How can God's existence be demonstrated by reason?

[Linusthe2nd]

I am always amused that no one points out the logical incoherence of this sentence. It uses the phrase of “created world”. So effectively it says: “This world is created. A created world needs a creator. The creator is God. Therefore we have a “rational” demonstration of God. What a wonderful example of circular “reasoning”!

There are a whole lot of alleged proofs of God’s existence. None of them stand up to the scrutiny of reason, and probably the church realizes this, since the church does not endorse any one of them as being the “best, fully acceptable **official **proof”. Moreover, if there would be a truly foolproof, rational method to demonstrate God’s existence, then “faith” would not be necessary any more.

Hundreds of (abbreviated) proofs here!!

You seem to know a great deal about the Catholic Faith. Then you should understand that the quotation is not a " proof " for the existence of God but a Dogma stating that man can know of the existence of God, etc. through the light of reason shed upon the things of his creation.

The Church is not saying that the one who is viewing creation knows he is looking at creation, but the Church knows the seeker is looking at creation and it was God Who did the creating. So there is no circular reasoning. The seeker looks at the wonders of the universe and says, " …only a very powerful and wonderful being could have done all that…" And eventually he gets the feeling that he is looking into the heart of the Cause of all that is good. Then he may be given the grace of comprehension. But if not, the Church is always there to point the way.

Linus2nd

 

[Bagheera]

Linusthe2nd:

Then you should understand that the quotation is not a “proof” for the existence of God but a Dogma stating that man can know of the existence of God, etc. through the light of reason shed upon the things of his creation.

Dogmas are only relevant for those who accept them. For everyone else a “proof” would be needed. Nevertheless, the dogma – as stated – is still a formally circular proposition. One would presume that the author(s) should have been aware of the circularity, and also the necessity of providing an actual “proof”, IF, of course they were interested in talking to the unbelievers. There are many unbelievers who respect reason and logic, and for whom a valid proof would be all they need. Were the writers of the catechism not aware of this?

Linusthe2nd:

The Church is not saying that the one who is viewing creation knows he is looking at creation, but the Church knows the seeker is looking at creation and it was God Who did the creating.

This is a baseless assertion as far the unbelievers are concerned. For the believers it is “singing to the choir”, since they already believe it. For the unbelievers it means nothing. And before someone brings up the idiotic nonsense: “for the believers no proof is necessary, for the unbelievers no proof is sufficient”, a valid proof is all the logically inclined and rational unbelievers need. Recall the nice commercial: “Where is the beef?”

 

[Elostirion]

You realize they all know this?

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Dogmas are only relevant for those who accept them. For everyone else a “proof” would be needed. Nevertheless, the dogma – as stated – is still a formally circular proposition. One would presume that the author(s) should have been aware of the circularity, and also the necessity of providing an actual “proof”, IF, of course they were interested in talking to the unbelievers. There are many unbelievers who respect reason and logic, and for whom a valid proof would be all they need. Were the writers of the catechism not aware of this?

This is a baseless assertion as far the unbelievers are concerned. For the believers it is “singing to the choir”, since they already believe it. For the unbelievers it means nothing. And before someone brings up the idiotic nonsense: “for the believers no proof is necessary, for the unbelievers no proof is sufficient”, a valid proof is all the logically inclined and rational unbelievers need. Recall the nice commercial: “Where is the beef?”

But many non-believers do just as I said. They look at the universe and " see the light. "
Also, many of them see the 20-30 proofs for the existence of God and one of them strikes them as valid and then they " see the light. " But there are those who for one reason or another can’t understand the arguments. And for them the Church informs them by way of Dogmas. Sorry it displeases you.

Linus2nd

 

[Bagheera]

Linusthe2nd:

But many non-believers do just as I said. They look at the universe and " see the light. "
Also, many of them see the 20-30 proofs for the existence of God and one of them strikes them as valid and then they " see the light. "

Many? How many?

Linusthe2nd:

But there are those who for one reason or another can’t understand the arguments. And for them the Church informs them by way of Dogmas. Sorry it displeases you.

Why would it displease me? It is very telling that you only talk about those who “can’t understand the arguments” – are they the mentally incapacitated? (There is a book: “Catholics for Dummies”… how appropriate. ) What about those, who understand the arguments, but find them deficient? Those are the majority of the atheists. The church could reach out to them by presenting an actual “proof” of the assertion that one needs no “faith”, no “revelation”, only reason to find out about God’s existence. And I am not talking about the fallacious arguments of Aquinas et al.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Many? How many?

