Welcome	Mass Times	Sacrament of Reconciliation	Prayers and Reflections	Parish Newsletter	Local Church History	Existence of God

Existence of God

Is it reasonable to believe in God?

In what sense can we 'prove' God's existence, according to the teaching of the First Vatican Council?

How would you assess the Five ways of St Thomas Aquinas, giving examples of two of his Ways, as compared with the argument of the existence of God proposed by St Anselm? (50)

I propose to show that the First Vatican Council implies that we can 'prove' the existence of God. The Council solemnly defined that by the use of reason people can know God with certainty. To 'know' something implies the ability to explain to any interested party that what one believes is compatible with right reason. We are 'to always have our answer ready for people who ask you the reason for the hope you have'

The five ways are called proofs, not in the sense used in the context of the empirical sciences, but in the sense that they provide converging and convincing arguments for the existence of God based on human reason. They predispose one to faith, preambula fidei, and they help one to see that there is no opposition between faith and reason.

The teaching of the Vatican Council was in response to Fideism. Fideism would deprive Faith of its rational basis or foundation. Fideism' fails to recognise the importance of rational knowledge and philosophical discourse for the understanding of faith, indeed for the very possibility of belief in God.' To counter this error the Council defined that the Church holds and teaches that God can be known with certainty through the natural light of human reason. In support of this teaching the Council quoted St Paul writing to the Romans

'Ever since the creation of the world, the invisible existence of God and his everlasting power has been clearly seen by the mind's understanding of created things'

Similar sentiments are expressed in the Book of Wisdom:

'Yes naturally stupid are all who are unaware of God, and who from good things seen have not been able to discover Him-who-is, or by studying the works have not recognised the Artificer. Fire, however, or wind, or the swift air, the sphere or the stars, impetuous water, heaven's lamps are what they have held to be the gods that govern the world.

If charmed by their beauty, they have taken these for gods, let them know how much the Master of these excels them, since the very source of beauty created them.

And if they have been impressed by their power and energy,

Let them deduce from these how much mightier

Is he who formed them,

Since through the grander and beauty of the creatures

We may by analogy, contemplate their Author'

The Five Ways of St Thomas are known as the Metaphysical Ways, because he basis his arguments on' the things that are created', reality, 'what is known through the use of our intelligent and reasonable operations, what can be known by intelligent grasp and reasonable judgement'. The teaching of the Vatican Council presumes a sound metaphysical and epistemological basis: ' God, the beginning and end of all things, can be known with certainty from the things that were created'. God Himself cannot be observed directly through any of the senses. Knowledge of God is obtained indirectly by our knowledge of reality and what logically follows from that knowledge.

I hope to show that the Five Ways of Aquinas enjoy a sound metaphysical basis and Cognitional structure.

What am I doing when I am knowing? Human knowing operates on three levels. The senses provide the data. 'Nil in intellectu quod non prius fuit in sensu'. Through the senses we are enabled to observe the world around us. That is the first level of knowing. There is the need to make sense of the data provided by the senses. The data pose questions. We seek understanding, forming concepts, and working out hypotheses. Only at the third level do we form a judgement. This third stage marks knowledge of reality. We know 'being', 'truth', 'beauty', 'reality'.

By the use of reason we work out general characteristics of reality: Cause and effect, necessary and contingent, substance and accidents, essence and existence. A brief look at the five ways is in order so as to highlight how each 'way' focuses on some aspect of reality, and indicates what a particular aspect of being tells us about God.

The five ways are based on human ability to know reality. There is careful observation of data. 'The first way focuses on potency and act. 'Some things in the world are in the process of change'. A thing cannot change itself. It must be changed by sometime else. This something else if in process of change is also being changed by something else. There must be a first cause of change, itself unchanging. This is what everyone understands by God. God is pure act.

'The second way considers cause and effect. In the observable world causes are found to be ordered in series. We never observe something causing itself. There cannot be an infinite series of things caused by another. One is forced to conclude that there must be a First Cause. To this 'First Cause' Himself uncaused, we give the name God.

