What if God exists?

[fractalwalrus]

What if God exists and we suck at definitions?
What if God is material, but out of the range of our measuring devices?
What if science does not automatically disqualify the existence of a creator?
What if humans are limited in their capacity to explain things outside of their own perceptive abilities?
What if we are just flies that have landed on an arm because it smelled or looked good, but we lack the equipment that is necessary to understand the why and the how of it looking of smelling good?
What if?

 

[The Grey Man]

The existence of God is more than just a hypothetical 'what-if' scenario. St. Thomas Aquinas's 'Five Ways' have been the subject of much debate and I probably won't win anyone over just by posting them without any commentary, but here is the first Way in all its glory:

Summa Theologiae FP Q2 The Existence Of God

Summa Theologiae, by St Thomas Aquinas, doctor of the Church.

www.drbo.org

The first and more manifest way is the argument from motion. It is certain, and evident to our senses, that in the world some things are in motion. Now whatever is in motion is put in motion by another, for nothing can be in motion except it is in potentiality to that towards which it is in motion; whereas a thing moves inasmuch as it is in act. For motion is nothing else than the reduction of something from potentiality to actuality. But nothing can be reduced from potentiality to actuality, except by something in a state of actuality. Thus that which is actually hot, as fire, makes wood, which is potentially hot, to be actually hot, and thereby moves and changes it. Now it is not possible that the same thing should be at once in actuality and potentiality in the same respect, but only in different respects. For what is actually hot cannot simultaneously be potentially hot; but it is simultaneously potentially cold. It is therefore impossible that in the same respect and in the same way a thing should be both mover and moved, i. e. that it should move itself. Therefore, whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another. If that by which it is put in motion be itself put in motion, then this also must needs be put in motion by another, and that by another again. But this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover, and, consequently, no other mover; seeing that subsequent movers move only inasmuch as they are put in motion by the first mover; as the staff moves only because it is put in motion by the hand. Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God.

 

[Cognisant]

Does God's existence matter if we cannot be sure God exists?

In other words, should we live in fear of Roko's Basilisk?

What if God exists but he's not your God?

What if Jesus saved us from God? I mean the Old Testament God was not a nice God, he was the God of fuck about and find out, and it's not entirely clear what his agenda was. It evidently intersected with humanity somehow, but it wasn't in service to humanity or any kind of coherent moral philosophy other than power makes right, that is to say God has all the power so whatever God says is moral, is moral, because he says so.

The OT God didn't work in mysterious ways, he straight up nuked cities, drowned nations, sent plagues of pests and pestilence, murdered children in their cribs, if the OT God was still around we would live in pious terror.

 

[ZenRaiden]

What if God exists and we suck at definitions?

Its hard to define something we know nothing about.

What if God is material, but out of the range of our measuring devices?

Material in what way? As in made of atoms?

What if science does not automatically disqualify the existence of a creator?

It does not.

What if humans are limited in their capacity to explain things outside of their own perceptive abilities?

They are, hence why we use tools to enhance this. Like radars, telescopes, microscopes, radios, etc.

What if we are just flies that have landed on an arm because it smelled or looked good, but we lack the equipment that is necessary to understand the why and the how of it looking of smelling good?
What if?

What if we are the Gods?

 

[scorpiomover]

What if God exists and we suck at definitions?

Then we don't know what racism is, because we suck at definitions. Half of the people we think are not racists, are racists, and half of the people we think are racists, are not racists.

Then we don't know what electricity is, because we suck at definitions.
Then we don't know what atoms are, because we suck at definitions.
Then we don't know what viruses are, because we suck at definitions.

Your civilisation would then be an entire sham.

What if science does not automatically disqualify the existence of a creator?

Then theists are rational.

What if humans are limited in their capacity to explain things outside of their own perceptive abilities?

Then it's irrational to criticise G-d, or anyone who has lived a life you don't have, or anyone who has beliefs that you don't have, because they are outside of your own perception.

What if we are just flies that have landed on an arm because it smelled or looked good, but we lack the equipment that is necessary to understand the why and the how of it looking of smelling good?

Then modern civilisation would be like if flies started building a huge skyscraper out of your arm. You'd wipe them all away with one swipe of your other arm because they are hurting your arm. The only people left would be those who live like the Amish, or the primitives who live in the Amazon and Africa.

 

[scorpiomover]

What if God is material, but out of the range of our measuring devices?

