Can I know the Christian God is the true god through reason?

[Farston]

Hello! I guess I’m a new believer. Through reason I came to the conclusion that there is a higher power.

[My Argument]
1: If every physical thing in this world is made of other things, their properties based on the things they are made of, what is the thing without properties that underlies everything else?
2: There must be a beginning of time. Without a beginning, the past is infinite and we never get to the present. Yet there can not be an effect without a cause, but something caused the beginning.
Result: You can’t get something from nothing without a higher power outside of time and space.

So where do I go from here? If there is a god, which one is it?
Which religion, which denomination?
Through reason, what can be learned about this higher power?
Do I just accept revelation, scripture, and the catholic churches teachings because it appeals to me?
Is there a flaw to my argument?

 

[Divine3]

Farston, Welcome to CAF ---- great questions. Surly on Catholic Answers you will find your answer. Also st. Thomas institute will help too. Your attraction to the faith is a gift from God. Grace builds on grace. Will look for a link
Well its somewhere the link. Will look for it later

 

[drac16]

No other religion has God coming into human form in order to die for the whole world. Many will try to parallel it to the stories of Attis, Mithras or Krishna, but if you do your homework, you will see that it is laughable to compare them. None of those gods were virgin-born, crucified or resurrected.

God could have never sent Jesus, which would only result in all the world suffering in Hell and that would’ve been just. We are deserving of God’s wrath. However, God humbled Himself to the point of being in a human body in order to save us. We know that we deserve nothing but wrath, but God made it so that it doesn’t have to be that way. What message even comes close to that? none that I’m aware of.

The Gospel message was one of the things that turned me on to Christianity. It’s enough to make you drown in tears of ecstatic love. He’s given us more than we could ever give back. As for what denomination you should join, that’s not in my area of expertise. Simply look at what a denomination believes in regard to its theology. Go with whatever the scriptures point you to. I am a non-denominational christian and you can find fulfillment in that path, but at the end of the day, it’s between you and the Lord.

I want to point you to William Lane Craig. Watch some of his videos on Youtube. He’s also an author, but I can’t recommend his books because I’ve never read one. He argues that the Bible is trustworthy and that the Gospel does hold up to scrutiny. Give it a shot.

 

[TheLittleLady]

From the Catechism, bold added:

III. THE KNOWLEDGE OF GOD ACCORDING TO THE CHURCH

36 "Our holy mother, the Church, holds and teaches that God, the first principle and last end of all things, can be known with certainty from the created world by the natural light of human reason."11 Without this capacity, man would not be able to welcome God’s revelation. Man has this capacity because he is created “in the image of God”.12

37 In the historical conditions in which he finds himself, however, man experiences many difficulties in coming to know God by the light of reason alone:

Though human reason is, strictly speaking, truly capable by its own natural power and light of attaining to a true and certain knowledge of the one personal God, who watches over and controls the world by his providence, and of the natural law written in our hearts by the Creator; yet there are many obstacles which prevent reason from the effective and fruitful use of this inborn faculty. For the truths that concern the relations between God and man wholly transcend the visible order of things, and, if they are translated into human action and influence it, they call for self-surrender and abnegation. The human mind, in its turn, is hampered in the attaining of such truths, not only by the impact of the senses and the imagination, but also by disordered appetites which are the consequences of original sin. So it happens that men in such matters easily persuade themselves that what they would not like to be true is false or at least doubtful.13

38 This is why man stands in need of being enlightened by God’s revelation, not only about those things that exceed his understanding, but also “about those religious and moral truths which of themselves are not beyond the grasp of human reason, so that even in the present condition of the human race, they can be known by all men with ease, with firm certainty and with no admixture of error”. 14

 

[goout]

Faith and reason are integrated as both/and, not an either/or. Most people make a false distinction between faith and reason.
You are already showing faith by pursuing transcendent truth. Having a docility to transcendence will lead you forward. The response you are demonstrating opens the door to faith, and having faith enhances reason further.

I recommend CS Lewis Mere Christianity or anything by Peter Kreeft.

 

[lelinator]

Can I know the Christian God is the true god through reason?

No

Through reason I came to the conclusion that there is a higher power.

Pardon my skepticism, but I find it to be highly unlkely that you came to that conclusion through reason, because your argument doesn’t support your conclusion. To refer to an underlying cause as a “higher power” indicates a preexisting bias toward a spiritual explanation. No one would refer to molecules as being a higher power for example, yet for some reason you’ve chosen to refer to some underlying cause as a “higher power”. Indicating that you’ve ascribed to it certain metaphysical properties not warranted by your argument.