The third way considers necessity and contingency. 'Some of the things we come across can be but need not be, for we find them springing up and dying away''. Everything that need not be at one time was not. Even an infinite series of contingent beings if such were possible would still be contingent. There has to be something that must be which does not derive its necessity from something else. We give the name God to this 'Necessary Being'. His essence is existence.

The fourth way centres on the degree of perfection to be found in things. 'Some things are found to be better, more true, more noble, and other things less'. Comparative terms imply degrees of approximation to a superlative. There must be something that is the cause of the goodness that is found to varying degrees. This something that is the source of every quality we call God.

'The fifth way is based on the observation that there is order and plan in the world. .'An orderedness of actions is observed in all bodies, obeying natural laws, even when they lack awareness'. A plan or purpose is the signature of 'Intelligence'. To this intelligence we give the name God.

The vast universe tells us something about the power and immensity of God. From the knowledge acquired in this way it would not be possible to imagine that God loves the world so much. The First Vatican Council as well as affirming that God can be known with certainty through the natural light of human reason also affirmed that revelation is absolutely necessary. Deism acknowledges the existence of God. It fails to acknowledge that God has revealed Himself. It is because of God's self-revelation that Christians invoke God as 'Our Father'.

It might be appropriate at this stage to consider objections.

How do we know that this 'God of the philosophers' is the God of Abraham and Moses, and Isaac, the God of Jesus Christ? Philosophically there can only be one God, the First Cause, The Necessary Being, Who embodies every quality, who is the Master Planner and Supreme Intelligence.

In view of the evil in the world, it would appear that God cannot be all good, or all-powerful. The argument can be formulated along these lines:

If God were all-powerful He could prevent evil.

If God were all-good He would prevent evil.

In view of the presence of evil it would appear that God is either not all-powerful or not all-good.

This argument can be countered by pointing out that evil is the absence of goodness, absence of being, absence of truth and lack of beauty. There is also moral evil, sin, deriving from free will. Human beings are endowed with free will, able to choose between good and evil. Much of the evil in the world is attributable to human beings abusing their freedom - man's inhumanity to man.

It can also be pointed out that God does not will evil. He permits it. St Augustine argued that God would not permit evil if He were not so powerful and so good as to draw good even out of evil.

If God can be known by the light of human reason how does one explain that many people do not seem to arrive at the knowledge of the One, True God? In reply it can be shown that even if that is the case it does not contradict the teaching of the First Vatican Council. The council decreed:

'God, the beginning and end of all things can be known with certainty from the things that are created through the natural light of human reason'

The Council did not teach that people do in fact arrive at the knowledge of God in this way. The fact is that throughout history people have worshiped 'God' by sacrifices and rituals. This phenomenon is so widespread that it indicates that by nature people are religious.

Pope Pius XII in his encyclical Humani Generis taught, that though human reason by its own natural ability is capable of attaining a true and certain knowledge of God, there are many obstacles which prevents people from using this ability in a fruitful way. One of these obstacles is original sin as a consequence of which the human mind has been darkened. People are reluctant to acknowledge God because of the demands this would make

The Catechism comments that this explains the need of divine revelation, not only regarding truths that are quite beyond the powers of unaided human reason, but also those truths that can be known. There is a need for divine revelation because many of the truths of revelation are beyond reason, the Mystery of the Blessed Trinity, the Incarnation, and man's supernatural destiny.

How would you assess the Five Ways of St Thomas, giving example of two of his ways?

I find the Third Way a convincing argument.

The things we come across in the world need not be. They spring up and die away, leaving no trace.

A thing that need not be once was not. There can't be an infinite series of beings each owing its existence to something else. Even if such an infinite series were possible it would still have the label 'received existence from something else'.

If once there were nothing, there would be nothing now, because something that does not exist can only be brought into being by something already existing, but this contradicts human observation.

Therefore not everything that exists is contingent - need not be. There must be something that must be.

