Does God Exist? Yes | Heavy Questions

Does God Exist ? YES

Some Theistic Contributions to the Debate

In the first installment in this series of articles, I provided an overview of an ongoing debate between atheists and theists on the existence of God. The second installment “Does God Exist? No” provided atheistic arguments along with counterpoints by theists. This article will focus on the theists’ contributions to the debate along with some counterpoints raised by atheists.

As in the previous two articles in this series, I caution you to be aware of the philosophical biases and assumptions made in the arguments. Watch for and be very aware of these and of your own biases and assumptions as well. With that caution in mind, let’s begin.

Irenaeus of Lyon (circa 130-202 AD) was an early Christian bishop who studied under Polycarp, who in turn studied under the apostle John. Irenaeus believed that the existence of evil serves a purpose; that it is a means to an end. That end was soul-making. From his perspective, evil provides the necessary problems through which we achieve spiritual development. John Hick (1922-2012) brings this belief of Irenaeus forward in modern time. Hick is regularly cited as "one of the most – if not simply the most – significant philosopher of religion in the twentieth century".

He was born and died in England, but for the larger part of his career, he taught in the United States. Hick contends that humans were not created as a complete being, but that we are in a constant state of creational evolving. In the Irenaean tradition, man is created in two steps: “Bios” and “Zoe”. “Bios" in the original Greek means existing or being; "Zoe" in the original Greek is used to describe a life with meaning. The Irenaen tradition holds that the first step, “bios”, is the creation of the physical universe and organic life. Consistent with the various theories of evolution, this phase continues with the creation of mankind. Irenaeus saw humans as organic beings with a personal life, and capable of having a relationship with God. Consistent with the bible, this first phase is the creation of mankind in the image of God. The second phase of this creation is mankind achieving personal worth and goodness or spiritual development. This is the quality of “zoe”. This equates to the development of humans into the likeness of God. This is what Hick refers to as the “soul-making” process.

Hick compares the relationship between God and humankind to that between parent and child. He argues that even the most loving parent does not indulge the child’s every desire, that there are times when a child must be denied immediate pleasure in order to gain greater values. Those values might include patience, generosity, self-denial and even love. Hick then concludes that the presence of evil is transcended by its necessity for “soul-making”. In conjunction with this, Hick also speaks in some detail about free will. The arguments on free will are addressed separately in the next article.

An atheistic objection to the Irenaean belief that evil serves a purpose in soul-making is raised in the question, “Can suffering ever be justified by the good that results from it?” For atheists that grant the possibility that some levels of suffering are required for the growth of fundamental virtues, there remains the question of suffering from which no apparent good is achieved.

Theists also make a moral argument for the existence of God. The primary premise of this argument is first of all that there is an absolute moral law. The first point in any and all of these arguments is called the categorical imperative. Acceptance of the key principle underlies acceptance of the remainder of the system. So the imperative here is that there is some moral foundational, seemingly innate law that all understand and upon which all agree regardless of era, culture, belief or non-belief. An example would be murder. Whether theists or atheists, every culture throughout time has held that murder is wrong. Both Dr. John Henry Newman (1801-1890) and C.S. Lewis (1898-1963) argue that the existence of this moral law demonstrates the existence of God. If there is an absolute moral law, there must also be an absolute moral lawgiver. Newman was a doctor of western philosophy and Anglican priest in England. In his forties, he converted to Roman Catholicism and in his late seventies was made Cardinal. Lewis, an Anglican from Ireland, was a prolific writer and broadcaster. His works were mostly Christian apologetics or science fiction.

Newman made his argument from the perspective of conscience. He believed God must be assumed as the reason for conscience. He demonstrated his claim by pointing out that we feel shame, responsibility and guilt as a result of decisions and actions that we understand as wrong. These feelings would not make sense if we were not aware of a higher power judging our behavior. After all, why would anyone feel guilt for things with which they had gotten away unless they felt there were some standard against which they could be judged and some higher power capable of judging? Newman argued that the only being that could justify these emotions is one who is aware of all our actions and able to judge them; namely God.

Lewis compares, but does not equate, moral law with natural law. He believed that like natural law, moral law was not contrived by humans. It is known intuitively and not learned through observation. The prophet Jeramiah, who was called to prophesy around the year 626 BC taught, “Deep within them I will plant my Law, writing it on their hearts. Then I will be their God and they shall be my people. There will be no further need for neighbor to try to teach neighbor, or brother to say to brother, ‘Learn to know God!” No, they will all know me, the least no less than the greatest. (Jeramiah 31:33-34a)

Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) was a German philosopher of the Enlightenment period. He does not argue for the existence of God; in fact, Kant does not believe that the existence of God can be proven. However, Kant believes the existence of God must be assumed if morality is to be possible at all.

