When we say that God can be proved by natural reason what do we mean?

[fakename]

When we say that God’s existence can be known by reason alone do we mean that “God’s existence can be known in some possible universe” or do we mean that “God’s existence is capable of being known now”?

 

[jochoa]

When we say that God’s existence can be known by reason alone do we mean that “God’s existence can be known in some possible universe” or do we mean that “God’s existence is capable of being known now”?

Excellent Question! I would like to offer an understanding of the Initial Stage of Natural Reason (Proof of God and/or State of Perfect Love). Please share your thoughts on my understandings.

Reflection on the Human Being
Human Beings have body, mind, will, and essence.
Each is distinct and co-existing. The body can tell the mind what it feels, whereas the mind can tell the body what it thinks. The will proceeds from the body and mind. The essence is the combination of how and why all three are working together.
Each can be of varying qualities of peace, happiness, energy/power, and wisdom, and the pinnacle of being is all distinctions working together as one in Perfected Love.
Humans also have Free Will and Free Desires.

Reflection on the unchanging forces of the world*
There are seemingly various gravitational forces in the world as we know it. There is, among many, Gravity - Why a person forcefully seeks the ground if placed in mid-air. Then there are: Peace, Happiness, Energy, Wisdom, and Love - Why a person forcefully desires peace, happiness, energy/power, wisdom, and/or companionship, when a person is distressed or sick, sad or violent, unmotivated or weak, ignorant, or alone. These are the Unchanging Laws of Physics and Metaphysics.
*The use is not bound to any limit of worldliness. It could refer to mind, planet, solar system, galaxy, universe, multi-universes, parallel universes, etc.

Reflection on a few Necessary Components guaranteed at the start of the world:
Necessary Component - Since the Laws of Physics and Metaphysics do not change, these Laws must have been fully in place prior to the beginning. (The Word)
Necessary Component - All the matter and energy of the world must have been gathered together in Unity (The Creator)
Necessary Component - One or both must be True: A Perfectly Loving** Creator set the Word (The Word was with God), and/or these Laws must be fully supportive of a State of Perfect Love - Perfect Patience, Peace, Kindness, Happiness, Motivation, Energy, Knowledge, and Wisdom throughout the Body, Mind, Will, and Essence towards Others and the Self (focally communion of the two by the Will of the Creator)
Necessary Component - All of these Components must work together in Unity, to cause the universe to begin, to start the motion of expansion, and to possess all of the resources that can be found in the Universe. (The Word was God)
It is these Absolutes that we call The Creator, the Word, the Will, and the Triune God(All Components working in Perfect Unity to be Everything)

I hope you caught the use of the Greatest Commandments in there, for the only way to Achieve the State of Perfect Love is by following the Lord, Our God, Jesus Christ, which gives Light to the Truth of a Perfectly Loving Creator setting the Word!

 

[Charlemagne_II]

fakename
**
When we say that God’s existence can be known by reason alone do we mean that “God’s existence can be known in some possible universe” or do we mean that “God’s existence is capable of being known now”? **

God’s existence can be inferred as plausible by reason, but God as person cannot be known by reason alone. God is not interested in our puny capacity to think. He is interested in our deep capacity for love, because God is Love. The atheist cannot bring himself to love God, and cannot therefore know God as person, though he might be able to talk about God as an illusion.

 

[Joe_Kelley]

Romans 1:18-20

18* For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and wickedness of men who by their wickedness suppress the truth. 19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20* Ever since the creation of the world his invisible nature, namely, his eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse

 

[Aelred_Minor]

Human reason, apart from revelation, has the natural power to come to certain knowledge of God’s existence. We hold this de fide (if I’m not completely in error as to the the nature of the definition anyway).

The question that’s interesting to me is, how is this possible in real life without divine faith first affirming human reason’s value? To paraphrase Chesterton, how do we know that what seems like airtight reasoning to us isn’t just crude movements in the brain of a bewildered ape? How do we know we have a brain anyway, or a mind, or how can we affirm any other product of reason if reason can’t confirm its own value, for the simple reason that it is the very instrument whose value it is trying to test?

 

[Aelred_Minor]

Regarding the definition I mentioned in my last post, here it is in two parts of Vatican I:

“The same holy mother church holds and teaches that God, the source and end of all things, can be known with certainty from the consideration of created things, by the natural power of human reason: ever since the creation of the world, his invisible nature has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made.”

“1. If anyone says that the one, true God, our creator and lord, cannot be known with certainty from the things that have been made, by the natural light of human reason: let him be anathema.”

[Decrees of the First Vatican Council - Papal Encyclicals 1 On God the creator of all things](http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Councils/ecum20.htm#Chapter 1 On God the creator of all things) (format edited for easier reading, but not the words)

 

[fakename]

That’s sort of my question: do we mean “it is it merely possible to know God rationally (like how it was merely possible for pre-airplane people to fly)” or do we mean “real flesh and blood people, right now, with study, can know that God is”.

 

[babylonsfalling]

When we say that God’s existence can be known by reason alone do we mean that “God’s existence can be known in some possible universe” or do we mean that “God’s existence is capable of being known now”?

According to Josephus, Abram came to know the One True God (rather than a plethora of Gods) by astrological observations.

Apparently Abram thought there was no real consistency in the movement of celestial bodies which were then thought to be gods. Abrams logic was that if these celestial bodies really were gods, there should be consistency in their movements, or at least more consistency. He reasoned that since there was no consistency, the movements of celestial bodies were just subject to the whims of One True God.

And if you pay attention to the order of things which Josephus writes, it was after this discovery of Abram that his fellow Mesopotamians became hostile to him when he started preaching this new belief, and after this hostility that God first spoke to Abram, telling him to get out of there and gradually giving him greater revelation of Himself.

