There is a God - Argument in favor of the existence of God
The topic of God in this day and age is not only a touchy subject but one filled with much doubt and debate. According to the PEW Research Center “only about half of Millennials (adults who were born between 1981 and 1996) say they believe in God with absolute certainty, and only about four-in-ten Millennials say religion is very important in their lives” (Alper, 2015). Proving God has not always been a philosophical question. In ancient Greece, everyone believed in a God or multiple Gods and that was how the world worked. Instead of proving God they shaped their philosophy around trying to understand the world the God’s had provided them with.
It wasn’t until the birth and death of Jesus Christ that people really started to question the idea of God. After the crucifixion and “resurrection” of Christ, Jesus’ disciples founded Christianity in order to spread the word of Christ, to tell everyone that Jesus will once again be resurrected, and that once he returns all that follow him will receive salvation and enter into heaven to live an afterlife. Jesus Christ’s disciples and followers waited for what they believed would be an eminent return. Many years past however, and Jesus still had not returned. This led to the Catholic church and its bishops philosophically trying to prove the existence of God in order to safeguard their theology from scientific breakthroughs which threatened the church.
The world as of now however has put its faith into science, and is sceptical of any proof that isn’t empirical. This world has left little room for God. However, I believe that God exists. To argue this I will not rely upon empirical evidence, because it simply does not exist for this topic. While the Bible is considered to be the word of God it cannot substantially prove God’s existence. It would be begging the question if I were to do so. Rather I will argue from the ontological (metaphysical) ground that God can be proven through Anselm’s Monologion and Proslogion.
What do you think of when you imagine God? God has the characteristics of someone who is above all else; omnipotent, good, eternal, and someone or something that we exist through.God is that which nothing greater can be thought. Whether or not you believe in God, there is no greater thought than of God. Anselm believes that there are many ways to convince someone of this. The easiest way to prove God in Anselm's opinion is through goodness. He believes that everyone only wants goodness and if you are trying to find the source of goodness that “with reason leading him and him following, he will rationally advance toward those things of which he is irrationally ignorant (God)” (Anselm, Pg. 10).
Anselm begins by talking about how there are limitless good things in the world. The way that we experience these good things can be broken down into two categories. The first way that we experience good is through our senses, and the other way is through reasoning. Anselm then proposes the following questions, “are we to believe that there is some one thing through which all goods whatsoever are good? Or are different goods good through different things?” (Anselm, Pg. 10). In other words: Is there one thing that makes things good, or are there multiple things that makes something good?
When we look at good things we realize that they are different. For example, feeding a homeless man is not the same good as getting a promotion, but at the same time they are both good. They both share a certain thing and that is being good. Another way that Anselm puts it is “For whatever just things are said to be equally or more or less just by comparisons with other just things, they must be understood to be just through justice” (Anselm, Pg 10).
What Anselm means by this is that all good things must come from one source in order for all these diverse good acts to be the same and different all at once. And for all these things to be able to come from one source the source itself must be good. It wouldn’t make sense to say that the source of all good is not good itself. Thus the source must exist through itself. Why is that? Anselm's reasoning for this is that “No good that exists through another is equal to or greater than that good who is good through himself. For something is supreme if it surpasses others in such a way that it has neither peer nor superior” (Anselm, Pg. 11).
Since this thing exists through itself it becomes “supreme among all existing things” (Anselm Pg. 12). Anselm was unsure of how this is however. How can something exist through itself? It has to either to exist through or something or nothing. And it would be illogical to think that something could exist through nothing. Anselm decides that“either there is one thing, or there are several things, through which all existing things, exist” (Anselm, Pg. 12). The three possible reasons for several things are:
We have now just proven that God at least exists in the understanding. However if he exists alone in the understanding and not in reality that would make God only good. But since we cannot think of a greater thought than that of God and understand God to exist in the understanding the only thing greater thing than understanding would be that of reality. So by this logic God must exist.
While Anselm's argument for God is strong and sound, an argument against God does arise and it is “The Problem of Evil” it is still used to this day to disprove of God. There are three questions that are associated with The Problem of Evil.
