Please explain

[Hee_Zen]

That part of Catechism does not give an argument for God’s existence and it is not meant to. It simply says that such arguments exist and explains why that shouldn’t be surprising.

If you are looking for arguments themselves, there are some lists. For example, peterkreeft.com/topics-more/20_arguments-gods-existence.htm.

I am familiar with all the arguments from Aristotle, Aquinas, Scotus, Molina, Kreeft and the others. First, they are different. Second they ALL have errors in them. Third, none of them is acknowledged officially by the church as “valid”. I was hoping to find an official argument for the quote from the catechism. Looks like there is none.

Taking that sentence on its own right (since there is no detailed explanation) one can see a serious logical error. It “assumes” that the world is created, and then says that it therefore points to God as a creator. First one must prove (not merely assume) that the universe IS created, and then one can look for a hypothetical creator.

 

[John_Martin]

I am familiar with all the arguments from Aristotle, Aquinas, Scotus, Molina, Kreeft and the others. First, they are different. Second they ALL have errors in them. Third, none of them is acknowledged officially by the church as “valid”. I was hoping to find an official argument for the quote from the catechism. Looks like there is none.

Taking that sentence on its own right (since there is no detailed explanation) one can see a serious logical error. It “assumes” that the world is created, and then says that it therefore points to God as a creator. First one must prove (not merely assume) that the universe IS created, and then one can look for a hypothetical creator.

Oh, Creation is defined elsewhere in the Catechism (defined that all “not God” is created). And the Catechism is saying here not what the things are that different human reasoners use, but it is stating that without having access to the Revelation provided by God, they “are able” (yet do not allways succeed fully, and most not do not succeed very well) in knowing “that” what they see around them is created, and “that” there is one God who is “creator” of the things they see around them.

And these philosophers, these “reasoners” are “certain” in their assertions that there is “creation” of “one Creator” whom they term “God”. They assert this in trusting their reasoning about experience. The Catechism said that this “can be known with certainty”, and these philosophers know what they know (and they proclaim it) with certainty, even though not all reasoners know it since it is a very strenuous path to be fully honest about everything you see and it requires very keen intellect to see and defuse false statements while formulating the statements of what the true reasoning has to be.

Before philosophers reason to knowing there is one God, they first have to reason that they themselves and all the universe is created rather than always being or just happening where something “becomes” out of nothing with nothing moving it into becoming (moves without being moved, or is a caused thing yet having no cause). All of this is the content of that sentence in the Catechism, which “assumed” you would understand this: The philosophers have indeed also Proved (by reason alone), not assumed, that the things they experience are created.

 

[Nixbits]

I agree completely with your reasoning, Hee_Zen, and you’ve stated it very clearly.

Some people insist that religious claims can be proved by logic and evidence, but the ‘proofs’ they provide don’t stand up to scrutiny. Others insist that religious claims cannot be proved in this way, it’s all a matter of faith. For those who don’t have that faith, what can they do but conclude that the religious claims are unjustified?

 

[John_Martin]

I agree completely with your reasoning, Hee_Zen, and you’ve stated it very clearly.

Some people insist that religious claims can be proved by logic and evidence, but the ‘proofs’ they provide don’t stand up to scrutiny. Others insist that religious claims cannot be proved in this way, it’s all a matter of faith. For those who don’t have that faith, what can they do but conclude that the religious claims are unjustified?

Aristotle does not prove anyone’s religious claims, nor does the Church think it needs Aristotle for its claims.
The Catholic Church is saying, "we see people (philosophers) who have, by reason, come to the conclusion that material reality is “created” and that there is one God that created all. We acknowledge this is possible. But we deliver to you Revelation from that God you found out about in your reasoning, Revelation of Himself, who He is and who you are in relation to Him. We are introducing you in person to the God you have reasoned about from observation.