Anything that must be may or may not owe its necessity to something else. If it derives its necessity from something else then it too is contingent.

One is led to conclude the existence of a necessary being, which owes its necessity to no other being outside itself. This being's essence is existence. It is the source of all being, the source of all that exists.

St Augustine had this in mind: 'Question the beauty of the earth, question the beauty of the sea, question the beauty of the sky…question all these realities. These beauties are subject to change. Who made them, if not the Beautiful One who is not subject to change?'

The Fifth Way: Argument from Design.

The world around us shows a pattern, a design, direction and purpose. Nothing that lacks awareness tends towards an objective unless directed by some being with intelligence and understanding. This indicates an Intelligent Being who organised the world, indeed the entire universe. In the English Language this intelligent being is given the name God.

It seems to me that this argument is very convincing and difficult to refute. If the world did begin with the 'Big Bang' this means that God created the world in this way. The question remains the elements that went into the 'Big Bang' where did these come from? Who was responsible for those wonderful fireworks and its most wonderful effects? As for natural selection and evolution first proposed by Charles Darwin, this might pose a problem for a person who interprets scripture in a fundamentalist way. This is an example of an apparent conflict between revelation and science that is due to an imperfect understanding of revelation. I think that most people who agree that God's work of creation is no less wonderful if it was brought about in the way propounded by Darwin.

Take the example of a motor car, made up of many different parts intelligently interconnected, each with a part to play so that the car can be used as a means of transport. To say that the world came about by chance is similar to saying that a windstorm blowing though a scrap yard might be chance, after hundreds of years produce a complete motor car. If some complex machine were discovered on the moon the astronauts on board the Apollo flight would logically draw the conclusion that someone else had got there before them. A sceptic might argue that it got there by chance. It they had seen human footprints on the surface of the moon, they would reach the conclusion that someone else had been there. A sceptic, ignoring the obvious explanation might argue that solar wind blowing for many thousands of years had somehow made that sort of impression on the sand.

The complexity and harmony in nature, many different things interacting in a harmonious way point to intelligence. Empirical science has as a necessary foundation the conviction that nature makes sense, that it follows certain patterns, that it is intelligible. It seems to me that the 'anthropic principle' - ' that the universe had to be the way it is in order that there could be intelligent life in order to appreciate it' is a convincing argument in favour of 'Intelligence' guiding the forces of evolution. The fact is that evolution was so programmed that it produced rational, ethical and aesthetic life. The logical conclusion must be that like the 'Big Bang', evolution is the work of 'Intelligence' to which we give the name God.

The Argument for the Existence of God Proposed by St Anselm.

I hope to show that Anselm demonstrates that there is enough evidence in creation to arrive at certain knowledge of God by the use of reason while recognising the need of revelation.

Like Aquinas Anselm set out to demonstrate that the existence of God can be known by reason alone. He appeals to human experience - all seek to enjoy only those things which they consider good. People can be encouraged to consider the origin of the good which they seek. Are we to believe that there is one thing through which all things are good, or to believe that different things are good through different things? No being can be the cause of itself, nor can it be the source of its own goodness. It would have to precede itself which is impossible. You can't have an infinite series of goods which owe their goodness to something else. Anselm's thought is similar to that of Aquinas. You can't have an infinite series of efficient causes. There must be a first cause. You can't have an infinite series of contingent beings. There must be a necessary being. Similarly, Anselm argues, there must be one good which alone is good through itself. 'Only that good which alone is good through itself is supremely good. For that is supreme which so excels others that it has neither equal nor superior. That which is supremely good is also supremely great. Therefore there is one thing which is supremely good and supremely great, the highest of all existing things'

Anselm shows that by the use of reason it is possible to come to the knowledge of the one nature, the highest of all existing things, alone sufficient unto itself, through its own omnipotent goodness causing other things to be something and to be good in some respect.

The argument continues that only that which is supremely good can be supremely great. By the use of reason it is possible to reach the knowledge of One who is supremely Good and supremely Great.

