Why does God have to follow Reason?

[seeker_of_God]

I’m in a discussion with someone about the limits of philosophy. Philosophy obviously can prove much, up to and including the existence of one, infinite, fully actualized God.

Yet, for some reason, the person I am discussing with believes that reason can only discuss the material, and not spiritual realities, and says that God doesn’t need to follow reason; that reason is merely a faculty of the human mind but has nothing to do with the universe itself.

Obviously I recognize this is not true, but am unable to come up with a very good argument for it. If you reject reason, well…you can’t really say much to it except, “how do you think that?” IMO, the universe would make no logical sense if reason weren’t a fundamental component of it, and obviously it does make sense on a very deep level, so it must be reasonable.

I majored in philosophy, and we learned that there are certain a priori, self-evident first principles that could not change. Not even God could change them. This would be things such as the law of non-contradiction and so forth. Without this foundation, well, you simply can’t know anything.

So, how do I respond?

 

[Azygos]

God is the Truth and God cannot deny himself.

Here is a little article I wrote for Atheist.

In order to use language/speech correctly you have to adhere to the universal laws of logic unless of course you want to be irrational and sound like a blabbering fool. Take the law of non-contradiction for example. If I make statements like this, – ‘God exists and God does not exists’ – ‘I am a Christian and Not a Christan’ – ‘I can be and not be’, they would all be False Statements! All those statements would be illogical because they would contradict themselves. They wouldn’t make sense so in order to make sense we must adhere to the universal laws of logic. When we adhere to the laws of logic we are rational and when we don’t we are irrational.

If the universal laws of logic exists then absolute truth exists. If absolute truth exists then God exists. The basic reasoning behind this is that you cannot give what you do not have, for example: I do not have a million dollars to give you therefore I cannot give you a million dollars. The universal laws of logic cannot be absolutely true by themselves they require a transcendent absolute truth (God) that can give these laws the essence to be absolutely true.

If God does not exists then the laws of logic are not absolutely true then I have absolutely no reason to obey them therefore I do not have to be rational, nor does anybody else. We know that we ‘ought’ to be rational therefore we appeal to the universal laws of logic proving absolute truth exists therefore proving God exists.

Every-time you think/talk/write you are using Gods absolute universal truths of logic therefore proving Gods existence, even when you are illogical.

Jesus said, "I am the Beginning and the End, The Alpha and the Omega, I am The Truth."  The Truth proclaims the Glory of God as God is The Truth. Everything in existence is screaming out for creator God and proclaiming by it's Truth the existence of the Invisible God.



> R.C. Sproul

> The fundamental point, of course, that Aquinas was arguing, in agreement with his famous predecessor, Augustine, was that all truth is God’s truth, and that all truth meets at the top. If science contradicts religion, or if religion contradicts science, at least one of them must be wrong. There have been times in history where the scientific community has corrected not the Bible but poor interpretations of the Bible, as we saw in the Galileo scandal. On the other hand, biblical revelation can act as intellectual brakes upon scientific theories that are groundless. In any case, if knowledge is possible, what Sagan assumed must continue to be assumed — namely, that for truth to be known, for science to be possible, there must be a coherent reality that we are seeking to know.

 

[seeker_of_God]

God is the Truth and God cannot deny himself.

Here is a little article I wrote for Atheist.

In order to use language/speech correctly you have to adhere to the universal laws of logic unless of course you want to be irrational and sound like a blabbering fool. Take the law of non-contradiction for example. If I make statements like this, – ‘God exists and God does not exists’ – ‘I am a Christian and Not a Christan’ – ‘I can be and not be’, they would all be False Statements! All those statements would be illogical because they would contradict themselves. They wouldn’t make sense so in order to make sense we must adhere to the universal laws of logic. When we adhere to the laws of logic we are rational and when we don’t we are irrational.

If the universal laws of logic exists then absolute truth exists. If absolute truth exists then God exists. The basic reasoning behind this is that you cannot give what you do not have, for example: I do not have a million dollars to give you therefore I cannot give you a million dollars. The universal laws of logic cannot be absolutely true by themselves they require a transcendent absolute truth (God) that can give these laws the essence to be absolutely true.

