Arguments for God

[Jac3510]

Having laid the groundwork for theistic proofs in the thread on divine simplicity, I want to devote this one to actual proofs of God's existence. There are a very great number of them, but rather than discuss each one in a different thread, I think we can put them all here for ease of reference. I'll come back and add this this frequently by editing this original post and adding proofs here. Discussion about them can ensue throughout the thread proper. I'll kind of look at this as an ongoing project . . .With that said, I'm sure even this opening paragraph will be edited and refined later, so for now, I'll just start by posting a modification and extension of Aquinas' second way. The argument is rather long and much of it will need explaining as it makes heavy use of technical terminology, but I hope it is clear enough to be followed. I will say this is far more difficult than many of the popular arguments for God (i.e., the Kalaam), but the popular arguments are popular precisely because they are easier. This, though, I believe, is more robust and leads to a firmer conclusion on the nature of the God whom we are trying to prove.

An Argument from Subsistent Existence
EDIT: Audio commentary on this argument available HERE

1.   Being is an accidental property of efficiently caused causes (although it is accidental in the unique sense of being prior to both essence and all other accidents).
2.   All essences receive accidental properties through efficient causality.
3.   Therefore, all essences receive their being through efficient causality.
4.   Essences that have no being cannot be efficient causes.
5.   Therefore, no essence can be its own efficient cause and must receive its being efficiently by from an external agent.
6.   There cannot be an infinite regress of essentially ordered efficiently caused beings.
7.   Therefore, for any series of essentially ordered efficiently caused beings, there must be a first causal being.
8.   A first causal being cannot receive its being from outside itself.
9.   Therefore, there must be a being which does not receive its being through efficient causality, but for which being is its essence. Being which exists in itself is called subsistent existence.
10.   A first causal being is the primary efficient cause of all essentially ordered efficiently caused beings.
11.   Therefore, subsistent existence is the primary efficient cause of all essentially ordered efficiently caused beings.
12.   All non-subsistent being is part of an essentially ordered efficiently causal chain of being.
13.   Therefore, subsistent existence is the primary efficient cause of all things.
14.   All perfections must have an efficient cause.
15.   Therefore, subsistent existence is the primary efficient cause of all perfections.
16.   The effect of any efficient cause pre-exists virtually in the efficient cause.
17.   Therefore, perfections exist virtually in subsistent existence.
18.   A perfection is obtained in being.
19.   Therefore, all perfections obtain in subsistent existence.
20.   A being which obtains all perfections is, by definition, God.
21.   Therefore, God exists.

The definition of a few key terms are in order here:

Accident - an aspect of a thing that can change without changing what the thing fundamentally is; i.e., hair color, height, weight, number of limbs, etc.
Efficient cause - That which brings something about
Essence - the quiddity or "whatness" of a thing. That is, what a thing essentially is regardless of accidental properties.
Efficient order - as opposed to accidental order, not used here. An efficiently ordered causal chain is one in which all of the things in the chain are linked by their nature rather than simply an accidental relation; i.e., my shoulders move my arms which move my hands which move the golf club. If any part of this chain is broken, everything after it ceases to be. An example of an accidentally ordered chain would be a man, his child, and grandchild. The man is related to his grandchild only accidentally. If he ceases to exist, the grandchild does not (although if he never existed, the grandchild would not, which is why the chain, though accidentally related, is still a chain of efficient cause).
First Cause - That which stands at the head of a causal chain. Though normally used of the first being in a temporal chain of events, here, it refers to the being that stands starts and sustains an efficiently ordered causal chain; i.e., a train engine at the head of a string of boxcars. "First" does not refer to temporality so much as it does priority.
Subsistent being - Being that has its own nature essentially rather than accidentally.
Perfection - For our purposes, a non-limiting predicate corresponding to potency in its subject; i.e., sight (in eyes), knowledge (in minds), power (in beings), etc. Predicates like "tall" are not perfections as they are actually expressions of limitations (we are "tall" only in that our being is limited to a certain dimensional extension).

Beyond that, several of the premises above will need defending to demonstrate their soundness, which I will offer as requested. I look forward to your thoughts.

[Tank]

And there was me wondering what I was going to do this weekend  

[Asmodean]

You know, I think you are the first person to actually attempt something like this on this forum rather than talk about it. I DO hope I remember to return to this thread when I have some time to reply and question a few points of logic.