Then in the future, people will invent measuring devices that prove G-d's existence, and then everyone will say that G-d is real.

 

[scorpiomover]

In other words, should we live in fear of Roko's Basilisk?

Honestly, it sounds like the way people suffering with anxiety and depression feel about their lives.

The only way to cure that, is to accept that either:

1. The danger is real, in which case it's like the KGB. Your only choice is to do what it says until some other basilisk comes and saves you.
2. The danger is not real. What you think is torturing you is actually just being reasonable. You are demonising Roko's basilisk when it's really just a nice basilisk. You are making yourself and others suffer for no good reason.

What if God exists but he's not your God?

If He is reasonable, then being reasonable will also get you into Heaven.
If He is not reasonable and likes to torture you for no good reason, then he's like the KGB. Your only choice is to do everything he says.

I mean the Old Testament God was not a nice God, he was the God of fuck about and find out, and it's not entirely clear what his agenda was. It evidently intersected with humanity somehow, but it wasn't in service to humanity or any kind of coherent moral philosophy other than power makes right, that is to say God has all the power so whatever God says is moral, is moral, because he says so.

The argument that "power makes right, and G-d has all the power, so whatever G-d says is moral, is moral because G-d says so", is only dependent on G-d being much more powerful than you, and you believing that "power makes right."

Has nothing at all to do with G-d's agenda or anything he does. G-d could be the nicest being in the universe, and your argument would still be just as true.

It all depends on "power makes right", and G-d being powerful. It's an argument that equally would say that you should unquestioningly obey the most powerful crime family in your country, because they are much more powerful than you.

But, because it's all dependent on your assumptions about G-d and if "power makes right" or not, it still falls into the above issues about anxiety/depression. Until you examine your reasoning impartially, you're probably suffering from anxiety/depression due to irrational beliefs.

If this is how lots of people think in Western countries, then it's no wonder that anxiety/depression are now commonplace in Western countries, and no wonder that Western countries are gripped by epidemics of mental illness.

The OT God didn't work in mysterious ways, he straight up nuked cities, drowned nations, sent plagues of pests and pestilence, murdered children in their cribs,

1. Considering that your body is far less than 1/40 trillion-th of the universe, your relation to G-d is even less than that of a cell to your body.
2. Every time you take a shower or a bath, you kill millions of cells.
3. Have you not taken a shower or a bath for years, out of the rational concern that you'd drown enough cells that are the size of whole nations, and out of the rational concern that you'd be murdering child cells in their cribs?

if the OT God was still around we would live in pious terror.

"Still"? How do you know He went away, unless you have measuring devices that proved His existence in the first place? So this would argue that you should still believing in pious terror.

 

[fractalwalrus]

The existence of God is more than just a hypothetical 'what-if' scenario. St. Thomas Aquinas's 'Five Ways' have been the subject of much debate and I probably won't win anyone over just by posting them without any commentary, but here is the first Way in all its glory:

Summa Theologiae FP Q2 The Existence Of God

Summa Theologiae, by St Thomas Aquinas, doctor of the Church.

www.drbo.org

The first and more manifest way is the argument from motion. It is certain, and evident to our senses, that in the world some things are in motion. Now whatever is in motion is put in motion by another, for nothing can be in motion except it is in potentiality to that towards which it is in motion; whereas a thing moves inasmuch as it is in act. For motion is nothing else than the reduction of something from potentiality to actuality. But nothing can be reduced from potentiality to actuality, except by something in a state of actuality. Thus that which is actually hot, as fire, makes wood, which is potentially hot, to be actually hot, and thereby moves and changes it. Now it is not possible that the same thing should be at once in actuality and potentiality in the same respect, but only in different respects. For what is actually hot cannot simultaneously be potentially hot; but it is simultaneously potentially cold. It is therefore impossible that in the same respect and in the same way a thing should be both mover and moved, i. e. that it should move itself. Therefore, whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another. If that by which it is put in motion be itself put in motion, then this also must needs be put in motion by another, and that by another again. But this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover, and, consequently, no other mover; seeing that subsequent movers move only inasmuch as they are put in motion by the first mover; as the staff moves only because it is put in motion by the hand. Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God.

