The Existence of god

[PrinceMyshkin]

[QUOTE=firefangled;419741]

I would imagine that many peolpe who want to get to the bottom (or top) of this mytery may have started with Aquinas (although that is certainly not necessary). Personnaly I pleasantly had the wind knocked out me by Aquinas and Augustine, being the rosary toting, novena celebrating, mass going Catholic kid that I was. But the quotes here all pose incredibly intelligent questions and statements.

And so I don't have to keep stating that this is just my opinion, I say it here at the top. As I have stated elsewhere, I generally step on tender areas unintentionally when I attempt this, so forgive me if I do.

First, Bii hit the year-nail on the head. All of the debate from time immemorial speaks from the position of God hanging around for a google of millenia and then deciding to create the universe. I don't see it that way. The purported supreme intelligence of God is predicated on intelligence as we experience it. The same goes for the characteristic of omniscient, omnipotent and infinite. We see intelligence mostly as something focused. We have to see it that way to analyze it quanitatively. God is outside these types of analyses because the intelligence of God is somewhat an unfocused intelligence. The closest example we can identify with in abstract art, Jackson Pollock, if you will.

The focus of God's intelligence comes from us!! We invented the awareness of God and thus are responsible for God's existence. This is not meant to be a figurative statement. Before us we had a spontaneous transformation of highly concentrated matter and energy intrinsically endowed with intelligence as ubiquitous and embedded as cosmic background radiation has come to be known. As we evolved, so did the focus of God. This is not to detract from the eternal nature of God, not as depicted in the Holy books of the world's cultures, but nevertheless always was and always will be. As Prince points out, inspired humans wrote the bible, humans like we who are discussing this very matter here. They tried to express the same thoughts as we. Our advantage is the insight into ourselves and the universe and the very nature of matter and energy, which in fact is God's insight. God is alive through us. God knows God through us. We are the image and likeness because we are a mirror.

So how does God know what will happen for all time? God doesn't know that. We have all heard that time itself does not exist, it is a construct. We have all heard that one of the current hypotheses for reality is that it is multi-layered, there are many universes within the fabric space/time. So, everything happens at once. Past, present and future are fabrications we use to make sense of something "beyond our existence." The idea of an omnicient God is an attempt to reconcile a multi-layered universe with what was available in 3000 B.C. for the Bible, much earlier for Hebrew, Muslim and Hindu holy books, I think.

This way of God existing is quite backwards from traditional thinking as far as I know. It is present in the poetry of Rilke and possibly others. God knows what we are thinking because we know what we are thinking. We know what we are going to do (if even unconsciously) before we do it.

However, there are unpredictable events in the universe(s). Although, given a high-level view of all parallel realities, that would be much diminished from what we mean by that in this reality, given this hypothetical scientific POV.

In the end, this should not diminish one's faith or belief, just as knowing the way a play is written does not diminish our enjoyment of it. God is much like these boards, given they would not shut them down if no one posted. They would still exist, the intelligent idea behind them would be there, but they would have no focus or life. The End.

The end, or yet a still-in-progress, ever-in-progress poem on that seemingly inexhaustible question? Yet one more reason for 'God' - if reason at all is needed - is to be the subject of such, simultaneously passionate and dispassionate thinking.

I am sorry for being Thread-piggy Jr. (you are older than me Prince).

But wisdom and love and truthfulness are not inevitable concommitants of chronological age. (But thanks, I suppose, for delivering me from the temptation to pursue any of the younger than 72-year old nymphets on this site!)

[Noisms]

Which takes you back to the beginning of this circular argument, i.e., the Bible or other central book for other religions. God must be good because in the Bible God is demonstrated to be good. But on the other hand, is 'God' is inscrutable, can we ever know what he means by "good"? Therefore 'He' might indeed - for those inscrutable reasons - have chosen the worst possible option (in our eyes and experience).

This is where faith comes in. Nobody ever said religious thought had to be completely rational! (If they did, they were wrong, anyway.) It's one of the things religious people are called to do: just shut your eyes and have faith that things are the way there are for the best possible reasons.

A really hard-wired Deist, a dyed-in the-wool deist, a this must be true otherwise what is the point of life - of my life, especially deist would argue anything other than contemplate even for a moment that there may be an explanation for existence other than a deity, and no compulsion to be moral other than a) one is happier that way or b) morality is the only guarantee of the species' survival.

Sure. That's what I meant. A Deist's morals are what they are for reasons outside what God is; God created the world for reasons inexplicable, and there is no compulsion to see him as innately good.

