What it takes to Prove that God Exists - (Part 4 of 5): Be-Cause

We have seen throughout the past entries what Kant would consider, "The Conditions for the Possibility", or what the Medieval Scholastics would call "Forma quo", to prove God's existence.

 

1. What does it mean to prove? Concretely in a syllogism

2. The Law or Principle of Noncontradiction - foundation of all science.

3. What is an Analogy - why is it important?

 

We have reached the two highly contraversial final conditions which I have decided to bring together - that of Participation and Causality.

Phenomenologist schools of Philosophy (Sartre, Levinas, Derrida, Jean-Luc Marion) will not accept "Causality" or "Causation". These are foreign terms given that they denote a cause - effect, whereas within these schools philosophers would underline the effect or the event. Their reasoning can be understood but it is little scientific. "Science" by definition - choose the one you wish - even the Oxford Dictionary boils down science to the word "knowledge" and Aristotle rightly defined it as knowledge that is certain through (knowledge) of the Causes.

 

"we possess scientific knowledge of a thing only when we know its cause"
(Posterior Analytics Book I, chapter 2)

 

 Science requires an investigation of the causes, not just an examination of the effects. Thus we reach the idiomatic principle - "every effect requires a cause". Now it would be an error to conclude, therefore God exists as cause of all things. We could at this point state that it’s not true, because it’s not scientific. Thus, the tedious nature of proving God's existence continues to be tedious. What I am here stating is that there can be no proving God's existence without the principle of causality.

 

 On Participation - the Greek term "Methexis" was used by Plato and discarded for all intents and purposes by Aristotle (his pupil). Plato had considered that the Ideas which existed somewhere, Ideas such as "Horse", "German", Red" existed in all their fullness in the nebulous heavens and subsisted as such (think Clifford, the dog as “The Dog” compared to other “dogs” on Earth). This however is problematic since even beyond the nebulous heavens we have not discovered “real” ideas but rather more of subsistent things…and we definitely have not found a big red dog, not even by the name “Clifford”.

 

 Notwithstanding there is an internal force within the logic of participation. Contiguous to the Principle of Noncontradiction we can state with wide and spacious clarity that a whole cannot be a part and vice versa. Now if this is the case, and if for example, only absolute zero is the theoretic temperature at which even the subatomic molecular structure of a whole theoretically individual atom so-to-speak “decomposes” any temperature above it merely participates in the destructive potential of Absolute Zero. The physics behind the theory is sound but thus far idealist. Even if an object reached absolute zero it would but stop existing so that there would be no subject in absolute zero.  

 

 Apply the same logic the other way around – in this case a real one. Aquinas (and this is the one of the few times I will mention him in this series. I know how much those who debate the proofs for God existence have gotten tired of Him…understood and respected) Aquinas gave the example that someone entering into a warm room automatically knew that that warmth was merely a participation of the fire within. As a person grows closer to that fire each successive room “participates” more in the source from which it flowed (See Super Ioannem, prologue n.5).

 

 It is unnecessary to prove – as with all true first principles – the principle of participation and the breadth of its functionality can be measured with the prism of analogy. This accepted along with the principle of causation – begged for mainly by modern (and ancient) science. Even within the realm of Economics causation is considered (e.g. Supply and Demand). These binomials – among many other correlative factors - analogous to that of cause and effect are universal to all true scientific knowledge (I could include moral knowledge but that goes beyond the scope of thinking as far as this series goes).

 

 Thus if we are to prove God’s existence – I assert that the final factor within the What it Takes chain of factors is that of the principles of Participation and Causality. Without them we are not proving that God exists.

 

 The first principles of participation and causality are themes that we could consider for the rest of our long lives as philosophers tend to have. I have merely given the first brush strokes to give a taste of what they feel like but I still assert that they are necessary steps towards a rational proof for God’s existence and I say “rational” meaning also “scientific”.

