Chapter Twelve - The Existence of God
¡@
1. INTRODUCTION
This chapter is divided into six main sections:
We will discuss the limitations of scientific methods.
We will clarify some of the common misconceptions of God.
We will provide basic alternative truth systems which either affirm or deny the existence of a God who is personal.
We will examine the argument for the existence of God as developed by medieval philosophers and the objections to these arguments.
We will consider the strictly logical and probable proofs for God's existence.
We will consider the alternatives to a belief in God.
¡@
2. IS THERE A GOD?
Is there a God? is the question that must be answered by every human being, and the answer is far-reaching in its implications for every individual.
2.1 Limitations of Scientific Methods
We must be clear from the outset that it is not possible to put God in a test tube or prove Him by the usual scientific methodology. And it can be said with equal emphasis that it is not possible to prove Napoleon by the scientific method. The reason lies in the nature of history itself, and in the limitations of the scientific method.
2.1.1 History in its very nature is non-repeatable
In order for something to be proved by the scientific method, it must be repeatable. One cannot announce a new finding to the world on the basis of a single experiement. But history in its very nature is non-repeatable. No one can re-run the beginning of the universe or bring Napoleon back or repeat the assassination of Lincoln of the crucifixion of Jesus Christ. But the fact that these events can't be proved by repetition does not disprove their reality as events.
2.1.2 Love, justice and many real things are not measurable
There are many real things outside the scope of verification by the scientific method. The scientific method is useful only with measurable things. No one has ever seen 3 feet of love of 2 pounds of justice, but one would be foolish indeed to deny their reality. To insist that God be proved by the scientific method is like insisting that a telephone be used to measure radioactivity.
2.2 Anthropological Research Indicated That There Is A Universal Belief In God.
What evidence is there for God? It is very significant that anthropological research has indicated that among the farthest and most remote primitive peoples today, there is a universal belief in God. And in the earliest histories and legends of peoples all around the world the original concept was of one God, who was the Creator. An original high God seems once to have been in their consciousness even in those societies which are today polytheistic. This research, in the last 50 years, has challenged the evolutionary concept of the development of religion, which had suggested that monotheism - the concept of one God - was the apex of a gradual development that began with polytheistic concepts. It is increasingly clear that the oldest traditions everywhere were of one supreme God.
The writer of Ecclesiastes referred to God as having "set eternity in the hearts of men" (Ecclesiastes 3:11). The vast majority of humanity, at all times and in all places, has believed in some kind of god or gods.
2.3 Law of Cause and Effect
To begin with, there is the law of cause and effect to consider. No effect can be produced without a cause. We as human beings, and the universe itself, are effects which must have had a cause. We come eventually to an uncaused cause, who is God.
Bertrand Russell makes an astounding statement in his Why I Am Not A Christian. He says that when he was a child, "God" was given him as the answer to the many questions he raised about existence. In desperation he asked, "Well, who created God?" When no answer was forthcoming, he says, "My entire faith collapsed!" But how foolish that was. God by definition is eternal and uncreated. Were God a created being, he would not and could not be God.
R.C. Sproul, author and lecturer, explains, "Being eternal, God is not an effect. Since he is not an effect he does not require a cause. He is uncaused. It is important to note the difference between an uncaused, self-existent eternal being and an effect that causes itself through self-creation!"
2.4 Infinite Time Plus Chance?
No one would think a computer could come into being without an intelligent designer. It is unlikely that a monkey in a print shop could set Lincoln's Gettysburg Address in type. If we found a copy of it, we would conclude that an intelligent mind was the only possible explanation for the printing. How much more incredible is it to believe that the universe, in its infinite complexity, could have happened by chance? The human body, for instance, is an admittedly astounding and complex organism, a continual marvel of organization, design and efficiency.
In his impressive book The Intelligent Universe, Sir Fred Hoyle concludes, "As biochemists discover more and more about the awesome complexity of life, it is apparent that its chance of originating by accident are so minute that they can be completely ruled out. Life cannot have arisen by chance." (Sir Fred Hoyle, The Intelligent Universe, London: Michael Joseph, 1983, pp. 11-12, 19, 251).
Holye explains that it would be equally as difficult for the accidental formation of only one of the many chains of amino acids in a living cell. And in every human cell there are about 200,000 such amino acids. Now if you would compute the time required to get all 200,000 amino acids for one human cell to come together by chance, it would be about 293.5 x 4.6 billion years. The odds against this happening would be infinitesimally small, far greater than a blind-folded person trying to solve the Rubik's Cube!
