Philosophy: Is the Existence of God Self-Evident

[cpayne]

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!

Well, this is true regarding God’s grace, and something Aquinas also says. But I still think there is a sense in which Aquinas uses the term “self-evident” not just as “something man can realize on his own,” but as “something man can realize on his own by immediate apprehension and without using logical inference.” In that sense, “God exists” is not self-evident. (But see John Doran’s post 37 for further discussion of this point.)

 

[cpayne]

It is self-evident.

Truthstalker! I kind of wondered where you went after that first post!

 

[Truthstalker]

Truthstalker! I kind of wondered where you went after that first post!

“It is better to keep my mouth shut and be thought a fool, than to open it and remove all doubt” - Lincoln (I think). The discussion is interesting but I have nothing much if anything to add.

My existence is self-evident to me. Oh, never mind, we already have a thread on that.

 

[Seamus_Sully]

To an honest and educated person: it is a truism.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

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:

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…

self evident = evident in itself without proof or demonstration; axiomatic.

intuitive = capable of knowing without deduction or reasoning

Therefore self-evident = intuitive.
Therefore not self-evident = counterintuitive.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

It is self-evident.

 

[john_doran]

self evident = evident in itself without proof or demonstration; axiomatic.

intuitive = capable of knowing without deduction or reasoning

Therefore self-evident = intuitive.
Therefore not self-evident = counterintuitive.

not quite.

self evident = intuit***able ***(i.e. capable of being known without deduction or reasoning)

non-self-evident = non-intuitable (i.e. not capable of being known without deduction or reasoning)

counterintuitive, strictly speaking, means that something is contrary to one’s intuitions about that thing; i.e. it assumes that there is an intuitable fact about A (I), but that some other source of information about A (I’) contradicts I.

so the opposite of intuitable is not counterintuitive.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

counterintuitive, strictly speaking, means that something is contrary to one’s intuitions about that thing; i.e. it assumes that there is an intuitable fact about A (I), but that some other source of information about A (I’) contradicts I.

so the opposite of intuitable is not counterintuitive.

OK. Let’s go with that.

 

[Greg27]

Generally the Catholic philosophical position has been we can know the existence of God by the light of natural reason. By the existence of God, this means we know God exists, but we do not necessarily know what God is, or what his relationship to us is (asides from being the first cause and creator of all).

There is also the saying from the medieval period that there are two books with which we can understand God; the book of nature and revealed scripture. Christ is God’s supreme self-revelation however, and what shows us what God is.

The medievals, based on Augustine and Pseudo-Dionysius, worked out a fairly elaborate theory of ‘the analogy of Being.’ Everything in the cosmos was seen as God’s goodness, life and love coming into creation and the things that are made, all good, true and beautiful. The medievals had a very deep appreciation for the beauty of the material world, as can be seen in the Franciscan saints such as Bonaventure and St Francis and also in the great Dominicans like Albert and Thomas, who were keen to use the natural philosophy of Aristotle to understand the creation and God’s work in it.

Scripture however was necessary after the fall for humankind to understand God, given our intellects were darkened by sin and the likeness to God lost. In the incarnation God glorified human nature and through baptism and the sacraments and the religious life, along with the pursuit of philosophy, humanity could be restored to God. It was seen by many medievals that the existence of God was self-evident, and a number of arguments were given to prove God’s existence.

However, with the rise of modern skeptical philosophy, these proofs from creation were challenged, as was the authority of revelation and religion, especially during the Enlightenment until now.

I think Catholic philosophers need to recover the sense of the good, true and beautiful in the universe and relate these to God’s Being, but this will require new arguments and approaches in light of science especially. Hopefully another Aquinas will be born, soon.

Many people don’t accept God’s existence as self-evident, though I think it is reasonable to answer this by arguing it is rational to believe God exists.

 

[toaslan]

nice, Greg!