Does God Exist?

God exists

Many agree that this belief arises from personal human experiences. Belief in God is simply an awareness of a reality greater than the perceived. This idea is not Christian in origin. Plato's Allegory of the Cave sets forth that we are all slaves to ignorance, and we must turn from shadow, we must convert, to use Latin, to see the real truth. A modern example of this theme is the film The Matrix. God is this real truth, this 'good'. Plato has his characters ultimately separate the physical from the psychological/soul/mind.

Further human experience has built upon this foundation layed down by Greek philosophers. Part of a belief in God is the recognizing of the good in the physical. Mystics have thought for centuries on how to tie the physical with the spiritual. By first recognizing that there is a higher good, that there is some truth in this world, mystics have demonstrated that these true forms, which are good, must exist, and in this existence of good creation it is shown further how creation is good. The early mystic Augustine saw all forms as good, but evil as a corruption of the good, of the ideal.

God is Truth.

St. Thomas Aquinas, in his Summa Theologia, elucidated the famous "Five Ways" of coming to know the existence of God. This are promulgated as philosophic arguments, which require a rigid logic in order to comprehend (they must be followed and completed in their context and require "positive" knowledge of the world. A person who is skeptical - that is, someone who either rejects the notion that anything external to the mind of man that can be truly 'known', or rejects whether there is anything to 'know' (we're all living in a matrix, etc), will remain skeptical about God - but, that also means, since they can know nothing, they cannot know that God does not exist either). These arguments cannot be dismissed out of hand - a temptation to do so would imply a flawed logic with preexisting bias: Wikipedia is accurate to state that the 5 ways have never been refuted, especially in the context of the ability of man to know positive knowledge. These arguments are:

The Argument of the Unmoved Mover

"The first and more manifest way is the argument from motion. It is certain, and evident to our senses, that in the world some things are in motion. Now whatever is in motion is put in motion by another, for nothing can be in motion except it is in potentiality to that towards which it is in motion; whereas a thing moves inasmuch as it is in act. For motion is nothing else than the reduction of something from potentiality to actuality. But nothing can be reduced from potentiality to actuality, except by something in a state of actuality. Thus that which is actually hot, as fire, makes wood, which is potentially hot, to be actually hot, and thereby moves and changes it. Now it is not possible that the same thing should be at once in actuality and potentiality in the same respect, but only in different respects. For what is actually hot cannot simultaneously be potentially hot; but it is simultaneously potentially cold. It is therefore impossible that in the same respect and in the same way a thing should be both mover and moved, i.e. that it should move itself. Therefore, whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another. If that by which it is put in motion be itself put in motion, then this also must needs be put in motion by another, and that by another again. But this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover, and, consequently, no other mover; seeing that subsequent movers move only inasmuch as they are put in motion by the first mover; as the staff moves only because it is put in motion by the hand. Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God."

The Argument of the First Cause

"The second way is from the nature of the efficient cause. In the world of sense we find there is an order of efficient causes. There is no case known (neither is it, indeed, possible) in which a thing is found to be the efficient cause of itself; for so it would be prior to itself, which is impossible. Now in efficient causes it is not possible to go on to infinity, because in all efficient causes following in order, the first is the cause of the intermediate cause, and the intermediate is the cause of the ultimate cause, whether the intermediate cause be several, or only one. Now to take away the cause is to take away the effect. Therefore, if there be no first cause among efficient causes, there will be no ultimate, nor any intermediate cause. But if in efficient causes it is possible to go on to infinity, there will be no first efficient cause, neither will there be an ultimate effect, nor any intermediate efficient causes; all of which is plainly false. Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God."

The Argument from Contingency

"The third way is taken from possibility and necessity, and runs thus. We find in nature things that are possible to be and not to be, since they are found to be generated, and to corrupt, and consequently, they are possible to be and not to be. But it is impossible for these always to exist, for that which is possible not to be at some time is not. Therefore, if everything is possible not to be, then at one time there could have been nothing in existence. Now if this were true, even now there would be nothing in existence, because that which does not exist only begins to exist by something already existing. Therefore, if at one time nothing was in existence, it would have been impossible for anything to have begun to exist; and thus even now nothing would be in existence — which is absurd. Therefore, not all beings are merely possible, but there must exist something the existence of which is necessary. But every necessary thing either has its necessity caused by another, or not. Now it is impossible to go on to infinity in necessary things which have their necessity caused by another, as has been already proved in regard to efficient causes. Therefore we cannot but postulate the existence of some being having of itself its own necessity, and not receiving it from another, but rather causing in others their necessity. This all men speak of as God."

The Argument from Degree

"The fourth way is taken from the gradation to be found in things. Among beings there are some more and some less good, true, noble and the like. But 'more' and 'less' are predicated of different things, according as they resemble in their different ways something which is the maximum, as a thing is said to be hotter according as it more nearly resembles that which is hottest; so that there is something which is truest, something best, something noblest and, consequently, something which is uttermost being; for those things that are greatest in truth are greatest in being, as it is written in Metaph. ii. Now the maximum in any genus is the cause of all in that genus; as fire, which is the maximum heat, is the cause of all hot things. Therefore there must also be something which is to all beings the cause of their being, goodness, and every other perfection; and this we call God."