2.5 The Moral Argument
Yet another evidence for the existence of God is what C.S. Lewis calls "right and wrong as a clue to the meaning of the universe." (C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity, Macmillan, 1996 Edition). There is an influence or a command inside each of us trying to get us to behave in a certain way. Lewis explains that universally we find that people appeal to some sense of right and wrong. People argue with one another: "That's my seat. I had it first! Suppose I did the same to you! How would you like it? Come on, you promised ... " People say things like this every day, educated as well as uneducated, children as well as grown-ups; all of us say these things.
In these arguments there is an appeal to some behavioral standard that the other person is assumed to accept. He had a good reason to do it, it was OK to do it. The appeal is to some law or rule of fair play or morality that's built in them both. Rarely does the other person say, "Who cares about your standard?" It is there between them. They don't question it. As Lewis puts it, "Quarreling means trying to show the other man is in the wrong."
This law has to do with what ought to take place. Somehow we know it inside of us. It is not just a set of cultural norms or cultural standards. Also we can see there is a surprising consensus from civilization to civilization about what is moral decency. And we all do agree that some moralities are better than others. "If no set of moral ideas were truer or better than any other, there would be no sense in preferring civilized morality to savage morality, or Christian morality to Nazi morality."
Yes, there is Somebody behind the universe. He has put a moral law within us and he is intensely interested in right conduct - in fair play, unselfishness, courage, good faith, honesty and truthfulness.
2.6 God - A Celestial Killjoy?
It is important to observe here that though there are many indications of God in nature, we could never know conclusively from nature that he exists or what he is like. The question was asked centuries ago, "Can you fathom the mysteries of God?" (Job 11:7). The answer is no! Unless God reveals Himself, we are doomed to confusion and conjecture.
It is obvious that among those who believe in God there are many ideas abroad today as to what God is like. Some, for instance, believe God to be a celestial killjoy. They view Him as peering over the balcony of Heaven looking for anyone who seems to be enjoying life. On finding such a person, he shouts down, "Cut it out!"
Others think of God as a sentimental grandfather of the sky, rocking benignly and stroking his beard as he says, "Boys will be boys!" That everything will work out in the end, no matter what you have done, is conceded to be his general attitude toward people.
Others think of Him as a big ball of fire and of us as little sparks who will eventually come back to the big ball.
2.7 God Has Penetrated the Finite
As the writer to the Hebrews puts it, "In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways, but in these last days he has spoken to us by His Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom He made the universe" (Hebrews 1:1-2).
God has taken the initiative, throughout history, to communicate to man. His fullest revelation has been his invasion into human history in the person of Jesus Christ. Here, in terms of human personality that we can understand, he has lived among us. If you wanted to communicate your love to a colony of ants, how could you most effectively do it? Clearly, it would be best to become an ant. Only in this way could your existence and what you were like be communicated fully and effectively. This is what God did with us. We are, as J.B. Phillips aptly put it, "the visited planet." The best and clearest answer to how we know there is a God is that He has visited us. The other indications are merely clues or hints. What confirms them conclusively is the birth, life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.
2.8 Changed Lives
Other evidence for the reality of God's existence is His clear presence in the lives of men and women today. Where Jesus Christ is believed and trusted, a profound change take place in the individual, and ultimately, the community. The Bible deals with heavenly and spiritual realities such as conversion, life-transforming power of the Bible, victory in Christ, the efficacy of prayer and Christian fellowship. These, and a great host of other divine realities, bear testimony that the God is Love!
For examples, cast out Demons by prayer, conversion of sinners, charitable organizations such as hospitals and schools, etc. Please note that both the U.S., Hong Kong governments and other countries recognize that the Gospel Camps running by Christian organizations have the highest successful rate of helping the patients to get rid of drugs addiction.
2.9 Conclusion
There is, then, evidence from creation, history and contemporary life that there is a God and that this God can be known in personal experience.
¡@
3. THE RIVAL CONCEPTIONS OF GOD
If you are an atheist you do have to believe that the main point in all the religions of the whole world is simply one huge mistake.
3.1 What is God?
People who all believe in God can be divided into two very different ideas on this subject, they are:
God is beyond good and evil; and
God is definitely good.
3.1.1 Pantheism - God is beyond good and evil
One of them is the idea that He is beyond good and evil. We humans call one thing good and another thing bad. But these people think that long before you got anywhere near the divine point of view the distinction would have disappeared altogether.