Why would it displease me? It is very telling that you only talk about those who “can’t understand the arguments” – are they the mentally incapacitated? (There is a book: “Catholics for Dummies”… how appropriate. ) What about those, who understand the arguments, but find them deficient? Those are the majority of the atheists. The church could reach out to them by presenting an actual “proof” of the assertion that one needs no “faith”, no “revelation”, only reason to find out about God’s existence. And I am not talking about the fallacious arguments of Aquinas et al.

The Church has done so, it has never officially stated what these " proofs " may be except in a general way. Take a look at the Catechism and you will see. However, the Church expresses the caviat that not all, for various reasons, are able to understand these " reasons, " and that, in those cases, she holds our Divine Revelation upon which Faith is based. It is interesting that the Church refers to the " proofs " as " reasons. " This means that they are not " proofs " in the sense that objections cannot be raised, but which do justify one in saying that God exists.

Linus2nd
"

 

[Bagheera]

Linusthe2nd:

The Church has done so, it has never officially stated what these " proofs " may be except in a general way.

As we all know: “the devil is on the details”.

Linusthe2nd:

Take a look at the Catechism and you will see.

I did. There is no detail there either. Just same empty proposition.

Linusthe2nd:

However, the Church expresses the caveat that not all, for various reasons, are able to understand these " reasons, "…

Sure, the mentally retarded are exempt. What about the rest of us?

Linusthe2nd:

This means that they are not " proofs " in the sense that objections cannot be raised, but which do justify one in saying that God exists.

They serve as “justifications” only for those who already believe.

You see, there is nothing wrong with the approach of starting with the observed reality, making a new observation, which cannot be explained by the existing knowledge, and then proposing a new hypothesis – and then substantiate it. Science works along these lines all the time. It would be a perfectly legitimate method to substantiate God’s existence – on fully rational ground. The “five methods” of Aquinas attempted to do something like that. The problem is that he started with the observed reality, but then he made an unjustified “metaphysical leap” – which is the fallacy of the “no black swan”. And that is the “best” that the church could come up with?

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Sure, the mentally retarded are exempt. What about the rest of us?

If they have been baptized, they receive the grace of Faith through the power of the Sacrament. Others, on the other hand, may have legitimate reasons for lack of Faith, only God knows.

They serve as “justifications” only for those who already believe.

Those who have Faith, need no justifications. But the " reasons " serve to bolster Faith.

You see, there is nothing wrong with the approach of starting with the observed reality, making a new observation, which cannot be explained by the existing knowledge, and then proposing a new hypothesis – and then substantiate it. Science works along these lines all the time. It would be a perfectly legitimate method to substantiate God’s existence – on fully rational ground. The “five methods” of Aquinas attempted to do something like that. The problem is that he started with the observed reality, but then he made an unjustified “metaphysical leap” – which is the fallacy of the “no black swan”. And that is the “best” that the church could come up with?

No leap is taken, he never intended to teach science. His intention was always to argue through the metaphysical reality of existence. But one must start with what one can see, just like science. I’m afraid I don’t know what " no black swan " implies or how it applies here. The Church gave what was valid to reason. One cannot go further than reason allows. It is not a question of what is " best, " but what is true.

Linus2nd

 

[Bagheera]

Linusthe2nd:

If they have been baptized, they receive the grace of Faith through the power of the Sacrament. Others, on the other hand, may have legitimate reasons for lack of Faith, only God knows.

But that is not what the church says. It says that once you heard the teaching of the catholic church, you have no legitimate “excuse” for not believing. (It is in the catechism somewhere, I did not bookmark it. Sorry.)

Linusthe2nd:

No leap is taken, he never intended to teach science. His intention was always to argue through the metaphysical reality of existence. But one must start with what one can see, just like science. I’m afraid I don’t know what " no black swan " implies or how it applies here.