So where do I go from here?

The correct place to go is back to the beginning and start over, with fewer preconceptions. In any theory in which one reaches an impasse the best thing to do is to start over. Because somewhere, you’ve made a mistake.

Through reason, what can be learned about this higher power?

First you need to reconsider whether there actually is a higher power. Otherwise you’re apt to reinforce one flawed conclusion, with another flawed conclusion, and your mistakes will only compound themselves.

Is there a flaw to my argument?

Yes, but not just in your argument, but in your conclusion as well.

Do I just accept revelation, scripture, and the catholic churches teachings because it appeals to me?

Yes. The fact that you’re here indicates that you have a preexisting bias toward Catholicism. And it’s precisely your biases that you should be attempting to overcome.

As I say…go back to the beginning, and start over. If you’re unwilling to do that…then I would really have to question whether you’re actually looking for the truth, or simply looking to justify something that you have wanted to believe all along. In which case, you haven’t really found the truth, you’ve just done what most people do, you’ve justified the biases that you already had.

 

[Dan_Defender]

By reason alone everything can be doubted except one’s existence. Faith is a gift, open your heart and mind and you will receive it.

 

[Farston]

So you are saying my argument is flawed purely through my personal bias for Catholicism?

I disagree. I specifically used the term “higher power” rather than “god” because as I stated before am unsure of the nature of the what is underlying the existence of time and matter. It does not have to be a deity. It could be some law of nature we don’t understand or perhaps can’t fathom.

The point of my argument is, that there is no logical explanation for these phenomenon other that what could be considered a higher power that creates something from nothing. You can call it whatever you want.

I do admit I have a bias, but I am not going to jump from “unexplained phenomenon” to “The Christian God”. That is why I made this thread. Because I am looking for other’s perspective on what the nature of this phenomenon is, and if it, through reason could be considered to be the christian god.

I also am open to the possibility that it is not the christian god, which is why I asked about other religions and denominations, if any apply. I do like Christianity, but I’m hesitant to just accept “revelation” because I like it.

Do you understand where I am coming from now?

Edit:

No one would refer to molecules as being a higher power

I never said that molecules were a higher power. My argument was that
is the physical existence of something is based off what it is made of, then there has to be something at the bottom that is not made of anything that makes up everything else or it goes on to infinity. How do you explain the infinite? Can you have something that is not made of anything? What other conclusion can you come to other than there is some sort of phenomenon creating something from nothing? Does that phenomenon by definition not carry the property of being infinite?

 

[lelinator]

So you are saying my argument is flawed purely through my personal bias for Catholicism?

Absolutely not. There are any number of flaws in your argument that have nothing to do with any particular ideology that you may choose to ascribe to. It’s the argument itself that’s flawed.

I disagree. I specifically used the term “higher power” rather than “god” because as I stated before am unsure of the nature of the what is underlying the existence of time and matter. It does not have to be a deity. It could be some law of nature we don’t understand or perhaps can’t fathom.

But as I said, one would hardly refer to molecules, or the laws of physics as a “higher power”. The term itself carries certain metaphysical connotations. Even the use of the term “cause” may be a misnomer.

The point of my argument is, that there is no logical explanation for these phenomenon other that what could be considered a higher power that creates something from nothing. You can call it whatever you want.

To deduce that there can’t be a natural explanation for the existence of reality is to assume something about the nature of reality that you have no definitive reason to assume. Rule #1…don’t make assumptions.

I do admit I have a bias, but I am not going to jump from “unexplained phenomenon” to “The Christian God”. That is why I made this thread. Because I am looking for other’s perspective on what the nature of this phenomenon is, and if it, through reason could be considered to be the christian god.

But you have made enough of an assumption to be willing to refer to some supposed “first cause” as a “higher power”. Which in itself suggests a spiritual bias.

I also am open to the possibility that it is not the christian god, which is why I asked about other religions and denominations, if any apply. I do like Christianity, but I’m hesitant to just accept “revelation” because I like it.

That very statement demonstrates that you have a bias toward a supernatural cause. What in your argument demonstrates that the cause must be supernatural?

Do you understand where I am coming from now?

Yes. Do you understand why I believe that your position is biased?

It’s because your terminology betrays the fact that you’re inclined toward a supernatural explanation. One that your argument doesn’t warrant.

What other conclusion can you come to other than there is some sort of phenomenon creating something from nothing?

At least you switched from calling it a “higher power” to simply calling it a “phenomenon”. Why should we assume that that “phenomenon” is anything supernatural?

Does that phenomenon by definition not carry the property of being infinite?

