Human beings, who are naturally restricted in their perception, might never be able to perceive God’s existence as a whole, nor might they even prove it indubitably. However, there are several arguments that make life difficult for those who deny God’s existence.
In the ancient world, many attempts were made to prove God’s existence. Aristotle argued that there is a first cause that itself does not have a cause. He named it the ‘unmoved mover’ or the ‘initial unmoved moving cause’. He argued in favour of a divine mover by saying that, if all substance was transient, everything else must be transient, too. Time and change itself, however, are not transient (Phys. VIII 1, 251a8-252b6; Met. XII 6, 1071b6-10).
According to Aristotle, there is only one movement that can be eternal: the circular movement (Phys. VIII 8–10; Met. XII 6,1071b11). Therefore, the unmoved mover moves “as a beloved one”, as a target (Met. XII 7, 1072b3), because the desired, the imagined and the beloved can move without being moved itself (Met. XII 7, 1072a26). As He is non-physical reason (nous), and the act of thinking about the best subject is his primary concern, He thinks himself, i.e. “thinking the thinking” (noêsis noêseôs) (Met. XII 9, 1074b34f.). As only living subjects can think, He must be a living thing. This unmoved mover must be God (Met. XII 7, 1072b23ff.).
In the ancient world, many attempts were made to prove God’s existence. Aristotle argued that there is a first cause that itself does not have a cause. He named it the ‘unmoved mover’ or the ‘initial unmoved moving cause’. He argued in favour of a divine mover by saying that, if all substance was transient, everything else must be transient, too. Time and change itself, however, are not transient (Phys. VIII 1, 251a8-252b6; Met. XII 6, 1071b6-10).
According to Aristotle, there is only one movement that can be eternal: the circular movement (Phys. VIII 8–10; Met. XII 6,1071b11). Therefore, the unmoved mover moves “as a beloved one”, as a target (Met. XII 7, 1072b3), because the desired, the imagined and the beloved can move without being moved itself (Met. XII 7, 1072a26). As He is non-physical reason (nous), and the act of thinking about the best subject is his primary concern, He thinks himself, i.e. “thinking the thinking” (noêsis noêseôs) (Met. XII 9, 1074b34f.). As only living subjects can think, He must be a living thing. This unmoved mover must be God (Met. XII 7, 1072b23ff.).
Anaximander considered the search for the nature of the origin of existence and the arché (αρχή), the prime substance from which existence was derived, as being the basic problem. The beginning or first principle is an endless, indefinite mass (apeiron), subject to neither old age nor decay, which perpetually yields fresh materials from which everything which we can perceive is derived. Its origin is the unlimited. There is some kind of eternal nature ruling things in the visible world. The apeiron (άπειρον, ‘the indefinite’) is the most extensive and most including. It is the principle of being things from which the worlds and their natural order were derived. From here, everything originates and everything ceases to be. That is why there is an unlimited number of worlds that come into existence and die away, returning to where they came from, repeatedly. Time is inherent, because origin, existence, and passing away are well separated. The indefinite must be source and the nature of existence. Movement is eternal and produces the worlds. Creation and passing away will continue as long as the source is unlimited.
Anaximander maintained that all dying things are returning to the element from which they came (apeiron). The one surviving fragment of Anaximander's writing deals with this matter. Simplicius (Comments on Aristotle's Physics 24, 13; see wikipedia) transmitted it as a quotation, which describes the balanced and mutual changes of the elements:
Whence things have their origin,
Thence also their destruction happens,
According to necessity;
For they give to each other justice and recompense
For their injustice
In conformity with the ordinance of Time.
This passage is often considered as the ‘first phrase’ of philosophy. Its main point seems to be the necessity of creation and deterioration. It obviously refers to the perpetual alteration of opposed forces or shapes and its basic idea seems to be the continual exchange between opposed shapes, as in nature, in which movement and change are common phenomena. Anaximander sees those things as natural causes to which all living beings are submitted. Whatever exists in cosmos is submitted to change and modification, as one thing takes another thing’s place and, after life, there is death and vice versa.
Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274), a scholasticist and renowned philosopher, devoted himself to the question of God’s existence. He saw philosophy as the basis of theology. In the Summa Theologica, he considered in great detail five reasons for the existence of God. These are widely known as the quinquae viae, or the ‘Five Ways’, as follows:
The argument of the unmoved mover, or ex motu, tries to explain that God must be the cause of motion in the universe. It is, therefore, a form of the cosmological argument. Some things are moved and everything that is moving is moved by a mover. An infinite regress of movers is impossible. Therefore, there is an unmoved mover from whom all motion proceeds. This mover is what we call God.