If God does not exists then the laws of logic are not absolutely true then I have absolutely no reason to obey them therefore I do not have to be rational, nor does anybody else. We know that we ‘ought’ to be rational therefore we appeal to the universal laws of logic proving absolute truth exists therefore proving God exists.

Every-time you think/talk/write you are using Gods absolute universal truths of logic therefore proving Gods existence, even when you are illogical.

Jesus said, "I am the Beginning and the End, The Alpha and the Omega, I am The Truth."  The Truth proclaims the Glory of God as God is The Truth. Everything in existence is screaming out for creator God and proclaiming by it's Truth the existence of the Invisible God.

Thank you. What you say makes a lot of sense. The very nature of the universe at large portrays the reasonable rational nature of the universe.

 

[Azygos]

Thank you. What you say makes a lot of sense. The very nature of the universe at large portrays the reasonable rational nature of the universe.

Amen!

 

[Azygos]

Yet, for some reason, the person I am discussing with believes that reason can only discuss the material, and not spiritual realities, and says that God doesn’t need to follow reason; that reason is merely a faculty of the human mind but has nothing to do with the universe itself.

Something else to consider… Reason (Logic) itself does not exist materially but immaterial (or spiritually). Just the same for Mathematics, Justice, and Morality. While you can show examples of all these things you cannot actually show they exist empirically. Even if you show the example of 2 + 2 =4 you are only showing an example of Mathematics not Mathematics itself. Take this question into consideration. Can you see Truth in the Physical World?

If this person really believes reason is only a faculty of the human mind then tell this person they are just being arbitary in their own human reasoning and you have no reason to believe them. When they object ask them what they are going to appeal to in order to be reasonable (not arbitrary), which would be the Universal Laws of Logic.

 

[seeker_of_God]

If this person really believes reason is only a faculty of the human mind then tell this person they are just being arbitary in their own human reasoning and you have no reason to believe them. When they object ask them what they are going to appeal to in order to be reasonable (not arbitrary), which would be the Universal Laws of Logic.

LOL love this one. Will have to try this.

This person rejects all of philosophy from Aristotle onward. No idea why, but that’s what I’m trying to figure out. But discussions can’t go very far if we don’t have reason to rely on.

 

[Azygos]

LOL love this one. Will have to try this.

This person rejects all of philosophy from Aristotle onward. No idea why, but that’s what I’m trying to figure out. But discussions can’t go very far if we don’t have reason to rely on.

Sounds like they believe all Truth is Relative… You might ask this person if they believe truth is relative. Then you can explode that viewpoint and start building on the objective truth foundation.

In order to say that absolute truth does not exist you must make an absolute truth claim. This is self-refuting because you are trying to posit an absolute truth claim to say that there is no such thing as absolute truth. -- Me

If all truth is relative, then the statement "All truth is relative" would be absolutely true. If it is absolutely true, then not all things are relative and the statement that "All truth is relative" is false. -- Carm.Org (I know they are anti-catholic, lol)

If all truth is relative, then there is no objective truth and nothing can ever be posited as fact—including your colleague’s statement that truth is relative. Such a stance equals chaos and voids all logical communication. -- Catholic Answers

 

[VeritasLuxMea]

God is the Truth and God cannot deny himself.

Here is a little article I wrote for Atheist.

In order to use language/speech correctly you have to adhere to the universal laws of logic unless of course you want to be irrational and sound like a blabbering fool. Take the law of non-contradiction for example. If I make statements like this, – ‘God exists and God does not exists’ – ‘I am a Christian and Not a Christan’ – ‘I can be and not be’, they would all be False Statements! All those statements would be illogical because they would contradict themselves. They wouldn’t make sense so in order to make sense we must adhere to the universal laws of logic. When we adhere to the laws of logic we are rational and when we don’t we are irrational.

Aren’t you opening up a can of worms here?

Are not God’s traits contradictory?

