Arguments for the existence of God
(CONTINUATION)

3. THE FORMULATION OF SOME WELL KNOWN ARGUMENTS

Thomas Aquinas had the following five arguments which can be found in more detail in his writings (Summa Theologica I:2:3; Cont. Gent., I, XIII.):

1. The "unmoved mover". Motion, as it takes place in the universe implies a first unmoved Mover (primum movens immobile), who is God. Otherwise we need an infinite series of movers, which is not a logical explanation.

2. Everything is caused by something. If we follow the sequence of events happening in the universe and search the preceding reasons then we necessarily come to the conclusion of the existence of a First Cause that is uncaused.

3. Every existing thing in the world came into existence once and will pass away. None of them is completely independent of other things. This is called contingency. The fact of the contingent universe implies the existence of a necessary being, who is God.

4. The different degrees of perfection in the world can be understood only by comparison with an absolute perfection who is God.

5. The wonderful order and harmony in the Universe is the evidence of an intelligent Designer, who is no other than God Himself, who directs all things to their goals (this is also called teleological argument).

All these and still other arguments are actually not distinct and independent arguments, but only many different formulations of one and the same general causality argument. This argument is based on the fact that the above mentioned phenomena cannot be sufficiently explained without the acceptance of a self-sufficient and self-explanatory cause or ground of being and activity, to which everything is referred. Back to SUMMARY

We will deal with the following ways of reasoning:

3.1. Argument from the existence,
3.2. Argument from the design,
3.3. Arguments from the human nature

3.1. Argument from the existence

Our first argument starts from the very basic observation that we and the Universe exist. What is the reason of it?

We will give the answer in two different forms which are both based on the same train of thoughts.

3.1.1. The Argument of the Independent Existence

Introduction

When we say God we mean the One who has no beginning and no end and who does not alter. His existence is completely independent of anything else. The aim of the following text is to show that a being with the above mentioned attributes must exist if our world should make sense. These attributes are not alimportant attributes of God but they are very basic.

Existence is a gift

The closest example is our own life. Once we were born and once we will die. We live, but our life is dependent on many circumstances. We did not decide to live and we can not decide whether we want to die or not. There are many conditions and external reasons of our existence. With other words our existence does not contain its reason in itself. We are not independent. We ask, "Why do I exist?" and we have to look for the answer outside ourselves. With other things in this universe it is similar. In case of some of them we can directly observe their beginning and their end. They come and go, start to exist and perish. In case of other things we can observe their changeability. Everything that alters is subject to changes and is not totally independent in its existence. Its life consists of several periods, which come and go, start and perish. So we observe that not only we but all things in this universe received their existence from outside. It is a gift.

Universe

Little children get to know things and they ask, "why?", "where from?". If we try to give an answer our answer might cause other questions. It is impossible to find an answer which would not cause other questions. Sooner or later we give up. Now there are two possibilities. The final answer exists but it is too complex or the final answer does not exist within this universe because the universe was called to existence from outside. The Christians believe the second is true and they are often accused to have chosen the simpler solution. The reason for this belief is not that the solution is more simple. It is the fact that the universe can not be more than the parts which form it in the same way as a human race is not more than the humans which form it. If everything in the universe received existence as a gift, how could we say about the universe something else? The universe is nothing more than the sum of the parts which form it.

Who is the giver?

We believe that the universe was called to its existence from outside and the one who called it to existence must be independent of anything else. He must be unchangeable, standing above time and space. The Bible speaks about God in this way.

The God who made the world and all things in it, since He is Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made with hands; nor is He served by human hands, as though He needed anything, since He Himself gives to all {people} life and breath and all things. (Acts 17:24-25)

"I am the Alpha and the Omega," says the Lord God, who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty. (Revelation 1:8)

Thus says the LORD, the King of Israel and his Redeemer, the LORD of hosts: "I am the first and I am the last; And there is no God besides Me. (Isaiah 44:6) Back to SUMMARY

3.1.2. The general causality argument (contingency)

The validity of the principle of causality or sufficient reason is the base of the logical thinking on which all sciences and all human knowledge is built. That's why in the following we use it as the premise of our reasoning. This is one of the four basic laws of thinking (the law of identity, the law of contradiction, the law of the excluded middle and the law of sufficient reason) that all people use in everyday life, even if they are not aware of it.

This principle says that whatever exists or takes place must have a satisfactory reason either in itself or in something else.

