Philosophy: Is the Existence of God Self-Evident

[cpayne]

OK.

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.

Well, sort of, if I’m understanding you. The proposition “God exists” WOULD be self-evident to us if we understood the term “God” in the same sense that God does. This is what Aquinas says we can’t do. So the proposition is completely self-evident if completely understood–since we cannot completely understand it, it is not completely self-evident TO US.

Clear as mud?

 

[john_doran]

Nice refinement.

jeepers, it’s like no one reads (all of) my posts…

from my first post in this thread:
john doran:

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.

 

[john_doran]

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

how so?
Ani Ibi:

No, we are not.

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

It does not read: Is God self-evident.

“is god self-evident” is either grammatically ill-formed, or it is synonymous with “is the existence of god self-evident”.

personally, i have no idea what “is god self-evident” could be other than a question about his existence.

[quoteAni Ibi]
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.
i’m not sure this is right (though i’m also not sure what hhinges on it); i think it’s rather simply that the existence of god is not self-evident to contarini - i.e. (and as i said before) it is that the proposition “god exists” is both understood by contarini, but not thereby understood to be true.

talking about evidence of self-evidence seems circumlocutory at best, or wrong at worst.

 

[john_doran]

Well, sort of, if I’m understanding you. The proposition “God exists” WOULD be self-evident to us if we understood the term “God” in the same sense that God does. This is what Aquinas says we can’t do. So the proposition is completely self-evident if completely understood–since we cannot completely understand it, it is not completely self-evident TO US.

Clear as mud?

but the proposition “god exists” is self-evident to me (and a great many others); what “god” means to me (in the context of the self-evidence of his existence) is something like “the creator of the universe”.

what is not self-evident, however, is the existence of the triune god of the christian scriptures; i assume that we’re all on the same page in that regard.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

john doran:

… the proposition “god exists” is… understood by contarini, but not thereby understood to be true.

Let’s agree on this wording. OK?
john doran:

talking about evidence of self-evidence seems circumlocutory at best, or wrong at worst.

Let’s not talk about evidence of self-evidence.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

but the proposition “god exists” is self-evident to me (and a great many others); what “god” means to me (in the context of the self-evidence of his existence) is something like “the creator of the universe”.

what is not self-evident, however, is the existence of the triune god of the christian scriptures; i assume that we’re all on the same page in that regard.

What is not self-evident is counterintuitive? Are we understanding it this way?

 

[aaronjmagnan]

A few questions for a new theologian/logician:

1. Are God’s existence and God the same? That is…is His existence being self-evident synonymous with God being self-evident?
2. All of this being said…would a person mapping out logically what God is come to the same conclusion of what Paul talks of … one God, the God of eternity, etc…? Do you suppose one might stumble upon St. Thomas Aquinas’ proofs when describing God?

My idea is that Thomas was right in line with pure logic…“That is what we call God” when describing God.

Would someone need to be introduced to the concept of God to find Him evident?

I know this can only be conjecture but I was curious as to what you all would say…

God bless,
Aaron

 

[toaslan]

Thomas says the proposition “God exists” is self evident in itself.

Thomas says the proposition “God exists” is not self evident to us.

He says the proposition is not self-evident to us because we don’t know the essence of God. Since we don’t know the essence of God, we are not master of the terms of the proposition “God exists”. To the extent that we are unable to fathom the full definition of the terms of the proposition, to that extent the proposition is not self-evident to us.

In Thomas’ Reply to Objection I in Part One,Q2,Art2, he says:

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. This, however, is not to know absolutely that God exists, just as to know that someone is approaching is not the same as to know that Peter is approaching, even though it is Peter who is approaching…

So though the knowledge of God’s existence in a general and confused way is implanted in us by nature, so we all sort of know that He exists just by virtue of being human–but Thomas is saying that this is not to know absolutely that He exists.

(And maybe also helpful)

Reply Objection 3: The existence of truth in general is self-evident, but the existence of a First Truth is not self-evident to us.

I agree, the Trinitarian nature of God is definitely not self-evident to us.