Thomas believed that people didn’t commit evil just for the sake of being evil. Rather people who did evil things either didn’t see the sin, instead they saw the good or desirable qualities of what they did. According to Aquinas “No one can deliberately will evil who fully recognizes it as evil) (Soccio, Pg. 236). Unfortunately evil is a by-product of free-will. What would be the point of God commanding us if we had no choice but to follow and obey?
In order for us to be able to choose good, the choice of evil has to be a possibility. Because of free agency Aquinas suggests we aren’t “fated” and we aren’t “preordained to live out an unchangeable future that is independent of our willing” (Soccio, Pg. 236) but rather God has foreknowledge of our lives. What this means is that whatever choices we make, God foresees what will become of our own choices. Because we are free to make any choice that we want, God cannot stop it.
Why are we left to suffer? It is suggested that “God did not directly will suffering, He willed sensitive rational creatures” (Soccio, Pg. 236). The whole reason for why we have pain and suffering is so that we can have awareness. Awareness allows us to feel and love, and without suffering we would love less. If we had no suffering and no choice but to love God than it would no longer be love it would be coercion.
Take the example of two blind men. The first man is born blind, while the second one becomes temporarily blind. The man that was born blind will know only darkness (pain and suffering), he will never know the world for what it truly is. He will never see objects, colors, he won’t understand anything about it. He might grasp concepts but he will never truly know it. If love is all we ever experienced we would understand the concept but never appreciate it or want more of it. Now imagine the second man who for a time became blind. He would realize all that he had lost and would want it back. When his sight is finally restored he appreciates his sight (love) and doesn't take it for granted.
People nowadays are too quick to cast out the idea of God. This can be attributed to the overall shift in attitude in favor of science over religion. Does God exist? I would like to think so. I believe that the Ontological Argument that Anselm came up with is a solid argument for His existence. But even Anselm was unsure and did not want to reach a conclusive ending. In the first chapter of the Proslogion Anselm said “I mean only that it can seem necessary for the time being, not that it is therefore in fact altogether necessary” (Anselm, Pg. 10). If you don't believe in God that is fine. We may never know for certain, but that doesn’t mean that the idea of God is set in stone.
It wasn’t until the birth and death of Jesus Christ that people really started to question the idea of God. After the crucifixion and “resurrection” of Christ, Jesus’ disciples founded Christianity in order to spread the word of Christ, to tell everyone that Jesus will once again be resurrected, and that once he returns all that follow him will receive salvation and enter into heaven to live an afterlife. Jesus Christ’s disciples and followers waited for what they believed would be an eminent return. Many years past however, and Jesus still had not returned. This led to the Catholic church and its bishops philosophically trying to prove the existence of God in order to safeguard their theology from scientific breakthroughs which threatened the church.
The world as of now however has put its faith into science, and is sceptical of any proof that isn’t empirical. This world has left little room for God. However, I believe that God exists. To argue this I will not rely upon empirical evidence, because it simply does not exist for this topic. While the Bible is considered to be the word of God it cannot substantially prove God’s existence. It would be begging the question if I were to do so. Rather I will argue from the ontological (metaphysical) ground that God can be proven through Anselm’s Monologion and Proslogion.
What do you think of when you imagine God? God has the characteristics of someone who is above all else; omnipotent, good, eternal, and someone or something that we exist through.God is that which nothing greater can be thought. Whether or not you believe in God, there is no greater thought than of God. Anselm believes that there are many ways to convince someone of this. The easiest way to prove God in Anselm's opinion is through goodness. He believes that everyone only wants goodness and if you are trying to find the source of goodness that “with reason leading him and him following, he will rationally advance toward those things of which he is irrationally ignorant (God)” (Anselm, Pg. 10).
Anselm begins by talking about how there are limitless good things in the world. The way that we experience these good things can be broken down into two categories. The first way that we experience good is through our senses, and the other way is through reasoning. Anselm then proposes the following questions, “are we to believe that there is some one thing through which all goods whatsoever are good? Or are different goods good through different things?” (Anselm, Pg. 10). In other words: Is there one thing that makes things good, or are there multiple things that makes something good?
