The Argument from the Origin of the Idea of God

[cho_pilo]

*The Argument from the Origin of the Idea of God

This argument, made famous by Rene Descartes, has a kinship to the ontological argument (13). It starts from the idea of God. But it does not claim that real being is part of the content of that idea, as the ontological argument does. Rather it seeks to show that only God himself could have caused this idea to arise in our minds.

It would be impossible for us to reproduce the whole context Descartes gives for this proof (see his third Meditation), and fruitless to follow his scholastic vocabulary. We give below the briefest summary and discussion.

1. We have ideas of many things.
2. These ideas must arise either from ourselves or from things outside us.
3. One of the ideas we have is the idea of God—an infinite, all-perfect being.
4. This idea could not have been caused by ourselves, because we know ourselves to be limited and imperfect, and no effect can be greater than its cause.
5. Therefore, the idea must have been caused by something outside us which has nothing less than the qualities contained in the idea of God.
6. But only God himself has those qualities.
7. Therefore God himself must be the cause of the idea we have of him.
8. Therefore God exists.

Consider the following common objection. The idea of God can easily arise like this: we notice degrees of perfection among finite beings—some are more perfect (or less imperfect) than others. And to reach the idea of God, we just project the scale upward and outward to infinity. Thus there seems to be no need for an actually existing God to account for the existence of the idea. All we need is the experience of things varying in degrees of perfection, and a mind capable of thinking away perceived limitations.

But is that really enough? How can we think away limitation or imperfection unless we first recognize it as such? And how can we recognize it as such unless we already have some notion of infinite perfection? To recognize things as imperfect or finite involves the possession of a standard in thought that makes the recognition possible.

Does that seem farfetched? It does not mean that toddlers spend their time thinking about God. But it does mean that, however late in life you use the standard, however long before it comes explicitly into consciousness, still, the standard must be there in order for you to use it. But where did it come from? Not from your experience of yourself or of the world that exists outside you. For the idea of infinite perfection is already presupposed in our thinking about all these things and judging them imperfect. Therefore none of them can be the origin of the idea of God; only God himself can be that.*
Source

Let’s dissect this one.

 

[cho_pilo]

Just for the sake of logical exercise:

Can you conceive of a way in which The Argument from the Origin of the Idea of God would work out?

 

[Bohm_Bawerk]

I’m a believer, but for the sake of argument, one could easily use John Locke’s beliefs that no human has “a priori knowledge” (knowledge independent of experience). In other words, humans are born as “blank slates” (which in latin, he called “tabula rasa”), and so do not grasp the concept of God. His beliefs were outlined in “An essay concerning human understanding”.

Like I said, I’m a believer, but you did ask for your post to be “dissected”.

Thank you,
Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk

 

[lemondiesel]

1. We have ideas of many things.
2. These ideas must arise either from ourselves or from things outside us.
3. One of the ideas we have is the idea of God—an infinite, all-perfect being.
4. This idea could not have been caused by ourselves, because we know ourselves to be limited and imperfect, and no effect can be greater than its cause.

one could easily use John Locke’s beliefs that no human has “a priori knowledge” (knowledge independent of experience). In other words, humans are born as “blank slates” (which in latin, he called “tabula rasa”), and so do not grasp the concept of God. Which is why we cannot grasp philosophical concepts such as infinity

^Agreeing with this post. Humans are rational, it is only natural for us to find degrees in reality, its how we improve our environments!

 

[Katholish]

Descartes’s supposed proof fails in many respects. We can have an idea of infinity without that idea itself being infinite. Our conception of God is a finite one because our nature is finite. Ideas only exist in us according to our nature and natural limitations (the Thomistic position), and Descartes didn’t seem to recognize this. The referrent of the idea may be greater than ourselves, but the idea itself is not, and is only a limited reflection of the referrent for that reason.

Also, for the record, the notion that men are born with blank slates and only learn from experience did not originate with John Locke, but was Aristotle’s position, and the position of the Scholastics. In fact, it was precisely that position that Descartes was arguing against claiming that the senses, and hence experience, were unrealiabe. (I just hate to see credit given where it isn’t deserved) Of course, just because our knowledge comes through the senses does not preclude our ability of forming a conception of God, which of course we all have.

 

[Bohm_Bawerk]

Also, for the record, the notion that men are born with blank slates and only learn from experience did not originate with John Locke, but was Aristotle’s position, and the position of the Scholastics. In fact, it was precisely that position that Descartes was arguing against claiming that the senses, and hence experience, were unrealiabe. (I just hate to see credit given where it isn’t deserved) Of course, just because our knowledge comes through the senses does not preclude our ability of forming a conception of God, which of course we all have.

