What is the Most Convincing Argument for God?

[Partinobodycula]

I hope I have time later to give a fuller response, I will (famous last words). However, I just need to offer a correction. God *is *the designer. I apologize if I went too far in my explanation to have made it sound otherwise. He’s the designer in the analogous sense that he is the musician who is also at the same time the composer of the music, who’s actively involved in keeping it all in existence.

He is not like a clockmaker who created his masterpiece it can continue to run without his involvement.

Now, these are only analogies, as there is room for free will. God doesn’t move everything about as if it’s a robot and he has the controls, but sustains existent beings in such a way that they continue to exist, change, and be directed towards certain ends. But he’s not moving all the pieces on the chessboard. Beings such as ourselves are enabled by God to have our own intentionality and choices. And a Thomist would deny that God knows what will happen without it actually happening first (though that creates another mind bender in that to God there is no before or after, everything that ever is is just before him eternally. All these different temporal moments for us feed in real time into God’s one present that never starts or ends.

Okay, I’m going on to a different topic now. It would be better to stop there, revisit teleology and the fifth way later if I have time, and save God’s eternity for another thread.

Thank you for taking the time to answer, and thank you for adding a bit to my thought process. I always find it enriching to find a well reasoned argument, even if it’s not one that I agree with.

Please take as much time as you need to answer.

You’re correct, this does tend to become a temporal puzzle. I can appreciate that absent time, the attributes of designer and design become indistinguishable. The two become in essence, one and the same. So Aquinas’ Fifth Way could perhaps be said to speak both to God’s nature as design, and designer.

This raises so many questions, not the least of which is this, if God is the designer, and the design, and I’m the design made conscious, how am I not God? I realize that there’s a distinction between the nature of the three, but aren’t they each a part of the whole? Like the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

Again to clarify, I don’t think I’m God. I just need to ask the question. The problem is, I don’t know the answer.

 

[IWantGod]

.

This one doesn’t follow from the previous ones, because you haven’t defined it as actualized potency. You’ve merely defined it as a conjunction of potency and act.

Yes I call it a conjunction of potency and act, which is perhaps a bit confusing. So lets stick to actualised potential which is anything that is changing. Anything with potency in it, anything that can take on more actuality, or can become more than what it is, or can be added to, is not pure-actuality.

Pure-actuality is a perfect act of existence and only a perfect act of existence can be considered a necessary being. But what is a perfect act of existence? Lets begin with what it can’t be.

A Perfect being cannot be anything that changes. It cannot potentially become more than what it is or be added to, or come into being, because then it would always be in a state of being potentially something else. The universe is an actualised potency and therefore its nature is not perfect, its nature is imperfect because its nature or essence is not identical to the act of existence. Its being is limited and therefore only an analogous comparison to the first cause at best.

A perfect act of reality has no potency in it because nothing can be added to it by the very nature of what it is, it is already everything that it is and has always been eternally. In fact its “nature” and its “act” are completely identical. **Its nature is existence. It is pure-actuality.
**

 

[JB_Brother_4446]

I apologize if someone has already asked this question but, in your opinion, what is the most convincing argument for God’s existence? Why is it so convincing to you personally? Why is it so convincing overall?

The same question for atheists and agnostics except you don’t have to be convinced by the argument (otherwise you wouldn’t be an atheist or agnostic ). Why is it convincing even if it is not convincing (am I making sense here? )

For myself, I would saying that, as of right now, Aquinas’ argument from motion would be the most convincing to me. All the objections to it fall rather short it seems (not that I’ve scrounged around for a super objection though). Necessity calls for an unmoved mover and that can’t be the universe.

A close second would just be that I can’t believe that this world can be so beautiful and be random. It doesn’t make any sense to me. That’s just me though.

The way you live your life.

 

[IWantGod]

The way you live your life.

 

[Wesrock]

This raises so many questions, not the least of which is this, if God is the designer, and the design, and I’m the design made conscious, how am I not God? I realize that there’s a distinction between the nature of the three, but aren’t they each a part of the whole? Like the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

This is what W. Norris Clarke termed the problem of The One and the Many. He has a book by that title. He sees both unity and multiplicity in everything: all beings, systems, within the body itself. Various philosophies have taken one extreme or the other. Aristotlean-Thomism takes a middle ground. All beings participate in the act of existence (Thomism considers existing to be activity, not passive). But they all participate in varying degrees, in different ways, which is determined by their essence. So while we are all the same in that we all exist, we are all different in our essence. Forms and matter. Actuality and potentiality. These are all positions that take similar stances, principles of similarity and principles of differentiation between all beings. Thomism is not pantheism, though, such as in eastern philosophy.