We call a cancer bad, they would say, because it kills a man; but you might just as well call a successful surgeon bad because he kills a cancer. It all depends on the point of view. This point of view is called Pantheism. It was held by the great Prussian philosopher Hegel and by the Hindus. Pantheists usually believe that God animates the universe as you animate your body: that the universe almost is God, so that if it did not exist He would not exist either, and anything you find in the universe is a part of God.
3.1.2 God is definitely good
The other and opposite idea is that God is definitely "good" or "righteous," a God who takes sides, who loves love and hates hatred, who wants us to behave in one way and not in another. This view is held by Jews, Mohammedans and Christians.
Christians believe that the God invented and made the universe - like a man making a picture. A painter is not a picture, and he does not die if his picture is destroyed. If you do not take the distinction between good and bad very seriously, then it is easy to say that anything you find in this world is a part of God. But, if you think some things really bad, and God really good, then you must believe that God is separate from the world and that some of the things we see in it are contrary to His will.
3.1.3 Atheism turns out to be too simple
And, that raises a very big question. Atheists said that, "If a good God made the world why has it gone wrong?" The arguments against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust.
But how had we got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust? If there is no Holy God, therefore there is no absolute holy moral standard for us to follow. If human beings are mere animals who are self-existed by chance or evolution, then we can do anything according to our own desires because there is no difference between just or unjust.
Of course I could have given up my idea of justice by saying it was nothing but a private idea of my own. But if I did that, then my argument against God collapsed too - for the argument depended on saying that the world was really unjust, not simply that it did not happen to please my private fancies. Thus in the very act of trying to prove that God did not exist - in other words, that the whole of reality was senseless - I found I was forced to assume that one part of reality - namely my idea of justice - was full of sense.
Consequently atheism turns out to be too simple. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning: just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark. Dark would be without meaning.
3.2 The Origin of Evil Power
There are two views about the existence of good and evil powers, they are:
The Christian view that this is a good world that has gone wrong, but still retains the memory of what it ought to have been; and
The other view is called Dualism which means that there are two equal and independent powers at the back of everything, one of them good and the other bad, and that this universe is the battlefield in which they fight out an endless war.
3.2.1 Theory of Dualism
The two powers, or gods - the good one and the bad one - are supposed to be quite independent. They both existed from all eternity. Neither of them made the other, neither of them has any more right than the other to call itself God. Each presumably thinks it is good and thinks the other bad. One of them likes hatred and cruelty, the other likes love and mercy, and each backs its own view. If Dualism is true, then the bad Power must be a being who likes badness for its own sake.
3.2.2 Fallacy of Dualism
But in reality we have no experience of anyone liking badness just because it is bad. The nearest we can get to it is in cruelty. But in real life people are cruel for one of two reasons:
either because they are sadists, that is, because they have a sexual perversion which makes cruelty a cause of sensual pleasure to them, or
for the sake of something they are going to get out of it - money, or power, or safety.
But pleasure, money, power, and safety are all, as far as they go, good things. The badness consists in pursuing them by the wrong method, or in the wrong way, or too much. You can be good for the mere sake of goodness: you cannot be bad for the mere sake of badness. We called sadism a sexual perversion; but you must first have the idea of a normal sexuality before you can talk of its being perverted; and you can see which is the perversion, because you can explain the perverted from the normal, and cannot explain the normal from the perverted. It follows that this Bad Power, who is supposed to be on an equal footing with the Good Power, and to love badness in the same way as the Good Power loves goodness, is a mere bogey (i.e. an imaginary evil spirit, not real).
In order to be bad he must have good things to want and then to pursue in the wrong way: he must have impulses which were originally good in order to be able to pervert them. But if he is bad he cannot supply himself either with good things to desire or with good impulses to pervert. He must be getting both from the Good Power. And if so, then he is not independent. He is part of the Good Power's world: he was made by the Good Power.
3.2.3 Dualism will not work
Put it more simply still. To be bad, he must exist and have intelligence and will. But existence, intelligence and will are in themselves good. Therefore he must be getting them from the Good Power: even to be bad he must borrow or steal from his opponent. And do you now begin to see why Christianity has always said that the devil is a fallen angel? That is not a mere story for the children. It is a real recognition of the fact that evil is a parasite, not an original thing. The powers which enable evil to carry on are powers given it by goodness. All the things which enable a bad man to be effectively bad are in themselves good things - resolution, cleverness, good looks, existence itself. That is why Dualism, in a strict sense, will not work.
