How Reason Can Lead to God: A Philosopher's Bridge to Faith

by Joshua Rasmussen

Do you seek the truth?

Do you value reason, science, and independent thinking? Are you skeptical of beliefs that people maintain merely "on faith," yet you remain interested in the big questions of life? Do you hope there could be a greater purpose to the universe, if only that were realistic?

If so, then philosopher Joshua Rasmussen can encourage you in your journey. Beginning with his own story of losing faith and the belief in any ultimate purpose in life, he then builds a bridge to faith. Using only the instruments of reason and common experience, Rasmussen constructs a pathway--step by step, brick by brick--that he argues can lead to meaning and, ultimately, a vision of God.

Genres: Philosophy, Religion, Theology, Christian, Christianity, Nonfiction, God

206 pages, Paperback

Published July 30, 2019

Reviews

[Joachim Arting · Rating 5 out of 5]

Far from a ”I’m gonna prove my worldview right” kind of book, Rasmussen invites us to search for truth primarily and to think carefully about the nature of reality, guided by reason and our other senses.

In an almost Cartesian fashion the author constructs a bridge of reason, step by step, securing each step with humble yet profound insights - the argument from possibility (p. 52-55) for the necessity of actuality (existence) and the ”counting” argument (p. 88-89) against a strict materalist view of consciousness being among my favorites - culminating in the discovery of a ”treasure” on the other side of the bridge.

The excitement with which Rasmussen reasons is contagious and his humility and honest search for truth truly inspiring.

This is a must read for any truth seeker out there grappling with questions about the fundamental nature of reality, whether you are a theist or non-theist.

[Nathan · Rating 3 out of 5]

I really enjoyed this. Josh has written his book to cut through academic philosophy jargon and be accessible, whilst in places he employs his understanding of philosophy to provide rigorous, logically airtight argumentation too.

I really appreciate the personal tone of the book, the intellectual humility and value placed on truth.
Having recently deconverted from fundamentalist Christianity becoming an agnostic, whilst this book has not convinced me that I Know God exists, it has at the least provided me with a rational vision of a good God, a God deserving of the name God rather than a big Zeus anthropomorphism with all of the jealous rage and arbitrary characteristics drawn from having to conform to particular views of inerrancy and theology stemming from dogma and not following the lights of reason.

This book has helped me to understand that if God exists then my deconversion is only part of a story that takes me out of a narrow "us vs them" conceptualisation of the world into a broader view that may in fact help me pursue Good-ness itself, better than perhaps merely having the correct propositional beliefs about the Bible and going to church on a sunday but hating everyone else!

I really liked Josh's exposition of the argument from contingency and he addressed certain objections to his arguments, such as those from David Hume, in a way that I haven't really seen before so that was interesting!

I recommend this book to anyone interested in ultimate questions!

[Chad · Rating 3 out of 5]

Makes a compelling case that God exists, is the Creator of the universe, and has certain attributes. Rasmussen starts with the observable to universe and makes a series of rational, logical arguments to reach conclusions about God. The content is good, with several powerful arguments, but the book is difficult to follow for a layman like me, who's neither philosopher nor logician.

Rasmussen says,

I write for a specific sort of person. You value reason, science, and independent thinking. You question beliefs propped up by “faith” without sufficient evidence. … you want one thing: the truth. If you can relate, this book is for you.

Because Rasmussen wrote this for skeptics, agnostics, and atheists, he avoids religious language, and doesn't argue from the Bible.

Some of Rasmussen's assertions about God's sovereignty don't match the Bible's descriptions of God's sovereignty.

Rasmussen says, "My reason for writing this book is to mark out a pathway, step by step, that can inspire a greater vision of the ultimate foundation of everything."

Summary of book's argument
1. Reality in total is self-sufficient (with no outside cause/explanation). Reason reveals that nothing exists beyond the totality of all things.
2. Nothing can be self-sufficient without a perfect foundation. An imperfect foundation would cause problem of arbitrary limits and problem of construction.
3. Therefore, reality has a perfect foundation.

Notes
The Foundation Theory
Just as a bridge can't stand without a foundation, so reality can't exist without a foundation. This foundation is the basis of the existence of everything else.

Foundation Theory makes sense of 3 things
1. How the totality of everything can lack an outside cause or explanation.
2. The difference between potential realities and actual ones.
3. How there can be anything at all.

Testing Ground
Uncaused events
Objection: Uncaused events can occur.
Response: There are 3 ways a potential can be actual: 1) it makes itself actual; 2) something actual actualizes it; 3) it's actual without anything making it actual. Option 1 is unreasonable. Option 3 conflicts with experience and principle of irrelevant differences. Option 2 fits reason and experience; only something actual can make a potential actual.

Uncaused laws
Objection: Things can appear from nowhere, even though we never observe this.
Response: No mere potential can be actual on its own. Basic, uncaused rules of reality were never merely potential. They have always been automatically actual. Nothing, including laws, appear spontaneously from nothing. This matches experience.

Eternal Power
Either 1) power came ultimately into existence from nothing, or 2) power never came into existence. If power appeared from nothing (with nothing actualizing the power), then power could enter or exit reality at any place and time. Only one kind of power could prevent a chaos of random powers appearing and disappearing, and that power must exist by its own nature; an independent nature that results from its necessary existence. So the foundation of all power is a necessarily existent power. That power exists regardless of the state of the world, so it never begins or ceases to exist, and is eternal.

