God is the uncause cause, but how do we know God is good?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Abyssinia
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
A

Abyssinia

Guest
If we know that God is the uncaused cause, how do we know that God is good, forgives sins, answers prayers?
 
Either Aquinas’s 4th argument, or revelation, I’m guessing.

It’s been a while since I’ve been to Mass, so I’m not sure what the official answer is…
 
Abyssinia said:
If we know that God is the uncaused cause, how do we know that God is good, forgives sins, answers prayers?
Click to expand...
God the Father sent God the Son to forgive sins; and together they sent the Holy Spirit to indwell within each of us.
 
Revelation. Reason alone cannot determine the goodness of God.
 
Assuming God exists, the question becomes: does God value us in any way; benevolently or malevolently, or indifferently???

Indifferently? Not likely. Why would God create us if He is indifferent to us? Apparently He has an interest.

Malevolently? Not likely. A malevolent God would hardly give us a lust to hold onto life as long as we can? What would be the point of it if life is too much to bear at the hands of a cruel God?

Benevolent? Likely. In spite of life’s hardships, we lust for life and do not want to give it up even under the harshest conditions. There is too much joy and pleasure in the world for it to be a world created by a God who does not value our joy and pleasure. There is also sorrow and tragedy in the world, but even the sorrow and tragedy, rightly regarded, can be seen as means by which we are drawn closer to a loving God.
 
Charlemagne_II said:
Assuming God exists, the question becomes: does God value us in any way; benevolently or malevolently, or indifferently???

Indifferently? Not likely. Why would God create us if He is indifferent to us? Apparently He has an interest.

Malevolently? Not likely. A malevolent God would hardly give us a lust to hold onto life as long as we can? What would be the point of it if life is too much to bear at the hands of a cruel God?

Benevolent? Likely. In spite of life’s hardships, we lust for life and do not want to give it up even under the harshest conditions. There is too much joy and pleasure in the world for it to be a world created by a God who does not value our joy and pleasure. There is also sorrow and tragedy in the world, but even the sorrow and tragedy, rightly regarded, can be seen as means by which we are drawn closer to a loving God.
Click to expand...
This assumes that God is a creator, which is not a given. Reason can’t tell you that God created the world through an act of will. In fact, Neoplatonic thought (which had - and continues to have huge influence) says that the world emanated from God from eternity by necessity. The emanations continued through the material world, culminating in man. The Neoplatonic god is indifferent and wholly other, and is not a conscious willful creator. It takes revelation to know that the world was created and that God is good.
 
*It takes revelation to know that the world was created and that God is good. *

It takes Revelation to know many things about God and Creation, but that He exists and is good can be known by the light of natural reason.

The Church teaches that natural law is planted in us by God, and part of that natural law is not only morality, but the sense that God exists and is to be served as a righteous God.

For those who are deprived of Revelation, this natural law serves as a guide to conscience and worship.

scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s1c3a1.htm#1955
 
I’m well aware of both natural law and the various natural law theories, and with their relation to revelation.

I said that we can know God exists, but philosophy cannot tell us that God is a creator. There are many different logical positions concerning the existence of the material world that can be reached through philosophical inquiry. Not all of them are true. Philosophy cannot by itself tell us that the material world was created by an act of the will. Through the exercise of reason we can determine the nature of things and their ends and purposes. The natural law cannot, however, tell us that the universe is created by an act of God’s will rather than emanated from God by necessity. The natural law can tell us that God exists, but not that he is a person who cares for creation- or even that there is creation rather than uncreated existence.

And even the precepts of natural law that point to those truths are not evident due to man’s fallen nature. Moving beyond universal first principles demands both revelation and an interpreter of the natural law. Quoting the same section you link:
1960 The precepts of natural law are not perceived by everyone clearly and immediately. In the present situation sinful man needs grace and revelation so moral and religious truths may be known “by everyone with facility, with firm certainty and with no admixture of error.” The natural law provides revealed law and grace with a foundation prepared by God and in accordance with the work of the Spirit.
Click to expand...
 
smith
*
The natural law can tell us that God exists, but not that he is a person who cares for creation- or even that there is creation rather than uncreated existence.*

Tell us, oh wise one:D, why the natural law would tell us that God exists but would not tell us that he cares for us.

In my previous post #6, I showed you how I could reason naturally, without the help of revelation, that God cares for us, that He should not be indifferent or cruel.
 
