God Existence - Proof, Purpose, And The Human Experience

God Existence: Proof, Purpose, and the Human Experience The most overwhelming circumstance of personal human tragedy is that of isolation. Rightfully so, the apex of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs is inclusiveness— the woeful yearning to be organized within some higher order of things; to find solace within a consensus of shared acceptance. Indeed, it is both human and animal nature to seek security in this world through assembly, so as not to be easily consumed by its limitless horrors and curiosities. And it is this latter aspect that is perhaps more frightening, consolidating the bonds that make us human. How do we explain the unexplainable? How can we objectively attribute purpose and meaning to an existence that, by all knowledgeable understanding, appears devoid of such purpose and meaning? The futility of existential inquiry may precede human communication itself, yet the profound implications of an unanswerable question are essential to the intellectual pursuit of knowledge and definition. Likewise, the paradoxical notions of existence’s definition and ambiguity incite this innately human desire to belong—yet, we are still confused as to where we most belong. God, supreme creator and ruler of all things, omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent in everything, provides this sense of belonging to those with faith in his existence. Studied throughout human history by countless scholars of genius intellect, the notion that God is both the question and answer to mankind’s existence and sense of purpose is a topic that is not lightly discussed by those who have attempted to prove and disprove his existence. Certainly, even the concept of a singular, unifying theory of existence has enough merit to warrant a lifetime of discussion, if not dedication, towards reaching some sort of conclusion. However, despite the best efforts of human logic and reason, it becomes clear that such a

1

conclusion would be worthless, if not contradictory, to the concept of God itself. There can be no proof for the existence of God but the existence of God itself. Through careful analysis of previous attempts at proving His existence, this statement can be validated by a contemporary societal climate surrounding a mixed belief and disbelief in His existence. But first, in order to more thoroughly understand the contemporary issue of God’s existence, it would be wise to examine the philosophical reasoning of those medieval thinkers who tried to create a proof for it. Historic philosophers such as St. Augustine of Hippo, St. Anselm of Canterbury, Avicenna, and St. Thomas Aquinas all attempted to rationalize the unthinkable: proving the existence of God. Although several of their ideas are contradictory, they all shared a common belief in God’s existence and that there may be some logical method of extrapolating His existence as inscrutable truth. Furthermore, as societal notions of faith were indeed a backbone to the societal order of the time, they attempted this feat with the highest of motivations and intellectual prowess, which make their proofs all the more significant to the discussion of what God is and whether He must necessarily exist. Augustine’s proof for the existence of god relies on a hierarchy of three essential truths: that we exist, that we are alive, and that we have reason. We can infer these as undeniable because we must exist in order to question our existence. Therefore, we must be alive to ponder such a question, and if we can understand these first two notions as having validity, we must have the ability to reason. Using these three essential truths, Augustine sets up his argument mathematically whereas to prove that if there is something greater than human reason it must be God. We affirm that two plus three equals five because it is necessarily true and does not rely upon human existence, life, or reason; it is simply understood and

2

accepted. Therefore, the truth of mathematics, which is beyond human reason, proves the truth of God’s existence. While this argument is quite rational and strong in its design, is does nothing to prove the existence of God as any sort of worldly entity. One must compromise with faith to purport the corporeal nature of his existence, or we could instead redefine the concept of God to be an interpretation of natural principles. Likening God’s existence to mathematical truth may bolster one’s preexisting faith in God’s existence, but it could just as easily bolster one’s faith in the natural science that governs our universe. Therefore, we are still left to wonder as to what the concept of God truly describes, and whether there His being shares the same self-awareness of human existence. Anselm’s proof for the existence of God, utilizing a similarly mathematical conception and existential hierarchy, attempts to affirm necessary truth through logical reasoning. If one can envision the concept of “something that which nothing greater can be thought”, it can be said to be interchangeable with the commonly held notion of God as a perfect being. Likewise, if we have this concept of which there can be no greater concept, it must have been instilled by the truth of its existence. For if we deny the existence of “something that which nothing greater can be thought”, then we contradict ourselves by saying that there must be something greater, something greater that which nothing greater can be thought. While this proof provides logical evidence that human beings can rationalize the concept of an infinite existence and being, it falls short with Augustine in providing any sort of necessity for the existence of a self-aware God-like being. Anselm can argue any number of ways that our conceptualization of infiniteness

