Why is God a rational being?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Layp3rs0n
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Are you sure on this Linus?
I have always seem this as slightly ambiguous. i.e.
“…capable of coming to a knowledge of the existence of a personal God.”
could possibly mean
“capable of coming to a knowledge of the existence of God (who, by the way, we know to be personal).”

I base this on the fact that Aristotle, who is prob one of the few humans who came to know of “God” 's existence by reason alone…doesn’t seem to in any way think He was “personal” as we Christians understand that word. Also, I have never seen a clear Magisterial statement on that point - but I may well be mistaken of course.
You are right, Aristotle’s God is an impersonal God, he has no direct relationship with the beings beneath him, he does not think about them, he just thinks upon his own perfection.

But Thomas goes much further. Take a look at the Chapter headings in Book 1 of SCG. If you combine them all together you get a God who is personal. And the Church does teach, as I pointed out above, that that God is a personal God can be seen through unaided reason. And this is also a fact of Revelation and Catholic Dogma that God is a personal God.

God Bless
Linus2nd
 
… And the Church does teach, as I pointed out above, that that God is a personal God can be seen through unaided reason.
I simply don’t find the single quote you gave convincing Linus, the personal bit could be seen as a “secondary aside.”

Strong teaching is usually found in multiple authoritative sources in different ways and at different times outside of the CCC.

Do you know of sources more explicit and thorough that the Church holds reason can prove the First Unmoved Mover is a personal God (which presumably means He cares for His creatures)?
 
Thanks Blue Horizon
I did not want to move this into the arena of a disputation like so many of the forums - The original poster stated his girlfriend accepted the First Cause in his original post, but not that God was an intellectual being, necessarily. To that I made the explanation of my first post, which I understand in my own learning from Aquinas and Aristotle. But I don’t know that I find Person there apart from revelation, because of the way Thomas, in the Summa, speaks of the Word spoken in his self knowing, and calls it Son, a Person and with relationship, that is clearly post-revelation reasoning. It is the full use of reason that Thomas uses to describe Father and Son, but his reasoning seems to have that revelation of Father Son and Love already as “knowledge” or understanding as true.
I was hoping in a later post then that the original poster would simply show all replies to his girlfriend. But he wants to re-prove to her the First Cause understanding rather than move on, as a salesman who over-sells but never closes the sale. After that I think I realized she actually did not really accept the First Cause, because when one understands something, one seeks to see the impact on everything else, and I didn’t see her doing that from his description of her.

The actual “First Cause” for people is where there heart is, where good and life are seen to originate. In the face of that first cause, Jesus presents himself (a revelation / the revelation of the Final End, meaning the First Cause). And he presents himself as a person. From that, reason reasons as to his origin, if so inclined. To each he says the official news, “The Kingdom established by God is here, turn from your first causes and follow me.”

Anyway, I hope the girlfriend would meet Him rather than dwell in a metaphysical pastime of debating opinions. That does not seem to be her center. But her heart is somewhere and that is where he will meet her with “follow me”.
Yes you are quite right - I am admittedly going off on a speculative tangent …but that legitimately happens on messy forums.
I trust the OP doesn’t take this tack with his girlfriend as you suggest :eek:.
 
I simply don’t find the single quote you gave convincing Linus, the personal bit could be seen as a “secondary aside.”
When it comes to what the Church teaches, we accept it on faith. Why, because it is based on God’s own revelation and God does not lie. The purpose of Revelation is that we will have absolute certainty about what is necessary to believe so that we may be saved. How can we be saved if we do not believe God loves us, that he is a personal God? The Church teaches God’s own truth so that we will have no doubts. We are not commanded to understand everything Revealed, but to humbly accept it.
Strong teaching is usually found in multiple authoritative sources in different ways and at different times outside of the CCC.
That is true, but the teaching of the Church is all that we must believe so that we will know for certain what is necessary for salvation.
Do you know of sources more explicit and thorough that the Church holds reason can prove the First Unmoved Mover is a personal God (which presumably means He cares for His creatures)?
Nowhere does the Church use the term " Unmoved Mover " in its teaching. It always refers to God, even when it speaks of what man can know naturally. And she nowhere gives any specific philosophical arguments except in a general way. See paragraphs 26-49 in the CCC.