The leap was from particular observation of a physical process to a metaphysical generalization. When he spoke of “motion”, and said that we only observe that “motion” was initiated by some other object, and then assumed that this process cannot go to “infinity” and thus arrived to an “unmoved mover”. The “no black swan” fallacy was to say: “since we have never seen something to move without an external mover, therefore there is no movement without a mover”. Of course he was totally ignorant of the laws of physics, and that is a valid excuse for him. But that is not an excuse for today’s apologists.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

But that is not what the church says. It says that once you heard the teaching of the catholic church, you have no legitimate “excuse” for not believing. (It is in the catechism somewhere, I did not bookmark it. Sorry.)

Sorry, that is not so. The Church has never said that. It does say that Faith ( normally comes through hearing), but it still requires Grace. It is difficult to determine what would be a legitimate " excuse, " only God knows that. The individual himself may not even know.

leap was from particular observation of a physical process to a metaphysical generalization. When he spoke of “motion”, and said that we only observe that “motion” was initiated by some other object, and then assumed that this process cannot go to “infinity” and thus arrived to an “unmoved mover”. The “no black swan” fallacy was to say: “since we have never seen something to move without an external mover, therefore there is no movement without a mover”. Of course he was totally ignorant of the laws of physics, and that is a valid excuse for him. But that is not an excuse for today’s apologists.

Well, I don’t think the " fallacy " applies. It is the same type of inference science often uses.

The laws of physics have no adverse affect on the philosophical " reasons. " I have often heard this objection but it is made by those who don’t understand the philosophy of Thomas. You will have to give me an example of an instance where you see a conflict.

Linus2nd

 

[Bagheera]

Linusthe2nd:

Sorry, that is not so.

Since I cannot find the exact quote, I cannot go any further here. But he catechism is pretty clear:
Directly from the Catechism:

2087 Our moral life has its source in faith in God who reveals his love to us. St. Paul speaks of the “obedience of faith” as our first obligation. He shows that “ignorance of God” is the principle and explanation of all moral deviations. Our duty toward God is to believe in him and to bear witness to him.

2088 The first commandment requires us to nourish and protect our faith with prudence and vigilance, and to reject everything that is opposed to it. There are various ways of sinning against faith:

Voluntary doubt about the faith disregards or refuses to hold as true what God has revealed and the Church proposes for belief. Involuntary doubt refers to hesitation in believing, difficulty in overcoming objections connected with the faith, or also anxiety aroused by its obscurity. If deliberately cultivated doubt can lead to spiritual blindness.

2089 Incredulity is the neglect of revealed truth or the willful refusal to assent to it. “Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same; apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; schism is the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.”

By the way, it is very disturbing that we are ALL commanded to love God. Commanding to be loved does not mesh real well with “wishing to be loved – freely!”. But that is another discussion.

Linusthe2nd:

Well, I don’t think the " fallacy " applies. It is the same type of inference science often uses.

Yes, exactly – it is the first step on the way. In science we attempt to go from the observed particulars unto some generalized rule. The fallacy is to stop at the inference, and conclude that now have a generalized rule. And that is precisely what Aquinas does, in all five of his “proofs”.

Linusthe2nd:

The laws of physics have no adverse affect on the philosophical " reasons. "

I have no idea what this means. But let me point out that if a metaphysical concept is contradicted by actual physics, then the metaphysical concept must be discarded. Metaphysical speculation has its place under the Sun, but only as long as actual physics cannot make a definitive answer.

 

[Thunderballs]

The easiest proof is this. We can all agree that some objects are capable of undergoing motion. Everything that undergoes motion is moved by another that moves it. This “another” this “mover” is itself either moved or unmoved. If it is unmoved, then we have to posit an unmoved mover. This is what men refer to as God. If this “another” is moved, then it must be moved by something else, which must be moved by yet another onto infinity. But proceeding to infinity is impossible. Therefore, at some point, we must arrive at some First Prime unmoved mover, and this we call God. And by understanding God as the unmoved mover we can deduce many other things such that he is eternal, purely good, etc.

At best that would be an argument for a god. It says nothing about a god such as that described in the bible.