There are some counter-arguments that have been made against Aquinas and Aristotle's first mover argument concept, and most would be iterations of the claim that is arbitrary to assume that the universe cannot exist in a state of infinite regress. Let's assume, however, for the sake of argument, that there was a prime mover, or first cause. What else could we derive about the nature of the first cause from simply stating it existed? How can we go from "there was a first cause," to "this first cause sent their son to earth in order to allow humans to be forgiven for their sins?"

 

[fractalwalrus]

Does God's existence matter if we cannot be sure God exists?

It might, this would depend on if this God thinks we should be punished for not believing, which may be a bit harsh imo.

What if God exists but he's not your God?

Ah, the counter to Pascal's wager. One cannot adopt the tenets of all religions to save themselves since they are often mutually exclusive.

The OT God didn't work in mysterious ways, he straight up nuked cities, drowned nations, sent plagues of pests and pestilence, murdered children in their cribs, if the OT God was still around we would live in pious terror.

It does appear that way in the book, yes. Some today still believe hurricanes and extreme weather patterns to be the work of God. I think it was the gnostics who believed in the concept of a malevolent God, but they were seen as heretics.

 

[fractalwalrus]

Material in what way? As in made of atoms?

That or at least particles/energy, something that we could measure if we were close enough. When I say "out of range," I refer to the possibility that God could be outside of the "range" of the instruments that we use to measure things with. Telescopes can only see so far, and we can only pick up so much with our methods.

They are, hence why we use tools to enhance this. Like radars, telescopes, microscopes, radios, etc.

Yes, but it is possible that we are still not seeing everything with them.

What if we are the Gods?

That would depend upon one's definition of God.

 

[fractalwalrus]

Your civilisation would then be an entire sham.

It would persist in spite of our sloppy definitions. I should have been more clear with my implications. A more precise way to put my statement about "sucking at definitions," would be: what if the biggest arguments against the existence of God are only strong because we have incorrectly defined what 'God' is, or what 'God' is capable of?

 

[fluffy]

If God exists then so do you.

 

[scorpiomover]

Your civilisation would then be an entire sham.

It would persist in spite of our sloppy definitions.

It would persist for a while, but still be a sham. We wouldn't even know what we have and don't have in our civilisations, without precise and clear definitions.

I should have been more clear with my implications. A more precise way to put my statement about "sucking at definitions," would be: what if the biggest arguments against the existence of God are only strong because we have incorrectly defined what 'God' is, or what 'God' is capable of?

Such arguments would all be examples of the fallacy known as a Strawman:

A straw man fallacy (sometimes written as strawman) is the informal fallacy of refuting an argument different from the one actually under discussion, while not recognizing or acknowledging the distinction.[1] One who engages in this fallacy is said to be "attacking a straw man".

Imagine if someone was accused of murdering a human being standing in a field, who turns out to be a scarecrow made of straw.

 

[fluffy]

You can only define God, if you are familiar with God. But then to convey this to others they must understand and be receptive towards you.

 

[The Grey Man]

There are some counter-arguments that have been made against Aquinas and Aristotle's first mover argument concept, and most would be iterations of the claim that is arbitrary to assume that the universe cannot exist in a state of infinite regress.

This counter-argument has a certain plausibility, for, given any effect, we can easily conceive of an indefinite regress of causes, even as, for any number X, we can always imagine a larger number, say X + 1 or 2X. From the fact that we can conceive of something, however, it does not follow that it exists, or even that it can exist; and there is, I think, reason to believe that a series of causes with no beginning cannot exist.

In the spirit of scholastic philosophy, I reply with a distinction: though effects may and often do precede their causes in the order of knowing (ordo cognoscendi), yet causes always precede their effects in the order of being (ordo essendi); in other words, even though we are, due to our reliance on sense-perception, often more familiar with contingent natural phenomena than with the principles that cause them, yet the principles are what come first in reality. Therefore the idea of a regress of causes is just that, an idea, a pure figment (fictum) with only an objective reality. (In scholastic jargon, a thing is said to exist only objectively when it exists only as an object of thought.) What takes place in reality is not a regress of causes starting from a last effect, but a progress of effects starting from a first cause, which we call God.