Kant contends that we are all aware of an obligation to do what is good. He sets up his argument with five points as follows:

· Good acts should lead to happiness (summum bonum) also referred to as the “highest good”.

· The “highest good” must be achievable.

· We cannot know from experience that the “highest good” is achievable.

· If morality is to be possible at all we must assume a moral lawgiver as a guarantor of the “highest good”.

· That lawgiver is called God.

So Kant’s categorical imperative, which he argues repeatedly in a number of ways, says,’ Act so that you could imagine your action to be made into a universal law’. (See “Moral Decision Making” and “Pursuit of Happiness”) This means that whatever we do we should be willing to have everyone do it. In other words, if I would not wish to be robbed or cheated, then I must not (that’s the imperative part) rob or cheat others.

It is very similar to what is also called the “Golden Rule”: “Do unto others what you would have them do unto you.” The rest of the argument gives us a reason to do the right thing – to follow the categorical imperative.

Kant says the best reason to do good actions is that they will lead to happiness for us (as well as for others). If we are motivated by that, then we must also believe that “highest good” or that happiness is achievable. Kant then addresses experience. Sometimes when we do what is right, we experience that happiness immediately. But sometimes, the return of happiness is delayed. Then it makes sense to ask, “If I do not find immediate happiness from good deeds, how I can trust that I will eventually, in the long term, reap the reward of happiness? If good deeds don’t eventually bring a positive reward, what motivation do I have to perform them?” This is where Kant argues for the necessity of the moral lawgiver. This being must be fair, know all deeds, have the power to see through people to their selfish or altruistic desires, and to reward whatever is good. We cannot know this being exists, but he is necessary if we are to have a sound practical reason to do what is right and good. Kant calls this moral lawgiver God, a being who is supposed to have the required qualities. In addition to God as a postulate of practical reason Kant says we also have to assume we have free will to make the choice to do right or wrong (Watch for an article on free will in two weeks.) and the afterlife as a place to receive our rewards or punishments, as guarantors of the moral law, which is his initial categorical imperative.

So how do atheists respond to these arguments? They grant that Newman makes a convincing case for the idea of the conscience as the voice in our head. The main weakness of his argument seems to be that it is not at all clear that the conscience comes from God. It could as easily be psychological. For this, we look to Sigmund Freud (1856-1939).

Freud provides no direct criticism of the moral argument, but instead provides an alternative explanation for the idea of God. Freud is anti-religious and believes religion to be a symptom of a disease or neurosis caused by childhood trauma. For Freud God is a projection of the father figure. The desire for God is therefore seen as a form of psychological immaturity, being stuck at an early stage of development, where we still need a father figure. Kant’s moral lawgiver is then an immature need in us for a father figure who will guarantee that life is fair and will protect us. This need, claims Freud, is a psychological problem we must outgrow. Real life contains no such guarantees. Freud’s point is a relevant one, but it lacks evidence as a psychological theory. Approximately 9/10ths of the world’s population are believers. Freud believes all religious believers are psychologically immature. In fact, however, the psychological evidence suggests that religious believers do not lack any more maturity than their secular counterparts.

Another Counterpoint to Kant’s argument is that it contains an absolute as part of its imperative and absolute imperatives require an absolute authority to support the absolute claims. Relativist views, on the other hand, contend that what is right or wrong depends on the place, culture and society in which one finds oneself. If there is no absolute morality there need not be an absolute lawgiver. Furthermore, it can be argued that absolute moral principles are simply part of nature, like the law of gravity. So it appears to be a moral and not a theological question as to whether Kant’s argument tells us anything about God.

The final theistic argument to be presented is the cosmological argument. The concept itself dates back at least to Plato’s and Aristotle's "unmoved mover" and possibly earlier. The primary contributors to this argument here will be Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) and John Duns Scotus (c1266-1308) along with a cosmological argument on time from medieval Muslim philosophers. Aquinas was an immensely influential philosopher and theologian and is considered to be one of the greatest Christian philosophers to have ever lived. Scotus is generally considered to be one of the three most important philosopher-theologians of the High Middle Ages and has had considerable influence on both Catholic and secular thought.