[PrinceMyshkin]

[QUOTE=firefangled;419741]

I would imagine that many peolpe who want to get to the bottom (or top) of this mytery may have started with Aquinas (although that is certainly not necessary). Personnaly I pleasantly had the wind knocked out me by Aquinas and Augustine, being the rosary toting, novena celebrating, mass going Catholic kid that I was. But the quotes here all pose incredibly intelligent questions and statements.

And so I don't have to keep stating that this is just my opinion, I say it here at the top. As I have stated elsewhere, I generally step on tender areas unintentionally when I attempt this, so forgive me if I do.

First, Bii hit the year-nail on the head. All of the debate from time immemorial speaks from the position of God hanging around for a google of millenia and then deciding to create the universe. I don't see it that way. The purported supreme intelligence of God is predicated on intelligence as we experience it. The same goes for the characteristic of omniscient, omnipotent and infinite. We see intelligence mostly as something focused. We have to see it that way to analyze it quanitatively. God is outside these types of analyses because the intelligence of God is somewhat an unfocused intelligence. The closest example we can identify with in abstract art, Jackson Pollock, if you will.

The focus of God's intelligence comes from us!! We invented the awareness of God and thus are responsible for God's existence. This is not meant to be a figurative statement. Before us we had a spontaneous transformation of highly concentrated matter and energy intrinsically endowed with intelligence as ubiquitous and embedded as cosmic background radiation has come to be known. As we evolved, so did the focus of God. This is not to detract from the eternal nature of God, not as depicted in the Holy books of the world's cultures, but nevertheless always was and always will be. As Prince points out, inspired humans wrote the bible, humans like we who are discussing this very matter here. They tried to express the same thoughts as we. Our advantage is the insight into ourselves and the universe and the very nature of matter and energy, which in fact is God's insight. God is alive through us. God knows God through us. We are the image and likeness because we are a mirror.

So how does God know what will happen for all time? God doesn't know that. We have all heard that time itself does not exist, it is a construct. We have all heard that one of the current hypotheses for reality is that it is multi-layered, there are many universes within the fabric space/time. So, everything happens at once. Past, present and future are fabrications we use to make sense of something "beyond our existence." The idea of an omnicient God is an attempt to reconcile a multi-layered universe with what was available in 3000 B.C. for the Bible, much earlier for Hebrew, Muslim and Hindu holy books, I think.

This way of God existing is quite backwards from traditional thinking as far as I know. It is present in the poetry of Rilke and possibly others. God knows what we are thinking because we know what we are thinking. We know what we are going to do (if even unconsciously) before we do it.

However, there are unpredictable events in the universe(s). Although, given a high-level view of all parallel realities, that would be much diminished from what we mean by that in this reality, given this hypothetical scientific POV.

In the end, this should not diminish one's faith or belief, just as knowing the way a play is written does not diminish our enjoyment of it. God is much like these boards, given they would not shut them down if no one posted. They would still exist, the intelligent idea behind them would be there, but they would have no focus or life. The End. I am sorry for being Thread-piggy Jr. (you are older than me Prince).

This deserves to be more widely read.

[RichardHresko]

If 'God' is omniscient and the first cause then God at very least assented to and more literally caused everything that follows from his prescient decision to create the world.

To give someone free will knowing in advance how he or she will use it surely means to become a collaborator or at least an ennabler of anything they might do. If 'God' is possessed of all goodness he is ipse facto possessed of all evil as well. And the question of 'His' morality does indeed come up with every falsehood proclaimed in his name (however sincerely put forward), every abuse inflicted on every child, every person who dies of starvation, every soldier on every side and every civilian who is killed in war.

I believe that you are correct on the point that since God is the First Cause that he is therefore the ennabler of all actions. I do not see how it necessarily follows that he therefore is responsible for what he knowa will happen by the exertion of a person's free will. For example, my knowing that my wife will eat the fassolada I am making for dinner does not impinge on her free will to choose to eat it, nor can it be said I made her do it.

The example is not a perfect one for a crucial reason, though it does illustrate an aspect of what is going on here. The failure is that God is not, in the Thomistic view, animating individuals as though they were puppets. Rather it is because of his continuous act of creation that he makes it possible for the individual to exist.

God being all goodness does NOT, at least in Medieval Philosophy, require him to also be the repository of all evil as well. (I suppose that that idea is a form of Manichean heresy, though I am not certain of the exact designation.) The reason that this is not the case is that evil does not have positive existence as good does. rather the term refers to a privation. Just as we can talk about a person being blind, and even talk about blindness as a condition, there is no physical entity that is a blindness.

