does God exist?

[DeFide]

bassman:

Oops! I forgot something else: If an infinite regress is repugnant to reason why isn’t an unmoved mover whose atributes cannot be known just as repugnant to reason?

Wow, you read all the articles on the Peter Kreeft page already? Please, take your time.

Your question here is bizarre in that it takes two disparate subjects and pits them against each other without describing how one rationality contradicts the other. It also misrepresents one:

We CAN know the attributes of God… you just listed some. We don’t know everything about God, but that doesn’t mean that we cannot know some things, and if we love Him we should attempt to learn about Him. And yes, we can learn about God from reason.

If you cannot see how something can exist outside of time without being caused and is necessary, consider the rules of logic (any of them)

Example:
if A=B, & B=C, then A=C.
This is true always and forever, regardless of time.
It cannot not be true.
It did not need to be caused.

It’s just one aspect of truth, which is brought to its culmination in the Truth, God.

Read the Kreeft articles. I’d also recommend Kreeft & Tacelli’s Handbook of Christian Apologetics.

 

[batteddy]

I think the self-evident nature of our own soul is good proof for the existence of SOMETHING supernatural…call it God or not.

We clearly have souls. Souls being understood as the principle of consciousness.

Our brains, as complex and multi-abled as they are, cannot make us conscious of ourselves as Self.

An eye cannot see itself, nor can a camera take a picture of itself, nor can any finite material substance fully know itself. Because can it know the part that is responsible for knowing the rest of itself? Sure, with another part…but than what is knowing THAT part.

For example, I have a thought in my brain. But what is conscious of that thought? Well some other part of my brain…the part that controls consciousness.

But then, what is conscious of that consciousness? And what is conscious of that consciousness of consciousness? And what is conscious of that consciousness of consciousness of consciousness? More parts of the brain? But then the brain must be infinitely large, which it is not…

Matter cannot be responsible for this self-awareness. It would perhaps require an infinite material substance…because to truly be conscious, for the word “conscious” to truly mean anything, you must be conscious of your consciousness, and conscious of your conciousness of your consciousness ad infinitum. You are not truly conscious of something, unless you are conscious that you are conscious of it, and then conscious of that consciousness, etc. It would require an infinitely large brain or an infinitely many acts of the brain to do it.

So for us to be conscious (and your own consciousness is self-evident) there must be some principle that is not material. There must be something which we in Catholic theology call “spiritual”.

This spiritual principle, unexplainable by matter, is absolutely simple and allows us to carry out true consciousness (that is, consciousness of consciousness, etc…) without having an infinitely large brain.

But if it is not explainable by matter, where does it come from?

Well, we say God.

This may not be a “proof” of God’s existence. But it opens up the door to the supernatural…to demonstrating that there is self-evidently (from our own consciousness of our Self) something beyond the material…something Spiritual and Supernatural.

In Catholic theology we say the soul is created in God’s image. And obviously, if it wasn’t, it wouldn’t be able to do what it does.

The soul, like God, is able to have simple self-knowledge…without any infinite ammount of matter. In this way it sort of shares in his Simplicity and Infinity…but mainly it shares in his ability, not creatable from Matter, to have Self-Consciousness. Furthermore, it has the ability to Freely Will without any necessity nor arbitrary chance, but out of true Choice. And clearly, matter can only “choose” by the logical outcome of a necessary interplay of physical laws…or by pure chance. But Free Will is niether necessity nor arbitrary chance. Again, something in God’s image that only spiritual substance can have.

 

[BibleReader]

bassman:

Is there an argument from reason that necessitates the existence of God?

No. Aquinas’ “proofs” all collapse under their own weight. The assumption underlying all of Aquinas’ proofs, that the existence of a thing always implies a higher thing above it, is always violated by the conclusion, God, so that the conclusion, God, always violates the basis of his syllogisms.

If our minds could deduce their way to certainty of God, we would be higher than God, in some sense, “looking down.”

Instead, God’s transcendence is consummate: There is simply no position in philosophical reality from which we may “look down upon” God.

In consequence, we are left with questions, to which God responds with Revelation and the Grace of Faith.

The certainty that arises from Faith shored-up by the Grace of Faith is greater than the certainty generated even by syllogisms, however. That is why the martyrs died.