I’m waxing, I know. Will muse on this point.

 

[IWantGod]

Thank you for taking the time to answer, and thank you for adding a bit to my thought process. I always find it enriching to find a well reasoned argument, even if it’s not one that I agree with.

Please take as much time as you need to answer.

You’re correct, this does tend to become a temporal puzzle. I can appreciate that absent time, the attributes of designer and design become indistinguishable. The two become in essence, one and the same. So Aquinas’ Fifth Way could perhaps be said to speak both to God’s nature as design, and designer.

This raises so many questions, not the least of which is this, if God is the designer, and the design, and I’m the design made conscious, how am I not God? I realize that there’s a distinction between the nature of the three, but aren’t they each a part of the whole? Like the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

Again to clarify, I don’t think I’m God. I just need to ask the question. The problem is, I don’t know the answer.

This is how I see it.

We are not God in “essence”, but rather we “have” God.

God is the act of existence. We have existence, but our “natures” or our “essence” is not identical to the act of existence even-though we have existence. Therefore we are absolutely distinct from God in terms of our “whatness” or “nature”, but God is the existence by which we our actual instead of nothing, God is the reality in which and through which we move and have our being.

The universe analogously exists. Its has no existence of its own.

 

[Wesrock]

The universe analogously exists. Its has no existence of its own.

Is this correct? It sounds a bit like “God is the only thing that’s real.”

I would prefer to say that the universe could not exist on its own. However, it and everything in it is each its own things with properties inherent to them. Each thing does still exist as an individual in its own right, it just wouldn’t be able to exist without God. It is still real.

 

[IWantGod]

Is this correct? It sounds a bit like “God is the only thing that’s real.”

I would prefer to say that the universe could not exist on its own. However, it and everything in it is each its own things with properties inherent to them. Each thing does still exist as an individual in its own right, it just wouldn’t be able to exist without God. It is still real.

Each its own nature, yes, but not each its own existence. There are not many existences. I am not identical with reality, I have reality. Therefore I exist, but only analogously. I am not identical in nature to the act of existence and neither are you.

 

[Wesrock]

God and I are participating in the same action (though mine is more limited, His infinite). But my act is not the same act as God. Furthermore, God IS the act of existence in its totality while my act is limited and isn’t the same as my essence. But it is my own act, enabled by God.

???

I’m having a hard time with your particular statement. Maybe this isn’t the topic for a nuanced debate on that in particular, though. I’ll need to think on it more, too.

 

[IWantGod]

God and I are participating in the same action (though mine is more limited, His infinite). But my act is not the same act as God. Furthermore, God IS the act of existence in its totality while my act is limited and isn’t the same as my essence. But it is my own act, enabled by God.

???

I’m having a hard time with your particular statement. Maybe this isn’t the topic for a nuanced debate on that in particular, though. I’ll need to think on it more, too.

You have an act, you are “actual” but I don’t see how it could be the same thing as literally being your own independent act of existence, otherwise you would have to say that your nature is identical with its existence, but only God’s essence is identical with his existence. So one can only say you have existence as opposed to saying that you are your existence, in which case you are not identical in nature to that which you have. Therefore you exist but you are not existence otherwise what need would there be to sustain you in existence?.

So in the end my nature, while it is certainly actual, really has no existence in it at all. Your natures is not the act of existence. The essence of creatures is not identical with what makes creatures actual and neither is that thing that makes creatures actual distinct from God. You are not an independent act of existence. You cannot get existence from nothing. The universe is a product of God’s intellect; a mathematical construct. The limitation is not in existence itself but in the nature of the thing that has existence. Even when essence and act are conjoined they remain distinct which could not be unless they are two different things to begin with.

 

[IWantGod]

Here’s an analogy: Imagine a virtual-reality on a computer screen. The virtual environment we see on the screen may appear real as if it has its own reality, but it is essential mathematical co-ordinates and nothing more. It has an act, but in and of its self its not actually its own existence. Its the computer screen and the power of the computer that is generating and sustaining it in existence. It is the computer that is the act of existence and the virtual environment is participating in the act of existence.

The virtual environment analogously exists.

 

[fisherman_carl]

You have an act, you are “actual” but I don’t see how it could be the same thing as literally being your own independent act of existence, otherwise you would have to say that your nature is identical with its existence, but only God’s essence is identical with his existence. So one can only say you have existence as opposed to saying that you are your existence, in which case you are not identical in nature to that which you have. Therefore you exist but you are not existence otherwise what need would there be to sustain you in existence?.

