Deus Est
Deus est
The Person
By: Joseph W Tibbles
This series will attempt to philosophically give good reason for the existence of God. I say “give good reason” and not “prove” since, short of private revelation, there can be no proof. It is intrinsically impossible to scientifically prove God, because science is the study of the world, and God is not naturally a being of the physical world. Instead we must look within ourselves.
Before continuing, it is necessary to define what is meant by “God.” For God to be God, he must be supernatural, omnus, and personal. As the origin of nature, He must be completely above and separate from it. He must be omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent (in short: omnus), or there would conceivably be a being greater still, and this would be God. He must be personal to account for the existence of persons. By “person” we mean a self-determining agent with motives directed towards ends, the ability to know truth, and the ability to have rights.
A popular argument for God’s existence is that nature requires a first cause. We, however, do not know that. The origins of the universe cannot be scientifically proven. One can no more prove that the universe could be without a creator than one could prove that it could be with a creator. Both sides of such an argument proceed from a prejudice either of the existence or the absence of a creator. Thus, one would be assuming the answer fitting with one’s wish and working backwards from there.
One can, however, note the existence of their own person and those around him, and note that personality, however basic, cannot arise from chemical reactions, however complex. It is conceivable that the most advanced animal life could have arisen by chance in nature, but it is inconceivable that a person could.
First, every man believes in his own person. Some may say that they do not, but this is only academic. All practically believe that they are a person. For a man to believe that he is not a person in practice, he must never make a claim to want anything beyond bodily needs, never claim to have an opinion, and never claim a right or duty to anything. Such a man assumes he is a person by engaging in an argument about not being a person, for he asserts that he has a proximate end in being right, that he knows something to be true, and that he has a duty to spread that truth. A chemical reaction cannot have a non-physical end, know truth, or have a duty.
In engaging in an argument against his personality, a man must also assume that he with whom he is arguing is a person. Such a man claims that another is attempting to reach a non-physical end in an erroneous way, that he is mistaken about the truth, and that he has a duty to admit his error. A chemical reaction cannot have a non-physical end, cannot be wrong, and has no duty.
Second, whence does this personality come? It cannot come merely from nature, because the person is qualitatively more than mere interaction of elements. No matter how complex the reaction, matter simply cannot be a person. It cannot have ends beyond natural ends, it cannot know anything, and it cannot be due anything. The human person, however, can and does insist that its ends are not natural, that it is capable of knowledge, and that it is wrong to treat it as a mere natural phenomenon.
If nature could not originate personality, then what did? Hence we must look outside of nature, for nature lacks the ability to answer the question. Whatever introduced the first person into the world must be supernatural, because nature could not have produced it. It must be omnus, for if it were not, than it would be merely the proximate source and not the ultimate one. It must be a person, since it could not give us what it does not have. It short, it must match the definition of God. If it must match the definition of God, it must be God.
We now must note two things. Firstly, theologians would argue that God must be a super-personal, but this is an argument for theologians and one for another time. Secondly, that we got to this conclusion by the only means possible. God is intrinsically supernatural and unable to be scientifically observed. This means that He is artificial in the sense that He produced artifacts. Such a being could only tell of his existence to created persons in two ways. The first is from outside (revelation), but that would not be a philosophical proof and could not be done by the free will of God. The second is from within (introspection), which God must do by the very definition of creating another person, and could only have done by creating another person.
Further articles under this heading are forthcoming. They will range from answering questions, through expanding upon what was written, to branching into other topic concerned with the existence of God. I will try to delve as little as possible into theology, since it is outside the mandate of the article.
Discussion can be held about the above article by following this link: http://www.sophistsociety.com/forums/index.php?p=/discussion/57/deus-est
Loading ...
“One can, however, note the existence of their own person and those around him, and note that personality, however basic, cannot arise from chemical reactions, however complex.”
Cant so much”note ” the above in regard to chem rx
Like or Dislike:
0 
0