Generally assumed that the functioning of the divine idea is indispensable for the man’s spiritual being and integration, that God creates man by a genuine and indwelling presence, and that the test and attestation of such quality of the spirit is the light of reason which makes him illuminated and animated, not just as mere evidence. This ground of Realism will require more to commend it to the reader’s judgment than I have yet had an opportunity to offer within the prescribed limits of this paper but, before proceeding to a more significant exposition of the argument on which it founded, and as the especial object of this paper, it will be necessary to exhibit the work of the Speculative Intellect or Reason in attaining the insight. To avoid confusion, let me emphasize that the reason in man is both the revelation of the idea and how the ability to apprehend, receiving, and consciously appropriating the revelation is bestowed. The transcendent idea is not effectively disclosed to human intelligence and awareness until it truly animates and enlightens the human spirit as a power that is intelligent and causal.
However, I will repeat some of the significant positions in which we have come to the goal envisaged to explain the genesis of this unique concept. Herefore this allows the following accepted, “The light and power of spiritual integration are what a human spirit needs, wants and desires. It is at the moment that he recognizes the weakness and practices of him, and as long as he desires for his spiritual integrity, that he brought in a position to apprehend and acknowledge the power and light that have been at work already in him, and that he can admit to it.”
Of course, as far as this idea represents an effective and genuinely operative power, it cannot be but have the most positive subjective assurance, for, with all the certitude of self-assurance, which comes from the very nature of the will which it is conscious of, it will understand that it cannot but seek absolute complete, but it will always be disturbed in trying to secure it. However, the will is consciously enlightened and awakened to its moral integration; the notion of Absolute integrity, already infused by reason, cannot be recognized by will on his actions. Therefore, this idea of absolute integrity and integration can only be the Idea of God.
It is what man will be bound to recognize when he looks at the Truth of the Idea of God, namely the Truth of God as being God’s, independent but not inclusive of the thinking of the person, and the Truth of the working in man by God as an integrative strength, but not in him, which he is working in, as the necessity of a process of spiritual integration. This birth of the soul is by the power of the Light and Life of His creatures. Therefore, this is the common birthright of our humanity. This divine idea’s intellectual and conscious possession is the work of a speculative intellect, when inspired by divine reason by the fullness and clarity of His sublime characteristics and in all its different qualities, to contemplate that idea. However, when the speculative mind of man, still battling with the flaws of his falling nature, raises itself to the transcendent of considering the concept, he will still have to pay respectful attention and vouch to the conditions under which the graceful revelations of the idea.
In the first place, it is the revelation to man of the idea of the spiritual integrity of the process of integration that is not just different from the drift and tendency of his will, but contrary to what he would like since this prohibits the egoistic particularity which he desires to be absolute regarding his natural disposition and imposes a duty of self-denial on himself, in the very necessity of this case. Thus the natural human being, or what we will find below, is the fallen and unregenerate spirit, nothing, but can sense or know that the light and power of integration to the true self which acts upon him is either extra or alien, but at the same time auxiliary and trite, for it is a power against which he will strive and contend. At the same time, in striving against this, he cannot but be made sensible that the idea of spiritual integrity, which is everybody is considered the universal law of spiritual agency, provides for him to realize individually, and thus feels or recognizes the obligation to conform to the alien power or law that he, the natural man, is and continues to be a part. In whatever way, his spirit is enlightening and encouraged to accept the graceful performance of the “true Light,” whose shining into his benighted soul, he can recognize, he will acknowledge the absolute spiritual perfection and integrity to the same degree in elevating his contemplation to its brightest form of spiritual integration. Then if by the very necessity of our rational nature, we call God the ideal of absolute spiritual integrity, objectively contemplated or an ideal independent from the mental mind that apprehends it, and if we recognize God, by His action and presence and motivated as the idea of absolute spiritual integrity.
