Q&A: The God of Understanding
The God of Understanding
Question
Hello,
I wanted to ask regarding the epistemological proof from the fourth notebook. I assume that my capacity for thought is aligned with the world, and therefore there is a correlation.
Why shouldn’t we say that insofar as the atheist believes that laws of nature exist—they themselves are the coordinating factor? That is, as a result of my assuming that there are laws of nature in the world, they ensure the creation of a “straight” person who understands them.
Why is that less necessary than positing a third factor outside the world and its laws?
Answer
This proof complements the physico-theological proof. The laws of nature also require an explanation. Why were laws created that ensure such a correlation? Beyond that, how do you know that these are the laws? After all, the laws themselves are a result of my scientific thinking.
Discussion on Answer
By that logic, any proof for anything can be rejected. This is my axiom, and that’s that. For me, God is not an axiom but a conclusion from an argument.
The laws of nature do not provide an explanation for anything, because if there are laws, there is a lawgiver. And if the laws are entities, then they are God.
In the end, the argument reveals what was already latent within you beforehand,
so saying that it is a conclusion or an axiom is, in the end, pretty much the same thing.
The laws of nature do indeed explain why we think correctly.
They may require a lawgiver, but that is a separate proof—the physico-theological one. But assuming they have no lawgiver, their very existence still explains thought. If so, the proof has fallen.
Please set aside the complementary proofs and let’s focus only on this.
I know that these are the laws because that is my axiom for understanding the world.
Just as your axiom for understanding the world is aided by God, who coordinated between you and the world.
And just as you have not encountered God directly, so too we have not “encountered” them.