Why is God a rational being?

[Layp3rs0n]

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?

 

[ClearWater]

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?

If we believe the Creator was the uncaused cause, just look about. Does this look like it was created by an amateur? Look at the perfection of the universe on all levels.

Okay…think of it this way. Look at the computer you are using. You can obviously see someone with great intelligence put that together. You can tell just by looking at it.

Now, look at the universe. Can’t you see by looking at the universe that it was created by a rational being? Look at the artifacts, and it is like a trail, gives clues as to the maker.

If we agree it was created, then it was created by an unbelievable intelligence, very rational, in my opinion. Well, if it were created by an irrational being, we would expect the universe to be extremely chaotic, and it’s not. It’s orderly to a fault.

It works together like clockwork except with vastly more precision, infinitely more, probably.

Look at the human body, its complexity, perfection.

It’s obvious.

 

[Layp3rs0n]

If we believe the Creator was the uncaused cause, just look about. Does this look like it was created by an amateur? Look at the perfection of the universe on all levels.

Okay…think of it this way. Look at the computer you are using. You can obviously see someone with great intelligence put that together. You can tell just by looking at it.

Now, look at the universe. Can’t you see by looking at the universe that it was created by a rational being? Look at the artifacts, and it is like a trail, gives clues as to the maker.

If we agree it was created, then it was created by an unbelievable intelligence, very rational, in my opinion. Well, if it were created by an irrational being, we would expect the universe to be extremely chaotic, and it’s not. It’s orderly to a fault.

It works together like clockwork except with vastly more precision, infinitely more, probably.

Look at the human body, its complexity, perfection.

It’s obvious.

Trust me, *I *get that.It’s perfectly evident to me. Again, I know He is a Person, a rational being. The question is *why *is He a rational being? But aside from the “look around argument” which doesn’t work on my girlfriend, what in philosophical terms describes the necessity of the nature of the Creator being a Person and not just an Uncaused Force? In other words, aside from the, “Duh, everything is made by God, look at it” argument (because sincerely, duh), what in the *nature *of the very essence of Being, of Existence, of God, necessitates Him being conscious?

 

[Faxero]

Why is God a rational being? In order to answer this, we should look at ourselves.

Question: What makes us human beings different from animals?

Answer:

We human beings are made in God’s image and likeness.

All other animals are not made in God’s image and likeness.

We’re made in God’s image and likeness, which makes us unique from the other animals, to the extent where we are at the top of the Earth’s food chain.

How does being made in God’s image and likeness separate us from the animals?

Animals:
know that they exist
feel emotions

We:
know that we exist
feel emotions
Think rationally

:hammering:
We human beings think rationally, and if we are made in God’s image and likeness, than God itself should be a rational being, because only a rational being would have the power to create another rational being.

An intelligent being cannot be created by an unintelligent being. If we human beings are intelligent, than whoever created us must be intelligent as well.

 

[Layp3rs0n]

Why is God a rational being? In order to answer this, we should look at ourselves.

Question: What makes us human beings different from animals?

Answer:

We human beings are made in God’s image and likeness.

All other animals are not made in God’s image and likeness.

We’re made in God’s image and likeness, which makes us unique from the other animals, to the extent where we are at the top of the Earth’s food chain.

How does being made in God’s image and likeness separate us from the animals?

Animals:
know that they exist
feel emotions

We:
know that we exist
feel emotions
Think rationally

We human beings think rationally, and if we are made in God’s image and likeness, than God itself should be a rational being, because only a rational being would have the power to create another rational being.

Thank you to both responders, however perhaps I am not being clear. I am debating with a person who does not believe in God in the first place. I have shown her that it is reasonable to believe in an Uncaused Cause, but not that said Cause is rational. I cannot tell her “look at us and look at the universe for proof as evidence in itself” (though it is clear to me and to both of you). It would be circular logic for her, since to her the Uncaused Cause has no reason in Its *nature * (that is, in what It is in Itself), to be not only the DNA of creation (ex. DNA is a blueprint but itself is not sentient), but also a Living Thinking Designer with His own Will. So I cannot use external evidence because she does not accept that the perfect design cannot come arbitrarily and without a directing Will. I need to show, from philosophy alone, and not in relation to God’s creation, that God as the Uncaused Cause, in Himself, is a Person. In other words, I have to philosophically prove a Photographer, with only knowledge of an existing photograph but with no way to analyze said photograph. Or another way, she believes there may be a camera, but only one that is automatic with no photographer.