Why one first cause, one ontological Principle of the universe and not many? I believe the key to answering this question, which has given me some trouble, is to observe that, when St. Thomas wrote of 'motion,' he had in mind something much more general than the mechanical motion of a Galileo or a Newton: "motion is nothing else than the reduction of something from potentiality to actuality." (This is why I have preferred to speak of 'causes' rather than 'movers' and 'effects' rather than things 'put in motion.') If, then, there were multiple first causes, there would be no first cause; for, since none of the principles would be able to produce the universe without the cooperation of the others, each would be in potentiality to the others in some way, but it is proper to a first cause to be not in potency, but in act—not to be caused, but to cause. If we insist on a multiplicity of first causes, they can only be the divine Attributes (e.g. Love, Justice, Mercy, Wisdom, Power, Peace), which have diverse and interweaving cosmic manifestations and thus appear different to us, but which are really one and the same self-subsisting divine Essence.

Let's assume, however, for the sake of argument, that there was a prime mover, or first cause. What else could we derive about the nature of the first cause from simply stating it existed? How can we go from "there was a first cause," to "this first cause sent their son to earth in order to allow humans to be forgiven for their sins?"

Another distinction: we must establish the fact of divine revelation before we can examine its content. That the Son of God came to shed His Most Precious Blood for our redemption pertains to the content of divine revelation and can therefore only be known by faith, but the existence of God and the bare facts concerning the life, death, and resurrection(!) of Jesus of Nazareth can be known by reason. This is the basis of the distinction between natural theology and apologetics, on one hand, and revealed theology on the other: the former tells us that God has revealed, the latter tells us what He has revealed and, ultimately, how we must respond to it. This is why the First Vatican Council defines divine faith thus:

Decrees of the First Vatican Council - Papal Encyclicals

This council was summoned by Pope Pius IX by the bull Aeterni Patris of 29 June 1868. The first session was held in St Peter’s basilica on 8 December 1869.

www.papalencyclicals.net

This faith, which is the beginning of human salvation, the catholic church professes to be a supernatural virtue, by means of which, with the grace of God inspiring and assisting us, we believe to be true what He has revealed, not because we perceive its intrinsic truth by the natural light of reason, but because of the authority of God himself, who makes the revelation and can neither deceive nor be deceived.

As Fr. George Sauvage explains in his excellent Catholic Encyclopedia article on "Fideism",

CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Fideism

A philosophical term meaning a system of philosophy or an attitude of mind, which, denying the power of unaided human reason to reach certitude, affirms that the fundamental act of human knowledge consists in an act of faith, and the supreme criterion of certitude is authority

www.newadvent.org

authority, even the authority of God, cannot be the supreme criterion of certitude, and an act of faith cannot be the primary form of human knowledge. This authority, indeed, in order to be a motive of assent, must be previously acknowledged as being certainly valid; before we believe in a proposition as revealed by God, we must first know with certitude that God exists, that He reveals such and such a proposition, and that His teaching is worthy of assent, all of which questions can and must be ultimately decided only by an act of intellectual assent based on objective evidence.

In order to make an act of theological faith, then, we must examine the objective evidence. If this man, Jesus of Nazareth,

1. claimed to be the Son of God,
2. demonstrated mastery of nature by working abundant and awesome miracles,
3. demonstrated mastery of history by fulfilling ancient prophecies down to the minutest detail,
4. promulgated the most sublime doctrines that have ever been heard by human hears,
5. manifested peerless sanctity to the point of being admired even by his bitterest enemies, and
6. confirmed his doctrine, gave a most signal proof of his sanctity, consummated all prophecy, and conquered the very powers of nature through an act so magnificent and so outrageous that it still excites the warmest devotion and the fiercest opposition from people all over the world,

then, to ask again the question which Jesus asked the Twelve in Caesarea Philippi (cf. Matthew 16:15), who do you say he is?

 

[ZenRaiden]

Yes, but it is possible that we are still not seeing everything with them.

Its not possible its self evident.

That or at least particles/energy, something that we could measure if we were close enough. When I say "out of range," I refer to the possibility that God could be outside of the "range" of the instruments that we use to measure things with. Telescopes can only see so far, and we can only pick up so much with our methods.

Of course, we clearly don't have ability to see and measure all energies. Science is limited to only what we know, not to mention lots of things we don't know, cannot be known by science.

That would depend upon one's definition of God.

If we have souls that are immortal, then we are simply visitors that animated pieces of atom.

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

but it wasn't in service to humanity or any kind of coherent moral philosophy other than power makes right

pretty much

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

yet causes always precede their effects in the order of being

so we agree that the first mover causes all things

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

You can only define God, if you are familiar with God. But then to convey this to others they must understand and be receptive towards you.