 

[toaslan]

1. Are God’s existence and God the same? That is…is His existence being self-evident synonymous with God being self-evident?

Well, God IS. He is pure act; there is no potency (aristotelian sense) in Him.

Would Thomas’ question “Whether Essence and Being Are the Same in God” be helpful?

 

[cpayne]

but the proposition “god exists” is self-evident to me (and a great many others); what “god” means to me (in the context of the self-evidence of his existence) is something like “the creator of the universe”.

what is not self-evident, however, is the existence of the triune god of the christian scriptures; i assume that we’re all on the same page in that regard.

First of all–regarding your previous posts–sorry. I missed your comment somewhere along the line. Anyway, you know I think you’re brilliant and I wuv you very much.:hug3:

Having said that–I think you’re wrong on this post. When you say the existence of God is “self-evident” as “the creator of the universe,” I think what you mean is that you can logically infer the existence of God based on the existence of the universe–that is, the existence of God is “evident” to you. But I don’t think this is what Aquinas meant by self-evident. The existence of God, in other words, is mediated through the evidence provided by the universe and our logical inferences based on that evidence. So “God exists” isn’t “self-evident” or axiomatic in the sense, for example, that A = A is self-evident.

The triune God, on the other hand, is not only not self-evident, but not even evident by logical inference. That knowledge of God (as a Trinity) is available only to faith.

 

[cpayne]

A few questions for a new theologian/logician:

Would someone need to be introduced to the concept of God to find Him evident?

God bless,
Aaron

Well, according to Aquinas, no. You’d just have to be introduced to the universe, the cosmos. From there, you can begin to infer until you reach Uncaused Cause, Unmoved Mover, Necessary Existence, Standard of Moral Perfection, Teleological Intelligence Behind Unintelligent Nature, etc.

Of course, it’s much quicker and more sure to become a Christian and accept God’s witness to Himself.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Well, God IS. He is pure act; there is no potency (aristotelian sense) in Him.

Would Thomas’ question “Whether Essence and Being Are the Same in God” be helpful?

Take us there and let’s see?

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Well, according to Aquinas, no. You’d just have to be introduced to the universe, the cosmos. From there, you can begin to infer until you reach Uncaused Cause, Unmoved Mover, Necessary Existence, Standard of Moral Perfection, Teleological Intelligence Behind Unintelligent Nature, etc.

Of course, it’s much quicker and more sure to become a Christian and accept God’s witness to Himself.

As you may know, I am reading along in Chesterton’s book on Aquinas on my other screen. Chesterton says something passing marvellous.

[Thomas’s] argument for Revelation is not in the least an argument against Reason. On the contrary, he seems inclined to admit that truth could be reached by a rational process, if only it were rational enough; and also long enough.

Indeed, something in his character, which I have called elsewhere optimism, and for which I know no other approximate term, led him rather to exaggerate the extent to which all men would ultimately listen to reason. In his controversies, he always assumes that they will listen to reason. That is, he does emphatically believe that men can be convinced by argument; when they reach the end of the argument…

Thomas takes the view that the souls of all the ordinary hard-working and simple-minded people are quite as important as the souls of thinkers and truth-seekers; and he asks how all these people are possibly to find time for the amount of reasoning that is needed to find truth.

The whole tone of the passage shows both a respect for scientific enquiry and a strong sympathy with the average man. His argument for Revelation is not an argument against Reason; but it is an argument for Revelation. The conclusion he draws from it is that men must receive the highest moral truths in a miraculous manner; or most men would not receive them at all.

Do wu wuv me too? :grouphug:

 

[toaslan]

Here goes:

First Part Q3, Art.4

Whether Essence and Being Are the Same in God?