As I’ve mentioned in a couple of other posts, I haven’t read philosophy in quite a long time. But I think I am correct in saying that John Locke “invented” the tabula rasa concept. He was the first to explicitly mention it in his works. To attribute it to Aristotle is merely drawing a loose connection. Indeed, you could regard every philosophical belief back to Aristotle…there was a reason, after all, that he was called: “The Philosopher”.

Thank you,
Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk

 

[Katholish]

As I’ve mentioned in a couple of other posts, I haven’t read philosophy in quite a long time. But I think I am correct in saying that John Locke “invented” the tabula rasa concept. He was the first to explicitly mention it in his works. To attribute it to Aristotle is merely drawing a loose connection. Indeed, you could regard every philosophical belief back to Aristotle…there was a reason, after all, that he was called: “The Philosopher”.

Thank you,
Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk

Aristotle, in the De Anima, Bk 3, section 4 refers to the mind as “a writingtablet on which as yet nothing actually stands written.” That is exactly what *tabula rasa *means–a blank/empty writting slate/tablet. I wouldn’t even be surprised if Latin translations of Aristotle used the exact term. Pretty much any where you look, the concept of *tabula rasa *will be attributed to Aristotle as originator.

 

[cho_pilo]

Thanks for the replies. My own version of The Argument from the Origin of the Idea of God would be like this:

1. We have ideas of many things.
2. We are dependent beings.
3. We cannot actually create anything on our own, we can only use and rearrange what is already available (both physically and mentally).
4. One of the ideas we have is the idea of God.
5. This idea could not have been caused by ourselves, because we know ourselves to be limited and imperfect, and we cannot actually create anything on our own.
6. Therefore, the idea must have been caused by something outside us.
7. Therefore God himself must be the cause of the idea we have of him.
8. Therefore God exists.

Between 6 and 7, we could add that aliens or demigods have caused us to have an idea of God, but that just relegates the question to what their nature and position is; but unless we define those aliens or demigods to be God, we’re back to God being the originator of the idea of God (even in a scenario of a deist god who “set the whole thing in motion (and gave the aliens and demigods instructions to give us the idea of God) and then retreated”).

Please comment.

 

[Katholish]

#3 has problems. We can truly create things, even if we use pre-existing matter or concepts to do so. Ex nihilo (from nothing) is not the only kind of valid creation.

#5 is invalid. Part of the reason for this is the weakness of #3, but even if #3 were correct, one simply can point out that we arrive at our idea of God from an a posteriori process by which we see the created world and reason back to the role of the creator. Hence, in some way our knowledge of God comes from our senses and what our mind does with the concepts derived from sense data. The idea of God is not created ex nihilo in our minds, but is an idea that we arrive at through an active process on our part.

There really is no valid argument to prove God’s existence from the Idea of God alone. St. Thomas essentially demonstrates this in his refutation of Anselm’s Ontological argument at the beginning of the Summa, and his explanation of true epistemology.

 

[cho_pilo]

#3 has problems. We can truly create things, even if we use pre-existing matter or concepts to do so. Ex nihilo (from nothing) is not the only kind of valid creation.

Please explain.
If we agree with no. 2 - that we are dependent - then this means we cannot really do anything on our own.

#5 is invalid. Part of the reason for this is the weakness of #3, but even if #3 were correct, one simply can point out that we arrive at our idea of God from an a posteriori process by which we see the created world and reason back to the role of the creator. Hence, in some way our knowledge of God comes from our senses and what our mind does with the concepts derived from sense data. The idea of God is not created ex nihilo in our minds, but is an idea that we arrive at through an active process on our part.

Except that I think that our mind and our senses are not really our own; they are not our own in the sense that we cannot fully control them.
We are dependent on our mind and senses, and they are dependent on other factors.

There really is no valid argument to prove God’s existence from the Idea of God alone.

I doubt it is even possible to prove (or disprove) God.

St. Thomas essentially demonstrates this in his refutation of Anselm’s Ontological argument at the beginning of the Summa, and his explanation of true epistemology.

I’ll have to look this up, thank you for the reference.

 

[cho_pilo]

OR

We can truly create things, even if we use pre-existing matter or concepts to do so. Ex nihilo (from nothing) is not the only kind of valid creation.