In other words, God’s existence does not represent an inference or evidence, but rather a fact of spirits and an intuitive understanding of our rational and spiritual nature, or, in short, an immediate revelation, which is communicating in and through, in light of reason. It is apparent that this is commonly called “evidence” that God exists, is proof, and not of logical reasoning. Suppose this is the case as one should undoubtedly. In that case, it may be useful to explain the total failure of all the so-called evidence of GOD’S presence, in which we invariably detect, ‘a petitio principii’, whether it is attempted, priori or a posteriori,’ or find that the evidence is already regarded as a matter of course. It would distract us from our principal aim to take a careful look at this evidence. However, the student may help if, most of all, we advertised the celebrated “ontological evidence” as introduced by Anselm of Canterbury in the Middle Ages theological schools and the doctrine propounded by Kant in conformity with his views on the “guidelines” nature of the Ideas, as linked to our subject and the position we have assumed. Anselm’s so-called ontological evidence was the first explicit presentation of evidence, although Augustine foresaw, based on pure reason. He states God’s notion is that of a being, “qui majus cogitari non potest” which nothing more significant can be considered. He notes that even people who refuse to accept God must accept this, for in rejecting it, they recognize that they, therefore, are the divine being, that is, as “quo majus cogitari non, potest.”
Now, he adds, between the thought of the matter, and the matter thought of, between what is “in solo intellectu” and what is “in re,” what we necessarily consider to be more important than thinking intellect, but not only in intelligence, but reality. That, therefore (he concludes) after which nothing more or more thought must not only be conceived in an intellectual sense, but also as an existent reality, and this is the conception of God. Therefore, Anselm’s proposition, that inalienably and inseparably the Concept of God as the concept “Qui rnajus cogitarian non potest” actually implies the idea of the existence and the objective reality of God. However, whatever its value as vindicating a necessary connexion of thought, it fails to demonstrate the truth of the object of our thoughts. It may prove that God cannot be thought of, or conceived, except as really existing, but it leaves the student still inextricably limited to the subjective sphere of his intellect.
This ontological proof may be stated thus :
Whatever being includes in its conception,
every attribute of reality and perfection must consist of the attribute of existence ;
the concept of God includes, as Ens realissimum, every attribute of truth and perfection ;
therefore the conception of God must consist of the attribute of existence significance,
was to create
a doctrine of God as an Absolute Being and universal Truth.
or, to whatever Being we attribute every reality and perfection,
we attribute an actual existence inclusively;
and therefore, we attribute it to God.
However, the failure is easily identified, specifically that the attribution of truth is passed along as evidence of truth. Compare Dogmatik of Bretschneider, vol. i. p. 464. The same opinion was given by Ritter (Hist. of Ph. vol. vii. p. 336) when he stated that it was wrong to make a mistake with the reality of the predicates for the validity of the subject. He says that the purpose of Anselm was to establish the doctrine of God as the absolute and universal truth and everything which was of evidence value for it. He feels that Anselm’s perspective has such an intimate relationship to his realm and links with Plato’s teaching that every specific truth and conception is only through sharing universal truth and concept. I will not pretend to have given the exact meaning of Ritter in the above summary but admitted on reflection that Anselm wanted to establish on the ground of reason. As inseparable from rational thought, a Transcendent Absolute., which includes, and rises above, both Truth and Being, apprehended the necessity of reaching that point of contemplation, becoming Objective Truth, and truth becomes Subjective Being. He sought this highest contemplation of human mind and succeeded in bringing into perspective, even if it was merely a speculative idea, but the most increased effort of man’s reasoning powers and undoubtedly a reasonable man, however, small their power of thinking, can never be satisfied with anything less than the assumption of the Idea of God. Kant, who reduces God’s existential proof to three, namely ontological, cosmological, and physio-theological evidence, shows that it is essentially ontological due to mere logical reasoning and shares his inherent defects. He understands that God’s existence is regarded as practical reasoning.