 

[john_doran]

bassman:

None of the answers necessitate God’s existence; nor is there an argument that necessitates His non-existence (that I know of). And if there were, we could not say “I believe”, but rather “I know”. What would faith be then?

it depends on what you mean by terms like “proof”, “necessitate”, and “faith”.

if by “prove” you mean something like “demonstrate with cartesian certanty”, then, no, aquinas’ proofs fail to give us knowledge of god’s existence. but then, by that standard, we don’t know anything.

if, however, you count something as “proven” if it has been given a rational ground that is as certain as other similar propositions about which we consider ourselves to be certain, then, yes, aquinas’ proofs succeed.

also, keep in mind that the success of a rational proof is independent of its ability to convince: a proof with the correct logical relations between its premises and conclusion is valid whether or not anyone believes the conclusion on the basis of the proof; and a “proof” with the wrong logical structure is a bad proof even if millions of people base their belief in the conclusion on that so-called proof.

as far as faith is concerned, demonstrations of god’s existence are demonstrations that there is a non-corporeal, personal, infinite, eternal being that created everything; faith (at least in the theological sense of the term) is still of paramount importance when it comes to those properties and propositions for the truth of which no demonstration exists: the trinity, the incarnation, the sacraments, heaven, hell, etc.

which means that you can know that god exists while at the same time having faith that he’s triune, that the second person of that trinity became man and died for our sins, that he instituted a church and seven sacaments as a part of redemption history of which he was the culmination. and so on.

hope this helps.

 

[john_doran]

BibleReader:

No. Aquinas’ “proofs” all collapse under their own weight. The assumption underlying all of Aquinas’ proofs, that the existence of a thing always implies a higher thing above it, is always violated by the conclusion, God, so that the conclusion, God, always violates the basis of his syllogisms.

we’ve been down this road a number of times before, biblereader, and you haven’t once given any reason to believe this claim of yours to be true. what’s more, i have provided ample textual exegesis of aquinas’ actual arguments that show your claim to be false.

in point of fact, aquinas’ arguments are valid and not self-defeating, as you suggest. i also believe that they are sound.

BibleReader:

If our minds could deduce their way to certainty of God, we would be higher than God, in some sense, “looking down.”

i don’t see how this follows.

 

[BibleReader]

john doran:

we’ve been down this road a number of times before, biblereader, and you haven’t once given any reason to believe this claim of yours to be true. what’s more, i have provided ample textual exegesis of aquinas’ actual arguments that show your claim to be false.

in point of fact, aquinas’ arguments are valid and not self-defeating, as you suggest. i also believe that they are sound.

i don’t see how this follows.

I think that you’ve got a “mental block” on the subject, John. The downsides of the mental block are (1) that you can be a scholastic all you want, but it will be your position which convinces no one, since it is internally uncompelling; and (2) you will probably never experience true “faith” in God, to the extent that an illusion of provability clouds your intellect.

I’m not trying to be negative, just honest.

Read Hume’s Enquiry. It’ll be good for your perspective. All that’s left, after Hume chews up all of one’s illusions about knowledge, is Faith.

 

[john_doran]

BibleReader:

I think that you’ve got a “mental block” on the subject, John. The downsides of the mental block are (1) that you can be a scholastic all you want, but it will be your position which convinces no one, since it is internally uncompelling;

i’m not sure what counts as a “mental block” for you, but if it has anything to do with never changing your mind, then you seem to be similarly afflicted.

BibleReader:

and (2) you will probably never experience true “faith” in God, to the extent that an illusion of provability clouds your intellect.

i’m not sure what you consider to be “true faith”, but i suspect that i either have it, or it’s not something i want.

Read Hume’s Enquiry. It’ll be good for your perspective. All that’s left, after Hume chews up all of one’s illusions about knowledge, is Faith.

wow. you think hume’s arguments are good, but not aquinas’. interesting. i think i understand now.

thanks.

 

[BibleReader]

john doran:

wow. you think hume’s arguments are good, but not aquinas’. interesting. i think i understand now.

thanks.

Sur-r-r-r-re.

Good luck in your non-faith.

 

[contemplative]

For thousands and thousands of years the earth has been ploughed and sown, human beings have trampled it and excavated it for minerals, the rain has beaten on it, the snow has covered it, the sun has scorched it. And yet the earth has remained such as it is, and its fruits have remained the same too.

Nor has the sea changed by growing either smaller or large, despite its water evaporating and them falling again as rain, despite the rivers opening into it from every direction.

It is the same with the air. It is not used up, although so many human beings and animals are continually breathing it, despite all the light and heat that are always permeating it.

The fact is that God is at work in the world, the same God who infuses into creation the energy needed for it to continue stable throughout all time.

To God then let us raise a hymn of praise with all our strength. Let us glorify God who made the world and governs it without ceasing.

