Question: Why do non-material ideas prove God's existence?

[desales09]

I’ve seen apologists cite man’s ability to reason and logic and to imagine non-material ideas like justice and love and mathematics as a proof that atheism (in its rejection of spiritual reality and the existence of God) is false.

I’m a Catholic, but I personally have not found this any more compelling than using anything else in all of existence to prove God’s existence. Those of us who believe can see the fact that He exists by the beauty and order of everything - but if an atheist can think up other explanations for the fact that anything exists, couldn’t he just as easily explain away our abilities to reason and logic as functions of the brains which evolution and random processes have given us?

I understand that NO argument is going to convince everyone, but maybe someone can help me to understand if there’s anything to this argument that I’m not seeing?

 

[Hokomai]

Well, it certainly does not convince me. Why would humans’ better abstract thinking skills prove the existence of a god(s) any more than dogs’ superior sense of smell? Both are biochemical processes.

 

[Taestron]

I’ve seen apologists cite man’s ability to reason and logic and to imagine non-material ideas like justice and love and mathematics as a proof that atheism (in its rejection of spiritual reality and the existence of God) is false.

I’m a Catholic, but I personally have not found this any more compelling than using anything else in all of existence to prove God’s existence. Those of us who believe can see the fact that He exists by the beauty and order of everything - but if an atheist can think up other explanations for the fact that anything exists, couldn’t he just as easily explain away our abilities to reason and logic as functions of the brains which evolution and random processes have given us?

I understand that NO argument is going to convince everyone, but maybe someone can help me to understand if there’s anything to this argument that I’m not seeing?

I agree that I am not sure how the argument of non-material entities by itself proves the existence of God. It could be an argument for design/personal god rather than a impersonal force.

Well, it certainly does not convince me. Why would humans’ better abstract thinking skills prove the existence of a god(s) any more than dogs’ superior sense of smell? Both are biochemical processes.

We would say that the biochemical process is how humans think and is not synonymous with thinking. If we posit the existence of a soul, then it becomes more likely that our thinking skills reflect some sort of personal god.

 

[Actaeon]

I’ve seen apologists cite man’s ability to reason and logic and to imagine non-material ideas like justice and love and mathematics as a proof that atheism (in its rejection of spiritual reality and the existence of God) is false.

I’m a Catholic, but I personally have not found this any more compelling than using anything else in all of existence to prove God’s existence. Those of us who believe can see the fact that He exists by the beauty and order of everything - but if an atheist can think up other explanations for the fact that anything exists, couldn’t he just as easily explain away our abilities to reason and logic as functions of the brains which evolution and random processes have given us?

I understand that NO argument is going to convince everyone, but maybe someone can help me to understand if there’s anything to this argument that I’m not seeing?

I think that what you’ve heard is a poor misapplication of an argument against atheistic evolution, not an empirical argument FOR God.

Essentially, the debate boils down to this: atheist says that God wasn’t needed in the formation of life because evolution works it all out, and that we adapted to be survivable. Christian debator points out that things like love, compassion, charity, and self-sacrifice are traits which decrease survivability. Atheist points out that there may be reciprocity or gene preservation involved which would increase genetic survivability. Christian points out that reciprocity and gene preservation does not apply to charity in sending money to foreign countries, donating blood to foreign disaster relief, etc.

Basically, the argument is that we have evolved some pretty funky traits that do exactly what the theory of evolution says they shouldn’t (aka, introduce negative survivability trends into us). This is a line of debate that has occured dozens of times between Dinesh D’Souza and Christopher Hitchens… but it’s not an argument for God’s existence, it’s an argument AGAINST the notion that “survival of the fittest” is sufficient to explain human existence.

 

[Hokomai]

I think that what you’ve heard is a poor misapplication of an argument against atheistic evolution, not an empirical argument FOR God.