The argument of the first cause (ex causa), says that God must have been the cause, or the creator of the universe. Some things are caused and everything that is caused is caused by something else. An infinite regress of causation is impossible. Therefore, there must be an uncaused cause of all that is caused. This causer is what we call God.
The argument from contingency (ex contingentia) claims that many things in the universe may either exist or not exist. Such things are called contingent beings. It is impossible for everything in the universe to be contingent, for then there would be a time when nothing existed, and so nothing would exist now, since there would be nothing to bring anything into existence, which is clearly false. Therefore, there must be a necessary being whose existence is not contingent on any other being or beings. This being is whom we call God.
The argument from degree or gradation (ex gradu) is heavily based upon the teachings of the ancient Greek philosopher Plato. According to this argument, varying perfection of varying degrees may be found throughout the universe. These degrees assume the existence of an ultimate standard of perfection. Therefore, perfection must have a pinnacle. This pinnacle is whom we call God.
The teleological argument or argument of ‘design’ (ex fine) claims that everything in the universe has a purpose, which must have been caused by God: All natural bodies in the world act toward ends. These objects are in themselves unintelligent. Acting toward an end is characteristic of intelligence. Therefore, there exists an intelligent being that guides all natural bodies toward their ends. This being is whom we call God.
Anselm of Canterbury (1033-1109), in his work Proslogion, put forward a proof of the existence of God known as the ontological argument. Anselm defined his belief in the existence of God using the phrase “that than which nothing greater can be conceived”. He reasoned that, if “that than which nothing greater can be conceived” existed only in the intellect, it would not be “that than which nothing greater can be conceived”, since it can be thought to exist in reality, which is greater. It follows, according to Anselm, that "that than which nothing greater can be conceived" must exist in reality.
Among others, Thomas Aquinas criticised Anselm by saying that God must be much bigger than anything humans can think of. Although the ontological argument might be controversial, it is nevertheless a milestone in theology.
Modern Age philosopher René Descartes (1596-1650), who also figures as an ontologian, sets another milestone by his famous philosophical statement “Cogito ergo sum” (French: Je pense, donc je suis; English: I think, therefore I am; or I am thinking, therefore I exist). If “I” exist, somebody must have created me and this one might be superior so that it could only be God, whose existence is the logical outcome of this argument.
In 1440, another great European philosopher, known as Nicholas of Kues, wrote one of his major works De Docta Ignorantia (Of Learned Ignorance) in which he proposed the theorem “coincidentia oppositorum”, the coincidence of opposites within God, a key statement of his vision of God.
The absolute largest thing of all is reality, as it is everything that it can be. Since it is just whatever it may be, it can not be bigger and, for the same reason, not even smaller. The tiniest, however, is that beyond which nothing can be smaller and, as the greatest thing is of the same species, it is clear that the tiniest thing coincides with the largest (Nikolaus von Kues, Philosophisch-Theologische Schriften, Wien 1964, S. 205; translation by author).
For catholic theologian and philosopher Robert Spaemann, faith in God is the “immortal rumour”. His argumentation about the question of God connects with Friedrich Nietzsche, who once wrote: “We won’t get rid of God, I’m afraid, because we still believe in grammar.” Following structures as in the grammar of language, that reclaim some kind of superior sense or meaning, we understand that the world has been following logical principles. As a precondition, men must be able to recognise the truth and see God’s traces in the world. His biggest trace is men itself. However, this trace only exists if men agree instead of seeing themselves as some kind of machines who just simply spread their genetic material over the world and who gained logical reason as an outcome of evolutionary adaptation. Nevertheless, God exists independently from men’s perception. Spaemann’s ultimate evidence for the existence of God is the grammatical argument of God’s existence, which he believes resists even Nietzsche’s theories:
“The Futurum Exactum, the second future tense, is necessarily bound to the present tense. Claiming that something takes place now, also means that it is the past of the future. Therefore, all truth is eternal. It is true that on the evening of December 6th, 2004 many people gathered in the philosophical academy in Munich in order to attend a lecture on logical reasoning and faith in God. It is not only true on this evening, but forever. If we are here today, we will have been here tomorrow. The present remains true and real as the past of the current present. But what is the nature is this reality? One might say, through the traces it leaves due to its causal impression. However, these traces will cease through time. And they are traces only if the original event will be remembered” (“Der Gottesbeweis” In: Die Welt vom 25.03.2005; translation by author).