And through the things that are seen let us be led towards the things that are not seen. To do this there is no need to travel. Only faith is needed, because only through faith can we see him.

Theodoret (394-460) From the cure of Pagan Diseases

 

[francisca]

bassman:

Did he? Does his arguments necessitate God’s existence? For example: does the argument from contingency necessitate an ultimate source? Why not an infinite regress?

If God does not exist, then all events are mere probabilities. In that case, there would have been only “probabilities”, and there will not be “good and bad”, “right and wrong”, “beautiful and ugly”.
People and time and space and life are nothing but “probable events”.

Should this be the case, then may be the problem is our language: it describes a woman to be “beautiful” instead of “preferable”. Yet, even if the latter is the case (that the woman is “preferable” and not necessarily “not-ugly”), still there is “a hole of reason” : why is she preferable? The reason will ultimately implies “good and bad” anyway.

Up to this point one will have to conclude that “goodness” does exist (and therefore bad exist too).

To know that “goodness” does exist means “The Ultimate Goodness” exist. He is God.

God bless you.

 

[buffalo]

bassman:

What would faith be then? (I personally think the argument from an obligatory moral order is more persuasive). Anyway, I want to know the nature of faith, I guess. If it is not reachable by reason, then why isn’'t any faith as good as another; if it is reachable by reason how is it faith?

Bassman

** “I BELIEVE” - “WE BELIEVE”**

26 We begin our profession of faith by saying: “I believe” or “We believe”. Before expounding the Church’s faith, as confessed in the Creed, celebrated in the liturgy and lived in observance of God’s commandments and in prayer, we must first ask what “to believe” means. **Faith is man’s response to God, who reveals himself and gives himself to man, at the same time bringing man a superabundant light as he searches for the ultimate meaning of his life. Thus we shall consider first that search (Chapter One), then the divine Revelation by which God comes to meet man (Chapter Two), and finally the response of faith (Chapter Three).
**

II. WAYS OF COMING TO KNOW GOD

31 Created in God’s image and called to know and love him, the person who seeks God discovers certain ways of coming to know him. These are also called proofs for the existence of God, not in the sense of proofs in the natural sciences, but rather in the sense of “converging and convincing arguments”, which allow us to attain certainty about the truth. These “ways” of approaching God from creation have a twofold point of departure: the physical world, and the human person.

[32](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/32.htm’) The world: starting from movement, becoming, contingency, and the world’s order and beauty, one can come to a knowledge of God as the origin and the end of the universe.

As St. Paul says of the Gentiles: For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. Ever since the creation of the world his invisible nature, namely, his eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made.7 And St. Augustine issues this challenge: Question the beauty of the earth, question the beauty of the sea, question the beauty of the air distending and diffusing itself, question the beauty of the sky. . . question all these realities. All respond: “See, we are beautiful.” Their beauty is a profession [confessio]. These beauties are subject to change. Who made them if not the Beautiful One [Pulcher] who is not subject to change?8

[33](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/33.htm’) The human person: with his openness to truth and beauty, his sense of moral goodness, his freedom and the voice of his conscience, with his longings for the infinite and for happiness, man questions himself about God’s existence. In all this he discerns signs of his spiritual soul. The soul, the “seed of eternity we bear in ourselves, irreducible to the merely material”,9 can have its origin only in God.

[34](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/34.htm’) The world, and man, attest that they contain within themselves neither their first principle nor their final end, but rather that they participate in Being itself, which alone is without origin or end. Thus, in different ways, man can come to know that there exists a reality which is the first cause and final end of all things, a reality “that everyone calls God”.10

[35](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/35.htm’) Man’s faculties make him capable of coming to a knowledge of the existence of a personal God. But for man to be able to enter into real intimacy with him, God willed both to reveal himself to man and to give him the grace of being able to welcome this revelation in faith. The proofs of God’s existence, however, can predispose one to faith and help one to see that faith is not opposed to reason.

[42](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/142.htm’) By his Revelation, "the invisible God, from the fullness of his love, addresses men as his friends, and moves among them, in order to invite and receive them into his own company."1 The adequate response to this invitation is faith.
[50](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/50.htm’) By natural reason man can know God with certainty, on the basis of his works. But there is another order of knowledge, which man cannot possibly arrive at by his own powers: the order of divine Revelation.1 Through an utterly free decision, God has revealed himself and given himself to man. This he does by revealing the mystery, his plan of loving goodness, formed from all eternity in Christ, for the benefit of all men. God has fully revealed this plan by sending us his beloved Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit.