Foundation of Mind
Molecules can't build a mind, because they have third-person, public, non-sense features like shape, motion, mass. These are insufficient to explain first-person, private, sense features, like emotions and feelings. Non-sense properties can never add up to sense. But "mental" materials such as sensations, thoughts, intentions, can build a mind.

Foundation of Matter
The universe can't be the result of mere chance; it's too improbable that the universe would be so finely-tuned for life. It's much more likely that a mind tuned the universe.

Just as an infinite number of car factories would never produce a turtle, so an infinite number of universes doesn't guarantee that any universe is suited for life.

Even a multiverse would require highly specified rules, not random rules, to produce viable universes.

Natural selection in a randomized complex adaptive system tends toward simplicity, not complexity. Santa Fe Research Institute's most "finely-tuned" evolution simulations have never produced anything as remotely sophisticated as a strand of DNA. For evolution to produce complexity requires extreme fine-tuning, not randomness.

Foundation of Morals
If moral senses aren't a window into a moral landscape, then nothing is inappropriate/immoral; moral senses are merely personal preferences.

The Moral Window Hypothesis (that moral senses are a window into a moral landscape) makes sense of our moral language (speaking of things as right and wrong rather than as preferences).

If morality is merely a matter of preference, we could solve all the world's problems by agreeing that no problems exist and removing our distaste for "problems."

Just because not everyone sees the moral landscape with equal clarity doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

If no moral facts exist, then that "fact" itself isn't a fact.

Verificationism (that the only facts are those can be verified with the senses) doesn't fit its own definition of fact. It also excludes the foundations of science (logic, probability theory, mathematics).

Moral qualities (good, bad) can't arise from purely non-moral materials.

Foundation of Reason
How reason can exist
1. The foundation's resources include mental resources.
2. The foundation lacks arbitrary limits.
3. The foundation has mental resources without arbitrary limits.
4. The only mentally resourceful nature without arbitrary limits is a nature that includes perfect rules of reasoning. Anything less than perfect has a limit to its power to reason.
5. A mental foundation without limits has the power to reason perfectly.

If people come from mindless particles, then reasoning comes from non-reason, and thought from thoughtlessness/nonsense.

Reason must exist at the foundation of everything; there must be an ultimate mind. Without it, there's nothing; no math, logic, or reason to produce other minds.

Perfect Foundation
God's attributes deduced from reason
Self-sufficient
Independent
Necessarily existent
Ultimate
Eternally powerful
Purely actual (without gaps or arbitrary limits)
Unlimited
Foundation of mind
Foundation of matter
Foundation of morals
Foundation of math
Foundation of reason
Purely positive
Maximally powerful
Maximally knowledgeable
Maximally good
Perfect

Challenging the Bridge
It isn't true that if evil exists, God can't exist. The hypothesis that God allows evil for some good reason isn't a contradiction. We don't know every reason a perfect mind might have for allowing reason.

On the Other Side of the Bridge
Properties point back to their ultimate explanation. The ultimate explanation of limits can't be in terms of limits (that would be circular). Therefore, the ultimate explanation of limits can only be in terms of something without limits. Perfection is the one property that entails its own ultimacy; the one property that can be instantiated prior to all others. All other properties point back to perfection.

[Jacob O'connor · Rating 5 out of 5]

So many authors try to impress or outsmart their reader. Not so here. You really get the idea that Rasmussen is trying to help you. I very much enjoyed How Reason Can Lead to God. I encourage the skeptic to take this walk with him. I found it very compelling.


Notes

Recommended on Capturing Christianity

Nook

In my effort to maximize the value of this bridge, I follow three construction rules:

Rule 1. Make it inclusive: use materials—reason and experience—that are accessible to a wide audience, so you can check each piece.

Rule 2. No guessing: build each part on principles that you can see to be true.

Rule 3. Aim to serve: make a bridge that you can make your own—to analyze, reorganize, and
build upon further. (6)

Why wouldn’t a perfectly loving being make its existence more obvious to my classmate?” (8)

Seeking truth is the best way to get truth (12)

In this book, I will attempt to construct a bridge of reason that can help truth-seekers explore a pathway to a valuable discovery. (14)

With rules of logic in hand, I will first hammer down steps that provide the floor of the bridge. These steps are certain propositions about reality. I will begin by pinning down several propositions about reality as a whole. In particular, I will show that nothing serves as an outside cause or outside explanation of reality as a whole. In this sense, reality—taken as a whole—is self-sufficient. I will then systematically draw out the implications of self-sufficiency. Each implication is a step along the bridge toward a greater understanding of an ultimate foundation of reality. Toward the end of my construction, I will install an archway of lights to highlight a most basic and special feature of this foundation. The completed bridge leads to a grand theory, perhaps the grandest conceivable theory, about ultimate reality. After the bridge is complete, I will test its integrity by examining obstacles to the grand theory. These obstacles are negative features within the world. The negative features inspire lurking questions about how the foundation could fit with the effects we see. My task will be to provide some tools to help us separate the clear from the unclear. If successful, we will have an open path to a great treasure revealed by reason. (15)

X exists” = “There is such a thing as X.” (16)

A thing exists if it’s a member of at least some category (17)

Principle 1. No existing thing is outside (i.e., not included among) the blob of everything. (18)

Principle 2. Nothing outside the blob of everything caused the blob of everything to exist. This principle is deducible from the first. We can display the deduction as follows:

1. The blob of everything includes all that exists (by definition).

2. Therefore, no existing thing is outside the blob of everything (Principle 1).

3. Therefore, no existing cause is outside the blob of everything.

4. Therefore, no existing cause outside the blob of everything caused the blob of everything
to exist (Principle 2). (18)