 

[Aelred_Minor]

According to Josephus, Abram came to know the One True God (rather than a plethora of Gods) by astrological observations.

Apparently Abram thought there was no real consistency in the movement of celestial bodies which were then thought to be gods. Abrams logic was that if these celestial bodies really were gods, there should be consistency in their movements, or at least more consistency. He reasoned that since there was no consistency, the movements of celestial bodies were just subject to the whims of One True God.

And if you pay attention to the order of things which Josephus writes, it was after this discovery of Abram that his fellow Mesopotamians became hostile to him when he started preaching this new belief, and after this hostility that God first spoke to Abram, telling him to get out of there and gradually giving him greater revelation of Himself.

If that were true then Abram would have been a pretty poor astronomer, and his initial belief in God would have been founded on an error.

 

[babylonsfalling]

If that were true then Abram would have been a pretty poor astronomer, and his initial belief in God would have been founded on an error.

I know, but that’s still what’s in the book. And if true it would ironically mean that Abram found the True God through human error.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

I know, but that’s still what’s in the book. And if true it would ironically mean that Abram found the True God through human error.

I don’t think that an example of human error is the best supporting evidence for finding “the True God” by natural reasoning. Especially in an age where the movement of the planets is well know (there are a multitude of apps for that. I made one of them myself! ).

 

[Earnest_Bunbury]

Natural theology is the knowledge of God by natural reason from the reflection of the being and nature of real, existent beings that exist, known by our experience of them. It proceeds from these existent being by a posteriori demonstrative arguments to the affirmation of a necessary existence of a transcendent origin of created beings, who is God. We must necessarily know the nature and qualities of these beings prior to any “possible world” consideration, which seems to be merely a result of the rejection of formal and final causality which results in rejecting knowing things per se, rejecting universals, and results in skepticism nihilism and atheism. Things are merely, as a result of this rejection, a construct of our thinking and not a real contact with their essence by way of the spiritual nature of our intellect.

Some considerations of natural theology are: 1. Man’s natural desire for goodness and consideration of the degrees of goodness. This desire is implanted by God in man’s nature and in considering this goodness, we apprehend to a knowledge of God by considering the likeness of God found in His effects. 2. The gratuity of the order of the world in light of chance events, in that this order did not have to be as it is, and the consideration of a transcendent source of this order. 3. The contingency of material substances going in and out of existence, temporal change, and the necessity for a transcendent uncaused cause, a necessary being we call God.

All these are based in things we know and rises by natural knowledge to a consideration of God based on causal interdependencies and the essential limitations of the beings we experience, here and now. It is a beginning for deeper philosophical argumentation and a grounding for divine revelation, grace building upon nature.

 

[babylonsfalling]

I don’t think that an example of human error is the best supporting evidence for finding “the True God” by natural reasoning. Especially in an age where the movement of the planets is well know (there are a multitude of apps for that. I made one of them myself! ).

But God was known before Abram. And you don’t want to know Him anyway so your opinion is obviously skewed.

 

[RobbyS]

fakename
**
When we say that God’s existence can be known by reason alone do we mean that “God’s existence can be known in some possible universe” or do we mean that “God’s existence is capable of being known now”? **

God’s existence can be inferred as plausible by reason, but God as person cannot be known by reason alone. God is not interested in our puny capacity to think. He is interested in our deep capacity for love, because God is Love. The atheist cannot bring himself to love God, and cannot therefore know God as person, though he might be able to talk about God as an illusion.

A distinction: between God and the idea of God. Between a person who can be known and an idea of that person that is true. Mind, body, soul in perfect harmony, can know that person, because we can understand, feel and act in accordance with His will.

 

[fide]

… We must necessarily know the nature and qualities of these beings prior to any “possible world” consideration, which seems to be merely a result of the rejection of formal and final causality which results in rejecting knowing things per se, rejecting universals, and results in skepticism nihilism and atheism.

Things are merely, as a result of this rejection, a construct of our thinking and not a real contact with their essence by way of the spiritual nature of our intellect.

…

Yes, this is the problem. The Catholic teaching is that it is possible to know God by reason alone (apart from divine revelation):

Catechism 47 The Church teaches that the one true Cod, our Creator and Lord, can be known with certainty from his works, by the natural light of human reason (cf. Vatican Council I, can. 2 # 1: DS 3026).

God can be thus known - but this possibility can be realized only with the use of reason. Modern man has rejected rationality (as you say, rejecting formal and final causes) in favor of freeing expression of his base desires, as Paul wrote of men 2000 years ago:
Rom 1:18-19 The wrath of God is indeed being revealed from heaven against every impiety and wickednessp of those who suppress the truth by their wickedness.
For what can be known about God is evident to them, because God made it evident to them.

It seems almost understandable for men of so long ago! But today - what a sad mystery, that man could fall from such heights of human understanding, and willingly - or even, willfully.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

ThinkingSapien;8449718:

I don’t think that an example of human error is the best supporting evidence for finding “the True God” by natural reasoning. Especially in an age where the movement of the planets is well know (there are a multitude of apps for that. I made one of them myself! ).

But God was known before Abram. And you don’t want to know Him anyway so your opinion is obviously skewed.

I can’t say that distorted mis-characterization of my position has any impact on what I’ve said. If you disagree with me and believe that human error is a good way to find “the True God” that’s fine. I just wanted to share my opinion on that matter.

 

[babylonsfalling]

I can’t say that distorted mis-characterization of my position has any impact on what I’ve said. If you disagree with me and believe that human error is a good way to find “the True God” that’s fine. I just wanted to share my opinion on that matter.

Did I say it was good or did I say it was ironic?
Since I never said it was good in the first place it must be you who is mis-characterizing.