A Point From Axioms by O.G. Rose

7/29/2019 A Point From Axioms by O.G. Rose

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/a-point-from-axioms-by-og-rose 1/4

A Point from Axioms Inspired by Peter Kreeft and Anselm

O.G. Rose

1. An axiom is a proposition that is self-evident and/or inherently true. This work

will approach an axiom as that which must first be accepted before it can be

proven or disproven.

2. To prove that God does or doesn’t exist, one would need to be:a. Omnipresent.

-Occupy all places of the universe in order to observe that God is or isn’t present anywhere.

b. Eternal-In order to observe that God always or never exists at any point in, or outside of, time.

c. Omniscient-Have a mind that can fathom an Infinite Being (forever).

d. Transcendent-In order to observe that God always or never exists relative to any dimension.

e. Just

-In order to discern objectively and accurately, beyond subjectivity, on what constitutes God.f. Truthful

-So that you don’t intentionally or unintentionally discern falsely about experiencing God or not.

g. Self-sufficient-In order to have an objective standard against which to judge whether or not a potential candidate iscomplete in and of Itself alone (and not a contingent being like entities which are a consequence of

causality). h. Omnipotent

-In order to have an objective standard by which to compare the power of potential candidates accurately(and to have proper authority when making a proclamation of proof or disproof).

i. Conscious-So that you can observe and make judgments.

3. Therefore, to prove God does or doesn’t exist, you would have to be God.

4. Hence, God Exists Axiomatically.

II

Q1: Could one use this logic to prove that ‘Santa Claus’ (or other such fantasies) exists?

A: Santa’s existence isn’t axiomatic, because if one is omnipresent, omniscient, etc. and

doesn’t observe Santa (or anything else like such) the observer is God, not Santa.

Q2: Are ‘you’ God?

A: No, for ‘you’ are not Omnipresent, Omniscient, etc. right ‘now’, and to be God, ‘you’

would have to be Eternal, which ‘you’ aren’t (‘now’). If at any point in time ‘you’ became Eternal, ‘you’ would be so (‘now’). If you became ‘God’, you would also have to

become Omniscient, Transcendent, Eternal, etc. – characteristics you would have to

always have, but don’t ‘now’. Hence, ‘you’ aren’t God, and so the God that ExistsAxiomatically must be ‘other’ than ‘you’.



Q3: Maybe your definition of God isn’t the right one?

A: All other definitions that are also axiomatic hold by the same logic, though this work

hasn’t realized any other fitting characteristics or definitions (though that’s not to say

there aren’t any). Even though this work has pointed out an axiomatic understanding ofGod, a differently defined God could exist, as there could be a Santa Claus. Also,something that is axiomatic does not necessarily exist, as something that isn’t axiomatic

does not necessarily lack existence. To point out something as axiomatic is to point out

the manner in which said entity should be addressed and understood. It is also importantto note that it’s hard to say how something that is axiomatic doesn’t exist, as it is hard to

understand in what way an axiomatic entity exists.

Q4: Could it be the case that, though one cannot meaningfully say ‘God does or doesn’t

exist’, it could still be the case that God doesn’t exist?

A: This is like asking ‘can one say the number two doesn’t exist meaningfully?’ Theanswer is ‘yes and no’. It is a question of framework. In a way, the number two doesn’t

exist, and yet it does because we accept that it exists (the same can be said of ‘human

rights’). Yet, this doesn’t mean that numbers don’t exist unto themselves, only that they

don’t exist ‘to us’ unless we assent to their existence. Yet, even if we didn’t assent totheir existence, numbers could still exist unto themselves, as rights could still be

substantive (though it’s hard to say ‘how’ exactly). The same can be said of God. On the

flip side, we could assent to the existence of numbers, and yet they may not have anyexistence unto themselves. In both cases though, the experience is the same.

The question of whether or not God exists isn’t a useful one unto itself. Being finite, we

cannot verify this ‘Infinite Question’ one way or another. Rather, we must settle for a probability assessment. This leads us to “A Point from Probability”.



Additions

1. God, by definition, is ‘one of one’, so if you were God, there wouldn’t be another God. You would have to be

‘Uncaused’, for only God can create God, but if God created God, God wouldn’t be God.

