Only logged in members can reply and interact with the post.
Join SimilarWorlds for FREE »

I Believe In God

I enjoy the philosophy behind the existence of God. My favorite proofs for His existence are Thomas Aquinas' five ways, which are sadly quite terribly misunderstood by most people.
The second and fifth ways are my favorites, but here is the second way, a proof of God from efficient causation:

1. There are series of efficient causes of things in the world.
2. Nothing exists prior to itself.
3. Therefore nothing is the efficient cause of itself, because to be the efficient cause of itself, it would have to be prior to itself.
4. If a previous efficient cause does not exist, neither does the thing that results.
5. Therefore if the first thing in a series does not exist, nothing in the series exists.
6. The series of efficient causes cannot extend ad infinitum into the past, for then there would be no first member, and no things existing now.
7. Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God.

Premise 1 is pretty obvious. Efficient causes are the usual causes that we see in day to day life. For example, electricity causes a light bulb to turn on.
Premises 2 and 3 go together. Nothing can cause itself, because a cause has to be prior to its effect. However, what Aquinas does not say is that everything has a cause. Things are either caused by something else or are entirely uncaused.
Premises 4 and 5 are pretty self-evident.
Premise 6 is one which most people misinterpret to be speaking of an entirely different type of causation than what Aquinas had in mind. For Aquinas, there were two different types of causal series.
1) Accidentally ordered series. In these series, the effect is not dependent on the cause for its existence. An example of such a series is people having children. The children continue to exist and produce more offspring even after their parents die.
2) Essentially ordered series. In these series, the effect depends on the cause for its existence. An example of this would be someone's hand moving a stick which in turn is moving a stone. Once the hand stops moving, both the stick and stone stop moving. They depend on the movement of the hand for their movement.
Aquinas wrote elsewhere that he did not believe it was possible to philosophically prove that accidentally ordered causal series could not go on to infinity. Therefore, he is talking about essentially ordered series.
So, if we go back to the stick pushing the stone scenario, the stone is moving because the stick is moving, the stick is moving because the hand is moving, the hand is moving because certain motor neurons are firing, and these are firing because of others, and it keeps going back and back and back, but if there is no first member in the series, there is no way the stone can be moving at all. Aquinas concludes that there must be an uncaused cause sustaining things in existence at every moment, and that this cause is God. It's not just the watchmaker God of modern intelligent design arguments. It is a God continually, actively, sustaining His creation, which I think is a very beautiful picture of Him.

I am indebted to Edward Feser's book Aquinas for this information.


This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
HazelMotes
It's amazing that Aquinas didn't notice the fallacy in his reasoning. If God always existed, for an infinite amount of time, then it could be said that one moment of God's existence "caused" the next one. Aquinas' God didn't just pop into existence from nothing; at any moment of his existence, there was a moment which preceded it. So he still has an infinite series.

Aquinas is also unclear on the concept of time. An act of will, such as God's creation of the universe, has two components: conception and execution. If these occur in sequence, then God is trapped within the arrow of time the same way we are; time, in other words, would be more powerful than God.