The “religious claims” of people will not be available for you to reason out with “scrutiny”, but as to the material world being created and as to there being a creator, it has stood under the scrutiny of the Philosopher, and it is fully okay that it does not (yet) stand up under your scrutiny, since reasoning takes a lifetime of hard work, and honesty void of personal emotion or preference, and very few accomplish it. It only matters that one person is able to do it successfully with his own reason for the statement in the Catechism to be valid. (yet many people have lived in the reasoning of the Philosopher, understand his reasoning, and assert it as true within their own duplication of his reasoning, much as physicists duplicate the experimentation and calculations of earlier physicists)

 

[tonyrey]

The very fact that we all rely on the power of reason is overwhelming evidence that God exists. It is **unreasonable **and self-contradictory to believe there are no reasons why we exist. There is one Supreme Rational Being…

 

[John_Martin]

Interesting. I am not a logician, and not well schooled in philosophy. As an experimental scientist, I work comfortably with incomplete evidence and theories that approach but never arrive at the full truth. This involves a different kind of reason, I think. Good luck in your own quest for truth.

Correctly stated. In this respect the assertions of Aristotle are “theories”, yet which he walks in as truth, much as we ignite a rocket to Mars in confidence in theories. In this respect, even the number 1 is a theory, that there is unity, something singular. 1 plus 1 equals 2 is a theory. That the material world is created is in this way a theory having the same certainty to Aristotle as 1 plus 1 equals 2 or that a triangle has three sides. His reason equally understood all of these as “certain”.

But, God being your Father who sent his Son and makes you alive with his Spirit, that must be told to you by someone from this God who delivers that official news (Gospel), not as reasoned, but as news, as revelation.

 

[MPat]

Taking that sentence on its own right (since there is no detailed explanation) one can see a serious logical error. It “assumes” that the world is created, and then says that it therefore points to God as a creator. First one must prove (not merely assume) that the universe IS created, and then one can look for a hypothetical creator.

The sentence is pretty clear and you are completely misinterpreting it. It is not an argument for God’s existence, you were told it is not such an argument, and yet you still argue as if it was one. And that “Taking that sentence on its own right (since there is no detailed explanation)” might make it look as if you do not think you even need to look for a correct interpretation… Although, if that is really the case - why are you asking us to explain anything?

I am familiar with all the arguments from Aristotle, Aquinas, Scotus, Molina, Kreeft and the others. First, they are different. Second they ALL have errors in them. Third, none of them is acknowledged officially by the church as “valid”. I was hoping to find an official argument for the quote from the catechism. Looks like there is none.

Well, if you misinterpreted a simple sentence from Catechism, could it be that you misinterpreted those arguments as well…?

 

[Hee_Zen]

Oh, Creation is defined elsewhere in the Catechism (defined that all “not God” is created). And the Catechism is saying here not what the things are that different human reasoners use, but it is stating that without having access to the Revelation provided by God, they “are able” (yet do not allways succeed fully, and most not do not succeed very well) in knowing “that” what they see around them is created, and “that” there is one God who is “creator” of the things they see around them.

Sorry, I don’t get it. If “creation” is defined as everything else, but God, then it is trivial to say that the creation points to God’s existence. But this definition of “created” is unacceptable, Something is called “created”, if it is not “natural”, if it is fabricated", “manufactured” or “artificial”. If “created” means: “everything” but God, then there is nothing “natural” and as such the phrase “created things” is an empty expression.

 

[Hee_Zen]

The sentence is pretty clear and you are completely misinterpreting it. It is not an argument for God’s existence, you were told it is not such an argument, and yet you still argue as if it was one.

Of course it is! It states that God’s existence can be KNOWN by pure reason alone (which means no need for “faith” and no need for “revelation”). That is as clear as it gets. The question is: “HOW” does it prove God’s existence?

And that “Taking that sentence on its own right (since there is no detailed explanation)” might make it look as if you do not think you even need to look for a correct interpretation… Although, if that is really the case - why are you asking us to explain anything?

The sentence needs no “interpretation”, it needs to be “substantiated”. Huge difference.