To create is ''to cause to come into being, as something unique that would not naturally evolve or that is not made by ordinary processes. ‘’

#5 is invalid. Part of the reason for this is the weakness of #3, but even if #3 were correct, one simply can point out that we arrive at our idea of God from an a posteriori process by which we see the created world and reason back to the role of the creator.

What wuld be the need to assume a ‘‘creator’’?

Hence, in some way our knowledge of God comes from our senses and what our mind does with the concepts derived from sense data. The idea of God is not created ex nihilo in our minds, but is an idea that we arrive at through an active process on our part.

Same as above.

 

[valentino]

Shouldn’t you say"the argument for th e Origin of the Idea of God?"The idea of God is llogical.The idea that there is no God or superior being is illogical.Man never stops trying to prove there is no God.It will never be proved.But since man ean"t physically touch, feel God he has a basic human nature that wants to questioon His existence.Your common objectioon is just man’s idea of how the idea of God can arise.Man ccan’t prove that.Pne can’t prove truth based on an untrutth.I can;t prove there is grass on earth because its said there’s no grass on the sun.Toddlers don’t think about God. They wonder about themselves and the things around them but God is too much of a mystery for them to dwell on.The idea of perfection isn’t already presupposed.Man;s belief of perfection comes as he grows and matures.

 

[Katholish]

cho pilo,

Please explain.
If we agree with no. 2 - that we are dependent - then this means we cannot really do anything on our own.

First of all, saying we are dependent only logically means that we are not our own existence, and that we could have not existed. However, when you say that we really do nothing completely on our own, you touch upon the notion of God as the First Cause of all things. This doesn’t just mean that He was the original cause in a chain of causes, but that he is the First Cause of every action that we take. So, your statement is true. However, just because God is the first Cause of our creating a novel, for example, that doesn’t mean that we are not true causes ourselves and does not mean that we have not truly created a novel, which we have.

What wuld be the need to assume a ‘‘creator’’?

I find St. Thomas’s Second Proof, that from causality, the most convincing of the proofs for Gods existence. One is not “assuming” a creator in the sense of making an assumption without proof, but one is actually proving that nature cannot be without an uncaused cause, and being which is not contingent, but is necessary being.

Except that I think that our mind and our senses are not really our own; they are not our own in the sense that we cannot fully control them.
We are dependent on our mind and senses, and they are dependent on other factors.

Your senses are recepticles of data from the outside world. There is no need for you to have to control them in order for them to provide you with valid information. Even if you do not control them in a volitional manner, however, they are still “yours” as they are a proper operation of your specific nature. Likewise, there are operations of your mind and soul which occur without your volition, including the ever important operation of the Agent Intellect which abstracts forms from material phantasms (the technical terms of Aristotle). Thus, in theory, you are perfectly capable of abstracting an idea from nature without a volitional act, yet in a true sense, you are the generator of that idea. Usually it takes a more volitional act to then create more complex ideas, like unicorns, fairies, and aliens, but your mind is certainly capable of creating these ideas.

I doubt it is even possible to prove (or disprove) God.

I don’t doubt it at all, and in fact think that it has been sufficiently accomplished by St. Thomas. I just don’t think that a proof can be generated from the Ideo of God itself, but needs to come from the nature of created/natural things.

 

[cho_pilo]

First of all, saying we are dependent only logically means that we are not our own existence, and that we could have not existed.

No, I do not think that our existence is optional. I find it demoralizing to think that we could not have existed.
Whether and what kind of bodies we have is optional, but to think that I, the soul, could also not exist is demoralizing.
Yes, I think that both God and we are necessary beings.
If I am not necessary, this means that all my needs, interest and concerns, including those about God, are not necessary either. If I and my needs, interests and concerns are not necessary, this means that there exists no necessary relationship between me and God. Which opens up a number of problems.
Alas, this is topic for another thread!

However, when you say that we really do nothing completely on our own, you touch upon the notion of God as the First Cause of all things. This doesn’t just mean that He was the original cause in a chain of causes, but that he is the First Cause of every action that we take. So, your statement is true. However, just because God is the first Cause of our creating a novel, for example, that doesn’t mean that we are not true causes ourselves and does not mean that we have not truly created a novel, which we have.

Surely we play a part in what we do; but we cannot take credit.

Your senses are recepticles of data from the outside world. There is no need for you to have to control them in order for them to provide you with valid information. Even if you do not control them in a volitional manner, however, they are still “yours” as they are a proper operation of your specific nature.

And therein lies the problem: my senses cannot be relied on to give me an objective perspective.

Unless we go with “Anything anyone says about, intends about or does in relation to what they consider to be God, is a reflection of their consciousness about God.” - and presume that this is good enough.

