New proof of the existence of God

[Qoeleth]

Infra est nova demonstratio existentiae Dei.

I. Minime conveniet ut totalitas omnium sit absurda et vana;
II. Sed mundus visibilis est absurdus et vanus; sicut patens est omnibus fere hominibus, et Christicolis, et infidelibus.
III. Ergo, opportet esse aliquid plusquam mundus hic visibilis, qui dicitur “Deus”.

Vulgatam demonstrationem sequentem lege, si magis placeat:

1. It is not acceptable to suppose that the totality of all things is absurd and vain;
2. But the visible world is absurd and vain; as is obvious to virtually all people, both Christians and non-believers.
3. Therefore, there must be something more than this visible world, and this is called “God”.

 

[e_c]

1. Camus, Sartre, etc… In other words, why the heck not?
2. Only if you are looking for something beyond this world and not seeing it, like your namesake in Ecclesiastes. Otherwise, one may accept that there is random determination which ends in annihilation within a logically valid materialism which may or may not be depressing, depending on how one looks at it.
3. Except angels, justice, sound, dimension, any substance in itself…

Thomas argued exactly the opposite. The visible world is clearly ordered and intelligible, so there must be something that designed it. 5th proof.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Infra est nova demonstratio existentiae Dei.

I. Minime conveniet ut totalitas omnium sit absurda et vana;
II. Sed mundus visibilis est absurdus et vanus; sicut patens est omnibus fere hominibus, et Christicolis, et infidelibus.
III. Ergo, opportet esse aliquid plusquam mundus hic visibilis, qui dicitur “Deus”.

Vulgatam demonstrationem sequentem lege, si magis placeat:

1. It is not acceptable to suppose that the totality of all things is absurd and vain;
2. But the visible world is absurd and vain; as is obvious to virtually all people, both Christians and non-believers.
3. Therefore, there must be something more than this visible world, and this is called “God”.

1. The visible world is only absurd and vain to those who don’t comprehend its meaning and significance or merely impose their vain purposes on it. To those who do glimpse its real purpose or don’t merely attempt to impose their own vanity on the visible world, its meaning becomes a matter of revelation.

The truth and significance of anything has to come FROM it – i.e., revealed by it – not imposed upon it by vain, contingent and small-minded entities.

 

[goout]

…
The truth and significance of anything has to come FROM it – i.e., revealed by it – not imposed upon it by vain, contingent and small-minded entities.

I can’t express philosophy very eloquently, but what you describe here points to “other-ness”, which to me is the prime evidence of deity.
In the end, a person cannot explain much about himself without grasping for something other than one’s self.

You can observe that you are your own mass of atoms, but you can’t explain being, meaning, identity, purpose.

 

[rinnie]

We don"t need proof. When pray for the gift of Grace, the proof and existence of God moves and lives within you.

 

[KnowtheSilence]

Leaving aside specific objections to each premise, I don’t think the conclusion actually follows. Is it not simply wishful thinking to say that because something I the world is “unacceptable” to you that somehow it can’t actually be the case?

 

[seagal]

We don"t need proof.

So…you disagree with Aquinas.

 

[STT]

Infra est nova demonstratio existentiae Dei.

I. Minime conveniet ut totalitas omnium sit absurda et vana;
II. Sed mundus visibilis est absurdus et vanus; sicut patens est omnibus fere hominibus, et Christicolis, et infidelibus.
III. Ergo, opportet esse aliquid plusquam mundus hic visibilis, qui dicitur “Deus”.

Vulgatam demonstrationem sequentem lege, si magis placeat:

1. It is not acceptable to suppose that the totality of all things is absurd and vain;
2. But the visible world is absurd and vain; as is obvious to virtually all people, both Christians and non-believers.
3. Therefore, there must be something more than this visible world, and this is called “God”.

I don’t understand why (1) should be true.

 

[STT]

I can’t express philosophy very eloquently, but what you describe here points to “other-ness”, which to me is the prime evidence of deity.
In the end, a person cannot explain much about himself without grasping for something other than one’s self.

You can observe that you are your own mass of atoms, but you can’t explain being, meaning, identity, purpose.

I agree with you. Meaning and purpose are impossible to grasp without them life seems empty and vain.