When we look at good things we realize that they are different. For example, feeding a homeless man is not the same good as getting a promotion, but at the same time they are both good. They both share a certain thing and that is being good. Another way that Anselm puts it is “For whatever just things are said to be equally or more or less just by comparisons with other just things, they must be understood to be just through justice” (Anselm, Pg 10).
What Anselm means by this is that all good things must come from one source in order for all these diverse good acts to be the same and different all at once. And for all these things to be able to come from one source the source itself must be good. It wouldn’t make sense to say that the source of all good is not good itself. Thus the source must exist through itself. Why is that? Anselm's reasoning for this is that “No good that exists through another is equal to or greater than that good who is good through himself. For something is supreme if it surpasses others in such a way that it has neither peer nor superior” (Anselm, Pg. 11).
Since this thing exists through itself it becomes “supreme among all existing things” (Anselm Pg. 12). Anselm was unsure of how this is however. How can something exist through itself? It has to either to exist through or something or nothing. And it would be illogical to think that something could exist through nothing. Anselm decides that“either there is one thing, or there are several things, through which all existing things, exist” (Anselm, Pg. 12). The three possible reasons for several things are:
- The several things are are traced back to one
- The several things exist through itself
- The several things exist through each other
We have now just proven that God at least exists in the understanding. However if he exists alone in the understanding and not in reality that would make God only good. But since we cannot think of a greater thought than that of God and understand God to exist in the understanding the only thing greater thing than understanding would be that of reality. So by this logic God must exist.
While Anselm's argument for God is strong and sound, an argument against God does arise and it is “The Problem of Evil” it is still used to this day to disprove of God. There are three questions that are associated with The Problem of Evil.
- If God can prevent the destructive suffering of the innocent yet chooses not to, God is not good.
- If God chooses to prevent the suffering but cannot, he is not omnipotent
- If God cannot recognize the suffering of the innocents, he is not wise
Thomas believed that people didn’t commit evil just for the sake of being evil. Rather people who did evil things either didn’t see the sin, instead they saw the good or desirable qualities of what they did. According to Aquinas “No one can deliberately will evil who fully recognizes it as evil) (Soccio, Pg. 236). Unfortunately evil is a by-product of free-will. What would be the point of God commanding us if we had no choice but to follow and obey?
In order for us to be able to choose good, the choice of evil has to be a possibility. Because of free agency Aquinas suggests we aren’t “fated” and we aren’t “preordained to live out an unchangeable future that is independent of our willing” (Soccio, Pg. 236) but rather God has foreknowledge of our lives. What this means is that whatever choices we make, God foresees what will become of our own choices. Because we are free to make any choice that we want, God cannot stop it.
Why are we left to suffer? It is suggested that “God did not directly will suffering, He willed sensitive rational creatures” (Soccio, Pg. 236). The whole reason for why we have pain and suffering is so that we can have awareness. Awareness allows us to feel and love, and without suffering we would love less. If we had no suffering and no choice but to love God than it would no longer be love it would be coercion.
Take the example of two blind men. The first man is born blind, while the second one becomes temporarily blind. The man that was born blind will know only darkness (pain and suffering), he will never know the world for what it truly is. He will never see objects, colors, he won’t understand anything about it. He might grasp concepts but he will never truly know it. If love is all we ever experienced we would understand the concept but never appreciate it or want more of it. Now imagine the second man who for a time became blind. He would realize all that he had lost and would want it back. When his sight is finally restored he appreciates his sight (love) and doesn't take it for granted.
People nowadays are too quick to cast out the idea of God. This can be attributed to the overall shift in attitude in favor of science over religion. Does God exist? I would like to think so. I believe that the Ontological Argument that Anselm came up with is a solid argument for His existence. But even Anselm was unsure and did not want to reach a conclusive ending. In the first chapter of the Proslogion Anselm said “I mean only that it can seem necessary for the time being, not that it is therefore in fact altogether necessary” (Anselm, Pg. 10). If you don't believe in God that is fine. We may never know for certain, but that doesn’t mean that the idea of God is set in stone.
