Greetings friends and loved ones,
Why should we ponder about “a philosophical premise for the existence of God”? For one, in a post modern age of moral relativistic thinking, I see a need for the Church to be more equipped in providing more intelligent answers, based on reason, that backs up our faith. Although, the testimony of our lives should take the lead in witnessing to the gospel, I also believe that our well thought out answers to legitimate questions, can provide less room for ridicule among a cynical, and unbelieving generation--especially in the media.
I wrote the following essay in a philosophy class. My teacher, gave me an A on it, and mentioned that it was “very compelling”. It is my hope that your faith is strengthened and that perhaps this can prayerfully be a tool in appropriate situations.
Can God be ‘Proven‘? A Philosophical Premise for the Existence of God
St. Thomas Aquinas manifests the best of both worlds. He is a man of deep faith as well as a brilliant thinker. One could argue that Thomas carries with him a double edged sword, in as far as the “important truths”, he appeals both to the Authority of the Church--traced back to Christ Himself, and to the light of reason. However, as one who would not presume or impose the notion that God’s existence is strictly manifested through faith, he provides his readers the means of reason.
Nevertheless, for one to stubbornly assume that God’s existence and accessibility can only be proven strictly through reason to believe in Him, must also somehow--through reason discover for instance, why we exist at all, or why and how the Universe could “go on for infinity” with out a First Cause. In other words, a concept of an infinite Universe, I would argue--can also require faith.
My support for the First Cause ArgumentAs St Thomas expounds upon the Aristotelian construct of an “Uncaused Cause”, he introduces
his First Article: “whether the existence of God is self evident”. What is immediately striking concerning our innate conception of Someone or Something that is biggest, or final-- is the notion (also requiring faith), from a non theist position that “we are just here, with no Beginning or Finality”. Is this concept in any Universal sense “self evident”? I would say no. It seems to be more compelling that the “meaning of God” is more self evident in that we are wired to seek out directly or indirectly that which “nothing greater can be conceived”.
The non theist it would seem, must reject this conception in our mind, in favor of a more unnatural belief that “the universe is just here and that‘s all we can say” . The problem with this argument--is that the Universe is not just here, because it wasn’t here before. Moreover, any rational being has the innate deduction that Something or Someone caused “just here”, therefore pointing to this person--the intuitive reasoning in our minds of “nothing greater then can be conceived”.
From a theist to atheist approach, the philosopher Peter Kreeft argues (from his book: “A Shorter Summa”) concerning St Thomas’s address to the one who says: “There is no God”. Kreeft counters this by asserting: [if] “God lacks existence, this means the greatest conceivable being lacks one conceivable perfection--objective existence” therefore rejecting what contributes to the mental perfection in our minds, of “nothing greater then can be conceived”--its existence. This is compelling in that, the one who rejects the existence of God--also rejects what is mentally self evident to him (the intuitive reasoning--itself, of nothing greater then can be conceived).
The second article: “Whether it can be demonstrated that God exists.” The appeal to understanding God’s effects is demonstrated in that they are known to us. St. Thomas’s humility is noted in that he does not dogmatically assert that we can perfectly know God “as He is in His essence” (The Truth: pg 45) but does place confident emphasis on knowing God through His effects.
As the wind blows through the trees, I can’t see the wind in its essence, but I see its effects. I like how Kreeft notes this in his book “A shorter Summa”. “From knowing a footprint, we do not yet know the essence of feet, or have perfect adequate knowledge of feet, but we can know it’s existence”.
We have many examples of a middle term--or “posteriori“, which are effects that are better known to us. One is a need for order. Before I could sit down at this table with my laptop, I felt driven to remove the clutter--so that it would at least look clean, before I could relax and continue this assignment. This drive to have things in order--or at least look like they are in order, I would argue, points to the Finality of order. My wish that this table was in perfect order, is an effect of a higher order, or Uncaused Order--that needs to find Finality eventually.
Third Article: “Whether God Exists?--God can be proved in five ways.”
I believe Thomas’s “Five Proofs” become progressively compelling as each proof confirms the other in that they also demonstrate a tiered order of its own.
The first way from “Motion” is compelling to me given that, as St. Thomas says: “it is certain and evident to our senses” (Truth pg. 40). This observation with our senses, along with its reality, can’t even be avoided. Everything is moving but could not be if the Source of motion (in the same sense) was both mover and moved--that it should move it self. The chain of events that we see would not be seen and simply would not be here if there were infinite regress.
