Philosophy of God

[Vincent]

The keyboard I’m typing on right now does not have to *be *here because it is not existence itself. Why is it existing at all? Only if there is a reality that is the act of “to be” in all of its purity, which is causing the “to be” of this keyboard right here, right now.

“God” is the term we use for the reality that is the subsistent act of “to be” itself. God must exist, because He *is *Existence, and Existence cannot not exist.

 

[Sixtus]

t the same time, all knowing and all seeing certainly must clearly be attributes to God. If God doesnt know all, then He cant be God by definition because the creation would be one step ahead of the Creator.

Amen

 

[RyanL]

I think it boils down to this:

1. If Catholicism is true, then being anything but a devout Catholic is foolish.
2. If Catholicism is false, then being a devout Catholic is foolish.

I’m not so sure this is entirely correct…

(DISCLAIMER: I cannot and would not want to judge souls - I merely speculate based on observation)

Let’s take a few real-world examples:

1. Mother Theresa.
2. Lindsy Lohan.

One is a devout Catholic, and the other is a not-so-devout kabbalah-dabbling modern Catholic.

One spurned what the world told her would make her happy, and she found true joy.

The other appears to have rushed head-long into everything the world promises as real fulfillment - fame, money, drugs, alcohol, sex - and you can see the results at your local grocery store.

There are plenty of other reasons (and personal examples) as to why embracing the Catholic faith (faithfully, mind you) is not so nutty as you may think. If you think about it for a while I’m sure you will see most of what I could tell you about it. Think about the Saints, then think about those who forsake religion for the things of this world.

You tell me which makes more sense.

God Bless,
RyanL

 

[Everstruggling]

My imaginary brother named Tom agrees with you whole-heartedly. He doesn’t think he needs proving either.

I go to my doctor and say, “Hey Doc, I’m having a fight with my brother named Tom. He keeps telling me that I need to get naked, paint myself blue, and run down mainstreet, and I don’t want to… I don’t look good in blue.” Is it intellectually dishonest for the Doctor to ask me to prove Tom exists?

I want to apologize for this post. I re-read it, and it could easily be interpreted as meaning that belief in God is delusional. That wasn’t my intention in any shape, way, or form. It was a very bad example.

I was trying to come up with an example of why it was permissable, and intellectually honest, to look for proof of God.

Sorry to anyone who found this offensive.

 

[Everstruggling]

1. You cannot bisect infinity. It’s mathematically and logically impossible. If you can quantize it (a thing necessary for bisection), it’s not infinite.
2. Your idea of starting in the middle would result in a conception of time resembling a giant “V”. This is not “the future” and “the past” proceeding from the focal point, but rather *two *“times”. This is a rather queer idea, but it doesn’t get you “infinite time”. It gets you two “times”; to the best of my knowledge, there is no theoretical cosmologist who advocates this idea, nor is there a philosopher who believes this to be sound. That should give you pause.

Bummer. I hate being wrong, but it appears I am. Luckily that wasn’t the crux of my argument. Well put.

God as a computer geek. Again, very imaginative, but again not too philosophically sound. You’re not answering the question, merely abstracting from it. It’s akin to the scientists who say that the problem of abiogenesis can be solved by speculating that a comet first brought life to Earth. That’s nice, but it still doesn’t answer the question of how inorganic matter can suddenly become “animated” and spontaneously “decide” to reproduce. It merely forces us to ask where the aliens came from. Similarly, your geeky god idea forces us to ask where his time came from. What you’re proposing is, to use the phrase, turtles all the way down.

It does beg the question, but a different universe has different rules. The universe of the computer geek could expand and contract endlessly. The God you postulate could create it. Life could have evolved according to Lamarckian evolution. It exists outside of our space and time. Once you slip the bonds of space and time the imagination has much more room to play. In other words, the turtles don’t need to play by the rules.

The point is that our universe could have been programmed to create itself. It could have been a toy. It could have been an experiment, or it could have been a joke. You are talking about a universe (for lack of a better word) that is free of the rules and responsibilities of ours.

Now, I’ll agree that it’s not exactly appropriate to speak of God in terms of time (Him being outside of it and all). God is pure being - timeless - and if He were to refer to Himself I suppose I would simply expect Him to self-reference as “I am who AM”. Interestingly, that’s precisely what He does in Judeo/Christian revelation.

That is interesting. Anything that exists outside of our timeline would perpetually be am, in our spac-time.

