Can "God" be found through reason?

[AqAd]

Cole,

That isn't necessarily the case: Catholicism holds that the existence of God can be known through reason. Read Aquinas.

(Note: I'm not an Objectivist, but an ex-atheist Catholic. I certainly appreciate Rand's spirited defense of capitalism, but, for obvious reasons, I don't subscribe to her philosophy.)

[TomL]

That isn't necessarily the case: Catholicism holds that the existence of God can be known through reason. Read Aquinas.

There isn't anyway of doing so without committing some error in logic. The first of which, (already pointed out several times) is even asking the question "Does God exist?" in the first place, since there is absolutely no scientific evidence to even suggest the possibility of god(s) to begin with. That it is, its an arbitrary question (with no reference to facts of reality) and is dismissable out-of-hand as such.

At some point, you've got to confuse emotion with reason in order to use reason to "know" that God exists (or with perception, or knowledge itself). Emotions are not a means of perception, a means of knowledge, or a process of reason. As far as Aquinas, I'm sure there is someone around here who has read it already and can point out the specific errors he made...anyone?

[Cole]

That isn't necessarily the case: Catholicism holds that the existence of God can be known through reason. Read Aquinas.

If that's true (that the existence of God can be known through reason), then what is supernatural about the belief? Your assertion is that God can be proven in the natural realm, without references to realms that are unperceivable by man. This is naturalism- not supernaturalism.

[Cole]

(Note: I'm not an Objectivist, but an ex-atheist Catholic. I certainly appreciate Rand's spirited defense of capitalism, but, for obvious reasons, I don't subscribe to her philosophy.)

Being that you are a Catholic, and that " Catholicism holds that the existence of God can be known through reason," please logically prove the existence of God. What evidence did you discover that caused you to reject atheism and adopt theism?

[AqAd]

Cole,

The process was not immediate but gradual, though certainly Aquinas' "five ways" were part of the picture. If you want a brief layman's explanation, go here: http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics/first-cause.htm I would still recommend going directly to Aquinas' "Summa Theologica", however. Furthermore, I would agree with the comments of former atheist Antony Flew (whose 1950 atheist essay, "Theology and Falsification" had been much prized by me) that biologists' investigation of DNA "has shown, by the almost unbelievable complexity of the arrangements which are needed to produce life, that intelligence must have been involved. " In short, without the purposeful mechanism of reproduction "built in", no spark of life could ever have been sustained. This smacks of some kind of intelligent design, though this does not mean that I am necessarily subscribing to the movement that describes itself with that title (usually with capital letters).

In addition, I met a brilliant physicist/priest at a conference who had a number of interesting observations regarding the philosphical implications of the finite universe---I've been chewing on that for some time...

Oh, and you asked, what is supernatural about the belief in the existence of God, if it can be shown by reason? Nothing.

Edited March 10, 2005 by AqAd

[AqAd]

TomL,

No, it's not an arbitrary question. Again, think of the very first spark of life on this planet: unless that very first cell has reproduction "programmed" into it, it dies and no evolution is possible. How does reproduction, as a function, evolve from extremely primitive life forms without being present from the beginning? Yet reproduction is a very complex mechanism, even in simple cells. DNA is very complex. So, irreducible complexity is one bit of evidence. The finiteness of the universe is another, as it brings in both design and first cause questions. The question is hardly arbitrary, which is why it has been asked through the centuries and continues to be asked now.

[TomL]

biologists' investigation of DNA "has shown, by the almost unbelievable complexity of the arrangements which are needed to produce life, that intelligence must have been involved. "

We've all heard the "argument by design" before. It is not reason. It is arbitrary, and utilizes a false dichotomy (which is a logical error). It follows the outline:

--

"Oh, look. X is rather complex. How did it come to be?" (Note: question is arbitrary).

"Well, there's only two possibilities: either it happened by chance, or some intelligence designed it that way."

--

Holy false dichomoties, Batman.

There is a third alternative, other than the two considered. It is called: the law of causality. It says that even though X is rather complex, its complexity was caused by other existents and factors, which may not be obvious, and may not even be available for examination any longer.