 

[Qoeleth]

I don’t understand why (1) should be true.

Well, Premise 1 is, I suggest, a ‘necessary credential datum’- a bit like the three postulates in Kant.

It cannot be demonstrated, but must, for practical reasons, be assumed. Otherwise, quite literally, we are all wasting our time (and not only us, but the entire universe)!

 

[goout]

So…you disagree with Aquinas.

The poster might mean “evidence” instead of proof.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

I can’t express philosophy very eloquently, but what you describe here points to “other-ness”, which to me is the prime evidence of deity.
In the end, a person cannot explain much about himself without grasping for something other than one’s self.

You can observe that you are your own mass of atoms, but you can’t explain being, meaning, identity, purpose.

Maybe not “being” since it is too vague of a concept, but:

Purpose comes from your ability to expect future outcomes. Specifically, when you make decisions because you expect they will produce a outcome you desire, you are acting with purpose. Your ability to expect comes from your neuron’s abilities to perform mathematical calculations. Your ability to prefer/desire comes from biology and memories of prior experiences. Your ability to remember comes from your neuron’s ability to store information in molecules.

Identity derives from human society, your ability to remember, and your unique biological quirks. You have biological quirks because of the stochastic nature of our molecular systems. Humans form societies because they were evolutionarily advantageous.

Meaning depends on the context. Meaning as in “symbols have meaning” derives from our ability to recognize patterns (a mathematical task, therefore explainable via neurons.) Specifically, we can recognize symbols; but more importantly, pattern matching lets us recognize common sub-expressions.
Once we have noticed these common sub-expressions, our “purposeful” faculties recognize that it would be desirable to have some signifier to refer to the sub-expression, and hence symbols are formed.

Meaning as in “greater significance” derives from the fact that we can act with purpose. Experiences have meaning insofar as they impact our expectations of outcomes, either by changing the (name removed by moderator)uts to our expectation function, or by altering the expectation function itself. These modifications can be explained via the chemistry of the brain, as well as concepts such as signal processing.

 

[Qoeleth]

1. The visible world is only absurd and vain to those who don’t comprehend its meaning and significance or merely impose their vain purposes on it. To those who do glimpse its real purpose or don’t merely attempt to impose their own vanity on the visible world, its meaning becomes a matter of revelation.

The truth and significance of anything has to come FROM it – i.e., revealed by it – not imposed upon it by vain, contingent and small-minded entities.

I fear you are still stumbling the common errors of contingent thought, and have failed to comprehend properly the notion of the vanitatas, in its proper philosophical context.

Perhaps with a little more knowledge of philosophy, and you will come to grasp the significance of Scripture: Vanitas vanitatum. Omnis est vanitas

The words of Scripture cannot be refuted.

 

[PRmerger]

I fear you are still stumbling the common errors of contingent thought, and have failed to comprehend properly the notion of the vanitatas, in its proper philosophical context.

Perhaps with a little more knowledge of philosophy, and you will come to grasp the significance of Scripture: Vanitas vanitatum. Omnis est vanitas

The words of Scripture cannot be refuted.

I am confused about this post, as it appears to be a nonsequitur to Peter’s response.

Where did Peter claim that Scripture must be refuted?

 

[goout]

Maybe not “being” since it is too vague of a concept, but:

In being, we can observe and say “I exist”, or, “I am”.
Implied in this statement is “at one time I was not, now I am”. We recognize what it means “to be”, and we recognize that this being is not of ourselves. It comes from “other”. Whether you want to recognize deity in this other is on the individual. But in any case, our being does not derive from our selves.

So then the proper question to ask is from where, or rather from who, does my being derive.
(or you can throw up your hands and talk about star dust and atoms, which invites an endless reductionism in the quest to find being itself).

 

[e_c]

I fear you are still stumbling the common errors of contingent thought, and have failed to comprehend properly the notion of the vanitatas, in its proper philosophical context.

Perhaps with a little more knowledge of philosophy, and you will come to grasp the significance of Scripture: Vanitas vanitatum. Omnis est vanitas

The words of Scripture cannot be refuted.

Yeah. I wrote a paper on Ecclesiastes once too.

