The Evangelical Universalist Forum

Hypothetical Argument for the Existence of God

Theology Philosophical
#1

Assuming that the following propositions are true:

If Reality is real;

If Sentience is real;

If Reality expresses all Reals, and/or all Reals express Reality;

Then Reality expresses Sentience or Reality expresses the property of sentience, the real-property, the real, of Sentience; Sentience is expressed by Reality: Reality has the property of Sentience; Then Reality is Sentient.

Then Reality; that which IS - is sentient; call it God.

God exists.

If Reality is sentient, God exists. If Reality isn’t sentient, sentience doesn’t exist; or one must ask why Reality isn’t sentient, and disprove one of the three points of Reals; which is (I propose) impossible, destructive, hypocritical to apply, or irrational, tends toward delusion, dissolves Logic, or is cognitively dissonant. To disbelieve one of the three points of Reals, is to be in a state of irrational disbelief, of delusion, of cognitive dissonance, or hypocrisy.

#2

I’m inclined to agree, but alas I’m a very imperfect philosopher. If truth exists, and if it exists only in conscious minds, then God exists.

It’s interesting that amongst materialists it is now fashionable to deny the existence of self-consciousness and free will in humans. At the same time, they lobby for legal rights for animals! Basically, when we deny the truth of the Genesis myth, we deny our own humanity.

#3

Indeed, and in denying Humanity deny the God from whom our Humanity as Image is reflected.

The issue I see with denying self-consciousness, or the denial of ‘sentience’ in what ever form one would seek to define it; more or less the ability to gather information and take in stimuli - then proceed to process it through thought processes to achieve a reaction – is that in denying this ability, there is left no room for discussion, for science, for inquiry, or for logical debate.

If the ability to perceive, is at its root, dissolved - you cannot have belief, discussion about that belief, and judgements concerning a belief whether it is real or not.

Effectively, if I am talking to someone who denies that they are sentient, I may as well stop talking to them altogether because I do not believe I can effectively talk to a non-sentient doll and be comfortable with the fact that I’m trying to communicate with a doll as if it were real. You can’t debate with a doll. The denial of sentience is a self-defeater as an argument, dissolves the ability to perceive and thereby utilise logic in a debate - and in doing so, is an exercise in purest irrationality. The same goes similarly for the denial of Reality, or the relevance of Reals to Reality; it dissolves Logic, and derationalises a once rational discussion into irrational futility.

#4

Lefein, you’d enjoy Hartshorne’s approach. A bit different, but he establishes the conscious/sentient nature of necessary existence. Yep.

Tom