The same sort of argument is used regarding the concept of existence. Everything that exists exists through something else. Nothing can bring itself into existence. There is one thing or many things through which all existing things exist. There cannot be an infinite series of things which owe their existence to another. This leads to the conclusion that there exists one thing which alone exists through itself, and through which all other things exist. That which exists most greatly of all and is that through which exists whatever is good and great, must be supremely good, supremely great, the highest of all existing things.

Emphasising the importance of observation in order to obtain knowledge of reality Anselm observes that not all things are of equal worth. . There cannot be an infinite series of beings each better than the other. From this observation he proceeds to show by reason that one nature is so pre-eminent that no other nature is superior to it, that there is no nature to which it is inferior. This nature is singular or there is more than one nature all of which are equal. If they are equal this is due to the fact of what they are in themselves or through something other than what they are. If that through which they are equally great were other than what they are in themselves, they would be less than that through which they are equally great. That which is great through another is less than that through which it is great. He concludes that there is only one Nature which is so superior to all others that it is inferior to none. This Nature is the highest of all existing things. It can only be the highest only if through itself it is what it is and only if through it all other existing things are what they are. 'Hence there is a Nature, a Substance a Being which through itself is great and good, and through itself is what it is. This Nature is the Supreme Good, the Supreme Greatness, the Supreme Being or Subsistence, the highest of all existing things'.

Again, one can hardly miss the similarity of this argument to that employed by Aquinas the First Cause, the Uncaused Cause. 'The Supreme Nature could not have been caused to exist by itself or by another; nor was it itself or anything else the material from which it was made; nor did it somehow aid itself or receive aid from anything else so that it should become what it previously was not' This last idea fits in with the Thomistic idea of God as Pure Act.

The ontological argument begins with a definition of God. It seems to presuppose the arguments set forth in the Monologion. In that context the argument makes sense. ''God is that than which nothing greater can be thought'. To exist also in actuality is greater than to exist just in the understanding. Hence something than which a greater cannot be thought exists both in understanding and in reality. . The objection is that the idea or concept of something does not guarantee that it has objective reality.

On the basis of the ontological argument Anselm deals with the attributes of God, ''God is whatever it is better to be than not to be' showing that God is just, truthful, blessed, perceptive, omnipotent, merciful and impassible, - whatever it is better be than not be'. He alone, existing through Himself, creates all else from nothing'. Following the lines of the ontological argument, Anselm reasons that whatever is not the creator of all things is less than that which can be thought, because a being who created all things is intelligible. Though God is a Spirit and has no bodily senses He is perceptive. Whatever in some way knows can be said in some way to perceive.

The Proslogion gives Anselm's beautiful reflection on Faith. He highlights the human yearning for God: 'Let me seek you in desiring you, let me desire you in seeking you'. Faith is a divine gift: 'Reveal yourself to me as I seek. Unless you reveal yourself I cannot find you'. The truths of revelation are beyond reason: 'I do not attempt to comprehend your sublimity, because my intellect is not at all equal to such a task'.

The Five Ways of St Thomas Aquinas, compared with Anselm's argument for the existence of God.

I find that the arguments expounded in the Monologion compare quite favourably with the five ways of Aquinas. Anselm's arguments like Aquinas's are based on a sound cognitional structure. Knowledge begins with our relationship with created reality. That is where the knowing process begins. From what is perceived by the senses a person is enabled to progress in his investigation into the nature of being. His arguments are based on a sound metaphysical basis - human ability to know truth, reality, being. On its own the Ontological argument is thought provoking, but to me it appears weak and unconvincing, with overtures of subjectivity. It is better interpreted as a corollary to his other arguments:

'Hence something than which a greater cannot be thought exists so truly, that it cannot be thought not to exist. And You are this being, O Lord our God. Therefore, Lord my God, You exist so truly that You cannot be even be thought not to exist… Indeed, except for You alone, whatever else exists can be conceived not to exist…Whatever else there is does not exist as truly as You and thus does not exist as much as you do'.