Principle 3. Nothing outside the blob of everything explains why or how the blob of everything exists. (19)

The key to minimizing error is intellectual humility (20)

the blob of everything has no outside explanation or outside cause of its existence. This feature is strange because the things we observe in ordinary experience have outside explanations and causes. (22)

All objects we experience are like this: they have an explanation for their existence, and that explanation transcends their existence. (23)

Has a dependent nature (23)

How can anything be self-sufficient? (24)

Let us look more closely at the difference between dependence and independence. Logic divides all conceivable realities into two categories: (1) dependent upon another, and (2) not dependent upon another. The first—dependent upon another—includes anything (like socks) that depends upon some reality beyond itself. In the second category, we have independent things: things that do not depend upon anything beyond themselves. (25)

The blob of everything lacks an outside explanation because it has an independent foundation that lacks an outside explanation by its nature (26)

We can translate this picture into an argument for the existence of an independent layer—that is, a foundation—of reality:

1. A realm cannot be self-sufficient without any independent layer (because independence
is the root of self-sufficiency).

2. The blob of everything is a self-sufficient realm (because there is nothing beyond
everything).

3. Therefore, the blob of everything has an independent foundation (27)

Adding dependent things together makes a dependent total (28)

Principle of inheritance

Why is there something rather than nothing? (34)

Principle of Actuality: Whatever is actual, but potentially not actual, depends on an actualizer.

In other words, nothing can be (1) actual, (2) potentially not actual, yet (3) unactualized. (35)

Humility need not stop us from discovering an answer if there is one available (36)

Any realitY that is actual but potentially not actual depends upon an actualizer (38)

No potential becomes actual on its own (43)

To review, there are three ways a mere potential might be actual. First, it might make itself actual. Second, something actual might actualize it. Third, it might be actual without anything making it actual. The first option conflicts with reason: a mere potential would then be both actual (to make itself actual) and not actual (to be made actual). The third option conflicts with experience and the principle of irrelevant differences: a chaos of Disney princesses, and any other mere potentials, never appear from nowhere. That leaves the second option, which fits both reason and experience: only something actual can make a potential actual (46)

Conceivability does not always entail possibility (48)

something has actuality on its own, without becoming actual. To draw out the result, consider how actuality can exist at all. There are three options:
(1) actuality (the state of something being actual) makes itself actual; (2) something other than actuality makes actuality actual; and (3) nothing makes actuality actual. Options (1) and (2) both entail that something actual exists prior to all actual things, which is a contradiction. So that leaves (3): nothing makes actuality actual. In other words, actuality is actual on its own, without a source (54)

So far, we have seen that the foundation has the following features: (1) independence, (2) necessary existence, and (3) ultimacy. We can now add another feature to the list: a foundation has (4) eternal power (57)

Has a necessary nature (58)

The foundational power is eternal: it never became actual and will never cease to be actual. If instead the foundational power became actual, then something must have the power to actualize the foundational power. In that case, there would be a power before there is power—a contradiction. The only kind of power, then, that can be foundational is a power that is incapable of entering or exiting reality—that is, an eternal power. (59)

Principle of simplicity + explanatory depth + uniformity

Trunk theories vs. tumbleweed theories (71)

Personal note: Rasmussen’s chapter summaries are fantastic. This guy really want to help his reader.

Qualia are the “feeling” aspects of sensations. An itchy sensation, for example, feels a certain way. This certain feeling is what philosophers call a quale (the singular of qualia (74)

Reductions are eliminations (81)

Direct awareness (81)

Your moral senses are a window into a moral landscape (101)

Personal note: I like this insight. I once read a handful of books on ethics. I wanted to make sense of my moral intuitions. Yet I had these intuitions before I could explain them. I could just "see" that some things are right and some things are wrong.

Personal note: good thoughts about why people see moral problems differently. Example of politics. because one group is focused on one moral aspect and the other group is focused on a different aspect. As a consequence they come to different conclusions about what is right. (104)

Eating babies is as wrong as the earth is flat (108)

The base of a desire is the sense of something good (109)

Personal note: I'm going to read everything this guy writes

Mathematical principles were also true before my mind existed. Before I existed, the universe still had order, including the order of logic an mathematics. before I existed, square circles couldn’t pop into existence. Square circles were always impossible, even before any humans had any concept of a square or a circle. We invented symbols so that we could communicate mathematical principles, but the principles don't need to be communicated to be true...it exists beyond our own heads. (114)

What could possibly explain the existence of the mathematical landscapte? (114)

Thoughts and principles have the same structure because they have the same nature (116)

Without an ultimate mind, the following three things are missing from the foundation: (1) A reason to produce people (2) the resources to produce people (3) principles of reason themselves (121)

We stepped across five features of the foundation: (1) self-sufficiency (2) independence (3) necessity (4) ultimacy (5) eternality (123)

Four dimensions of reality (1) mental (2) material (3) moral (4) mathematical (123)

What is value? 2 types (a) value that reflects preference (b) value that reflects nature

How can you know that value is real and not subjective? (1) direct awareness (2) uniformity (meaning we can trust our other senses, so we can trust our sense of value by analogy) (3) desire (the basis of all desire this the sight of some value)

Two reasons why value cannot spring from non-value (1) the very power to produce value is itself valuable (2) the ultimate "value's" attributes have value eg reason (130)

