Skip to main content

God as Intelligence and Ultimate Foundation

The traditional arguments for the existence of God, even when they don't achieve their purpose, at least help us to discern a concept of Her.

Such is the case of the teleological argument, also known as argument from design, that, when put together with the cosmological argument, gives us an idea of what we should understand when we are talking about God.

The teleological argument can be understood as an analogy between the things the human being create and the things that exist in nature. Intelligence is the ability that allows the capacity of creation for the human being. The teleological argument says that there should be something analogous to the human intelligence that has created the things that exists in nature.

The cosmological argument is based in the idea that everything has a cause, reason of being or explanation, even when we don't know it. Based in this principle, we reached the conclusion that everything that exists must have an ultimate explanation, which is the foundation of reality.

If we identify this ultimate explanation of the cosmological argument with the creative intelligence of the teleological argument, we reach the conclusion that the ultimate foundation of reality is at least rational. This is God: the unifying principle of reality.

But there is the danger of making a too simplistic analogy. If there must be something analogous to the intelligence of the human being that has created everything that exists, we can't conclude it must be too similar to the human being. On the contrary, in virtue of being God the ultimate foundation of reality, there must be a chasm between the Being of God, which is the source of all existence, and the human being. That chasm cannot be measured.

That is why Paul Tillich was right when he said that we can't even say that God is a person, but being the source of all existence, and in particular, the existence of the human person, God can't be less than a person. God can't be less than rational.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The Santa Claus Argument

"There's no reason to believe in God" says the atheist, "there's no evidence of his existence". "But what is the evidence that God does not exist" replies the theist. "Sure you have faith that God does not exist". "I don't have to provide evidence that God does not exist more than the evidence I have to provide to show that Santa does not exist. If you are congruent and reject the existence of Santa you should also reject the existence of God. Where's the proof that Santa does not exist?” Such is a line of reasoning popular among atheists. I call it "the Santa Claus argument". It conveys the idea that God is a fiction character. But what is the basis of this idea? It seems to be based in the idea that God does not exist. But if this is the case, this argument (sic) is question begging, because this is precisely the issue at stake. Some atheists seem to imply that God does not exist because the concept of God is a hu...

Ten reasons why God is different than Santa Claus

Santa is an intentional fiction. God is seriously believed to exist. Santa's existence is irrelevant for the universe's existence, but if God exists she is the foundation of all existence. Santa is a contingent being, he could or not exist. If God exists, she is necessary, she could not not exist. Santa's existence is falsifiable. God's existence is not. God's existence is an issue of serious reflection for unbelievers. Santa's is not. Many famous people of high intellectual caliber believe in God. There's no serious intellectual known for her belief in Santa. There are different kind of arguments that seriously pretend to support the case for God's existence. No such arguments exist for Santa. God's invisible and inmaterial. Santa is not. Belief in God is a basic tenet of many religious organizations. There is no organization known to defend belief in Santa. There is no philosophical basis for belief in Santa, but there is for God. See also: The inv...

Defining Atheism

There is no agreement about the definition of atheism, not even in those who call themselves atheists. Some authors say that atheism is denial of God. That is the most popular definition among non-atheists, and is often contrasted to agnosticism. Others say that atheism is lack of belief in God, and that this lack of belief doesn't necessarily imply denial of the existence of God. This is the definition that is most used by internet atheists, and is used to effectively avoid the burden of the proof. These atheists say they don't have to prove the non existence of God. Those who claim that God exists are the ones obliged to prove that God exists, no the other way around. They elevate this to a general epistemological principle. This definition of atheism as a lack of belief allows the atheist to appear neutral and ingenuous about the issue of God, without the need to call themselves "agnostics", label that is despised by atheists for being too weak. In order to disting...