What do you consider proof of God, if anything?

[DavidHume]

You’re obviously not familiar with the works of my namesake – he does a much more thorough job addressing all of those points than I could. An Enquiry concerning Human Understanding is where you should begin.

If we would satisfy ourselves, therefore, concerning the nature of that evidence, which assures us of matters of fact, we must enquire how we arrive at the knowledge of cause and effect.

I shall venture to affirm, as a general proposition, which admits of no exception, that the knowledge of this relation is not, in any instance, attained by reasonings a priori; but arises entirely from experience, when we find that any particular objects are constantly conjoined with each other. Let an object be presented to a man of ever so strong natural reason and abilities; if that object be entirely new to him, he will not be able, by the most accurate examination of its sensible qualities, to discover any of its causes or effects. Adam, though his rational faculties be supposed, at the very first, entirely perfect, could not have inferred from the fluidity and transparency of water that it would suffocate him, or from the light and warmth of fire that it would consume him. No object ever discovers, by the qualities which appear to the senses, either the causes which produced it, or the effects which will arise from it; nor can our reason, unassisted by experience, ever draw any inference concerning real existence and matter of fact.

…
When I see, for instance, a billiard-ball moving in a straight line towards another; even suppose motion in the second ball should by accident be suggested to me, as the result of their contact or impulse; may I not conceive, that a hundred different events might as well follow from that cause? May not both these balls remain at absolute rest? May not the first ball return in a straight line, or leap off from the second in any line or direction? All these suppositions are consistent and conceivable. Why then should we give the preference to one, which is no more consistent or conceivable than the rest? All our reasonings a priori will never be able to show us any foundation for this preference.

In a word, then, every effect is a distinct event from its cause. It could not, therefore, be discovered in the cause, and the first invention or conception of it, a priori, must be entirely arbitrary. And even after it is suggested, the conjunction of it with the cause must appear equally arbitrary; since there are always many other effects, which, to reason, must seem fully as consistent and natural. In vain, therefore, should we pretend to determine any single event, or infer any cause or effect, without the assistance of observation and experience.

Hence we may discover the reason why no philosopher, who is rational and modest, has ever pretended to assign the ultimate cause of any natural operation, or to show distinctly the action of that power, which produces any single effect in the universe.

 

[PaulAndrew83]

You’re obviously not familiar with the works of my namesake – he does a much more thorough job addressing all of those points than I could. An Enquiry concerning Human Understanding is where you should begin.

I am well acquainted with those problems. I would be interested if you actually have read any of the moderate realist position like Etienne Gilson, Jacques Maritain, Daniel Sullivan et al.

However I am going to quote Jacques Maritain on this one. The problem that Hume has is idealism.

“All our reasonings a priori will never be able to show us any foundation for this preference.” Hume.

My brother is reading the degrees of knowledge so I can only paraphrase.

Two things.

1. Once you start as an idealist there is no way that you will ever leave idealism,
2. Idealists simply cannot forgive the fact that knowledge enters the mind from reality and the senses rather than the mind gaining knowledge about existence directly from reason.

I could ask the question to my sister who is reading behind me. “Prove to me that I am posting to you on the INTERNET”.

My sister cannot provide reasoning that I am. Only that reality tells her that I am in fact typing and posting on the INTERNET right now.

So it is reality that tells us of the laws of causality etc whether intellectual reasoning can or not is irrelevant.

Paul

 

[DavidHume]

However I am going to quote Jacques Maritain on this one. The problem that Hume has is idealism.

Either you or Maritain must be confusing David Hume with Immanuel Kant. It is plausible to do so, because Kant writes highly of Hume’s work before setting off in a different direction. That would also be a valid critique of Bishop Berkeley, but he’s not Hume either.

knowledge enters the mind from reality and the senses

This is indeed the entire basis of Hume’s philosophy. All of his work rests on this. E.g. I shall venture to affirm, as a general proposition, which admits of no exception, that the knowledge of this relation is not, in any instance, attained by reasonings a priori; but arises entirely from experience. That’s exactly what you said, and it is in exact opposition to the Thomist cosmological argument, which takes a general principle of material cause and effect as unchanging and a priori.