Reason 3: From reason. This final support builds on the previous chapter on the foundation of reason. Previously, I argued that reason itself is an aspect of a mind-like foundation. My argument, in summary, was that only a perfect mind could include the perfect rules of reasoning within its nature. Rules of reasoning are about perfect reasoning, after all. If that is correct, then to have a nature with the rules of reason is to have a nature with rules of perfect reasoning. It follows that the foundation of reason is a perfect mind (132)

Perfection also unifies the world. The world includes diverse dimensions: (1) mental, (2) material, (3) moral, and (4) mathematical. Why do these dimensions populate our world? Here is why. These diverse dimensions all flow from a single root: they flow from pure perfection in the foundation. From pure perfection flows the perfect way of being, which is the foundation of all moral principles. From pure perfection flows perfect knowledge, which is the foundation of all principles of reason and mathematics. Moreover, a perfect mind has every reason to create a material world suitable for other minds. The perfection of the foundation, then, successfully predicts every dimension of our world (133)

God has the following attributes (as we have deduced):
1. God is self-sufficient.
2. God is independent.
3. God is necessarily existent.
4. God is ultimate.
5. God is eternally powerful.
6. God is purely actual (without gaps, holes, spots, blips, boundaries, wrinkles, or arbitrary limits).
7. God is unlimited.
8. God is the foundation of mind
. God is the foundation of matter.
10. God is the foundation of morals.
11. God is the foundation of math.
12. God is the foundation of reason.
13. God is purely positive.
14. God is maximally powerful.
15. God is maximally knowledgeable.
16. God is maximally good.
17. God is perfect.

Our bridge of reason has led us to the greatest God imaginable. (134)

The whole argument boils down to the following simple form:
Premise 1. Reality in total is self-sufficient (with no outside cause or explanation).

Premise 2. Nothing can be self-sufficient without a perfect foundation
Conclusion. Therefore, reality has a perfect foundation. (135)

The rest of reality includes minds, matter, morals, and reasoning. A foundation of these things must, then, include the resources to produce these things (135)

Now for the secret argument:
1. Every limit is explicable.
2. The property, having limits, is itself a limit.
3. Therefore, having limits is explicable. (1, 2)
4. If having limits is explicable, something could lack limits.
5. Therefore, something could lack limits. (3, 4)
6. If something could lack limits, then something must be perfect.
7. Therefore, something must be perfect (i.e., God). (5, 6) (165)

By definition , only something perfect could lack limits (166)

The only way perfection could be instantiated is if perfection is necessarily instantiated (because the necessary instantiation of perfection is part of perfection) (166)

[Benjamin Eikrem · Rating 5 out of 5]

Interessant, overbevisende og gjennomtenkt bok! Hele boken er bygd på et kult bilde av en bro, «The bridge of reason», som leder til en storslått teori om ultimat virkelighet: Gud. Gjennom boken konstruerer Josh Rasmussen broen nøye steg for steg med fornuften som verktøy. Målet er å hjelpe «sannhetssøkere» til å utforske en vei til denne verdifulle oppdagelsen. Broen er basert på Rasmussens egen reise med undersøking og akademisk arbeid om Gud og ultimat virkelighet.

Boken starter med et inspirerende vitnesbyrd av hvordan forfatteren som ung for første gang møtte på innvendinger som utfordret hans kristne tro. Tanken på at kristendommen kanskje ikke var sann virket dyster, men midt i mørket av tvil og usikkerhet, bestemmer han seg for å være en søker av sannhet og følge «fornuftens lys». Kanskje kom det til å lede han til et ubehagelig virkelighetssyn, men sannhet ville bli hans belønning.

Med dette som utgangspunkt går Rasmussen i gang med å konstruere broen, steg for steg, og inviterer leseren til å teste stegene selv for å se om de holder mål. Han starter med det mest grunnleggende utgangspunktet - at det finnes noe - og derfra argumenterer han for det han kaller «The Foundation Theory»: Virkeligheten har et uavhengig, nødvendig og ultimat fundament, og dette forklarer hvorfor og hvordan det finnes noe. Deretter argumenterer han for at fundamentet er «mind-like», og at dette best forklarer opphavet til mange sider ved virkeligheten: bevissthet, materie, moral og fornuften/logikken selv. Til slutt i konstruksjonen installerer han lys som skinner på fundamentets dypeste egenskap: perfeksjon.

Etter at broen er ferdig, går Rasmussen løs på å teste broen ved å se på vanlige innvendinger mot et perfekt fundament (eller Gud), som kan hindre en fra å gå over broen. Han ser blant annet på det ondes problem, Guds skjulthet, helvete, tro, kan Gud være ond og naturlig ondskap. Her synes jeg det var mange gode og nyttige refleksjoner!

Helt til slutt fremhever han hvilken enorm betydning det har for livene våre hvis Gud finnes, og viktigheten av at dette ikke bare blir en livløs teori. Boken er relativt filosofisk avansert ellers, så dette synes jeg var et bra fokus på slutten! For bokens flyt kunne den godt stoppet der, men rett før det slutter legger han fram et til, komprimert, argument for Gud («The argument from arbitrary limits»). Det gir boken en litt brå slutt, men argumentet er veldig interessant!

Generelt sett går boken dypere og bredere filosofisk enn jeg hadde forventet, særlig for meg som ikke har lest så mye filosofi før. Mye av innholdet må nok leses på nytt og tenkes mer over, så det er nok en bok jeg kommer til å lese flere ganger. Samtidig var den ikke var altfor tung, Rasmussen er en god og pedagogisk formidler. Men hjelper nok å være litt filosofisk interessert. Det er tydelig at mye av innholdet i boka bare er toppen av et isfjell med arbeid og filosofi som ligger bak, og den kunne nok gått enda dypere på de fleste temaene.