If I may speak on my personal reflections, I say that the knowledge that God created me and keeps me in existence, means that he loves me, that he is a personal God. And that he created such a beautiful universe containing such goodness, beauty, and wonder proves to me that he loves us all and that he is a personal God.

Maybe that isn’t very philosophical, but it makes sense to me personally.

God Bless
Linus2nd
 
Here is Aquinas in Summa Theologica part I, Q2
Whether God can be known in this life by natural reason?

I answer that, Our natural knowledge begins from sense. Hence our natural knowledge can go as far as it can be led by sensible things. But our mind cannot be led by sense so far as to see the essence of God; because the sensible effects of God do not equal the power of God as their cause. Hence from the knowledge of sensible things the whole power of God cannot be known; nor therefore can His essence be seen. But because they are His effects and depend on their cause, we can be led from them so far as to know of God “whether He exists,” and to know of Him what must necessarily belong to Him, as the first cause of all things, exceeding all things caused by Him.

Hence we know that His relationship with creatures so far as to be the cause of them all; also that creatures differ from Him, inasmuch as He is not in any way part of what is caused by Him; and that creatures are not removed from Him by reason of any defect on His part, but because He superexceeds them all.

Reply to Objection 1: Reason cannot reach up to simple form, so as to know “what it is”; but it can know “whether it is.”

Reply to Objection 2: God is known by natural knowledge through the images of His effects.

Reply to Objection 3: As the knowledge of God’s essence is by grace, it belongs only to the good; but the knowledge of Him by natural reason can belong to both good and bad; …

I believe “person” belongs to God’s essence, i.e.: “what is God”, and I think here Aquinas is distinguishing that knowing the Person(s) of God is only known in revelation.

Many religions personify their gods (give them names), yet when you look at their descriptions of their gods, they do not come out to be the First Cause nor the Final End, but actually seem to be very much “creatures”.

Wanting or wishing that God should be a person people try to “address” that God, but with the Silent Heavens there can be no conclusion more than “God Is”. (“If he is a person, he can hear me; if not, I was not heard in my prayer”)

In a way, that is the marvel and mystery of Christianity - being introduced to the First Cause, by Name.
 
When it comes to what the Church teaches, we accept it on faith. Why, because it is based on God’s own revelation and God does not lie. The purpose of Revelation is that we will have absolute certainty about what is necessary to believe so that we may be saved. How can we be saved if we do not believe God loves us, that he is a personal God? The Church teaches God’s own truth so that we will have no doubts. We are not commanded to understand everything Revealed, but to humbly accept it.
All very good Linus but for some reason I cannot get you to understand my simple angle/question 😊

I don’t yet accept that the Church actually does teach that the unmoved-mover can be found to be “personal” by reason alone.

It may be.
But I won’t accept that actually is a solid Church teaching just because you sourced a single, short, slightly ambiguous sentence in the CCC.

Such solid teachings are usually found quite clearly stated by many different authoritative source, many times over many 100s of years.

Yes I understand that the existence of “God” is clearly taught by the Church as provable by reason alone.

However I don’t believe much else at all can be known by reason about the characteristics of such a “bloodless God” and whether that “God” cares about us or whether that “God” is “personal” (whatever that might mean in the Catechism quote you stated).

If you know of such authoritative sources (apart from Aquinas) who clearly state that the “God” known by reason alone cares and has to be “personal” (and what that might mean) I would be interested.
 
Here is Aquinas in Summa Theologica part I, Q2
Whether God can be known in this life by natural reason?

I answer that, Our natural knowledge begins from sense. Hence our natural knowledge can go as far as it can be led by sensible things. But our mind cannot be led by sense so far as to see the essence of God; because the sensible effects of God do not equal the power of God as their cause. Hence from the knowledge of sensible things the whole power of God cannot be known; nor therefore can His essence be seen. But because they are His effects and depend on their cause, we can be led from them so far as to know of God “whether He exists,” and to know of Him what must necessarily belong to Him, as the first cause of all things, exceeding all things caused by Him.