No, it doesn’t. Infinity is a spatial/temporal concept which can’t be applied to any underlying “phenomenon”.

 

[lelinator]

Reached the character limit in the last post.

How do you explain the infinite?

Any underlying “phenomenon” can only exist from the beginning of time to the end of time. It cannot exist any longer than that, because at those two points the concept of before and after become meaningless.

 

[MPat]

So where do I go from here? If there is a god, which one is it?
Which religion, which denomination?
Through reason, what can be learned about this higher power?
Do I just accept revelation, scripture, and the catholic churches teachings because it appeals to me?

There are several ways.

For example, you can try to find out more about God as someone whose existence is demonstrated by philosophical arguments, and then compare the results with things various religions claim. An outline of something similar can be found in Feser’s blog post “Pre-Christian Apologetics”(Edward Feser: Pre-Christian apologetics).

Another approach consists in checking miraculous claims made in various religions. Go and check yourself (for example, try to make a list of 20 miracle claims in different religions) - you will find out that the task is very easy for Catholicism, rather easy for Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Protestants, much harder for Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism. And miracle claims are not all that similar. For example, in case of Buddhists or Hinduists you are likely to find miracles that actually end up hard to harmonise with the doctrines of those religions. Then ask yourself - why would such differences exist?

And then there is the witness of the atheists:

Yes. The fact that you’re here indicates that you have a preexisting bias toward Catholicism. And it’s precisely your biases that you should be attempting to overcome.

Please note that he is also here in this same forum. Why? Somehow, he doesn’t seem to show any “preexisting bias toward Catholicism”…

Somehow, Catholicism tends to attract such furious (and inconsistent) criticism from all sides… But why? Chesterton, by the way, makes the same point in “Orthodoxy” Chapter 6 (Orthodoxy/Chapter 6 - Wikisource, the free online library).

 

[IWantGod]

Hello! I guess I’m a new believer. Through reason I came to the conclusion that there is a higher power.

Great! God bless

1: If every physical thing in this world is made of other things, their properties based on the things they are made of, what is the thing without properties that underlies everything else?

Not sure i get this. Some one could simply assert there are only physical things? How would you address that?

2: There must be a beginning of time. Without a beginning, the past is infinite and we never get to the present. Yet there can not be an effect without a cause, but something caused the beginning.
Result: You can’t get something from nothing without a higher power outside of time and space.

This is good, but i would rephrase it the following way:

An irreducible number that is added to by other irreducible numbers can only ever be potentially infinite because there is no such thing as an infinite number that can be reached by an addition of irreducible numbers. It’s forever potentially infinite. It can only be greater and can never be completed - it is forever finite. Thus one cannot say there is an actually infinite number of irreducible numbers before any particular number.

It’s meaningless, because they are essentially claiming that an infinite is infinite only because of the distinct numbers of which it is comprised; but that cannot possibly be the case because if you take one number away you will be left with a finite number, but that is impossible because there is no number you can reach that adds up to an actual infinite. The concept of an infinite number is nonsensical.

The universe is made of irreducible states that proceed one-another. A number of irreducible states cannot add up to an infinite quantity because there is no such number. Thus there cannot be an infinite number of states in the past, and as such a sequence of irreducible states must have an absolute beginning because there is an actual number of states in the past with a definite quantity that is not infinite in principle.

You can’t get something from nothing without a higher power outside of time and space.

This is good. I would say that the potentiality of an finite quantity of states cannot receive it’s actuality from nothing, and therefore must have been received from a being that does not receive it’s existence, but rather it is it’s own existence and necessarily exists eternally outside of time itself.

 

[Farston]

I apologize if my use of the term “higher power” is confusing, but I did not intend to assert any specific connotation that you seem to assume I meant by it. I did not intend to use the term in a specifically spiritual context. It only seemed like the natural term to explain what I meant.

But you seem to be ignoring what I have written before. I did not make an assumption on the nature of the phenomenon as you seem to believe, but you are the one making assumptions in that I suggested that it is somehow inherently unnatural or spiritual. Even if there is a god that created the world, then it would be the source of everything that is natural, therefore natural itself. It would be the source of the laws of nature, so saying its unnatural makes no sense.

That very statement demonstrates that you have a bias toward a supernatural cause. What in your argument demonstrates that the cause must be supernatural?

I never made any claim that it must be supernatural. That very quote shows that I am unwilling to accept the supernatural claims just because I am biased towards it, but you ignored that.

No, it doesn’t. Infinity is a spatial/temporal concept which can’t be applied to any underlying “ phenomenon ”.

Any underlying “ phenomenon ” can only exist from the beginning of time to the end of time. It cannot exist any longer than that, because at those two points the concept of before and after become meaningless.

