Wh
at is it about light streaming from the clouds (heavens) that invokes images of some sort of Creator? Is it the promise of enlightenment? Or is it the mystery hidden behind the clouds?
For you new philosophers, the goal is to ascend to the clouds, ask the questions and examine the many different answers.
"In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move."
Douglas Adams (1952 - 2001)
Defining God
What does the word 'God' mean? Obviously, it means different things to different people.
Eastern philosophers generally see God as a representation of ultimate reality whereas Western philosophers use a more human-like being.
As you know, definitions are the foundation upon which philosophers seek wisdom. A faulty foundation leads to cracks in the argument, which can, in turn, collapse the entire structure.
For philosophers, defining God is almost as difficult as determining whether God exists. However, like a corporate executive needing to know about golf to get ahead, so too do philosophers seem to need to expound about God to be taken seriously. So why not try for yourself? Click here to go to the Do-It-Yourself Deity generator.
Arguments for God's Existence
There are numerous arguments for God's existence. However, the key arguments you will be studying are:
| Argument | Philosopher(s) |
|---|
| Cosmological | Plato and Aristotle |
| Ontological | St. Anselm |
| Teleological | Thomas Aquinas |
| Mind-Body | Descartes, Spinoza, Leibniz |
1. Cosmological
Plato and Aristotle in Raphael's "School of Athens" | More so than their peers, Plato and Aristotle sought the answers to the Big Questions. Though they often disagreed, one principle philosophy they agreed on was that existence and the universe required a First Cause or Prime Mover.
In short, here is the cosmological argument:
1. Every finite and dependent being has a cause.
2. Nothing finite and dependent can cause itself.
3. A causal chain cannot be of infinite length.
4. Therefore, there must be a first cause; or, there must be something that is not an effect. |
In essence, the cosmological argument can be boiled down to cause and effect. Cause and effect is where something earlier causes an effect after, which, in turn, causes another effect, and so on. Causes necessarily must come before effects, or else you are caught in a paradox (more on this later). A common example used is playing pool: the cue ball (cause) hits the eight ball (effect) on a pool table (the universe).
Think of it this way: the universe is a DVD movie and, growing bored, you choose to watch it in reverse. Doing this, eventually you will get to the very beginning. But the first cause for the movie isn't the first scene - it is your decision to put the movie in the player! Aristotle and Plato, then, performed a thought experiment where they mentally rewound the universe to the point where they believed that the only logical answer for the first cause was God.
Have you doubted whether thought experiments are useful? Well, you may be interested to know that Plato and Aristotle's First Cause argument accurately illustrates and parallels the scientific Big Bang Theory. Not bad for two philosophers living over 2000 years before telescopes, satellites and computers!
As we have discussed, the Big Bang theory states that the universe began as a singularity (a single, infinitely small, infinitely dense point). At the time, the singularity was the ultimate constituent of reality. In fact, it was the only constituent! Not only did the singularity contain all the matter and energy ever to be in the universe, but also it 'contained' both space and time. The singularity didn't explode into space and time. It created space and time! The question, then, becomes: where did the singularity come from?
Interestingly, the Eastern philosophies you learned about could call this singularity 'Nirvana'. After all, isn't it the case that after a long journey, all most people want to do is go home?
Check these out, they're quite interesting....
- Big Bang: It Sure Was Big!
- Big Bang: A Virtual Tour
- NOVA Special: Runaway Universe
Counterargument
Q. As a critical thinker, can you spot any problems with Plato and Aristotle's argument in explaining the existence of God?
A. After pondering the question, read below for some examples that help answer the question.
Cosmological Counterarguments
Remember that no argument for or against the existence of God is infallible (perfect). After all, if there was one, you would not be reading this activity. Even philosophical powerhouses like Plato and Aristotle can create arguments that contain reason for doubt.
One such concern is the argument contains a logical fallacy: circular reasoning. In other words, the argument relies on itself to be true. Specifically, the first cause necessarily had no preceding cause. Yet, where is the proof of this other than rationalizing? This is not to suggest their argument is wrong, however, it does leave itself open to some essential critical questions.
Another counterargument is that being a First Cause doesn't necessarily mean that the First Cause is a Being (sentient, self-aware and/or alive). It is possible that the Big Bang singularity randomly sprang into existence without method, reason or purpose. Some philosophers have put forth the First Cause as being only the idea that existence is 'better' than non-existence (in that there is existence).
2. Ontological
"Come on now little man, get away from your worldly occupations for a while, escape from your tumultuous thoughts. Lay aside your burdensome cares and put off your laborious exertions. Give yourself over to God for a little while, and rest for a while in Him. Enter into the cell of your mind, shut out everything except God and whatever helps you to seek Him once the door is shut. Speak now, my heart, and say to God, 'I seek your face; your face, Lord, I seek.'"
St. Anselm (1033 - 1109)
Another argument for God's existence is the ontological. This argument is favoured by rationalists because it requires no external experimentation or proof - only reasoning. Although it has changed, the original idea put forth by St. Anselm argues that God exists because you can imagine that God exists. Sound confusing?
It isn't really if you can first admit that you aren't perfect (that may be hard but give it a try...).