However, memory might stop one day in the future and so may earth cease to exist. But in the future past, there must be some kind of earlier present now, being the past of the current present. If there is no present, then there is no past and the futurum exactum would have no meaning. It that case, it would be false that, on December 6th, 2004, many people gathered in the philosophical academy in Munich in order to attend a lecture. This would be nonsense, of course, because in this case the lecture had never taken place and reality as seen by the audience was false. The only way to solve this inconsistency is to assume that there is some absolute consciousness in which everything happens that is past and in which the eternal truth is true forever. This must inevitably be God.
Anaximander maintained that all dying things are returning to the element from which they came (apeiron). The one surviving fragment of Anaximander's writing deals with this matter. Simplicius (Comments on Aristotle's Physics 24, 13; see wikipedia) transmitted it as a quotation, which describes the balanced and mutual changes of the elements:
Whence things have their origin,
Thence also their destruction happens,
According to necessity;
For they give to each other justice and recompense
For their injustice
In conformity with the ordinance of Time.
This passage is often considered as the ‘first phrase’ of philosophy. Its main point seems to be the necessity of creation and deterioration. It obviously refers to the perpetual alteration of opposed forces or shapes and its basic idea seems to be the continual exchange between opposed shapes, as in nature, in which movement and change are common phenomena. Anaximander sees those things as natural causes to which all living beings are submitted. Whatever exists in cosmos is submitted to change and modification, as one thing takes another thing’s place and, after life, there is death and vice versa.
Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274), a scholasticist and renowned philosopher, devoted himself to the question of God’s existence. He saw philosophy as the basis of theology. In the Summa Theologica, he considered in great detail five reasons for the existence of God. These are widely known as the quinquae viae, or the ‘Five Ways’, as follows:
The argument of the unmoved mover, or ex motu, tries to explain that God must be the cause of motion in the universe. It is, therefore, a form of the cosmological argument. Some things are moved and everything that is moving is moved by a mover. An infinite regress of movers is impossible. Therefore, there is an unmoved mover from whom all motion proceeds. This mover is what we call God.
The argument of the first cause (ex causa), says that God must have been the cause, or the creator of the universe. Some things are caused and everything that is caused is caused by something else. An infinite regress of causation is impossible. Therefore, there must be an uncaused cause of all that is caused. This causer is what we call God.
The argument from contingency (ex contingentia) claims that many things in the universe may either exist or not exist. Such things are called contingent beings. It is impossible for everything in the universe to be contingent, for then there would be a time when nothing existed, and so nothing would exist now, since there would be nothing to bring anything into existence, which is clearly false. Therefore, there must be a necessary being whose existence is not contingent on any other being or beings. This being is whom we call God.
The argument from degree or gradation (ex gradu) is heavily based upon the teachings of the ancient Greek philosopher Plato. According to this argument, varying perfection of varying degrees may be found throughout the universe. These degrees assume the existence of an ultimate standard of perfection. Therefore, perfection must have a pinnacle. This pinnacle is whom we call God.
The teleological argument or argument of ‘design’ (ex fine) claims that everything in the universe has a purpose, which must have been caused by God: All natural bodies in the world act toward ends. These objects are in themselves unintelligent. Acting toward an end is characteristic of intelligence. Therefore, there exists an intelligent being that guides all natural bodies toward their ends. This being is whom we call God.
Anselm of Canterbury (1033-1109), in his work Proslogion, put forward a proof of the existence of God known as the ontological argument. Anselm defined his belief in the existence of God using the phrase “that than which nothing greater can be conceived”. He reasoned that, if “that than which nothing greater can be conceived” existed only in the intellect, it would not be “that than which nothing greater can be conceived”, since it can be thought to exist in reality, which is greater. It follows, according to Anselm, that "that than which nothing greater can be conceived" must exist in reality.
Among others, Thomas Aquinas criticised Anselm by saying that God must be much bigger than anything humans can think of. Although the ontological argument might be controversial, it is nevertheless a milestone in theology.
Modern Age philosopher René Descartes (1596-1650), who also figures as an ontologian, sets another milestone by his famous philosophical statement “Cogito ergo sum” (French: Je pense, donc je suis; English: I think, therefore I am; or I am thinking, therefore I exist). If “I” exist, somebody must have created me and this one might be superior so that it could only be God, whose existence is the logical outcome of this argument.
In 1440, another great European philosopher, known as Nicholas of Kues, wrote one of his major works De Docta Ignorantia (Of Learned Ignorance) in which he proposed the theorem “coincidentia oppositorum”, the coincidence of opposites within God, a key statement of his vision of God.