I answer that, God is not only His own essence, as shown in the preceding article, but also His own being. This may be shown in several ways. First, whatever a thing has besides its essence must be caused either by the principles of that essence (like an accident properly consequent upon the species–as the faculty of laughing is proper to a man–and caused by the essential principles of the species), or by some exterior agent,–as heat is caused in water by fire. Therefore, if the being itself of a thing differs from its essence, the being of that thing must be caused either by some exterior agent or by its essential principles. Now it is impossible for a thing’s being to be caused by its essential principles, for nothing can be the sufficient cause of its own being, if its being is caused. Therefore that thing whose being difers from its essence must have its being caused by another. But this cannot be said of God, because we call God the first efficient cause. Therefore it is iipossible that in God His being should differ from His essence.

Secondly, being is the actuality of every form or nature; for goodness or humanity are spoken of as actual only because they are spoken of as being. Therefore being must be compared to essence, if the latter is distinct from the former, as act to potency. Therefore, since in God there is no potentiality, as shown above (A.1), it follows that in Him essence does not differ from His being. Therefore His essence is His being.

Thirdly, because just as that which has fire but is not itself fire is on fire by participation, so that which has being but is not being, is a being by participation. But God is His own essence, as shows above (A.3); if, therefore, He is not His own being He will be not essential, but participated being. He will not therefore be the first being–which is absurd. Therefore, God is His own being, and not merely His own essence.

The article 2 he refers to is titled “Whether God is the Same as His Essence or Nature.”

good?

 

[pprimeau1976]

If you take the term self-evident, it really means *something that man can realize on his own. *God is not self-evident. He makes himself known. Even if you look for the first-cause, it’s the grace of God that made you look in the first place!

 

[john_doran]

What is not self-evident is counterintuitive? Are we understanding it this way?

no. 423+968=1391 is not self-evident (i have to workthrough the math in my head), but it’s certainly not counterintuitive; same goes for the time of day when i have to check it on a watch or clock; and a whole host of other conclusions to bits of deductive/inductive/abductive reasoning.

that god is triune is not self-evident because he has to tell us that about himself; whether it is counterintuitive would presumably depend on the intuition of the person doing the intuiting. it doesn’t seem counterintuitive to me…

 

[john_doran]

Having said that–I think you’re wrong on this post. When you say the existence of God is “self-evident” as “the creator of the universe,” I think what you mean is that you can logically infer the existence of God based on the existence of the universe–that is, the existence of God is “evident” to you.

not quite. what i mean is, when i consider the proposition “there is an intelligent creator of all of this stuff i see around me”, i simultaneously understand its meaning and perceive its truth. that’s self-evidence.

cpayne:

But I don’t think this is what Aquinas meant by self-evident. The existence of God, in other words, is mediated through the evidence provided by the universe and our logical inferences based on that evidence.

i’m not so sure about that; all that i think we can be sure of from the text of the *summa *is that aquinas believes that this proposition isn’t self-evident: “there exists a being whose essence it is to exist, and that being is god”.

i further believe that the “confused” knowledge he says we all have of god’s existence is precisely the kind i’m talking about: we know that something must have created the universe, but we know very little about that thing’s characteristics without further investigation. for someone of aquinas’ clarity and rigor, something as basic as that would definitely constitute “confused” knowledge; but it would be knowledge nonetheless.

cpayne:

So “God exists” isn’t “self-evident” or axiomatic in the sense, for example, that A = A is self-evident.

analytic truths are not the only self-evident truths. in that sense, you are right: “god exists” is not analytic (unless you understand god to mean “Existence-with-a-capital-E”).

 

[cpayne]

Do wu wuv me too? :grouphug:

But of course.

 

[john_doran]

The article 2 he refers to is titled “Whether God is the Same as His Essence or Nature.”

good?

if any of you have the time or inclination, you should check out aquinas’ de ente et essentia (on being and essence), for a much more thoroughgoing investigation of the subject.

also, for a magisterial treatment of the same topic, check out an elementary christian metaphysics by the late fr. joseph owens; be warned, though - it’s anything but elementary.

if the argument made in these books goes through, then you have the quickest route to the existence of the christian god - omnipresent, omnibenevolent, omniscient, omnipotent, etc., and without any of the controversy of “perfection”, absolute or otherwise.

 

[Truthstalker]

But of course.

It is self-evident.