The universal laws of logic cannot be absolutely true by themselves

How do you establish this?

they require a transcendent absolute truth (God)

How do you establish this?

that can give these laws the essence to be absolutely true.

How did you reach this conclusion?

 

[Christianus_Dei]

As soon as I saw the question, the immediate thought that came into my mind was “God is reason.”

Though I know this has problems in the wording, reason is how we apply our logic to the logic of truth, as in, God. That’s just what popped into my head.

 

[Azygos]

I will repost this because all your answers are in this post (VeritasLuxMea)

In order to use language/speech correctly you have to adhere to the universal laws of logic unless of course you want to be irrational and sound like a blabbering fool. Take the law of non-contradiction for example. If I make statements like this, -- 'God exists and God does not exists' -- 'I am a Christian and Not a Christan' -- 'I can be and not be', they would all be False Statements! All those statements would be illogical because they would contradict themselves. They wouldn't make sense so in order to make sense we must adhere to the universal laws of logic. When we adhere to the laws of logic we are rational and when we don't we are irrational.

If the universal laws of logic exists then absolute truth exists. If absolute truth exists then God exists. The basic reasoning behind this is that you cannot give what you do not have, for example: I do not have a million dollars to give you therefore I cannot give you a million dollars. The universal laws of logic cannot be absolutely true by themselves they require a transcendent absolute truth (God) that can give these laws the essence to be absolutely true.

If God does not exists then the laws of logic are not absolutely true then I have absolutely no reason to obey them therefore I do not have to be rational, nor does anybody else. We know that we 'ought' to be rational therefore we appeal to the universal laws of logic proving absolute truth exists therefore proving God exists.

Every-time you think/talk/write you are using Gods absolute universal truths of logic therefore proving Gods existence, even when you are illogical.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

[Azygos]

This was part of an old conversation that you might find interesting…

Azygos (ME)
What are you appealing to, to determine if I am being rational or irrational? If what you are appealing to is not universal and absolute then it does not apply to everyone at every-time therefore you cannot call me irrational without appealing to the universal absolute laws of logic. Besides that if you are not appealing to something absolute and outside of yourself then you are just being arbitrary and I have absolutely no reason to believe you, especially when you call me irrational or illogical.

Anonymous Atheist
So if you start to call yourself Mr WibblegibletftangWOJKGGTHNHY And walk around stark naked howling “WINKIWANKA!!!” at the top of your voice you are not being irrational. Got it. And how do you even know that universal absolutes even exist outside of your mind?

Azygos (ME)
In order to call Mr. Wibblegiblet an irrational person we must first appeal to universal logic/reasoning. Without an appeal to a universal absolute source of rationality then for all we know Mr. Wibble could be acting completely sane/rational and we could be the irrational/insane ones for calling him irrational. If there is no clear absolute standard for judging rationality then rationality is in the mind of the beholder and no one can be rational or irrational, just indifferent. Of course I don’t believe this or live presuming that rationality is just indifference and I would rightly call Mr. Wibblegiblet an insane/irrational lunatic.

 

[VeritasLuxMea]

Hey Azygos, thanks for the reply. I was not trying to knock you down. Just, I dunno, I’ve never found this stuff all that convincing and I can see a non-Catholic asking the same things. So maybe I’ll change my mind after reading what is below…

I will repost this because all your answers are in this post (VeritasLuxMea)

In order to use language/speech correctly you have to adhere to the universal laws of logic unless of course you want to be irrational and sound like a blabbering fool. Take the law of non-contradiction for example. If I make statements like this, -- 'God exists and God does not exists' -- 'I am a Christian and Not a Christan' -- 'I can be and not be', they would all be False Statements! All those statements would be illogical because they would contradict themselves. They wouldn't make sense so in order to make sense we must adhere to the universal laws of logic. When we adhere to the laws of logic we are rational and when we don't we are irrational.

I think I am… Ok, generally, Ok so far…

If the universal laws of logic exists then absolute truth exists.

I think I am OK with this generally as well, though I might not understand all the things you wish to imply using such language.