The second way of “Efficient Cause” from an Aristotelian perspective meant cause of change (form informing matter). From St Thomas’s view, it is also the cause of the very existence of its effect” (Kreeft: “a Short Summa). I find this stunning given that the latter indicates a creative act--like an efficient cause (or creative, purposeful act) of the Big Bang, and the efficient cause of the existence of space and time--all of which, I would argue had to originate from a First and Efficient Cause not prior to It Self.
The third way of “Possibility and Necessity” seems to challenge both the notion of chance, and the atheist notion of God’s non existence. Thomas says: “If everything is possible not
to be (given an infinite amount of time)[…]even now there would be nothing in existence”. But obviously, as contingent beings, our existence could not have come out of nonexistence--but only from our dependence from a Necessary Being--not dependent upon another. Thomas also says: “not all beings are merely possible”. In other words, anything that is dependent could not merely (by chance) get here. Dependence infers Necessity, which I would argue--infers some kind of “Purpose” or “Decision”.
Someone or Something which is necessary for our existence, infers a Mind to purposefully decide our existence. On the other hand, mindless matter cannot conceive of, or produce our existence, because it cannot choose for us--to be. Therefore, only a Mind, not prior to it Self, and upon which all creation is contingent, can conceive of and produce “existence“.
The fourth way of “gradation” to be found in things seems to challenge the concept of moral relativism. Goodness, truth and beauty can be achieved or experienced in degrees, but conjures up an intuitively self evident reasoning in our minds--an ontological Perfection and Finality. In order for us to achieve any degree in these things, we presuppose a contingency upon a Standard of Finality that doesn’t cease or change. When achieving a degree in any of these things, we presuppose a standard that doesn’t change, (in order to reach any degree of goodness, truth and beauty). In other words, a Final Standard that “doesn’t exist”, or which shifts and changes, would entail non existent, or unattainable degrees of goodness, truth and beauty--to follow. Moreover, the latter presents a dilemma for the individuals who insist upon a relativistic moral goodness, that is intrinsically “his own truth versus her own truth”, and that is not Final, Objective, and Unchanging. That which is not essentially consistent and whole, is subsequently , and ultimately by definition, not thoroughly “good” to begin with. If “my” goodness is intrinsically and ultimately different then “her” goodness, and is not contingent upon a Final, Objective, and Unchanging Truth, then our so called goodness being divided, fails to be consistently good--pointing to the necessity for a goodness that is whole, and therefore a goodness that is Changeless, Final and Complete.
The fifth and final way relates to the “governance of the world.” This reminds me of the Intelligent by design argument, at least in one of its forms. St. Thomas speaks of the unintelligent creatures nearly all acting the same way, so as to obtain the best result, (in both animal and human settings) and how an unintelligent creature could not move towards an end, accept it be “directed and endowed with knowledge and intelligence”. Even for the sake of argument, if creatures were the product of a “process of random unintended consequence”-this process in it self clearly displays an intended directed, and designed end. To even suggest that evolution itself (if it were to exist) is by chance, it is contradicted by the intrinsic order observed within the supposed natural selection--actually taking the best result! Even the perceived concept of this order within our minds--could not come out of non purpose..
My brief response--to author Rachel’s response on the First Cause Argument
Rachael, indicating everything having to have a cause--but God having no cause, suggests that the Big bang “is as far as science could go[…] so it is as good a place to stop as any” (Problems: pg 23). Furthermore, (on pg 24) he states that the Big Bang could be equivalent to God (as a “mass of energy”). In the former he fails to include that the Big Bang required an identity outside of space and time, and in the latter, does not include the needed ontological properties (of Perfect Being, Order etc.) that is necessary for a Deciding Purpose--for our existence and for the Universe.
Rachael then attempting to undermine the ontological argument, suggests that (based on philosopher Hume) rather then a non rational religious explanation, we need a certain kind of background information. In the latter he fails to mention that we don’t necessarily require a religious explanation, and that reason (I.e. the argument that God is self evident) can satisfy the needed background information for the Universe. It is also worth mentioning that the proposition--of needing deliberate or religious background information on the concept of the Watch Maker--also has its flaws. Finding a star fish in the sand for instance, I would argue, conjures up an automatic innate mental response of artistic features--inferring an artist.