To be continued…

 

[Everstruggling]

I believe I’m not explaining the Ontological argument adequately, though I do believe I’m stating it accurately. Please read this short link in order that we might be on the same page. Further, I think I might agree with Aquinas that the Ontological proof isn’t valid, but I haven’t made up my mind yet. It may be. Even if it’s not a valid proof, it’s still a nice probabilistic argument.

I read your link, and we are on the same page. It certainly is an elegant argument, but I think it fails as a proof.

With your line/circle analogy you’re trying to compare incommensurables. This is logically invalid, and is (as Justice Scalia said) “… like judging whether a particular line is longer than a particular rock is heavy.” You can’t do it because it doesn’t make sense. That’s what incommensurable means.

Do you always define words in the middle of arguments? I wouldn’t say anything but it’s the second time you’ve done it. Immutable was the other time. It’s rather distracting. If I happen not to know the meaning of a word, I can look it up.

As for the incommensurability of circles and lines… that was kind of my point. I don’t think I explained it at all well though. Let me try again.

Anselm suggests it is possible to understand the concept of a perfect being. I would argue that it is impossible to understand such a thing whether you believe in God or not. You and I would no doubt argue about what people are the best people.

I couldn’t really rate my friends in degrees of perfection of being. Even if I could, they would no doubt disagree with the assessment. For instance, my fiancée is more generous than I am, I am more perceptive than she is, and my best friend is more reliable than either one of us. God, apparently would be the being who has the maximum degree of all of those. But what traits does God possess the maximum amount of? You see, this is where you and I would probably disagree. Put it this way, who was a more perfect leader Alfred or Alexander? Kennedy or Trudeau? Crochrane or Shackleton? Talk about incommensurable styles of leadership. And frankly, is God the ideal leader? Do we have to include leadership in our concept of God?

I can not conceive of a perfect being, and I don’t think Anselm could either. It’s too confusing, there are too many variables. If it is impossible to have an understanding of an ideal being, then it does not follow that such a being must exist.

To be continued, again.

 

[Everstruggling]

Being is greater than non-being. Yes, it’s binary and not a matter of degree – that doesn’t change the fact that being is still greater. If it’s not, might I ask why you don’t focus on effecting your own non-being, or why you decry some forcing non-being on others?

Consider this argument.

1. If A weighs less than B, A is lighter than B.
2. If A is lighter than B, A is easier to carry than B.
3. Therefore, if a box is too heavy for you to carry, paint it white (it will make it lighter).

If, indeed, being is greater than non-being, it is greater in the sense that it is preferable. Up until this point we had been using the word greater in the sense of having more of a quality. You can’t switch the definition of a word in the middle of an argument.

Who has more beauty. It’s objectively true that one of them is more beautiful with respect to a given attribute. Who gets to decide? Wrong question. We don’t decide, it simply is

. It’s like asking who gets to decide if an inchworm is shorter than a yardstick, or if a shoe is longer than in inchworm with respect to the yardstick. It simply is. No decision is necessary, and therefore you are asking the wrong question.
Ah, we’re back to greater meaning more than. Remember that the sculpture was your example. You said that we could compare two sculptures and say that one is more beautiful, but now you are qualifying. Which is more beautiful the Pieta or David? What measurement do we take? If all beauty is compared to the standard, what standard shall we use? What about kindness? What about being likable? I know of no universally accepted measurement of likability.

If an ideal exists outside of God, God must be measured *against *

that ideal. If this is the case, God is not God; He is not the fullness of perfection, and thus is lacking. Further, you still have even more problems, as you have to ask who created the ideal which is greater than this imperfect god. Saying that an abstract concept has always existed without one to conceive it seems at first blush to be a bit contradictory.

Ideal circles and ideal lines do not exist in nature. However, the natural world is rife with things circular and almost straight. It doesn’t take a divine mind to conceive of such things. It doesn’t take a God to define two dimensional.

Ideals don’t need to be real things, they only need to be concepts that we apply to the world. Why does the Cause all things need to be ideal in anyway accept causality? The two concepts don’t have anything to do with each other.

As for causes being greater than effects, you might look here. It should show you where your thinking is going awry.

I see now what you mean. Every action must have an equal and opposite reaction. Matter can neither be created nor destroyed. The effect can not exceed the cause. All that really means is that the universe exceed the resources than went into the making of it. It doesn’t mean that all the qualities that exist in nature must also exist in God. The effect can appear very different than the cause.