Your post number six shows that God loves and cares for us presuming that he created the world by an act of the will. You make that assumption explicitly and your entire argument rests upon it. Remove that assumption and you have the possibility of a world with an indifferent god. We know that God created the world because he revealed that to us. It did not emanate from him by necessity and it is not part of him. Without revelation to tell us that God is a creator, there is no reason to know that he is benevolent.
 
smithm29,
I said that we can know God exists, but philosophy cannot tell us that God is a creator. There are many different logical positions concerning the existence of the material world that can be reached through philosophical inquiry. Not all of them are true. Philosophy cannot by itself tell us that the material world was created by an act of the will. Through the exercise of reason we can determine the nature of things and their ends and purposes. The natural law cannot, however, tell us that the universe is created by an act of God’s will rather than emanated from God by necessity. The natural law can tell us that God exists, but not that he is a person who cares for creation- or even that there is creation rather than uncreated existence.
Click to expand...
This is incorrect. I think you might be using the term created incorrectly. While it is true that reason alone cannot prove that the world had a beginning in time, it can prove that the world was created by God. The entire argument of the uncaused cause proves that very fact. God could have created a world that had no beginning in time though, and perhaps that is from where the confusion stems.

Reason can also prove that there was no necessity in God to create. Basically, anyone of God’s attributes can be proven from reason including goodness, oneness, omnipotence, onmiscience, etc.
 
Katholish said:
smithm29,

This is incorrect. I think you might be using the term created incorrectly. While it is true that reason alone cannot prove that the world had a beginning in time, it can prove that the world was created by God. The entire argument of the uncaused cause proves that very fact. God could have created a world that had no beginning in time though, and perhaps that is from where the confusion stems.

Reason can also prove that there was no necessity in God to create. Basically, anyone of God’s attributes can be proven from reason including goodness, oneness, omnipotence, onmiscience, etc.
Click to expand...
I’m not using the word created incorrectly- I’m pretty sure that you aren’t understanding the nature of emanation. The idea of emanation is heresy because revelation attests that God created by an act of the will. It is, however, logically consistent. I would suggest reading the Enneads.

The “uncaused cause” or “first cause” argument means simply that God is pure actuality- that His will “is” and that there is no potentiality in Him. This argument does not mean that the world could not have emanated from God in the same way that heat emanates from a fire. It does mean that anything he wills he wills from eternity and that it happens exactly as he wills it to happen. It does not mean that everything that happens is the result of his will- except in the sense that nothing would exist (and therefore nothing would happen) without him.
 
smithm29 said:
I’m not using the word created incorrectly- I’m pretty sure that you aren’t understanding the nature of emanation. The idea of emanation is heresy because revelation attests that God created by an act of the will. It is, however, logically consistent. I would suggest reading the Enneads.

The “uncaused cause” or “first cause” argument means simply that God is pure actuality- that His will “is” and that there is no potentiality in Him. This argument does not mean that the world could not have emanated from God in the same way that heat emanates from a fire. It does mean that anything he wills he wills from eternity and that it happens exactly as he wills it to happen. It does not mean that everything that happens is the result of his will- except in the sense that nothing would exist (and therefore nothing would happen) without him.
Click to expand...
To create something is to cause it to come into being. So, emanation is actually creatio ex deo, and hence a category of creation. We can know from reason alone that the world is created. What you are arguing is that we cannot know it was created ex nihilo.

Pure actuality implies pure perfection, no? Just because Plotinus made the argument for creation by emanation, doesn’t mean his argument was sound. Perfect Act is necessary in Itself and any necessity to “other” itself by emanation, creation, or some kind of Hegalian unfolding implies an imperfection.

St. Thomas provides the argument proving from reason alone that all things were created from the Will of God (Question 19, Article 4 of the Prima Pars), and then proves that they are created ex nihilo. He does not make an appeal to revelation in any of this.
newadvent.org/summa/1019.htm#article4
 
smith

*Your post number six shows that God loves and cares for us presuming that he created the world by an act of the will. You make that assumption explicitly and your entire argument rests upon it. Remove that assumption and you have the possibility of a world with an indifferent god. We know that God created the world because he revealed that to us. It did not emanate from him by necessity and it is not part of him. Without revelation to tell us that God is a creator, there is no reason to know that he is benevolent. *

Of course that presumption is made. Why isn’t it a rational presumption without revelation?

Why wouldn’t I presume that God has a will and a generous one at that? I have both myself. Would God have less will and generosity than I have? Why wouldn’t natural reason lead me to believe that it makes more sense to believe God is superior to me in every way, including will and generosity??? As in post #6, why wouldn’t I naturally conclude that he is a generous and benevolent god, rather than a cruel and savage one?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top