It is unfair to this famous philosopher to claim to present his argument appropriately in the short space to which we must necessarily limit ourselves; however, his reasoning could be thus stated in its character, the ‘summum bonum’ or supreme good, to which man aspires is a union of the most strict moral character and the supreme good. The former has his spiritual character and the latter his sensual nature. But man can only fulfill his moral nature and frequently only achieves by sacrificing his bodily health by giving it actuality in oneself, with an unwavering morality. However, since the desire for happiness is not irrational or
unnatural in any respect, it correctly implies that there is either a Supreme Being who thus rule over that virtue and gladness in the whole world. In every moral agent, including himself, the voice of conscience is ultimately reconciled, or that it is wrong and irrational.
However, the latter is ethically impossible, and he is obliged to accept the former as true. (The Highest Good/’ Ideal of Reine Vernft Conf.) In his work on the Practical Reason, he depicts the postulates as necessaries for the practical aim of our moral life, and yet as conferences of
objective reality on the ideas of speculative reasons, but it does not increase our knowledge.
Accordingly, he lists three as vital, namely
- Immortality; as the condition of enough length for moral fulfillment.
- Freedom; as the strength of a “Mundus intelligibilis,” the determining of the will according
to spiritual rules;
- The existence of God, by assuming as its author and ruler the greatest self-dependent Good
the condition of the actuality of a spiritual realm, or “munus intelligibilis” as the highest good.
According to Kant, then, we have to be content with what is nothing more but rational convictions of God’s existence, which stem from the needs of our moral and physical nature. We know God’s objective actuality. He calls this assumption of God a “moral postulate,” yet we might consider that it does not ensure that man has the very genuine meaning and complete effectiveness of the Idea of God.
It is remarked that the moral epithet that is seldom appropriate to an assumption that
originates its purpose from the need to satisfy our sensual nature, yet satisfaction with the demands of moral character might be compatible. The crucial contrast between moral happiness and the bliss the natural man desires seems to have been ignored by Kant. He says, indeed, ” Happiness is the state of a rational Being, whose every wish and will is fulfilled, following his nature in its aim and end, and with the proper objects of his will.” (Paraphrase from Pract: Vernft, p. 224.) Therefore, the moral ideal was too lofty and too pure for Kant to acknowledge less it comprises a high or perfect condition of morality, but we must feel at the same time that the desire to gladness, which is based on natural man, cannot unite or mix with the heavenly longings of the man, whose conversation is heavenly, but the psychological and carnal desires are cast away, as incompatible with that state of happiness which is joyous in unalienable, unlike the heavenly aspirations of a spiritual human being. And again, according to Kant, the universal reward and the consequence of virtue in this world was bliss. There’s no reason to assume that God’s thoughts would never have penetrated the human mentality. Kant’s rule of morality and human moral ideals does not require an assumption of the divine Will and operation in and on the person, but this is the work and outcomes of human reason by operating in and through the premise of human freedom and the universality of all moral duty. He can not be a law-giver, but he is an absolute source and author of all moral excellence, but can he be subject of the moral law, which controls him by a strict necessity and only appeared to him as the Disposer of the world, to make up his virtue for ultimate happiness. He can be the height of moral excellence.
There can be no denial of Kant’s concept as properly representing a specific point of time in which one seeks to attain the “Idea” with reasoning and records the failure of an endeavor which he cannot forget, leaving it as yet necessary to accomplish, under the label of a postulate. However, the religious investigator must realize how insufficient this endeavor is, based on a genuine faith, to arrive in reality and act upon men. God is not recognized as the living God in “where we live, move, and be,” as the postulate or hypothesis of mere reasoning intellect. He is not that God on whom we depend in faith, as ever and essentially, the Divine Spirit, abiding and in fellowship with us, is not the Absolute Cause of all moral perfection. He is the ideal, the paradigm, of absolute spiritual integrity If, however, we were correct in asserting that, in and through reason, God was revealed to us and that we know (“to know” might, nevertheless, be deemed to be more meaningful, thus in John 1:3, ” And this is life eternal, that they might know thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.”
Here ” knowledge ” is used as equivalent to ” life eternal” and must be considered spiritually, as the knowledge derived from His presence in, and communion with, the human soul). In so far as we can thus see Him as the might and pattern of absolute spiritual integrity working within us to assimilate ourselves to the Divine lmage, we can safely reject Kant’s moral postulate. Instead, see God as the glorious object of our beatific vision in all the reality of his infinite spiritual perfection, In so far as we can see him as a power and a pattern of absolute spiritual integrity.