What you are saying makes no sense. If there is a beginning of time, there has to be something that exists before or outside of time to make time start. Otherwise you have a beginning of time without any cause. Do you suggest there can be an effect with no cause?

I’m not saying that It has to be a supernatural or spiritual cause. What I am saying is that if the cause is before, there is no beginning, and the past is infinite. If the cause is outside, then you have an effect from a cause that does not need any other to cause itself to come to be. Therefore it would have to be of an infinite existence.

 

[IWantGod]

Do I just accept revelation, scripture, and the catholic churches teachings because it appeals to me?

The un-caused cause would have to be a perfect act of reality, pure-actuality, unchanging and omnipotent and absolutely simple (omniscience would follow also, but that would take a lengthy post) . It would have to be an intelligent cause. Also it cannot be said that such a being would create for want of something or lack of something since without his creation God is the very act of reality itself. God lacks nothing. In fact we exist in God, we have our being, including the universe, and we move within the very act of God’s reality.

Consider this, when God creates he is essentially sharing reality with us. This can only be considered an act of love.

Beyond this, is divine revelation. What you must ask yourself is this - does the God of revelation and his message line up with the God we find in our act of reason. Of course, there is a possibility that it is not, and that it is just a coincidence that the Catholic church believes in a God that is love and has all the attributes of the God of philosophy. But at some point faith is the only thing that will carry you to the truth.

 

[lelinator]

What you are saying makes no sense.

None-the-less, it’s correct. The first cause can only have existed from the beginning of time, because there’s no such thing as before the beginning of time.

If there is a beginning of time, there has to be something that exists before or outside of time to make time start. Otherwise you have a beginning of time without any cause.

No, what I’m suggesting is that there must be a cause that isn’t temporal in nature. One that underpins reality’s existence, rather than preceding its existence. It’s what’s referred to as a hierarchical cause, or a per se cause. It can’t accurately be described as existing before reality, or even outside of reality, because both of those terms would be meaningless to it. So it must exist simply as the underlying cause of reality, of the very framework within which we understand the concepts of before and outside. Yet it’s neither of those two things.

So it’s a cause that lies at the very core of reality itself. Interestingly though, it may not be accurate to call it a cause at all. For if neither one precedes the other, then how can one be described as being the cause of the other?

One has to be very careful when attempting to discern the nature of reality, because we’re limited by the very nature of that reality for our conclusions as to what must, and must not be true.

 

[IWantGod]

Interestingly though, it may not be accurate to call it a cause at all. For if neither one precedes the other, then how can one be described as being the cause of the other?

It must be, because the phenomena exists only because of the underlying reality you described, and not because of it’s self. Being non-temporal in nature is not in it’s self a limitation unless you assume that being a cause to an effect is limited to the framework of temporal-phenomena (that a cause must temporally precede it’s effect).

What happened to being outside of the box?

 

[lelinator]

It must be, because the phenomena exists only because of the underlying reality you described, and not because of it’s self. Being non-temporal in nature is not in it’s self a limitation unless you assume that being a cause to an effect is limited to the framework of temporal-phenomena ( that a cause must temporally precede it’s effect ).

Where I hesitate is in assuming that the relationship between these two things can rightly be described as causal in nature. In that one can be said to have “caused” the other. It might simply be that where you have one, you will always have the other.

Now this may not be true, but I see no reason to assume that it isn’t at least possible.

 

[Pai_Nosso]

Hello Farston. Your position seems very similar to where I was at one point. Your choice to use the term “higher power” is fine and reminds me of AA and NA as it is a term they use. I will simply use the term God

I would start by asking how you plan to communicate with and acknowledge God. In my case I only knew the prayers from my Catholic upbringing and so I use those prayers.

The God that the Jews and Muslims pray to are the same God of the OId Testament. In many eastern religions they don’t worship any God’s such as Buddhism, Taoism and Confucianism but they do believe there is a God but that we cannot define it.

You have many questions that I don’t feel wouldn’t be right for me to answer as it would be better for you to find for yourself. Understand that human reasoning is unable to answer everything and that faith comes into play sooner or later…

God bless you on your journey in finding God

 

[tomo_pomo]

Depends what you mean by reason, but yes. For example my reason tells me that human alone could not invent the Bible stories. But other things too…

As for denomination my reason tells me it’s Catholic. Unity is huge reason…

 

[FiveLinden]

If there is a beginning of time, there has to be something that exists before or outside of time to make time start.

Why cannot it not be in the nature of time that it starts? Or starts and stops? Or is a part of wider process?