In most schools of empiricism, idealism vs. realism becomes a pseudoproblem. It’s only people like Kant and Aquinas that have to tangle with the outcomes of their metaphysical machinations.

 

[PaulAndrew83]

It seems I have mis-remembered who was who or have I.

I remember reading something that was stated to have been Hume’s that distinctly smacked of a form of Idealism. But I digress.

However on a quick re-reading of the quote below It seems to me that Hume is confusing something.
The Real David Hume :

Adam, though his rational faculties be supposed, at the very first, entirely perfect, could not have inferred from the fluidity and transparency of water that it would suffocate him, or from the light and warmth of fire that it would consume him. No object ever discovers, by the qualities which appear to the senses, either the causes which produced it, or the effects which will arise from it; nor can our reason, unassisted by experience, ever draw any inference concerning real existence and matter of fact.

That is entirely different from Adam discovering that he is indeed going to be burned by the fire, or suffocated by the water.

It is also possible that Adam could suffocate by some other physical cause like a complete lack of oxygen in the air or whatever. Without a really thorough investigation one cannot directly determine from the effect which of the possible causes is the cause. When I say thorough investigation i mean that the cause will leave a trace in some way that will allow one to show that water was the cause ie water in the lungs. It also may be physically possible to suffocate someone without leaving a trace. In this case we still know that Adam was suffocated by a cause.

However we certainly know that one of the possible causes is the responsible cause. We gain certain knowledge of the existence of the cause even if we do not gain specific information on the properties of said cause.

In the same way this is why Aquinas says we cannot gain knowledge of the essence(as opposed to some of His attributes) of God but can gain knowledge of his existence.

As an aside, Aquinas did say that nothing enters the mind except via reality.

Paul

 

[DavidHume]

Those are all good observations and do not contradict what Hume says (aside from “certain knowledge of the existence of the cause”, perhaps) but I think you may have missed his larger point within his sea of protracted examples.

The key points are:

• We only know of the principle of cause-and-effect through induction about events that we actually experience
• Therefore there is no a priori justification for supposing any cause-and-effect relation for events that we do not actually experience (what Hume says is actually stronger – we don’t have any a priori justification for cause-and-effect period – but certainly not for events that are only known through hypothesis like in the Thomist argument)
• “In vain, therefore, should we pretend to determine any single event, or infer any cause or effect, without the assistance of observation and experience.”

Aquinas’s cosmological argument takes as a priori that causality uniformly applies throughout the entire universe and throughout all of time.

A Humean objection would be that there is no justification a priori for this idea of causality and no way to establish it via observation, and therefore one must either take uniform causality on sheer faith (in which case, why not just take the existence of God on sheer faith and drop pretense of philosophy?), or one must reject the cosmological argument as sufficient justification for belief in God, since it relies on an unjustified premise.

Kant and the German-style idealism that followed him can all be viewed as attempts to rescue causality from Hume’s critique.

 

[PaulAndrew83]

Those are all good observations and do not contradict what Hume says (aside from “certain knowledge of the existence of the cause”, perhaps) but I think you may have missed his larger point within his sea of protracted examples.

The key points are:

• We only know of the principle of cause-and-effect through induction about events that we actually experience
• Therefore there is no a priori justification for supposing any cause-and-effect relation for events that we do not actually experience (what Hume says is actually stronger – we don’t have any a priori justification for cause-and-effect period – but certainly not for events that are only known through hypothesis like in the Thomist argument)
• “In vain, therefore, should we pretend to determine any single event, or infer any cause or effect, without the assistance of observation and experience.”

Aquinas’s cosmological argument takes as a priori that causality uniformly applies throughout the entire universe and throughout all of time.