Consider all the millions of species of plants and animals that have gone out of existence over the course of history due to an inability to survive. Despite the fact they aren't around anymore doesn't mean they didn't happen, and they did have a big role to play in evolution.

Now extrapolate for a moment in the other direction - pre-DNA. Obviously, there was some other form of life that gave rise to, and eventually, gave way to, DNA -- just as superior mutations of animals take over from their inferior ancestors (and the ancestors go out of existence).

[TomL]

No, it's not an arbitrary question. Again, think of the very first spark of life on this planet:

It is arbitrary to man's life, because man does not need to answer the question in order to know what he must do while he is alive. There is no reason on this earth to ponder or even pose the question, because its answer (regardless of what it is) will not be useful to him. He still must think, work & produce, if he is not going to lay down and starve to death from inaction, or if he is going to attain any measure of true happiness.

unless that very first cell has reproduction "programmed" into it, it dies and no evolution is possible. How does reproduction, as a function, evolve from extremely primitive life forms without being present from the beginning?

Who cares? How is that going to change my life? It can't and it won't. But to humor you: its entirely possible that something existed which generated cells, and at some point cells evolved the ability to divide, thereby obsoleting their old creator.

Yet reproduction is a very complex mechanism, even in simple cells. DNA is very complex. So, irreducible complexity is one bit of evidence.

These are not irreducible, as I have stated in this post and the previous one. Just because there is no existent now which could have been a predecessor to DNA, doesn't mean that such a predecessor -never- existed. It must have.

The finiteness of the universe is another, as it brings in both design and first cause questions. The question is hardly arbitrary, which is why it has been asked through the centuries and continues to be asked now.

The finiteness or infiniteness of the universe is a question of semantics. First cause questions are only raised by determinists who do not acknowledge the law of causality (which we've already established).

But then we have the ultimate contradiction in your argument. If the question "Do god(s) exist?" is given rise to by the "facts" of the "irreducible" complexity of DNA, the "finiteness" of the universe, etc.... how did man come up with that question before he knew of the existence of DNA or even that the universe extended beyond this earth -- because -that's- how long the question has been asked.

The fact is, you are trying to validate your god(s) upside down. Facts of reality give rise to valid questions -- you cannot turn the process upside down and use newly learned facts of reality to "explain" older, arbitrary questions. The facts -must- come first, or the question is by definition, arbitrary.

[Styles2112]

The fact is, you are trying to validate your god(s) upside down.  Facts of reality give rise to valid questions -- you cannot turn the process upside down and use newly learned facts of reality to "explain" older, arbitrary questions.  The facts -must- come first, or the question is by definition, arbitrary.

That makes no sense whatsoever. If the facts are there, what need is there for questions?

Or are you saying, that an observation needs to come first? (sorry, the epiphany is just hitting me here)

are we looking at:

A) I want to prove that dragons exist, but I have no proof now. However, ten years later, we find a bone that doesn't fit the known species list, so I call it a dragon bone.

or

I notice that wind carries lighter items away from the ground, and heavier items remain. So, after studying more I find Gravitation and how strong it is relative to the worlds.

(Forgive me, as my examples are piss poor, but I'm just trying to understand what you're getting at.)

I'm not sure if you're saying that you can't have a question without having the answer first, or if you can't have a question without having an observation first.

EDIT- for poor spelling.

Edited March 10, 2005 by Styles2112

[non-contradictor]

What I got from that statement is that valid questions are something like: I wonder what makes X happen, where X is a fact of reality. You can't start by asking what makes X happen without knowing about X. Applying this to the God example, you can't ask if God exists without having a fact of reality to use God to explain. What I mean is, you have to start with something real, and then come up with things to explain it. You don't start with the explanation. The existence of God is used as an explanation for a lot of things, however, I think the point is that people belived in God before they knew that those things existed (such as the complexity of DNA).

[Styles2112]

Yeah, I think at first, I interpreted it as, not asking questions to things that can't be explained.

[AqAd]

TomL,

I didn't posit any false dichotomy---you did, by stating what I said as, "Well, there's only two possibilities: either it happened by chance, or some intelligence designed it that way." Don't put words into my mouth. Nor am I arguing against causality---quite the opposite: the universe is contingent, and its contingency is an observation which can be used for the argument for the existence of God. Throwing that in as a "third alternative" to a dichotomy that I didn't posit is muddled thinking, at best.