3.3 God Created Things Which Had Free Will
God created things which had free will. That means creatures which can go either wrong or right. Some people think they can imagine a creature which was free but had no possibility of going wrong; I cannot. If a thing is free to be good it is also free to be bad. And free will is what has made evil possible.
3.3.1 Free will makes possible any love
Why, then, did God give them free will?
Because free will, though it makes evil possible, is also the only thing that makes possible any love or goodness or joy worth having. A world of automata - of creatures that worked like machines - would hardly be worth creating. The happiness which God designs for His higher creatures is the happiness of being freely, voluntarily united to Him and to each other in an ecstasy of love and delight compared with which the most rapturous love between a man and a woman on this earth is mere milk and water. And for that they must be free.
3.3.2 God thinks it is worth paying for free will
Of course God knew what would happen if they used their freedom the wrong way: apparently He thought it worth the risk. Perhaps we feel inclined to disagree with Him. God thinks this state of war in the universe a price worth paying for free will - that is, for making a live world in which creatures can do real good or harm and something of real importance can happen, instead of a toy world which only moves when He pulls the strings - then we may take it it is worth paying. When we have understood about free will, we shall see how silly it is to ask:
Why did God make a creature of such rotten stuff that it went wrong?
The better stuff a creature is made of - the cleverer and stronger and freer it is - then the better it will be if it goes right, but also the worse it will be if it goes wrong. A cow cannot be very good or very bad; a dog can be both better and worse; a child better and worse still; an ordinary man, still more so; a man of genius, still more so; a superhuman spirit best - or worst - of all.
3.3.3 How did the Dark Power go wrong?
How did the Dark Power go wrong?
A reasonable (and traditional) answer, based on our own experiences of going wrong, can be offered. The moment you have a self at all, there is a possibility of putting yourself first - wanting to be the centre - wanting to be God, in fact. That was the sin of Satan: and that was the sin he taught the human race (Genesis 3:4-5). What Satan put into the heads of our remote ancestors was the idea that they could "be like gods" - could set up on their own as if they had created themselves - be their own masters - invent some sort of happiness for themselves outside God, apart from God. And out of that hopeless attempt has come nearly all that we call human history - money, poverty, ambition, war, prostitution, classes, empires, slavery - the long terrible story of man trying to find something other than God which will make him happy.
The reason why it can never succeed is this. God made us: invented us as a man invents an engine. A car is made to run on gasoline, and it would not run properly on anything else. Now God designed the human machine to run on Himself. He Himself is the fuel our spirits were designed to burn, or the food our spirits were designed to feed on. There is no other. That is why it is just no good asking God to make us happy in our own way without bothering about religion. God cannot give us a happiness and peace apart from Himself, because it is not there. There is no such thing.
This is the key to history. Terrific energy is expended - civilizations are built up - excellent institutions devised; but each time something goes wrong. Some fatal flaw always brings the selfish and cruel people to the top and it all slides back into misery and ruin.
3.4 If You Need Help, You Will Look To That Which Is Stronger Than Yourself
I have heard some people complain that if Jesus was God as well as man, then His sufferings and death lose all value in their eyes, "because it must have been so easy for him."
The perfect submission, the perfect suffering, the perfect death were not only easier to Jesus because He was God, but were possible only because He was God. But surely that is a very odd reason for not accepting them? The teacher is able to form the letters for the child because the teacher is grown-up and knows how to write. That, of course, makes it easier for the teacher; and only because it is easier for him can he help the child. If it rejected him because "it's easy for grown-ups" and waited to learn writing from another child who could not write itself (and so had no "unfair" advantage), it would not get on very quickly. If I am drowning in a rapid river, a man who still has one foot on the bank may give me a hand which saves my life. Ought I to shout back (between my gasps) "No, it's not fair! You have an advantage! You're keeping one foot on the bank"? That advantage - call it "unfair" if you like - is the only reason why he can be of any use to me. To what will you look for help if you will not look to that which is stronger than yourself?
3.5 God Will Make Us Good Because He Loves Us
A Christian is not a man who never goes wrong, but a man who is enabled to repent and pick himself up and begin over again after each stumble - because the Christ-life inside him. He does not think God will love us because we are good, but that God will make us good because He loves us; just as the roof of a greenhouse does not attract the sun because it is bright, but becomes bright because the sun shines on it.
3.6 The God Is Not Unfair
Here is another thing that used to puzzle me. Is it not frightfully unfair that this new life should be confined to people who have heard of Christ and been able to believe in Him?
