Can the Existence of God be proven?

GCSE Religious Studies (Philosophy & Ethics)

Ceri Thomas

There are many arguments that try to prove the existence of God. In this essay I will look at the ontological argument, the cosmological argument, empirical arguments such as the avoidance of error and the argument from design. There are many criticisms of each of these that would say the existence of God can’t be proven that are perhaps stronger than those saying it can be. The definition of God for which is being argued is the Christian God who has the qualities of being perfect and who created the universe.

The ontological argument follows that God id perfect and no greater being is imaginable. If God did not exist, he would not be the greatest being imaginable. He is the greatest thing imaginable. Therefore he does exist. From this argument, God’s existence is viewed as necessary (Ayer. A.J. 1973). His existence is seen as simply another property of his being. Just like omnipotence and omnipresent are properties. One example that has been used to explain this is a triangle. A triangle has certain properties such as all of the angles add up to 180o and even if we have never thought about it before we clearly recognise these properties ‘whether we want to or not’ (Cottingham. J. 1986). A triangle’s real meaning is independent of our mind just as God’s existence is. We can’t separate the property of all angles adding up to 180o from a triangle and we can’t separate the property of existence from God.

But this argument raises the question of whether or not existence can been defined as a property. A property of something should give more information about what is being described such as saying someone is old or young. Simply saying something exists doesn’t give any more idea as to what it is. Descartes argues that the definition of property is an attribute, something that the entity possesses (Ayer. A.J. 1973). God posses the property of existence. The ontological argument argues that God’s existence is necessary and an inseparable quality of the perfect being just like 180o is inseparable from a triangle. But another more logical way of looking at this is that the concept of existence is inseparable from the concept of the Supreme Being. It doesn’t follow that existence is actual in the real world (At VII99; CSM 1172, as cited in Cottingham. J. 1986). Another example used to try and support the existence of God can be proven is Super Pegasus. A horse has the property of existence. Pegasus is a winged horse, and Super Pegasus is a winged horse with the property of existence. But looking at this closely it forms a catch 22 situation on itself. As if Super Pegasus existed then there would be no such thing as Pegasus. But Super Pegasus can’t exist without the idea of Pegasus first. Also, another argument which I will look at in more detail later is that everything has a cause and is caused by something which is equal or greater than it. If this were the case then even the idea Super Pegasus would need to be formed from an idea of something equal to or greater than it, which Pegasus is not. This example leads on to the ‘overload objection’. That is that if existence is a property you could apply it to any say mythical or imaginary creature.

This is a preview of the whole essay

Another argument that has been used to prove the existence of God is the cosmological argument. This argument follows that something happened. Every event has a cause and nothing is the cause of itself. There has not been an infinite causal sequence of events so there was a first cause which was not an event. If there was a first cause which was not an event, then it was God and God exists. There are many problems with this argument. One is that the argument dismisses the concept of infinity. But it seems contradictory to accept and understand God’s existence and not except or understand infinity as they are both equally incomprehensible. Also the argument suggests that God doesn’t have a cause and that he is the only thing that has caused him. He is the only thing that contains in him the reason for its own existence (Ayer. A.J. 1973). One of Aquinas’ five ways at proving the existence of God is the idea of motion. Nothing can move itself and if every object in motion had a mover the first object in motion would need a mover who would be God (Cottingham, 2005). For something to be moved it must be moved by something with either equal or greater motion than itself. This is applied not only to motion but to everything which has been caused. Heat can only be produced by heat that is at least as hot as the heat produced. Descartes also argued that details of an idea even if just a representation such as a drawing of the Eiffel tower must be contained in its cause, whatever cause it turns out to be (Principle 1, 17. AT V11 11; CSM 1198, as cited in Cottingham. J. 1986). So therefore in a drawing of the Eiffel tower, the idea represents it being tall. The tallness really belongs to the Eiffel tower but is represented in the drawing. The argument concludes that the cause of our idea of God must have come from God himself because he is the only thing which posses the qualities of our idea of God. Therefore God exists (Cottingham. J. 1986). One criticism of this was argued by Gassendi. The argument argues that ‘x’ is caused by an efficient cause. Whereas Gassendi argues that it appears more to be explained by material causes. For example, the materials that are used to build a bridge must hold the same strength as the bridge itself which is obviously implausible (Cottingham. J. 1986). Another example is of a sponge cake. The main property of a sponge cake is sponginess. But none of the ingredients used to make the sponge cake contain such properties. Descartes may argue back at this saying that the ingredients or ‘materials’ have the potential once combined to create sponginess or strength. But in the case of helium, it contains none of the same properties of hydrogen which is caused through fusion.

