The existence of God

¶ … God Exist?

The Case for God's Existence

Anselm

Thomas Aquinas

Other Arguments

The Case Against the Existence of God

My Assessment

Many people go to churches, mosques, and synagogs each week to worship God and to pray. But does God hear those prayers? Does he exist? The debate over God's existence has gone on for centuries and is alive and well in our time. Philosophers, theologians, scientists, and ordinary people have weighed in on the argument. Theologians such as Aquinas and Anselm argued for the existence of God in the Middle Ages, but even in that time, others disputed their contentions. Even some who believe in God argue that proving God's existence through logic, science, or reasoning is impossible because even hard evidence has nothing more than faith behind it. Are the people who worship God wasting their time then? Does God impact their lives? That question can be difficult to answer. But an examination of the arguments may bring us some information.

II. The Case for God's Existence

A. Saint Anselm

One of the first and most powerful arguments for the existence of God was advanced by Saint Anselm (1033-1109) who served as Archbishop of Canterbury. His argument, known as the ontological argument is as follows: 1.) The term "God" is defined as the greatest conceivable being, 2.) Real existence, i.e. existence in reality, is greater than mere existence in the understanding, i.e. The mind, 3.) Therefore, God must exist in reality, not just in the understanding ("Anselm of Canterbury"). In essence, St. Anselm is saying that God is the most perfect and greatest thing that a human mind can possibly think of. To accept this proof one must accept St. Anselm's definition of God. One cannot think of anything greater than God. God is all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-present; in short, God is perfection. One must also accept that it is greater and more perfect for something to exist than it is for it not to exist. St. Anselm discusses a painter to illustrate this point. A painter conceives a painting in his mind. He then puts the painting on canvass. The thing that he thought of in his mind now exists in reality and the actual painting is superior to the mental image of the painting. Thus, if one can conceive of God, God must exist because existence in reality is greater than existence in the mind. We can conceive of inferior things that actually exist. Therefore, the greatest thing that we can conceive of must exist (Burr).

B. St. Thomas Aquinas

Another Medieval theologian who argued for the existence of God was Saint Thomas Aquinas, who did so in his work, Summa Theologica written in 1270. St. Thomas put forth five proofs for the existence of God (Weiss). They are:

The proof from motion in the universe.

The proof from efficient cause.

The proof from a necessary vs. A possible being.

The proof from degrees of perfection

The proof from design in the universe

In the proof from motion, St. Thomas states that the existence of motion in the universe indicates the existence of God. By the term "motion" St. Thomas doesn't mean movement, rather he means change. Nothing moves or changes on its own. There must have been a first, original or prime mover. The prime mover is God. The second proof says that everything has a cause. Nothing can cause itself. Therefore, there must have been an original first cause that led to every other cause and effect. That first cause was God. The third proof is based on the idea that things can exist and not exist. Therefore, it is possible for everything to not exist simultaneously, and this is absurd. Something must always exist, and that is God. The forth proof is that there is a hierarchy of things, i.e. good, better, and best. The best possible thing is God. The fifth proof is that the universe has order and was designed to be as it is. The designer is God. The first and second proofs are related. In effect, they are saying that if the universe exists, then God must exist. Obviously, something caused everything, including motion and existence itself. The being or thing that was the ultimate cause is God. The third proof is based on existence as well. We exist and the universe exists. But, we know that is possible for us not to exist. The same is true of everything else. Therefore, it should be possible for nothing to exist. But that is not possible. The question becomes why is there something instead of nothing? The reason is God. There is something that absolutely must exist and that something is God. The forth proof takes the approach that some things are superior in form and function to others. Animals are superior to plants. We are superior in intellect to animals. That which is superior to all else is God. The fifth proof is based on the fact that there is order to the universe. There is a maximum speed limit for light. Gravity behaves in a predictable fashion. Evolution produces new species to respond to change. The value of pi is the same no matter how many times you calculate it. In other words, nature and the universe were formed by design with fixed natural laws and properties. The designer was God (Burr). In summary, St. Thomas says that whatever is in motion had to be put in motion by a first or prime mover. No effect can cause itself. Therefore there must have been a first cause. Things can exist and not exist. It is possible for all things to not exist simultaneously. It is possible then for nothing at all to exist. This is an absurd notion. Something must exist and this is God. St. Thomas argues that the five proof demonstrate that the existence of God is an inescapable fact (Weiss; Burr).

