New proof of the existence of God

[goout]

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.

Please note that your own statements recognize that existence only has meaning in reference to “other”.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

Please note that your own statements recognize that existence only has meaning in reference to “other”.

We were talking about “being” not meaning, and the “other” you are talking about in this post is not the same “other” you used earlier:

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.

i.e. you are equivocating on “other.”

 

[goout]

We were talking about “being” not meaning, and the “other” you are talking about in this post is not the same “other” you used earlier:

i.e. you are equivocating on “other.”

No.

You are debating other.
I’m merely pointing out that in regard to being, your own words use something outside the person as necessary reference to being.
Meaning and being are tied up together, so why would it be unusual to use the terms with one another?

 

[JapaneseKappa]

I’m merely pointing out that in regard to being, your own words use something outside the person as necessary reference to being.

Ah, I see what the problem is. I cautioned earlier that the term “being” is vague; we must separate our understanding of being with our actual existence. Our understanding of being is likely developed from our experience of non-self things, and it seems you are not contesting this point. What I object to is the insinuation that the existence of the self is contingent on some non-physical magic. It is not, it is produced by ordinary interactions as I have previously described.

Meaning and being are tied up together, so why would it be unusual to use the terms with one another?

I certainly object to their being used interchangeably.

Indeed, if all you wanted to say in your earlier post:

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.

was that “stuff other than our self exists” you could have said something like:

Baseball points to “otherness” which is the prime evidence of deity. After all, you can’t play baseball without grasping for other players and equipment.

 

[e_c]

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.

That simply doesn’t follow. There is no “default state” being alluded to or posited or logically depended on.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

That simply doesn’t follow. There is no “default state” being alluded to or posited or logically depended on.

So then why exactly does the intelligibility of the universe imply there is an intelligence behind it? Please be very precise.

 

[rcwitness]

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

I agree

So…you disagree with Aquinas.

I highly doubt St Thomas believed what you imply.

I don’t think we will ever have proof of God’s existence. Individuals, like Apostles and those given private revelations may have been afforded proofs, but in general faith will always be necessary. Sound evidence from both faith and reason exists. But we do not need proof, and most likely will never be proven from Him. He has fashioned our faith and understanding according to the conviction of the mind and soul through His Spirit, by faith, hope and Divine Revelation.

 

[e_c]

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.

So then why exactly does the intelligibility of the universe imply there is an intelligence behind it? Please be very precise.

I deleted my previous response, because it missed the heart of the matter… Which is that the “default state” is actually intelligibility - since that seems to be so bound up with the very idea of there being something at all. How do composites exist except by a unity nobler than themselves, which in turn must be intelligent and creative in order to have made those composites? Etc.

Just look at the 5 ways. It’s all there in seed.

You could also actually go look for Ratzinger’s argument itself.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

I deleted my previous response, because it missed the heart of the matter… Which is that the “default state” is actually intelligibility - since that seems to be so bound up with the very idea of there being something at all. How do composites exist except by a unity nobler than themselves, which in turn must be intelligent and creative in order to have made those composites? Etc.

Just look at the 5 ways. It’s all there in seed.

You could also actually go look for Ratzinger’s argument itself.

This one? w2.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/speeches/2006/september/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20060912_university-regensburg.html

It doesn’t appear that Ratzinger is making the argument you’re attributing to him.

 

[Qoeleth]

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?

Well, he said “The visible world is not vain”. To which I replied with a quote of Scripture which said the exact opposite “All is vanity”. In order to establish the irrefutability of the evidence of Scripture on this point, I quoted further Scripture- “The Words of Scripture cannot be refuted.”

I trust this dispels your confusion.

 

[PRmerger]

Well, he said “The visible world is not vain”. To which I replied with a quote of Scripture which said the exact opposite “All is vanity”. In order to establish the irrefutability of the evidence of Scripture on this point, I quoted further Scripture- “The Words of Scripture cannot be refuted.”

I trust this dispels your confusion.

Well, I think when Scripture says “all is vanity”, one ought not read it through the tortured lens of a fundamentalist.

If, truly, “all is vanity”, would that mean that the atoning death of Christ was vanity?

Or, rather, should we read it the Scriptures and understand it with some nuance?

 

[Qoeleth]

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.

There’s a difference between “intelligible”, and “not being vain.”

For example, I could find a scrap of paper, with a clear simple mathematical equation on it. It would be intelligible. But, it might seem that the scrap of paper, and the equation, both served no meaningful purpose in there totality. Therefore, they might both be intelligible and vain.

I don’t see why both argument can’t be used:

• the world seems intelligible and rational in its structures, mechanisms and systems; therefore there must be a God; AND
• the visible world is not sufficient in itself for true human fulfilment (i.e. considered, in itself, it earthly strivings are vain and futile). Therefore, there must be something more, therefore there must be God.

My sense is that people in this age are not particular impressed by the first point (since rationality in itself does not appeal to the heart). Whereas the second argument, I think, has more appeal, since contemporary people feel acutely the futility of earthly striving.

 

[Peter_Plato]

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.

Except that would be Quoleth speaking and not God. Ergo, to the speaker alone, “Vanitas vanitatum. Omnis est vanitas.” That is his opinion regarding all that is.

That is not the LORD saying or giving his assent to those words, that is the speaker in the passage giving HIS opinion.

If you can point out the place where God himself says, “Vanitas vanitatum. Omnis est vanitas.” Then I will accept that ALL is, indeed, VANITY.

You haven’t shown that the opinion of Quoleth cannot be refuted by Scripture, nor that Scripture is giving God’s determination about ALL or EVERYTHING when you quote that passage.

