Philosophy: Is the Existence of God Self-Evident

[Truthstalker]

Aquinas says no…I think.

I always thought it was self-evident.

Comments?

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Aquinas says no…I think.

I always thought it was self-evident.

Comments?

Yikes! How did this get to the bottom of page two on the thread list? I don’t have time to reply right now, but don’t want your Aquinas thread to go the way of all flesh. Hopefully others will run with the ball. (Mixed metaphor. I guess I have to stand in the corner now.)

 

[Contarini]

Aquinas says no…I think.

I always thought it was self-evident.

Comments?

It’s not self-evident to *me. *

Edwin

 

[Ani_Ibi]

It’s not self-evident to *me. *

It can only be evident to you – not self-evident to you. Unless of course you and the existence of God are one and the same thing, which you are not.

 

[FightingFat]

my thoughts are that the existence of God is evident through grace, by the light of human reason. We have a free choice whether we accept the conclusion we naturally come to by considering the scale of nature and ideas like being- that we exist as contingent beings and that it stands to reason that we therefore exist for a reason.

 

[Contarini]

It can only be evident to you – not self-evident to you. Unless of course you and the existence of God are one and the same thing, which you are not.

\

Good point! Thanks.

Edwin

 

[john_doran]

It can only be evident to you – not self-evident to you. Unless of course you and the existence of God are one and the same thing, which you are not.

i think you’re working with a non-standard definition of “self-evident” here. self-evidence in the way in which it is being used by the OP means simply “evident in and of itself” (per se nota)*. *self-evident truths are known simply by understanding the meaning of their constituent terms, without derivation from other, more basic truths by way of a middle term.

the existence of all kinds of things other than yourself are self-evident: the existence of other minds, that our senses are reliable, that we are not brains in a vat, etc…

personally, i find the existence of god to be self-evident; but i also recognize that self-evidence is an indexical concept: different people (and different beings) will (and will not) find different things immediately obvious.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

john doran:

i think you’re working with a non-standard definition of “self-evident” here.

Nope.
john doran:

self-evidence in the way in which it is being used by the OP means simply “evident in and of itself” (per se nota).

Yes.
john doran:

self-evident truths are known simply by understanding the meaning of their constituent terms, without derivation from other, more basic truths by way of a middle term.

Yes.
john doran:

the existence of all kinds of things other than yourself are self-evident: the existence of other minds, that our senses are reliable, that we are not brains in a vat, etc…

Yes. (By the way, I am a brain in a vat.)
john doran:

personally, i find the existence of god to be self-evident;

OK.
john doran:

but i also recognize that self-evidence is an indexical concept: different people (and different beings) will (and will not) find different things immediately obvious.

Contarini said:

Contarini:

It’s not self-evident to me.

OK. I understand where you are going with this. You are saying that this sentence is possible:

It is evident to me that the existence of God is not self-evident.

And that is what I am saying also. Agreed?

 

[toaslan]

If I remember right, Thomas says there are two ways something can be self-evident. It can be self-evident to all; and it can be self-evident only to those who know (to the wise).

The bare existence of God–that there is a supreme power upon whom we are dependent–is the kind of thing that is self-evident to all.

For biblical confirmation of this we can go to Romans1:18:

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and wickedness of men who by their wickedness suppress the truth. 19For what can be know about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20Ever 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. So they are without excuse;

So even a man shipwrecked as an infant on a desert island and brought up by monkeys is responsible to be a good pagan–to see from the monkeys, trees, ocean, the cycles of the sun and moon, that he is dependent upon a supreme power. It would follow from that that he would humble himself to that power and acknowledge it. (Rather than recognizing it in a twisted way by devising superstitions and methods for manipulating the supreme power–another way of refusing to accept that there is a power which is truly supreme over him over which he can have no control.)

So this monkey man has the choice to be a good pagan or a bad pagan. If he rejects what is self-evident to all, he will be some kind of devil-worshipper, and God help the monkeys!

Another way to put it would be that he must corresond to the grace given him (and all grace comes from Christ, through Mary, through the Church, out to all the world, whether the world understands that or not). The grace the monkey-man is given is the presence in his life of God the Creator and Sustainer, and he must accept and live in relationship to this grace, in order to live according to the grace he has been given.

helpful?

 

[Ani_Ibi]

If I remember right, Thomas says there are two ways something can be self-evident. It can be self-evident to all; and it can be self-evident only to those who know (to the wise).

Does he say evident or self-evident?

In any case, I don’t think it is worthwhile sweating usage. It’s the law of diminishing returns. There are probably more fruitful things inherent in the OP than distinguishing between evident and self-evident. My explanation is in my previous post.

 

[toaslan]

self-evidence in the way in which it is being used by the OP means simply “evident in and of itself” (per se nota). Self-evident truths are known simply by understanding the meaning of their constituent terms, without derivation from other, more basic, truths by way of a middle term.