The cosmological argument has to do with whether things are eternal or infinite as opposed to having a beginning in time, whether they are contingent (dependent on someone or something else) or necessary (exist on their own without other cause).

Aquinas put forward five proofs for the existence of God. The first was the argument of motion. For Aquinas motion includes any kind of change including growth. He argues that the natural condition is for things to be at rest. Studying the works of the Greek philosopher Aristotle, Aquinas concluded from common observation that an object that is in motion is put in motion by some other object or force. From this, Aquinas concludes that ultimately there must have been an Unmoved Prime Mover who first put things in motion, namely God. Aquinas’ second proof deals with the issue of existence. Aquinas puts forth that common sense observation tells us that no object creates itself. In other words, some previous object had to create it. Aquinas believed that ultimately there must have been an uncreated first cause (God) who began the chain of existence for all things.

Aquinas’ third proof defines two types of objects in the universe: contingent beings and necessary beings. A contingent being is an object that cannot exist without a necessary being causing its existence. Aquinas believed that the existence of contingent beings would ultimately necessitate a being, which must exist for all of the contingent beings to exist. The argument goes like this: Contingent beings are caused. Not every being can be contingent. There must exist a being, which is necessary to cause contingent beings. This necessary being is God.

The fourth proof for the existence of God as formulated by Aquinas is from a very interesting observation about the qualities of things. For example one may say that of two marble sculptures one is more beautiful than the other. So for these two objects, one has a greater degree of beauty than the other. This is referred to as degrees or gradations of a particular quality.

From this fact Aquinas concluded that for any given quality (e.g. goodness, beauty, knowledge) there must be a perfect standard by which all such qualities are measured and these perfections are contained in God. Finally, Aquinas puts forward a proof by Intelligent Design. This has to do with the observable universe and the order of nature. Aquinas states that common sense tells us that the universe works in such a way, that one can conclude that is was designed by an intelligent designer, God. In other words, all physical laws and the order of nature and life were designed and ordered by God, the intelligent designer.

Before giving Scotus’ argument for a “First Cause”, let’s look at the “Kalam” (time) argument by medieval Muslim philosophers such as al-Kindi and al-Ghazali. This argument demonstrates the impossibility of arriving at the present moment in time if the past is infinite and without beginning or, in other words, uncreated. What distinguishes the kalam cosmological argument from other forms of cosmological argument is that it rests on the idea that the universe has a beginning in time.

Advocates of this argument claim that it is impossible that the universe has an infinite past. In support of this claim, advocates appeal to modern science, specifically to the Big Bang theory. Modern science, they say, has established that the universe began with the Big Bang. More recently, three leading cosmologists—Arvind Borde, Alan Guth, and Alexander Vilenkin—proved that “any universe which has, on average, been expanding throughout its history cannot be eternal in the past, but must have an absolute beginning.” This would be true of our universe.

Traditionally, however, it is mathematics that has been used by proponents of the kalam argument in order to establish that the past is finite. There are a number of ways of doing this; I‘ll outline three. The first argument draws on the idea that actual infinites cannot exist, the second on the idea that actual infinites cannot be created by successive addition, and the third on the idea that actual infinites cannot be traversed.

There are two types of infinites, potential infinites and actual infinites. Potential infinites are purely conceptual, and clearly as concepts they both can and do exist. Mathematicians employ the concept of infinity to solve equations all the time. Actual infinites, though, arguably, cannot exist. For an actual infinite to exist it is not sufficient that we can imagine an infinite number of things; for an actual infinite to exist there must be an infinite number of actual things. This, however, leads to certain logical problems. This is most easily explained by the Hilbert’s Hotel paradox. If I had a hotel with an infinite number of rooms and filled those rooms with an infinite number of people, the hotel would be full; I would have room for no more, making the actual available space finite.

The second mathematical argument for the claim that the universe has a beginning draws on the idea that an actual infinity cannot be created by successive addition. If one begins with a number, and repeatedly adds one to it, one will never arrive at infinity. So actual infinites cannot be created by successive addition. The past has been created by successive addition. The past continuously grows as one moment after another passes from the future into the present and then into the past. Every moment that is now past was once in the future, but was added to the past by the passage of time.

If actual infinites cannot be created by successive addition, and the past was created by successive addition, then the past cannot be an actual infinite. The past must be finite, and the universe must therefore have had a beginning.

