May I recommend you find a copy of the excellent textbook "An Introduction To Philosophical Analysis" (2nd edition) by John Hospers.

On page 47 is revealed that to explain something is to place it in a wider context; to find something else in terms of which to do the explaining. By definition, an ULTIMATE explanation is one for which this cannot be done, if it could, the 'something else' would be more basic.

So at the end of layers of explanation you are faced with that things just ARE.

This suggests to me that trying to "prove" God exists is a strange idea; because surely any "something elses" you appeal to for "proof' would have to be more ultimate than what you are proving, which would contradict the ultimate-ness of what you are trying to prove.

However, since ultimately things just ARE, and since at least Catholic theology maintains God IS EXISTENCE; then this ultimate IS-ness of things IS GOD.

"Explanation" involves a network; you are a network created by God; God explains, creates, man. If you recalled being created, you see God; no explanation needed.

Actually, you appeal to "Existence" over and over with any type of explanation, so God is with you at every step. God is in every explanation, and every explanation is in God.

-dolphin

• Any aspect of the universe is connected to t concept 'ultimate' - carefuluniverse - March 30, 2002 - 04:01 UTC
• Sorry Alan; I think we speak for most of me here when they say. - spazcon - March 30, 2002 - 23:28 UTC
  • Did I say anything about saving the world? - dolphin - March 31, 2002 - 00:34 UTC