The Teleological Argument

"The fifth way is taken from the governance of the world. We see that things which lack intelligence, such as natural bodies, act for an end, and this is evident from their acting always, or nearly always, in the same way, so as to obtain the best result. Hence it is plain that not fortuitously, but designedly, do they achieve their end. Now whatever lacks intelligence cannot move towards an end, unless it be directed by some being endowed with knowledge and intelligence; as the arrow is shot to its mark by the archer. Therefore some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are directed to their end; and this being we call God."

A little more Aristotle, via Avicenna

Aquinas took from Aristotle a number of notions about God. One of the key insights was that of the "Transcendentals" - that is, the fundamental convertibility of the referent for the terms "Good", "Truth", "Beauty", "Unity" (the thing itself - the One), and "Being". These are pure perfections which "transcend" the properties of the categories (or predicaments), like time, place, substance, quantity, etc. By showing the ontological convertibility of the transcendentals, we arise to the "natural" (rather than revealed) notion of God: the being from which the "Good" derives it's goodness, the "Truth" it's trueness (you need an intellect and a will to have something true), "Beauty" its perfection, and gives "Being" its reality.

Revealed Truth

Fundamentally, the above can be taken in the realm of 'natural philosophy' or 'natural theology'. A second branch of Theology recognizes that a Good,Just, and Loving God would necessarily want us to Know Him in a way that does not violate our freedom. Biblical Theology deals with His Revelation, written by men inspired by God to speak as best they could on His behalf.

In short, consider the last book of the Bible: the greek term is Apocalypse, from apo (lifting up) and calypsos (a veil) - the term used for the ancient Greek wedding ceremonies of "unveiling" or "revealing" the Bride. Specifically in this book it means both the Bride of Christ, which is the Church, as well as an anagogical meaning for the individual souls called to Him.

God, as conceived by Catholics and some Christian Protestants, has several properties. He has an intellect and a will - that is, He can know and love. A being who knows and loves is a spiritual being, since knowledge and love do not reside in a physical organ (and yes, your cat has a spirit too, in this sense), but rather in the 'form', which in most cases can be seen either as emergent from matter or proceeding it. In our case, the 'spiritual soul' (or just 'soul') is the seat of the intellect and will, and is defined as "the substantial form of the human body" (Council of Trent).

What does God love? First, He loves Himself, precisely because He is Good and True and Beautiful and Exists. Next, He loves all things like himself, and this includes first and foremost mankind, who He made, via 7-day creation or via telic evolution (i.e. using the mechanism of evolution for His own telos, or will) very much like Himself (how doesn't matter much for this argument compared to why).

Other properties of God are found in the world of nature, as reflecting Him, or in ourselves: God is like 'a rock', we find the Psalmist say - stable, immutable, but obviously moreso than a rock. God likes creation, and allows animals to participate in creation by pro-creation. God is free (omnipotent - all powerful - capable of doing all things), and, liking Himself, He communicates His freedom to us by way of gift of our free will. There are many other properties of God that can be deduced from the order of nature, too many to list.

Further, Christian revelation affirms that God isn't just a Unity, but is a Trinity, or a Triune being, Father, Son and Holy Ghost. After much prayer and thought on the subject, and through the inspiration of God, the proper interpretation of the contents of the Bible was clarified during the early Christian Councils, which spoke of the Trinity as having three "Persons" and one Nature - three names, one God. Each Person has an intellect and a will that works in concert with the others, so they constitute a perfect Society amongst Themselves. Reflection on the relation of God to Himself lead to the notion of a very transcendent (and beautiful) "Divine Perichoresis" (or the "dancing around" of the three persons in their interactions).

What does God know? Himself, which by the Act of knowing puts into effect: that is, specifically, His creative Word. As Jesus said "The Father knows me, and I know the Father".

Finally, you can't talk about revelation without talking about relation. The crucial event in man's relations with God - the "fall" - that broke our communion as a race with Him (think of the idea of your country going to war with another country - even if _you_ personally aren't at war, you share in that state). Since God is all good and is perfect, to break even the slightest of God's perfect commands creates an infinite gap to bridge: it's the gap between something and nothing, between 1 and 0. We, in our finite selves, can never bridge that gap, can never atone for the slightest of our Sins.

God, however, did something pretty cool. He took flesh, making the Word one with mankind under the name of Jesus Christ. He, who was sinless, nevertheless paid the infinite price for sin that none of us could pay, by His infinitely undeserved suffering, by sacrificing His infinite dignity, and, with love and compassion for our plight, bridged that infinitely vast gulf on the Cross.

By doing so, by Communicating himself perfectly in that sacrificial act, Jesus sent to us the Holy Spirit - the Spirit of truth and love - that we may enter into a relationship with by joining our wills with that of the Spirit via our own sovereign conscience (the process of which is called conversion or metanoia - change of heart). In Person, then, and through His agency and by His power, we may participate even on earth of the rewards that are awaiting us in Heaven - the com-unity of love within the divine dance of God - under the species of the Eucharist, which is the truly remembered - re-presented - sacrifice on the Cross, put into act by the men who participate in His most Holy Priesthood, within the Church.