Regarding your pre-DNA speculations: all well and fine, but you have ignored the main point that I raised: reproduction has to be present, (pre-programmed, if you will) for there to be any mutations, superior or inferior, to be passed along to evolve. If, as some scientists speculate, a primordial soup was zapped with electricity to create life, then that life, in order to begin the evolutionary process, must have purposeful reproduction "pre-programmed" into it. Otherwise, the primitive life form dies, and all we have are primitive life forms being brought to life by lightning bolts time and time again, and all dying without mutating into anything. So your later statement, "some point cells evolved the ability to divide", simply evades that very important point: unless cells are already programmed to divide, they can't evolve the ability to divide---they just die.

Regarding the arbitrariness of the question, "is there a God?": following your line of reasoning, there would be no good reason to employ one's brain investigating any number of scientific realms. If, as you say, a question is arbitrary if "man does not need to answer the question in order to know what he must do while he is alive", then scientific inquiry is dead unless it can be shown to have a specific utilitarian purpose. That's a sad reduction of the proper use of the mind, in my opinion, but that's beside the point. It's beside the point because the answer to the question, "is there a God?", most certainly is needed, to use your words, "in order to know what he must do while he is alive". I would recommend a short booklet by the physicist and author Stanley Yaki called, "Why The Question: Is There A God?".

I thought he had some helpful insights on this topic.

You state: "The finiteness or infiniteness of the universe is a question of semantics." I confess to being amazed at this statement of yours. No, it's not a question of semantics: the difference between finite and infinite is real, as are the implications of that difference. I'm quite surprised that you don't see that--perhaps you could explain further and clarify that?

In answer to your question, "how did man come up with that question before he knew of the existence of DNA or even that the universe extended beyond this earth?": the finiteness of things has always been perceived by man. Extending this to the universe or to DNA are simply extensions of that observation---which is why the question has not been, and is not now, arbitrary. So no, I am not doing as you suggest, using "newly learned facts of reality to "explain" older, arbitrary questions".

I'll be gone most of the day, so don't be offended if it takes me a while to answer any responses you may have.

[Marc K.]

That isn't necessarily the case: Catholicism holds that the existence of God can be known through reason. Read Aquinas.

(Note: I'm not an Objectivist, but an ex-atheist Catholic. I certainly appreciate Rand's spirited defense of capitalism, but, for obvious reasons, I don't subscribe to her philosophy.)

AqAd:

Please read the forum rules. Your proselytizing is not welcome here.

This is a forum for students of Objectivism and fans of Ayn Rand.

There are plenty of other sites on the internet where you can indulge your irrationality.

To everyone else: this person is an obvious troll, please don't continue to sanction his behavior.

[ChristopherSchlegel]

As far as Aquinas, I'm sure there is someone around here who has read it already and can point out the specific errors he made...anyone?

I would still recommend going directly to Aquinas' "Summa Theologica", however. 

Oh, and you asked, what is supernatural about the belief in the existence of God, if it can be shown by reason? Nothing.

I grew up in a Catholic family. I went to parochial schools for a few early years & then high school (with public schools in between). Therefore, I had to study & take classes in theology in a farily serious manner; at least compared to individuals without a religious environment/family/background. I mention this merely as a preface to why I am interjecting a post into this thread.

Thomas Aquinas' "Summa Theologica" contains 5 "proofs" (or "5 ways") by which Aquinas sought to prove the exist of God by means of human reason. The proofs are categorized as either cosmological, moral or teleological. In a sense, they are all about "first causes". They are supposed to be rational, logical deductions based upon the one observable (thus, inductive) fact that the universe (i.e. reality) does exist.

This site clearly outlines the "five ways":

http://www.faithnet.org.uk/AS%20Subjects/P...on/fiveways.htm

For those interested, there is a web based, cross-referenced version of Aquinas' work here http://www.newadvent.org/summa/ that is very well ogranized.