Baruch Spinoza (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

 

[fluffy]

yet causes always precede their effects in the order of being

so we agree that the first mover causes all things

You can only define God, if you are familiar with God. But then to convey this to others they must understand and be receptive towards you.

Baruch Spinoza (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

If neutral monism is true,

Then God cannot be nature,

Because we are in aspect of God "consciousness"

Only that God is Omni and we are smaller than Omni - God as conscious has awareness of all but we are not and rocks are less but God is more if we get that neutral entails all.

All aspects then are hierarchal of a neutral conscious awareness. That God is first and we eminate from his source.

Not sure but Spinoza is dualistic because nature (rocks) do not have what humans have and he says they are God in essence without an Omni I AM

 

[fractalwalrus]

Such arguments would all be examples of the fallacy known as a Strawman:

Depending on what they are, perhaps. Many religions attempt to ascribe more precise qualities to a being we refer to as God, and the more tends to assign characteristics to a God or Gods, (especially the all-encompassing or contradictory ones), the less likely that that particular iteration of God can be said to logically exist. For example, one cannot say that God is both all good and all powerful when accounting for the "evils" of the world.

 

[fractalwalrus]

From the fact that we can conceive of something, however, it does not follow that it exists, or even that it can exist

Agreed. It also does not mean that it does not exist (unless you are correct in asserting that it cannot). However, if one is able to eliminate all other possible explanations for a phenomenon, then whatever remains must be the truth (all this assumes all possibilities have been correctly accounted for).

a progress of effects starting from a first cause, which we call God.

What if the perception of causality is due to the existence of consciousness? In a universe without something to perceive the passage of time

the second separates second segments from spontaneously springing to sense

If, then, there were multiple first causes, there would be no first cause; for, since none of the principles would be able to produce the universe without the cooperation of the others, each would be in potentiality to the others in some way

The term "first," is predicated upon the existence of time. Without this, "first" is meaningless.

we must establish the fact of divine revelation before we can examine its content.

It would make sense that one would need revelation from something that is divine in order to confirm its existence. If we are not allowed to do this on an individual basis (ie God does not appear to us directly), then how is this possible? One may argue that God is selective in who they determine to reveal things to, but how can one trust the individual who has claimed to have the revelations? Many people claim to have revelations, and some of these are contradictory. Who do we believe?

who do you say he is?

This all depends on how much validity one wants to ascribe to the Book where he claims this, and the people who wrote it.

 

[fractalwalrus]

yet causes always precede their effects in the order of being

so we agree that the first mover causes all things

You can only define God, if you are familiar with God. But then to convey this to others they must understand and be receptive towards you.

Baruch Spinoza (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

If neutral monism is true,

Then God cannot be nature,

Because we are in aspect of God "consciousness"

Only that God is Omni and we are smaller than Omni - God as conscious has awareness of all but we are not and rocks are less but God is more if we get that neutral entails all.

All aspects then are hierarchal of a neutral conscious awareness. That God is first and we eminate from his source.

Not sure but Spinoza is dualistic because nature (rocks) do not have what humans have and he says they are God in essence without an Omni I AM

If you substitute God with Big Bang for a quick object lesson, this argument may become clearer. If, at one point, all matter was condensed to one point, then everything that proceeded from it would be pieces of that one thing, though we have decided to make that distinction for the sake of categorization. A slice of pizza is still pizza. A slice of the singularity is still the singularity in essence but not in form.

 

[fluffy]

If you substitute God with Big Bang for a quick object lesson, this argument may become clearer. If, at one point, all matter was condensed to one point, then everything that proceeded from it would be pieces of that one thing, though we have decided to make that distinction for the sake of categorization. A slice of pizza is still pizza. A slice of the singularity is still the singularity in essence but not in form.

So if we are conscious then the big bang was conscious? What derivation then can be made of this? That God is everything but so to everything from beginning is conscious?

 

[fractalwalrus]

If you substitute God with Big Bang for a quick object lesson, this argument may become clearer. If, at one point, all matter was condensed to one point, then everything that proceeded from it would be pieces of that one thing, though we have decided to make that distinction for the sake of categorization. A slice of pizza is still pizza. A slice of the singularity is still the singularity in essence but not in form.

So if we are conscious then the big bang was conscious? What derivation then can be made of this? That God is everything but so to everything from beginning is conscious?