Rachael then suggests that the ontological argument (according to Gaunilo) would require a “perfect island” which in reality doesn’t exist. First, I would say that this argument limits his scope to things of space and time. How does he know that such an island does not exist? Just as the “greatest conceivable Being” can exist out side of space and time, I would argue that a pristine forest or meadow, as a finite reflection of a Perfect Creation, can exist co-Eternally outside of space and time. We see examples of this in the Biblical account concerning Heaven (like the future “Tree of Life and the River of life) revealing an ontological Perfection of Life.
“Evil and Omnipotence“--Mackie, and “The Problem of Evil”--Peterson
In light of my humble acknowledgement that there are problems for Evil, (in a temporal finite sense) I will preface the following in saying that my response to the arguments below, are predicated on the position (explored on pg. 74: Truth).of “expanded standard theism”--which by definition is “restricted standard theism”.(an omnipotent, omniscient, wholly good God)--conjoined with propositions about sin, [the fall of humanity in Genesis], God’s general purposes, and the afterlife“. It is summed up in this way:
1. An Omni Benevolent God has a good purpose for everything. 2. There is some evil for which we see no good purpose. 3. Therefore, there is a good purpose for all evil even if we don’t see it (Ankerberg Theological Reasearch Institute). To assert that evil and suffering is pointless, in light of God’s Omnipotence, Omniscience, and Benevolence, I would argue is a self contradiction. The latter Attributes (although ontologically self evident to us) are in our finite understanding--incomprehensible as to God’s purpose in allowing evil. This does not mean that one should be pleased with evil, especially in light of no apparent outweighing good. However, it does mean that one can be pleased (in light of His Overarching, Omnipotent, Benevolent good).
As to the so called “fallacious solutions” that philosopher Mackie argues against (beginning on pg 57:Truth), I would compromise my argument with the following: The propositions “Good cannot exist with out evil--or evil is a counterpart to good”, (the need for evil, to be able to know and understand--that there is a good), and the proposition: “The universe is better with some evil in it…” (to reveal the beauty of a contrast) I would argue is beneficial, and at best necessary, but not a “justification” for evil. As to the proposition: “Evil is due to human free will”, I disagree with the assumption against traditional theists--that God is “bound” or “limited” in His Omnipotence to the value of free will, in that it has to “out weigh it’s wrong”--as if evil and sin, in the larger scope of God’s Omnipotent Justice, will not be dealt with.
Why I am a TheistMany would argue that “Religion is the Opiate of the masses”. I would assert that Religion (or relationship with God) is the ontological opiate of the heart. For me, since I was a little boy, I was driven with the inner understanding that I was here for a purpose. That purpose, I would argue, is not rooted in a need to “make up a Deity” that satisfies my needs, but rooted in a self evident realization that my heart was created with a void--that only God could fill. Sure, there were and are many comforts, and various other “purposeful opiates” that can fill the gap, but from this writers experience, these purposes, comforts and pleasures of life--pointed to something of a greater Purpose to my existence.
I would therefore argue that our need for a parent, is reflected in our need for an ultimate ontological Parent. This Parent is not something (even if we lacked an earthly one) we make up in our minds, but rather a Deity that we were all created to search for. Many would argue that it’s the unfortunate, or the disfranchised that turn to God, out of some deficit in their lives. However, I would assert that many of the latter are simply more in touch with the deficit that we all have. There are others who choose to fill this void with other, especially materialistic opiates, yet covering up a deeper need that is unrealized and which is still longing.
I would claim that the First Cause argument and the Five proofs that St. Thomas asserted for the existence of God, are not just Universally reasonable, but also personally reasonable. To assert a First Cause shows one--that they don’t need to endlessly try to find love, peace, purpose, order, fulfillment and pleasure; it can be found in a Final--but inexhaustible Source…“And this we call God”
Brian Smith.
Why should we ponder about “a philosophical premise for the existence of God”? For one, in a post modern age of moral relativistic thinking, I see a need for the Church to be more equipped in providing more intelligent answers, based on reason, that backs up our faith. Although, the testimony of our lives should take the lead in witnessing to the gospel, I also believe that our well thought out answers to legitimate questions, can provide less room for ridicule among a cynical, and unbelieving generation--especially in the media.