A Humean objection would be that there is no justification a priori for this idea of causality and no way to establish it via observation, and therefore one must either take uniform causality on sheer faith (in which case, why not just take the existence of God on sheer faith and drop pretense of philosophy?), or one must reject the cosmological argument as sufficient justification for belief in God, since it relies on an unjustified premise.

Kant and the German-style idealism that followed him can all be viewed as attempts to rescue causality from Hume’s critique.

Hume needs to do more than IMO to attack causality. I’m going to say something very circular here. Causality is peculiar to things that have causes. He[Hume] is right in that we can in no way say that all things must have a cause. [EDIT: Because God is uncaused]

I don’t see how that gets you out of the cosmological argument. All things that have causes cannot be explained without appealing to something that does not have a cause which is basically the concept of God.

Is it not obvious that Hume is appealing to the possibility of something existing without a cause to try and say that the existence of something without a cause is unproven.

Paul

 

[cerad]

This thread seems to have strayed a bit off topic. And the last thing we need is another long boring incomprehensible my philosopher can beat up your philosopher discussion. So perhaps we can just summarize each philosopher and be done with it.

Immanuel Kant was a real pissant
Who was very rarely stable.

Heidegger, Heidegger was a boozy beggar
Who could think you under the table.

David Hume could out-consume
Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel,

And Wittgenstein was a beery swine
Who was just as schloshed as Schlegel.

There’s nothing Nietzsche couldn’t teach ya
'Bout the raising of the wrist.
Socrates, himself, was permanently pissed.

John Stuart Mill, of his own free will,
On half a pint of shandy was particularly ill.

Plato, they say, could stick it away–
Half a crate of whisky every day.

Aristotle, Aristotle was a bugger for the bottle.
Hobbes was fond of his dram,

And René Descartes was a drunken fart.
‘I drink, therefore I am.’

Yes, Socrates, himself, is particularly missed,
A lovely little thinker,
But a bugger when he’s pissed.

 

[DavidHume]

I don’t see how that gets you out of the cosmological argument. All things that have causes cannot be explained without appealing to something that does not have a cause which is basically the concept of God.

There is no way to show that anything has a cause, because there is no way to show that the cause-and-effect relation exists. So even if we were to grant (for the sake of argument alone) “all things that have causes cannot be explained without appealing to something that does not have a cause”, there is no way to show that the set “all things that have causes” is not empty.

There is no argument from logic alone that can prove it, and one cannot use observation and experience because induction from observation and experience already assumes cause-and-effect.

Other philosophers might disagree, but this is likely the single most influential idea in philosophy since the 18th century. Kant made a special epistemological category, called “synthetic a priori”, to contain things like the principle of cause and effect. He explains his analysis in Critique of Pure Reason.

Most philosophers with ontological and epistemological theories since then have felt the need to pre-emptively address Hume’s radical empiricism, since it is one of the most coherent expressions of the arguments from skepticism since the ancient Greeks.

 

[crowonsnow]

“Proof of god” is a contradiction in terms. Gods are by definition alleged entities that defy empirical examination.

Most people use the god word without ever first defining it. It is therefore impossible to either prove or disprove its reality. And it is interesting to note that the word itself arises from a root which means “to cry out,” something more an adjective or a verb than a noun.

 

[PaulAndrew83]

There is no way to show that anything has a cause, because there is no way to show that the cause-and-effect relation exists. So even if we were to grant (for the sake of argument alone) “all things that have causes cannot be explained without appealing to something that does not have a cause”, there is no way to show that the set “all things that have causes” is not empty.

There is no argument from logic alone that can prove it, and one cannot use observation and experience because induction from observation and experience already assumes cause-and-effect.

Now I remember why I stated that Hume’s problem is idealism. Of course Logic alone is not eneogh.

At root is a denial that what we experience is true.

Despite the fact that Hume claims that all knowledge enters the intellect from the senses, he is still unwilling to accept the conclusions of that knowledge without some reason from our intellect proving it to be true so to speak.

