it.
 
I don’t know if this is relevant but I think that miracles of grace are good proofs of God.
 
If something is clear and obvious, then it should be clear and obvious.

I suppose if I were to phrase it a bit better.

“Reason exists. Reason only makes sense in a rational universe, else reason would be irrational”
 
Kei said:
“Reason exists. Reason only makes sense in a rational universe, else reason would be irrational”
Click to expand...
"Ear wax exists. Ear wax only makes sense in an ear waxy universe, else ear wax would be un-ear waxy’. This might be true, but who cares? It proves nothing about ear wax, or ear waxiness.
 
Because reason implies mind directly, unlike ear wax or random other things. It’s mainly a statement on the intelligibility of the universe, the natural explanation of which would be intelligence, but in a slightly different way.
 
Kei said:
Because reason implies mind directly, unlike ear wax or random other things. It’s mainly a statement on the intelligibility of the universe, the natural explanation of which would be intelligence, but in a slightly different way.
Click to expand...
Is anyone who speaks a language other than English able to translate this? I speak only one and cannot find sufficient points of meaning to begin.
 
I think we need a few definitions here, as I think “reason exists” is too widely definable. I think that I, you, Pope Emeritus Benedict and Richard Dawkins all agree that something we might refer to as “the laws of nature” seem to be a good general description of the universe, how it functions, how it is likely to continue, and how it behaved in the past. The universe is, in general, comprehensible. Pope Benedict’s consideration of the word logos was to emphasise this point, and his quotation from Manuel II seemed to root the idea deep in the Church’s foundations. “Not to act with logos is contrary to the nature of God”.

Forgive me if I put aside the assorted unreasonable events that may or may not have occurred (‘miracles’ and so on), as they are not germane to this post, although they may be relevant later.

I hope the above would be acceptable to theists and atheists alike. However, the next statement, that “reason is the product of mind” is far from obvious. Quite the reverse. It could be possible to argue that “mind is the product of reason” - meaning that the energy and matter or the universe, following the laws of physics, have resulted in you and me and our capacity to hold discussions like this.

“Pre-existing rationality” I think is easy to argue for, and not easy to argue against.
“Pre-existing mind” I think is a different kettle of fish, and only obviously sustainable if you define “mind” as “reason”.

If “mind” is not “reason”, then what is it? I think you need to define it carefully, looking out for contradictions. If it is an exclusively human attribute, then by definition it did not exist before humans did. If it is an attribute of God, then you presuppose God, which is what you wanted to prove. That won’t do. I would be interested in your thoughts. I suggest that “self-awareness”, “purpose” and “responsibility” might come into it, but will wait to hear from you before pursuing my own ideas further.
 
After ruminating further, one more objection would be you want to rely on ‘everyday human experiences’ to show reason is the product of a mind. Those same human experiences would suggest a mind is contingent on a physical brain inside a living biological creature. That wouldn’t fit the definition most people would accept as a god unless you’re talking greek mythology or something, and a mind existing absent a brain would need to be demonstrated especially if the proof wants to rely on everyday experience.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top