Causal Argument for the Existence of a Supreme Being

[SoylentGreen]

I’ve just joined this forum, and won’t take any time introducing my argument for God’s existence.

It can be found on my website, if you care to check out my profile, where the website is mentioned.

The work I have is unorthodox in the sense that it provides a unique, unparalleled solution to the challenge presented by Immanuel Kant in his critical philosophy.

The premise to my Causal Argument, as it can be called for short, was published recently in the “Review of Metaphysics.” It appeared in the March 2013 issue of the journal under the title “Beyond Kant and Hegel.”

The Review is published by the Philosophical Education Society in affiliation with the Catholic University of America, in Washington DC.

Some of the theologians on this site might be familiar with this university, and the journal they publish. It’s a quarterly, well respected journal, and has a circulation I understand of some 2900, with a wide European distribution.

The essay presents my answer to Kant’s preliminary question with regard to any metaphysic that might be offered in answer to his challenge. I will avoid going into details here. If readers of this post are unfamiliar with Kant they might just prefer to read my argument, which will familiarize them with the key sections of Kant’s critical philosophy.

My work is a rational defense of theism, and ones intuitive faith in God. It overcomes many of the persistent, more difficult and perplexing problems that confront apologists in their defense of their faith. I will be working in the future on a follow up argument, which will be focused on what philosophers call the problem of evil. If there is evil in the world does this not refute the idea of an omnibenevolent God? My answer to this is, an unequivocal no. It does not suffice to defeat the idea of an omnibenevolent God. Apologists have simply failed to present the most obvious answer/solution to this problem. The answer to this problem is not too difficult to comprehend, but I am attempting to gain a wider audience for my Causal Argument before I take on the task of presenting my solution to this further problem.

If you do not check out my profile a search on the internet for Causal Argument for the Existence of a Supreme Being, should get you there.

I would be interested in hearing whatever comments forum members have, whether positive or negative. Negative feedback will only lead to my making the argument more cogent.

 

[StrawberryJam]

You have not laid out an argument here on this site, but you command us to view your site to view your argument.
Sorry, but I don’t take orders from you.
If you are confident in your position, put it out here and lay it out clearly.

 

[SoylentGreen]

You have not laid out an argument here on this site, but you command us to view your site to view your argument.
Sorry, but I don’t take orders from you.
If you are confident in your position, put it out here and lay it out clearly.

I am not commanding anyone to do anything. Read the post for what it is, not what it is not. The argument is too long to post here, and it’s for people interested in apologetics and philosophy.

 

[StrawberryJam]

I am not commanding anyone to do anything. Read the post for what it is, not what it is not. The argument is too long to post here, and it’s for people interested in apologetics and philosophy.

I am interested in apologetics and philosophy and object to your demand that I must go to another site to view your argument.

 

[SoylentGreen]

I am interested in apologetics and philosophy and object to your demand that I must go to another site to view your argument.

Where did I use he word “Demand?”

The rules of this forum allow posters/members of the forum to provide links to other cites. If this is not to your liking then you need not follow any links to other cites. It’s you privilege, but your wasting my time by bringing to my attention your objection to my post.

Try and appreciate the fact that not all points are similarly brief and conducive to posting in the form of a simple thread. Some things require more time and effort, and I for one, appreciate links to other cites. I’ve followed up on them and I’ve gained by taking the advantage of those links, wherever they led me. For instance, if it were not for a link I found on a philosophy website I would never have run into the King’s college podcasts of philosophy without any gaps, which I found informative.

Try and take things in the spirit with which they are offered. It appears you take offense too easily, and too quickly with things that rub you the wrong way.

And it’s not me who is hung up on anything. Take a look at yourself and your post. It’s extremely rude and it gives a very negative impression of the membership on this forum…

 

[StrawberryJam]

Maybe I should go to your site to view your very complex argument or maybe I can tell you that you don’t have the right to ask anyone here to leave this site to view your argument.

There are inherent risks to viewing your site, and I find no risk in viewing this one. I trust this site, not yours.

 

[inocente]

I would be interested in hearing whatever comments forum members have, whether positive or negative. Negative feedback will only lead to my making the argument more cogent.