Likte veldig godt Rasmussens fokus på å søke sannhet og følge hvor enn fornuften leder. Han legger ydmykt og åpent fram stegene på broen, og så er det opp til leseren selv å gå på og teste stegene. Dette gjør boken overbevisende, og det gjør at den passer veldig godt til skeptikere.

Likte også det gjennomgående fokuset i resonnementene hans på å skille mellom det som er klart og uklart, det du ser og det du ikke ser. Dette er virkelig et nyttig verktøy! I møte med det ondes problem spør han for eksempel: ser du klart at det er umulig for Gud å ha en god grunn til å tillate ondskap? Nei, vi ser ikke alle grunnene Gud har for å tillate ondskap, men det er vel ikke klart at alle alltid ville visst enhver grunn et perfekt vesen kanskje har til å tillate ondskap?

Ut fra skillet mellom det man ser og det man ikke ser, har han et kult sitat om paradokser og motsetninger: «A paradox is something we do not see how to put together, whereas a contradiction is something we do see cannot go together.»

Alt i alt en veldig interessant og solid bok som gir et troverdig argument for Gud som ultimat virkelighet, og mange andre gode og nyttige perspektiver. Passer veldig godt for alle filosofi-interesserte. Kommer definitivt til å lese deler av boka flere ganger!

[Paul · Rating 5 out of 5]

At first, I was a bit skeptical about this book because I thought that the author would try to bend reason and reality to his wish, as means to demonstrate that belief in God can actually be based on reason.

But as I come to reading more and more, I realized that I was completely wrong about my initial assumption, as the author gives the reader full control over his own reasoning and, to my surprise, he even encourages the reader to challenge (as thoroughly as possible) the "bridge of reason" that the author is building towards the foundation of everything.
That being said, while building the bridge, the author always uses reason and logic in order to make sense of every proof, as well as establish the necessary properties that the foundation of everything requires. He offers examples and is always speaking in usual terms, without trying to be superior or try to deceive the reader, so that anyone can be able to make sense of the author's thought process and reasoning.

In chapter thirteen, the author responds to eight of the most common and challenging questions about God by using reason (some of which I also had as well) and invites the reader to continue his journey of seeking the truth "with courage in hand and reason in mind".

I would like to end this review with a quote from the last chapter of the book:
“The system is now complete: all properties point to perfection, either by pointing back to perfection (by the Argument from Limits) or by pointing to itself—via its positivity. If the system works, then all properties of all things point to God.”.

[claire · Rating 3 out of 5]

it’s fine. it’s missing a lot of nuance and i don’t like it for that, among other reasons. it’s a tad grandiose and a lot annoying. but it’s fine for what it is.

[Bob · Rating 4 out of 5]

Summary: Argues for a "bridge of reason" that leads us to God, based on the foundation of reality.

I've never believed that one can prove the existence of God. At the same time, I believe it can be shown that faith in God is reasonable, rather than contrary to reason. I also would acknowledge that some propose that it is reasonable that there is no God. All I've ever been able to commend is that the sincere seeker of truth weigh these reasons, and act upon whatever is persuasive to them.

This is a book that lays out a reasonable argument in the form of a "bridge of reason." The image is important because the author would argue that reason rests upon a foundation and the nature of the foundation both makes sense of our reason and is persuasive of the existence of a God at the foundation or source of all.

First of all, he argues for the self-sufficiency of reality and that this foundation meets nine possible objections. This self-sufficient reality is eternal, that is it never came into existence but is the source of all that exists. The tools of simplicity, explanatory depth, and uniformity point to a "purely actual" foundation that is a unity without gaps or limits. Furthermore, this foundation explains the existence of mind, matter, morals, and math (that is, logic or reason). Indeed, this foundation may be argued to be the perfection of these from which all derives, and hence a perfect foundation.

Rasmussen then considers problems with this foundational theory. The greatest, as in almost every argument for the existence of God is the existence of evil. Here, he argues for the possibility of God having good reasons for the existence of evil, particularly as a result of the creation of "kingly creatures" able to govern their own lives with the possibility of ruling badly. He devotes a chapter to this objection, and then an additional chapter to eight other objections.

He finally pulls all of this together through an argument from limits that points to the existence of perfection. He states:

   Here is an idea: perfection--by the light of its simplicity and positivity--points to its own possibility (i.e. consistency). Something cool follows: by the logic of possibility, perfection must be instantiated. In this way, perfection points by its own nature, to its instantiation.

He works out this argument step by step in more or less non-technical but closely reasoned language. A person with training in logic will especially appreciate Rasmussen's presentation, and perhaps also pick it apart! Certainly those who question the existence of reality, or our capacity to perceive reality beyond ourselves would have difficulty with his argument. However, I suspect they also have trouble with existence, because they act as if other minds, and other objects exist.

I am not a philosopher but it seems to me that he does something fairly novel. His is neither a cosmological or ontological argument for the existence of God. It is something like a Cartesian argument from reason, yet focuses on the foundation of existence that our capacity for reason is based upon.

One question I had was around his argument for the self-existence of the "blob of reality" at the foundation of all. I'm not quite sure of how Rasmussen distinguishes God and created reality. It seemed at least possible that his argument could give warrant for panentheism, the idea that all is in God, an idea not considered within orthodoxy by many Christians.

