Universal Consensus Argument for the Existence of God

  • Thread starter Thread starter Samuel_Maynes
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

Samuel_Maynes

Guest
The following demonstration of consensus based on the Trinity is excerpted from pages 11-16 of my website at www.religiouspluralism.ca. Although an oversimplification in many ways, the number three is the first common denominator and birthmark of some very fundamental categories of reality, for example:
  1. Space, i.e., length, breadth, and height or depth;
  2. Time, i.e., past, present, and future;
  3. Matter, i.e., solid, liquid, and gas;
  4. Electro-magnetism, i.e., positive, negative, and neutral;
  5. Atomic structure, i.e., protons, electrons, and neutrons;
  6. The relationship between force, mass, and acceleration, i.e., F = ma;
  7. The relationship between energy, matter, and light, i.e., E = MC2;
  8. The relationship between the elements of the Pythagorean triangle i.e., Z2 = X2 + Y2.
In addition, the psychology of the human soul is understood in three essential aspects of being, i.e., personality or ego self-consciousness, mind or id – conscious and unconscious, and spirit or superego – unconscious even superconscious. Furthermore, the threefold nature of human religious predilections is apparent in three major views or cultural attitudes to the Absolute, i.e.:
  1. Muslims and Jews may be said to worship only the first person of the Trinity, i.e. the existential Deity Absolute Creator, known as Allah or Yhwh, Abba or Father (as Jesus called him), Brahma, and other names; represented by Gabriel (Executive Archangel), Muhammad and Moses (mighty messenger prophets), and others.
  2. Christians and Krishnan Hindus may be said to worship the first person through a second person, i.e. the experiential Universe or "Universal” Absolute Supreme Being (Allsoul or Supersoul), called Son/Christ or Vishnu/Krishna; represented by Michael (Supreme Archangel), Jesus (teacher and savior of souls), and others. The Allsoul is that gestalt of personal human consciousness, which we expect will be the “body of Christ” (Mahdi, Messiah, Kalki or Maitreya) in the second coming – personified in history by Muhammad, Jesus Christ, Buddha (9th incarnation of Vishnu), and others.
  3. Shaivite Hindus, Buddhists, and Confucian-Taoists seem to venerate the synthesis of the first and second persons in a third person or appearance, ie. the Destiny Consummator of ultimate reality – unqualified Nirvana consciousness – associative Tao of All That Is – the absonite* Unconditioned Absolute Spirit “Synthesis of Source and Synthesis,”** who/which is logically expected to be Allah/Abba/Brahma glorified in and by union with the Supreme Being – represented in religions by Gabriel, Michael, and other Archangels, Mahadevas, Spiritpersons, etc., who may be included within the mysterious Holy Ghost.
Other strains of religion seem to be psychological variations on the third person, or possibly combinations and permutations of the members of the Trinity – all just different personality perspectives on the Same God. Taken together, the world’s major religions give us at least two insights into the first person of this thrice-personal One God, two perceptions of the second person, and at least three glimpses of the third.

If, as it seems, it may be sufficiently demonstrated that the multidimensional nature of One God in Trinity manifestation is reflected in the religious pluralism of the world, and human psychology, as well as the metaphysics of space, time, matter, energy, force, atomic structure, etc; then and therefore, the existence of that God must be regarded as systematically self-evident. This proof anticipates the eventuation of a Universal Consensus of religion and science.

Samuel Stuart Maynes
www.religiouspluralism.ca
 
Samuel_Maynes said:
If, as it seems, it may be sufficiently demonstrated that the multidimensional nature of One God in Trinity manifestation is reflected in the religious pluralism of the world, and human psychology, as well as the metaphysics of space, time, matter, energy, force, atomic structure, etc; then and therefore, the existence of that God must be regarded as systematically self-evident. This proof anticipates the eventuation of a Universal Consensus of religion and science.

Samuel Stuart Maynes
www.religiouspluralism.ca
Click to expand...
Well, here’s the problem. There is no universal consensus as to the existence of God(s). Majority consensus, very likely.

Too many atheists get in the way of calling universal consent by itself a self-evident argument.

If at the dawn of human history everybody thought the sun rose in the east and set in the west, that would be called by everybody self-evident universal consent, but it would not be correct. (The Sun does not rise!)