I’ve not read your argument as even your “abbreviated” version is 5,000 words.

From the few lines I scanned, my impression is it’s the standard naive rationalist belief that search me there must be knowledge a priori, and gee whiz it couldn’t come from nowhere so there must be a deity, QED.

What I call a Philosophy Of Bewilderment .

But my impression is almost certainly wrong, so what is your argument in a nut shell?

 

[Mount_Carmel]

Well, the issue is very complex, but at the same time rather simple. There must have been always ‘something’, and that ‘something’ must also have command and control of things including dimensions that range beyond the physical and temporal - pretty awesome credentials by my reckoning.

Chaos theory , only came about, IMHO, in a desperate/disparate attempt to ‘explain’ phenomena and apparent phenomena that ‘we’ have incomplete knowledge of - it is in reality always a case of ‘cause(s) and effect(s)’, except for the ‘acaused initiator’.

 

[wanstronian]

Seems to me that no argument has been presented, so no response to the OP is required.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I’ve just joined this forum, and won’t take any time introducing my argument for God’s existence.

It can be found on my website, if you care to check out my profile, where the website is mentioned.

The work I have is unorthodox in the sense that it provides a unique, unparalleled solution to the challenge presented by Immanuel Kant in his critical philosophy.

The premise to my Causal Argument, as it can be called for short, was published recently in the “Review of Metaphysics.” It appeared in the March 2013 issue of the journal under the title “Beyond Kant and Hegel.”

The Review is published by the Philosophical Education Society in affiliation with the Catholic University of America, in Washington DC.

Some of the theologians on this site might be familiar with this university, and the journal they publish. It’s a quarterly, well respected journal, and has a circulation I understand of some 2900, with a wide European distribution.

The essay presents my answer to Kant’s preliminary question with regard to any metaphysic that might be offered in answer to his challenge. I will avoid going into details here. If readers of this post are unfamiliar with Kant they might just prefer to read my argument, which will familiarize them with the key sections of Kant’s critical philosophy.

My work is a rational defense of theism, and ones intuitive faith in God. It overcomes many of the persistent, more difficult and perplexing problems that confront apologists in their defense of their faith. I will be working in the future on a follow up argument, which will be focused on what philosophers call the problem of evil. If there is evil in the world does this not refute the idea of an omnibenevolent God? My answer to this is, an unequivocal no. It does not suffice to defeat the idea of an omnibenevolent God. Apologists have simply failed to present the most obvious answer/solution to this problem. The answer to this problem is not too difficult to comprehend, but I am attempting to gain a wider audience for my Causal Argument before I take on the task of presenting my solution to this further problem.

If you do not check out my profile a search on the internet for Causal Argument for the Existence of a Supreme Being, should get you there.

I would be interested in hearing whatever comments forum members have, whether positive or negative. Negative feedback will only lead to my making the argument more cogent.

You really should have provided a link to your article. For those interested here is a link:
theologyweb.com/campus/archive/index.php/t-18287.html

However your article does not answer your question either positively or negatively. It seems to be simply a discussion about a possible path to a solution to the " antimony " that exists between Kant and Hegel. No solution is offered in the form of an argument.

I would suggest you offer your argument, simply, as St. Thomas does. And as you know his " proofs " assume an eternal universe but they apply equally to a universe beginning in time. So, lets see your argument.

P.S. Your article is well written and I can see you devoted a lot of study to the subject. But that isn’t enough. You must present your argument without a detailed discussion over the merits and demerits of Kant and Hegel. Personally, I am not interested in either one and do not consider either one as true philosophers. I consider them " fads " produced by an age that had dismissed Thomas Aquinas without understanding him, simply on the basis that he represented an age which they regarded as " passe. "

Linus2nd

 

[Deus_tecum]

It might be good for arguing with atheists (which I don’t do) but if a Christian needs a causal argument for the existence of God, then they lack faith. God planted the seed of faith when he put eternity on the hearts of man. Nurture that, grow faith, and forget about the intellect which is no more than the vanity of man’s ego.

 

[polytropos]

It might be good for arguing with atheists (which I don’t do) but if a Christian needs a causal argument for the existence of God, then they lack faith. God planted the seed of faith when he put eternity on the hearts of man. Nurture that, grow faith, and forget about the intellect which is no more than the vanity of man’s ego.