Hence we know that His relationship with creatures so far as to be the cause of them all; also that creatures differ from Him, inasmuch as He is not in any way part of what is caused by Him; and that creatures are not removed from Him by reason of any defect on His part, but because He superexceeds them all.

Reply to Objection 1: Reason cannot reach up to simple form, so as to know “what it is”; but it can know “whether it is.”

Reply to Objection 2: God is known by natural knowledge through the images of His effects.

Reply to Objection 3: As the knowledge of God’s essence is by grace, it belongs only to the good; but the knowledge of Him by natural reason can belong to both good and bad; …

I believe “person” belongs to God’s essence, i.e.: “what is God”, and I think here Aquinas is distinguishing that knowing the Person(s) of God is only known in revelation.

Many religions personify their gods (give them names), yet when you look at their descriptions of their gods, they do not come out to be the First Cause nor the Final End, but actually seem to be very much “creatures”.

Wanting or wishing that God should be a person people try to “address” that God, but with the Silent Heavens there can be no conclusion more than “God Is”. (“If he is a person, he can hear me; if not, I was not heard in my prayer”)

In a way, that is the marvel and mystery of Christianity - being introduced to the First Cause, by Name.
Yes I agree with all you say here too John.
(We only know by revelation that the “God” of Aristotle is personal and cares about us His creatures.)
 
All very good Linus but for some reason I cannot get you to understand my simple angle/question 😊

I don’t yet accept that the Church actually does teach that the unmoved-mover can be found to be “personal” by reason alone.

It may be.
But I won’t accept that actually is a solid Church teaching just because you sourced a single, short, slightly ambiguous sentence in the CCC.

Such solid teachings are usually found quite clearly stated by many different authoritative source, many times over many 100s of years.

Yes I understand that the existence of “God” is clearly taught by the Church as provable by reason alone.

However I don’t believe much else at all can be known by reason about the characteristics of such a “bloodless God” and whether that “God” cares about us or whether that “God” is “personal” (whatever that might mean in the Catechism quote you stated).

If you know of such authoritative sources (apart from Aquinas) who clearly state that the “God” known by reason alone cares and has to be “personal” (and what that might mean) I would be interested.
One would have to think that among the thousands of Thomists who came after Thomas most would hold the same opinions that he held. However, I am unfamiliar with any of those except Edward Feser and a few others like Etienne Gilson.

The Church does not cite any specific philosopher to support that statement. Did you look throug the list of God’s nature in the SCG? Surely that list would indicate that the Unmoved Mover is both rational and personal.

The Church does however teach that God is simple, one, eternal, intelligent, good, loving, the creator and sustainer of all that exsists. These are all De Fide teachings. As people of faith we must accept these teachings as Christ’s own Revelation. Look at the Old and New Testaments. Everything in them tells us that God is both an intelligent and a personal God.

Of course the Church has never said that this God, who has revealed himself, is the Unmoved Mover of Thomas. Why is it so important to you that Thomas’ Unmoved Mover is the God of Revelation? The Church tells us that not everyone can follow the philosophical arguments given by Thomas and others and that is why the Church has given us De Fide teachings which tell us about the nature of God.

We have discussed these questions many times on this forum and there are always some who either don’t understand Thomas’ arguments or just refuse to accept anything he says as valid ( ususlly, but not always, atheists and agnostics ). This can be true for any philosopher coming after Thomas, there is never universal agreement about these things.

But it does happen that we have a poster who is debating someone on another site or with a friend and they carry our arguments back to their discussion. And if their opponent has disagreed with the argument, the poster comes back and says our arguments don’t hold up. Is this what is happening here?

Linus2nd.
 