Essentially, the debate boils down to this: atheist says that God wasn’t needed in the formation of life because evolution works it all out, and that we adapted to be survivable. Christian debator points out that things like love, compassion, charity, and self-sacrifice are traits which decrease survivability. Atheist points out that there may be reciprocity or gene preservation involved which would increase genetic survivability. Christian points out that reciprocity and gene preservation does not apply to charity in sending money to foreign countries, donating blood to foreign disaster relief, etc.

Basically, the argument is that we have evolved some pretty funky traits that do exactly what the theory of evolution says they shouldn’t (aka, introduce negative survivability trends into us). This is a line of debate that has occured dozens of times between Dinesh D’Souza and Christopher Hitchens… but it’s not an argument for God’s existence, it’s an argument AGAINST the notion that “survival of the fittest” is sufficient to explain human existence.

It is news to me that the theory of evolution attempts to explain the origin of life. Evolution is the word we use to describe the fact of what occurs to life, not how life appeared. The theory of evolution (or theories) attempt to describe the process which gives rise to the fact of evolution. Neither fact nor theory addresses the issue of the original appearance of life, although each would no doubt be useful in explaining what happened next.

 

[Hokomai]

We would say that the biochemical process is how humans think and is not synonymous with thinking. If we posit the existence of a soul, then it becomes more likely that our thinking skills reflect some sort of personal god.

OK: if thinking is not the biochemical, measurable process, what is it, and what is the evidence for its existence? “There is a soul, it must do something, maybe it helps us think” is not evidence. It is speculation based on a hypothesis (the soul) based on no observations.

 

[Taestron]

OK: if thinking is not the biochemical, measurable process, what is it, and what is the evidence for its existence? “There is a soul, it must do something, maybe it helps us think” is not evidence. It is speculation based on a hypothesis (the soul) based on no observations.

The theory of the soul is meant to explain why humans have identities. The evidence for identity is that whatever phenomenon I experience, it unquestionably happens to me. Now, I won’t sit around and say that it is impossible that my identity is just an illusion created by complex biochemistry, but the fact is that no amount of science will ever prove whether or not identity is given through a soul or merely an illusion of our biochemistry. Given the option, I think the soul makes more sense because it seems that my base nature doesn’t always control my actions or responses.

Now as for thinking. Thinking is a phenomenon I (the identity I was talking of earlier) experience and can perform. I am directing my consciousness to certain “mental” (for lack of better word) places. And analogy would be running. I can move my muscles in my legs in a certain way and at a certain speed (the how) to get from point A to point B quickly (the thing I am actually doing). Now I can direct my body to fire certain neurons and produce certain chemicals (the how) to direct my consciousness to examine the concept X (the thing). Neurons can fire, but unless I experience it, thought is not happening. My leg muscles can move, but unless i am moving from point A to point B, running is not happening.

 

[Hokomai]

The theory of the soul is meant to explain why humans have identities. The evidence for identity is that whatever phenomenon I experience, it unquestionably happens to me. Now, I won’t sit around and say that it is impossible that my identity is just an illusion created by complex biochemistry, but the fact is that no amount of science will ever prove whether or not identity is given through a soul or merely an illusion of our biochemistry. Given the option, I think the soul makes more sense because it seems that my base nature doesn’t always control my actions or responses.

Now as for thinking. Thinking is a phenomenon I (the identity I was talking of earlier) experience and can perform. I am directing my consciousness to certain “mental” (for lack of better word) places. And analogy would be running. I can move my muscles in my legs in a certain way and at a certain speed (the how) to get from point A to point B quickly (the thing I am actually doing). Now I can direct my body to fire certain neurons and produce certain chemicals (the how) to direct my consciousness to examine the concept X (the thing). Neurons can fire, but unless I experience it, thought is not happening. My leg muscles can move, but unless i am moving from point A to point B, running is not happening.

What, exactly, is the “I” that does these things to your body, and directs your consciousness, and experiences things, if it is not your body? Can the “I” be seen or measured? Does “I” exist when you are/were/will be asleep, unconscious, dead, a zygote or embryo?