This may be a problem with definitions and mental schema again. We have chosen to view the part as separate from the whole. Some worldviews do not. I would have no way of knowing if the singularity was conscious, but I do know that it had the potential to spawn consciousness. The arm is part of the body, but the body is not merely an arm. To the universe, if you detach an arm from the body, it is still attached to the universe.

 

[fluffy]

If you substitute God with Big Bang for a quick object lesson, this argument may become clearer. If, at one point, all matter was condensed to one point, then everything that proceeded from it would be pieces of that one thing, though we have decided to make that distinction for the sake of categorization. A slice of pizza is still pizza. A slice of the singularity is still the singularity in essence but not in form.

So if we are conscious then the big bang was conscious? What derivation then can be made of this? That God is everything but so to everything from beginning is conscious?

This may be a problem with definitions and mental schema again. We have chosen to view the part as separate from the whole. Some worldviews do not. I would have no way of knowing if the singularity was conscious, but I do know that it had the potential to spawn consciousness. The arm is part of the body, but the body is not merely an arm. To the universe, if you detach an arm from the body, it is still attached to the universe.

Do you think some greater being exists that is awareness of everything?

Are we detached from that being?

 

[fractalwalrus]

If you substitute God with Big Bang for a quick object lesson, this argument may become clearer. If, at one point, all matter was condensed to one point, then everything that proceeded from it would be pieces of that one thing, though we have decided to make that distinction for the sake of categorization. A slice of pizza is still pizza. A slice of the singularity is still the singularity in essence but not in form.

So if we are conscious then the big bang was conscious? What derivation then can be made of this? That God is everything but so to everything from beginning is conscious?

This may be a problem with definitions and mental schema again. We have chosen to view the part as separate from the whole. Some worldviews do not. I would have no way of knowing if the singularity was conscious, but I do know that it had the potential to spawn consciousness. The arm is part of the body, but the body is not merely an arm. To the universe, if you detach an arm from the body, it is still attached to the universe.

Do you think some greater being exists that is awareness of everything?

Are we detached from that being?

I have no idea.

 

[fluffy]

I think there is a greatest awareness as a being and we are like to it as born to it with less awareness. Babies who barely know anything.

 

[The Grey Man]

yet causes always precede their effects in the order of being

so we agree that the first mover causes all things

Third distinction: God is the cause of all things insofar as they exist and are good, but evil consists merely in the privation of some existence or goodness. In particular, sin consists in the privation of the conformity of an act of a free agent to natural and divine law. Now every free agent was created by God to serve and glorify God, but God cannot force a free agent to choose to obey Him. (This is an absolute impossibility, which does not derogate from God's Omnipotence any more than does His inability to not be God, or to make a contradiction true.) God created Adam even though He knew that Adam would sin because He also knew that He would be able to produce out of this evil a greater good, for the merit of the Sacrifice of His only-begotten Son, the "last Adam" (1 Corinthians 15:45), on Mt. Calvary would infinitely outweigh Adam's original fault. "But not as the offence, so also the gift. For if by the offence of one, many died; much more the grace of God, and the gift, by the grace of one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many" (Romans 5:15).

Objection 1:
It seems that God does not exist; because if one of two contraries be infinite, the other would be altogether destroyed. But the word "God" means that He is infinite goodness. If, therefore, God existed, there would be no evil discoverable; but there is evil in the world. Therefore God does not exist.[...]

Reply to Objection 1:
As Augustine says (Enchiridion xi): "Since God is the highest good, He would not allow any evil to exist in His works, unless His omnipotence and goodness were such as to bring good even out of evil." This is part of the infinite goodness of God, that He should allow evil to exist, and out of it produce good.

(The sixth item of the list in my first post should read: "confirmed his doctrine, gave a most signal proof of his sanctity, consummated all prophecy, and conquered the very powers of nature that most implacable of the forces of nature, death, through an act so magnificent and so outrageous that it still excites the warmest devotion and the fiercest opposition from people all over the world,".)

The term "first," is predicated upon the existence of time. Without this, "first" is meaningless.