The Church does however teach that God is simple, one, eternal, intelligent, good, loving, the creator and sustainer of all that exsists. These are all De Fide teachings. As people of faith we must accept these teachings as Christ’s own Revelation. Look at the Old and New Testaments. Everything in them tells us that God is both an intelligent and a personal God.
Still not sure we are connecting…
Sure, revelation obviously teaches that God is loving, personal and cares about humanity.

But where does the Church teach that these attributes can be discovered (of the unmoved mover) by pure reason alone?
 
Thank you all again. I suppose it asking a lot of her. I forget that what comes easily to us is difficult for others without religion. I guess it even bothers me some that I cannot answer her question. I’d like to be able to explain why God is not only necessary, and that it is impossible for Him not to exist, but that He is also a Person, an Intellect. Because I cannot prove this I feel I am taking it based solely on faith and without any philosophical back up other than the “evidence from creation model”. I never like, if I can help it, having resort to faith alone in these things because since I cannot *prove *and *know *it without room for rational error, I feel it is like sand that could potentially slip from my hands. I feel security in certain inerrant knowledge. Since God is a reality, I find it necessary to have not a single qualm about His existence. Not knowing]with complete certainty from logic makes me nervous.

I guess I want to be able to explain to the everyday atheist, "Do not accuse me of using blind faith to believe in God, I have incontestable logical proof in the face of which your universal paradigm of there being no God has no grounds. Abandon now, in view of perfect logic, and submit therefore to the yoke of God, whom you can no longer hide from or deny.
Before you start trying to psychoanalyse God (big job that one), I’d suggest you ask the same question of yourself and your girlfriend, that is, “Why are we rational and personal beings?”

In the Judeo-Christian tradition we’re rational and personal beings because we’re made in God’s image. We’re trinitarian in our natures for the same reason - body, mind and soul.

Now unless she can show evidence that a bunch of mindless chemicals are just going to get together and cause personality and rationality without any motivation or reason (or even possibility for that matter), then it stands to reason there’s a creator who wanted to create creatures with personality and the ability to reason. This implies a creator who Himself is both rational and personal.

As to “why” God is a rational being, you’ll have to ask God Himself. You’re literally asking God to explain why and how He exists. The fact is that He just is, or as He said to Moses, “I am who I am”. It’s the great mystery along the same lines as “Why is there something rather than nothing?”

We talk about God is love. Why is God love? I mean nature doesn’t display that with each animal dependent on either the destruction and assimilation of other creatures to survive, or at least parasitism. Yesterday I was driving past a bunch of chickens in small cages on a truck, presumably on their way to the abattoir. They were on borrowed time, the poor birds. They’re probably all dead now.

I wonder if they thought “God is love”. Assuming He is, then we have another mystery - in the light of the mutual destruction of other life so that we ourselves may live, then what is “divine love”?

We could go on and on with these questions, and never get any closer to the answer. It reminds me of the story about some old monk or priest who’d been pondering for years about the Trinity and how God could be three in one.

As he walked along the beach he saw a kid filling up a hole with sea water, then going down to the water’s edge, walking back, and filling the hole again, and doing this over and over.

Finally he went to the young lad, and said, “Son, why are you pouring sea water into this hole. All it does is go into the sand.”

The boy answered, “I’m trying to fit the ocean into this hole”.

The old priest laughed. “Son” he said, “You’ll never pour the whole ocean into that little hole”.

The boy looked at him with this strange glint in his eyes and replied, “I’ve got more chance of putting the ocean into this hole, than you have of solving what you’ve been thinking about.”

Then he just disappeared.
 
Still not sure we are connecting…
Sure, revelation obviously teaches that God is loving, personal and cares about humanity.

But where does the Church teach that these attributes can be discovered (of the unmoved mover) by pure reason alone?
First, I already agreed that if you are talking about the Unmoved Mover of Aristotle, this " God " is an impersonal God. But, according to Aristotle he is an intelligent ( rational ) God. Read Book XII of his Metaphysics or Thomas’ Commentary on this book, which I suggested earlier.