 

[Qoeleth]

I’ve seen apologists cite man’s ability to reason and logic and to imagine non-material ideas like justice and love and mathematics as a proof that atheism (in its rejection of spiritual reality and the existence of God) is false.

I’m a Catholic, but I personally have not found this any more compelling than using anything else in all of existence to prove God’s existence. Those of us who believe can see the fact that He exists by the beauty and order of everything - but if an atheist can think up other explanations for the fact that anything exists, couldn’t he just as easily explain away our abilities to reason and logic as functions of the brains which evolution and random processes have given us?

I understand that NO argument is going to convince everyone, but maybe someone can help me to understand if there’s anything to this argument that I’m not seeing?

I believe abstract ideas DO prove the exitence of God. We have an idea of, say, equality (to take the example used in Phaedo). Now, we never actually SEE (in the sence of hyclic perception) equality, yet we understand it. This would seem to prove that equality has an existence. Indeed, the functionality of language itself depends upon such ‘abstract’ ideas.

Now, if such ‘ideals’ exist, it follows (by analogy) that God (also a non-perceptible ‘ideal’) exists in a comparable manner.

Our very use of language confirms a conviction that somehow ‘ideals’ ‘exist’ and mean something. Whatever this mode of existence it is unlike regular ‘existence’ (thing-ness), as it is is non-material and non-temporal. But this is the precise mode of existence of God.

I would suggest (as I have previously) that the difference between theism and atheism is not so much one of ‘substance’ as to the definition and scope given to the term ‘existence’. Theists tend to understnad existence Platonically, whereas atheists tend to understand it materialistically.

 

[Taestron]

What, exactly, is the “I” that does these things to your body, and directs your consciousness, and experiences things, if it is not your body? Can the “I” be seen or measured? Does “I” exist when you are/were/will be asleep, unconscious, dead, a zygote or embryo?

Like I said, I think it is impossible for me to say that my consciousness is merely a product of my biology. However, I don’t think so. Why am I the same person that I was 20 years ago, and why will I be the same person 40 years into the future (presuming I stay alive)? There is not one bit of physical matter left in my body that was the same from 20 years ago, yet I know myself to be the same person. Where does my body store memory if the cells are different? Now, I’ll be the first to admit that I don’t understand biochemistry, so there might be a scientific answer to that last question. However, I cannot see how a constantly changing, purely physical entity can ever have an identity. There is something that is constant that makes things, especially sentient organisms, what they are. Now what the soul exactly is:shrug: I only can say for sure that it is not physical, and so cannot be empirically measured. But you can measure it by examining your own memories and trying to believe that your experiences happened to different people. As far as your last question, I am of the opinion that a person is an amalgamation of soul and body and there can be no consciousness without a relationship between both. Since the soul and body are both present during sleep, yes the person exists. At death, the person no longer exists. (though the soul might). These are philosophical opinions in which I do not put too much stock.

 

[Drinkgasoline]

I’ve seen apologists cite man’s ability to reason and logic and to imagine non-material ideas like justice and love and mathematics as a proof that atheism (in its rejection of spiritual reality and the existence of God) is false.

I’m a Catholic, but I personally have not found this any more compelling than using anything else in all of existence to prove God’s existence. Those of us who believe can see the fact that He exists by the beauty and order of everything - but if an atheist can think up other explanations for the fact that anything exists, couldn’t he just as easily explain away our abilities to reason and logic as functions of the brains which evolution and random processes have given us?

I understand that NO argument is going to convince everyone, but maybe someone can help me to understand if there’s anything to this argument that I’m not seeing?

It doesn’t prove that God exists, but it’s a step in that direction.

