A Challenge Of Sorts

[KizlarAgha]

I'm challenging all of you Catholics to explain the necessity of God without using the Bible or the Catechism. I don't intend to debate it, I just want to hear what all of you have to say. I don't just want to hear from the experts either, I think all of you have important things to say on the issue. I think it's a good training tool for converting atheists like myself who don't hold that the bible or the catechism really mean anything. (Though I do think the bible's a nifty story).

[homeschoolmom]

God's not like air. We don't choose to need Him. He just is. We didn't create Him.

[KizlarAgha]

[quote name='homeschoolmom' post='1106821' date='Oct 31 2006, 07:41 PM']
God's not like air. We don't choose to need Him. He just is. We didn't create Him.
[/quote]

I should clarify. By necessity of God, I meant why is the existence of God a necessity, not why do we need God. Because I think to believe in Christianity you kind of have to believe in a God first. So, it helps to be able to logically reason God's existence as a starting point. That's a hard thing to ask, but I'm interested in hearing what you all have to say on it.

[Aloysius]

There are fundamentally two options: either there is nothingness, or there is somethingness. By observation it is clear that there is somethingness.

There must be a force which causes there to be somethingness. This is the force of existence. All men must admit to this: that there is a force of existence. Religious men call that force "God" and irreligious men just call it "existence"... while nihilist existentialists evade and deny it until its necessity must be admitted even if all it causes is the somethingness of the illusion of existence.

The force is universal and causes all things. It causes matter, it causes time itself. If it causes time, it must predate and be outside of time. It is eternal.

The way in which specific things do exist, whilst other specific things do not exist, lends itself to the possibility of a will behind that force. At the very least, it proves an order and a logos inherent in that force.

[Guest JeffCR07]

I would be glad to discuss this matter with you. St. Anselm's ontological argument has been one of the most hotly debated topics in the history of philosophy. I happen to be someone who believes it is valid, and I am more than happy to defend that position.

Here is a brief outline that I have written up analyzing the Anselmian argument as it is found in Chapters 2 and 3 of the [i]Prosologion[/i]:

Point 1 (Premise)

God is something "than which nothing greater can be conceived."

Point 2 (Concluded from 2a and 2b)

Something exists, in the understanding at least, than which nothing greater can be conceived"

Proof:
2a.) All men, believers and unbelievers alike, understand when they hear of something than which nothing greater can be conceived.
2b.) whatever is understood, exists in the understanding

Point 3 (Premise)

Something that exists both in the understanding AND in reality would be greater [as a being] than an otherwise identical thing that existed in the understanding but not in reality.

Point 4 (Concluded from 4a-4d)

If something than which nothing greater can be conceived exists in the understanding but not in the reality, then it is something than which something greater can be conceived.

Proof:
4a.) Suppose something (call it "G1") than which nothing greater can be conceived exists in the understanding but not in the reality.
4b.) It can be conceived to exist in reality also. That is, an otherwise identical thing (call it "G2") can be conceived to exist in reality as well as the understanding.
4c.) The thing we conceive to exist both in the understanding and in reality is greater [as a being] than the otherwise identical thing, which exists in the understanding but not in reality. That is, G2 is greater [as a being] than G1.
4d.) The thing than which nothing greater can be conceived is something than which something greater can be conceived. That is, G1 is a thing than which something greater (namely G2) can be conceived.

Point 5 (Premise)

It is impossible that something than which nothing greater can be conceived is something than which a greater thing can be conceived.

Point 6 (Concluded from 4 and 5)

It is false that something than which nothing greater can be conceived exists in the understanding but not in the reality.

Point 7 (Concluded from 2 and 6)

There exists something than which nothing greater can be conceived.

Point 8 (Concluded from 1 and 7)

God exists.


Let the games begin!

Your Brother In Christ,

Jeff

[KizlarAgha]

Interesting argument, Jeff. I was wondering if perhaps you could take the extra step for me - from your abstract definition of a great something into a concrete god-like figure as that espoused in Catholicism.

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1106838' date='Oct 31 2006, 07:52 PM']
There are fundamentally two options: either there is nothingness, or there is somethingness. By observation it is clear that there is somethingness.

There must be a force which causes there to be somethingness. This is the force of existence. All men must admit to this: that there is a force of existence. Religious men call that force "God" and irreligious men just call it "existence"... while nihilist existentialists evade and deny it until its necessity must be admitted even if all it causes is the somethingness of the illusion of existence.

The force is universal and causes all things. It causes matter, it causes time itself. If it causes time, it must predate and be outside of time. It is eternal.

The way in which specific things do exist, whilst other specific things do not exist, lends itself to the possibility of a will behind that force. At the very least, it proves an order and a logos inherent in that force.
[/quote]

That's an interesting way of putting it, Aloysius. Could you tell me though, why this force of somethingness isn't just another force of physics - like gravity? I mean, clearly gravity isn't a God, and yet it is a force that drives many things in the universe. Could this force for somethingness not just be akin to gravity?