It is not essential to expand our intention to the pantheistic interpretations of the idea of God and the essence of deity. The main mistake of this plan of philosophy, which has attracted a lot of the most senior intellects, is to confuse God with the earth. Or, in contrast to the dry formula of Christian teaching, adopted after Coleridge, the pantheistic plan, maybe expressed by ‘God Minus World equals Zero ‘ and in the Christian doctrine ‘God minus World’ is absolute perfection and reality. The antagonism of Hegel’s school (which considers God to be the absolute process of thought, which first attains his consciousness in the mental human being) is that, in the often-repeated affirmation that God is immanent, but not transcendent, that he dwells in the entire ascent of nature, but in the whole, God is an independent reality distinct from and above nature. If now this thinking, that we denounce as erroneous, is traced back to its genesis, we will be at no loss to understand that the error, brought by Spinoza, is that it is conceived that all existence and modes of being are by the constrain or denial of the absolute being.
But we unhesitatingly object to this unsafe perspective, which is intended to undermine the very foundations of morality, teaching the positive character of all reality and the fundamental Truth of God’s self-potence as the Absolute Will, which causes all exclusively his realities. When we check the facts of our consciences and find the proof of truth? We believe that it is unequivocally required will itself should be to understand anything lasting in ourselves, anything genuine in existence or agency. If the will did not alter itself, it would solve itself into a series of fragmented and disconnected stages. To “be,” he must continually and constantly become himself; this is recognized as the perpetual act of self-assurance, represented by the verb “I am,” which tacitly supports and follows every other act and practically reflects the individuality of each moral actor. To be a Will in any meaningful sense of the word, it must will its being as one undivided Will, constantly, permanently, always, self-consistently, and this is what we mean by an individual Will or a Person.
However, if no being can ever be conceived within ourselves without this continuous
act of self-affirmation that constitutes our individuality and designates us as our personality, we will not, except under the same conditions, be able to conceive any Will, and even the concept of Absolute Will escapes us except a personality concept. When divided from conscious predominance, intention, deliberations, judgment, etc., related to conscious mind and personality, the term “will” loses all power and meaning, and when we assume the reality of a causative process that implies intelligence, other than a conscious subject, or self-defining will, necessary to give every intuition, we only cheat ourselves by mere abstraction. The absolute Will causative to all realities, and therefore its very act of self-affirmation or self power, is, in this relation, the essential act of the personality and can be described as the desus subjectivus, the ibseity, the Absolute Subject, ‘I am’ (as any stage in the process) of the absolute Will causative of reality. We now call the reader aware of this all-important relationship as the cornerstone and foundation of all moral principles and as the only effective antidote to the depressing impact of pantheism with its essential result of establishing God with the world.
The school of Hegel, following the systems that have propounded the doctrines of
Pantheism since the beginning of time, and all born out of ignorance of the position expressed by the Personality of God, because, as it appears to them, personality is necessarily ” finite,” and the attribute of “infinite,” which must belong to deity, cannot be predicated of that which is essentially a finite thing. It should be observed now that the Spinoza School considers all finition to be a limitation, and all limitation to be negation; hence that the finition implied by personality is a limitation by denial of the divine character, which is essentially unbounded, unlimited, unlimited, and absolute, and can never be conceived of without contradiction of it. Now, without stopping here to refute, but protesting against, the position that all finition or limitation is negation, and at the same time being reminded that an act of the will or other central power implies a self-determination ab intro:- I freely admit that the above objection to the personality of God might be deemed valid. If the term ” finite ” any limitation ab extra of the will conceived as Absolute is expressed or asserted, the will, conceived as the absolute cause of all reality, were falsely and surreptitiously admitted to being shorn of omnipotence or curtailed in the infinitude of the creative act. However, if the position assaulted here is that the Absolute Will is no longer absolute since it is self-asserted as the Absolute will and source of its existence, then I reply unhesitatingly that the objection is incorrect and is founded. The opposition. As I have previously demonstrated, all will must be self and not understood ethically other than as an uninterrupted act that defines what we mean by “Personality” to be a Will.