Thomas’ Unmoved Mover is a little different. According to Thomas the Unmoved Mover is both Intelligent and Persona and Loving and Good and the creator and sustainer of all… Though Thomas does not use the the term " personal, " from the list of attributes he gives in Book One of the SCG, one must conclude the Thomas’ God ( his Unmoved Mover ) is both intelligent and personal.

Now the Church never uses the term Unmoved Mover when referring to the God which can be known from reason.

However, in Humani Generis ( CCC, paras 37-38 ) Paul the XII says, " " 37 In the historical conditions in which he finds himself, however, man experiences many difficulties in coming to know God by the light of reason alone:

Though human reason is, strictly speaking, truly capable by its own natural power and light of attaining to a true and certain knowledge of the one personal God, who watches over and controls the world by his providence, and of the natural law written in our hearts by the Creator; yet there are many obstacles which prevent reason from the effective and fruitful use of this inborn faculty. For the truths that concern the relations between God and man wholly transcend the visible order of things, and, if they are translated into human action and influence it, they call for self-surrender and abnegation. the human mind, in its turn, is hampered in the attaining of such truths, not only by the impact of the senses and the imagination, but also by disordered appetites which are the consequences of original sin. So it happens that men in such matters easily persuade themselves that what they would not like to be true is false or at least doubtful.13 "

38 This is why man stands in need of being enlightened by God’s revelation, not only about those things that exceed his understanding, but also “about those religious and moral truths which of themselves are not beyond the grasp of human reason, so that even in the present condition of the human race, they can be known by all men with ease, with firm certainty and with no admixture of error”.14 ( also from Humani Generis )

This about all I know to say,

Our Catechism is a treasure, every one should study it. 😉

Linus2nd
 
However, in Humani Generis ( CCC, paras 37-38 ) Paul the XII says, " " 37 Though human reason is, strictly speaking, truly capable by its own natural power and light of attaining to a true and certain knowledge of the one personal God, who watches over and controls the world by his providence…"
Linus2nd
Yes this is quoted in the CCC below the sentence you prev quoted. Its ambiguity is pretty much identical to that CCC quote which prompted my query originally.

If you look at CCC 50 your interpretation of the above looks to be contradicted as it implies God’s plan of goodness/concern for the world is known only through revelation.

I don’t expect you to agree - but it does make clear to me the Church does not actually have a clear or strong teaching on the ability of reason alone to discover that the God known to exist by reason is also personal and caring (as opposed to impersonal distant) other than sustaining the Universe in existence (which is somewhat obvious though not the sort of “goodness” most of us understand by the words caring and personal ).
 
Yes this is quoted in the CCC below the sentence you prev quoted. Its ambiguity is pretty much identical to that CCC quote which prompted my query originally.

If you look at CCC 50 your interpretation of the above looks to be contradicted as it implies God’s plan of goodness/concern for the world is known only through revelation.

I don’t expect you to agree - but it does make clear to me the Church does not actually have a clear or strong teaching on the ability of reason alone to discover that the God known to exist by reason is also personal and caring (as opposed to impersonal distant) other than sustaining the Universe in existence (which is somewhat obvious though not the sort of “goodness” most of us understand by the words caring and personal ).
Humani Generis is a part of Church Doctrine. CCC 50 does not contradict anything I said. It is merely saying that there is another source of certitude, Divine Revelation, which makes certain many of the truths natural reason tells us about God and much more as well.

Why are you so fixated on the notion that someone must prove this point to you? And if no one can, what does that mean? It certainly does not mean that it is not true. It means one of two things. No one has yet given you an arguemrent you can understand, or that you have some reason for not accepting any argument which shows that God is both intelligent and personal ( loving ). Of course I am speaking of philosophical arguments, not Church Doctrine.

God Bless
Linus2nd
 
Humani Generis is a part of Church Doctrine. CCC 50 does not contradict anything I said. It is merely saying that there is another source of certitude, Divine Revelation, which makes certain many of the truths natural reason tells us about God and much more as well.