So in the end my nature, while it is certainly actual, really has no existence in it at all. Your natures is not the act of existence. The essence of creatures is not identical with what makes creatures actual and neither is that thing that makes creatures actual distinct from God. You are not an independent act of existence. You cannot get existence from nothing. The universe is a product of God’s intellect; a mathematical construct. The limitation is not in existence itself but in the nature of the thing that has existence. Even when essence and act are conjoined they remain distinct which could not be unless they are two different things to begin with.

An interesting and intelligent post. The only thing I would add is that when you say, “The universe is a product of God’s intellect; a mathematical construct”, is itself an abstraction. That is mathematics itself is an abstraction of the physical universe. It doesn’t account for all of reality, only that which can be quantitized. For instance, it doesn’t concern itself with qualitative aspects of our reality. Therefore, mathematics is not 1:1 with reality, but is an abstraction, or an analogy. In other words God took more than mathematics into account. But, I am sure you already knew that.

For me something must exist whose essence is its existence. If our essence was existence then we would have always existed. Since something whose essence is existence can’t not exist. It answers why anything at all exists. There can not be nothing. Yet as contingent beings we could have failed to exist. Therefore, existence has been given to us from another. Eventually, one must come to a self existing cause of everything else’s existence, that just always existed. And therefore whose essence is existence.

 

[IWantGod]

An interesting and intelligent post. The only thing I would add is that when you say, “The universe is a product of God’s intellect; a mathematical construct”, is itself an abstraction. That is mathematics itself is an abstraction of the physical universe. It doesn’t account for all of reality, only that which can be quantitized. For instance, it doesn’t concern itself with qualitative aspects of our reality. Therefore, mathematics is not 1:1 with reality, but is an abstraction, or an analogy. In other words God took more than mathematics into account. But, I am sure you already knew that.

For me something must exist whose essence is its existence. If our essence was existence then we would have always existed. Since something whose essence is existence can’t not exist. It answers why anything at all exists. There can not be nothing. Yet as contingent beings we could have failed to exist. Therefore, existence has been given to us from another. Eventually, one must come to a self existing cause of everything else’s existence, that just always existed. And therefore whose essence is existence.

Thanks. I humbly accept your addition

 

[Partinobodycula]

Yes I call it a conjunction of potency and act, which is perhaps a bit confusing. So lets stick to actualised potential which is anything that is changing.

Technically, I would say that actualized potency is anything that has changed, not is changing, but that’s a bit trivial. So I’ll accept the premise

Anything with potency in it, anything that can take on more actuality, or can become more than what it is, or can be added to, is not pure-actuality.

I think that there’s a lot more going on in this statement than you realize.

Pure-actuality is a perfect act of existence and only a perfect act of existence can be considered a necessary being. But what is a perfect act of existence? Lets begin with what it can’t be.

I agree, let’s first define what pure-actuality and a perfect act of existence are.

A Perfect being cannot be anything that changes.

So would you agree that a random set of numbers can still be a random set of numbers, even if it changes? Keeping in mind that order can appear within a random set of numbers without negating the fact that its a random set of numbers. In which case a change in something needn’t equate to a change in either the essence or the existence of that thing? A random set of numbers can change, without negating the fact that its a random set of numbers.

We’re not addressing here any of the other attributes that you mentioned above. Simply whether something can change, and have its essence remain exactly as it was.

It cannot potentially become more than what it is or be added to, or come into being, because then it would always be in a state of being potentially something else.

Again, a random set of numbers can give rise to an ordered set of numbers, without negating the fact that it’s a random set of numbers. It can also change without negating the fact that its a random set of numbers.

Now I use the term “random set of numbers” only to differentiate it from an “ordered set of numbers”. Because an ordered set of numbers requires a set of parameters by which to define that order. In a random set of numbers the order requires no definition. Ideally, I would simply refer to numbers. Numbers can’t be said to have a beginning. Nor can they be added to. But they can potentially give rise to order, so it might be a mistake to say that they don’t possess potency. In fact giving rise to order could be said to be part of their nature.

The universe is an actualised potency and therefore its nature is not perfect, its nature is imperfect because its nature or essence is not identical to the act of existence. Its being is limited and therefore only an analogous comparison to the first cause at best.

Likewise an ordered set of numbers isn’t perfect either, because its essence and existence aren’t the same. The numbers are necessary…they can’t not be…but the order isn’t necessary.