[Jac3510]

And there was me wondering what I was going to do this weekend  

You know, I think you are the first person to actually attempt something like this on this forum rather than talk about it. I DO hope I remember to return to this thread when I have some time to reply and question a few points of logic.

It was time I finally got around to it. As HS said (I think it was HS), the peanut gallery was rumbling . . . I'm very tempted to go back and to a commentary on the argument now. (1), (2), and each of the even numbers after that provide the main assertions that give the argument its truth value. All the odd numbers are tentative conclusions which I expect no argument unless there is a challenge to the actual validity. In other words, after (1), I tried to make sure to include absolutely no new information in the odd statements, just logical extrapolations of the even statements.

With that said, I'll wait a bit. I'm sure this thread will be a fun one for awhile out since I'll be pretty frequently updating it with popular and not-so-popular arguments after this fashion. Most will, by their nature, be simpler than this one. That should be, I think, to everyone's benefit.

[humblesmurph]

WEEEEEEEEE!!!  Thanks Jac.   I have a few simple minded questions before you are bombarded by the big brains.  You lost me at 10.

Isn't it possible that this first mover no longer exists?  Without my grandfather, I wouldn't be here, but he's dead now.

Perfection exists as an idea. It hasn't been observed in nature.  A thing that exists and has properties could have had any infinite combination of properties, but isn't it possible that none of those combinations are identical to perfection? Isn't question begging to assume perfection as a possible attribute of a thing that actually exists?

[i_am_i]

As far as I can understand this what you're saying is that when we go back in time we arrive at the first cause, and this cause must be uncaused.

But nothing can exist without a cause except for God, therefore God exists.

It's sort of the old ontological/cosmological argument, and it relies on a great deal of assumptions. But I admit that, being largely self-educated, there are great gaps in my learning so perhaps I've got this all wrong.

You're sure working hard on this, I'll give you that. But aren't you just going out of your way to legitimize an imaginary idea or concept that primitive human beings fabricated because they had no real understanding of the universe, so they made up an anthropomorphized super-being to explain natural occurances?

[Jac3510]

WEEEEEEEEE!!!

[humblesmurph]

Perfection exists as an idea. It hasn't been observed in nature.  A thing that exists and has properties could have had any infinite combination of properties, but isn't it possible that none of those combinations are identical to perfection? Isn't question begging to assume perfection as a possible attribute of a thing that actually exists?

"Perfecton" is a technical term. It doesn't mean "without fault." It is a predicate--it is that which can be predicated to something without limit. Notice I used the plural--perfections. Thus, I'm not just saying that God is "perfect." I'm saying that He necessarily has all perfections--knowledge, goodness, personhood, power, justice, etc.

I hope that helps

Thanks for the homework.  I'll read the paper shortly.  As for the bit I quoted here, no it doesn't quite help.  I was unclear, I didn't mean to suggest that you were saying that God was perfect, just that it contains perfections.  This is the help I need:

Prove that a single perfection exists.

Prove that all perfections exist (show that it could not be the case that perfect goodness exists but not perfect power).

Prove these perfections exist in a single being.

Prove this being is identical to the first mover.

edit: I removed an unnecessary smart ass comment.

[Sophus]

I'll get in on this.

Before getting into the nitty gritty, I think I can stop you at the first one. Existence comes, indeed, before essence but virtually everything has essence (or your definition of it).

You never proved that perfection is a real thing that exists or that we should expect must exist.

Furthermore, may we fairly replace being with entity? If so, then I think I can agree (to a degree) with numbers 10 and 11:

A first causal being is the primary efficient cause of all essentially ordered efficiently caused beings.
Therefore, subsistent existence is the primary efficient cause of all essentially ordered efficiently caused beings.

Correct me if I'm misunderstanding the concept but it seems we can point to the Atom for this, right? If you change the number of electrons, neutrons, electrons, you end up with something that is a whole new element. Thus it is fundamentally different in one way, however, it is still comprised of atoms, which are each made up of fundamental building blocks which cannot be altered. Are fermions and the tachyon arguments for God? I don't see this being so since it is something so extremely simple on its own that doesn't need further explanation.

[Whitney]

Jac, while I don't have time to participate in these discussions I just wanted to thank you for posting thoughtfully.

[i_am_i]

I have a question, Jac. Would you define God as being the first causal being which did not receive its being through efficient causality, or as the only being which did not receive its being through efficient causality?

[Jac3510]

As far as I can understand this what you're saying is that when we go back in time we arrive at the first cause, and this cause must be uncaused.