Man has intellect because he was made in God’s image. Properly applied, intellect is much, much more than vanity.

If I could only base my belief in God on faith and not on argument, then I would not be a Christian. God gave us intellect for a reason: to use it in His service!

 

[SoylentGreen]

You really should have provided a link to your article. For those interested here is a link:
theologyweb.com/campus/archive/index.php/t-18287.html
Linus2nd

This was something I wrong quite some time ago, and it’s not my argument.
The causal argument is at http:.//www.causalargument.com.
I rewrite and update the argument each month or two, it will be updated end of this month, July.
Since a comment was made as to its length, even the abbreviated version, there is an abstract diagram of the argument. That’s the argument in a nutshell.

I have attempted to post the argument in even a more concise manner here, but after I finished I was already past the post limit in words. It can’t be done, except maybe in a step by step manner, over a number of posts.

I can do that if anyone is interested.

I will say however that I agree with one post above that defends the use of reason. If God gave us minds to think and reason with then reason should be respected as another tool that we can use to put our faith on even firmer grounds. I have the perspective that without reason faith is blind, and the same goes for science. Science without reason is blind, and one can also state that reason without science is blind.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

This was something I wrong quite some time ago, and it’s not my argument.
The causal argument is at http:.//www.causalargument.com.
I rewrite and update the argument each month or two, it will be updated end of this month, July.
Since a comment was made as to its length, even the abbreviated version, there is an abstract diagram of the argument. That’s the argument in a nutshell.

I have attempted to post the argument in even a more concise manner here, but after I finished I was already past the post limit in words. It can’t be done, except maybe in a step by step manner, over a number of posts.

I can do that if anyone is interested.

I will say however that I agree with one post above that defends the use of reason. If God gave us minds to think and reason with then reason should be respected as another tool that we can use to put our faith on even firmer grounds. I have the perspective that without reason faith is blind, and the same goes for science. Science without reason is blind, and one can also state that reason without science is blind.

That link didn’t work for me. I suggest that you post a thread and at the end of the first post add " to be continued in upcoming post - in a day or two. " There may be intervining posts but those who are interested will follow.

Linus2nd

 

[empther]

Let’s see how far I can get into this article “Beyond Kant and Elvis”…

The common notion abounds that human reason cannot resolve such questions as those voiced by Immanuel Kant in his Critique of Pure Reason, namely, the so called cosmological problems, or the antinomy.

OK. That’s enough.

Why should I spent hours reading and analyzing this wordy empty exercise in self-importance when St. Thomas Aquinas already said it all 700 years ago?

It’s like walking into a bookstore. I’m only likely to buy a book I’ve heard good things about.
Who is saying good things about “Beyond Kant and Elvis”?

 

[SoylentGreen]

Given the few response here to this thread it is apparent that there are, unfortunately, an abundance of members who believe insulting the thread started constitutes actual contributions to a thread.

This isn’t uncharacteristic for forums of any kind on the internet.

The argument I have however is at www.causalargument.com .

Not sure is this link will work; but I’ll start a new thread and present the entire argument, in the next few days, and will only attempt to discourage insults disguised as contributions and enlightenment by stating again that I’ll be looking for intelligent, reasoned out responses to the argument. I’ll start the thread under the title: Causal Argument…

Thanks for all the posts to this thread, insults, or otherwise. As to the insults: people on the other side that you’re responding to are people, not mindless objects sitting behind computers somewhere out in cyber land. Please try and treat them as real people, even though you can’t see them face to face.

 

[SoylentGreen]

Let’s see how far I can get into this article “Beyond Kant and Elvis”…

OK. That’s enough.

Why should I spent hours reading and analyzing this wordy empty exercise in self-importance when St. Thomas Aquinas already said it all 700 years ago?

It’s like walking into a bookstore. I’m only likely to buy a book I’ve heard good things about.
Who is saying good things about “Beyond Kant and Elvis”?

