Q&A: The Causality Argument for Recognizing God
The Causality Argument for Recognizing God
Question
You presented in your book the argument in the title, and also in your debate with Eyal Yosef, and you said that the argument only shows that it is reasonable to believe in God, but does not constitute a proof.
Please explain the distinction between something being reasonable and being a proof, because seemingly if it is reasonable then it is also a proof.
Answer
Can you direct me to the minute in the debate? I don’t remember saying that, and I’d need to see it in context. Of course there is a proof for the existence of God, but a proof depends on foundational assumptions, and those can always be rejected. Therefore, a proof is not a guaranteed recipe for certainty. I think that’s what I said. In any case, that is what I think.
Discussion on Answer
Not realistic but rational. I said that in this discussion I did not want to argue that it is true, but that it is rational (as opposed to the criticism that faith is not rational). But there is a proof; it’s just that the assumptions can be debated.
For example, the assumption that everything has a cause. For example, that an infinite regress is impossible.
An infinite regress is impossible, and then you arrive at God as the first creator, and then the assumption works out with God.
If so, then it is both true and rational.
Indeed, it is both true and rational and also proven, though not certain. But in the debate my goal was only to show that it is rational. What exactly are we discussing here?
What is the difference between rational and proven? What exactly is rational?
Something is proven if there is a logical argument that proves it from certain assumptions. There is no sharp definition of rationality. But if there is an argument that proves the claim and is based on reasonable assumptions, one can say that it is rational.
What bothered me was just the feeling that you told him it’s rational, and you didn’t emphasize that it is also true and proven. But you can write that in the comments 🙂
Not certain because nothing is certain except for that sentence itself, as you usually say. Right, or more than that?
Both in the opening and in the lead-up you emphasized that I’m coming to say that it is rational to believe, and not to prove it to you, so that in any case you don’t have to accept my position, only to accept that it is rational.
Which foundational assumptions here can be rejected?
Causality?