But nothing can exist without a cause except for God, therefore God exists.

It's sort of the old ontological/cosmological argument, and it relies on a great deal of assumptions. But I admit that, being largely self-educated, there are great gaps in my learning so perhaps I've got this all wrong.

You're sure working hard on this, I'll give you that. But aren't you just going out of your way to legitimize an imaginary idea or concept that primitive human beings fabricated because they had no real understanding of the universe, so they made up an anthropomorphized super-being to explain natural occurances?

Check my first reply to HS. I'm not arguing for an infinite back in time. That would be the Kalaam CA, which isn't the one I'm presenting here. We'll look at it later. I'm talking about an infinite simultaneous chain of events isn't possible--in technical terms, essentially ordered efficient causes verses accidentally ordered efficient causes. Second, I'm not saying that nothing can exist without a cause except God. I'm just saying that there is an uncaused cause, and when we examine its nature, we may as well end up calling it God given all that we discover about it. Third, just FYI, there is a huge difference in ontological and cosmological arguments, but either way, I'm not sure which assumptions you are getting at. If you list them, I'll be glad to comment. And finally, we can talk about the history of the idea of God later. Suffice it to say I don't think the story you presented captures the big picture. There are several categories of proofs for God -- we'll discuss that issue if and when we get to historical proofs.

Thanks for the homework.  I'll read the paper shortly.  As for the bit I quoted here, no it doesn't quite help.  I was unclear, I didn't mean to suggest that you were saying that God was perfect, just that it contains perfections.  This is the help I need:

Prove that a single perfection exists.

"Perfection" is just a label for things like sight, love, goodness, justice, power, or knowledge. I'm sure you agree that those things exist. The word "perfection" isn't the best translation of entelecheia, but it's about the best we are going to get. Just FYI, that word was coined by Aristotle and is a combination of three Greek words: en meaning "in," telos meaning "end" or "purpose," and echein which is the infinitive "to have." So the idea is "to have a thing's purpose within [itself]." The purpose an eye is to see, so sight is a "perfection" of the eye. We can go deeper into this concept as needed . . . we will need to discuss the relationship of perfections with form (in Aristotle's form/matter distinction) and act (in his potency/act distinction). Suffice it here to say that a perfection is consistent with the form of a thing in action. The eye is a thing that sees, so seeing is the perfection.

Prove that all perfections exist (show that it could not be the case that perfect goodness exists but not perfect power).

Again, I think the word "perfect" has you thrown a bit. "Perfection" is just a label for a non-limited predicate. As it is, however, each predicate is limited, not by the perfection itself, but by the essence of the thing in which it is found. In other words, the eye sees in a limited way because the eye is a limited structure. "Perfect sight" would be sight not bound by the essence of the eye. It would be that which sees all. This is why, however, we don't really speak of something like height as a perfection. Height is actually a limitation--it expresses the limitation of a dimensional extension (in my case, my frame is limited to 5'11").

Prove these perfections exist in a single being.

Prove this being is identical to the first mover.

See (14)-(17) in the argument above. Perfections are part of an essentially ordered causal chain and thus need to receive their being from the First Cause. Therefore, all perfections exist virtually in the First Cause, and since the First Cause is pure being, all perfections are actually obtained and instantiated in said being.

So, I hope that is still clearer. Like I said in the OP, this argument is particularly philosophical. It isn't easy, and I don't pretend it is. Aquinas argued for this very reason that the existence of God is not self-evident. Once, however, you have learned the nuances of the various technical terminology, it does become self-evident. You discover that "God exists" is a tautology, because "God" is just the religio-relational word for "existence within its own nature." Since existence instantiates all perfections, all perfections are united in subsistent existence (the philosophical word for God).

I'll get in on this.

Before getting into the nitty gritty, I think I can stop you at the first one. Existence comes, indeed, before essence but virtually everything has essence (or your definition of it).

Actually, everything has essence on my definition.

I have a question, Jac. How do we, human beings, know about God?

What, in other words, is the "first cause" of human beings knowing about God?

Edit: That question really has nothing to do with what you've posted so far so instead let me ask you this: would you define God as being the first causal being which did not receive its being through efficient causality?

Thank you. I'll save the first question for later.

Yes, IaI, so long as by the word "which" you aren't implying that there are other first causal beings. I don't think you are, but the grammar could be taken in two ways. I think I agree with you, though. I insist that God is the First Cause, and as this First Cause He, by definition, did not receive His being through efficient causality. As I pointed out in the thread on simplicity, His being is not separate from His essence; it is identical with it.