This amounts to an insult. The essay is “Beyond Kant and Hegel, in Answer to the Question: ‘How are Synthetic Cognitions A Priori Possible?’” You certainly did not read this essay. It came out in the March 2013 issue of the “Review of Metaphysics.” This s a respected journal that comes our quarterly. It’s published by the Philosophy Education Society and the Catholic University of America.

Since you claim to pledge some loyalty to the Pope, there is a quote of Pope John Paul II in the essay, and I defend something he said against a personal attack against him by John Gibbrin, in his book “In Search of the Big Bang.” Gribbin quotes the Pope’s defense of metaphysics as the way toward solving such questions as the origin of the universe. The Pope spoke of the need for metaphysics. He addressed a conference of cosmologists that took place in 1981 at the Vatican. The Pope’s words to the gathered assembly were: “any scientific hypothesis on the origin of the world, such as that of a primeval atom from which the whole of the physical world derived, leaves open the problem concerning the beginning of the Universe. Science cannot by itself resolve such a question: what is needed is that human knowledge that rises above physics and astrophysics and which is called metaphysics; it needs above all the knowledge that comes from the revelation of God.”

But perhaps you’ll take exception to Pope John Paul II’s words, since I’m the one quoting him; and you’ll offer just another base insult for my audacity in introducing the former Pope, and God, and metaphysics into the thread. And as far as the essay you’ve misquoted, and insulted, the editor of the “Review of Metaphysics,” Dr. Jude Dougherty, saw fit to accept it and publish it.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Given the few response here to this thread it is apparent that there are, unfortunately, an abundance of members who believe insulting the thread started constitutes actual contributions to a thread.

This isn’t uncharacteristic for forums of any kind on the internet.

The argument I have however is at www.causalargument.com .

Not sure is this link will work; but I’ll start a new thread and present the entire argument, in the next few days, and will only attempt to discourage insults disguised as contributions and enlightenment by stating again that I’ll be looking for intelligent, reasoned out responses to the argument. I’ll start the thread under the title: Causal Argument…

Thanks for all the posts to this thread, insults, or otherwise. As to the insults: people on the other side that you’re responding to are people, not mindless objects sitting behind computers somewhere out in cyber land. Please try and treat them as real people, even though you can’t see them face to face.

O.K. the link worked. Some observations: I don’t want to be uncharitable but 21 pages!!!
St. Thomas was able to give five effective a posteriori arguments, none of which were more than about two hundred words. And besides that, he proved there can be no a priori arguments for the existence of God. But that is exactly what you propose to do.

If you want us to read it, fine, we are willing to read the argument if you can reduce it to the bare essentials - as Thomas did. Another objection, the Big Bang theory is just that, a theory. It cannot be proven and never will be able to be proven, so that is a problem. Anything based on it will have only limited appeal.

So reduce your argument to about three or four hundred words and we will be happy to oblige. I think you can do this if you leave out all that part of your work arguing with Kant. No one here gives a hoot for what Kant thought about anything. Ditto for all the " Enlightenment " thinkers generally.

It was a well written and researshed piece, you are to be congratulated on that.
Why did you drop out?

Linus2nd

 

[empther]

Since you claim to pledge some loyalty to the Pope,

I predict the ultimate possible insult.

The Pope will ignore your article, if he ever hears about it at all.

How’s that for an insult?

Convince me your article has value.
Summarize the main points, perhaps 400 words as somebody suggested,
and I’ll pay more attention to it. But don’t expect me to read a 5,000 word rant that you now have. How dare you presume on my time like that?

 

[SoylentGreen]

This forum is certainly blessed with more than its fare share of hostility.

I suppose these displays of mockery and continuing insults are signs of the presence of the Holy Spirit, and I’m deceived in thinking that the Holy Spirit has a positive affect on people. I thought tolerance and patience were two of those positive attributes but now I see that a confrontational and hostile attitude and an inability to read more than 400 words at a time are the positive characteristics that God’s Holy Spirit bestows on those fortunate enough to be bequeathed with it.

To understand or appreciate either the strengths or weaknesses of any argument, no matter what it’s length, one must spend the time to understand it. If this forum is not the place to discuss ideas, then I was given the wrong impression when I was informed this might be such a place. But hostility and mockery are not conducive to welcoming any arguments of any kind, short or long.