Well, if you misinterpreted a simple sentence from Catechism, could it be that you misinterpreted those arguments as well…?

I did not interpret it, much less misinterpreted it. After all the catechism is supposed to be the final “interpretation”, the final authority, which resolves the possible interpretations. But if you think that my understanding is incorrect, then you should be in the position to point out my alleged error, and explain how that sentence should be understood. Some things to ponder: “created” is the opposite of “non-created” or natural. If everything is “created”, then the word “created” is meaningless.

 

[John_Martin]

Sorry, I don’t get it. If “creation” is defined as everything else, but God, then it is trivial to say that the creation points to God’s existence. But this definition of “created” is unacceptable, Something is called “created”, if it is not “natural”, if it is fabricated", “manufactured” or “artificial”. If “created” means: “everything” but God, then there is nothing “natural” and as such the phrase “created things” is an empty expression.

“Created” means “caused”, and it is “natural” in that it is the intended movement of the “cause”. It is “unnatural” if it is not “caused”. If we use your phrasing, then the Universe is “manufactured”, it is “artificial”, and “we, ourselves” are unnatural. We are not natural, not “necessary beings”. The God that philosophers find is the “necessary being” that causes what is not necessary, meaning us. Yet they do not “know him” but only know That he IS as a requirement for anything not necessary to Be. Philosophy concludes that One thing Necessary is required for all things Unnecessary, and they gave the term “God” to that one thing. The sentence in the Catechism “concedes” that conclusion to human reason’s capability. No faith needed for that conclusion of reason.

 

[MPat]

Of course it is! It states that God’s existence can be KNOWN by pure reason alone (which means no need for “faith” and no need for “revelation”). That is as clear as it gets. The question is: “HOW” does it prove God’s existence?

No, it is not. Let’s look at the different example. A mathematician says: “Four colour theorem has been proved in 1976.”. Is that proposition a proof of Four colour theorem itself? No, it is not. Is it meant to be such a proof? No, it is not. It is actually a proposition concerning history.

Likewise, this sentence is not meant to be a proof of God’s existence, but an explanation that such proofs exist (but look elsewhere for them) and an explanation why such proofs exist (because everything has been created by God and that left some useful evidence).

It states that God’s existence can be KNOWN by pure reason alone (which means no need for “faith” and no need for “revelation”).

As I have already noted, reason does need faith - even when religion is not concerned. And that still leaves many propositions that wouldn’t be known without revelation.

I did not interpret it, much less misinterpreted it. After all the catechism is supposed to be the final “interpretation”, the final authority, which resolves the possible interpretations.

No, it is meant to be a summary of Catholic doctrine.

But if you think that my understanding is incorrect, then you should be in the position to point out my alleged error, and explain how that sentence should be understood.

I think I did that.

Some things to ponder: “created” is the opposite of “non-created” or natural. If everything is “created”, then the word “created” is meaningless.

Well, God is not created.

But it is interesting that in the same paragraph you seem to claim that: 1) you understand what the sentence means perfectly, 2) that you do not understand one word in it… Isn’t that self-contradictory?

Finally, is the sentence in question really from the Catechism? Usually the Catechism does not attach theological notes like “de fide” to propositions… It looks like it is from “Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma” by Ludwig Ott…

 

[Hee_Zen]

“Created” means “caused”, and it is “natural” in that it is the intended movement of the “cause”. It is “unnatural” if it is not “caused”.

Looks like we have a communication problem. In real life we consider dishes “created” from natural ingredients. Vegetables, meat, spices are not “created”, they simply ARE. Novels, pictures, songs are all “created”. “Trans uranium” elements are also “created”, since they do not exist in nature, while “oxygen, hydrogen, carbon, etc…” are not manufactured, “created” they simply ARE. Without this distinction the “created” vs. “not-created” dichotomy simply does not make sense.