But the truth is God has not told us what His arrangements about the other people are. We do know that no man can be saved except through Christ; we do not know that only those who know Him can be saved through Him. It may be possible that those who don't know Him can be saved through Him by the grace of the God! But in the meantime, if you are worried about the people outside, the most unreasonable thing you can do is to remain outside yourself.
Christians are Christ's body, the organism through which He works. Every addition to that body enables Him to do more. If you want to help those outside you must add your own little cell to the body of Christ who alone can help them. Cutting off a man's fingers would be an odd way of getting him to do more work.
3.7 Why the God Permits Evils In This World?
Why is God landing in this enemy-occupied world in disguise and starting a sort of secret society to undermine the devil? Why is He not landing in force, invading it? Is it that He is not strong enough? Why God permits evils in this world?
Well, Christians think He is going to land in force; we do not know when. But we can understand why He is delaying. He wants to give us the chance of joining His side freely. God will invade according to numerous Bible Prophecies. But I wonder whether people who ask God to interfere openly and directly in our world quite realize what it will be like when He does. When that happens, it is the end of this world. When the author walks on to the stage the play is over.
God is going to invade, all right: but what is the good of saying you are on His side then, when you see the whole natural universe melting away like a dream and something else - something it never entered your head to conceive - comes crashing in; something so beautiful to some of us and so terrible to others that none of us will have any choice left? For this time it will be God without disguise; something so overwhelming that it will strike either irresistible love or irresistible horror into every creature. It will be too late then to choose your side. There is no use saying you choose to lie down when it has become impossible to stand up. That will not be the time for choosing: it will be the time when we discover which side we really have chosen, whether we realized it before or not.
Now, today, this moment, is our chance to choose the right side. God is holding back to give us that chance. It will not last forever. We must take it or leave it.
¡@
4. VIEWS WHICH DENY OR AFFIRM GOD'S EXISTENCE
There are 3 systems of thought today with which the believer would have to take exception, even though some element of truth can be seen in them. They are:
Naturalism;
Pragmatism; and
Idealism.
4.1 Naturalism
4.1.1 Definition
Naturalism can be defined as a world view which rejects any notion of a theistic explantion of the universe. Any concept of God or the supernatural is not accepted.
4.1.2 What can naturalists know?
Naturalists observe and collect all data in a particular area of investigation, analyze and compare it, and conduct numerous experiments that test their theories. Eventually, a law can be discovered which will provide the most satisfactory explanation of the data. The test for truth is linked only to the material makeup of the universe. In fact, there is even the possibility of talking about the mind as non-material; the mind is only a brain, consisting of matter and energy. Any "thinking" is explained on the basis of chemical and electrical energy. When man is reduced to this level, he is no better than an animal.
4.1.3 Values
If the universe only consists of matter and energy, where does the naturalist find a source for values? For the believer, values are found in the God of the Bible, who is good, loving, holy, and righteous. But what of the naturalist? For most, no purpose is structured into the universe, and there is no end toward which this universe is moving. Value is reduced to the interpersonal relationships of human beings and the world in which man lives. Obviously, as a naturalist moves further away from any biblical position, the question can logically be raised: "Where can we find meaningful values except as we relate to the cold precise laws that govern the universe?"
A good example of how pessimistic one can become is expressed by Russell: Man's origin ... hopes and fears, his loves and his beliefs, are but the outcome of accidental collocations of atoms ... blind matter rolls on its relentless way; for Man, condemned today to lose his dearest, tomorrow himself to pass through the gate of darkness ... " (Bertrand Russell, "A Free Man's Worship" in Mysticism and Logic, New York: Norton, 1981). Russell's views are only the end of the line when this world is made up only of matter and energy.
4.1.4 A naturalistic mystic
A curious twist on this consideration of naturalism is expressed by Henry Nelson Wieman. He defined God in impersonal terms, seen as a process within nature. While Wieman senses something in man's experience, he is still a naturalist, because "God" is locked within nature.
In this system, "God" is the creative activity, the supreme value-producing factor in the world. In our experience with this process, we can find what is worthy and even be in awe with the grandeur of the universe. But the question remains: if "God" is locked within creation, then what do I find that is worthy? At the least, Wieman is a mystic. He is not only dealing with atoms and molecules as the building blocks of the universe, but realizes there is some mysterious force within nature.