Another reason for not being able to prove God exists is because if he existed he wouldn’t deceive us. But humankind does make errors in moral decisions and there is plenty of wrong doing in the world. This has been explained through the idea that God gave us free will and that this will is without boundaries whereas out intellect isn’t. The reason that human beings make errors is because of the lack of boundaries of our will which makes decisions even when our intellect doesn’t perceive them clearly (Cottingham. J. 1986). But surely, the argument that our intellect is restricted within boundaries is another reason to believe God has deceived us, implying he doesn’t exist. As why he would give us unlimited will without unlimited intellect if it results in errors. And to prove God’s existence we need to be able to trust our intellect but we can not do this without the proof that he does exist. It creates a Cartesian circle.

Hume’s argument from design argues that the world works like a machine and lots of subdivided machines. ‘…all these various machines, and even their most minute parts, are adjusted to each other with an accuracy that ravishes into admiration all men who have ever contemplated them’ (Cottingham. J. 2005, p.266). Aquinas’s fifth way of trying to prove the existence of God follows this idea. The universe’s complexity and accuracy must mean it has a designer. The analogy of the interior of a watch is used. Each part of the watch has a role and all parts work together to allow the function of the watch to work. The watch was designed by a skilled designer. The universe is much the same with God being the intelligent creator of its complex design. But on the other hand there is the scientific theory of evolution which is the origination of a species by development from earlier forms. The universe may have come about in this way originating from the big bang and from then on evolution has produced its complex design. I agree though that it is reasonable to believe in both God and evolution and to believe in one doesn’t dismiss the other. As if you were to believe in God then he may be the driving force behind evolution. Evolution then isn’t the strongest argument against proving the existence of God.

Although these arguments are arguing about the Christian God, the fact that there are contradictions among different religions doesn’t support the existence of one God. As if God were to exist (as in the Christian God) then why not put the idea of himself into every human being rather than just some? Going back to the ontological argument which argues that God is the greatest being imaginable, to some people, i.e. different religions, he is not.

Blaise Pascal argued that we are in the position of having to wager or bet on God’s existence (Cottingham, 2005). What he means by this is that it is safer to bet on God’s existence than not. As if we accept his existence and there is a God then we will have eternal happiness, if he doesn’t exist then we have lost nothing. Whereas, if we ‘bet’ against his existence and he does exist then we would not receive this eternal happiness. But this argument seems to stand on very poor grounds. For one, you can not make yourself believe in something. And even if you did, it would be a forced belief that surely wouldn’t constitute for eternal happiness. Secondly, one of God’s properties is his ability to forgive. Therefore he should forgive those who don’t believe, so betting on his existence purely out of fear would be forgiven so there is no need to ‘force’ yourself to believe. This argument is far from proving the existence of God, it argues more for the purpose of believing in him rather than whether he actually exists.

In conclusion, all the arguments bar one that have been covered have been strongly criticised questioning their validity. Thomas Hobbes argued that we have no true idea of God and that we should not and cannot try to prove his existence because of this (AR V11 180; CSM 11 127, as cited in J. Cottingham, 1986). Belief is a question of faith. For those who believe in God do not feel it necessary to prove his existence as their faith is enough for them. To a person who’s belief is so certain and so strong, God’s existence cannot be denied even without proof. But on the other hand, God’s existence can not be proved in terms of objective arguments and scientific facts. In answer to the question, God’s existence cannot be proved, but neither can his non existence.

References

Ayer. A.J. (1973) The Central Questions of Philosophy: The Claims of Theology: Chapter 10

Cottingham. J. (1986) Descartes: Blackwell Publishing

Cottingham. J. (2005) Western Philosophy: Blackwell Publishing