The Argument from Argument for the Existence of God

Supposing we argue, any argument presupposes the truth, otherwise why argue? Argument is a means to truth.

No it isn't.

That's not an argument, it's just a contradiction.

Not at all.

Enough of this. 

"The classical proofs of God," writes Schuon, are situated between "direct intellection" at one end and "materialistic rationalism" at the other. No form of rationalism can ever reach its object, while intellection bypasses reason altogether and proceeds straight to the transphysical object. 

I suppose the problem with direct intellection is that it only works on a retail basis. The experience of God is limited to the person having the experience. 

Schuon notes that "in the spiritual order a proof is of assistance only to the man who wishes to understand, and who, by virtue of this wish, has already in some measure understood; it is of no practical use to one who, deep in his heart, does not want to change his position, and whose philosophy merely expresses this desire."

Schuon's point of departure is that metaphysical ideas are innate to the intellect. Denying this principle "is equivalent to the destruction of the very notion of intelligence," for "our intelligence could never prove anything at all."

Way back in the early days of the blog I wrote a post entitled Proof of Proof is Proof of God. I just looked it up to see if I was serious, and its bottom line is as follows:

In a certain sense, proof itself is proof of the supernatural, being that it obviously exists in a realm above matter. The metaphysical transparency of the world is all the proof the Raccoon requires, but all men are not Raccoons, and I do not write for the wider non-Raccoon world....

There is a translogical component to the acceptance of any truth. We are not merely "logic machines." In other words, we must make a free act of assent to truth, and this cannot be reduced to the principles of logic. For example, there is no logical proof that one should abide by logic. What if I want to live a life a life guided by absolute spontaneity and transgression of logic, like people who live in San Francisco? 

Our point, I suppose, is that if the intellect knows the truth -- any truth -- then this has vast implications. For example, Schuon takes the view that

The Intellect "is divine," first because it is a knower -- or because it is not a non-knower – and secondly because it reduces all phenomena to their Principle; because it sees the Cause in every effect, and thus surmounts, at a certain level, the vertiginous and devouring multiplicity of the phenomenal world.

Call it the Argument from Intellect.

Intellectual intuition comprises essentially a contemplativity which in no way enters into the rational capacity, the latter being logical rather than contemplative; it is contemplative power, receptivity in respect of the Uncreated Light, the opening of the Eye of the Heart, which distinguishes transcendent intelligence from reason.

I think I see the problem here, for the average secular man is not just in need of evidence of God, but rather, evidence of a whole outlook or paradigm by which they could be moved by the evidence, otherwise all the evidence in the world proves nothing. The Aphorist essentially says the same thing with his customary pithiness:

Today we require a methodical introduction to that vision of the world outside of which religious vocabulary is meaningless. We do not talk of God with those who do not judge talk about the gods as plausible.

This being the case, what is needed is proof of a certain vision of the world before proof itself can be efficacious or operative. Now, what world could this be, and how do we prove its existence?

That's a big question to spring on a fellow in the middle of a post. What in the world is the world? That phrase sounds familiar, and sure enough it was the title of a post last year. Let's see if it provides any answers. 

It has a good point made by Voeglin about "the meaning of the term world. It presents extraordinary difficulties to philosophical analysis," hence the title of the post.

Before we answer this difficult question -- what is the world? -- a few cautionary aphorisms:

As long as we can respond without hesitating we do not know the subject.

Whoever is curious to measure his stupidity should count the number of things that seem obvious to him. 

Only the fool knows clearly why he believes or why he doubts. 

Yada yada, for Voegelin, "the order of the world is not of 'this world' alone but also of the 'world beyond.'" Or in other words, immanence and transcendence respectively, such that any definition of this (immanent) world must include the world beyond that is its transcendent ground.

Is there a more cutandry way to express this, and to tie it in with the title of this post? Hmm. Proof of the world is proof of God? 

No it isn't.

Is!

We'll think on it some more and get back to you tomorrow.