4.2 Pragmatism
4.2.1 Definition
William James says "Truth happens to an idea, it becomes true, it is made true by events" (William James, The Will to Live, New York: Longmans, Green and Co., 1897, p. 201). John Dewey, who brought the considerations of James to naturalistic conclusions, said: "That which guides us truly is true - demonstrated capacity for such guidance is precisely what is meant by truth ... the hypothesis that works is the true one; and truth is an abstract noun applied to the collection of cases, actual, foreseen and desired, that receive confirmation in their works and consequences" (John Dewey, Reconstruction in Philosophy, Boston: The Beacon Press, 1948, pp. 156, 157).
4.2.2 Values
How does Dewey find values? He certainly does not hold to any conception of God as supernatural, and is against any apologetic that declares a belief in the supernatural. All that matters is what one experiences in this world. Dewey finds his values in experience, as a person interacts with his environment.
4.2.3 A peculiar notion for God
Does John Dewey consider God at all in his system of pragmatism? He redefines the word "God" as a person's active relation between the actual and the ideal in experience. God is not a divine personal being; rather, "God" is the "effort to find the ideal in every circumstance" (John Dewey, A Common Faith, New Haven: Yale University Press, 1934, pp. 50-52).
4.2.4 Consequences
Pragmatism can only show us the consequences of what works, but it cannot demonstrate that what works is really true. The Bible, however, is not true because it works, it is true and we can expect it to work for those who believe it.
4.3 Idealism
4.3.1 Definition
Idealism is the world view that ultimate reality is mind, spirit or idea. Some are religious idealists who believe in a God who is personal, but there are many kinds of idealisms. The German philosopher, Hegel, saw the universe as a whole thinking process, a kind of pantheism. On the other hand, Eastern religions can be idealistic when God is defined as "all that there is, and all that there is, is God," which is another pantheism.
4.3.2 Presuppositions and tests for truth
Edgar Brightman, a religious idealist, proposed coherence as the test for truth. He defined coherence as the use of the scientific method in a systematic way, to ascertain all available facts. Obviously, this kind of investigation is more involved than the method of the naturalists who confine their efforts only to the physical world. In coherence, there is a rational consideration of the mind as a whole: "Be consistent to eliminate contradictions; be systematic so as to take care of all relevant relations; be inclusive so as to take into account all available experiences; ... be synoptic so as to try and relate all the elements of all investigations as a whole; be active in the use of the scientific method; ... be critical in order to verfiy all possible explanations for coherence" (Edgar S. Brightman, Nature and Values, New York: Abingdon-Cokesbury Press, 1945, pp. 106, 107).
The basic criticism of this approach is that the test for truth is still the scientific method, even though the world of the mind or spirit may be the object of investigation. From the biblical point of view, there are sets of information which simply cannot be discovered by the use of the scientific method. Revelation must be included to give us information of the afterlife. God also reveals the real picture of man with a nature which has been marred because of the Fall, affecting his entire being.
4.3.3 God and values
While we have already indicated that idealism embraces a number of views, there is a current liberalism which believes in God as an eternal Person. He is a good God, conserving value, and people are considered of intrinsic value since God created man. Liberals worship this God, and at least realize a validity of some kind of religious life.
However, if the scientific method is the means by which to test this world where God resides, then one wonders how much can truly be tested of the idealist's God.While idealism is better than naturalism, there is still much left to be desired. Are values to be tested by the scientific method? Are morals to be ascertained by what science can find? When there is tension between the goodness of God and His omnipotence in a world of suffering, we cannot give up on the omnipotence of God just to conserve His goodness. The new liberal idealist version of God has a long way to go to a biblical position of a perfect, holy, righteous, and good God. It is from His nature that we perceive morals and values.
¡@
5. MEDIEVAL PHILOSOPHY AND THE EXISTENCE OF GOD
5.1 Medieval Definition
The presuppositions by the medieval philosophers of the church was the Judeo-Christian concept of God. He is the unique, infinite, and personal Spirit, who created out of nothing everything other than Himself. The philosophers considered Him eternal and uncreated, omnipotent and omniscient, and His attitude towards His human creatures, whom He made for eventual fellowship with Himself, was one of grace and love.
5.2 Bases for a Theistic Argument
There are 2 theistic arguments, they are:
A priori
Arguments based upon a priori considerations operate from a basis which is logically prior to and independent of experience. These types of arguments rest upon purely logical considerations and achieve the kind of certainty exhibited by mathematical truths.
A posteriori
The arguments which are a posteriori are those which rely on a premise from, and therefore after, experience. These arguments infer the existence of God from evidence within human experience.