So, what in God’s nature makes Him have a Will and Rationality? God’s nature is To Exist. He is Existence. A state of Being (rather than not being) Who is conscious. *Why *is Existence conscious?

Or more simply, What makes God I Am instead of It Is?

 

[Faxero]

:nope:

Remember, God creates realities. The physical regions of the Universe have their own rules of Reality; rules which differ from the realities of the heavenly regions where God presides.

God created the physical realities, but he himself is not subject to its laws and notions.

Your girlfriend needs to understand that the God of this universe is a personal God who desires personal relationships with individual creatures. For us Christians, it is obvious that God exists because we have the relationship with him. A person who won’t bother to **connect **with his/her creator will never fully realize this creator’s goodness and existence in everyday life as the **connected **person would.

If your friend wants to learn that God exists, than she needs to establish the connection. Our human thought processes and logic have been tarnished by sin, and so they cannot fully grasp the more complex things of life without his help.

You can’t use human logic to prove the existence of God to the average atheist. They need to use their free-will to make themselves aware of his surrounding presence.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

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?

You are asking a lot of a person who isn’t used to thinking philosophically. And perhaps she will never be able to because some people need a reason to do so - and right now she isn’t motivated. But if that is the route you want to take I would give her a copy of Aquinas by Edward Feser and ask her to read it and see what she thinks.

If that doesn’t mover her see if she will go to Mass with you a few times. And don’t expect miracles, these things take time.

Linus2nd

 

[Rob_Arnzen]

The question is why is He a rational being?

Let’s rephrase that so you can understand why you’re having trouble answering it:

“What causes an uncaused cause to be rational?”

The question is inherently contradictory. If He is uncaused, NOTHING would cause Him to be rational, just as nothing caused Him to exist.

We only know naturally He is rational because we see his handiwork. Since He is beyond our wildest imaginings and our greatest intellect, we can’t comprehend this Being who simply exists.

.

 

[John_Martin]

Let’s rephrase that so you can understand why you’re having trouble answering it:

“What causes an uncaused cause to be rational?”

The question is inherently contradictory. If He is uncaused, NOTHING would cause Him to be rational, just as nothing caused Him to exist.

We only know naturally He is rational because we see his handiwork. Since He is beyond our wildest imaginings and our greatest intellect, we can’t comprehend this Being who simply exists…

If the First Cause is Uncaused, nothing causes him to be rational, nor to create.
If he is Actual and unmoved then he never “moves” but is complete.
If there is a creation, a universe, created by this being, it is not a “new action” or new actuality of the Causer.

In an intelligible world, where all things can be understood by an intellect, cause works to an end, to a goal, to a result. A heavy body in motion is on a course to somewhere in its line of motion, and if it bumps a small body on a different line of motion, the light body is deflected - the goal? or end? The heavy body continues in a slightly altered line of motion to a slightly altered new goal, the new goal caused by the light body. The light body moves in a greatly altered line of motion to a new goal, the new end caused by the heavy body.

We understand this in virtue of our intellect, which is provided with observation of material reality by our senses. With our intellect we also understand that we are able to intelligently cause things to have a pre-planned goal.

If the First Causer does not change, does nothing new or different than before (something would be caused in the first cause if there were change), then without intellect, those things caused by the first causer would be “eternal” and “repeated”. “Creations” would be popping up in infinite succession. But the creations popping up would have repeatedly random content with no guarantee that they would not disintegrate in the next moment - we observe that there are laws of nature, but there is no guarantee that the laws of nature will not change in the next moment. If there were only “one creation” by the First Cause, then the First Cause would be changeable, and therefore caused, because it would be creating, but then change into not-creating, which would therefore not be the logical First Cause.

If the First Cause is intellect, intellectual, then his eternal reality is knowing, and only that, knowing all in completeness, his knowing never changing. With this knowing it is possible to know, to understand, some “object” that is not him. From always he could know something that is not always. And if he knows it, then at some “point” not always begins, is created, just as he knows it from always. What he knows as “not always” is intelligible because he knows it. It exists, comes into being, when “not always” begins because he knows it being. And it has an end, a goal, of being what he knows just as he knows it.