Furthermore, the ” Will” cannot be otherwise understood as “se finiens,” or as far-reaching and finite as it decides to be, if it is to predetermine acts that will be needed to achieve any particular objective or purpose, and if that is, to be causative of the reality. The fundamental essence of the personality lies, I say, in a continual act of self ponency, or an act of self-affirmation, express without question that act may, given the circumstances of depravity connected to its moral agency, be subject to all restrictions and negations by way of the finite will. However, the Absolute Will in the act of self-ponency, which constitutes the personality of the divine nature, does not and cannot affirm Himself to be finite but in that act establishes himself to be The Absolute Will.
The nature of the Absolute Will is only altered by the everlasting act of the self-surrender of the Absolute Will. Without the Absolute Will in any true meaning of the word, save via a deliberate abstraction, could not be conceived as a will. The Absolute Will, I repeat, is eternally the Absolute will, and in this act of personality, that we are never divided from absolute will by our contemplation of God, we see Him, not just in an abstract manner as an absolute Will causing all reality, but in a personal manner as the Divine Author causing all truth. As the Almighty ” I am” in the Supreme Being, he becomes self-ponency, the Omnipotent Author and Creator of all Truth by this continuous act of autonomy, but, through the very nature of the ideal act, he becomes such without any thought-throwing forfeiture of any part of the infinite and boundless power implied by Absolute Will. No amount of such power is depleted, limited, or negatively affected by it arising out of a personal agency center. It is, in sum, an obvious fact that the Absolute Will, proclaiming His realities as absolute will, is Absolute Will. Pantheism is assumed to be the primary activity in which the Causative secures and maintains its being as the “Causator Ipse Supremus” and denies, in fact, the foundation of all permanence and the very substance of all reality. It is a divine will and power, as the spiritual ground of the world. As the continuous supporter of the flux and the present day, the floor itself is taken away in the swirling edges of existence, always change. But a human mind would, and can, reject a belief so totally irreconcilable with the rules of conscious thought and the facts of consciousness (save a brief time of self-intoxication) by its ability! The mind of man needs permanent and permanent change;- and this is found in reality (shown by awareness) of personality that every rational will asserts and retains its individuality as “I am” by a permanent act of will. The process by which the individual becomes aware of his spiritual existence and his constant spirituality shows him the greater reality of the everlasting “I am.” It is not just a fact, but a truth containing its evidence, to the point of intuition being felt and seen as it works throughout and within the spirit of man, but here its evidence is derived from a fact of spiritual experience, inseparably linked to the constitution of spiritual life.
We then argue Idea of God is truth revealed, through light in its self-evidence, within principles of our spiritual philosophy. Subsequently, it does not admit the truth intuitively is felt and seen while acting in and upon the spirit of humanity. Therefore, a truth that does not contain merely its evidence, so much so as the truth in itself. That this is not just a truth that has its evidence, but objective truth and strength, which its agency, ‘ab extra’ within and above us, without being and underlying our will. Therefore, this gives us the power to act in and on the most intimate and spiritual basis of the soul of the will, namely, by infusing light and life with it and enlivening them to their spiritual integration. I confirm that in and for His beings, the reason, viewed as the brightness and spiritual presence of the word of God, is the idealizing power—– the power, instinct, and inner desire to examine in its purity and perfection all their ideas, feelings and efforts. I reiterate that reason, which was thus thought of and accepted by consciousness, is, and can only be, the “Idea of God,” as the transcendent idea of spiritual integrity and the universal and ultimate power of integration. I say then that the only logical proof of God’s Being is the evidentness of the power of truth, which drives a man into moral self-integration; it is a revelation immediately to him; and, in the revitalizing human soul, the idea reveals itself in the undisputed nature of reason and spiritual integration.