Universal consciousness of the possibility of God is more self-evident. Even atheists have to consider the possibility of God. The fact that this is a universal issue, as opposed to a universal conviction (yea or nay) is what is self-evident and requires us to consider the mystery behind the veil.

Thus, while the existence of God is not proven by universal conviction either way, what is proven is that all men are drawn by some mysterious force to consider whether the existence of God is possible.

Is that force God?
 
the first topic in the Catechism of the Catholic Church is Man’s Capacity to Know God. this capacity capacity of man is significantly limited by his own very nature. in seeking understanding and explanations comes the variety in man’s perception of God. as long as we remain on earth, there can never be any consensus regarding the nature of God and His true identity. only in the New Jerusalem can we see God as He really is: then all confusions and doubts shall be resolved
 
Samuel_Maynes said:
Samuel Stuart Maynes
www.religiouspluralism.ca
Click to expand...
Greetings, Mr. Maynes, and welcome to the forum. 🙂

I always liked the idea that people, to one extent or another, always believed in some kind of gods/God or another. I think it ought to push one close to considering the theory that God exists. But I would not go so far as to say it makes God to be self-evident, however.

And that is because, simply, that wasn’t always the case. While some people do believe in God proper - the origin of things, “Deity Absolute” as you put it - to divorce the “Son” and the “Holy Ghost” from the “Father” and say people also worship these aspects of God is to paint a Christian-shaped target and stick Daoist, Confucian, Hindu, Buddhist, Moslem, and Jewish-shaped arrows in the target.

What I mean is, not all religions agree they worship God, or even “the gods”. They may not consider their “god” (like nirvana/moksha) to be possible to worship, as worship implies an other, and “we” don’t really exist, according to Buddhists and Hindus. It may look like veneration of the Son, and the Holy Ghost, but if it is so, it is only as much as a pagan’s worship of a rock is a worship of a thing as strong and changeless as God is.
 
There is no universal consensus because there is no universal consensus to what our relationship is to God. The elect are the elect for a reason.
 
TarkanAttila said:
  • to divorce the “Son” and the “Holy Ghost” from the “Father” and say people also worship these aspects of God is to paint a Christian-shaped target and stick Daoist, Confucian, Hindu, Buddhist, Moslem, and Jewish-shaped arrows in the target.
Click to expand...
The point is that all major religions actually do reflect one or other (or some combination) of three basic psychological “attitudes to the Absolute” - I am not making this stuff up.

For example, the Holy Ghost or mysterious Unconditioned Absolute Spirit may be envisioned by some as the ruthless personal Destiny Consummator, and by others as the beyond-personal/impersonal cosmic consciousness of the Buddha Purusha (Spirit) or unconditioned nirvana consciousness, and by still others as the inscrutable pre-personal Tao of All That Is (yin/yang).

In general, the Middle Path to the Unconditioned or Tao (Great Way) of the Spirit is neither thesis nor antithesis, but their transformed, transcendental/experiential consummate synthesis; neither one nor many, but all; neither condition nor conditioned, but unconditioned, neither differentiator nor differentiated, but undifferentiated.”

Just as the Neo-Confucian Tao or “Great Way” harmonizes the opposites of yin and yang, so conversely the Buddhist “Middle Path” avoids the existential extremes of neither being, nor not-being.

“Everything exists: That is one extreme. Everything does not exist: That is a second extreme. Avoiding these two extremes, the Tathagata (Buddha) teaches the Dharma via the middle.” Samyutta Nikaya (SN 12.15), Kaccayanagotta Sutta: On Right View – translated by Thanissaro Bhikku.

The Middle Way is the noble eightfold path to Nirvana. In the Itivuttaka Sutta (Iti 44 – Nibbana), Buddha calls Nirvana consciousness “the unconditioned state.”

“Bhikkus, I will teach you the unconditioned and the path leading to the unconditioned.” Majjhima Nikaya (M 119), Kayagatasati Sutta, Satipatthana – translated from the Pali by Piya Tan.

“Among what is unconditioned, Nirvana is the highest to reach.” With Buddha. CNP (Catukka Nipata Pali).

