As recently discussed in thread "PSR retortion argument", rigorous proofs of the existence of God are based on the Principle of Sufficient Reason, which basically states that reality is ultimately rationally explainable. But why would someone assume that reality is ultimately rationally explainable whithout being theist or at least panentheist in the first place? I.e. without assuming that ultimate reality is Reason (Logos), of which our reason participates?

This is a delicate issue for Catholics, because the First Vatican Council's Constitution "Dei Filius" states (in the strongest way, i.e. on pain of anathema) "that God, the source and end of all things, can be known with certainty from the consideration of created things, by the natural light of human reason "for his invisible attributes, ever since the creation of the world, have been clearly perceived, being understood through the things that have been made."" (ch. 2 "On Revelation", which in turn quotes (Rom 1:20), where the corresponding anathema is on canon 1 [1]).

I argue that this statement presupposes the implicit condition "if the person in question assumes that reality is ultimately intelligible/explainable by human reason". Since it is evident that human reason can know a non-directly-sensed fact with certainty only if it presupposes that reality is intelligible up to that fact, it is reasonable that human reason can know the Ultimate Fact with certainty only if it presupposes that reality is ultimately rationally intelligible, i.e. only if it assumes the PSR.

I want to focus, now, on the kind of argument for the existence of God that can be made without assuming the PSR. While clearly such an argument would not be a rigorous demonstration, given the widespread unwillingness to take PSR for granted it seems to me that it is a worthwhile endeavour.  Thus, I provide my current attempt at such an argument.

Starting from five empirical facts:

F1. The universe is a contingent entity: it could have been different and it could not be at all. Moreover...

F2. The universe began to exist 13,800 million years ago, and there is no solid scientific theory that give a physical cause of that beginning, only unfalsifiable conjectures. (OTOH, a cyclic universe which bangs, expands to a maximum, then contracts to a minimum to bounce and bang again, is not plausible since it has been repeatedly observed since 1998 that the expansion is accelerating and will go on forever. And if "the current instance" of the universe will expand forever, why would hypotethical "previous instances" have behaved differently? [2])

F3. The universe works causally according to mathematically expressible laws.

F4. Fundamental physical constants show a fine tuning that makes the universe adequate for the development of complex life forms.

F5. The human mind reasons based on causality and is capable of creating mathematical formal systems, including those that express the laws that describe the working of the universe.

Given those facts, each person can adopt one of two positions, the first explaining the facts rationally and the second simply accepting them as "brute facts".

Spiritual-Rational position:

There exists an ultimate, Subsistent Being which is Spirit and Reason (Logos), Who created the universe (explains F1 & F2) according to reason (explains F3) with the purpose of hosting rational creatures (explains F4), whose rational capacity resides in a spiritual soul created in the image of Spiritual, Uncreated Reason (explains F5).

In this position, the universe has explanation and human life has meaning, subsisting after death.

Materialist-Evolutionist position:

F1 ... F3: “brute fact”, “that’s just the way it is”.

F4: fine tuning is probably due to the fact that there are innumerable universes, in which case we have obviously appeared in one of them which is fit for life. Or maybe there are not many universes and F4 is just another brute fact.

F5: the monkey who thought the branch moved without reason was eaten by a predator and could not pass on his genes. On the other hand, the capacity for mathematics and abstract thinking is emergent from neural network complexity and does not require a spiritual soul, notwithstanding Thomists' TL;DR arguments on the contrary.

In this position, the universe does not have explanation and human life does not have meaning, ending in death. Nor does mankind as a whole have meaning, since it is well known that Earth will have been scorched by the sun in at most 2 billion years.

---

A notable proponent of this kind of argument was Benedict XVI, whom I will quote below, clearly not as argument of authority:

"In the end, to reach the definitive question I would say:  God exists or he does not exist. There are only two options. Either one recognizes the priority of reason, of creative Reason that is at the beginning of all things and is the principle of all things - the priority of reason is also the priority of freedom -, or one holds the priority of the irrational, inasmuch as everything that functions on our earth and in our lives would be only accidental, marginal, an irrational result - reason would be a product of irrationality.

One cannot ultimately "prove" either project, but the great option of Christianity is the option for rationality and for the priority of reason. This seems to me to be an excellent option, which shows us that behind everything is a great Intelligence to which we can entrust ourselves." [3]

"But on the other, the doctrine of evolution does not answer every query, especially the great philosophical question: where does everything come from? And how did everything start which ultimately led to man? I believe this is of the utmost importance. This is what I wanted to say in my lecture at Regensburg: that reason should be more open, that it should indeed perceive these facts but also realize that they are not enough to explain all of reality. They are insufficient. Our reason is broader and can also see that our reason is not basically something irrational, a product of irrationality, but that reason, creative reason, precedes everything and we are truly the reflection of creative reason. We were thought of and desired; thus, there is an idea that preceded me, a feeling that preceded me, that I must discover, that I must follow, because it will at last give meaning to my life." [4]


[1] http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/creeds2.v.ii.i.html

[2] I find amazing the complete lack of use of this finding in theistic apologetics, since it invalidates the case of cyclic eternal cosmologies as found in panentheistic philosophies such as hinduism and buddhism.

[3] http://w2.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/speeches/2006/april/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20060406_xxi-wyd.html

[4] http://w2.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/speeches/2007/july/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20070724_clero-cadore.html

Last edited by Johannes (6/13/2016 12:35 pm)