He has not changed, not done something new by creating, not had a new movement (so he himself is not caused nor does he cause himself to move). A non-intelligent first cause would have to, as said, constantly be duplicating causation, yet without any reasonable goal.

How does that sound?

John Martin
SoftVocation.org

 

[Paleocon]

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?

Unintelligent things are set in motion by intelligent things.

 

[Layp3rs0n]

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.

 

[John_Martin]

Oh, an intellectual being is different than knowing a personal being - that God is personal is a revelation, not arrived at by reason, as understanding that he is intellect and intellectual.

 

[Layp3rs0n]

Oh, an intellectual being is different than knowing a personal being - that God is personal is a revelation, not arrived at by reason, as understanding that he is intellect and intellectual.

Right, but I am starting to get the drift one cannot prove that God is Intellect. I mean, I believe He is, but aside from the “evidence from creation model”, I see no incontestable way to prove it. This means that yes, sigh, I have to declare it to an act of faith instead of reason.

 

[Layp3rs0n]

Let’s rephrase that so you can understand why you’re having trouble answering it:

“What causes an uncaused cause to be rational?”

The question is inherently contradictory. If He is uncaused, NOTHING would cause Him to be rational, just as nothing caused Him to exist.

We only know naturally He is rational because we see his handiwork. Since He is beyond our wildest imaginings and our greatest intellect, we can’t comprehend this Being who simply exists.

.

I’m sorry I missed this answer. Very helpful!

 

[Charlemagne_III]

TSo I cannot use external evidence because she does not accept that the perfect design cannot come arbitrarily and without a directing Will. I need to show, from philosophy alone, and not in relation to God’s creation, that God as the Uncaused Cause, in Himself, is a Person.

I think you are facing an impossible task if these are the conditions she has set down for you to prove.

Might as well ask why God is God.

There is no way to prove why God must be rational if we cannot demonstrate from his Creation that the intelligible laws of his Creation reflect some intelligibility (rationality) in God.

I believe she has sent you on a fool’s errand.

But I think you are no fool.

 

[John_Martin]

How about letting your girlfriend read the answers here and see if anything meshes with her thinking.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Oh, an intellectual being is different than knowing a personal being - that God is personal is a revelation, not arrived at by reason, as understanding that he is intellect and intellectual.

The CCC, paragraph 35, says, " 35 Man’s faculties make him capable of coming to a knowledge of the existence of a personal God. But for man to be able to enter into real intimacy with him, God willed both to reveal himself to man, and to give him the grace of being able to welcome this revelation in faith.(so) the proofs of God’s existence, however, can predispose one to faith and help one to see that faith is not opposed to reason. "

Also, Thomas Aquinas proves in many places that human reason can establish both that God is intelligent and personal. And the Church agrees. So the fact that God is intelligent and knowing him as a personal being are not mutually exclusive. God is clearly intelligent as Thomas demonstrates and personal as well, which we can easily demonstrate - once someone agrees that God exists.

Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

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.

If you want to do all that you are going have to study Thomas Aquinas yourself and that can’t be done overnight, it takes years. As far as the Nature of God Goes you can read the appropriate sections of the Summa Theologiae and the Summa Contra Gentiles available here : dhspriory.org/thomas/, as well as his other works. But I think I would begin with Aquinas by Edward Feser ( and his blogspot ) or a book like Nature, Knowledge, and God by Brother Begnignus ( you can find old copies for aroung $15 ).

We cannot give you complete answers you would understand here, it takes a lot of background understanding.

Linus2nd

 

[Blue_Horizon]

The CCC, paragraph 35, says, " 35 Man’s faculties make him capable of coming to a knowledge of the existence of a personal God. But for man to be able to enter into real intimacy with him, God willed both to reveal himself to man, and to give him the grace of being able to welcome this revelation in faith.(so) the proofs of God’s existence, however, can predispose one to faith and help one to see that faith is not opposed to reason. "

Also, Thomas Aquinas proves in many places that human reason can establish both that God is intelligent and personal. And the Church agrees. So the fact that God is intelligent and knowing him as a personal being are not mutually exclusive. God is clearly intelligent as Thomas demonstrates and personal as well, which we can easily demonstrate - once someone agrees that God exists.

Linus2nd

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.

 

[John_Martin]

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.

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”.