Aquinas wrote that God is unchanging, timeless and non-material, by using Aristotle’s reasoning, so perhaps that’s a reason why God can’t be proved using material evidence. He argued that since you can’t prove God using natural science (changing, non-abstract, as described by Boethius), you have to prove God using divine science (changeless, abstract and dictated by reason, as described by Boethius.)

I do agree that using concepts like justice and love isn’t a coherent way of proving the existence of a God, but at the end of the day it is reason that allows a human being to try and understand God or come to the conclusion that God exists.

 

[shoe]

I’ve seen apologists cite man’s ability to reason and logic and to imagine non-material ideas like justice and love and mathematics as a proof that atheism (in its rejection of spiritual reality and the existence of God) is false.

I’m a Catholic, but I personally have not found this any more compelling than using anything else in all of existence to prove God’s existence. Those of us who believe can see the fact that He exists by the beauty and order of everything - but if an atheist can think up other explanations for the fact that anything exists, couldn’t he just as easily explain away our abilities to reason and logic as functions of the brains which evolution and random processes have given us?

I understand that NO argument is going to convince everyone, but maybe someone can help me to understand if there’s anything to this argument that I’m not seeing?

The non-material existence of such things as justice, love, and mathematics had to come from somewhere; and the non-material laws of logic says they could not have come from non-living, unfair, hostile, and causeless matter, since causeless matter is nothingness, and nothingness cannot produce the material things it does not have. And since nothingness cannot produce material things, then seeking beyond the material world for the source of life is both logical and reasonable.

And since the laws of logic are not part of the material world, it is logical to assume that justice, love, and mathematics exist in the world because a loving, intelligent Creator exists. Therefore, to believe that justice came from God’s attribute of justice; that love came from God’s attribute of love; and that mathematics came from God’s attribute of thoughts is again both logical and reasonable.

I believe that the worldview of atheism is just the opposite of logic and reason. Since atheists do not believe in an intelligent cause for the universe, they have to rationalize that intelligence came by chance from unintelligent chemicals. But how do spiritless, mindless chemicals produce minds that can realize and understand truth? Realizing and understanding truth is simply not part of the material world, since logically the ability to realize and understand things is not a physical property of matter.

 

[Taestron]

The non-material existence of such things as justice, love, and mathematics had to come from somewhere; and the non-material laws of logic says they could not have come from non-living, unfair, hostile, and causeless matter, since causeless matter is nothingness, and nothingness cannot produce the material things it does not have. And since nothingness cannot produce material things, then seeking beyond the material world for the source of life is both logical and reasonable.

And since the laws of logic are not part of the material world, it is logical to assume that justice, love, and mathematics exist in the world because a loving, intelligent Creator exists. Therefore, to believe that justice came from God’s attribute of justice; that love came from God’s attribute of love; and that mathematics came from God’s attribute of thoughts is again both logical and reasonable.

I would be careful with this line of reasoning. It makes it seem like God is ruled by the laws of logic.

 

[shoe]

I would be careful with this line of reasoning. It makes it seem like God is ruled by the laws of logic.

God’s attributes refer to those qualities that make Him God: they make up the very characteristics of His nature. God’s attribute of logic, for example, exists necessarily from His Divine nature, that is to say, God’s attribute of logic can neither be separated from Him nor act independently of His other attributes. The laws of logic simply mirror the eternal, orderly nature of God.

 

[Actaeon]

It is news to me that the theory of evolution attempts to explain the origin of life. Evolution is the word we use to describe the fact of what occurs to life, not how life appeared. The theory of evolution (or theories) attempt to describe the process which gives rise to the fact of evolution. Neither fact nor theory addresses the issue of the original appearance of life, although each would no doubt be useful in explaining what happened next.

I wasn’t talking about abiogenesis… I was talking about LIFE as we have it today having gone through a formative process (ie, evolution). Had I been talking about abiogenesis I would have referred to the ORIGIN of life, not the FORMATION of it.

Trust me: I’m not stupid, I have my degree in physics and you don’t have to explain the “science perspective to me”.