Theoretically we could distinguish two categories of existence: the absolute necessary existence which is self-explanatory regarding its own existence and contingent existence which could be explained only by a proportionate cause exterior to it. If we try to categorise everything around ourselves into these two categories then sooner or later we must draw the conclusion that in reality everything must be regarded as belonging to the category of contingent existence. Going further with the conclusion drawn we extend our principle to the whole universe because if we claim that the elements of a cluster are contingent, then the whole cluster must be contingent as well. We cannot assume that elements to which we ascribe only contingent characteristics just because of their connection to one another could give absolute features to the cluster they form. That's why when someone supposes that although all the elements of the universe are contingent but the universe as a whole is self-explanatory and self-existent we must say that his statement is illogical because it neglects the fact that we call absolute features just those attributes which are not consequences or results of preceding processes or causes. But here the supposed "absolute character" is dependent on the connection of the particular contingent elements. Consequently, the whole made of contingent elements must be contingent as well, which means that we have to find a satisfactory reason of the coming to existence of the whole Universe, external to it.

William Ockham, a philosopher from the 13th. century, formulated a basic principle of scientific investigation when someone looking for the answer to an unexplained phenomenon must apply as few suppositions as it is really necessary.

Some atheists using this idea came to the conclusion that it is baseless to suppose the existence of God just because we can not explain the universe and its coming into existence. They think it's more logical to believe that the cosmos is self-explanatory. However, in reality, just because of this principle, it is easier and more logical to suppose a single transcendent being as the source of every existence, which by its nature owns perfect qualities and from this supposition every other features would be logically derived than to ascribe separately many different absolute attributes to the universe that, according to our observations, does not possess these qualities. Investigating any element of the universe we do not have even the least allusion to an absolute or self-explanatory attribute of our world. Is it really more childish to suppose the existence of an invisible first cause than the existence of invisible absolute attributes?

Why is it not contradictory to say that everything must have a preceding cause but nevertheless there is an uncaused first cause?

When we say that everything must have a preceding cause we think of the immanent elements of our contingent world. Our claim about the first cause is that it is transcendent to it. The contradiction would stand only if we regarded God as an immanent element of the universe. Consequently the features that we ascribe to the source of the world needn't be the same as the features we ascribe to the world itself.

Many people naturally come to the idea by themselves, even without thorough philosophical or theological reasoning that the universe has a final cause in its background. Their only question is what we should call it and often a more exact answer is not significant for them. We frequently hear people say it might be called: the ancient Matter, the Atom, the Absolute, the Idea, the Spirit, something or somebody. Some of these proposed descriptions of the final cause could be easily recognised as wrong just because of the meaning of these terms. For example, if we use the term "Matter", we cannot forget about the fact that according to our experience everything that is material is contingent and belongs to the elements of our contingent universe and that's why we must suppose that the superior existence of the final cause should also have superior characters, not changeable or perishable like matter or atoms or any other element of the material world.

Here it must be mentioned that sometimes people expand the limits of the theory of evolution too broad and misunderstand its purpose. The theory of evolution cannot explain the final origin of the world since its field is the development of the existing things and not the question how existence came from non-existence.

Others who claim that the final cause is of spiritual character, like the Absolute, the Idea, the Spirit often deny it to be personal.

We experience that man's spiritual nature is manifested in his intelligence, free will, ability to love, ability to build selfless relationships with other spiritual beings. We include all these features when using the term "person". If we start from the previously mentioned principle, namely that the characters of the absolute and definitive cause can not be inferior to the characteristics of the contingent elements, then consequently we must admit that the absolute and definitive cause must also be on a higher level than the impersonal existence.

The term person is misunderstandable if we think of its daily sense. This term we usually don't separate from the specific and determined limits of a human being. Man lives in space and time, he has a body and limits in communication and ability to express his love. Of course, God is not subject to these limits, that is why using the term "person" we only mean someone being able for personal relationship and dialogue with his intelligent creatures. For this reason, He must be someone who possesses intelligence, free will, self-awareness.

Therefore, the existence of an intelligent and free First Cause, a personal God, distinct from the material universe and the human mind, is an absolute necessity.

All the approaches which miss the idea of the existence of an independent and personal Creator and explain the existence of the world by interior reasons, ascribing self-existence to the matter or spirit or anything else from the contingent world, could be regarded as different forms of indirect Pantheism. This way of thinking leads to contradiction in terms because it confuses the cause with the effect, the contingent with the self-existent, the finite with infinite. In the case of many people the consequence of this turn of mind is a pessimistic and hopeless attitude to the world because the one who believes it must regard evilness and everything bad in the world as eternal and unavoidable necessities. If man substitutes God with something else, he might lose his own human values like personality, responsibility and his common sense convictions and might lose the right motive to good conduct.

The one who accepts the existence of a personal loving God has the possibility to recognise the way out of this pessimistic and hopeless thinking, because the mentioned negative things don't belong to God's independent and perfect nature. Man has the possibility to assess also himself concerning his contribution to the development of the world instead of accusing the final cause. Back to SUMMARY

3.2. The argument from design (also called the teleological argument)

Although Kant rejected the validity of the traditional proofs for God's existence, he admitted that:

"This proof will always deserve to be treated with respect. It is the oldest, the clearest and most in conformity with human reason...We have nothing to say against the reasonableness and utility of this line of argument, but wish, on the contrary, to commend and encourage it."