A perfect act of reality has no potency in it because nothing can be added to it by the very nature of what it is, it is already everything that it is and has always been eternally. In fact its “nature” and its “act” are completely identical. Its nature is existence. It is pure-actuality.

But if we use numbers as an analogy for a necessary being, then we can see that although the numbers themselves can’t be added to, and neither do they have a beginning nor an end, they can in some manner at least, be said to have potency. They can give rise to something which isn’t by definition an attribute of the numbers themselves.

Numbers could be said to be analogous to an uncaused cause. An unmoved mover. And a necessary being.

 

[IWantGod]

Technically, I would say that actualized potency is anything that has changed, not is changing, but that’s a bit trivial. So I’ll accept the premise

I think that there’s a lot more going on in this statement than you realize.

I agree, let’s first define what pure-actuality and a perfect act of existence are.

So would you agree that a random set of numbers can still be a random set of numbers, even if it changes? Keeping in mind that order can appear within a random set of numbers without negating the fact that its a random set of numbers. In which case a change in something needn’t equate to a change in either the essence or the existence of that thing? A random set of numbers can change, without negating the fact that its a random set of numbers.

We’re not addressing here any of the other attributes that you mentioned above. Simply whether something can change, and have its essence remain exactly as it was.

Again, a random set of numbers can give rise to an ordered set of numbers, without negating the fact that it’s a random set of numbers. It can also change without negating the fact that its a random set of numbers.

Now I use the term “random set of numbers” only to differentiate it from an “ordered set of numbers”. Because an ordered set of numbers requires a set of parameters by which to define that order. In a random set of numbers the order requires no definition. Ideally, I would simply refer to numbers. Numbers can’t be said to have a beginning. Nor can they be added to. But they can potentially give rise to order, so it might be a mistake to say that they don’t possess potency. In fact giving rise to order could be said to be part of their nature.

Likewise an ordered set of numbers isn’t perfect either, because its essence and existence aren’t the same. The numbers are necessary…they can’t not be…but the order isn’t necessary.

But if we use numbers as an analogy for a necessary being, then we can see that although the numbers themselves can’t be added to, and neither do they have a beginning nor an end, they can in some manner at least, be said to have potency. They can give rise to something which isn’t by definition an attribute of the numbers themselves.

Numbers could be said to be analogous to an uncaused cause. An unmoved mover. And a necessary being.

I will get back to you on this. What I will say however is that we are not dealing with abstract numbers but rather we are dealing with the ontology of natures or essences so i don’t see how your argument can work as an analogy or in actual fact in regards to a first cause. What I will also say is that while an essence may remain the same as it changes, a change is still occurring and thus a potential is being actualised in its being. It would not change at all if there were not a continuous actualisation of potency in its being. If a being is necessary-reality - this is to say that everything that it is is necessarily real - there would be no potency in it at all, because everything that it is and ever could be is already what it is.

 

[IWantGod]

**Edit: **While an essence may remain the same as it changes, a change is still occurring and thus a potential is being actualised in its being. It would not change at all if there were not a continuous actualisation of potency in its being. More reality is being added to it and thus it is contingent upon something else for its actuality. If a being is necessary-reality - this is to say that everything that it is is necessarily real - there would be no potency in it at all, because everything that it is and ever could be is already what it is. It is not potentially something, it is not potentially here or there. Everything that is true of it is eternally true of its existence and has never changed in any way shape or form.

 

[IWantGod]

Another way to explain this is to say that the antithesis of absolutely nothing is the fullness of existence, because out of nothing comes nothing and therefore its opposite is an absolute necessary act of existence. None of what it essentially is can be contingent for its existence on anything else because its very nature is to exist, its nature is existence.

On the other-hand a being that is in a continuous act of becoming, taking on more reality, actualising more existence, growing in its essence, is not the fullness of existence because it is not complete in its essence. What we see in the physical world is the actualisation of potential, an evolution of being and thus it is an error to see any part of this being as the fullness of existence.

A necessary being does not have potential parts in its essence.

 

[IWantGod]

The fullness of being cannot be made up of distinct parts with there own essence, because then each essence or nature would be the fullness of existence which leads to a contradiction since there can be only one fullness of existence.

 

[Entwhistler]

The fullness of being cannot be made up of distinct parts with there own essence, because then each essence or nature would be the fullness of existence which leads to a contradiction since there can be only one fullness of existence.

Ergo, the Fullness of Being (which Christians call God) has to be One. Thus, monotheism.

 

[IWantGod]

Ergo, the Fullness of Being (which Christians call God) has to be One. Thus, monotheism.