In talking about whether God is moral I was making the point that by definition God is moral, since a being that was not moral would, by the definition, not be God. By "God" here I mean someone who is deserving of worship. One could postulate a very powerful being who is omniscient and omnipotent, but if such a being were not also the source of goodness that being would not be God.

The morality of creatures who act in the name of God is of course an entirely separate question.

[PrinceMyshkin]

I believe that you are correct on the point that since God is the First Cause that he is therefore the ennabler of all actions. I do not see how it necessarily follows that he therefore is responsible for what he knowa will happen by the exertion of a person's free will. For example, my knowing that my wife will eat the fassolada I am making for dinner does not impinge on her free will to choose to eat it, nor can it be said I made her do it.

In fact it would appear that God revoked free will (or severly punished it) the first time "we" (Adam & Eve) exercised it. Free will, it would appear from that example, is co=equal to original sin.

The example is not a perfect one for a crucial reason, though it does illustrate an aspect of what is going on here. The failure is that God is not, in the Thomistic view, animating individuals as though they were puppets. Rather it is because of his continuous act of creation that he makes it possible for the individual to exist.

That is one view. Is it correct because it is that of St. Thomas or because it is demonstrable to modern eyes - the only ones through which we can see clearly?

God being all goodness does NOT, at least in Medieval Philosophy, require him to also be the repository of all evil as well. (I suppose that that idea is a form of Manichean heresy, though I am not certain of the exact designation.) The reason that this is not the case is that evil does not have positive existence as good does. rather the term refers to a privation. Just as we can talk about a person being blind, and even talk about blindness as a condition, there is no physical entity that is a blindness.

The flaw in that analogy is that sight and blindness are conditions of an existent being. In what does 'evil' reside? What/who is the agency of evil - and how can that be other than an aspect of God if God is the creator of everything?

In talking about whether God is moral I was making the point that by definition God is moral, since a being that was not moral would, by the definition, not be God. By "God" here I mean someone who is deserving of worship. One could postulate a very powerful being who is omniscient and omnipotent, but if such a being were not also the source of goodness that being would not be God.

This is a tautology. The morality or immorality of God cannot be asserted in the face of his inscrutability. 'He' might be a rabbit for all we know of him beside what is claimed in Scripture.

The morality of creatures who act in the name of God is of course an entirely separate question.

In which case what is your way of distinguishing between those who claim to act in the name of God and those who actually do so?

[RichardHresko]

The example is not a perfect one for a crucial reason, though it does illustrate an aspect of what is going on here. The failure is that God is not, in the Thomistic view, animating individuals as though they were puppets. Rather it is because of his continuous act of creation that he makes it possible for the individual to exist.

Prince Myshkin replies:
"That is one view. Is it correct because it is that of St. Thomas or because it is demonstrable to modern eyes - the only ones through which we can see clearly?"

It is Aquinas' view. Within his system (that is, given his premises) it is correct. I dispute that "modern eyes" (whatever they are) are either necessarily more or less correct, or are the only ways we can "see clearly."

Prince Myshkin states:
"The flaw in that analogy is that sight and blindness are conditions of an existent being. In what does 'evil' reside? What/who is the agency of evil - and how can that be other than an aspect of God if God is the creator of everything?"

Evil does not reside anywhere. It is NOT something that has an existence of its own, but only by a lack. That was the sense of the analogy. Just as you can see people who are blind, you can see people who lack goodness.


Prince Myshkin states:
"This is a tautology. The morality or immorality of God cannot be asserted in the face of his inscrutability. 'He' might be a rabbit for all we know of him beside what is claimed in Scripture."

This refers to my stating that by definition God is good since if he weren't he would not be God.

Well, yes and no, I suppose. What I am stating is that there are certain qualities a being would have to possess to qualify as God. If there are no such beings then there is no God. If there is a being with some of the properties such as omnipotence, but lacking others, then he does not qualify, and then again the conclusion is that there is no God.

Prince Myshkin states:
"In which case what is your way of distinguishing between those who claim to act in the name of God and those who actually do so?"

I cut the Gordian knot and judge their acts by whether or not they are right by human standards (natural law as well as I understand it). Their claims to divine support don't enter into my considerations and do not influence my attitude towards their acts.