PP is on to it. (So were the peripatetics and scholastics and John the Evangelist.) The visible world is intelligible. This is distinct from having a clear idea of how man is ultimately fulfilled, which is what Ecclesiastes wrestles with in the non-messianic context (which is necessarily frustrating, since fallen man needs a savior). The text is NOT “absurdist” but is simply a description of how the world was and would have continued to be without Christ. (Note as well that almost the entire work is parenthetical, in that it is presented as another’s teaching by the actual author of the text… see the last piece. This seems important for exegesis.)

Anyway, it’s just not a good argument. The opposite works better, as Cdl. Ratzinger suggested - the world is intelligible, we can know it, that means there is an inner logic and therefore an intelligence which stands behind it - echoing the 5th proof of St. Thomas.

 

[goout]

Yeah. I wrote a paper on Ecclesiastes once too.

PP is on to it. (So were the peripatetics and scholastics and John the Evangelist.) The visible world is intelligible. This is distinct from having a clear idea of how man is ultimately fulfilled, which is what Ecclesiastes wrestles with in the non-messianic context (which is necessarily frustrating, since fallen man needs a savior). The text is NOT “absurdist” but is simply a description of how the world was and would have continued to be without Christ. (Note as well that almost the entire work is parenthetical, in that it is presented as another’s teaching by the actual author of the text… see the last piece. This seems important for exegesis.)

Anyway, it’s just not a good argument. The opposite works better, as Cdl. Ratzinger suggested - the world is intelligible, we can know it, that means there is an inner logic and therefore an intelligence which stands behind it - echoing the 5th proof of St. Thomas.

And if the world is intelligible, that means that it is revealed from other than ourselves, else there would be nothing for the intellect to perceive.
Intelligibility is not contingent on our own intelligence.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

In being, we can observe and say “I exist”, or, “I am”.
Implied in this statement is “at one time I was not, now I am”. We recognize what it means “to be”, and we recognize that this being is not of ourselves. It comes from “other”. Whether you want to recognize deity in this other is on the individual. But in any case, our being does not derive from our selves.

So then the proper question to ask is from where, or rather from who, does my being derive.
(or you can throw up your hands and talk about star dust and atoms, which invites an endless reductionism in the quest to find being itself).

Defined that way, our ability to recognize patterns explains our ability to distinguish between “self” and “not-self.” Specifically, our pattern recognition abilities are reflexive, and can therefore recognize patterns in it’s own behavior. This recognition allows us to be aware of the fact that our behavior is distinct from the behavior of rocks and trees and so on. This also explains our ability to recognize personal change, as well as our temporary existence.

Now, all the explanations I’ve given so far are easy to come by. Moreover, the only “outside the self” appeals I’ve made are to math and physics concepts. Now you can complain about how my 3-4 paragraphs of explanations are somehow “endless reductionism,” or you can admit that you never really tried to come up with a boring mechanistic of the self. Perhaps because you very much wanted to leave some room for something “other” than yourself.

So I suppose I might agree with you in this sense: if you were to ignore all the reasonable but mundane explanations for our sense of self, purpose, meaning, etc, then you’ve got to conclude that such things are the results of the ghosts in our shells.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

Anyway, it’s just not a good argument. The opposite works better, as Cdl. Ratzinger suggested - the world is intelligible, we can know it, that means there is an inner logic and therefore an intelligence which stands behind it - echoing the 5th proof of St. Thomas.

I disagree. Such a statement relies on this:

In the absence of some logical explainer, the universe would be unintelligible.

What is that statement? It is an a-priori dictum about the default state of the universe. I.e. it is equivalent to saying that the universe is naturally unintelligible, and it is only because of some external overriding cause that it is intelligible.

So what is the a-priori defense of this? Why must the universe be unintelligible by default? Of course it could conceivably be unintelligible by default, but it seems like it could also be intelligible by default. In such a case it would take an external overriding cause to make it unintelligible.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

1. It is not acceptable to suppose that the totality of all things is absurd and vain;
2. But the visible world is absurd and vain; as is obvious to virtually all people, both Christians and non-believers.
3. Therefore, there must be something more than this visible world, and this is called “God”.

I disagree with the second supposition. The visible world is beautiful and meaningful, not absurd and vain. Where does that idea come from?