[143](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/143.htm’) **By faith, man completely submits his intellect and his will to God.**2 With his whole being man gives his assent to God the revealer. Sacred Scripture calls this human response to God, the author of revelation, “the obedience of faith”.3

ARTICLE 1
I BELIEVE

I. THE OBEDIENCE OF FAITH

144 To obey (from the Latin ob-audire, to “hear or listen to”) in faith is to submit freely to the word that has been heard, because its truth is guaranteed by God, who is Truth itself.

 

[Exporter]

batteddy:

I think the self-evident nature of our own soul is good proof for the existence of SOMETHING supernatural…call it God or not.

We clearly have souls. Souls being understood as the principle of consciousness.

Our brains, as complex and multi-abled as they are, cannot make us conscious of ourselves as Self.

An eye cannot see itself, nor can a camera take a picture of itself, nor can any finite material substance fully know itself. Because can it know the part that is responsible for knowing the rest of itself? Sure, with another part…but than what is knowing THAT part.

For example, I have a thought in my brain. But what is conscious of that thought? Well some other part of my brain…the part that controls consciousness.

But then, what is conscious of that consciousness? And what is conscious of that consciousness of consciousness? And what is conscious of that consciousness of consciousness of consciousness? More parts of the brain? But then the brain must be infinitely large, which it is not…

Matter cannot be responsible for this self-awareness. It would perhaps require an infinite material substance…because to truly be conscious, for the word “conscious” to truly mean anything, you must be conscious of your consciousness, and conscious of your conciousness of your consciousness ad infinitum. You are not truly conscious of something, unless you are conscious that you are conscious of it, and then conscious of that consciousness, etc. It would require an infinitely large brain or an infinitely many acts of the brain to do it.

So for us to be conscious (and your own consciousness is self-evident) there must be some principle that is not material. There must be something which we in Catholic theology call “spiritual”.

This spiritual principle, unexplainable by matter, is absolutely simple and allows us to carry out true consciousness (that is, consciousness of consciousness, etc…) without having an infinitely large brain.

But if it is not explainable by matter, where does it come from?

Well, we say God.

This may not be a “proof” of God’s existence. But it opens up the door to the supernatural…to demonstrating that there is self-evidently (from our own consciousness of our Self) something beyond the material…something Spiritual and Supernatural.

In Catholic theology we say the soul is created in God’s image. And obviously, if it wasn’t, it wouldn’t be able to do what it does.

The soul, like God, is able to have simple self-knowledge…without any infinite ammount of matter. In this way it sort of shares in his Simplicity and Infinity…but mainly it shares in his ability, not creatable from Matter, to have Self-Consciousness. Furthermore, it has the ability to Freely Will without any necessity nor arbitrary chance, but out of true Choice. And clearly, matter can only “choose” by the logical outcome of a necessary interplay of physical laws…or by pure chance. But Free Will is niether necessity nor arbitrary chance. Again, something in God’s image that only spiritual substance can have.

---

Thanks for the good post.

 

[Donald45]

bassman:

None of the answers necessitate God’s existence; nor is there an argument that necessitates His non-existence (that I know of). And if there were, we could not say “I believe”, but rather “I know”. What would faith be then? (I personally think the argument from an obligatory moral order is more persuasive). Anyway, I want to know the nature of faith, I guess. If it is not reachable by reason, then why isn’'t any faith as good as another; if it is reachable by reason how is it faith?

A few points come to mind in reply:

[1] One would need to define “necessitate” fairly carefully. If you mean an argument which prevents any rational response whatsoever, so that the opponent can only stand there silently with his mouth hanging open, then no, these theistic proofs do not “necessitate” God’s existence. One’s opponent will always have some type of response to the classical proofs; it may not be correct or true, but he’ll be able to make some kind of reply.

[2] We should distinguish between objective proof (rational, logistical, syllogistic “proof”) and subjective proof (personal, individual, emotive “proof”). This latter kind of proof might be called persuasion or conviction. One can offer an objectively flawless proof, and not accomplish subjective conviction of its truth in his opponent. On the other hand, it’s pretty difficult to convince anyone of anything with an inadequate or shoddy argument.

[3] One argument from necessity might be described this way: We can know that God exists from the impossibility of the contrary. If there ever was a time when there actually was nothing in existence, it’s pretty clear what there would be now—nothing. Therefore, there must exist something which has existence in and of itself from which all other existence derives. And this self-existent thing we call “God.” In this scenario, and since the universe is demonstrably not eternal but itself had a beginning, there are essentially three possibilities from which to choose: a) the universe is an illusion (then why ask a question to begin with?); b) the universe is self-created (an absurdity, since the universe would need to first exist in order to then “create itself”; it would need to be before it is); c) the universe was created by a self-existent Being (this, of course, is the Judeo-Christian conclusion).

