(God Argument) from Ground of Being

Philosophy Forums Religion and Spirituality
1

Aseity = an existent cannot fail or cease to exist;is not dependent upon anything else for its existence (self sufficient existence–an extention of Ontological necessity, I will use the terms interchangeably).

God = The object of our ultimate concerns; the proper object of our religious devotion.

Contingent existence = an existant can fail or cease; the existence of which is conditioned other events.

PSA = Putative State of Affirs, the essential starting point or the ontolgocially prior condition for existence.

Numionous = Feeling of utter depedence, the object of ultimate concerns, sense of the Holy, any sense that we have of the special nature of things beyond the mundane.

Being itself = not a pure abstraction, not the sum total of existing things, but the basic nature of being apart from nothingness; both being in itself and being for itself.This is nt a mystical concept, it is merely a reference to any form of being, without regard to any particualr being.

(1)Nothingness as PSA is marked by its own contradiction,

A.True absolute nothingness and PSA are contradictions because nothingness means nothing at all, and PSA is something.

B.True nothingness would lack any essential potential for change; no time, no ptoentiality, noting at all; therefore, no change, no becoming.

Therefore: (2)Being, in some form, as the alternative to nothingness must obtain to a state of aseity.

(3)Aseity implies eternal and the infinite.

(4)Human being is contrasted by finitude.

(5)The awareness of our finitude in contrast to Aseity of Being creates a sense of the unbounded condition; which evokes our sense of the numinous.

(6) The sense of the numinous creates religious devotion, thus we have an object of religious devotion and theological discourse in Being itself.

(7) An object of religious devotion and theological discourse is a rational warrant for belief.

[b]If you find this hard to take or understand, here's a simpler version:[/b]


(1) Sense of the Numinous evokes religious devotion

(2) The sense of the numinous is the sense of the special nature of being

(3) Thus being itself, the ground of being, is the object of religious devotion

(4) whatever is the fit object of religious devotion (the thing that evokes it at the core in the first place) is defined as "God."

(5) since we know this special sense of being existing then QED God exists.
2

Hmm… I found it a bit awkward, but not disagreeable. It seems more an argument for religion than God.

You are defining God in terms of religion rather than the other way around, “God is whatever religious people revere highest.”
I would regard that as “A god”, not necessarily “The God”.

3

Well if we get deeply into Tillich’s ideas I will say that since God is synonymous with being itself, or the ground of being, God cannot be “a being.” thus not ‘a god’ not just ‘the God’ but the basis of all reality. The justification is the sense of the numinous, but not to say that all individual machinations of human imagination toward God concepts mark separate and distinct gods. they may well do sin terms of human understanding but behind all of those lurks the one and only possible basis for eternal necessary being; it is this eternal necessary aspect of being itself that we call designate by the term “God.”

The sense of numinous marks the eternal necessary aspect of being as divine by linking it to the fit object of worship.

4

I can agree with that (I think), but that wasn’t your argument.

…and frankly, I am not concerned or impressed by other philosophers such as Tillich. This is merely you and I… and Logos.

5

Yes it is.However badly expressed that’s what I was trying to say.

…and frankly, I am not concerned or impressed by other philosophers such as Tillich. This is merely you and I… and Logos.
[/quote]
Think about saying that if we were arguing about the turth of Christianity. In fact we are. I’m a Christian and Tillich has the interpretation of Christianity that I agree with the most (in some ways anyway). Interpreting him correctly is important. that should help you understand what I’m saying better.

If we were arguing bout Christianity in a more overt way there would be a point where one’s own view of it is important yet one would also be expected to share some commonality with the group or it’ snot Christianity (or whatever). That should help you more than hinder you in trying to understand what I’m saying; although one must still take care not to stereotype.

6

Yes. :sunglasses:

Speaking of such, I happen to be one of those “psychologists” that you seem to stereo type. And as such, I can tell you that you have a specific neurological corruption that is causing you difficulty in expressing and maintaining the memory involved in your logic sequencing. But if you keep persistence toward the logical, you can overcome being stifled by it.

I mention that only because I have a question. You seem to be able to hold to reasoning sufficiently to one day recognize beyond doubt that you can incontrovertibly prove the existence of God to just about anyone in their presence (online is an entirely different issue). So let’s say that you finally got to that point of very serious confidence along with the ability to express yourself sufficiently to convince just about anyone. Then what?

Being able to prove God’s existence is actually a minor concern (believe it or not). The real issue is what to do about it. So my question is, from all you currently surmise about the ways of the world, what would you personally recommend to do next, after a person has been convinced of the existence of God?

Emm… not just yet, we aren’t.

Oh, I’m pretty certain that I know what you are saying. But extending that, why do you say, “that is not Christianity”? What do you see as “Christianity” such as to make such a statement?