Proper exegesis doesn’t give you that kind of license.

 

[Qoeleth]

Except that would be Quoleth speaking and not God. Ergo, to the speaker alone, “Vanitas vanitatum. Omnis est vanitas.” That is his opinion regarding all that is.

That is not the LORD saying or giving his assent to those words, that is the speaker in the passage giving HIS opinion.

If you can point out the place where God himself says, “Vanitas vanitatum. Omnis est vanitas.” Then I will accept that ALL is, indeed, VANITY.

You haven’t shown that the opinion of Quoleth cannot be refuted by Scripture, nor that Scripture is giving God’s determination about ALL or EVERYTHING when you quote that passage.

Proper exegesis doesn’t give you that kind of license.

The words are attributed to Solomon. In the same way the words of the Canticum Canticorum, and Proverbs are attributed to him, as the homo sapiens par excellence.

You are falling into the error of imagining false dichotomy between the human author, and the Divine inspiration. That’s like saying- “St. Paul wrote this letter. It’s his opinion, not the Word of God.” Or, “Solomon wrote Ecclesiastes. It’s his opinion, not the Word of God.”

That’s not proper exegesis, or at least proper exegesis in the Catholic tradition.

Nevertheless- my argument does not rely on Scriptural evidence (an argument for God which did would be circular). Rather, purely the experiential data, available to believers and non-believers alike.

 

[Peter_Plato]

The words are attributed to Solomon. In the same way the words of the Canticum Canticorum, and Proverbs are attributed to him, as the homo sapiens par excellence.

The words are attributed to “the Preacher,” the son of David, or in Hebrew "Qoheleth’’ or alternatively, “Qoeleth.” I thought you knew that, given how you identify yourself.

You are falling into the error of imagining false dichotomy between the human author, and the Divine inspiration. That’s like saying- “St. Paul wrote this letter. It’s his opinion, not the Word of God.” Or, “Solomon wrote Ecclesiastes. It’s his opinion, not the Word of God.”

That’s not proper exegesis, or at least proper exegesis in the Catholic tradition.

Nevertheless- my argument does not rely on Scriptural evidence (an argument for God which did would be circular). Rather, purely the experiential data, available to believers and non-believers alike.

Actually, there are places where Paul clearly states that it is his opinion being voiced and not “the Lord’s.” Similarly, in this passage, “the Preacher” clearly states, as Paul would distinguish between his words and the Lord’s…

The words of the Preacher, the son of David, king in Jerusalem.
Vanity of vanities, says the Preacher,
vanity of vanities! All is vanity.

 

[PRmerger]

The words are attributed to “the Preacher,” the son of David, or in Hebrew "Qoheleth’’ or alternatively, “Qoeleth.” I thought you knew that, given how you identify yourself.

Actually, there are places where Paul clearly states that it is his opinion being voiced and not “the Lord’s.” Similarly, in this passage, “the Preacher” clearly states, as Paul would distinguish between his words and the Lord’s…

Indeed.

It is poor exegesis to attribute things that are recorded in the Bible as things God willed.

To wit:

Gen 4:8–Cain slew Abel.

Not be interpreted as meaning: God endorsed fratricide.

Similarly, it is poor exegesis to attribute things people said in the Bible as things God said.

To wit: John 6:52: "“How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”

Not to be interpreted as “God denies that he can give us His flesh to eat”.

 

[Qoeleth]

The words are attributed to “the Preacher,” the son of David, or in Hebrew "Qoheleth’’ or alternatively, “Qoeleth.” I thought you knew that, given how you identify yourself.

Actually, there are places where Paul clearly states that it is his opinion being voiced and not “the Lord’s.” Similarly, in this passage, “the Preacher” clearly states, as Paul would distinguish between his words and the Lord’s…

The words of the Preacher, the son of David, king in Jerusalem.
Vanity of vanities, says the Preacher,
vanity of vanities! All is vanity.

“The Preacher, the Son of David, king of Jerusalem”, is obviously Solomon.
You will find that the traditional commentaries on the work, by both the Greek and Latin fathers, all agree that Solomon was the author.

 

[Peter_Plato]

“The Preacher, the Son of David, king of Jerusalem”, is obviously Solomon.
You will find that the traditional commentaries on the work, by both the Greek and Latin fathers, all agree that Solomon was the author.

Of course he was. Who denied that?

He also married something like 800 wives. You aren’t claiming Solomon’s views on marriage were “inspired” by God are you? That is also in Scripture.

 

[fisherman_carl]

Here’s another new proof or rather an old proof that has been inspired by me reading a new book to me, but an old book by GK Chesterton.

1. Man is not merely an animal. Man is an artist. He is the only animal that creates. Even in our most ancient evidence of early cave man we can see that he was an artist as he drew pictures of deer and other animals. But, what we never see is a deer drawing a picture of a man.
2. Man is not merely a product of his environment. There is no other animal who is like man. He stands alone, a one off. Nothing else comes close. The more you examine man as an animal the more you realize he is not like one. And thus his environment could never fully explain how he came to be.
3. Man is partly other or supernatural when compared to the animals. Man has an intellect and a will, which is something that is not seen in his environment and thus can not come from it, but from some higher level or reality above it.
4. Therefore, man is like a god or created in God’s image.

 

[inocente]

Here’s another new proof or rather an old proof that has been inspired by me reading a new book to me, but an old book by GK Chesterton.

If prehistoric homo sapiens killed off or interbred with other species, so that other species with our characteristics bit the dust, we only appear to be unique.