What can you expect to *know *

about God through philosophy and rational thinking? Not a whole lot, quite frankly.
So, in other words, we agree? That’s a rather surprising conclusion.

Take Care,

Everstruggling

p.s. Sorry these replies are so wordy. I’m going to try and cut down.

 

[johnnycatholic]

It does beg the question, but a different universe has different rules. The universe of the computer geek could expand and contract endlessly. The God you postulate could create it. Life could have evolved according to Lamarckian evolution. It exists outside of our space and time. Once you slip the bonds of space and time the imagination has much more room to play. In other words, the turtles don’t need to play by the rules.

The point is that our universe could have been programmed to create itself. It could have been a toy. It could have been an experiment, or it could have been a joke. You are talking about a universe (for lack of a better word) that is free of the rules and responsibilities of ours

So what you are saying is that another universe with different laws of physics created this one? There is no evidence to support this assertion. While it is possible, the evidence that we humans can draw from our universe through observation indicates God created this universe. Thus it is more reasonable to believe God created this universe because there is more evidence for it.
A universe that is “free” of the rules and responsiblities of ours would not be capable of creating ours with the rules and responsibilities it has unless the creating universe was in fact not “free” of the rules and responsibilities of this universe.
The cause must have the reality of the effect within it. If you deny this then you are saying that the creating universe is illogical and if it doesn’t operate on logic then we can conclude nothing about it as a certain possibility including the possibility that it or anything in it caused this universe.

 

[johnnycatholic]

It does beg the question, but a different universe has different rules. The universe of the computer geek could expand and contract endlessly. The God you postulate could create it. Life could have evolved according to Lamarckian evolution. It exists outside of our space and time. Once you slip the bonds of space and time the imagination has much more room to play. In other words, the turtles don’t need to play by the rules.

The point is that our universe could have been programmed to create itself. It could have been a toy. It could have been an experiment, or it could have been a joke. You are talking about a universe (for lack of a better word) that is free of the rules and responsibilities of ours.

The God we postulate says that all beings endowed with a rational soul are due a certain dignity, so the God we postulate could not have created a universe where the creation of another universe with rational beings in it for fun or pleasure (whatever that is) was a good thing. It would also mean that the point of the lives of all rational beings is the same, to know love and serve the lord and to gain salvation.
Any deviation from these rules would make it - not the God we postulate.
I hope I was clear on this.

 

[Everstruggling]

While it is possible, the evidence that we humans can draw from our universe through observation indicates God created this universe. Thus it is more reasonable to believe God created this universe because there is more evidence for it.

Oh, okay. Please provide the evidence then. I was labouring under the false impression there wasn’t any.

Thanks.

A universe that is “free” of the rules and responsiblities of ours would not be capable of creating ours with the rules and responsibilities it has unless the creating universe was in fact not “free” of the rules and responsibilities of this universe.
The cause must have the reality of the effect within it. If you deny this then you are saying that the creating universe is illogical …

I’m just going to break this argument down.

1. To create rules, you must be bound by the rules.
2. The cause must have the reality of the effect in it.
3. To deny this, is to say that the cause is illogical.

So, you are saying that God (the being that created the universe) must be bound by the rules and regulations of our universe in order to create it.

Interesting.

 

[Bishopite]

[Everstruggling;1850187]By labeling the Cause “God”, we haven’t proved anything except that God as cause exists. We don’t even know if God was/were aware that he/she/it/they caused the universe to be.
So… am I wrong?

I think perhaps you are on the right path. All we are saying is that this “cause” that we label “God” exists and that’s step one…which I grant you’ve affirmed?
Obviously, step two being who is or what are the attributes of this “cause who exists” who some call “God.”

 

[Everstruggling]

Any deviation from these rules would make it - not the God we postulate.
I hope I was clear on this.

I’m really sorry, I completely missed your earlier post. The one about the argument from morality. I didn’t realize, when I asked you for evidence that you had already suggested some.
I wasn’t until I read this post that I realized that you must have posted before.

My arguments were aimed at the notion that the Cause must be “the true God”. I’ll go back and consider the evidence from morality.

 

[Bishopite]

[Everstruggling;1858329]

I’m just going to break this argument down.

1. To create rules, you must be bound by the rules.

You’ve already started with a false premise. God isn’t bound by our rules for He is eternity we are time, so we are bound by His necessarily but He isn’t bound by ours.