Likewise, there are operations of your mind and soul which occur without your volition, including the ever important operation of the Agent Intellect which abstracts forms from material phantasms (the technical terms of Aristotle). Thus, in theory, you are perfectly capable of abstracting an idea from nature without a volitional act, yet in a true sense, you are the generator of that idea. Usually it takes a more volitional act to then create more complex ideas, like unicorns, fairies, and aliens, but your mind is certainly capable of creating these ideas.

I am not sure about that, given that I can trace most of my ideas to already existing ideas from other people, or a variation or rearrangement of those ideas, and I am quite sure the rest is similar.
I daren’t say I have ever had a truly original idea.

I don’t doubt it at all, and in fact think that it has been sufficiently accomplished by St. Thomas. I just don’t think that a proof can be generated from the Ideo of God itself, but needs to come from the nature of created/natural things.

My skepticism about proving God is aimed at the limitations that are inherent in intellectual pursuits as such.
I am inclined to agree with Merton -

“The only cure for non-belief is the mystical experience.” - Thomas Merton

 

[Katholish]

No, I do not think that our existence is optional. I find it demoralizing to think that we could not have existed.
Whether and what kind of bodies we have is optional, but to think that I, the soul, could also not exist is demoralizing.
Yes, I think that both God and we are necessary beings.
If I am not necessary, this means that all my needs, interest and concerns, including those about God, are not necessary either. If I and my needs, interests and concerns are not necessary, this means that there exists no necessary relationship between me and God. Which opens up a number of problems.
Alas, this is topic for another thread!

Interesting. I certainly didn’t expect you to go there. I suppose all I can say is that I am sorry you find it demoralizing that you could have not existed, but it is the truth. Being necessary being is the very definition of God, and you are not He. I assume to be logically consistent, you hold that your soul pre-existed your body? And has always existed? So, before Abraham was born, “you were”? If there was ever a time when you were not, then you are of necessity contingent being.

Your needs can be necessary “for you” without your very being being necessary.

Surely we play a part in what we do; but we cannot take credit.

Sure we can. If I write a book, I am the author. Giving credit to anyone or anything else, and denying it to myself is silly, and contradicts common sense and all modes of speech.

And therein lies the problem: my senses cannot be relied on to give me an objective perspective.

Unless we go with “Anything anyone says about, intends about or does in relation to what they consider to be God, is a reflection of their consciousness about God.” - and presume that this is good enough.

Your senses can be relied upon to give you a correct picture of reality. Even if you see in color but a dog does not, you are both perceiving objective reality, but are noticing different aspects of it. Just because a dog doesn’t see the nuances of the color spectrum reflecting off of the surface of a chair does not mean it cannot perceive the chair correctly.

I am not sure about that, given that I can trace most of my ideas to already existing ideas from other people, or a variation or rearrangement of those ideas, and I am quite sure the rest is similar. I daren’t say I have ever had a truly original idea.

If you rearrange the ideas of others, or the forms you perceive from nature, then the new arrangement you have made is a new and different idea from what has come before it, one which you created. A unicorn is simply the idea of a horse and a horn combined in a way that does not occur in nature. You might have never seen a unicorn, but you can take these two ideas and combine them into something new. Grantly in the case of a unicorn, someone had that idea before you, but you can look around the room you are in now and combine some ideas of your own and invent something new.

My skepticism about proving God is aimed at the limitations that are inherent in intellectual pursuits as such. I am inclined to agree with Merton -

“The only cure for non-belief is the mystical experience.” - Thomas Merton

The limitations you seem to think exist can only lead to the conclusion that there is no such thing as knowledge. If you deny the reliability of the senses, everything else is nonsensical.

 

[UnworthyApostle]

“My skepticism about proving God is aimed at the limitations that are inherent in intellectual pursuits as such…”
Did not Aquinas say that reason, alebit being of the utmost use, is limited and the only way to perfect it is through revelation?

 

[Katholish]

“My skepticism about proving God is aimed at the limitations that are inherent in intellectual pursuits as such…”
Did not Aquinas say that reason, alebit being of the utmost use, is limited and the only way to perfect it is through revelation?

Reason is certainly limited insofar as some truths are not naturally knowable. Those certainl yrequire revelation. St. Thomas also insisted that the very existence of God, on the other hand was naturally knowlable and that the human intellect was more than capable of proving it. It is also a tenet of the Faith infallibly defined by the First Vatican Council that the existence of God can be proven by reason alone.