I wrote the following essay in a philosophy class. My teacher, gave me an A on it, and mentioned that it was “very compelling”. It is my hope that your faith is strengthened and that perhaps this can prayerfully be a tool in appropriate situations.
Can God be ‘Proven‘? A Philosophical Premise for the Existence of God
St. Thomas Aquinas manifests the best of both worlds. He is a man of deep faith as well as a brilliant thinker. One could argue that Thomas carries with him a double edged sword, in as far as the “important truths”, he appeals both to the Authority of the Church--traced back to Christ Himself, and to the light of reason. However, as one who would not presume or impose the notion that God’s existence is strictly manifested through faith, he provides his readers the means of reason.
Nevertheless, for one to stubbornly assume that God’s existence and accessibility can only be proven strictly through reason to believe in Him, must also somehow--through reason discover for instance, why we exist at all, or why and how the Universe could “go on for infinity” with out a First Cause. In other words, a concept of an infinite Universe, I would argue--can also require faith.
My support for the First Cause ArgumentAs St Thomas expounds upon the Aristotelian construct of an “Uncaused Cause”, he introduces
his First Article: “whether the existence of God is self evident”. What is immediately striking concerning our innate conception of Someone or Something that is biggest, or final-- is the notion (also requiring faith), from a non theist position that “we are just here, with no Beginning or Finality”. Is this concept in any Universal sense “self evident”? I would say no. It seems to be more compelling that the “meaning of God” is more self evident in that we are wired to seek out directly or indirectly that which “nothing greater can be conceived”.
The non theist it would seem, must reject this conception in our mind, in favor of a more unnatural belief that “the universe is just here and that‘s all we can say” . The problem with this argument--is that the Universe is not just here, because it wasn’t here before. Moreover, any rational being has the innate deduction that Something or Someone caused “just here”, therefore pointing to this person--the intuitive reasoning in our minds of “nothing greater then can be conceived”.
From a theist to atheist approach, the philosopher Peter Kreeft argues (from his book: “A Shorter Summa”) concerning St Thomas’s address to the one who says: “There is no God”. Kreeft counters this by asserting: [if] “God lacks existence, this means the greatest conceivable being lacks one conceivable perfection--objective existence” therefore rejecting what contributes to the mental perfection in our minds, of “nothing greater then can be conceived”--its existence. This is compelling in that, the one who rejects the existence of God--also rejects what is mentally self evident to him (the intuitive reasoning--itself, of nothing greater then can be conceived).
The second article: “Whether it can be demonstrated that God exists.” The appeal to understanding God’s effects is demonstrated in that they are known to us. St. Thomas’s humility is noted in that he does not dogmatically assert that we can perfectly know God “as He is in His essence” (The Truth: pg 45) but does place confident emphasis on knowing God through His effects.
As the wind blows through the trees, I can’t see the wind in its essence, but I see its effects. I like how Kreeft notes this in his book “A shorter Summa”. “From knowing a footprint, we do not yet know the essence of feet, or have perfect adequate knowledge of feet, but we can know it’s existence”.
We have many examples of a middle term--or “posteriori“, which are effects that are better known to us. One is a need for order. Before I could sit down at this table with my laptop, I felt driven to remove the clutter--so that it would at least look clean, before I could relax and continue this assignment. This drive to have things in order--or at least look like they are in order, I would argue, points to the Finality of order. My wish that this table was in perfect order, is an effect of a higher order, or Uncaused Order--that needs to find Finality eventually.
Third Article: “Whether God Exists?--God can be proved in five ways.”
I believe Thomas’s “Five Proofs” become progressively compelling as each proof confirms the other in that they also demonstrate a tiered order of its own.
The first way from “Motion” is compelling to me given that, as St. Thomas says: “it is certain and evident to our senses” (Truth pg. 40). This observation with our senses, along with its reality, can’t even be avoided. Everything is moving but could not be if the Source of motion (in the same sense) was both mover and moved--that it should move it self. The chain of events that we see would not be seen and simply would not be here if there were infinite regress.