It is important to note that until Aquinas, religious thinkers largely regarded the existence of God to be an unquestionable primary & the experiencing of God to be accomplished in a mystical, intuitive manner. The early religious made no bones about the fact that they viewed Man as a pitiful little creature at the mercy of an all-powerful God in a wildly unknowable universe full of supernatural events (both good & bad). Aquinas is worthy of respect (at least in my estimation) because he reversed the trend of centuries of explicit mysticism by upholding human reason as the ultimate tool of comprehending a knowable universe. Further, it is important to note that Aquinas tried to use empirical observation as a basis for his reasoning; as opposed to divine intervention, mystical insight, supernatural intuition, or any other means of claiming to "just know" something without any reference to reality beyond the speaker ability to claim that it is so.

However, Aquinas noted that his proofs were not really "proof" of really anything more than the ability of human reason to construct a concept that may or may not relate to anything in reality: "Yet, granted that everyone understands that by this name God is signified something than which nothing greater can be thought, nevertheless, it does not therefore follow that he understands that what the name signifies exists actually; but only that it exists mentally."

Furthermore, Aquinas said: "We cannot know what God is, but only what He is not."

The various proofs have been of course debunked a number of times throughout history. I will not go into detail here, you can "google it" for yourself if you are curious. I can elaborate if necessary in a future post. Or perhaps if there are enough interested individuals a new thread should be created for the sole purpose of discussing Aquinas' Five Ways. For the context of this thread in this forum, I can merely say that Objectivist aware of the basics in metaphysics & epistemology will, of course, merely dismiss Aquinas' proofs as flawed because each contains irreconcilable metaphysical contradictions. For example one of the ways states: "Things exist in the world but they need not." This of course is a failure to distinguish between the metaphysical & the man-made.

This site http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics/first-cause.htm, mentioned by "AqAd", contains info about the proofs. Near the beginning of the essay it says: "The argument is basically very simple, natural, intuitive, and commonsensical. We have to become complex and clever in order to doubt or dispute it."

I call this putting a "nice face" on psychological intimidation. In fact, as an Objectivist (& therefore an atheist) I hold the exact opposite is true.

For example, if you start out by assessing existence from an infant human perspective then move through life chronologically & epistemologically (perceptions, identifying isolated concrete objects, forming abstract concepts based on concretes and finally building abstractions from abstractions based on concretes) it is 100% certain that a human can survive, grow, and live a profoundly morally happy existence by observing reality via the five senses, forming concepts based on rational thought & not ever think about God much less believe in God.

But, I am going to take a step back off of my hard-line Objectivist/atheist stance for just a moment & work from an "Aquinas type of perspective".

1. The universe (the physical manifestation of reality/existence) exists. Existence exists.

2. The universe's real/physical existence is due to some equally real/physical cause. It had to "come from somewhere/be caused by something".

3. We will refer in a general manner to all the natural phenomenon of forces, causes and/or processes by which the universe exists by the term "god".

Genesis says in a vague and grandiose manner "God Created...(and so on)" However, it does not specify any sort of process. This is like saying "When it rains, the angels are crying". These statements are "poetic metaphors" or "sort of artsy" (depending on your tastes). But they don't describe the actual process of rain occurring. The process itself is due to various non-conscious, non-volitional, inanimate, natural (as opposed to supernatural/mystical) processes. Natural processes are potentially understandable and describable by man. In fact, assuming one wants to go so far as saying "god" is real in ANY sense whatsoever it must be as some sort of natural process.

Considering these assumptions, what justification is there for making the leap to thinking this "god" in #3 is: conscious, volitional, or Christian?

None.

I hope I have added something useful here, sorry if I wasted anyone's time.

[AisA]

Nor am I arguing against causality---quite the opposite: the universe is contingent, and its contingency is an observation which can be used for the argument for the existence of God. Throwing that in as a "third alternative" to a dichotomy that I didn't posit is muddled thinking, at best.

Christopher made some great points. In addition, let me remind you that the law of causality does not state that everything has a cause. It states that all actions are actions of entities, and that the action an entity is capable of is determined by its identity, i.e. by what kind of entity it is.

Thus, the law of identity does not state that the universe must have a cause.