 

 Finally – In the last entry of this series I will sum up this and former entries through a possible valid proof for God’s existence utilizing and highlighting the points mentioned prior to. Also through it I will heavily critique the “proof by Intelligent Design” which has been a poor mainstay of Philosophical Theology in today’s discussion forums.

 

At a practical level beyond the tediousness and intellectual honesty required (which also implies the Principle of Noncontradiction) it takes courage and patience to prove God’s existence given the reality you see in today’s discussion forums and philosophical agora.

 

What it Takes to Prove Gods Existence 5 – “Proof” by Intelligent Design, a Critique.

What it takes to Prove that God Exists - (Part 3 of 5): The Truth through an Analogy

Proving God's existence is a very tedious task - something few people, even thinkers - achieve during their lifetime. Why bother proving God's existence? Because Inception doesn't work. And even if it did it wouldn't really fix the problem...

One more necessary factor in "proving" God's existence is The Truth of an Analogy.

In Wikipedia under "Analogy" it seems that some committee member decided to best define "Analogy" with the meticulously cumbersome:  

a cognitive process of transferring information or meaning from a particular subject (the analogue or source) to another particular subject (the target), and a linguistic expression corresponding to such a process.

I prefer the Google quick definition:

Since the beginning of time Man has had the capacity to think and articulate things metaphorically using similes and metaphors. Without them literature would be sloggish and in a cold Sovietesque way. Grammar Girl (my quick grammatical help-guide) gives "Simile and Metaphor" this sense:

Metaphors and similes both call attention to how two different things are similar, so people listening to you can apply the qualities of one thing to the other.

Though She (in this case Stever Robbins) doesn't link the notions of "Analogy" with "Simile" or "Metaphor" but you discover a similarity instantly.

Boiled down to just the essentials you will remember taking the SAT and having to choose a multiple choice that corresponded to the proportion represented mathematically such as:

1:2::2:4

Possibly represented in literature as such:

House : Family :: Beehive : Bees

or

As a "house" is to a "family" - so is a "beehive" to "bees"

Metaphors, Allegories and Hyperboles such as this one taken from Shakespeare show our mind's capability of 'connecting the dots' so-to-speak, of being able to see the similiarity yet their differences.

 

 All the world's a stage, And all the men and women merely players; They have their exits and their entrances; - As you Like it, 2/7 

Mathematics and Physics especially requires the use of especially mathematical proportions. There is no need to assert some sort of "intelligent design" but that of our own intelligence. Our own minds' capabilities, and its use within Math and Physics - beyond that of literature tells us that it is applicable to reality. Our minds can retrieve from reality, certain real proportions. The above proportions are valid in their own ways (obviously Shakespeare's should be taken 'allegorically').

Finally an analogy which we draw from reality - I think this could be the most difficult part of what it takes to prove God's existence, for example: 

a Human : Living :: a Being : Doing

 

The example is of a Philosophical abstraction. Instead of "a Human" just about any other real thing (purely mental concepts are difficult to "abstract" since they are already abstract but are in some ways also possible as well to be conducted to "a Being").

 

As a real Human Being, say "Thomas", is in reality and is alive i denote that his act of being is "living", since that is what he does. This connection "a Human - Living" can be abstracted to "a Being - Doing". Do you see the abstraction in the above analogy? Taken one more step above it could be presented as such as:

Thomas : Blogging :: a Human : Living :: a Being : Doing

 

 This analogy is presented in so-to-speak "real-time". Notice that "a Being" is both, on the one hand, a noun (ex. a human being), as well as a verb? We're not constraining ourselves to do doing a Linguistic Analysis (i.e. Philosophy of Language) but we're trying to find out the reasons behind these occurrences. In this case we see that to be something - be it "a human" or "a car" or anything else requires us to be "a being" and that that being is in action, is Doing.

 

Therefore: All things are beings and all beings are doing (what Aristotle would have called 'Act') and that if we use a valid analogy the truth behind the 'logic' of the 'ana-logy' is not lost.