Reflection
Going into this term I wasn’t expecting too much from philosophy. And to be quite honest I had no idea what philosophy was. Then on the first day my professor Andrew Israelsen described philosophy as the love of wisdom, and it began to make sense to me. To pick just one idea that piqued my interest I feel like would be a disservice to all the other ideas that I learned about. Every one of them was so fascinating to me, and I honestly could and probably will go more in depth into each one of them.
I remember growing up I would always ask deep questions about this world with no way of answering them. I would ask questions such as “does God exist?” or “Am I real?” and for a lot of these questions I have received answers close to what I had asked. Every time an idea was presented it reminded me of my childhood and my curiosity to know more about this world. I feel as though I have always been this way, knowledge is something that I strive for. The reason I go to college is not just to obtain a degree, but to learn and understand this world. I know too many people who are just contempt where they are at in life. They don’t push themselves or care to learn anything more than what they already know. I have never understood why they think that way, I could never do that to myself. What is the point of this life if we don’t learn all that we can?
If I had to choose an idea that impacted me the most I would have to choose the idea of free-will and determinism. I never had given thought to such an idea before it was presented to me. To me it just seemed as though it were a no-brainer, of course we are free to do what we want, of course we are in control of our fate. But with each argument made against it, the more and more I started to believe that this world does follow a set of laws just like the law of gravity. I find it so interesting that something that you might never think of is brought up in such a meaningful debate. It is cool to me the way that human being’s minds can formulate such wonderful ideas out of nowhere.
As for the philosopher that impacted me the most I would have to go with Socrates. Socrates loved Athens and knowledge so much that he dedicated his life to the improvement of both. While Socrates had such a brilliant mind he was never stating his ideas, but rather questioning everyone else’s to help both find true wisdom. He lived his life by his philosophy and never strayed away from it even if it cost him his life. Ever since I read about the man of Socrates I wanted nothing more but to emulate his greatness. I think that we need to live life more like Socrates, enjoy life in moderation, to not believe that we know anything, and never stop asking questions until we find some sort of it.
I am so glad that I made the choice to take this class, not only has it helped me to think critically but it has ignited my fire to obtain wisdom. I now know that I can rely upon the teachings of the greatest human minds to get me through life. But most importantly I have found a subject that I truly love to learn about.
I remember growing up I would always ask deep questions about this world with no way of answering them. I would ask questions such as “does God exist?” or “Am I real?” and for a lot of these questions I have received answers close to what I had asked. Every time an idea was presented it reminded me of my childhood and my curiosity to know more about this world. I feel as though I have always been this way, knowledge is something that I strive for. The reason I go to college is not just to obtain a degree, but to learn and understand this world. I know too many people who are just contempt where they are at in life. They don’t push themselves or care to learn anything more than what they already know. I have never understood why they think that way, I could never do that to myself. What is the point of this life if we don’t learn all that we can?
If I had to choose an idea that impacted me the most I would have to choose the idea of free-will and determinism. I never had given thought to such an idea before it was presented to me. To me it just seemed as though it were a no-brainer, of course we are free to do what we want, of course we are in control of our fate. But with each argument made against it, the more and more I started to believe that this world does follow a set of laws just like the law of gravity. I find it so interesting that something that you might never think of is brought up in such a meaningful debate. It is cool to me the way that human being’s minds can formulate such wonderful ideas out of nowhere.
As for the philosopher that impacted me the most I would have to go with Socrates. Socrates loved Athens and knowledge so much that he dedicated his life to the improvement of both. While Socrates had such a brilliant mind he was never stating his ideas, but rather questioning everyone else’s to help both find true wisdom. He lived his life by his philosophy and never strayed away from it even if it cost him his life. Ever since I read about the man of Socrates I wanted nothing more but to emulate his greatness. I think that we need to live life more like Socrates, enjoy life in moderation, to not believe that we know anything, and never stop asking questions until we find some sort of it.
I am so glad that I made the choice to take this class, not only has it helped me to think critically but it has ignited my fire to obtain wisdom. I now know that I can rely upon the teachings of the greatest human minds to get me through life. But most importantly I have found a subject that I truly love to learn about.