This argument is built on a very basic and obvious observation of man:

1. There is order and harmony in nature

If we look around we see there is a very complex and well fitting arrangement everywhere and in the universe everything happens in such a wonderful way which provides a very friendly surrounding for the harmonious structures, life and man. We see a marvellous unity and concord in nature. The whole universe is a complex system, consisting of strongly correlated and connected parts, subjects to exact laws, developing together in an interdependent way towards a specific purpose.

It would be too long here to list the fields (even without giving details) in which science clearly shows the evidences of regularity, order and harmony. There are other books (or rather libraries) which complete this task. The one who deals with it will recognise it in every part of the remote macro-universe and in the enigmatic behaviour of the micro-universe, in the complex structures of the inorganic and organic matter, in the world of the cell and biological processes, in the behaviour of animals or the dance of bees, in the composition of the human eye or the well co-ordinated functioning of other organs.

Even if some can regard the world from the opposite direction and observe rather imperfection, disharmony, discord or the existence of physical evil, natural calamities, others draw the conclusion from the evolutionary view that nature is ruled by cruel struggle for survival and development is always possible through the oppression of the weak one, there always still remains a large balance on the other side: regularity, order and harmony is obviously present in the universe, life and man finds the best protection even in severe conditions.

2. The design of the universe can be explained neither by chance, nor by natural laws

The coincidences "by chance" are too well tuned that we can explain them by "chance". Chance is not an explanation but renouncing to explanation. Scientists explain natural phenomena by assuming that the effects have their causes. Generally there are no doubts in applying this principle in the case of those phenomena for which man has already found a certain explanation, but there are some difficult questions for which science hasn't found an answer yet. If they are more complex questions, why should we give up the logical inference that they need more complex explanation and not just the contrary, the chance or chaos which is accepted as the simplest?

Does the theory of evolution give sufficient explanation?

Many claim that the theory of evolution gives the explanation for the development of the universe and life, instead of God. But there are many other serious scientists who testify that just the very opposite is true. Even from the evolutionary standpoint the universe doesn't show disorder but a marvellous design which will lead the honest scientist to a humble wondering that everything happened in such a well adjusted way that, despite so many hindrances and great gaps between the different steps, it was possible to reach the appearance of life and at the top of evolution man with conscience who can admire today all these things. Isn't it rather a clear evidence for a highest intelligent design?

Following the formulation of William Paley concerning a man who found a watch, and concluded that it must have been made by a watchmaker, Voltaire resumed:

"If a watch proves the existence of a watchmaker but the universe does not prove the existence of a great Architect, then I consent to be called a fool."

Now, if somebody finds an automated factory that produces watches without any human intervention, will not he think that it must have been designed by a higher intelligence? In the same way, scientific theories will never show that everything can explain itself but rather they will make even clearer how wonderful this world is and everything functions in a fitting order, therefore it requires a more intelligent supernatural Creator.

The fact is that the theory of evolution, at least at the present stage, can give a sufficient answer neither for the purposeful development, because it contains great gaps in the chain of explanations, nor for the origin of the universe, the origin of life, origin of species or the origin of human spirit. Even if many people hope that it is a question of time and once mankind will find explanation for everything, there are serious reasons to doubt it. But even if we find a sufficient explanation of how something happened, it doesn't mean that it happened by itself. Even the best scientific explanation or the most comprehensive or general theory would not explain why the natural laws are just these and why just these processes must happen. Science can explain many details of the cosmos but it can not grasp questions that are outside its frame.

3. Therefore the design of the universe can be explained completely satisfactorily for human mankind by an intelligent supernatural Designer that we can believe in Him and it does not leave place for other explanations.

Natural phenomena do not posses intelligence in themselves and we can not speak about their intentional acting so their purposeful acting can be explained only by the control of a wise being having free will. This argument does not prove in itself the infinity and perfection of the Designer, but it shows at least that He is beyond the universe and is a superior Mind who directs everything towards the fulfilment of a certain aim. We can get to know also something about this aim, at least that everything is guided so that humans owning mind and free will able to love come into existence.

"Science can only be created by those who are thoroughly imbued with the aspiration toward truth and understanding. This source of feeling, however, springs from the sphere of religion. To this there also belongs the faith in the possibility that the regulations valid for the world of existence are rational, that is, comprehensible to reason. I cannot conceive of a genuine scientist without that profound faith. The situation may be expressed by an image: science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." (A. Einstein) Back to SUMMARY

CONTINUATION - THE FORMULATION OF SOME WELL KNOWN ARGUMENTS
(Arguments from the human nature)