Temporal priority is only one kind. Another is logical: the premises of an argument are logically antecedent to its conclusion, but not necessarily chronologically antecedent. In fact, mathematicians often write the theorem they want to prove before the lemmas they use to prove it, even in finished treatises (hence the 'q.e.d.' inserted at the end of a proof). Even causal priority does not always coincide with temporal priority: final causes, for example, do not precede but are preceded by their effects in time. It is for milk and eggs that I go to the store, but I do not start with the milk and eggs, for, if I did, then I would not bother going; and, of course, God is in Catholic theology the final Cause of the universe as well as the efficient and formal Cause: "I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, saith the Lord God, who is, and who was, and who is to come, the Almighty" (Apocalypse 1:8). St. Thomas's argument really has nothing to do with time as such, which is another reason why I have preferred to use the term 'cause' rather than 'mover' in discussing it.

It would make sense that one would need revelation from something that is divine in order to confirm its existence. If we are not allowed to do this on an individual basis (ie God does not appear to us directly), then how is this possible? One may argue that God is selective in who they determine to reveal things to, but how can one trust the individual who has claimed to have the revelations? Many people claim to have revelations, and some of these are contradictory. Who do we believe?

Revelation is not always private—in fact, the Church traditionally treats those who claim to have received a message directly from God but fail to produce miracles or gain the approval of a competent authority as impostors until proven otherwise. Believe the guy who publicly produced great miracles, fulfilled messianic prophecies, astonished even his adversaries with his wisdom and sanctity, and somehow managed to become the object of the biggest religious cult ever despite dying in the most shameful and ignominious way possible—by rising from the dead.

This all depends on how much validity one wants to ascribe to the Book where he claims this, and the people who wrote it.

This would be true if the "objective evidence" on which we must base our conclusions need only be 'objective' in the scholastic sense of existing only as an object of thought, but, if this were the case, then "intellectual assent based on objective evidence" would amount to nothing more than agreeing with our own thoughts because they are ours. No, the objective evidence we need is 'objective' in the modern sense that it exists whether we would like to acknowledge it or not. The Bible and the people who wrote it are a good place to start. Have you read the Bible?

 

[scorpiomover]

Such arguments would all be examples of the fallacy known as a Strawman:

Depending on what they are, perhaps. Many religions attempt to ascribe more precise qualities to a being we refer to as God, and the more tends to assign characteristics to a God or Gods, (especially the all-encompassing or contradictory ones), the less likely that that particular iteration of God can be said to logically exist. For example, one cannot say that God is both all good and all powerful when accounting for the "evils" of the world.

The Paradox of Epicurus:

1. God, he says, either wishes to take away evils, and is unable;
2. or He is able, and is unwilling;
3. or He is neither willing nor able;
4. or He is both willing and able.

1. If He is willing and is unable, He is feeble, which is not in accordance with the character of God;
2. if He is able and unwilling, He is envious, which is equally at variance with God;
3. if He is neither willing nor able, He is both envious and feeble, and therefore not God;
4. if He is both willing and able, which alone is suitable to God,
5. from what source then are evils?
6. Or why does He not remove them?

#1, #2 and #3 are not in the character of G-d, and so do not refer to G-d.
#4 is the only option left. So #4 must be true.

But then #5 and #6 remain.

#5 implies that evils exist, but do not come from G-d. Ergo, evils must come from beings that are not all-powerful and not always good. Can you guess who they are?

#6 is easy to answer, because #5 shows that G-d is not the problem. It's those other beings that are not all-powerful and not always good, that are the problem. If G-d removes all the evils, they'll just make more evils. So there's no point in removing all evils, not until the other beings that are not all-powerful and not always good, stop making more and more evils, and only when that happens, would it make sense for G-d to remove all the evils that already exist.

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

Not sure but Spinoza

(IFF) there was "nothing" "before" omniscient omnipotent creator (AND) omniscient omnipotent creator spawned all things (THEN) all things are necessarily pieces of omniscient omnipotent creator

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

but evil consists merely in the privation of some existence or goodness.

did omniscient omnipotent creator create all things or not ?

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

This may be a problem with definitions and mental schema again.

bingo

 

[The Grey Man]

did omniscient omnipotent creator create all things or not ?