 

 

 

Part 4 is on Causation

 

What it takes to Prove that God Exists - (Part 2 of 5): Settling your Differences

I had said I was going to write on "Analogies" in this post but I realized there was something that I had forgotten to factor in to legitimately prove God's existence - Two things - The Law of Noncontradiction, in some ways, aka "Common Sense". I thank my friend Avery for reminding me about that.

Beyond Logic all of us admit to ourselves that 1 ≠ 2. There is no need to prove it, it's self-evident. This self-evident reality boils down to a Principle or Law of Non-Contradiction. Though some mathematician might consider he could find a way to prove that 1 = 2 but the fact is again, common sense. We don't need to arrive to a reasonable conclusion such as "ALL GREEKS ARE MORTAL".

But what is a "Principle" in this case? That's simple, a self-evident proposition. Wikipedia gives a lengthy complicated one, again, but in this case it's an obvious assumption. No one needs to prove to me that 1 ≠ 2 because One cannot also be Two at the same time and in the same way. It's 'Common Sense' as we say today.

What happens when you don't accept this? Ultimately you can't prove God exists...but before considering that you have to accept the fact - or reject the fact - the fact of what is true. You cannot have the coexistence of two opposite truths in one reality. A dog is a dog and not a cat (dog = dog; dog ≠ cat). When truth is rejected we consider that Relativism. You don't have to read the Wikipedia article on Relativism to figure out the validity of 'Truth or False' questions.

Finally, when Relativism enters the sphere of the moral life (which is a separate topic) that is considered 'Moral Relativism'. It is more difficult to accept the principle but - as true is to false, thus so is right to wrong:

True : False :: Right : Wrong

One last factor required to prove God's existence that flows from this entry is that of sincere and honest search for what is true. When there is no real desire to know what is true we end up making the truth maleable to our own whims...which is wrong.

(To be Continued.... Part 3 of 5: Speaking Metaphorically and Analogically)

What it takes to Prove that God Exists - (Part 1 of 5): 'Prove it'

"Prove it!" is something we often hear from the incredulous. But what exactly does it mean to "prove" something?

 

 

 

To prove something means to demonstrate that somethinge exists by evidence or argument.

 

Then what is an argument or evidence? Evidence is something you can give only through the senses, e.g. like when you drive up in your new red Mini Cooper you prove to someone that you have new car. But how exactly can you do that with God? Is it possible?...I think so, but only through an argument.

 

Since the time of Socrates an argument had three parts and three terms. Aristotle wrote his six-part work on Logic called the Organon (wiki article) which since then was considered the basic textbook for Logic until the Industrial Revolution, which while forging a new kind of Logic (Mathematical Logic), nonetheless continued using the same basic principles as those of the Organon.

 

To prove something through an argument you need a syllogism. A syllogism only occurs when there are three notions: a concept, a judgment, and through them a reasoning, in other words an argument.

 

CONCEPT (example: 'All Humans'): To prove a real syllogism you require real concepts but concepts can be validly employed in fiction as well, but the problem is that you're not proving anything...BTW - You need three concepts per syllogism. A sure sign of a bad syllogism is when you have less than or more than three concepts.

 



ALL HUMANS 

 

 

JUDGEMENT (example: "All Humans are Mortal"): It's necessary to put concepts together, and if you want to make it work in reality you need to make sure it's true, and in this case (example) it is. Here below are two judgements.

 

 

ALL HUMANS ARE MORTAL

ALL GREEKS ARE HUMAN



 

REASONING: After stringing together two true judgements we are ready to  create

 an argument (argument=reasoning)...

 

 

ALL HUMANS ARE MORTAL

ALL GREEKS ARE HUMAN

 

therefore, it follows that:

ALL GREEKS ARE MORTAL

 

 

To be Continued...Part 2 of 5 on Analogy