We definitely have to accept the law of non-contradiction, for example, to be rational. For that matter, we have to accept it just to have this conversation.

Also, the law of non-contradiction is not dependent on our existence as human beings. So, let’s say that no life existed, but the universe as we know it was still here. In this case, the earth must still either exist OR not exist. It cannot both exist AND not exist, and it really doesn’t matter whether any intelligent being is around to observe it.

My only hesitation here is: are you suggesting that these laws “exist” in some grander sense? Are you saying that they have an “existence” of their own? Because as far as I can tell, they do not “exist” like that. They exist in a way similar to “heat”, they are concepts derived from existence.

If absolute truth exists then God exists.

“If absolute truth exists,” (premise A), then God exists ( conclusion B). What I’m having difficulty with here is the step between premise A and conclusion B. Why must it follow that if A, therefore B?

The basic reasoning behind this is that

OK, now you’re going to explain…

you cannot give what you do not have, for example: I do not have a million dollars to give you therefore I cannot give you a million dollars.

I don’t disagree that in order for something to be given, there must be a giver. What I’m not so sure about is that these things are being given. How do we determine that they are 1) things that can be given and 2) are being given?

The universal laws of logic cannot be absolutely true by themselves

[A]

they require a transcendent absolute truth (God) that can give these laws the essence to be absolutely true.

**

How do we get from [A] to **? I suppose we’re going back to the gift giving analogy?

If God does not exists

** [A]

then the laws of logic are not absolutely true

**

Again with the A → B question. How are we getting from A to B?****

 

[Azygos]

We definitely have to accept the law of non-contradiction, for example, to be rational. For that matter, we have to accept it just to have this conversation.

If God does not exists then the laws of logic are not absolutely true then I have absolutely no reason to obey them therefore I do not have to be rational, nor does anybody else. We know that we ‘ought’ to be rational therefore we appeal to the universal laws of logic proving absolute truth exists therefore proving God exists.

Basically comes down to this. If the laws of logic are a creation of man then I don’t have to be rational or worry about being a hypocrite because they are just evolving and not absolutely true. The same goes with morality. If morality comes from man then we can change it to mean whatever we want it to mean, according to atheist anyways.

My only hesitation here is: are you suggesting that these laws “exist” in some grander sense? Are you saying that they have an “existence” of their own? Because as far as I can tell, they do not “exist” like that. They exist in a way similar to “heat”, they are concepts derived from existence.

They do have an existence of their own although I believe the basic laws of logic have been hardwired into our very being (we know them naturally or we naturally learn them). As you said even if we didn’t exist the law of non-contradiction would still apply.

“If absolute truth exists,” (premise A), then God exists ( conclusion B). What I’m having difficulty with here is the step between premise A and conclusion B. Why must it follow that if A, therefore B?

OK, now you’re going to explain…

I don’t disagree that in order for something to be given, there must be a giver. What I’m not so sure about is that these things are being given. How do we determine that they are 1) things that can be given and 2) are being given?

Nothing can be absolutely true even existence unless it is provided by truth itself, which would be God. That is why when Jesus said, 'I am the Truth." it really struck home with me. Although, I am not sure how to correlate this message more clearly to you except to say that you cannot give what you do not have.

This would lead me to a greater question for you. If absolute truth exist then where does it come from? Existence? Or the Creator of Existence?

 

[BJPeterson]

I am with VeritasLuxMea on this one… The claims made by Azygos are rather superficial (sorry!). They are also merely claims, but without argument to support them. So, what we have here is a thesis, but no argument by which the thesis can be evaluated.

I have some observations to consider:

Why do universal laws need to come from a supernatural being instead of manifesting as an intrinsic character of nature? It seems to me that the Universe is what it is, and it is not what it is not, and to invoke this observation as a law unto itself would be rather strange. I wonder why our capacity to identify apparent laws of nature (that may or may not be universally true) should be particularly suggestive of anything beyond, “our universe is what it is”. To make positive claims about phenomena beyond the temporal bounds of the universe is tricky, and one must be careful not to make intuitive assumptions that are not, in fact, demonstrably warranted. Don’t fall prey to the “I don’t understand why the universe is the way it is, therefore God” fallacy!