Rasmussen does not contend for this and I think he does a service both for skeptics, and for apologists in proposing yet another line of reasoning rooted in reason itself and our common experience, for the reality of God. I'll be interested to see how his ideas are received among philosophers, and how he continues to develop his "bridge of reason."

________________________________

Disclosure of Material Connection: I received a complimentary review copy of this book from the publisher. The opinions I have expressed are my own.

[Lim Paul · Rating 4 out of 5]

How reason can lead to God can be summarized into the following argument that is presented in Chapter 11.

Premise 1. Reality in total is self-sufficient (with no outside cause or explanation).
Premise 2. Nothing can be self-sufficient without a perfect foundation.
Conclusion. Therefore, reality has a perfect foundation.

It is basically another presentation of the contingency argument (how everything must be either necessary or contingent) but in a manner that differs from most of the readings that I have come across.
Josh provides clarity in his approach and lays out simple concepts without being too technical. He did it in a manner that differs from most of what I have read, which normally just defines the technical concept then goes on using it as if the reader is able to grasp it. Josh makes the effort to simplify the technical concept using common language that people can understand, however, his effort in elaborating may appear repetitive as he tries to tackle the different nuances that may not be clear at the point of reading.

A few cookies that I want to explicitly highlight in this reading.

1. Possibility and conceivability - Josh highlighted the importance of distinguishing Possibility and conceivability, which simply means that not all conceivable things are possible. In a more technical term “conceptual” possibilities and “ontological” possibilities.

2. The basis of desire - Josh defines the basis of desire as the motivation to aim at something good. In this sense, recognising our motivation serves as a check to know what we value and there is something valuable that we valued. That said, this aim at something good doesn’t necessarily mean it is good.

3. Which leads us to the following point, the two types of value, on one hand value that reflects preference and another reflect a nature that is independent of preference. Or the concept of subjective and objective.

4. Separating the clear and unclear - Josh distinguishes the concept of blind faith and faith by sight, he refers to faith by sight not in a literal sense but the virtue to seek truth. He further lays out the importance of seeking out something clear rather than remaining in an ambiguous state of mind that creates further barriers in getting to know the truth.

In general, this is a fantastic book with sufficient depth yet not too technical for readers who are new to apologetics.

[Caleb Watson · Rating 5 out of 5]

I don’t think that I am being hyperbolic when I say that this is one of the greatest works of philosophy that I have ever read. “How Reason Can Lead to God” is, in many ways, a masterful case for theism that deserves, in due time, to be considered alongside the great classics of this genre.

Joshua Rasmussen uses the light of reason to construct a bridge to a treasure which explains seemingly every facet of our reality. He calls this the “foundation theory.” Rasmussen constructs a tapestry of various famous arguments for the existence of God using the argument from contingency as his base. The result is a thorough exercise in metaphysics which ultimately yields the foundational explanation for everything.

Rasmussen does not so much present a new case for God, as he does present his case in a very unique, and powerful way. I have read copious amounts of material on every topic covered in this book, and yet this volume made them come alive in a new way. The coherence, and clarity is breathtaking. Furthermore, Rasmussen takes his readers on this journey with humility, and enthusiasm that is absolutely infectious. If I were going to give one book to an intellectual skeptic, this would be the one.

[Kenvin M · Rating 4 out of 5]

I would highly recommend this to anyone that is struggling to take the first step -- the cognitive step -- towards knowing God.

[Tim Donnelly · Rating 5 out of 5]

Very, very solid.

Rasmussen is a smart guy, and he makes challenging concepts easy to understand in a concise way.

This book is what I was hoping Pat Flynn’s Best Argument for God book would be. It’s much more focused and persuasive.

The book lost a little steam for me towards the end, but overall still would highly recommend for anyone interested in the philosophical case for theism.

[Silviu · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book humbled me. As G. K. Chesterton used to say, humbleness makes us see the world's wonders: " Humility is the mother of giants" or "Humility is the luxurious art of reducing ourselves to a point, not to a small thing or a large one, but to a thing with no size at all, so that to it all the cosmic things are what they really are - of immeasurable stature." I've seen humbleness in the author, together with a sense of adventure, one that inspires me greatly to leave behind intellectual laziness and to plunge ahead, like Paul, for the prize that is found in Truth, hoping that at the foundation of everything, love and truth are conjoined. Many things in the book went over my head, but seeing treasure at seemingly unreachable depths is pushing me towards taking the responsibility of becoming an explorer. As one little guy said once: I am going in an adventure!

[Nelson · Rating 5 out of 5]

'How Reason Can Lead to God' is perhaps the very best starting point on the question of whether God exists. Each stage of the argument - with each step leading to a fuller picture of God - is carefully constructed. The writing is relatively simple but the content is profound. I liked the added feature of the little boxes that go a little deeper in drawing out other fascinating points. In all, I highly enjoyed this book. I will definitely re-read. If I could recommend just one book arguing for the existence of God - this would be it. I will share this book with my friends and family. I've read many books pertaining to this subject and this is the single best (individual book). 'How Reason Can Lead to God' is a timeless classic.

[Lucas G. · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is one of the most exciting books I've read in a while. Rasmussen starts with the suggestion that something exists and, using nothing more than logic and reason, argues that therefore God must exist. While this argument is philosophically technical, he does a great job of guiding the reader through the logic in a simple and engaging manner. It is significant to note that he writes largely for the skeptic, championing the usage of reason above all else, and he is incredibly precise in his application of it. Additionally, there is a sense of humility in the way he presents his arguments, which makes this book a joy to read.