I guess that covers everybody for now.  [

[Sophus]

The Argument for a First Cause from the Contingency of Things, also called the Thomistic Cosmological Argument
1. What we observe in this universe is contingent
2. A sequence of causally related contingent things cannot be infinite
3. A sequence of causally related contingent things must be finite
Thus, there must be a First Cause in a sequence of contingent things

I suppose that's what I was trying to say earlier when interpreting essence in this context. In other words, the first cause for contingent things is never random itself. For example, hair color which is, while I wouldn't quite say random, subject to a certain degree of chance, the factor causing it, being genetics, is very structured in how it works. The existence or functionality of DNA is not subject to chance.
If we keep digging deeper and deeper looking for a fundamental root in the universe I see no reason to not draw the line at the fundamental components of the atom, with no more empirical evidence suggesting otherwise. This may or may not fit the bill of being a "First Cause" but I would call it a fundamental cause, or rather a fundamental component.

Anything that is capable of not existing is not a necessary being.

This is an interesting argument. I don't know enough about physics to really claim anything here with any amount of certainty, however, I'm not sure if physicists themselves would know what makes something capable of not existing. Existence alone itself is a mysterious thing to explain which may not need explaining, because perhaps nothing is not a real possibility. Here is a lengthy video posted on this forum about how a something could come from nothing, because in Quantum Mechanics nothing isn't nothing.

One question: what excludes the First Cause from not needing to be finite? (Stop me if I'm putting words in your mouth, but this was the impression I got). At what point in eternity would the FC suddenly spark other causes? Wouldn't this denote change in the First Cause from the First Cause - essentially meaning it had an efficient cause?

[i_am_i]

Would you define God as being the first causal being which did not receive its being through efficient causality?

I insist that God is the First Cause, and as this First Cause He, by definition, did not receive His being through efficient causality.As I pointed out in the thread on simplicity, His being is not separate from His essence; it is identical with it.

Two questions then.

Is God the only being that did  not receive its being through efficient causality?

Recieve may not be the word you meant to use. On my mother's birthday I had a bunch of flowers delivered to her and she received them. But if receiving is the word you meant to use and if, as you have said, God did not receive its being through efficient causality then how or from where did it receive its being?

[humblesmurph]

Thanks for the homework.  I'll read the paper shortly.  As for the bit I quoted here, no it doesn't quite help.  I was unclear, I didn't mean to suggest that you were saying that God was perfect, just that it contains perfections.  This is the help I need:

Prove that a single perfection exists.

"Perfection" is just a label for things like sight, love, goodness, justice, power, or knowledge. I'm sure you agree that those things exist. The word "perfection" isn't the best translation of entelecheia, but it's about the best we are going to get. Just FYI, that word was coined by Aristotle and is a combination of three Greek words: en meaning "in," telos meaning "end" or "purpose," and echein which is the infinitive "to have." So the idea is "to have a thing's purpose within [itself]." The purpose an eye is to see, so sight is a "perfection" of the eye. We can go deeper into this concept as needed . . . we will need to discuss the relationship of perfections with form (in Aristotle's form/matter distinction) and act (in his potency/act distinction). Suffice it here to say that a perfection is consistent with the form of a thing in action. The eye is a thing that sees, so seeing is the perfection.

Prove that all perfections exist (show that it could not be the case that perfect goodness exists but not perfect power).

"Again, I think the word "perfect" has you thrown a bit. "Perfection" is just a label for a non-limited predicate. As it is, however, each predicate is limited, not by the perfection itself, but by the essence of the thing in which it is found. In other words, the eye sees in a limited way because the eye is a limited structure. "Perfect sight" would be sight not bound by the essence of the eye. It would be that which sees all. This is why, however, we don't really speak of something like height as a perfection. Height is actually a limitation--it expresses the limitation of a dimensional extension (in my case, my frame is limited to 5'11").

Respectfully, I'm not thrown.  I understand what you are claiming.  Your argument is unsound.  No, I absolutely don't agree that  love, justice, and goodness exist. I can't overstate this.  These things are concepts or predicates of the same order as morality no?  You argued that morality, and by extension, love, justice, and goodness, cannot be objective without God.   You can't then turn around and use these concepts in a proof for God.  That's circular.  

Without proving that these things exist, you go on to assert that these things could be limitless.  How do you know there are not limits to these concepts?  The presumption that limitless sight is even possible is tantamount to faith.