In general, to claim that a supernatural being MUST exist as a matter of logic based on the presence of a particular objective reality seems to be rather indefensible. All we really know is that we find ourselves in the unenviable position of having to use our logical toolkit to evaluate the nature of existence to the best of our imperfect abilities. Of course, what we have devised as the laws of logic depends upon our observations of the nature of existence. Does the notion of observing nature in an effort to determine its character, then applying our understanding of its character to debunk the naturalness of nature not seem a bit preposterous?

Last, to suppose that laws of logic require a supernatural being to invent them is to presuppose that the laws of logic are, themselves, part of the “fabric of the universe” (or its intrinsic underlying reality). Can we not, in principle, separate the underlying reality upon which we base the laws of logic from the laws themselves? I think we can. If the underlying nature of reality was different, the laws of logic might be different (how they could be different might be largely undefinable, because our thinking on this matter is necessarily in terms of the only laws of logic we know…). So, it seems that logic is a set of “apparent universals” we derived from observing the universe. Does this suggest that the laws of logic, as an abstraction, existed in prehistoric times, only to be “discovered” one day by man? I’m not convinced. The underlying reality that supports the basic laws of logic has obviously existed, and has been discovered–hence, we have devised provisional laws of logic to reflect the reality in which we find ourselves.

Personally, I think logic/philosophy has always failed in its quest to prove God. However, this failure is clearly independent of whether or not a supernatural god actually exists. In principle, the failure to prove something is not the same as proving it false, so a god could exist even if no philosophy/logic/reason could ever prove him. In the absence of empirical evidence, it seems that it is, and always will be, a matter of faith. Besides, doesn’t the Bible say that faith is necessary (and hence, logic/evidence/reason are not sufficient to demonstrate God)?

 

[Azygos]

I am with VeritasLuxMea on this one… The claims made by Azygos are rather superficial (sorry!). They are also merely claims, but without argument to support them. So, what we have here is a thesis, but no argument by which the thesis can be evaluated.

Did you use a personal arbitrary standard of reasoning to come to that conclusion or a universal unchanging absolutely true standard of reasoning?

Why do universal laws need to come from a supernatural being instead of manifesting as an intrinsic character of nature? It seems to me that the Universe is what it is, and it is not what it is not, and to invoke this observation as a law unto itself would be rather strange.

Why does existence itself need to come from a supernatural being instead of manifesting as an intrinsic character of nature?

The Universe is what it is and I agree with that statement but why these exist and how they can be absolutely true is the question, which leads to the only reasonable answer, God.

What about Morals, Mathematics, or any number of invisible laws that exist in the Universe… If I evoked these as absolute truths to prove gods existence would that also seem strange? How do we explain the existence of these or any invisible laws? Saying that they exist because they exist is not reasonable…

I explain them as Self-Evident Truths that prove there is an Absolute Truth, the creator God. They exist because they come from a source that can make them absolutely true.

Romans 1
19 For what can be known about God is evident to them, because God made it evident to them.

20 Ever since the creation of the world, his invisible attributes of eternal power and divinity have been able to be understood and perceived in what he has made. As a result, they have no excuse;

I wonder why our capacity to identify apparent laws of nature (that may or may not be universally true) should be particularly suggestive of anything beyond, “our universe is what it is”

.

If the laws of logic are not absolute true, unchanging and universal then we cannot prove Gods existence or know that God exist… In fact it is by our ability to reason that we can know for a fact that God exist. For example the First Cause argument by Thomas Aquinas.

To make positive claims about phenomena beyond the temporal bounds of the universe is tricky, and one must be careful not to make intuitive assumptions that are not, in fact, demonstrably warranted. Don’t fall prey to the “I don’t understand why the universe is the way it is, therefore God” fallacy!

I am not saying that I do not understand it therefore God did it… I am saying I do not know how to explain it to you, to get you to understand it. Basically, the laws of logic cannot exist by themselves on their own accord they must come from somewhere, so either they come from God or Man. If they came from Man then they are not absolutely true and we cannot know God through our reasoning, but if they come from God then they are most definitely absolutely true and we can know God through our reasoning.