[Matt Hill · Rating 5 out of 5]

this was excellent. i thought it was going to be mostly the author's version of a cosmological argument of sorts. it was that, but much more. by the end he works in other arguments and other support, answers objections, tries to apply it a bit, etc. i also liked the style and overall approach. easy to read in a way, but also an enjoyable challenge. definitely good reading for people of a certain analytical / engineering type mindset who want to think about some of the more philosophical ways to think about the existence of God . . high recommend!

[Taylor Woodson · Rating 4 out of 5]

Rasmussen breaks down his Foundation Theory which offers what might be the best take on the contingency argument I’ve seen.

He relies solely on logic. He doesn’t mention any history or biblical texts. He doesn’t even mention God until page 148 and there are only 188 pages. The contingency argument could be the best argument for God’s existence IMO and again, Rasmussen has his own take on this topic which makes it even better.

[Declan Ellis · Rating 5 out of 5]

Clear, incredibly well-written and deeply compelling... I cannot recommend this enough! The arguments are not only powerful, but also profoundly beautiful in their simplicity. It is not an overstatement to say this book represents the future (or what I hope will be the future) of Christian apologetics.

[Gazham · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book is not only clear in its argumentation, but also in its structure. Each step feeds back into the steps before it, and after you have crossed "the bridge" laid out by Rasmussen, you do get a sense of how he has thought about these issues a lot. The tone of the book is also quite refreshing, just like in his podcast appearances I've seen on YouTube, you always get the sense that he just wants to help people think more clearly.
As for the arguments themselves I nodded my head quite a bit for the first five chapters or so; pure actuality, the nature of contingency, the transcendental in reason itself etc. However the closer he got to "God" the more uncertain I was becoming of the validity of some of the arguments.

Especially his chapters on mind. It seems to me you could do just fine with the world having a propositional structure, a conceptual nature apt for thought. My thoughts map on to the world because the fundamental aspects of reality contains sense and not non-sense (just like he argues!), so where does this leap come from then, what does he even mean with "fundamental mind"?

Another point worth adressing is that of the "dials" of the universe and how they must be finely tuned for life. We find ourselves in a position where we exist. Are we going to infer that this is all very unlikely, that the dials of the universe just happened to be exactly what they are so life is possible, but that they could have been otherwise? If they could have been otherwise, then indeed that would be quite bizarre, in fact it would mean that the world would be more of a miracle with a purely materialist worldview rather than that of the christain worldview. But obviously this is again unlikely, very much so indeed. So, the dials of the universe could not have been otherwise (ockhams razor), but then, God could not have chosen the dials, they just are!

Conclusion, Rasmussens God is too personal for my taste. Good read nonetheless, I still agreed with it quite a bit.

[JCJBergman · Rating 5 out of 5]

I have read an inexcusable amount of books on theism as an atheist (because, in truth, God existing beats God not existing, so why not seriously attempt to figure it out?) and this is book is absolutely in my top 5. Rasmussen's writing is both accessible and academically rigorous.

I am not a Christian, but over the past year, especially while completing my MA in philosophy, the propositions of naturalism as fully accounting for reality have become more and more indefensible. My main changes of opinion lately are that the universe must have begun (come into existence) and that to dismiss qualia (the senses or feelings of being conscious) in arguing qualia is merely identical to a physical brain state is mistaken.

Rasmussen covers a lot of ground in his book, but in honesty for the majority of it I couldn't help but agree with his assessments. I have thought about theism for years and at this point I feel a shift in epistemological status - atheist seems too harsh of a label for me, but Christian seems too harsh as well. I suppose I am in the middle, not an agnostic, but if anything, more of a deist at the moment. However, deism I am already convinced does not work... So, what's left for me? Who knows. I'm figuring that out.

[iosephvs bibliothecarivs · Rating 3 out of 5]

I listened to the audiobook. I didn't engage as deeply with its ideas as I would have liked. I hope to re-read it at some point.

[Eric S · Rating 2 out of 5]

I struggled with whether to give this book a 3 rating or not but in the end I just couldn't round up. The book has quite a few excellent parts. Some of the parts are well worth reading. You get a good feel for what the author was trying to accomplish. That said the book is supposed to be for lay people. I definitely disagree with that. There are parts that could qualify for that but a lot of the book does not. I liked the author's emphasis on skepticism and the need for having an open mind. He does a good job of trying to put together a cogent well-thought-out pathway to his conclusion. That's the good part.

The bad part is that I don't concur with a number of his assumptions. I feel he makes too many esoteric arguments, doesn't do a good job of defining his terms and lastly is unnecessarily abstruse.

Several times while reading I couldn't get the image of John Cleese in the Monty Python sketch as the critic out of my head. His words just kept haunting me.

"Some people have made the mistake of seeing Shunt's work as a load of rubbish about railway timetables, but clever people like me who talk loudly in restaurants see this as a deliberate ambiguity, a plea for understanding in a mechanized world."

Maybe it's because lately I've been reading too much math, too much about Gödel, too much discrete logic, or maybe it's that I just don't talk loudly enough in restaurants. Whatever the reason I don't buy into a lot of the author's arguments. They don't appear convincing
or logically sound.

[René Karamazov · Rating 4 out of 5]

I rated it 5 stars the first time I read it (back in 2022), now that I have read more philosophy in general, I feel like it didn't live up to what I remembered. Don't get me wrong, it is great, academic but generally accessible for any careful thinker. However I think I overestimated some arguments, especially Rasmussen's response to the problem(s) of evil(s) and his argument against physicalism. His main argument, tho, in a cosmological argument fashion, is really great and might be one of the best versions out there. I find his chapter on Perfection to be really great, it clarifies what most theists mean by a perfect being.