5.2.1 A Priori argument - Ontological - Anselm's proof
5.2.1.1 Argument points
Points in this argument are:
God is the highest Being that can be thought of. Is it possible that this Being does not really exist (Psalm 14:1)?
Yet, when the foot hears the words of the definition, he understands them. The concept exists in his intellect, even though he may not feel it exists in reality.
In the development of his argument, Anselm used the illustration of the painter who first thinks of the painting he is going to do. The painting is already in the intellect; and when the painting is finally on the canvas, the painting exists in the intellect as well as in reality.
The crux of the argument is that it is greater to exist in reality than to exist in the intellect alone. So, it is a contradiction to say that this Being exists as only a thought in the intellect. A Being greater than the thought can always be conceived to be existing in reality. So, as Anselm concluded, God is both in the intellect as well as One who exists is even greater than can be thought of.
5.2.1.2 An evaluation
Immanuel Kant argued against the ontological proof for the existence of God. He declared that the conception of such a being is nothing more than a mere idea, and that Anselm had not really established the objective reality of this being. Certainly, we can logically presume the existence of a being Anselm had in mind; and if this being exists, then he must necessarily need no one or nothing else for His existence. But on what basis can we say that this being does exist? Merely thinking about it does not make it so.
Kant also stated that the sentence "God is" is nothing more than a grammatical statement, and it is not proof that Anselm's being exists in reality.
And yet, if we believe that man is created in the image of God, setting him apart from all other living beings, then the notion of God is already innate in man's consciousness. If one is a believer, he can see the connection between the God who does exist as well as the innate notion that God is. But, if one is arguing strictly from logic alone, then the ontological argument appears insufficient for one not disposed to accept the existence of God.
Anselm began with the notion that God exists, and then developed a plausible argument to demonstrate His existence. This is a point that must be considered, because it is also true of the other medieval philosophers. They had already accepted the presupposition that God exists. The argument by Anselm was his way of confirming logically what he already had accepted.
5.2.2 A Posteriori argument - Cosmological argument - Aquinas's 5 ways
5.2.2.1 Aquinas's 5 ways
The First Unmoved Mover
In a succession of movers, we regress in time to the first mover set into motion. We then make the leap to the First Unmoved Mover who is the primary cause of motion.
The First Efficient Cause
In a succession of causes, we regress to the first cause which was created, and then we make the leap to the First Efficient Cause who is the cause of all causes.
Absolutely Necessary Being
We are contingent beings because we are dependent upon creation by someone else. As we regress, we come to the first created contingent being. Again, the leap is made to the Absolutely Necessary Being who is not contingent on anyone else for His existence. He is the One who is responsible for the existence of other contingent beings.
Most Perfect Noble Being
This is an argument concerning the degrees of perfection which we find among all created beings. We can go back in time to the first being; i.e., Adam, who also needed to develop morally. The leap is made again to the most Perfect Noble Being in whom there is no imperfection.
Supreme Intelligence
Natural bodies act towards one another due to an intelligence imparted to them. As we make the leap again after the regression, we come to the most Intelligent Being.
5.2.2.2 Observations
All the above 5 ways have a different starting point, but their arguments have the same structure.
These 5 ways begin with an empirical observation by the senses. The arguments make use of Causality, that is, the argument of cause-effect, which is also derived from sense experience. The main point of the arguments is that God is the cause of all sensible things, i.e., things which can be determined through the use of our 5 senses.
The argument also presupposes the impossibility of an infinite series. The regression proceeds until it comes to a stopping point, simply because Aquinas was not prepared to accept an infinite series of movers and causes. Beyond all of the causes, there is the Absolutely First Cause.
5.3 Other Arguments
There are other proofs for the existence of God. For example, William Paley (1743-1805) developed the teleological argument, which is the argument from design. He said that if there is a watch, there must be a watchmaker; given the universe, there must also be a universe maker. Paley's assertion is based upon analogy, but some philosophers will state that the argument has its flaws.
While we have seen watchmakers at work, who has observed the God who created the universe? How do we know from a strict empirical observation that God did create the universe? These were the assessments by David Hume (1711 - 1776), who disagreed with Paley's viewpoint. While Hume was not ready to give up on the belief in God, he declared that His existence cannot be proven by the argumentation for teleology.
There are other arguments, but the student has had sufficient exposure to them and it is necessary now to examine their implications (if the student wishes further information, see Lewis S. Chafer, Systematic Theology, Vol. I, Dallas: Dallas Seminary Press, 1947, Chapter XI).
