“…meaningless combinations of words do not suddenly acquire meaning simply because we prefix to them the two other words ‘God can.’”
– C. S. Lewis
"’…But, as a matter of fact, another part of my trade, too, made me sure you weren’t a priest.’
"‘What?’ asked the thief, almost gaping.
“‘You attacked reason,’ said Father Brown. ‘It’s bad theology.’”
– G. K. Chesterton
“If, however, we consider the matter aright, since power is said in reference to possible things, this phrase, ‘God can do all things,’ is rightly understood to mean that God can do all things that are possible; and for this reason He is said to be omnipotent.”
– Thomas Aquinas
I think it is an answer; he is saying that even if you agree with Aquinas’ line of logic, then the God so proven is not necessarily non-natural. In order to be diplomatic, he is leaving the rest to the audience. The logical inference is “sure, God may exist, but he just as well may not exist.” In my opinion, this is an honest and accurate answer.
Yeah, it’s not like it would the the first question Cecil didn’t get around to answering - ever.
I think Cecil jumped the shark. He should have just answered “Of course I’m real. Next question.” It would have been just as meaningful.
The problem with the “first cause” definition is that it takes some completely ambiguous, unknown, non-understood, currently incomprehensible concept and slaps on it a label that carries a freight-train’s worth of baggage. What a way to fight ignorance.
A hamburger is a tasty sandwich when prepared correctly, so, by Thomas Aquinas’ logic, you’re entitled to call that God.
**Is There a God?
**
There is zero evidence for the existence of one. There are zero arguments for the existence of one, that don’t require vast assumptions to be made.
This doesn’t rule it out, but it certainly doesn’t make a compelling case for His existence.
Hi I’m new here and I’m also a big fan on the column. I come from the Netherlands, which is quite flat.
I read the column and although I profess not to be a philosopher myself, I had a thought.
The first cause must have made itself, but that’s impossible because there was nothing before it. So if we follow Mr. Aquinas we have to rule time out of our existence, right? The first cause was there all along. But if we take time out of our equation, you can’t say there are subsequent things, as Tommy-boy states.
So my conclusion is that this Aquinas is probably talking bollocks.
Please with due respect reply on this, because I’m very curious
I agree. And that’s the problem with all religious arguments - they all reek of the same Intelligent Design logic which is when you get to a certain point where there is no clear answer the only logical answer is, of course: God.
I agree 100%. Except the pedestal crumbled more than “a little.” Lamest answer I’ve ever read. Just say “no, there isn’t.” Philosophy won’t answer this question. Theology won’t either. Everyone has to stop pretending this is a deep or difficult question.
The problem with the classic “logical” arguments is that the all seem to prove the existence of the deity/deities of the arguer. When the argument can be used to prove the existence of any given god or set of gods. If you can’t prove the existence of Yahweh while excluding the existence of Odin, you don’t have proof of anything.
Cecil definitely dropped the ball on this one by being so Catholic-centric.
Hey but altogether the religion bashing what is happening now isn’t that fair. I think that polarization is happening now. We now have people opposing each other basing their thoughts on emotion rather than arguments.
Why should there be a God? Why shouldn’t there be one? If we’re going to decide to be so atheistic then tell me why there is no God. I haven’t read the God Delusion, but I would like to know more about it.
Well, in the God Delusion the first thing Dawkins does (in the introduction) is cede that after correspondence from not particularly religious psychologists, the use of the term “delusion” is non-standard - he’s referring to the second order signifier rather than a psychology manual’s definition.
The first chapter is about the grandeur of the universe from an atheistic perspective.
Various arguments. Then he brings up the fact that he’s never met an atheist that says “I’d refuse to believe in a God despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary”, instead introducing a contiguous scale with various discreet bumps on it that one can align with. The absolute atheistic position (proof of nonexistence, which Popper would have a field day with) is assigned the value “7”, “6” is I see no evidence for the existence of God and choose to live my life on the assumption that no God or Gods exist, while “1” would be absolute certainty. I’m paraphrasing from memory. Dawkins says that if pressed he’d place himself at a 6.8.
I’d assume most people in the thread would be receptive to arguments regarding God’s existence either from a logical or empirical basis. As Dawkins says, they’re just not going to be so open minded that their “brain falls out”.
At the risk of being too helpful, but in the interest of history, an explanation of this comment seems advisable. This is a reference to an unfortunate typographical misadventure, reviewed in the Who is this man called Cecil Adams? FAQ:
So it appears that we may be looking forward to a fresh body floating in Lake Michigan in the near future.
While certainly Cecil couldn’t have done the topic justice within the constraints of a newspaper column, I think he could have gone into a bit more detail on the matter of chronological causes vs. sustaining causes. Really, Aquinas’ argument boils down to the question “Why is there something rather than nothing?”. Even if we posit an infinite string of temporal phenomena causing each other, one might still ask why it is that that string of phenomena exists. Any cause for such a string, if it exist, must necessarily be eternal rather than temporal, and is thus already seen to be a fundamentally different sort of entity from any with which we are familiar.
Oh, and by the way: Atheists are under no obligation to give you reasons why there isn’t a god. Theists bear the burden of proof to demonstrate that there is one.
Know what I think about Cecil’s answer? (I mean, besides the fact that it was a load of soft-pedaling quasi-theistic horseshit?)
I think the subtext suggests we have a case of Antony Flew-ism here. I think Cecil is of the age when one starts hanging one’s hopes on there being a god after all, and just doesn’t give as much a damn about the actual rational truth as he once did. Old age and death are scary. They’re the Great Unknown. So much so, they’ve driven more than one lifelong unbeliever into the arms of religion.
Now, I don’t pretend to know what Cecil’s position on the god question used to be, or even is now. But he’s at least in his 60’s, and given how ruthlessly factual and rational he has always been in answering other Weighty Matters, and how mushy and indulgent towards theism Cecil was on this question, I personally detect something of a soft spot, a chink in the armor, probably related to a desire for there to be Something Beyond.
The problem with Summa Theologica is right there in the column. It assumes that not only can an endless chain of “well, what caused that?”'s can be broken by God, but that it can only be broken by God.
If we accept that something can exist without a cause, then why must it be God? As the column states, the First Cause can be reality itself. The end of the column seems to redefine God to what ever the answer to question “Why is there something instead of nothing?” happens to be.
Although neither explanation really answers that question. An infinite reality that the universe exists in seems to address how but not really why. This is why God (the sentient being type, not the catch all answer) seems to be the more attractive answer, since in introduces will. Why is there a 11-dimensional reality? It seems intuitive that it’s because something decided to make it that way.
But then we’ve either just introduce another “well, what caused that?”, or we assume God is infinite. In which case, an infinite 11-dimensional reality seems no more or less probable then an infinite being that created an 11-dimensional reality.