If we use your phrasing, then the Universe is “manufactured”, it is “artificial”, and “we, ourselves” are unnatural. We are not natural, not “necessary beings”. The God that philosophers find is the “necessary being” that causes what is not necessary, meaning us.

Yet they do not “know him” but only know That he IS as a requirement for anything not necessary to Be. Philosophy concludes that One thing Necessary is required for all things Unnecessary, and they gave the term “God” to that one thing. The sentence in the Catechism “concedes” that conclusion to human reason’s capability. No faith needed for that conclusion of reason.

Very well. You said that “Philosophy concludes that One thing Necessary is required”. This is not really true. There are SOME philosophers who assert “necessary” vs. “contingent” existence. But this is just a subjective opinion. It rests on the concept of “possible worlds”; and necessary existence means that a being (or object) exists in all possible worlds, while contingent existence means that a being (or object) only in some possible worlds, but not in others. It has NOTHING to do with causation, or dependence.

When we consider the relationship between grandparent - parent - child, then the parent is “necessary” for the child to exist, and the parent is also “contingent” upon the existence of grandparent. But this is a different usage of the “necessary / contingent” concepts. They should not be confused.

If one asserts that there is one entity which exists in all possible worlds, he is confronted with an impossible task if he wishes to substantiate this proposition. After all there are infinitely many possible worlds and it is impossible to examine all of them and look for something “common” in all of them. On the other hand it is child’s play to consider two possible worlds, which have nothing in common. The concept of “possible world” is some hypothetical world which is different from the existing on in some respect. As such those FEW philosophers, who assert “necessary” existence are in error. There is no necessary “being”.

 

[John_Martin]

If you wish to probe the content of “possible worlds”, then you are looking at yourself as “not being yet” and everything as possibility but not as actuality.
I am the child playing in the sandbox with my little trucks - yes, I am making possible mountains and valleys, but I AM and the sand IS and the toys ARE. There is no other world for me, different in at least one respect. So, as a child philosopher, I seek to understand my world with full accuracy of what it is and how it is, not imagining some other possible world that IS NOT. Hypothetical constructs of reality only show the extent of intellectual prowess, but do not enable my sandbox to somehow become a swimming pool.

This “one entity”, God, does not exist in “all possible worlds”, since they are not possible (because they Are Not). And this “one entity” does not exist either in this actual world where you Are, as if a component of it or as an object among its many objects.

The word “decision” means cutting off “possibility” and you are left with “one” - no “possible worlds”. You are where you are; where did you come from, actually? Not, “what might you have been?” possibly?
Doing philosophy so it is meaningful for living means answering the “actually” question accurately. Working on the possibly question means composing a fantasy novel.

 

[Hee_Zen]

If you wish to probe the content of “possible worlds”, then you are looking at yourself as “not being yet” and everything as possibility but not as actuality.

The concept of possible worlds is inseparable from the concept of “necessary” being, and it is widely used by exactly those philosophers who wish to establish God as a necessary being. If you question their endeavor, that is fine, but then there is no “proof” of God as a necessary being. The choice is yours. .

The definition of a possible world is a state of affairs, which is different from the existing one in some respect. Say, there is rosebush in your garden, but in a different possible world you would have some tulips planted there. Of course it is all hypotheticals - but not just any hypotheticals, only those which “could be”. No possible world could contain a logical or physical impossibility.

 

[John_Martin]

The concept of possible worlds is inseparable from the concept of “necessary” being, and it is widely used by exactly those philosophers who wish to establish God as a necessary being. If you question their endeavor, that is fine, but then there is no “proof” of God as a necessary being. The choice is yours. .

The definition of a possible world is a state of affairs, which is different from the existing one in some respect. Say, there is rosebush in your garden, but in a different possible world you would have some tulips planted there. Of course it is all hypotheticals - but not just any hypotheticals, only those which “could be”. No possible world could contain a logical or physical impossibility.