Definition is the friend of clarity and dialogue. I believe John Doran has the definition of self-evident correct. I think we are discussing whether God is “self-evident” not whether He is “evident.” Self-evident means evident in and of itself.

 

[john_doran]

this is the sentence of yours to which i was responding:
Ani Ibi:

It can only be evident to you – not self-evident to you.

that sounded to me like you were suggesting that the existence of god could not be self-evident to anyone who wasn’t god…
Ani Ibi:

OK. I understand where you are going with this. You are saying that this sentence is possible:

It is evident to me that the existence of God is not self-evident.

And that is what I am saying also. Agreed?

i guess - again, i was simply reacting to what i understood you to be saying to contarini.

what i understood contarini to be saying was simply that the proposition “god exists” is not self-evidently true to him - i.e. that he understands the meaning of the proposition, but doesn’t thereby see its truth.

 

[Contarini]

this is the sentence of yours to which i was responding:

that sounded to me like you were suggesting that the existence of god could not be self-evident to anyone who wasn’t god…

i guess - again, i was simply reacting to what i understood you to be saying to contarini.

what i understood contarini to be saying was simply that the proposition “god exists” is not self-evidently true to him - i.e. that he understands the meaning of the proposition, but doesn’t thereby see its truth.

I believe the proposition to be true, but it can only be shown to be true through a process of reasoning. It is not evident simply by virtue of being stated, even though the words are intelligible. That is what I understand Aquinas to be saying when he denies that the proposition is self-evident, and I agree with him.

Edwin

 

[toaslan]

That is what I understand Aquinas to be saying when he denies that the proposition is self-evident, and I agree with him.

Edwin

Let’s see how Thomas puts it, OK?

I’ve got my Summa T. open here at First Part Q.2,Art.2:

I answer that…Therefore I say that this proposition, “God exists,” of itself is self-evident, for the predicate is the same as the subject, because God is His own existence as will be hereafter shown (Q.III, A.4). Now because we do not know the essence of God, the proposition is not self-evident to us, but needs to be demonstrated by things that are more known to us, though less known in their nature–namely, by effects.
Reply Obj. 1. To know that God exists in a general and confused way is implanted in us by nature, since God is man’s Happiness. For man naturally desires happiness, and what is naturally desired by man must be naturally known to him…etc

 

[cpayne]

thanks for looking up the exact ST quote. This is also why Aquinas does not accept Anselm’s ontological proof: because we don’t understand God’s essence in the same way He does, we cannot then proceed directly to the knowledge of His existence. God’s existence is self-evident to Him (because His existence and essence are one), but not to us. To us, God’s existence is inferred, not a direct unmediated experiential reality.

 

[cpayne]

By the way, I am a brain in a vat.

 

[toaslan]

Sorry, I should have included the beginning of the body of Thomas’ answer, when instead I jumped to the “therefore”… here’s the beginning:

I answer that, A thing can be self-evident in either of two ways. On the one hand, self-evident in itself, though not to us, on the other, self-evident in itself, and to us. A proposition is self-evident because the predicate is included in the notion of the subject, as “Man is an animal,” for animal is contained in the essence of man. If therefore the essence of the predicate and subject be known to all, the proposition will be self-evident to all as is clear …If, however, there are some to whom the essence of the predicate and subject is unknown, the proposition will be self-evident in itself, but not to those who do not know the meaning of the predicate and subject of the proposition. Therefore, it happens, as Boethius says (Hebdom.) that “there are some concepts of the mind self evident only to the learned, as that incorporeal substances are not in space.” Therefore I say that this proposition, “God exists,” of itself is self-evident, for the predicate is the same as the subject, because God is His own existence as will be hereafter shown… etc.

So instead of going completely along with this:

God’s existence is self-evident to Him (because His existence and essence are one), but not to us.

I believe a further tweak is in order, thus:

The proposition “God exists” in itself, or of itself, is self-evident. Because this proposition is self-evident does not mean it is self-evident to us.

 

[cpayne]

Nice refinement.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

toaslan:

Definition is the friend of clarity and dialogue.

Yes.

toaslan:

I believe John Doran has the definition of self-evident correct.

Yes, but its application is incorrect vis a vis Contarini’s statement.

toaslan:

I think we are discussing whether God is “self-evident” not whether He is “evident.”

No, we are not.

The OP reads: Is the existence of God self-evident.

It does not read: Is God self-evident.

Self-evident means evident in and of itself.

Yes. It does mean that.

It is evident (to John Doe) that the existence of God is self-evident.

What is evident? God? No. That the existence of God is self-evident? Yes.

But it is not evident to Contarini that the existence of God is self-evident.

What is not evident to Contarini? God? No. That the existence of God is self-evident? Yes.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

toaslan:

The proposition “God exists” in itself, or of itself, is self-evident.

OK.

toaslan:

Because this proposition is self-evident does not mean it is self-evident to us.

Because this proposition is self-evident does not mean it is evident to us.

Or: In our opinion, this proposition is not necessarily self-evident.