The statement “there is no way to show that the set “all things that have causes” is not empty” is only true if one adds the qualification “without observation and experience”.

Paul

p.s I am going to add my own critique of one of Humes statements below

 

[PaulAndrew83]

Hume:

When I see, for instance, a billiard-ball moving in a straight line towards another; even suppose motion in the second ball should by accident be suggested to me, as the result of their contact or impulse;
may I not conceive, that a hundred different events might as well follow from that cause? May not both these balls remain at absolute rest? May not the first ball return in a straight line, or leap off from the second in any line or direction? All these suppositions are consistent and conceivable.

For a start this is pure idealism. Nothing here in these statements allows for the possibility that experience and observation will give you the correct result.

Hume:

Why then should we give the preference to one, which is no more consistent or conceivable than the rest? All our reasonings a priori will never be able to show us any foundation for this preference.

Again idealism We should give preference to one not because of A Priori reasoning without any physical knowledge of the situation, but to the fact that only one of theses situations will be observed.

Please don’t start to state that some of these others might be possible because of a different physical situation, ie the billiard ball possessing a rotational movement which upon contact will allow it to reverse motion. This is irrelevant to the point I have just made.

Hume:

In a word, then, every effect is a distinct event from its cause. It could not, therefore, be discovered in the cause, and the first invention or conception of it, a priori, must be entirely arbitrary. And even after it is suggested, the conjunction of it with the cause must appear equally arbitrary; since there are always many other effects, which, to reason, must seem fully as consistent and natural. In vain, therefore, should we pretend to determine any single event, or infer any cause or effect, without the assistance of observation and experience.

There is nothing empirical about this at all. It is all denial of observation and experience.

Paul

 

[DavidHume]

The statement “there is no way to show that the set “all things that have causes” is not empty” is only true if one adds the qualification “without observation and experience”.

You’ve missed the second portion, which is that you cannot show that cause-and-effect is true even with observation and experience – because any use of observation and experience to justify cause-and-effect must already presuppose that cause-and-effect is true.

 

[DavidHume]

Again idealism We should give preference to one not because of A Priori reasoning without any physical knowledge of the situation, but to the fact that only one of theses situations will be observed.

And we can’t possibly know which situation that will be until we observe it, so there is no necessarily relation of cause (the current situation) to effect (the situation in the future).

 

[PaulAndrew83]

You’ve missed the second portion, which is that you cannot show that cause-and-effect is true even with observation and experience – because any use of observation and experience to justify cause-and-effect must already presuppose that cause-and-effect is true.

That statement misses the point I made.

At root is a denial by Hume to accept what his experience shows him is true.

Everything in your statement begs the question “prove the outside world is true”
At least admit that you can see this.

Paul

 

[PaulAndrew83]

And we can’t possibly know which situation that will be until we observe it, so there is no necessarily relation of cause (the current situation) to effect (the situation in the future).

No necessary relation in the mind only.

In reality there is.

Edit: While it is true that we cannot determine which situation will follow [providing that we have zero knowledge from past experience] there is no logical step to the next proposition that there is no necessary relation of cause to effect.

Paul

 

[DavidHume]

That statement misses the point I made.

At root is a denial by Hume to accept what his experience shows him is true.

Experience can’t show him that cause and effect is true, because induction (the method we use to draw inferences about reality from our experience and sense perceptions) already assumes cause and effect to be true.

Everything in your statement begs the question “prove the outside world is true”
At least admit that you can see this.

Not at all. It’s a non-issue whether “the outside world is true.” More precisely, it’s an ill-posed question – what is meant by “the outside world?”

 

[DavidHume]

Edit: While it is true that we cannot determine which situation will follow [providing that we have zero knowledge from past experience] there is no logical step to the next proposition that there is no necessary relation of cause to effect.

Hume doesn’t say that you have zero knowledge from past experience – he says that you have zero justification for applying induction from past experience, which relies the principles of cause-and-effect, to justify any purported relation of cause and effect.

