The one true substance in the world it is God. How far do you go along with this and why?

Aristotle isn’t the only classical philosopher whose arguments on God and His existence are affirmative but the concept of God is also elaborated by Thomas Aquinas, who was an Italian influential philosopher. His elaborations and theories on God were seen as immensely influential and rational because he was an Italian Dominican priest of the Catholic Church. Some of Aquinas primary arguments regarding the existence of God are that ‘there is one God or God is one, He is incorporeal.. He is immutable and impassable’. This is an argument which highlights that God is different to a Human. To support the statement is Aquinas’ Summa Theologica, where some of his arguments on the existence of God are also cosmological arguments. The cosmological argument derives from classical natural theology, whose aim has been to ‘provide some evidence for the claim that God exists’. Aquinas’s cosmological arguments can be highlighted as:

“1. Every being (that exists or ever did exist) is either a dependent being or a self existent being.

2. Not every being can be a dependent being.

3. So there exists a self-existent being.”

This argument highlights as an empiricist one as the cosmological argument proceeds on along the following lines of ‘to see one thing as being caused by another and this in turn by something prior to it’. This can then be argued that there must be an unconditioned First Cause or God since there cannot be an ‘infinite regress’. These arguments highlight that there is God but in the form of the first cause in the universe as the cosmological argument is based upon principles that everything has a cause.

Another argument which differs from the cosmological argument on the concept and existence of God is the ontological argument, where it starts with the definition of God and concludes with a priori reasoning on His existence. An ontological argument has been accepted and adapted by many other philosophers. However it could be said that the first ontological argument was proposed by Anselm of Canterbury. Anselm’s argument attempts to prove the existence of God through pure logic meaning. However Anselm does not imply that God is a substance opposing to the Aristotelian category of substance, as Davies and Leftow have written that Anselm argued that ‘words that imply relations between God and other things do not apply to or express God’s “substance”’. So Anselm doesn’t refer God as a substance but he rather exemplifies Him to words from the categories of quality such as just, living and true. Not only that, he uses the word “omnipotent”, to quantify God’s power. Therefore it could be said that Anselm doesn’t accept God as a substance but he says that the idea of God ‘exists at least in our understanding”.

Rene Descartes is one of the philosophers who took Anselm’s ontological argument and provided his own version of the ontological argument in the Fifth Meditation. The original version of this argument follows as:

1. God is the most perfect (‘the greatest’) being conceivable.
2. It is more perfect (‘greater’) to exist than not to exist.
3. Therefore, God must exist.

Descartes demonstrates the existence of God from the idea of an absolutely perfect being as Oppy highlights that Descartes argues that ‘there is no less contradiction in conceiving a supremely perfect being who lacks existence than there in conceiving a triangle whose interior angles do not sum to 180 degrees’. Thus he assumes, the absolutely perfect being is perceived so automatically there is an idea of a supremely perfect being – it must conclude that a supremely perfect being does exist. So it could be highlighted that Descartes suggests that the concept of God is that of a supremely perfect being that holds all perfection and perfection is existence. This refers back to Anselm’s argument that ‘it is more perfect to exist than not to exist’. So according to Kirry, if the ‘notion of God did not include existence, then it wouldn’t be supremely perfect, as it would lack perfection’. As a result, Descartes argues that the notion of a supremely perfect God who does not exist is indistinct. Therefore, according to His Nature, God must exist.

        However Immanuel Kant put forward an ‘influential objection’ to Descartes ontological argument, in his Critique of Pure Reason. He provided rebuttal to the original argument, claiming that the ‘concept of God is not of one a particular sense; rather, it is an “object of pure thought”’. Whilst it could be argued that the attempts made through ontological arguments that God exists have been successful, the importance lies on His existence in philosophy as it combines together with the word substance.

        One philosopher whose work is largely based around the concept of God is Baruch Spinoza. It could be said that he is perhaps one of the few known philosophers that regards God is the only one infinite substance that exists. And all things in the world, including mind and bodies, are characteristics of this one substance. So therefore, according to Spinoza, God is the essence of substance and this essence is infinite. Hence ‘each essence’ can be conceived of in a certain way. A way of conceiving of the essence of a substance is an ‘attribute’. Spinoza defined attribute as ‘the intellect perceives of a substance, as constituting its essence”. This shows that the attributes are related to substance in some way, as there can be no overlap between the ways of conceiving the essence of a substance. And the attributes of substance or God are thought and extension. Therefore God is the essence of thinking substance (i.e. mind) and of extended substance (i.e. body), so Spinoza claimed that God is present in all things. He also claimed that no object or person in the world is a separate ‘thing’ but they are all part of the universe or God.

        However, Spinoza’s argument of the only one infinite substance (God) contrasted with Descartes dualism, as Descartes made the distinction between infinite and finite thinking substance. He believed that there were lots of finite thinking substances and lots of extended substances, for example the mind, according to Descartes, was a ‘thing’ and an immaterial substance. And also the mind is a substance distinct from the body. Spinoza rejects Descartes distinction between infinite and finite thinking substance, as there is only one substance which is infinite. He also rejects Descartes distinctions between thinking substance and extended substance. As Spinoza believes there is only one type of substance: substance. So for Spinoza, God is the only one true substance in the world.

        The question of whether God is the one true substance in the world is highly a difficult one with the acceptance as well as the rejection. However the importance should not only be pinned against the questioning of God being the one true substance but matter in fact, the whole concept of God and his existence should be examined too. That is because the word ‘substance’ correlates with ‘existence’, as in some theories in order for God to be a substance He has to exist. To justify that statement, Spinoza argues that God necessarily exists, because God’s (substance) essence is existence. However the validity of his arguments that God is the only substance is questionable, as there are many philosophical problems which his metaphysics cannot answer, such as the problem of evil. To answer that, it could be highlighted in Spinoza’s argument that ‘God’s essence is perfect’, surely ‘evil’ can be part of that essence? To conclude the question on the concept of God and His existence has already been proven by theories and logics however only one can determine whether or not God is the only one true substance in the world.

        

 

 

Word count including Bibliography: 2,025

---