Possible worlds is not consistent with the necessary being, because what the necessary being knows as “being that is not-necessary” is the “only possibility” or, better, the “only actuality that is not-necessary being”

There is no “possibility” in the knowing of the necessary being, because his knowing makes it necessary (even its being contingent is necessary, since it is known as such). There are no “alternatives” in the mind of God, which would make the content of his knowing unnecessary. The “mind of God” of the “necessary being” knows simply, “This is the not-me and the not-eternal that will be temporally”

 

[PseuTonym]

The definition of a possible world is a state of affairs, which is different from the existing one in some respect. Say, there is rosebush in your garden, but in a different possible world you would have some tulips planted there. Of course it is all hypotheticals - but not just any hypotheticals, only those which “could be”. No possible world could contain a logical or physical impossibility.

How about a burning rosebush that is engulfed in flames and continues to burn for a long time, with the fire not consuming the bush? Given more physical details, you might be able to conclude that if there is nothing more to reality than physical reality, then it is physically impossible.

However, if reality also includes God, and God can perform miracles, then the burning bush might be possible in reality. Perhaps I am mistaken, but I get the impression that you are relying on the assumption that miracles are impossible, and that you are using that assumption to reach your conclusion that “no possible world could contain a logical or physical impossibility.”

 

[Hee_Zen]

How about a burning rosebush that is engulfed in flames and continues to burn for a long time, with the fire not consuming the bush? Given more physical details, you might be able to conclude that if there is nothing more to reality than physical reality, then it is physically impossible.

However, if reality also includes God, and God can perform miracles, then the burning bush might be possible in reality. Perhaps I am mistaken, but I get the impression that you are relying on the assumption that miracles are impossible, and that you are using that assumption to reach your conclusion that “no possible world could contain a logical or physical impossibility.”

Since such a burning bush does not contain a logical impossibility, to have a world with this phenomenon would be a valid “possible world”. It does not need to be a “miracle”, it could be an in-so-far unknown event. It does not matter. The point is the definition of a necessary being is something that exists in ALL the possible worlds. As I said it is very easy to contemplate two possible worlds which have no “intersection”, and as such there is no necessary being.

It needs to be reiterated, that the word “necessary” has a very precise philosophical meaning, which has nothing to do with the usual necessary-contingent relationship.

 

[John_Martin]

Let’s try again with the CCC quote:

God, our Creator and Lord, can be known with certainty, by the natural light of reason from created things.

"God (Whom we, His Chosen People know via His self-revelation as) our Creator and Lord (meaning we are His Creation/Creatures and we are His Subjects as to a King. This God) can be known (by others not having received any revelation, but is not known by all or even many this way) with certainty, by the natural light of reason (to the satisfaction of their reason that they understand) from (their observation of and reasoned speculation about) created things (all that is material reality).

In other words, the Church does not have confidence that many, including you, will come to conclude the reality of the Unknown God. That is just the way it is. It CAN happen; it HAS happened; but it is a rarity. And even if you come to that conclusion, there is no “Life” in knowing it. There is only the remaining question, “Who is this God that I concluded via reason?”

 

[MPat]

Let’s try again with the CCC quote:

"God (Whom we, His Chosen People know via His self-revelation as) our Creator and Lord (meaning we are His Creation/Creatures and we are His Subjects as to a King. This God) can be known (by others not having received any revelation, but is not known by all or even many this way) with certainty, by the natural light of reason (to the satisfaction of their reason that they understand) from (their observation of and reasoned speculation about) created things (all that is material reality).

But is that really from the Catechism? I have failed to find it there. It looks like it (worded in this specific way) is from “Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma” by Dr. Ludwig Ott. It is still something worth defending, but wouldn’t it be better to keep “documentation” orderly?

Also, it means that context for this proposition might be different.

 

[MPat]

The concept of possible worlds is inseparable from the concept of “necessary” being, and it is widely used by exactly those philosophers who wish to establish God as a necessary being.

Actually, it is just one option. Look at the blog of Edward Feser (for example, “God and possible worlds”, edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2010/06/god-and-possible-worlds.html) for more details.