But while we universally claim for man the gift of reason, one cannot assume that everybody has the power to look at this transcendental idea with its complete integrity, and even less so to understand its absolute excellence, but if, in the present circumstances of its knowledge, the human mind is at all possible to grasp such a more profound mystery. Happy for us if the most illuminated of our race teach us to know the Idea of the Divine Being so much in the graceful revelation, as it can be accepted by all men, as an inseparable principle of light and life, and by its working, we can always aspire to the pattern of spiritual integration and moral perfection.
To know God as much as we are allowed — and to know that God is to have a relationship with Him, we must focus on Him as the Spiritual Integrity Idea that He is eternally truthful and powerful. To view him in the everlasting self-ponence of the “I am,” we must look at the idea in the light from reason, revealing his existence in the heavens to see him as the Prototype and the living source of spiritual perfection, the Absolute will that causes all reality. And if the assistance of discursive reason or logical reasoning, as is undoubtedly the case, is necessary for purging the mind and clearing away mists that finite minds obscure the brightness of the ideal, then this still reaffirmed its claim to be a true reason, an immediate contemplation, and an introduction, against the false reinforcement of the capability to support and formulate a mere mortal faculty. To “know” God in the light of the idea and be in true communion with Him, however, we must experience His power of revival and become aware of His spiritual agent and presence. And this requires an awakened Consciousness, under which the human being can only feel and long for the necessity of spiritual integration with an abundant awareness of his sinfulness and recognize that the force of integration works in the person. And he will know or will leam to know that his own weak, sin prone and depraved nature cannot provide spiritual integrity he needs and longs for, and if the idea of integrity is carried out as he can but be aware, he must admit that this is derived from a strength that, though within, from the outside, is acting upon him. What is then better than designating this unique power, this moral causer and invigorating add-on to his spiritual being with a name equivalent to “God,’ and what is more consistent with our racial history, despite all his numerous grave religious aberrations, than discovering therein a Gentium of consensus in the recognition “that truly there is a God?” How far and to what extent the Divine Spirit personally acts must be based upon the individual’s will to accept it voluntarily, Or the graceful blessing of life and light presented to him unceasingly to refute. Therefore, in the difference of spirituality that confessedly exists between men, it inevitably follows that we have to expect to note the extreme contrast of degree in their spirituality and spiritual life.
Although the gift of reason, dimmed in many respects, obscured, latent is always the inalienable attribute of our humanity and thus must be underestimated. In conclusion, we can then propose the following: “Whoever wishes, but who, through his depravity, cannot give in to his deeds, and still finds at work in him for a complement of his spiritual being, the Truth of reason, and as a result of his depravity, is in-divisionally linked with the constitution of man’s moral nature and his condition of self-affirmation as a moral being.” I know now that no genuine central premise is the conclusion of the aforementioned and that no medium-term would support the argument, so I must see the proposal as a direct decision drawn from facts of awareness illuminated by reason. It might, of course, be said;
” Whatever has the sense of incompleteness strives after completion;
The human soul has the sense of incompleteness;
Therefore it strives after completion.”
” All complete integrity is of God ;
What the soul wants is integrity; Therefore, what the soul wants is of God.”
These and a variety of similar arguments might be easily supported, but all such attempts could be forms of explanation, but no evidence of the truth stated and whose belief derives directly from the self-conscious investigation. Finally, the conviction of the spirit of the man is animated and illumined only Divine Spirit, but continually, and reason reveals this idea of spiritual integrity. In this divine function, we stand out the Light and Life as mutually indispensable coefficients. However, in the order of efficiency, we give precedence to live through indivisible oneness and cooperation, as though it needs illumination yet to be incorporated into the whole spiritual reality. Therefore, the human spirit’s life principles, ‘the will,’ awakened to its depravity and hastened to standards to be a living Soul and enlighten, will seek its integration through an Objectivity revealed once enlightened. And I close by saying that after all the failures to test the Idea of God, even though the speculative intellect is necessary for building and explaining the theoretical reason, the human being knows only the idea and, although he knows the idea, only the concept through its agency on and in itself, as the spiritual ground, insofar as the spirit can act upon.