7

where do you see me stereotyping shrinks? :mrgreen: :banana-dance:

You’ve already misunderstood what I said. :wink:

I said we can’t prove the existence of God becuase he’s the basis of reality. That’s like weighing a scale with itself. We can show that bleief is rationally warranted.

yes, more than you realize. It’s opposed to my theology to do so.

that’s not a fair question. It’s not fair because my putting up these arguments was in response to a couple of people who hacked me off in another thread by saying that there’s no justifiable basis for belief in God. So that’s really my only purpose in putting them up.

Naturally there’s more to my life than proving that I have reasons to believe in God.

I expect one to seek truth. Once you know there’s a valid reason to believe in God perhaps you will conclude you should seek God. That’s the task of a life time in itself. So I suggest you start with the tradition that speaks to you the best. If you don’t know what that is start with your own back yard then if you know you rule that out go to the next one.

One should be careful in assuming “I know all about Christianity because I sent to church as a kid.” try reading the real theologians. My mistake when I became an atheist was in assuming my potential background was the apex of Christian thinking. When I discovered liberal theolgoians i thought they were atheists becuase the things they said were so different from what I knew in the little fundamentalist chruch of Christ background I grew with.

In a sense. Tillich’s idea of God is what he thought he recovered form the ancinet tradition of Christian philosophy.

Oh, I’m pretty certain that I know what you are saying. But extending that, why do you say, “that is not Christianity”? What do you see as “Christianity” such as to make such a statement?
[/quote]
on CARM those atheists have a ploy of divide and conquer. So if you have your own ideas that are not popular in Christian circles then try to separate that form Christianity. “you are not really a Christian you have your own thing, you are the only one who believes that ect.” they are very concerned with polarity of ideas. strange they are willing to be in a group that has 3% of the population then they seem to believe popularity = truth.

It will probalby occur to you I’ve taken a lot of CARM baggage here with me. It will take time to get rid of it.

8

You seem [to me] to be arguing that religious devotion is a devotion to something. That’s fine. But I don’t see why that something must necessarily exist.

Also, religious devotion is not ubiquitous.

9

The juxtaposition between finite and infinite evokes those feelings. That means the eternal necessary aspect of being can logically be considered divine. that’s God. that’s what God is eternal and divine.

why should we not assume it’s God?

(1) the logic proves eternal necessary being must exist

(2) the feelings it evokes proves it divine

that’s what God is.

10

I can’t even pretend to follow what you’re saying.

…what aspect of being is necessarily eternal?

11

Why the hell can’t you understand it? you are not able to think intelligently? It’s clear as day. just use the brain God gave you instead of preconceived prejudices of the God hater club.

obviously the aspect of being that is eternal and necessary can’t be pinned down to some empirical object. All empirical objects in nature are contingent. Eternal necessary being is a category not an individual thing.

that’s why the term “being itself.” The basis of what it means to be. Since that evokes the numinous we can assume it’s God.

12

What makes you think that category applies to anything real?

13

By definition, “being” is what “real” is.
That is why I pointed out that he hadn’t defined “real” in his syllogism.

14

Metacrock, I may be wrong but you seem to be starting with the premise that God exists and working backwards from there.

15

explain the question, what category?

16

do you not understand about premises? I think you are confusing stating a premise with having beliefs. I can already believe in what I argue for that doesn’t make the arguemnt circular. Clearly and obviously the premise does not state a belief. That’s all that matters for making an arguemnt,what I believe is not the basis for the argument.

the premise of the argument is that being must be eternal. It’s statmed this way:

stated negatively but that’s what it means. that is not the same thing as assuming God. It’s proving the basis upon which belief can proceed.

the second statement is derived from the first

so the second statement is an inference from the first and set’s up the basis for asserting aseity. still not positing God as a given.

so no, you are argument comes from not reading my argument.

17

The “premise” was that “Being” exists (the definitive article rather than any particular instance thereof), followed by rationale as to why said Being is said “God”.

18

Metacrock–I have long considered necessary being to be a strong argument. It doesn’t necessarily get one to the God of theistic orthodoxy though. I have also found that more people here seem to understand what I mean when I refer to Ultimate Reality than when I refer to the Ground of Being. Tillich understood that faith is a matter of ultimate concern that includes doubt and therefore is a reflection of our existential condition rather than dogmatic adherence to a creed. His theology sought to go beyond the usual theist/atheist dualism. I’ve tried to do that here myself with limited success as it is seems to be the nature of a website like this for one’s position to get attacked from all sides.

19

right. another way to put it. I have reason to equate God with being itself or the ground of being. That reason involves a particular take on the nature of being and I’m trying to communicate that take.

20

that’s great. I applaud your efforts. I find phrase “ultimate reality” set’s them off in a different direction. Then I’ve working with a different group.

I had a great dog. I love dogs.