 

[Reperio]

I’ve recently read the “reasoned existence” question answered rather nicely by Fr. Robert Barron (“Catholicism: A Journey To The Heart Of The Faith”, quotes hereafter are his words). It relates to earlier posts referring to “Summa Theologica” and the idea of “prime mover” but is very simply presented and Fr. Barron characterizes it in contingencies. Goes like this: Look at anything around you, anything. How did it get there? He uses the example of a cloud and says “We say that it is caused by the moisture in the atmosphere, by temperature, winds, and so on. …those factors are contingent” on something else causing them. So we move to what caused (what they are contingent on) those things (ex. jet stream, solar influence). Then what is that contingent on? And so on until we MUST arrive at something, an existence, a creator if you will that is contingent (dependent) on nothing; it exists because of its own will, essence. “Aquinas argues if we are to avoid an infinite regress of contingent causes, which finally explain nothing at all, we must come finally to some “necessary” reality, something that exists simply through the power of its own essence. This, he concludes, is what people mean when they use the word “God”.”

Sorry about the length…I do hope I made at least SOME sense…

 

[thenobes]

By the way, it is very disturbing that we are ALL commanded to love God. Commanding to be loved does not mesh real well with “wishing to be loved – freely!”. But that is another discussion.

Really getting off track but Christ requires more than just obedience to commndments. He says that when we have done all we have been asked to do, we will be considered poor servants because we have only done what was asked. Love is more than following commands. It is following the Spirit of God, the Spirit of Love.

Self Sacrificial love.

OTOH I am trying to develop a logical contradiction inherent in an infinite regress of causes. The problem as I see it is that if the amount of time preceding the current moment is infinite, how did we ever get to this present moment?

peace
steve

 

[Reperio]

OTOH I am trying to develop a logical contradiction inherent in an infinite regress of causes. The problem as I see it is that if the amount of time preceding the current moment is infinite, how did we ever get to this present moment?

peace
steve

I believe Aquanis’ argument of infinite contingencies applies to time as well. For example: How did the present moment get here? Because the previous one ended. Ok, then how did that previous moment get here? Because the one before that ended. And so on until one must arrive at a moment that exists for no other reason than it exists, that it has no contingencies to time. This, I would certainly say, is God (the creator of the first moment in time). Otherwise it seems we fall into the infinite “regress of causes” that "really explains nothing.

 

[Bagheera]

Reperio:

And so on until we MUST arrive at something, an existence, a creator if you will that is contingent (dependent) on nothing; it exists because of its own will, essence.

Apart from the unnecessary “creator", “will” and “essence” we arrive at the STEM – space, time, energy matter – which cannot be created or destroyed – which simply exists. Contingency is only defined within the universe, it is not defined and cannot be defined for the universe.

Reperio:

I believe Aquanis’ argument of infinite contingencies applies to time as well. For example: How did the present moment get here? Because the previous one ended. Ok, then how did that previous moment get here? Because the one before that ended. And so on until one must arrive at a moment that exists for no other reason than it exists, that it has no contingencies to time. This, I would certainly say, is God (the creator of the first moment in time). Otherwise it seems we fall into the infinite “regress of causes” that "really explains nothing.

The same error as before. Time is the property of the universe. It cannot be defined outside the universe.

 

[Reperio]

Apart from the unnecessary “creator", “will” and “essence” we arrive at the STEM – space, time, energy matter – which cannot be created or destroyed – which simply exists. Contingency is only defined within the universe, it is not defined and cannot be defined for the universe.
.

 

[Reperio]

Apart from the unnecessary “creator", “will” and “essence” we arrive at the STEM – space, time, energy matter – which cannot be created or destroyed – which simply exists. Contingency is only defined within the universe, it is not defined and cannot be defined for the universe.

We arrived at the same conclusion. We simply have different terms for that which cannot be created or destroyed and which simply exists. You refer to it as STEM, I call it God. To me the idea of contingencies is the logical progression (though in the backwards direction) of arriving at an element that exists simply because it exists. I am uncertain of the term “universe” in this sense. Do you mean that it exists outside of contingent behavior? Is exempt from it? If so again we arrived at the same place but you call it “universe” and STEM. Interesting points…this fascinating debate may well be beyond my meager intellect though…

 

[FathersKnowBest]

Time is the property of the universe. It cannot be defined outside the universe.

And neither can it have an infinite regress. Therefore, something outside the universe, something which transcends our universe, must exist in order to set it in motion.

Time began some 13.7billion years ago.

 

[Reperio]

And neither can it have an infinite regress. Therefore, something outside the universe, something which transcends our universe, must exist in order to set it in motion.

Time began some 13.7billion years ago.

Nicely put…