Finally, if I were to set out on a journey to an infinitely distant point in space, it would not just take me a long time to get there; rather, I would never get there. No matter how long I had been walking, a part of the journey would still remain. I would never arrive at my destination. Infinite space cannot be traversed. This also applies to time in the past. If the past were infinite, then it would not just take a long time to get to the present; the present would never arrive. No matter how much time had passed, we would still be working through the infinite past. It is impossible to traverse an infinite period of time. Clearly, though, the present has arrived, therefore the past has been traversed. The past, therefore, cannot be infinite, but must rather be finite. So time had to be created and the universe had to be created in time.

John Duns Scotus’ primary contribution to the proofs for the existence of God is his possibility premise for the existence of a First Cause. Within his argument, he uses the Kalam argument. Scotus reasons, “A First Cause is possible. Whatever is possible is either contingent or necessary. Whatever is contingent can be actualized. A First Cause cannot be actualized. Therefore, a First Cause exists necessarily. That First Cause is God.” Given the arguments against an infinite regress of non-temporal causes, Scotus’ primary premise is quite plausible. His second premise is true by definition. If something exists, its existence is either dependent on someone or something else (contingent) or not (necessary). If something is contingent upon another, it has the potential to be actualized, but something necessary, a First Cause, does not have the potential to be actualized by another or it would not, by definition be a First Cause. What then follows as a result of the truth of first four premises is that the First Cause has to be necessary.

Now let’s look at the atheistic response to these proofs. William of Ockham (Occam) (c1280-1349) was an English philosopher and historically, has been cast as the outstanding opponent of Thomas Aquinas. The central theme of Ockham’s approach to any subject is the principle of simplicity, so much so that this principle has come to be known as “Ockham’s Razor.” Theologically, Ockham is a fideist, which means he maintains that belief in God is a matter of faith rather than knowledge. Against the mainstream, he insists that theology is not a science and he rejects all the alleged proofs of the existence of God.

According to Ockham, advocates of the cosmological argument reason as follows: There would be an infinite regress among causes if there were not a first cause; therefore, there must be a first cause, namely, God. There are two different ways to understand “cause” in this argument: efficient cause and conserving cause. An efficient cause brings about an effect successively over time. For example, your grandparents were the efficient cause of your parents who were the efficient cause of you. A conserving cause, in contrast, is a simultaneous support for an effect. For example, the oxygen in the room is a conserving cause of the burning flame on the candle.

In Ockham’s view, the cosmological argument fails by using either type of causality. Consider efficient causality first. If the chain of efficient causes that have produced the world as we know it today had no beginning, then it would form, not an extensive infinity, but an intensive infinity. This means infinity does not extend forward or backwards linearly as one might imagine, but is more circular and self-contained. Since the links in the chain would not all exist at the same time, they would not constitute an uncountable quantity of actually existing things. Rather, they would simply imply that the universe is an eternal cycle of unlimited or perpetual motion.

Conceiving of the world as a product of simultaneous conserving causes is difficult. Ockham readily grants that if the world has to be “held up” by conserving causes, then there must be a first among them because otherwise the set of conserving causes would constitute an uncountable quantity of actually existing things. It is in fact a tenet of belief that God is both an efficient and conserving cause of the cosmos, and Ockham accepts this tenet on faith. He handily points out, however, that, just as the cosmos need not have a beginning, it need not be “held up” in this way at all. Each existing thing may be its own conserving cause. Hence the cosmological argument is entirely inconclusive.

Thomas Ash is a graduate student studying philosophy at Merton College in the University of Oxford. He received his BA in the subject from the University of Cambridge, where he was president of the University Atheist and Agnostic Society. As you may have guessed, he is an atheist. Ash argues against these theistic premises by saying, “All the argument shows is that we have intuitive difficulties imagining infinity, which is, after all, to be expected of such an advanced concept. Mathematicians can cope quite well with an infinite sequence of integers; appealing to the incomprehensibility of infinity is what Richard Dawkins in The Selfish Gene calls an ‘argument to personal incredulity.’ The word 'personal' exposes the key flaw in this line of reasoning - our limited human imaginations are a poor guide as to what properties the universe can have. It's just arrogant to say ‘I have difficulty imagining or explaining this thing, therefore no one ever could.’ But that is what the Kalam argument effectively does. Besides,” he continues, “the universe as a whole is not an ordinary finite 'object', it is what finite objects constitute parts of; this means we have no reason to assume that the same principles apply. This can be said of both contingency of everyday material objects and their obeying of the laws of cause and effect. As Kant pointed out,” says Ash, ‘we have only ever witnessed these properties within the universe. It would be going far beyond what we know to conclude that the universe itself has a cause or is contingent.’”