The second way of “Efficient Cause” from an Aristotelian perspective meant cause of change (form informing matter). From St Thomas’s view, it is also the cause of the very existence of its effect” (Kreeft: “a Short Summa). I find this stunning given that the latter indicates a creative act--like an efficient cause (or creative, purposeful act) of the Big Bang, and the efficient cause of the existence of space and time--all of which, I would argue had to originate from a First and Efficient Cause not prior to It Self.
The third way of “Possibility and Necessity” seems to challenge both the notion of chance, and the atheist notion of God’s non existence. Thomas says: “If everything is possible not
to be (given an infinite amount of time)[…]even now there would be nothing in existence”. But obviously, as contingent beings, our existence could not have come out of nonexistence--but only from our dependence from a Necessary Being--not dependent upon another. Thomas also says: “not all beings are merely possible”. In other words, anything that is dependent could not merely (by chance) get here. Dependence infers Necessity, which I would argue--infers some kind of “Purpose” or “Decision”.
Someone or Something which is necessary for our existence, infers a Mind to purposefully decide our existence. On the other hand, mindless matter cannot conceive of, or produce our existence, because it cannot choose for us--to be. Therefore, only a Mind, not prior to it Self, and upon which all creation is contingent, can conceive of and produce “existence“.
The fourth way of “gradation” to be found in things seems to challenge the concept of moral relativism. Goodness, truth and beauty can be achieved or experienced in degrees, but conjures up an intuitively self evident reasoning in our minds--an ontological Perfection and Finality. In order for us to achieve any degree in these things, we presuppose a contingency upon a Standard of Finality that doesn’t cease or change. When achieving a degree in any of these things, we presuppose a standard that doesn’t change, (in order to reach any degree of goodness, truth and beauty). In other words, a Final Standard that “doesn’t exist”, or which shifts and changes, would entail non existent, or unattainable degrees of goodness, truth and beauty--to follow. Moreover, the latter presents a dilemma for the individuals who insist upon a relativistic moral goodness, that is intrinsically “his own truth versus her own truth”, and that is not Final, Objective, and Unchanging. That which is not essentially consistent and whole, is subsequently , and ultimately by definition, not thoroughly “good” to begin with. If “my” goodness is intrinsically and ultimately different then “her” goodness, and is not contingent upon a Final, Objective, and Unchanging Truth, then our so called goodness being divided, fails to be consistently good--pointing to the necessity for a goodness that is whole, and therefore a goodness that is Changeless, Final and Complete.
The fifth and final way relates to the “governance of the world.” This reminds me of the Intelligent by design argument, at least in one of its forms. St. Thomas speaks of the unintelligent creatures nearly all acting the same way, so as to obtain the best result, (in both animal and human settings) and how an unintelligent creature could not move towards an end, accept it be “directed and endowed with knowledge and intelligence”. Even for the sake of argument, if creatures were the product of a “process of random unintended consequence”-this process in it self clearly displays an intended directed, and designed end. To even suggest that evolution itself (if it were to exist) is by chance, it is contradicted by the intrinsic order observed within the supposed natural selection--actually taking the best result! Even the perceived concept of this order within our minds--could not come out of non purpose..
My brief response--to author Rachel’s response on the First Cause Argument
Rachael, indicating everything having to have a cause--but God having no cause, suggests that the Big bang “is as far as science could go[…] so it is as good a place to stop as any” (Problems: pg 23). Furthermore, (on pg 24) he states that the Big Bang could be equivalent to God (as a “mass of energy”). In the former he fails to include that the Big Bang required an identity outside of space and time, and in the latter, does not include the needed ontological properties (of Perfect Being, Order etc.) that is necessary for a Deciding Purpose--for our existence and for the Universe.
Rachael then attempting to undermine the ontological argument, suggests that (based on philosopher Hume) rather then a non rational religious explanation, we need a certain kind of background information. In the latter he fails to mention that we don’t necessarily require a religious explanation, and that reason (I.e. the argument that God is self evident) can satisfy the needed background information for the Universe. It is also worth mentioning that the proposition--of needing deliberate or religious background information on the concept of the Watch Maker--also has its flaws. Finding a star fish in the sand for instance, I would argue, conjures up an automatic innate mental response of artistic features--inferring an artist.