C. Other Arguments

Muslims, too, have considered the question of the existence of God. They advance the Kalam or Time Argument. Essentially, it states that if the universe had a beginning, then the being responsible for it is God. If the universe and time are infinite, then it is impossible to have arrived at the present moment. There must be a definite starting point for time to make sense as a concept. Their illustration is that if the universe is infinite, trying to define a particular moment in time is like trying to jump out of a pit (Knutzen).

The debate about the existence of God is not just a religious and scientific debate. Scientists have weighed in on the subject as well. Some of their arguments reflect the reasoning of St. Anselm and St. Thomas Aquinas, but from different perspectives. Bradley notes that the properties of the universe can be described in a few set laws, such as Maxwell's Equations, Einstein's Theories of Relativity, and Newton's Laws of Motion. The universe must have been mad by design. Consider that if the strong nuclear force that binds the nucleus of atoms was only five percent weaker, the only stable element would be hydrogen. If these forces were just two percent stronger, the elements that support life would not exist. Furthermore, if the electromagnetic forces were to vary only slightly, the universe would be radically different. For example, there would be little carbon, a necessary component of life. The universe has to be just so to support life. Only a very specific set of conditions make our existence possible. It is extremely unlikely that all of these things would happen without design. Therefore, since the evidence of design is overwhelming, there must have been a designer. The designer was God (Bradley).

III. The Case Against the Existence of God

Those who argue that God does not exist take the position that they do not have to prove that the concept of God is untrue, but that believers must prove God's existence. They contend that this has not been done. In order to prove that God does not exist, critics simply have to knock holes into the proofs of God's existence. St. Anselm's proof was attacked in his own day by a monk, Gaunilo. In essence Gaunilo said that conceiving of something in the mind did not mean that it could exist. As an illustration, he says that one can conceive in the mind a perfect island with riches and delights superior to all other islands. But, just because someone tells him of this island, and he is able to understand their description of it and thus, perceive it in his mind, does not mean that the island exists. St. Anselm's argument is that because we can conceive God, God must exist. But we can conceive of many things that demonstrably do not exist. Therefore, being able to envision the concept of God in the mind is not proof or evidence that God exists. Others argue that St. Anselm uses terms in his proof that are undefined, like "great" and "perfect." One person's definition of these terms is different than another's. Therefore, each person's concept of God is different. Immanuel Kant also disputed St. Anselm's reasoning as proof. His thinking is somewhat complicated, but in essence, he says that St. Anselm's argument requires you to assume the existence of God in order to prove God's existence. Also, St. Anselm is implying a relationship between what we perceive to be reality to be and what ultimate reality is. The relationship hasn't been proven to exist. Kant does not believe that human conceptions of time, cause, and space necessarily apply to God (Burr; Villa).