Why are you so fixated on the notion that someone must prove this point to you? And if no one can, what does that mean? It certainly does not mean that it is not true. It means one of two things. No one has yet given you an arguemrent you can understand, or that you have some reason for not accepting any argument which shows that God is both intelligent and personal ( loving ). Of course I am speaking of philosophical arguments, not Church Doctrine.

God Bless
Linus2nd
One of us still isn’t connecting with the OP’s question Linus 🤷.

Which was:
“what in **philosophical terms **describes the necessity of the nature of the Creator being a Person.”

I don’t think its me but it doesn’t really matter as this is long past its use-by-date
and my response is clear (and as yet not well argued against by your good self for a variety of reasons) for readers still interested :eek:.
 
One of us still isn’t connecting with the OP’s question Linus 🤷.

Which was:
“what in **philosophical terms **describes the necessity of the nature of the Creator being a Person.”
That is incorrect. The O.P. said, " Why is God a rational being?

I was discussing with my girlfriend (who is not a believer…yet) this evening why it is reasonable to believe in an Uncaused Cause. I got her to admit that either the physical laws that caused the universe are eternal (since she is not quite ready to affirm a Lawgiver), or more reasonably there is an even more primordial Uncaused Cause of those same laws that is 1. Simple
2.Must exist outside of time
3. It is in Its essence tom Be.

I told her It would also be rational but could not figure that part out myself. What in God’s Nature makes Him, as the Uncaused Cause, Whose essence is to exist, also a rational being and not just an It? I said that in this Cause is the potential for everything that could be, including consciousness, but I feel this is insufficient and likely inaccurate, and was more of a place holder for the argument. So, Why is He a rational being? "

My Response to You:

He is asking: in philosophical terms how can one argue cogently that the Uncaused Cause is an intelligent, rational being. It was your diversion on this question that we needed to prove that the Uncaused Cause was a Person who was personally interested in us. I pointed out to you where arguments to prove all this could be found in the SCG. You said you could not follow the arguments and that they couldn’t be understood by moderns.

And I responded that there really were no other cogent philosophical arguments that could answer these questions. At this point I was not trying to help the O.P. but to help you, since the poster admitted he could not follow the philosophical arguments…
I don’t think its me but it doesn’t really matter as this is long past its use-by-date
and my response is clear (and as yet not well argued against by your good self for a variety of reasons) for readers still interested :eek:.
Your responses have not been clear. And I can’t help it if you don’t understand the suggestions I have given. I admit the philosophical arguments require a certain mastering of background concepts. Philosophy is what it is, it demands a certain dedication and not everyone has the time or the facility to acquire it. As far as I am aware no one since Thomas has offered any better arguments. Of course you may disagree,

For those who cannot follow the arguments, they must accept on faith that God is both intelligent and a personal God, a Divine Person who loves and cares for us. That is the way the vast majority of Christians in history have reached God - by Faith. Very few out of those billions have been philosophers or even had the facility to be philosophers. As St. Paul said, " …from now on I will preach Christ, and him Crucified…" Philosophy has many advantages but it really isn’t for the masses.

God Bless
Linus2nd
 
That is incorrect. The O.P. said, " Why is God a rational being?
Linus I think at least 50% of being a good philosopher is truly wanting to hear and understand the person we “communicate with.”

Not only have you not really understood my attempt at dialogue with you but you seem to have done the same with Layp3rs0n.

If you go back through the below thread I think you will find that I quoted exactly what Layp3rs0n asked.

He posted again to clarify aspects of his original concern.

Strange how I could pick up that we weren’t connecting but you couldn’t 😊.
 
Linus I think at least 50% of being a good philosopher is truly wanting to hear and understand the person we “communicate with.”

Not only have you not really understood my attempt at dialogue with you but you seem to have done the same with Layp3rs0n.

If you go back through the below thread I think you will find that I quoted exactly what Layp3rs0n asked.

He posted again to clarify aspects of his original concern.

Strange how I could pick up that we weren’t connecting but you couldn’t 😊.
Absolutely incredible. Think whatever you want.🤷

Linus2nd
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top