The universe is in fact eternal. It has always existed and always will.

The assertion that the universe must be explained, that something had to cause it, is just that: an unsupported assertion. It is nonsensical to claim that the universe needs an explanation but god does not. Nothing justifies such a distinction.

Regarding your pre-DNA speculations: all well and fine, but you have ignored the main point that I raised: reproduction has to be present, (pre-programmed, if you will) for there to be any mutations, superior or inferior, to be passed along to evolve. If, as some scientists speculate, a primordial soup was zapped with electricity to create life, then that life, in order to begin the evolutionary process, must have purposeful reproduction "pre-programmed" into it. Otherwise, the primitive life form dies, and all we have are primitive life forms being brought to life by lightning bolts time and time again, and all dying without mutating into anything. So your later statement, "some point cells evolved the ability to divide", simply evades that very important point: unless cells are already programmed to divide, they can't evolve the ability to divide---they just die.

The lack of an explanation for a phenomena is not evidence of the existence of god.

At one time, man did not have an explanation for lightning -- and some claimed that it must be caused by god. But it isn't.

At one time, man did not have an explanation for wind -- and some claimed that it must be caused by god. But it isn't.

At one time, man did not have an explanation for why the sun sets and rises -- and some claimed that it must be caused by god. But it isn't.

You get the point. The fact that man is not omniscient and does not posses all knowledge automatically is proof of nothing.

[TomL]

I didn't posit any false dichotomy---you did, by stating what I said as, "Well, there's only two possibilities: either it happened by chance, or some intelligence designed it that way." Don't put words into my mouth.  Nor am I arguing against causality---quite the opposite

but you have ignored the main point that I raised: reproduction has to be present, (pre-programmed, if you will) for there to be any mutations, superior or inferior, to be passed along to evolve.

That is exactly what you are doing. You are saying that reproduction cannot be caused (that instead, it has to be present, somehow). I have already said that reproduction could be a result of evolution. Even though now evolution depends upon reproduction, it doesn't follow that it always must have been so.

Because your argument is exactly what I said it was, and because you are failing to acknowledge this fact through evasion of what I have said, it clear to me that you are fundamentally dishonest, and not worth arguing with. We will get nowhere. I suggest you go find some other dishonest people to keep company, you won't find any here.

Edited March 10, 2005 by TomL

[ChristopherSchlegel]

Christopher made some great points.

Thanks very much.

In addition, let me remind you that the law of causality does not state that everything has a cause....

& thanks for picking up right where I left off by explicitly stating the proper Objectivists principles. Well done.

The lack of an explanation for a phenomena is not evidence of the existence of god...The fact that man is not omniscient and does not posses all knowledge automatically is proof of nothing.

Exactly. This whole "Argument From Design" was originally based upon Aquinas' 5th way (his teleological argument).

"The fifth way is taken from the governance of the world. We see that things which lack knowledge, such as natural bodies, act for an end, and this is evident from their acting always, or nearly always, in the same way, so as to obtain the best result. Hence it is plain that they achieve their end, not fortuitously, but designedly. Now whatever lacks knowledge cannot move towards an end, unless it be directed by some being endowed with knowledge and intelligence; as the arrow is directed by the archer. Therefore, some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are directed to their end; and this being we call God."

Like all arguments for theism there are so many sloppy definitions, holes & non-sequiturs it is difficult to figure out where to start. Which goes back to my earlier point about "arguments for God's existence" actually being the complex, contrived, burdensome ones; while the Objectivist principles are actually the simple, straightforward, "natural philosophy" ones.

It is one hell of a lot more HONEST to merely disregard all these arguments as pointless from the beginning.

[Styles2112]

If the conclusion can be scientifically proven, then it's not supernatural.  The purpose of science is to discover the nature of reality. Supernaturalism is based in the theory that there is more to reality than what can be percieved by humans, and therefore the theory must ultimately be grounded in faith.

That's true. I suppose it's really semantics. They're simply saying the exact same thing with different words.