In general, to claim that a supernatural being MUST exist as a matter of logic based on the presence of a particular objective reality seems to be rather indefensible. All we really know is that we find ourselves in the unenviable position of having to use our logical toolkit to evaluate the nature of existence to the best of our imperfect abilities. Of course, what we have devised as the laws of logic depends upon our observations of the nature of existence. Does the notion of observing nature in an effort to determine its character, then applying our understanding of its character to debunk the naturalness of nature not seem a bit preposterous?

I am saying that God exist based on a Matter of Absolute Truth. If Absolute Truth exist in anyway shape or form then God Exist. All Absolute Truth has to come from somewhere, it cannot exist on it’s own accord. If Truth comes from Man then it is not Absolute. If Truth comes from God then it is Absolutely Absolute. When man discovers something such as Mathematics he is simply stumbling on an Absolute Truth that already exist, not making up an absolute truth as he goes along.

 

[Azygos]

I doubt you believe in God… I recommend reading this article that I put together. It is a bit more definitive but too lengthy to copy and paste here.

facebook.com/notes/christian-knowledge/logical-proof-of-god/432180680188828

 

[BJPeterson]

Azygos,

I understand full well what you are trying to say. My disagreement with you is not a problem of communication. What you intend to convey is clear–I merely find your claims unconvincing! One point of clarification; failure to commit to the view that laws of logic are part of the “fabric of the Universe” is not the same as saying universal laws can not exist and “anything goes”. If our laws of logic hold everywhere in the universe at all times and over all scales, they are universal. If they don’t, they are not universal. We may have no reason to doubt our laws of logic, but they may or may not conform to the underlying nature of reality. We might never have access to such universal knowledge on this point. The fact remains that (other than perhaps-trivial logical paradoxes) we don’t find exceptions to our laws of logic and treat them axiomatically as universal. We can point to nature as evidence for our logic, but I would not want to conflate apparent realities of nature with language used to characterize them–the two may not be fully interchangeable.

 

[VeritasLuxMea]

In case there was a misunderstanding, I am trying to be cooperative not combative.

If God does not exists

[A]

then the laws of logic are not absolutely true

**

Not to beat a dead horse here. I do understand that you believe [A] therefore, **. I am just having trouble with the “therefore” part. Why does A necessarily lead to conclusion B?

If the laws of logic are a creation of man then I don’t have to be rational or worry about being a hypocrite because they are just evolving and not absolutely true.

**

I’m curious, has anyone ever told you that man ‘created’ them? I have not heard that viewpoint before. It would not seem to make much sense.

Now, man certainly discovered them, wrote them down on paper, and gave names to them. That much is not disputable, yes?

But to have created them would mean that man must have pre-existed them in some fashion and I think we both agree that such an idea doesn’t really make any sense.

I would be more interested in exploring the angle that they are not created at all, that they they simply describe an existence which is concurrent with them.

So, my question would be, OK, we’ve got these ways in which the universe seems to function. We know that it is self-defeating to stand against them in any way. Good. But then, why are we putting God behind the curtain here? What is it about these things that implies that God must exist?

The same goes with morality. If morality comes from man then we can change it to mean whatever we want it to mean, according to atheist anyways.

You know what, this is a different topic, or at the very least, it’s distracting from the main discussion. Why don’t we just leave this one alone for now?

They do have an existence of their own

This might be where we break down. These conversations can be tedious, I certainly do not expect you to reply again.

However, if you do, perhaps you can tell me more about what that statement means. I know all too well how tricky this can be to explain, because I’ve tried to figure it out on my own for years and have been unable to, so I’m not expecting a miracle. However, if you have a good grasp on it, please do share.

although I believe the basic laws of logic have been hardwired into our very being (we know them naturally or we naturally learn them).

I agree with that statement. To be perfectly clear you mean that an understanding of the laws of logic is hardwired, or learned quickly in a natural fashion, right? I mean the laws of logic are external to us, not internal, yes?