Rachael then suggests that the ontological argument (according to Gaunilo) would require a “perfect island” which in reality doesn’t exist. First, I would say that this argument limits his scope to things of space and time. How does he know that such an island does not exist? Just as the “greatest conceivable Being” can exist out side of space and time, I would argue that a pristine forest or meadow, as a finite reflection of a Perfect Creation, can exist co-Eternally outside of space and time. We see examples of this in the Biblical account concerning Heaven (like the future “Tree of Life and the River of life) revealing an ontological Perfection of Life.
“Evil and Omnipotence“--Mackie, and “The Problem of Evil”--Peterson
In light of my humble acknowledgement that there are problems for Evil, (in a temporal finite sense) I will preface the following in saying that my response to the arguments below, are predicated on the position (explored on pg. 74: Truth).of “expanded standard theism”--which by definition is “restricted standard theism”.(an omnipotent, omniscient, wholly good God)--conjoined with propositions about sin, [the fall of humanity in Genesis], God’s general purposes, and the afterlife“. It is summed up in this way:
1. An Omni Benevolent God has a good purpose for everything. 2. There is some evil for which we see no good purpose. 3. Therefore, there is a good purpose for all evil even if we don’t see it (Ankerberg Theological Reasearch Institute). To assert that evil and suffering is pointless, in light of God’s Omnipotence, Omniscience, and Benevolence, I would argue is a self contradiction. The latter Attributes (although ontologically self evident to us) are in our finite understanding--incomprehensible as to God’s purpose in allowing evil. This does not mean that one should be pleased with evil, especially in light of no apparent outweighing good. However, it does mean that one can be pleased (in light of His Overarching, Omnipotent, Benevolent good).
As to the so called “fallacious solutions” that philosopher Mackie argues against (beginning on pg 57:Truth), I would compromise my argument with the following: The propositions “Good cannot exist with out evil--or evil is a counterpart to good”, (the need for evil, to be able to know and understand--that there is a good), and the proposition: “The universe is better with some evil in it…” (to reveal the beauty of a contrast) I would argue is beneficial, and at best necessary, but not a “justification” for evil. As to the proposition: “Evil is due to human free will”, I disagree with the assumption against traditional theists--that God is “bound” or “limited” in His Omnipotence to the value of free will, in that it has to “out weigh it’s wrong”--as if evil and sin, in the larger scope of God’s Omnipotent Justice, will not be dealt with.
Why I am a TheistMany would argue that “Religion is the Opiate of the masses”. I would assert that Religion (or relationship with God) is the ontological opiate of the heart. For me, since I was a little boy, I was driven with the inner understanding that I was here for a purpose. That purpose, I would argue, is not rooted in a need to “make up a Deity” that satisfies my needs, but rooted in a self evident realization that my heart was created with a void--that only God could fill. Sure, there were and are many comforts, and various other “purposeful opiates” that can fill the gap, but from this writers experience, these purposes, comforts and pleasures of life--pointed to something of a greater Purpose to my existence.
I would therefore argue that our need for a parent, is reflected in our need for an ultimate ontological Parent. This Parent is not something (even if we lacked an earthly one) we make up in our minds, but rather a Deity that we were all created to search for. Many would argue that it’s the unfortunate, or the disfranchised that turn to God, out of some deficit in their lives. However, I would assert that many of the latter are simply more in touch with the deficit that we all have. There are others who choose to fill this void with other, especially materialistic opiates, yet covering up a deeper need that is unrealized and which is still longing.
I would claim that the First Cause argument and the Five proofs that St. Thomas asserted for the existence of God, are not just Universally reasonable, but also personally reasonable. To assert a First Cause shows one--that they don’t need to endlessly try to find love, peace, purpose, order, fulfillment and pleasure; it can be found in a Final--but inexhaustible Source…“And this we call God”
Brian Smith.
3 comments:
I've only gotten to point 3 “Possibility and Necessity” but this point has proven very profound. I like what you say here "even now there would be nothing in existence”. But obviously, as contingent beings, our existence could not have come out of nonexistence--but only from our dependence from a Necessary Being--not dependent upon another." I love this statement to me this tells me how real God turly is. There is no question about a greater being. Amen on this point. I have to leave now so I will finish this later and comment again...thanks Brian for thinking deeply about these matter.
Thank you Sharon....I know this stuff gets kind of technical, but it is a side that also needs to be expressed.
To Anonymous...your post may have accidentally
been deleted...my email contact is
Brilion63@aol.com
Brian Smith
Post a Comment