[AqAd]

Marc K.,

I have read the forum rules, and I am complying with them. I am studying Objectivism, having read VOS, AS, OPAR, C:TUI, The Fountainhead, and others. I am certainly not here to "proselytize"---I merely responded to the assertion, "Supernaturalism is based in the theory that there is more to reality than what can be percieved by humans, and therefore the theory must ultimately be grounded in faith", with the observation that Thomistic Catholicism holds that the existence of God can be arrived at by use of reason. That's all. I have responded to the subsequent questions. There is no need on your part to be hostile; to be honest, you damage your credibility when you engage in such hostility.

ChristopherSchlegel,

Thank you for your more thoughtful response. Now, I disagree with your statement, "For example one of the ways states: 'Things exist in the world but they need not.' This of course is a failure to distinguish between the metaphysical & the man-made." The point I would make, however, is that my disgreement is not based on faith, but on reason. My only point in posting at all was to correct the assertion that belief in God must be based on faith, not reason: since I have been accused already of "proselytizing" and "irrationality" by Marc K, and of being "fundamentally dishonest" by TomL, I have to assume that I will be kicked off this list if I explain my views and why I disagree and how I came to my position. Clearly, rational exchange is not welcomed here. It makes preserving one's ideas easier to do, that's for sure, which may explain the hostility. Still, ideas are either strong enough to withstand examination or they're not---the fortress mentality displayed here does not speak well for the strength and rationality of the philosophy.

[Cole]

That's true.  I suppose it's really semantics.  They're simply saying the exact same thing with different words.

Reading Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology will help you to understand the basis for our objective theory of definitions. Saying "it's really semantics" does not end the discussion, becuase inaccurate definitions can be proven as such.

I don't understand your last sentence. Which two words have the exact same meaning? I figured that when you refered to it as being a matter of semantics, you meant that we disagreed on what the word "supernatural" means.

[Cole]

I merely responded to the assertion, "Supernaturalism is based in the theory that there is more to reality than what can be percieved by humans, and therefore the theory must ultimately be grounded in faith", with the observation that Thomistic Catholicism holds that the existence of God can be arrived at by use of reason. That's all. I have responded to the subsequent questions.

Yet you avoided the question I asked to you in my repsonse.

(Post #154)

[AqAd]

TomL,

I have a little more time, so I will correct one of your mistatements regarding my position:

You stated that, "You are saying that reproduction cannot be caused (that instead, it has to be present, somehow)." No, I did not say that reproduction cannot be caused. I did say that it can not evolve, as reproduction is a necessary precondition for evolution to take place. You are putting the cart before the horse, and words in my mouth which I did not speak.

There was no reason to call me dishonest---my words have been, I hope, quite clear and plain, and I have nowhere said something contrary to honesty, nor do I have any desire to. Really, this is high-school or college-level maturity (or rather, immaturity) on display: you need to be able to learn to disagree firmly but without ad hominem attacks.

[AqAd]

Cole,

No, I did not avoid your question, but answered in an earlier post (#156). The answer to your question is, simply, nothing.

[TomL]

No, I did not say that reproduction cannot be caused. I did say that it can not evolve, as reproduction is a necessary precondition for evolution to take place.

There is no difference. You are saying that reproduction cannot be caused by evolution. Same thing. And even though I have said that just because it is so now, it does not follow that it was always so (that reproduction is a precondition for evolution).

I am saying, for the 3rd time, that evolution may have caused reproduction. I wll even add that something else besides evolution and reproduction -- some process which is no longer present in biology, may have caused reproduction. I do not see how you can evade this, or dismiss it. If you choose to evade this for the 3rd time, I will make no more replies to your posts.

[AqAd]

TomL,

No, saying that a certain feature (in this case, an action) cannot have evolved is not the same thing as saying it has no cause. I don't see how you can derive that from what I wrote. And yes, I am using the terms "evolve" and "evolution" to describe the process as it is currently understood by evolutionary biologists. If you wish to posit a new theory of evolution, then I would be most interested in entertaining your theory.

As an aside, another individual (AisA) has posited that, "The universe is in fact eternal. It has always existed and always will". Now, it's been a while since I read Ayn Rand's works, but as I recall this was an essential pillar of Objectivism (or perhaps that was a concept advanced in OPAR). My question is: is my recollection correct, or is this a private belief of AisA?