God is, I say again, the cause of all things insofar as they exist. The purpose of making such distinctions is to avoid false dilemmas caused by equivocation, in this case equivocal use of the word 'thing.' It is notorious that not every 'thing' we can think of is a real thing (ens reale) with subjective existence like a rock or a tree or a dog. Some things are merely beings of reason (entia rationis), which have only an objective existence in the sense explained above. Who would be so crass as to argue that unicorns, for example, must exist just because I am at this moment thinking of unicorns? Other things, like money, began as beings of reason but now have a kind of quasi-subjective existence parasitic on the free actions of human beings, who, for example, collectively agree to use the pound sterling as a standard unit of measuring the commercial value of goods. Sin, similarly, is the result of creaturely (ab)use of free will. God made the tree of knowledge of good and evil (cf. Genesis 2:9), but He did not make Adam and Eve eat of it.

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

avoid false dilemmas

did omniscient omnipotent creator create all things and or concepts or not ?

 

[fluffy]

Not sure but Spinoza

(IFF) there was "nothing" "before" omniscient omnipotent creator (AND) omniscient omnipotent creator spawned all things (THEN) all things are necessarily pieces of omniscient omnipotent creator

And all things are conscious.

How can a conscious God make all things and all things not have some aspect of mind.

That would mean no interaction.

 

[The Grey Man]

did omniscient omnipotent creator create all things and or concepts or not ?

Even if God created my concept of a unicorn or money or sin, it does not follow that He created unicorns or money or sin. I don't see the relevance of this distinction.

 

[fluffy]

Our freewill does allow us to go against God's will.

But then why create humans then?

Because anything no matter what God created would have freewill. So it was best to create this world rather than another world.

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

How can a conscious God make all things and all things not have some aspect of mind.

if we isolated any atom in your body

it would not contain detectable levels of "consciousness"

 

[scorpiomover]

yet causes always precede their effects in the order of being

so we agree that the first mover causes all things

You could equally complain that your teacher was unfair for giving you a test that you failed.

But without the test, no-one is going to get the grades, no-one is going to university, and no-one is going to get a high-paying job that requires a degree.

"No pain => no gain"

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

did omniscient omnipotent creator create all things and or concepts or not ?

Even if God created my concept of a unicorn or money or sin, it does not follow that He created unicorns or money or sin. I don't see the relevance of this distinction.

i'm establishing common ground with you

did omniscient omnipotent creator know before the dawn of time that a concept of "unicorn" would be a small part of their magnificent cosmic creation ?

 

[The Grey Man]

Our freewill does allow us to go against God's will.

But then why create humans then?

Because anything no matter what God created would have freewill. So it was best to create this world rather than another world.

If we could not go against God's Will, then both our creation and the creation of the rest of the universe, which was ordered towards man, would have been pointless because it would have left God exactly where He started: alone with the primordial "waters" (Genesis 1:2), prime matter utterly submissive to His Will but also utterly incapable of the most feeble act of love. "It is not good for man to be alone" (Genesis 2:18)—and man is made in God's image. God created the world for the sake of finding His Bride, but this Bride had to be a free agent capable of reciprocating—or rejecting—His Love. This Bride God found in the Blessed Virgin Mary (cf. Luke 1:35), finds in those souls which hear and keep His Word (cf. Luke 11:28), and will find in the new heaven and new earth, the new Jerusalem (cf. Apocalypse 21:1-2).

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

You could equally complain for failing a test that your teacher set you.

if my teacher was omniscient and created me, then that would seem fair

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

Our freewill does allow us to go against God's will.

can we violate omniscience ?

 

[The Grey Man]

did omniscient omnipotent creator know before the dawn of time that a concept of "unicorn" would be a small part of their magnificent cosmic creation ?

Sure.

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

did omniscient omnipotent creator know before the dawn of time that a concept of "unicorn" would be a small part of their magnificent cosmic creation ?

Sure.

is there anything omniscient omnipotent creator did NOT know before the dawn of time ?

 

[The Grey Man]

No, He even knew that Adam would sin, but created the world anyway, for the reasons I've mentioned.

 

[scorpiomover]

You could equally complain for failing a test that your teacher set you.

if my teacher was omniscient and created me, then that would seem fair

When it comes to your grades, your teacher is omniscient.

So according to you, everyone should complain about failing a test. Everyone in the entire world should get perfect grades and then getting into university is meaningless, or all tests should be cancelled and no-one goes to university.

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

When it comes to your grades, your teacher is omniscient.

if my teacher was omniscient and created me

 

[fluffy]

How can a conscious God make all things and all things not have some aspect of mind.

if we isolated any atom in your body

it would not contain detectable levels of "consciousness"

So no interaction, no monism?