[Emma Stewart · Rating 5 out of 5]

Rasmussen does an excellent job making a case for God on the basis of reason in a couple of remarkable ways:

1. He uses numerous, clear examples in each chapter to explain abstract concepts. In this way, he makes difficult concepts understandable to people who lack the subject matter expertise that he has.

2. He consistently applies the same small set of principles of reason and logic throughout the whole book. Not only does he show you how these principles are practically indisputable, but he also uses these principles as building blocks for each mental step you take toward understanding God’s nature and existence. Because such a small set of principles is used at each step, readers can more easily keep track of them and apply them themselves as they’re reading through the book, which is what I did.

3. He writes chapters that counter common disagreements or points of confusion against the points that he’s laid out. In many of his responses, he shows how others’ objections bolster his claims instead of breaking them.

I would 100% recommend this book to any Christian who wonders how their God-given reasoning can strengthen their faith.

I would also recommend this book to any truth-seeker who wants to know how the world around them exists as it does and who or what is responsible for all that we see and experience. It even helped me more clearly understand a question that I’ve had since elementary school: why is it that math, something so abstract, even relates to the physical world? This book answers this question and many more, and I believe that it will at least give you the building blocks to find the truth that you’re seeking.

[Laurent Dv · Rating 4 out of 5]

Un excellent livre sur l'argument cosmologique en faveur de l'existence de Dieu (un mélange de plusieurs arguments, la première voie de Thomas d'Aquin, l'argument de la contingence de Lebiniz). On y trouve des réflexions très poussées, très actuelles (Rasmussen dialogue avec le meilleur de la philosophie analytique) et très accessibles (beaucoup d'exemples, contenu synthétique, agréable à lire). Rasmussen ne présente pas son argument de manière directe mais propose plutôt de nous emmener pas à pas dans un voyage depuis la réalité (un ensemble de choses contingentes et finies) qui finira par nous amener à un Être nécessaire, infini, éternel, etc. Il développe les différentes étapes (prémisses) l'argument, envisage à chaque fois les possibilités et explique pourquoi toutes sauf une sont fausses et répond aux objections.

Il montre aussi que différents aspects de la réalité comme la morale (le bien et le mal), la raison, les mathématiques, l'évolution, l'esprit/l'âme humaine, la matière ont besoin d'un fondement ultime qui les dépasse. Il finit enfin par répondre au problème du mal en reprenant la défense de Plantinga (libre-arbitre + "greater good") et à d'autres objections courantes ("the problem of divine hiddenness", le problème des miracles, le problème du mal naturel, etc).

[Alex Ponce · Rating 4 out of 5]

A philosophical book.

Este libro está dirigido a un grupo de lectores que les gusta los problemas lógicos y filosóficos en cuanto a la existencia de Dios.

El autor nos lleva por un puente construido con el razonamiento hacia la existencia de Dios. Algunos puntos del libro me parecieron bastante interesantes de profundizar y creo que el autor lo hizo bastante bien, ya que, utilizando la lógica el autor nos presenta diferentes argumentos filosóficos donde no puede existir una explicación más razonable que la existencia de Dios.

A pesar de ser un libro bastante pesado en cuanto a contenido, puedo recomendarlo para aquellos que deseen tener una base razonable y argumentativa en cuanto a la fe y existencia de Dios.

[Ashley · Rating 3 out of 5]

The author does his best to make these concepts easy to understand, but I still could not quite get some of the things he was talking about. Reading this for an introductory Philosophy class is not the best idea unless you know more about Philosophy and Reason. Even his metaphors are difficult to understand. What makes it even worse is that he uses too many metaphors in the same chapter. Overall it's a good book but I don't think I have enough knowledge to actually understand it.

Reason alone cannot get you to God, you must allow yourself to feel and use your emotions along with reason. Too much reason is deadening, too much imagination is dangerous.

[Yameen · Rating 4 out of 5]

Joshua presents many arguments that have already been discussed again & again in the literature, however Joshua has a unique approach to writing providing a foundation framework that builds over the chapters to intersect. He allows you to question and think about the ideas yourself, question his method & has a humility in accepting his arguments could be wrong. Some may think he is not confident in his arguments. I would say this is intellectual humility & honesty at play. A great read for theists, agnostics, atheists & anybody interested in the nature of gods existence.

I particularly found the chapters on contingency and kalam quite interesting.

[Pouya · Rating 4 out of 5]

A beautifully mixed collection of contemporary arguments for Theism. The language is gentle and accessible. Overall, an enjoyable read. The early chapters that lay the necessary groundwork really resonated with me. But I found the later sections, which explore the perfection of this foundation (or the leap to God) less convincing. His reflections on the challenges posed by the problem of evil and divine hiddenness were also refreshing.

Even for the agnostics or atheists, I believe this book can show how there could be different yet still defensible perspectives through which the world can be understood making Theism rational for some.

[Atticus Belcher · Rating 4 out of 5]

I came into this book worried I was about to hear from a Christian who was masking himself as an “honest” philosopher.

After finishing I feel guilty for feeling that way. For the first time in a very long time I feel as if the argument for god is substantial rather than minimal. Joshua Ramussen does a great job of not rushing his points. Everything is elaborated upon, and most importantly he never tells us he is definitively right.

In the end he encourages us to not view this book as a conclusion but rather a starting point. He encourages self discovery. I find that extremely refreshing.