This is why a conscious, causative, involved deity cannot exist.
darkanddesolate · 26-30, F
God, if he exists at all, does not exist in time. It would be impossible for him to exist in time for the reasons you state. Therefore, if he exists, his existence must transcend time, and all components of his act of willing to create must be simultaneous.
theguywiththeredhair
Exactly. God is not bound by things like logic, time, etc. He made this world and its properties.
darkanddesolate · 26-30, F
Even God is bound by logic. He can't create something greater than himself, he can't create a square circle, because those things are contradictory.
theguywiththeredhair
He is not bound by logic at all. He can make a stone so big He cannot lift it and then lift it without even touching it. He can make a square circle by giving a square the properties of a circle by either giving it an outer shape of one or making it fit into any circular hole. You say God does not exist in your previous comment so how can you tell me what He can and cannot do?
theguywiththeredhair
Scratch that last part, I thought you were the other guy.
darkanddesolate · 26-30, F
But if God could make a stone so big He cannot lift it and then lifted it, it would not be a stone so big he cannot lift it in the first place. God can't do things that are logically impossible, but that doesn't take away from His omnipotence. There are just some things that in and of themselves are not possible. God can do all things possible.
theguywiththeredhair
Then He is not omnipotent. Impossible things include a man rising after 3 days being dead, or a sea splitting in half. That doesn't stop God though.
darkanddesolate · 26-30, F
But those things are physically impossible, not logically impossible. God can do all things that are physically impossible. But logical impossibility involves self-contradiction, which is in and of itself not possible.
theguywiththeredhair
God made this world, so He designed the laws that it obeys such as gravity, time, life, death, and logic. If He made it then it didn't exist yet.
darkanddesolate · 26-30, F
But I would argue that logic is timeless, and that God's existence is the height of logic, for his non-existence is a logical contradiction. If God is omnipotent in the sense you describe, he should be able to make himself cease to exist. But he cannot do that precisely because he is by definition a necessary being.
theguywiththeredhair
Then let us combine our views on it. God can kill Himself. But He can't. Why? Because He won't. The only thing that truly limits God is will and will not.
darkanddesolate · 26-30, F
It's not just because he won't. If he is a necessary being, then his existence is uncaused, and he just exists. He can't not-exist. It's a basic principle of logic. It might seem to contradict omnipotence that God is bound by logic, but I do not believe it does. Something illogical is something we cannot even conceive of. We cannot even conceive of a square triangle, whereas we certainly can conceive of a moon made of cheese. Things that are not logically possible are contradictions. God can't make me be simultaneously 5 feet tall and 6 feet tall because that is a contradiction. God's sheer existence is a necessary avoidance of contradiction, so it makes sense to say that everything he does is also an avoidance of contradiction.
theguywiththeredhair
We can't conceive it because our mortal mind is so limited to only conceive logical things. We can picture what God looks like, even use Revelations 1:13 which describes Him, and not come close to His facial appearance or majesty.
darkanddesolate · 26-30, F
No description of ours can come close to describing God's majesty. But here is why he cannot do the logically impossible.
1. God is always by definition the greatest being in existence.
2. If God could create a being greater than Himself, He would no longer be the greatest being in existence.
3. God could create a being greater than Himself (as you say)
4. Therefore, He would no longer be the greatest being in existence.
5. But he is God, so He still must be the greatest being in existence.
6. Therefore He is simultaneously the greatest and the not-greatest being.
How you can accept a conclusion like that blows my mind, I'm afraid.
theguywiththeredhair
Because He is always the greatest in the world and cannot be overcome, so not even logic can overcome Him.
darkanddesolate · 26-30, F
If he cannot be overcome, then he cannot overcome himself. But part of his omnipotence is being able to overcome himself. He is pure good but if he is omnipotent he should be able to become pure evil. It goes further. He must be both pure good and pure evil simultaneously, but not simultaneously also. He must exist and not exist simultaneously and non-simultaneously. He must be able to create Himself from non-existence. He must have been caused, caused Himself, and be uncaused all at the same time. It just doesn't work.
theguywiththeredhair
He could be able to do that. but He will not. His only limit is His nature. God could turn this world into a darker place than Hell if He wanted to, but He doesn't. And I am not trying to say that God can create something bigger than Himself as that argument is already gone for now. But if God made logic, then logic does not overcome Him at all. He is the greatest thing over all things so nothing can overcome Him.
darkanddesolate · 26-30, F
But part of his nature is being logical. His nature embodies logic. His existence is a logical necessity. Logic is something stemming from His nature.
theguywiththeredhair
But as we both said, nothing overcomes Him. And where does it say that logic is part of His nature? He defies logic on a daily basis by being an uncaused Creator who exists with no birth or death. He made logic for this world. Now the spirit world may have its own brand of logic, but definitely something far different than ours.
darkanddesolate · 26-30, F
But existing uncaused does not defy logic. There is no contradiction there. His nonexistence is what would be illogical. He is a necessary being, existence itself. Existence itself not existing is what is a logical impossibility. If God didn't exist, non-existence would. But non-existence existing is a logical contradiction. God's existence is the height of all things logical. His nature is purely logical, and the logically impossible is just like non-existence. What is impossible just cannot be.
theguywiththeredhair
But as logic would show us, something that exists needs a creator. And if you say that God can't do the impossible, then you say that is above God.
darkanddesolate · 26-30, F
The impossible isn't above God. The impossible is the opposite of God. Nonexistence is impossible. God is possible. God transcends the impossible in being possible. But he cannot make his own non-existence possible, because that would go against his very nature. Just as He cannot be being and not-being at the same time, His creation reflects His logical nature in not being able to be two different things at once. God cannot create things against His nature.
theguywiththeredhair
That is what I have been trying to say. His nature is the only thing that limits Him. He could do those things, but He won't due to how He acts as the supreme and perfect creator.
darkanddesolate · 26-30, F
But because His nature is what limits Him, He can't do those things. He can't go against His nature.
theguywiththeredhair
It isn't really a .limit. It is more of a personality. If your only limit is your nature, then you have ultimate freedom. God can do those things, but He says "No I got more important things to do".