2. To say ‘God Exists Axiomatically’ is to say that the dichotomy between atheist and theist is meaningless. Anatheist cannot be an atheist: an atheist is only meaningfully one insomuch as he or she doesn’t step into the

dichotomy in which the word ‘atheist’ is contradictive (which can occur in the act of saying ‘there is noGod’). The question then is ‘why would an atheist step into the dichotomy and hence stop meaningfully being

an atheist?’, and the answer would be ‘because he or she has reason, based on a probability assessment, to doso’. This then leads us to “A Point from Probability”.

2.1 Upon stepping into this dichotomy, it is important to recognize that how one comes to know God is through a‘genius in the fingertips’, to allude to Austin Farrer. This will be addressed in a later essay, “Austin Farrerand Being Educated”.

3. Since God Exists Axiomatically, as a point exists as a point, it is fruitless to argue ‘does God exist?’ It is onlyfruitful to argue ‘how does God exist (to us)?’, and whether or not God Exists unto God.

4. The main hope of this paper is point out that theism is a system that can only be deconstructed or justifiedwithin, not outside. This isn’t to say someone who doesn’t ascribe to theism is wrong to not believe in God

before deconstructing a theistic system from within, only that said individual isn’t justified in his or her

unbelief. Of course, none of us can be justified in all of our positions: during an election, for example, no onehas time to research every position of every candidate from within their respected platforms. The point of this

paper is simply to outline the nature of theistic debate in order to help keep those who engage in suchconversation from constantly talking past one another.

In other words, this paper hopes to help readers understand what exactly people do when they talk about anineffable God of Whom all our thoughts are always ‘too human’ (to allude to Martin Luther).

5. A world can avoid (the Axiomatic) God by never encountering the question of whether or not God exists, but

now that our world has undergone that question, there is no such thing as a version of our world free from it.

6. Though one cannot meaningfully say ‘God doesn’t exist’ as this paper understands God, this paper doesn’testablish that one cannot meaningfully say ‘Christ isn’t God’, ‘Krishna isn’t God’, etc. Such statements can

be meaningfully said from within the respected systems, as “A Point from Probability” will expound upon. Ina way, this paper establishes a sort of ‘event horizon’ beyond which the statement ‘God doesn’t exist’ cannot

pass without losing meaning. This doesn’t mean that God exists passed this horizon, only that God cannotmeaningfully be said to exist or to not exist beyond it.

7. Since one must be God to prove God does or doesn’t exist, there is a kind of arrogance inherent in the act.Also, if one were God, perhaps it would seem absurd to have to prove oneself as such, though it would seemsensible to everyone else.

8. This paper has established God as Omnipresent, Eternal, etc., but why should this definition of God be theone assented to? The definition of God comes up from the axioms, not the other way around. One couldargue that this paper makes certain metaphysical presuppositions about the nature of God; however, this

paper works with or without presuppositions – that’s why it’s a point from axioms. This work attempts to

establish an axiomatic definition of God outside of any Christian, Hindu, etc. system by pointing out thecharacteristics one would have to have in order to identify that God does or doesn’t exist. This paper is moreinterested in establishing an Axiomatic God than a particular God, which arguably comes exclusively fromRevelation.

(Please note that it would be impossible for me to prove to anyone that I arrived at this definition outside ofreligious leanings. Also note that this Axiomatic God could happen to cross with a God of Revelation, butwhether or not this occurs isn’t within the scope of this paper.)

Whether or not the metaphysical characteristics outlined in this work are right isn’t so much the concern as isthe fact that these characteristics are axiomatic. In other words, one cannot say that these metaphysicalcharacteristics do or don’t belong to God without having them. Because this is the case, they aren’tassumptions; they are axioms. Of course, just because that is the case doesn’t mean that God exists or that

God is particularly Krishna, Christ, etc. Rather, the paper points out that God necessarily exists within the



system that God’s existence would establish if God existed. Since we can’t know whether or not God exists,we have to step into this system to determine whether or not God exists, but within this system, God’sexistence is axiomatic. Therefore, the question becomes whether or not we should step into this system in the

first place, which makes way for “A Point from Probability”. Even if we do though, we have only assented toa kind of Deist God or vague spiritualism; whether or not this God can be translated into Christ, Allah, etc. isa question for another time.

8.1

This paper hopes to establish that God’s existence is a ‘closed system’. One could argue that this paper uses‘circular logic’, and in a way this is true. However, just because logic is circular doesn’t mean it isn’t true: the

logic could rather establish a complete truth. The question is whether or not someone should step into thisself-justifying circle or not, which, again, will be taken up more in “A Point from Probability”.

O.G. Rose2011

Documents

A Point From Axioms by O.G. Rose