[Guest JeffCR07]

[quote name='KizlarAgha' post='1106847' date='Oct 31 2006, 08:05 PM']
Interesting argument, Jeff. I was wondering if perhaps you could take the extra step for me - from your abstract definition of a great something into a concrete god-like figure as that espoused in Catholicism.
[/quote]

it is important that we remember the specific formula used by Anselm. God is "that than which nothing greater can be conceived." This is not merely a great "something," but rather, it is a something so great that we can conceive of nothing greater. Now Anselm's entire [i]Prosologion[/i] does exactly what you are asking of me - it shows why "that than which nothing greater can be conceived" must be the God of Catholicism. I strongly urge you to read and grapple with this work, but in the absense of a serious treatment of the entire text, I can offer just a few reflections:

First, "that than which nothing greater can be conceived" must have every perfection that we can think of. So it must have perfect knowledge, perfect justice, perfect mercy, perfect love, etc. Moreover, it must not be susceptible to change, or identifiable to anything that can change, because change implies a movement from what something potentially is to what something actually is. But what is actual is greater than what is potential, and so there can be no potentiality in "that than which nothing greater can be conceived." Now if it has perfect knowledge, then there is no knowledge that it lacks. But a mere force is not self-conscious. Therefore, it is not a mere force or principle, but rather, a self-conscious entity, or a person. It is sufficiently clear that at least a [i]prima facie[/i] identity exists between the God of Catholicism and a self-conscious, personal, perfect being.

Yours in Christ,

Jeff

[Veritas]

+

Aside from the very important logical positions above, it is personal to me because I have been so entirely humbled in my life (think Paul off his horse) that I wasn't capable of doing anything. Then, something happened. In fact, many things happened -some good and some "bad" i.e. difficult. And, somehow, I got through them all and I knew it wasn't me. It's a bit of Aquinas' first cause argument personified.

I also knew because I realized there was no way I could know or understand everything. I realized that I wasn't the one that made all of this (Creation) happen, and yet, it did and it does. I realized that no matter how much I like to think so, ultimately, I'm not in control. Somehow, it all works. Ultimately, Christianity made and makes sense from that perspective.

Praise God He is good!

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='KizlarAgha' post='1106824' date='Oct 31 2006, 09:44 PM']
I should clarify. By necessity of God, I meant why is the existence of God a necessity, not why do we need God. Because I think to believe in Christianity you kind of have to believe in a God first. So, it helps to be able to logically reason God's existence as a starting point. That's a hard thing to ask, but I'm interested in hearing what you all have to say on it.
[/quote]
We exist. Therefore, God first exists.

Done.

[Guest JeffCR07]

lol, you'll need a few more steps in that argument to make is valid :

[KizlarAgha]

[quote name='Veritas' post='1106933' date='Oct 31 2006, 09:01 PM']
+

Aside from the very important logical positions above, it is personal to me because I have been so entirely humbled in my life (think Paul off his horse) that I wasn't capable of doing anything. Then, something happened. In fact, many things happened -some good and some "bad" i.e. difficult. And, somehow, I got through them all and I knew it wasn't me. It's a bit of Aquinas' first cause argument personified.

I also knew because I realized there was no way I could know or understand everything. I realized that I wasn't the one that made all of this (Creation) happen, and yet, it did and it does. I realized that no matter how much I like to think so, ultimately, I'm not in control. Somehow, it all works. Ultimately, Christianity made and makes sense from that perspective.

Praise God He is good!
[/quote]

That's interesting. However, it's hard to convert people with personal experience (unless it's their personal experience). Oh, and Paul was never humbled, he just faked it so he could get canonized.

[Socrates]

[quote name='KizlarAgha' post='1106946' date='Oct 31 2006, 09:11 PM']
Oh, and Paul was never humbled, he just faked it so he could get canonized.
[/quote]
So apparently now Kizlar shares Budge's amazing ability to judge the hearts and souls of others!

[KizlarAgha]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1106953' date='Oct 31 2006, 09:18 PM']
So apparently now Kizlar shares Budge's amazing ability to judge the hearts and souls of others!
[/quote]

All I had to do was read Romans and Corinthians. He was a bigoted Pharisee before his conversion, and he remained that way afterwards.

Edited November 1, 2006 by KizlarAgha

[Socrates]

If there was no God, who created us then?

(This is actually a serious question to start off with, facetious as it may sound.)

[KizlarAgha]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1106958' date='Oct 31 2006, 09:21 PM']
If there was no God, who created us then?

(This is actually a serious question to start off with, facetious as it may sound.)
[/quote]

Oh, come now Socrates, surely you've heard that we all originated from a puddle of goo and that this universe originated from an infinitely small, infinitely dense point of matter that then exploded :