Which, frankly, is a pretty sweet deal when you think about it. Starting from the creation of finite goods, like the world and mankind, God managed to give to other persons not only themselves, but the possibility of meriting an infinity of Good, aka Heaven, when we co-operate in His saving will. He communicated to us much more perfectly the depth of His love by doing the one thing He could when our freedom got us into a big mess: he become something less than he was, he became like us, and suffered and died in our place. He gave us the earth because he thought we'd like it, because it's the only way we can be free to choose what we want, and He gives us a taste of His very self here, and extends to us in our freedom His Sanctifying grace (His grace that restores us to His Likeness, which we lose to sin when we become unlike Him who cannot sin). He gave us suffering, compassion, and joy, and a million other things, all of which make us like Him who suffered, who had compassion, who knew joy - all rolled up into 70 or 80 years. Ultimately, what we have is way better than Eden. Thank you, God - for everything: and yes, with these thoughts, in union with the Holy Spirit and the whole Church: I affirm You exist.

View this argument alone.

God does not exist

There is no reason to believe in God, we may as well believe in the flying spaghetti monster. At the argument that there is scientific evidence that God exists... where is this evidence?

Asking for "evidence" of "God" is pointless, none exits, just as asking for "evidence" that god does NOT exist is pointless. You can't "prove" a negative. Instead, look at Human Nature. Throughout the written history of Humans, we've had a need to believe in something "of a higher order". Ancient man believed in the "spirits" of the natural elements. And there is evidence (cave paintings and such) that even early hominids (pre- Homo Sapiens), had similar belief structures, although probably not as defined. These beliefs in the "spirits" took on "supernatural" characteristics when humans began to associate their own behavior with calamitous events. The idea that somehow man had "displeased the spirits" and so was now suffering through a drought, or a flood, blizzard, hurricane, earthquake, or whatever. This belief in the "spirits" as responsible for our discomfort sort of placed the "spirits into a "demi-god" category. From there, these same beliefs evolved into full-fledged "Gods". Ancient civilizations had a "God" for everything. They had a God for parties, for gardens, for sunshine, for rain, for sex, for stone, for metal, etc. Eventually they evolved a kind of "Chief" god, one who was "the leader" among the other gods. And this belief eventually evolved into what we have today, with most of the world believing in "the one true god". Of course, each of these belief systems today has a different idea (sometimes radically different) of exactly how the characteristics of this "one true god" are defined.

More and more today, people are drifting away from a belief in a "God", an Omnipotent being that watches over everything we do, and judges our behavior in the end-time. However, they still aren't getting away from the concept that there is something "out there" of a "higher order" and we must answer to it. Take "global warming", or "environmentalism", these are merely replacements for a "god". People are "religiously" following these extremist points of view, with the same fervor that marked the Christian Crusades of the Dark Ages. No, it isn't a "being", but we still have to answer to "our children and their children" for the way we've treated the planet during our tenure. Which of course is just as unsubstantiated as an omnipotent and omnipresent being that will "smite" you if you upset him (or her). As for "global warming", the 1980 eruption of Mt. St. Helens ejected more than 10 TIMES the green house gases EVER PRODUCED BY MAN. The eruption of Krakatoa a century before, was 1000 times bigger than that. Bottom line, man simply doesn't have the ability to have a long term effect on the planet. The planet does much more damage to it's own environment than we ever could. This is just the next evolution of "religion". And it has the same hallmarks of every other religion, a belief in something "of a higher order". This is inherent in man. We will always have this, no matter the form it takes.

Take our advanced knowledge of meteorology today vs what it was 5000 yrs ago. Today we know that catastrophic weather is not caused by some supernatural force, but is in fact the result of physical properties of t(god exists)he planet on which we live. We can explain, and even predict, the occurrence of most of these events. Does that make us gods? Of course not. What "quaint" little beliefs do we have today that people 5000 years from now will debate? Probably our "quaint" belief in supernatural beings directing our lives. Or maybe they will laugh at our arrogance in believing we could have a drastic affect on our climate.

If God can do anything can he create a rock that is so heavy that even he can't lift it? If he can he can't do everything. If he can he can't do everything. So, therefore either God can't do everything, or he can defy any laws of logic, or he doesn't exist, the most probable explanation.

Religion and Science go about things in different ways. A scientific person will observe his or (her) surroundings and make a conclusion that explains the evidence. A religious person comes up with the conclusion and then searches for evidence to support it, which is completely backwards. It's like shooting an arrow at the wall and painting a bull's eye around it. God was just an explanation for ancient people who didn't have science to explain the world around them.

God don't exists!

View this argument alone.

• Is global warming manmade?
• IE or Firefox?
• Which is the best gaming console?
• Obama or Clinton?
• Was bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki justified?

• Is inter-racial marriage a good thing?
• Rate Bush as US president
• Determinism or free will?
• Should marijuana be decriminalized?
• Sex, before or after marriage?