Argument for God from Reason

[Kei]

Essentially, it was one of those things that you think for a time and it seems beautiful and sensible. Then, when you attempt to recall and explain what was thought, you can only explain it sloppily.
I suppose my main point is that

1. The universe is intelligible
2. Intelligibility implies intelligence
3. Therefore, intelligence is behind the universe

 

[Kei]

Intellectuability implies intelligence is the main point, I think. It is difficult to explain what is known by intuition, especially about that which is foundational to the nature of reality.

 

[Kei]

Back when he was a cardinal, he said,
“Christianity must always remember that it is the religion of the “Logos.” It is faith in the “Creator Spiritus,” (Creator Spirit), from which proceeds everything that exists. Today, this should be precisely its philosophical strength, in so far as the problem is whether the world comes from the irrational, and reason is not, therefore, other than a “sub-product,” on occasion even harmful of its development or whether the world comes from reason, and is, as a consequence, its criterion and goal. The Christian faith inclines toward this second thesis, thus having, from the purely philosophical point of view, really good cards to play, despite the fact that many today consider only the first thesis as the only modern and rational one par excellence. However, a reason that springs from the irrational, and that is, in the final analysis, itself irrational, does not constitute a solution for our problems. Only creative reason, which in the crucified God is manifested as love, can really show us the way. In the so necessary dialogue between secularists and Catholics, we Christians must be very careful to remain faithful to this fundamental line: to live a faith that comes from the “Logos,” from creative reason, and that, because of this, is also open to all that is truly rational.”

Also, St Aquinas believed that disbelief was a matter of will as opposed to intellect and that God’s existence was self-evident. Saying God exists is sort of a redundant statement.

 

[Hugh_Farey]

Intellectuability implies intelligence is the main point, I think.

I agree that this is the crux of the matter, earlier stated as “reason implies mind”. But does it? Is it something that just seems obvious, but on examination, turns out not to be easy to demonstrate? In order to argue for God from reason using this line of thinking, I think you have to do more than just make that statement. If it was as self-evident as Thomas Aquinas thought, then there would be no atheists at all.

 

[Kei]

With fairness to the Doctor of the Church, he found the existence of God to be self-evident, he said it was not self-evident to us necessarily.

But anyway, have you ever had somethingg intelligible come from something unintelligible? Any single example that you know of?

 

[Ioana]

I believe in God but reason isn’t always the product of a mind. If you set up a computer program and tell it to produce a sequence of random numbers at some point it may seem they have a pattern or reason behind them but they do not.

 

[Hugh_Farey]

But anyway, have you ever had somethingg intelligible come from something unintelligible? Any single example that you know of?

The construction of an argument cannot depend on questions. The fact that I have never seen a pangolin is not evidence that pangolins do not exist, and the fact that I can’t think of an example of something is not evidence that that something dies not exist.

I’m not sure what we are to make of the word “intelligible”. A baby is not intelligible, but it develops into a philosopher, who is (sort of). An acorn is less complex than an oak tree. A river system is more difficult to describe than a rain-storm. A random assembly of sodium and chlorine ions in water becomes a beautiful crystal as the water evaporates. A random assembly of water molecules in a cloud becomes a beautiful snowflake as the cloud cools. If none of these express your idea of intelligibility, then you’ll have to make the concept a bit clearer for me, I’m afraid.

 

[Kei]

As in, one that can be understood by a rational agent.
We can understand the world around us. In what world does it make sense for a universe to be guided by predictable laws and orderly systems that can be expressed mathematically and explained sufficiently?

 

[Hugh_Farey]

As in, one that can be understood by a rational agent.

One what? Sorry, that doesn’t make it clearer. You want me to find something which can be understood coming from something that cannot be understood? I don’t think that helps your argument. Generally speaking I understand the individual precursors of something better than the complexity of the something itself.

We can understand the world around us.

Yes.

In what world does it make sense for a universe to be guided by predictable laws and orderly systems that can be expressed mathematically and explained sufficiently?

Even you must see that you have no argument here. For a start it is a question. You cannot explain a proposition by asking somebody who doesn’t understand it to explain it for you. Secondly, I only know one world (universe) and I think it works according to orderly systems. That makes sense to me.

Try going back to “reason implies mind”. If you could get to the bottom of “mind” I think you might be onto something.

 

[Kei]

Even if they are rhetorical questions? I mean world as in conceivable worlds.
Defining intelligibility, for instance, a book is intelligible. We have satellites looking for intellegible signals from space, the main assumption being that intelligibility implies intelligence, as in intelligent life. My belief the universe is intelligble, as in reasonable, is that reason at all exists, for if the universe were unreasonable, then reason itself would be unreasonable. Natural experience demonstrates, however, that reason is trustworthy (ye old, you can’t successfully show that reason is trustworthy without relying on reason).

 

[tafan2]

I would like to see exactly what Aquinas said when he admitted they could fail to convince those who did not believe. Do you have a reference?

 

[tafan2]

I disagree, rather strongly, that true faith does not need any proof. Oh, I agree that can be the case, but not unequivocally. I certainly find Aquinas’s proofs for the existence of God compelling (among one or two others I know of) Is this needed for my faith? I honestly don’t know. Aquinas does not even take the existence of God as an article of faith:

Reply to Objection 1. The existence of God and other like truths about God, which can be known by natural reason, are not articles of faith, but are preambles to the articles; for faith presupposes natural knowledge, even as grace presupposes nature, and perfection supposes something that can be perfected. Nevertheless, there is nothing to prevent a man, who cannot grasp a proof, accepting, as a matter of faith, something which in itself is capable of being scientifically known and demonstrated.