St. Thomas Aquinas has his critics, too. The first proof, the prime mover proof, is attacked on several fronts. Critics say that that the prime mover for the universe was the Big Bang. There is no evidence that the Big Bang was the result of intelligent action. Also, there is no evidence that there was just one prime mover. Why couldn't there have been two prime movers? Or three? Or more? In addition, there is no proof that motion or change must result from a cause. Motion just is in this argument. Critics also dispute the second proof, the proof of cause. They say that the second proof depends on acceptance of the first proof. If you refute the first proof, then you have refuted the second. Also, there is no indisputable proof for cause and effect. If the universe is deterministic, then one can ascribe a cause to each effect. But evidence from quantum mechanics indicates that the universe is stochastic in nature. In short, there is an element of randomness in the universe and on can't always attribute an effect to a specific cause or causes. Things happen based on probabilities that aren't always predictable, and we cannot always know all of the factors involve. An example is the orbit of electrons around a nucleus as determined by the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle; one can never know for certain all properties of the electron. The criticism of the third proof, the necessity of existence is filled with contradictions according to critics. There is no proof that something must exist. In addition, there is no proof that if something must exist that it must be a single entity. Why couldn't two Gods exist? Why can't any number of God's exist? Also, if things can exist and not exist and the universe and time is infinite, then all possibilities will occur. Therefore, since one of the possibilities is the nonexistence of everything, it must happen. If it hasn't happened yet, then we must have existed forever which is absurd and also implies no need for a God to create us. In short, we don't need a prime mover. If this situation has already occurred, then we wouldn't be here because everything would have ceased to exist and there would be nothing to bring us back into existence. Critics contend that the forth proof, the "good," better," "best" proof fails because the lower level of perfection isn't necessarily created by the higher level of perfection. For example this proof would require one to believe that the second best basketball was made by the most perfect basketball in the universe. Of course this is ridiculous. The argument against the fifth proof, the proof of design, is that that there is no absolute definition of terms like "good," "bad," and "order." In order to believe this proof one must assume the existence of a being that can define these terms and tell the difference between "good" and "bad." Thus, to prove the existence of God, one must assume the existence of God. This isn't logical (O'Dwyer, Crinis).

Critics refute the Time Argument by noting that it is based on the notion that one cannot find discrete points in an infinite series. They point out that this is ridiculous because numbers ore infinite, yet we can identify and work with individual numbers. So to could we identify and study specific points of time, even if time were infinite. The science arguments regarding the laws of nature can be dispensed with because of infinity as well. If possibilities are infinite than it is a certainty that a universe will exist that has the improbable set of properties that ours exhibits (Edwards 43-58; Matson 59-94).

IV. My Assessment

It appears to me that no one really addresses the relationship of people to God or the values of attending church and worshipping God. To even get to these questions, we must answer the question of God's existence. Therefore, I wish to assess the arguments for and against God's existence, beginning with St. Anselm. St. Anselm answered Gaunilo during his lifetime. Essentially, he said that if you can understand the phrase "most perfect being," then you've already conceived of it, i.e. God. In addition, there is nothing in the definition of a perfect island that implies perfection while the definition of God does. Thus, Gaunilo's arguments are unsound. Others argue that the criticisms of St. Thomas Aquinas are also unfounded. The concepts of infinity and multiple Gods ignore the definition of God which covers these possibilities by going a step beyond them to define the ultimate cause as God (Burr). It seems to me that the argument comes down to one that has been debated for a long time: How can there be anything? Conversely how could there be nothing? Why "something" instead of "nothingness"? Since there is "something," it seems to me that that the argument for original cause has a lot of merit. Critics say that it is incumbent upon believers to prove the existence of God rather than for them to prove the nonexistence of God. I believe that until critics can explain the existence of the universe without assuming the existence of God, that they cannot legitimately deny the existence of God. One of the theories gaining attention in physics today is Cosmic Inflation Theory. Part of this theory suggests that the universe was created from an infinitely dense point or node, similar to inflating a balloon from a gas cylinder. A consequence of this theory is that there is the possibility that there are multiple universes, perhaps an infinite number. Some contend that Inflation Theory answers the question of why "something" instead of "nothing"? I don't believe that this is the case. Instead, the theory merely pushes the question back further in time, past the Big Bang, closer to the original cause. It may appear that the concept of an infinite number of universes supports the critics by eliminating the need for design and a prime mover. I believe that it actually supports the argument for the existence of God. If we can conceive of a universe with God and there are an infinite number of universes, then at least one of them must contain God. But God, by definition would be all-powerful and would transcend all universes and, thus, present in all universes, including our own. Many physicists who were skeptics concerning the existence of God now say, in light of Inflation Theory, that the anthropic design argument is at least worthy of debate and is defensible. The anthropic argument states that there was a designing intelligence in the creation of the universe (Silber).