[PrinceMyshkin]

The example is not a perfect one for a crucial reason, though it does illustrate an aspect of what is going on here. The failure is that God is not, in the Thomistic view, animating individuals as though they were puppets. Rather it is because of his continuous act of creation that he makes it possible for the individual to exist.

Then it is one view among many, elevated because of the reverence felt towards Aquinas but not necessarily infallible.

Prince Myshkin replies:
"That is one view. Is it correct because it is that of St. Thomas or because it is demonstrable to modern eyes - the only ones through which we can see clearly?"

It is Aquinas' view. Within his system (that is, given his premises) it is correct. I dispute that "modern eyes" (whatever they are) are either necessarily more or less correct, or are the only ways we can "see clearly."

They are the eyes that are informed by, e.g. the General Theory of Relativity, Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, long years of scholary reconstruction of the patchwork assembly of Scripture by diverse authors drawing on earlier non Judaeo-Christian sources and many other discoveries not known or thought in Scriptural & pre-scriptural times.

Prince Myshkin states:
"The flaw in that analogy is that sight and blindness are conditions of an existent being. In what does 'evil' reside? What/who is the agency of evil - and how can that be other than an aspect of God if God is the creator of everything?"

Evil does not reside anywhere. It is NOT something that has an existence of its own, but only by a lack. That was the sense of the analogy. Just as you can see people who are blind, you can see people who lack goodness.

I understand better now how you mean the analogy. Thank you.

Prince Myshkin states:
"This is a tautology. The morality or immorality of God cannot be asserted in the face of his inscrutability. 'He' might be a rabbit for all we know of him beside what is claimed in Scripture."

Well, yes and no, I suppose. What I am stating is that there are certain qualities a being would have to possess to qualify as God. If there are no such beings then there is no God. If there is a being with some of the properties such as omnipotence, but lacking others, then he does not qualify, and then again the conclusion is that there is no God.

So God is defined a priori. We define the essential 'Godness' of God then look around for someone who seems to fit the job description.

[RichardHresko]

In response to my saying:
"I dispute that "modern eyes" (whatever they are) are either necessarily more or less correct, or are the only ways we can "see clearly." "

Prince Myshkin responds:
"They are the eyes that are informed by, e.g. the General Theory of Relativity, Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, long years of scholary reconstruction of the patchwork assembly of Scripture by diverse authors drawing on earlier non Judaeo-Christian sources and many other discoveries not known or thought in Scriptural & pre-scriptural times."

My response is that none of the physics enters in here. The question here is one of ontology, and is therefore outside the scope of science. Aquinas, as is well known, drew upon Aristotle and through Augustine, Plotinus and Plato among others. He also borrowed heavily from Islamic sources, most notably Ibn Saud known in the West as Avicenna. While I respect your scholarship, I do not see anything that is distinctly "modern" in it.

Prince Myshkin responded to my saying the existence of God corresponds to finding whether or not there is a being who possessed all the necessary and sufficient attributes that someone who is God would have to possess by stating:

"So God is defined a priori. We define the essential 'Godness' of God then look around for someone who seems to fit the job description."

That would seem to be the natural way to proceed. If we are to look for anything at all, we generally need to know what it would be. It is easier to find something (or to know you haven't found it) if you know what you are looking for.

I am not sure that there is a distinction between your position and mine in this matter. My position is that if we find some being that does not possess all the qualities necessary to be God (and I would argue that the qualities are NOT arbitrary) then he/she/it is NOT God, and that if there are no beings that fit the bill, then there is no God, that is nobody deserving of our love and devotion. IF I understand you correctly, you are arguing the point that if the universe contains evil that this implies God must be at least in part evil, and therefore does not match the image of the Judeo-Christian God. From there you can either conclude that therefore there is no God, or that the God that does exist is clearly not deserving of our love and devotion. Looked at this way, I think that our stances are just different formulations of the same basic ideas.

I wrote:
"The failure is that God is not, in the Thomistic view, animating individuals as though they were puppets. Rather it is because of his continuous act of creation that he makes it possible for the individual to exist."

Prince Myshkin responded:
"Then it is one view among many, elevated because of the reverence felt towards Aquinas but not necessarily infallible."

I agree with two of the three statements. Yes, Aquinas' view is one among many. Yes, it is not necessarily infallible. No, it is not elevated because of reverence felt for Aquinas. No claims were made by me that this is right because it came from the Angelic Doctor (or the Dumb Ox, as he was also called). I have emphasized that this is Aquinas because these were his thoughts, as I have understood. It is a matter of attribution, not argument from authority.