It seems rather strong to say someone cannot have true faith without needing a basic proof for God’s existence as a starting point. My strength is certainly strengthened because I find the proofs compelling. If they were not compelling, it seems my faith would at least not be as strong. Hence it would be less “true”.

 

[AndrewAxland]

It seems rather strong to say someone cannot have true faith without needing a basic proof for God’s existence as a starting point.

It happens to be a strong point that Aquinas went out of his way to explicitly make. To state otherwise would be heretical.

In SCG, chapter five, second to last paragraph, he specifically states that reason is not necessary to achieve perfect faith, stating: "Therefore, although the human reason cannot grasp fully the truths that are above it, yet, if it somehow holds these truths at least by faith, it acquires great perfection for itself. "

And in the next chapter, he explains that this would be tantamount to stating that divine revelation as presented in the scriptures is alone necessary and sufficient for perfect faith, and agrees with Augustine that “That which truth will reveal cannot in any way be opposed to the sacred books of the Old and the New Testament”.

In chapter 9, he specifically states that although some truths about God can be attained by reason, stating:

"The sole way to overcome an adversary of divine truth is from the authority of Scripture—an authority divinely confirmed by miracles. For that which is above the human reason we believe only because God has revealed it. "

 

[tafan2]

SCG, chapter five, second to last paragraph,

What is “SCG”?

I would like to read it in context. It seems like we are talking about apples and oranges. To have “perfect faith” is the faith in the teachings of the Church, ie the faith in Jesus Christ. I am not saying that did not require divine revelation and for individuals, a gift from God. But the thread is not about that, it is about the existence of God. Now, that is a different thing, a subset if you will, from “perfect” or “true” faith. That is just believing in God. As I posted before, Aquinas explicitly stated this is not even an article of faith, since it can be arrived at by reason alone (I showed his quote).

 

[AndrewAxland]

What is “SCG”?

Summa contra Gentiles

As I posted before, Aquinas explicitly stated this is not even an article of faith, since it can be arrived at by reason alone

I see. Sorry I missed that. You would be correct then. I (mis)interpreted your statement as meaning that reason was necessary and sufficient for perfect faith. Like I said, that would be heretical, because only divine revelation as embodied in scripture is necessary and sufficient.

 

[AndrewAxland]

And before we go off on another wild goose chase, I am NOT arguing for Sola Scriptura. That is another, and actually unrelated, matter altogether.

 

[IWantGod]

In summary, the argument can be proposed like this:

Reason exists
Reason is the product of a mind
The Universe, or at least the reason contained within it, is the product of Mind

How does this prove the existence of God?

Perhaps you can make it more clear by presenting it like this

1. The Metaphysical naturalist argues that physical reality is fundamentally directionless and blind to it’s natural ends
2. The act of reasoning is not directionless or blind to it’s ends. It’s goal directed and has knowledge of rational ends.
3. Therefore the act of reasoning cannot be considered a natural process as defined by .metaphysical naturalists.
4. Since the cause of reasoning cannot be natural it must be a mind, and that mind cannot be a natural process.

Conclusion: since the mind exists and is not a natural process, one cannot say that it is entirely a product of natural events. Since the mind is not a product of natural events it’s cause must be another mind existing outside of the natural order.

 

[Kei]

And reason, to make sense, must take place in a reasonable world. For a reasonable world to be…

 

[Hugh_Farey]

Kei

Defining intelligibility, for instance, a book is intelligible. We have satellites looking for intellegible signals from space, the main assumption being that intelligibility implies intelligence, as in intelligent life.

All good so far.

My belief the universe is intelligble, as in reasonable, is that reason at all exists,

Not so good. Not wholly coherent grammatically, so difficult to follow exactly. Either this means that the fact that we find the universe intelligible is evidence that it is intelligible (which I agree with), or that we would not exist if the universe was not reasonable (which I also agree with), or that the reasonableness of any universe must inevitably result in the existence of a being which can understand it (which I don’t agree with), or that the fact that we can understand it is itself the reason for its existence (which I also don’t agree with). I can’t be sure what you mean.

for if the universe were unreasonable, then reason itself would be unreasonable.

True, But hardly evidence for God.

 

[Hugh_Farey]

Perhaps you can make it more clear by presenting it like this

The Metaphysical naturalist argues that physical reality is fundamentally directionless and blind to it’s natural ends

The act of reasoning is not directionless or blind to it’s ends. It’s goal directed and has knowledge of rational ends.

I’m not sure who this Metaphysical Naturalist is, but I can’t believe he hasn’t noticed this.

Therefore the act of reasoning cannot be considered a natural process as defined by .metaphysical naturalists.

Since the cause of reasoning cannot be natural it must be a mind, and that mind cannot be a natural process.

Conclusion: since the mind exists and is not a natural process, one cannot say that it is entirely a product of natural events. Since the mind is not a product of natural events it’s cause must be another mind existing outside of the natural order.

I fear you have carefully constructed a straw horse, named it Metaphyscal Naturalist, and successfully chopped it to pieces.

However, I think you’re right that some kind of direction, and more significantly some idea of purpose, would have to be demonstrated in the universe before an atheist needed to consider the concept of a universal ‘mind’.