3

must be attributed to the form of infiniteness being instilled upon us by an infinite being, yet psychological reasoning and ability could just as easily account for us to envision such a concept through comparative analysis. We understand the concept of finite because can perceive things with finite beginnings and endings, so that if we were to creatively conceive of an opposite entity, such as a Godlike being, we would assume such infinite proportions to be necessary. Therefore, Anselm’s proof, though quite grand in its scope, does little more than prove the existence of the concept of God. Perhaps the greatest metaphysician of Islamic philosophy, Avicenna departs slightly from Anselm’s ontological proof for the existence of God. By first outlining what he believes to be an intrinsic truth, that the existence of some beings is necessary while others are simply possible, he attributes a causal relationship to existential thought. His argument is that the existence of possible beings must be caused by some previous being’s actions; for example, reproduction. Therefore, we can infer that in order for earthly creatures to exist as possible beings, there must be some initial, necessary being which acted as a prime mover—a cause to the effect. Avicenna further rationalizes that the only being to which we can attribute such causal efficacy is God, who we must then say has a necessary existence. Indeed, the Islamic God of the Qu’ran, memorized by Avicenna at an early age, is a transcendental being quite different from other theological interpretations. Therefore, Avicenna’s God would not necessarily need to have any sort of corporeal existence or continued relationship with His subjects following the initial cause for life. Nevertheless, this proof also lacks any substantial evidence for the existence of a God outside of conceptualization. The initial cause need not necessarily be any sort of self-aware being, and thus does not necessarily prove any sort of intelligent

4

design or purpose in its cause. In order to prove the existence of a God apart from scientific interpretations of universal randomness and entropy, it must be established that such a being understands its own existence and necessarily intends for the causation of possible existence. Otherwise, Avicenna, along with Augustine and Anselm, all develop proofs for the existence of God without necessarily proving the consensually defined characteristics of a Godlike being. Aquinas’ proof is altogether an affront to previous ontological arguments for God’s existence. Doctor Angelicus emphasizes the notion that God’s existence is not self-evident, and instead requires contemplation upon how and to what extent we can know of God’s infinite characteristics. The existence and essence of God are two separate notions of which we can understand, of which the latter notion is impossible for us to understand, as one thing cannot know the essence of another thing without essentially having one and the same essence. Therefore, to say that God exists mentally and God exist both mentally and actually are two completely different understandings of the concept of God’s existence and God’s real existence. However, to say that God’s existence is only true through demonstration of faith is unacceptable, seeing as His existence may be demonstrated by the effects of his initial creation. This demonstration of God’s existence can be proven in five ways, all of which have been supposed by the aforementioned philosophers: initial cause for the motion of all things, the necessity of an initial cause, the necessary form of all things possible, the forms of goodness and perfection, and the cause for intelligence in natural things. These multi-faceted aspects of existence are what Aquinas purports human beings reason is God, which is a being who must actually exist in order to rationalize human experience.

5

As Aquinas’ argument is by far the most expansive of all proofs for the existence of God, it can perhaps be said to be the only one with reasonable validity. Nevertheless, it relies upon the faith of the individual to either accept the truthiness of his understanding of the world or deny such an outline for the properties of our existence. While it might certainly bolster one’s notion of faith in God’s existence, it simultaneously affirms in the non-believer a sense of order in the universe. Those who believe the mysteries of science to be reasons for God’s existence will similarly be disappointed by the almost comprehensive description of human existence implied by Aquinas’ proof. The fact remains that observed chaos in the universe devalues any sort of unified understanding of existence, even when the aspects described can be so well reasoned. Critically analyzed, Aquinas’ conclusion that all existence is governed by five ordered aspects inherent to pre-conceived notions of the concept of God seems almost to be a pretentious exclamation of omnipotence by the philosopher. Comprehensive reasoning and logic aside, to have faith in his proof is akin to already having faith in a biblical God and it becomes a necessary pre-requisite to belief in his argument. Despite the best laid foundations of understanding God’s existence, it must be emphasized that any attempt at concluding God’s necessary existence as both a concept and corporeal, self-aware being will ultimately fall short of undeniable truth. Historically, belief in God’s existence can be likened to countless centuries and millennia saturated by bloodshed over religious disparity. There is both reason and lack of reason in proving his existence, the effects of which lead to enumerable complications in our contemporary understandings of the universe and mechanisms. Therefore, it must be reasoned that only God’s existence itself can prove God’s existence. Or perhaps it is more desirable to assert that either only God

6

can understand Himself, or he does not exist. As it has been countlessly reaffirmed by failed attempts at a unifying theory and proof for God’s existence, to attempt any sort of understanding greater than this will only result in affirming those with faith and those without to their respective personal inclinations. Perhaps the musings of the great renaissance philosopher, Voltaire, best sum up this volition as, “If there were no God, it would have been necessary to invent him.” Idealistically, the notion of God’s existence as a being or concept, whichever He may be or both, is a notion irrelevant to the pursuit of continued human existence and virility.

7