1. The cause must have the reality of the effect in it.
2. To deny this, is to say that the cause is illogical.

So, you are saying that God (the being that created the universe) must be bound by the rules and regulations of our universe in order to create it.

No, you started with a false premise which lead to a false conclusion. God isn’t bound by our rules, He’s eternity, we are time. God could have created the universe in 200 trillion years or one second per our concept of “time” for God is in the enternal now, everything is eternally now

 

[Everstruggling]

You’ve already started with a false premise. God isn’t bound by our rules for He is eternity we are time, so we are bound by His necessarily but He isn’t bound by ours.

Had you noticed the big quoted bit at the beginning of that post? The argument you were refuting was first proposed by johnnycatholic. Thanks for puting in all the leg work, but it wasn’t my argument to begin with.

 

[Everstruggling]

I think perhaps you are on the right path. All we are saying is that this “cause” that we label “God” exists and that’s step one…which I grant you’ve affirmed?
Obviously, step two being who is or what are the attributes of this “cause who exists” who some call “God.”

Yes, and yes.
That would be the crux of the argument.

It isn’t a simple task though. One may be able to establish other “God-like attributes”, but then one has to link them to “the cause who exists”.

 

[Bishopite]

Had you noticed the big quoted bit at the beginning of that post? The argument you were refuting was first proposed by johnnycatholic. Thanks for puting in all the leg work, but it wasn’t my argument to begin with.

I’m truly sorry, now I’m really confused. Didn’t you start this thread?

 

[Bishopite]

Yes, and yes.
That would be the crux of the argument.

It isn’t a simple task though. One may be able to establish other “God-like attributes”, but then one has to link them to “the cause who exists”.

Yes, it is difficult indeed and you bring up a good point. johnnycatholic seemed to already give affirmation in a “cause that exists” whom we call “God” therefore, wouldn’t the next question be who is this “God?” Wasn’t that the next step for former atheists (perhaps some would argue agnostics) C.S. Lewis and G.K. Chesterton? Didn’t even Socrates ask this same question? I suppose it is easier for me on my side to ask the next question when for me,it has already been answered.

 

[Everstruggling]

I’m truly sorry, now I’m really confused. Didn’t you start this thread?

Yes, I did start the thread. But the part that you quoted, and refuted, was my description of someone else’s argument. You called it my premise, but it is not my premise that God would be subject to the same limitations as the universe. What you were quoting was my attempted reformulation of johnnycatholic’s premise.

Why do I suddenly feel like I’m watching an episode of Yes, Primeminister?

 

[Catholic_Dude]

You’re going to have to explain what you mean by “one step ahead of the Creator”, and why that is impossible. I don’t remember the part where we agreed that there was a Creator. So far, I’ve yet to be convinced that there was anything but a Cause.

I dont understand how you can say there IS a Cause yet that Cause inst a “god” or a “creator” of some sort.
By “one step ahead of the Creator” I mean the creaton has limitations the Creator doesnt have, you cant create something greater than yourself…if the Creator of time doesnt know the future then the Creator is subject to His creation. Its along the lines of the question “can God make a rock so big He cant lift it?”

Some non-Catholics believe in something called “Open Theism” where God doesnt know the future, He simply waits for man to create it.

Now I’m really confused. Time, if anything, doesn’t require conscious thought to create. All that has to happen is for something to change. Once you have change, any change, you have time. The first something happening is the beginning point for time.

Ok, so what your admitting is that time is finite, and that something existed before time existed. That “something” is greater than time, and must by definition be infinite and therefore cannot be subject to change.

If something is unconscious that means they act apart from their own power, a greater power sets them in motion and so the unconscious are in a sense programmed. Something infinite cant be programmed.

Further I dont believe you would argue a unconscious thing can create an conscious thing, any more than a lifeless thing can create life.

 

[johnnycatholic]

I’m just going to break this argument down.

1. To create rules, you must be bound by the rules.
2. The cause must have the reality of the effect in it.
3. To deny this, is to say that the cause is illogical.

So, you are saying that God (the being that created the universe) must be bound by the rules and regulations of our universe in order to create it.

Interesting.

No, just the laws of logic. The cause of the universe must be logical or have logic in him to impart logic. Non-logical things are usually contradictions like square triangles, which are meaningless contradictions i.e. nothings. Logic is built into the universe like crazy. It is the only way we can reason things out so if the cause of the universe is non-logical then we cannot logicaly say anything about it, that is nothing logically flows from it including the existence of the universe.As F.J. Sheed said “nothing is impossible to God”