¡@
6. THE POSSIBILITIES OF PROOF
6.1 No Provable Link Between Cause and Effect
Aquinas' 5 ways are based on 3 basic presuppositions (listed under Observations, above). Other philosophers who examined them did not agree with Aquinas, and took exception to the cosmological argument. David Hume, in his Inquiry Concerning Human Understanding, declared that not every event must have a cause. People do not establish the relationship between cause and effect with a priori logic. Rather, they talk about causal relations because of their experience with such connections.
If a person is found lying on the ground with a hole in his chest, we conclude that he had been shot. But why do we say so? Only because we have known that such an experience has occurred many times in the past. However, it may be an invalid presupposition that the hole has been caused by a bullet, when in fact it could have been caused by any number of other reasons. The best that Hume would say is that there is a constant conjunction, or continual interrelationships, of events. Therefore, it is not possible to say that we can truly affirm the link between the cause and effect.
6.2 Can We Say That the First Cause Really Exists?
What does it mean to say that the First Cause actually exists? Can the link between Him and the world be logically proven? An agnostic might declare, "Why must we conclude that this world even had a beginning?"
6.3 Is First Cause Really God?
A further problem exists. In his Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, Hume questioned that the cause of the universe was necessarily God. We can talk about the First Cause, but what can we say about Him? Can we say that He is God in the way that the Scriptures declare Him to be? To prove his point, Hume said there were 4 hypotheses concerning the First Cause of the universe:
That He is endowed with perfect goodness;
That He has perfect malice;
That He has both goodness and malice; and
That He has neither goodness nor malice.
The result of this argument is that we become skeptics about the nature of the Cause of the universe.
6.4 What Does the Sense of "Prove" Mean?
6.4.1 Strict proof
To require strictly logical proof for the existence of God means that we must argue logically from a set of presuppositions. However, we also face those who do not acknowledge those presuppositions as proof. If this is the case, then we do not really prove anything.
Note again the crux of the cosmological argument. Aquinas had already accepted the presupposition that God exists, because he could not acknowledge that there was no connection between God and the world. His point was that if the world exists, then God must also exist. But this will not convince those who are disinclined to acknowledge God's existence, and they will reject the cosmological argument of Aquinas.
6.4.2 The possibilities of proof, from probability
The problem of demonstrating that God does exist boils down to which method is the most adequate.
Is there a theistic or naturalistic approach to explain the existence of the universe?
To the theist, theism will be the most adequate explanation, and the naturalist will feel the same way about naturalism. But the different approaches only reflect how the theist and the naturalist are judging from significantly different standpoints, criteria and presuppositions. For Aquinas in his 5 ways, it was more probable to consider the connection between God and sensible things.
Of course, probability alone will not demonstrate that God exists. If a man tends to deny God's existence altogether, he is not going to be convinced by a probability argument. Nevertheless, for the average person on the street, the probability of the cosmological argument will be accepted. We can demonstrate that an infinite regression is "impossible," and that therefore there must have been a God who created the universe in the beginning. We can then share from a biblical position who God is.
¡@
7. WHAT ARE THE ALTERNATIVES TO THE THEISTIC POSITION?
C.S. Lewis once made a statement: "Belief (in the existence of God) seems to me to assent to a proposition which we think so overwhelmingly probable that there is a psychological exclusion of doubt, though not a logical exclusion of dispute." Kant, after rejecting all rational proofs for the existence of God, still saw the need for Him and for religious expression because of a moral presupposition. He declared, "I cannot avoid the inference that something exists necessarily."
We have 2 alternatives before us regarding God's existence. There is either a self-existent God, or a self-existent universe. If we reject the notion of an intelligent Creator, then we believe in a changing universe that is creative and self-creating. A material universe of this nature is at once an effect and its own cause. But how many can be satisfied with an infinite regression of causes that allows for a self-existent universe? Even scientists today talk in terms of a beginning of the universe, some 4 to 5 billions years ago.
The theist will choose a self-existent God as the most probable reason for the existence of the universe. For the Bible believer who already presupposes that God exists and that He has revealed Himself to us, it will not be difficult to also recognize that God has brought the universe into existence.
¡@
8. REFERENCES AND RECOMMENDATION FOR FURTHER STUDY
Know Why You Believe, Chapter 2, InterVarsity Press, 1988, by Paul E. Little & Marie Little.
Mere Christianity, Book II, A Touchstone Book, Macmillan Inc., 1996 Edition, by C.S. Lewis.
¡@
¡@
¡@