Though you did pick up on an unclear portion of my post – by “And we can’t possibly know which situation that will be until we observe it, so there is no necessar[ily - sic.] relation of cause (the current situation) to effect (the situation in the future).” I was talking about a specific instance, not a causal principle in general.

To clarify, Hume’s claim is not “causality does not exist” – it is “causality cannot be proven.” The second, weaker claim is substantial enough reason to reject any deductive formulation of a cosmological argument, like the one you posted in this thread.

edit: rereading over your presentation of the cosmological argument, it could be reasonably construed as deductive or not. “points to” and the notions of contingency and noncontingency need to be fleshed out before I could make a final decision. The appeal to infinity doesn’t bode well, though, since that is a concept that can only be arrived at via pure reason.

 

[eichenb2]

dawkinslennoxdebate.com/

 

[masterjedi747]

You’ve missed the second portion, which is that you cannot show that cause-and-effect is true even with observation and experience – because any use of observation and experience to justify cause-and-effect must already presuppose that cause-and-effect is true.

No, any use of observation and experience to justify cause-and-effect must already presuppose that observation and experience is true… seeing as how those are the means by which we come to our understanding of cause and effect.

And yes, I’ve read Hume (who’s quite wrong), as well as his predecessors Berkeley (completely nuts) and Locke (not so bad, but not quite right). I’m curious as to whether you’ve read Kant, by the way? Critique of Pure Reason? Not that he’s right, in the end, but he’s at least better than Hume in many respects. One of the first things that he does, by the way, is point out the fact that Hume contradicts himself by denying the possibility of any a priori concepts but somehow still granting the validity of mathematics apart from our experience of reality. But you should really just stick with Aristotle, honestly… he might not be all up-to-date on his knowledge of the natural world, but at least he’s got solid principles and his head screwed on straight, especially with regard to the Prior and Posterior Analytics (most relevant to this conversation).

 

[PaulAndrew83]

Experience can’t show him that cause and effect is true, because induction (the method we use to draw inferences about reality from our experience and sense perceptions) already assumes cause and effect to be true.

"Masterjedi:

No, any use of observation and experience to justify cause-and-effect must already presuppose that observation and experience is true… seeing as how those are the means by which we come to our understanding of cause and effect.

This is exactly what I said. At root is an unwillingness to accept experience.

Hume doesn’t say that you have zero knowledge from past experience – he says that you have zero justification for applying induction from past experience, which relies the principles of cause-and-effect, to justify any purported relation of cause and effect.

Induction doesn’t rely on cause and effect. That is beside the point anyway.

Observation and experience are true and you have previously induced from an event that it had a cause because you have seen it.

You are going to need to have a very good reason to deny that you cannot use that past reason to do the exact same thing again.

Your position is based on a faulty premise that induction relies on causality to work.

Though you did pick up on an unclear portion of my post – by “And we can’t possibly know which situation that will be until we observe it, so there is no necessar[ily - sic.] relation of cause (the current situation) to effect (the situation in the future).” I was talking about a specific instance, not a causal principle in general.

In actuality Hume has used a faulty premise to inductively declare that causality cannot be proven.

To clarify, Hume’s claim is not “causality does not exist” – it is “causality cannot be proven.” The second, weaker claim is substantial enough reason to reject any deductive formulation of a cosmological argument, like the one you posted in this thread.

It is irrelevant whether causality can be proven or not. Causality is a discovered principle that exists in reality and the cosmological argument starts from this discovered principle.

I think you are confused about induction, if truth be told.

edit: rereading over your presentation of the cosmological argument, it could be reasonably construed as deductive or not. “points to” and the notions of contingency and noncontingency need to be fleshed out before I could make a final decision. The appeal to infinity doesn’t bode well, though, since that is a concept that can only be arrived at via pure reason.

Not interested in discussing that until we clear up the previous issue.

Paul