The absolute largest thing of all is reality, as it is everything that it can be. Since it is just whatever it may be, it can not be bigger and, for the same reason, not even smaller. The tiniest, however, is that beyond which nothing can be smaller and, as the greatest thing is of the same species, it is clear that the tiniest thing coincides with the largest (Nikolaus von Kues, Philosophisch-Theologische Schriften, Wien 1964, S. 205; translation by author).
For catholic theologian and philosopher Robert Spaemann, faith in God is the “immortal rumour”. His argumentation about the question of God connects with Friedrich Nietzsche, who once wrote: “We won’t get rid of God, I’m afraid, because we still believe in grammar.” Following structures as in the grammar of language, that reclaim some kind of superior sense or meaning, we understand that the world has been following logical principles. As a precondition, men must be able to recognise the truth and see God’s traces in the world. His biggest trace is men itself. However, this trace only exists if men agree instead of seeing themselves as some kind of machines who just simply spread their genetic material over the world and who gained logical reason as an outcome of evolutionary adaptation. Nevertheless, God exists independently from men’s perception. Spaemann’s ultimate evidence for the existence of God is the grammatical argument of God’s existence, which he believes resists even Nietzsche’s theories:
“The Futurum Exactum, the second future tense, is necessarily bound to the present tense. Claiming that something takes place now, also means that it is the past of the future. Therefore, all truth is eternal. It is true that on the evening of December 6th, 2004 many people gathered in the philosophical academy in Munich in order to attend a lecture on logical reasoning and faith in God. It is not only true on this evening, but forever. If we are here today, we will have been here tomorrow. The present remains true and real as the past of the current present. But what is the nature is this reality? One might say, through the traces it leaves due to its causal impression. However, these traces will cease through time. And they are traces only if the original event will be remembered” (“Der Gottesbeweis” In: Die Welt vom 25.03.2005; translation by author).
However, memory might stop one day in the future and so may earth cease to exist. But in the future past, there must be some kind of earlier present now, being the past of the current present. If there is no present, then there is no past and the futurum exactum would have no meaning. It that case, it would be false that, on December 6th, 2004, many people gathered in the philosophical academy in Munich in order to attend a lecture. This would be nonsense, of course, because in this case the lecture had never taken place and reality as seen by the audience was false. The only way to solve this inconsistency is to assume that there is some absolute consciousness in which everything happens that is past and in which the eternal truth is true forever. This must inevitably be God.
Modern scientists, e.g. Helmut Hansen in his essay “Die Signatur Gottes - Ein moderner Gottesbeweis” (was available under: http://helmuthansen.bei.t-online.de/gott/), claim that it might be possible to verify God’s existence empirically. According to today’s opinion, theologians and philosophers of the past, including Nicholas of Kues, mainly ignored the chance to provide conclusive proof of God’s existence. Immanuel Kant’s evidence has to be empirical in order to be acceptable, or at least must consider the perceptible world. However, if God and the world, as creator and creation, should be seen in concordance with each other, then the world must possess certain structures. This inherent worldly structure must coincide with those that are generally associated with God. Traditionally, God is associated with those typical “omni-” characteristics, e.g. omnipotence, omniscience, or omnipresence. Helmut Hansen writes in his 2002 net article:
“If God’s creation, or – using the modern term – the ‘physical universe’, is the visible expression of those omni-characteristics in one way or another, then its consistent and coherent structure must correspond to them in some way or another. If one could determine precisely this almost divine structure theoretically, then, according to scientific thinking, one could verify whether the universe which we consider real possesses such a theologically and theoretically precise structure or not.
So it could be possible to achieve a new level of evidence for the existence of God of which up to the present one could only dream about, even after more than 2000 years of thinking. As those omni-characteristics associated with God are of transcendental nature and therefore placed outside of the empirical world, there is no understanding about how and how far those omni-characteristics communicate with our visible world.”
“If God’s creation, or – using the modern term – the ‘physical universe’, is the visible expression of those omni-characteristics in one way or another, then its consistent and coherent structure must correspond to them in some way or another. If one could determine precisely this almost divine structure theoretically, then, according to scientific thinking, one could verify whether the universe which we consider real possesses such a theologically and theoretically precise structure or not.
So it could be possible to achieve a new level of evidence for the existence of God of which up to the present one could only dream about, even after more than 2000 years of thinking. As those omni-characteristics associated with God are of transcendental nature and therefore placed outside of the empirical world, there is no understanding about how and how far those omni-characteristics communicate with our visible world.”
No comments:
Post a Comment