If so, I agree. An acceptance of the laws of logic is required for us to continue living. So, an extremely basic form of this might be: in order for me to choose to do anything at all, I must first believe that I exist. And if I believe that I exist, then I do not believe that I do not exist. (Law of non-contradiction). So, if at any point I choose to do anything, then I have accepted that I exist and do not not exist (in other words, that A and not A cannot be true at the same time.)

As you said even if we didn’t exist the law of non-contradiction would still apply.

That is true, yes. With the caveat (at least my caveat, not necessarily your caveat) that something besides the laws of logic has to “exist” for them to be applied to.

Nothing can be absolutely true even existence unless it is provided by truth itself,

It sounds, to me, like you are saying “truth is provided by truth.” If so, I do not understand what you mean by this. Can you explain? Otherwise, it is just a tautology, and that would not enhance understanding.

which would be God.

Presumably, we are talking about the Christian conception of God or more specifically the Catholic conception of God. Since the person we are talking to does not know or accept the Catholic conception of God, I do not necessarily see this as helpful in this particular context.

This person is coming from a place that is outside that belief system, so we would have to first establish a rational basis for believing that God is Truth.

Otherwise, you’re going to have all sorts of crazy things happen. For example, I’m just going to start making “The Jets” and “best NFL team” a tautology so that someone other than me will believe it for once.

That is why when Jesus said, 'I am the Truth." it really struck home with me. Although, I am not sure how to correlate this message more clearly to you except to say that you cannot give what you do not have.

Again, my question would be: how do we know that “truth” is a thing which is “given”? And not just a thing which “is”?

This would lead me to a greater question for you. If absolute truth exist then where does it come from? Existence? Or the Creator of Existence?

So far in this thread, taking the vantage point of the person the OP is going to talk to, I do not think we have established that there is a Creator of Existence.

I think you have a lot of interesting stuff to say, I just don’t think we have established that there is a Creator of Existence, or that truth is a “creation”, so to speak.**

 

[Azygos]

It sounds, to me, like you are saying “truth is provided by truth.” If so, I do not understand what you mean by this. Can you explain?

That is absolutely what I am saying. If the origin of something is not Truth or True then it cannot be True or exist. How can you have existence without Truth? It’s the same reason you saying that I exist and I don’t exist is not logical…

Presumably, we are talking about the Christian conception of God or more specifically the Catholic conception of God. Since the person we are talking to does not know or accept the Catholic conception of God, I do not necessarily see this as helpful in this particular context.

The True God is the God for everyone whether they believe in him or not. Whether Protestant or Catholic (BTW Christian is synonymous with Catholic). God is the Truth and it doesn’t matter what anyone believes. Truth is truth even if no one believes it.

So far in this thread, taking the vantage point of the person the OP is going to talk to, I do not think we have established that there is a Creator of Existence.

I think you have a lot of interesting stuff to say, I just don’t think we have established that there is a Creator of Existence, or that truth is a “creation”, so to speak.

I recommend reading this article that I put together. It is a bit more definitive but too lengthy to copy and paste here.

facebook.com/notes/christian-knowledge/logical-proof-of-god/432180680188828

 

[VeritasLuxMea]

That is absolutely what I am saying. If the origin of something is not Truth or True then it cannot be True or exist. How can you have existence without Truth? It’s the same reason you saying that I exist and I don’t exist is not logical…

The True God is the God for everyone whether they believe in him or not. Whether Protestant or Catholic (BTW Christian is synonymous with Catholic). God is the Truth and it doesn’t matter what anyone believes. Truth is truth even if no one believes it.

I recommend reading this article that I put together. It is a bit more definitive but too lengthy to copy and paste here.

facebook.com/notes/christian-knowledge/logical-proof-of-god/432180680188828

This is fun. God willing, I’ll be back tomorrow to continue this conversation. Right now, though, it’s 3AM where I live so I really must get to sleep. Just wanted to let you know so you knew I was still interested in this conversation.

Goodnight all.