Okay, imagine what attributes God must have (don't worry about whether God exists or not, just give it the properties God would need.) So, grab a sheet of paper and make out a list of God's Top Five Qualities.
St. Anselm of Canterbury
Finished? It is a safe bet that perfection is probably near the top of your list. Well, St. Anselm argued that the very fact that you can imagine perfection proves God's existence? How? He used this rationalist argument:
1. It is a conceptual truth (or, so to speak, true by definition) that God is a being than which none greater can be imagined (i.e., the greatest possible being that can be imagined).
2. God exists as an idea in the mind.
3. A being that exists as an idea in the mind and in reality is, other things being equal, greater than a being that exists only as an idea in the mind.
4. Thus, if God exists only as an idea in the mind, then we can imagine something that is greater than God (i.e., a greatest possible being that does exist).
5. But we cannot imagine something that is greater than God (for it is a contradiction to suppose that we can imagine a being greater than the greatest possible being that can be imagined.)
6. Therefore, God exists.
(Taken from the Internet Encyclopaedia of Philosophy)
Below is an excerpt from Anselm's Proslogion:
CHAPTER II
That God Truly Exists
Therefore, Lord, you who give knowledge of the faith, give me as much knowledge as you know to be fitting for me, because you are as we believe and that which we believe. And indeed we believe you are something greater than which cannot be thought. Or is there no such kind of thing, for "the fool said in his heart, 'there is no God'" (Ps. 13:1, 52:1)? But certainly that same fool, having heard what I just said, "something greater than which cannot be thought," understands what he heard, and what he understands is in his thought, even if he does not think it exists. For it is one thing for something to exist in a person's thought and quite another for the person to think that thing exists.
For when a painter thinks ahead to what he will paint, he has that picture in his thought, but he does not yet think it exists, because he has not done it yet. Once he has painted it he has it in his thought and thinks it exists because he has done it. Thus even the fool is compelled to grant that something greater than which cannot be thought exists in thought, because he understands what he hears, and whatever is understood exists in thought. And certainly that greater than which cannot be understood cannot exist only in thought, for if it exists only in thought it could also be thought of as existing in reality as well, which is greater. If, therefore, that than which greater cannot be thought exists in thought alone, then that than which greater cannot be thought turns out to be that than which something greater actually can be thought, but that is obviously impossible. Therefore something than which greater cannot be thought undoubtedly exists both in thought and in reality.
CHAPTER III
That God Cannot be Thought Not to Exist
In fact, it so undoubtedly exists that it cannot be thought of as not existing. For one can think there exists something that cannot be thought of as not existing, and that would be greater than something which can be thought of as not existing. For if that greater than which cannot be thought can be thought of as not existing, then that greater than which cannot be thought is not that greater than which cannot be thought, which does not make sense. Thus that than which nothing can be thought so undoubtedly exists that it cannot even be thought of as not existing.
And you, Lord God, are this being. You exist so undoubtedly, my Lord God, that you cannot even
be thought of as not existing. And deservedly, for if some mind could think of something greater
than you, that creature would rise above the creator and could pass judgment on the creator, which is absurd. And indeed whatever exists except you alone can be thought of as not existing. You alone of all things most truly exists and thus enjoy existence to the fullest degree of all things, because nothing else exists so undoubtedly, and thus everything else enjoys being in a lesser degree. Why therefore did the fool say in his heart "there is no God," since it is so evident to any rational mind that you above all things exist? Why indeed, except precisely because he is stupid and foolish?
This text is part of the Internet Medieval Source Book. The Sourcebook is a collection of public domain and copypermitted texts related to medieval and Byzantine history.
Not convinced? Well, lots of other people weren't either (and more on that later). However, Descartes was. He made the argument more accessible in his Third Meditation contained within his Meditations on First Philosophy. To summarize, God exists for Descartes because if God didn't his entire conception of reality might be false, and God would not do that to someone. If you too have difficulty with this argument, don't worry. Hume felt the same way (more on him below).
Required Reading
Click
here to read Descartes "Third Meditation: Of God: that He Exists". This is his actual full and monumental works so click it, look at it and further down to the end of this blog entry to will see a link to an outline of Descartes' work. After reading the meditation, reconstruct Descartes' point-by-point argument proving that God exists
using no more than 7 points.
Godly House Party Manners
It's rude to go to someone's house party without bringing something (often, but not always, potato salad - that would be an example of a sufficient but not a necessary choice...). So too do philosophers argue that God must have come to the universal picnic with some specific qualities.
The ontological argument suggests four principal qualities that God must necessarily have in order to be God:
- All Powerful (Omnipotent)
- All Seeing/Knowing (Omniscient)
- All Good
- Existence
Counterarguments
Q. As a critical thinker, can you spot any problems with St. Anselm, Descartes and/or others' arguments stated above in explaining the existence of God?
A. After pondering the question, click
here for some examples that help answer the question.
Look back at your list of God's Top Five Qualities. Are they similar or different? If similar, why do you think that is? If different, how would you defend your choices?
A Helpful Resource
- Outline of Descartes' Meditation of First Philosophy