Ultimately, nothing can be said about the unconditioned without to some extent conditioning or qualifying the “unqualified.” This is why Buddhists sometimes refer to the “unconditioned state” as emptiness or nothingness. Often, Buddhists and Christians get around this metaphysical paradox by way of the “via negativa.” For example, the Middle may be said to be neither being nor non-being, but becoming; neither the one same nor the many other, but the essence of all; neither absolutely infinite nor absolutely finite, but absonite. Similarly, the Christian Holy Spirit is said to be neither the spirit of the Father, nor the spirit of the Son, but the glorified Absonite Spirit which “proceeds” from both.

“One attains Enlightenment by gradually detaching the mind from the conditioned and directing it towards the Unconditioned… Nirvana consists in the absolute cessation of all such discriminations, and realization that undifferentiated and homogeneous Emptiness, Suchness, Sameness may be variously denominated (Ultimate) Reality.” A Survey of Buddhism – B. Sangharashita, P.258/9.

“There is something undifferentiated and yet complete, which existed before heaven and earth. Soundless and formless, it depends on nothing and does not change. It operates everywhere and is free from danger… I do not know its name; I call it the Tao.” The Way of Lao Tzu – translated by W. Chan, Chapter 25.

So I argue that the Shaivite Hindu, Buddhist, and Taoist religions map directly onto the 3rd person of the Trinity Absolute. That Moslems and Jews may be said to worship the 1st person, while Christians and Krishnans tend to worship the 2nd is quite clear.

Samuel Stuart Maynes
www.religiouspluralism.ca
 
Caroline Franks Davis writes that the broad consensus in human history regarding certain universal traits in religious experience provides a cumulative argument for theism.

She characterizes this consensus as follows:

A survey of many numinous and mystical experiences shows that they can provide good evidence on their own for the following claims:
(i) The mundane world of physical bodies, physical processes d narrow, centres of consciousness is not the whole or ultimate reality.
(ii) In particular, the phenomenal ego of everyday consciousness, which most people tend to regard as their ‘self’, is by no means the deepest level of the self; there is a far deeper ‘true self’ which in some way depends on and participates in the ultimate reality.
(iii) Whatever is the ultimate reality is holy, eternal, and of supreme value; it can appear to be more truly real than all else, since everything else depends on it.
(iv) This holy power can be experienced as an awesome, loving, pardoning, guiding (etc.) presence with whom individuals can have a personal relationship, to whom they are profoundly attracted, and on whom they feel utterly dependent; it may be described positively in terms of goodness, wisdom, and so forth, but all such descriptions are ultimately inadequate.
(v) Though introvertive mystical experiences cannot in themselves show that union with something else has been attained, since only the unity is experienced, the evidence of numinous experiences and the fact that experiences of awe before the numen and love of the numen can easily slip into mystical experiences when all sense of self has been annihilated make it probable that at least some mystical experiences are experiences of a very intimate union with the holy power, however that is spelled out. (Other mystical experiences may nevertheless be no more than the integration or purification of the meditator’s mind.)
(vi) Some kind of union or harmonious relation with the ultimate reality is the human being’s summum bonun, one’s final liberation or salvation, and the means by which one discovers one’s ‘true self’ or ‘true home’.
The above claims constitute what might be called ‘broad theism’. In practice, few people are such ‘broad theists’; they adhere to systems of a much higher degree of ramification.
[Caroline Franks Davis, *The Evidential Force of Religious Experience. New York: Oxford University Press, 1989., pp. 190-1.]

Are you making a similar kind of cumulative argument for a Trinitarian character to human religious experience?
 
Fr_of_Jazz said:
Are you making a similar kind of cumulative argument for a Trinitarian character to human religious experience?
Click to expand...
Yes, there are many ways in which the argument from Religious Experience ties into the argument from Universal Consensus.

For example, Both arguments are based on indeterminate experience and incorporate all major religions. Both include acknowledgment of the over-arching awesomeness of the Deity Absolute Creator, and recognition of the deeper union of the individual soul with the “gestalt” of the Universe Absolute Supreme Being, as well as acceptance of the ultimate unity of the Unconditioned Absolute Spirit of All That Is.

For more details, see my posting “Religious Experience Argument for the Existence of God” on this forum.

Samuel Stuart Maynes
www.religiouspluralism.ca
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top