[4] This demostrates only a position of basic theism, based as it is on what theologians call natural religion or general revelation. To learn the identity of this self-existent Being, one turns to special revelation which, for Catholics, consists of Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition. I’m not speaking here of a “leap of faith,” but rather a volitional act of belief whereby one places one’s trust in the divine person and redemptive work of Jesus Christ—God incarnate—based upon the content of divine revelation. So, then, faith has at its heart a doctrinal or theological content; thus, what one believes about God becomes all-important. Consider my signature at the end of this post: "Faith supposes reason, and goes beyond it." Faith extends beyond the finite limits of reason, yet is based upon it. Faith is founded upon, indeed includes, what we know; it is not something wholly separate from knowledge. Faith is beyond reason, but not against it. Faith is more than reason, but not less.

These are my thoughts for now. God bless.

Truly,
Donald

 

[buffalo]

We know there is a God by inductive reasoning.

 

[bassman]

It seems to come down to what a particular person will accept as evidence: one calls the anomalies in ones own position “mysteries”, and the anomalies in ones opponents position “contradictions”. Everyone’s first assumptions are just that, assumptions. For example: I hear a lot of criticism of James White in Catholic apologetic circles, but his thought is perfectly consistent for an epistemological nominalist; that is why all the canned apologetical arguments don’t work on him—they don’t even get to the point, in fact.

The classic defenses of Christianity are mainly from a pragmatic approach: Christianity is true because it works. While this does not satisfy the requirements of strict ontological proof, nonetheless, there is something to be said for such an approach—better to have a first assumption that works than one that does not.

Bassman

P.S. No need to be sassy, I have read Kreeft’s arguments.

 

[Liberian]

bassman:

Is there an argument from reason that necessitates the existence of God?

Bassman,

I would suggest that the answer is no, not any more. There was a time when people agreed that the logical process was valid, and also agreed on what constituted a logical argument. Nowadays–in the past century–the validity of logic has been questioned with the result that the logical process itself has stopped completely. Nowadays if you present what used to be an argument from reason, the listener simply answers “I don’t accept your logic” and there you sit.

• Liberian

 

[D_Quintero]

“Without God, there would be no Atheist.”
The argument from design is pretty logical. Everyone can conclude the a design implies a designer. They can also agree with cause and effect. They also know that the universe begin at a certain point in time. What caused the universe? What designed the universe? The big bang? “If the temperature of the primal fireball that resulted from the Big Bang some fifteen to twenty billion years ago, which was the beginning of our universe, had been a trillionth of a degree colder or hotter, the carbon molecule that is the foundation of all organic life could never have developed. The number of possible universes is trillions of trillions; only one of them could support human life: this one. Sounds suspiciously like a plot. If the cosmic rays had bombarded the primordial slime at a slightly different angle or time or intensity, the hemoglobin molecule, necessary for all warm-blooded animals, could never have evolved. The chance of this molecule’s evolving is something like one in a trillion. Add together each of the chances and you have something far more unbelievable than a million monkeys writing Hamlet.” from Peter Kreeft. We have a good explanation, but it perturbs atheist to think it’s God.

 

[barsapp]

hermit:

Rational proofs for the existence of God are doomed to failure. Belief in the existence of God is a matter of faith and not reason.

Hold on guys, do not go so fast, and take a look into the Dogmatic Constitution on the Catholic Faith (1870) (I hope you will considered it a more authoritative source than the Aquinas…):

“The same Holy Mother Church holds and teaches that God, the source and end of all things, can be known with certainty from the consideration of created things, by the natural power of human reason: ever since the creation of the world, his invisible nature has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made.”

So, if many people refuse to use their own reason properly, it is not reason’s fault.

 

[bassman]

The basis of modern philosophy—that philosophy depends on nothing but its own ontological method—is not at all self-evident. Descartes may say “it is an egg if I think it is an egg”. Hegel may say the egg is really a hen in an endless process of becoming. The pragmatist may say to forget the egg and only remember the scramble. Hume may worry about the cause of the egg; and Marx the cost. But Thomas did not need to squint at eggs to see a new simplification of eggs; he stands in the daylight of the common brotherhood of man and says eggs are eggs because they are attested to by the senses.

Modern philosophy said, “that may be true in practice, but how is it in theory?”