Argument for the Existence of God and Religion

Traditional arguments for and against the existence of God include arguments from morality, from design, cosmological arguments and ontological arguments. These arguments when addressed by counterarguments do not provide conclusive rational justification to support either existence or non-existence of God or immortality. It is possible to create a stronger argument for the existence of God by building on the arguments to address objections. However, it is difficult to present a logical proof that presents a definitive proof of the existence of God rather than a probability of God as the best explanation. Even if it is not possible to find a conclusive rational justification, it is still possible to find pragmatic reasons to justify faith. Answers necessary to maintain social stability must be given even if there is not a rational explanation available. Faith can be used to provide moral law and an explanation for the unexplained until natural law can be used to provide such an explanation. We can rationally justify the benefits of faith in society, but we cannot conclusively rationalize justification against faith. Therefore, the most intellectually virtuous action may be to allow ideas we know to be good for our society and its members.

The problem of evil has been presented as an argument against the existence of God. Basically stated, a very good, knowledgeable, and powerful God would act to correct evil, but evil exists so God cannot exist. Four refutations can be presented for this argument. The first is denial of evil. However, bad things do happen and aid against evil is an important aspect of most religions. The second is that adversity builds character. However, if evil results in death it does not result in building character, and evil can destroy character. The third refutation is the argument that God has given humans free will, thus evil must exist so humans can decide between good and evil. The first counter argument states that God would or should step in when the magnitude of free will creates great evil. The second counter argument notes that free will fails to address natural disasters. Gottfried Leibnitz presents the fourth refutation, that all evil will be conductive to the greater good. The argument stands logically, but may be seen as wishful thinking by those who do not see this as the best of all possible worlds. (As a side note, this argument depends on a specific conception of God, and is weakened by the fact the claim made concerning how God would and should act is not substantiated; if existence of a God cannot be proven, the nature of God also cannot be proven).

F.C. Copleston argues that humans have conscience because we are aware of moral law from God, therefore God must exist. However this argument is circular because conscience is the product of the creator but the product of conscience attributed to the creator defines the creator. This does not prove that conscience comes from God, but implies God as the best explanation. Kant believed that moral laws were determined through reason. A summary of Immanuel Kant’s argument from morality states that for the human need to strive for the highest good (happiness in proportion to virtue) to be meaningful, God must exist to provide means to that end because moral law cannot. However, this argument is also circular because meeting the need for highest good requires the existence of God, and the existence of God requires that humans can meet the need of the highest good. Russell argues that under utilitarianism the existence of God is irrelevant as right and wrong is instead derived from human ideals, desires and needs. Under utilitarianism morality is derived by desire to do actions that produce happiness and to avoid actions that produce pain.

In Natural Theology, William Paley presents the argument for the existence of God from design. Paley presents an analogy between the world and a watch, an object created by humans. The complexity of the object leads one to believe that it was created by an intelligent human mind. Likewise the complexity and order of the world suggests that an intelligent force, or God, created the world. David Hume and Immanuel Kant present objections stating that the universe seems to be designed because a universe would not be able to exist or function without the presence of order, but Paley’s argument does not prove that God is the only possible explanation for source of order. The argument merely presents a best explanation, which may not be correct. Hume and Kant also both object to the argument because it merely makes inference to an intelligent architect of the world but offers no grounds to justify an infinite, perfect, and unified creator with traditional Judeo-Christian attributes. In addition to these arguments, Hume suggests that the universe will seem designed to some level because a universe would not be able to exists or function without order. Hume also notes that the design argument relies on analogy. Analogy to natural objects cannot be made because natural objects are part of creation. Analogy may be made between the world and human made objects, but the analogy is weak.

Anselm and Rene Descartes present ontological arguments for the existence of God. The basis of Anselm’s argument is that a being understood as perfect would not be truly perfect if it did not exist in reality. Because it is perfect it must exist either in reality as well as understanding or not exist in either understanding or reality. Since it does exist in understanding it must also exist in reality. Ganillo claims the argument is invalid because it could be applied to and understood concept such as a perfect island. Anselm emphasizes the uniqueness of God as a distinction. While not stated in such terms Anselm essentially implies that God is a necessary being rather than a contingent being. Descartes bypasses the need for perfection and focuses on God’s existence. He states that an object of thought has every property that one clearly and distinctly perceives it to have. As God is an object of thought that he clearly and distinctly perceives has eternal existence, God must have eternal existence. Kant objects to the argument on the grounds that existence is a different sort of property of an object than the others that Descartes claims, and being is not a real predicate. Existence is a property of an object, not a separate concept. When trying to prove existence it is invalid to use being or existence because it implies a real corresponding object. If object exists that is God then God exists necessarily. God might not exist even if we know what God would be like if he exists. Being by using words cannot be a part of the concept of anything, including God.

In his Five Ways, Thomas Aquinas presents several versions of the cosmological argument. The first version states that since all objects are created by prior causes and there cannot be an infinite regression of causes there must be a first cause, or God. Immanuel Kant objects to the first argument on the grounds that it does not contain the idea of ens realissimum or a self-caused necessary being. Aquinas’ second argument addressed these concerns. In the second version Aquinas argues all contingent beings at some point did not exist. Because contingent beings must be given existence for any future existence to occur there must be necessary beings. Necessary beings may be self-caused or by other necessary beings, but since there cannot be an infinite regression of necessary beings there must be a self-caused necessary being, or God. Bertrand Russell objects to Aquinas’ argument, but he presents a false argument because he defines “necessary” in a different context than was presented by Aquinas. F.C. Copleston extends Aquinas’ argument by noting that there cannot be infinite regression of causes without rendering the universe inexplicable. Russell counters with the argument that the universe can be and IS inexplicable. It is possible to reformulate and expand a stronger version of Thomas Aquinas’s second cosmological argument (and Coppleston’s addendum) looking specifically at the concept of infinity as an implication of natural law. Necessary beings may be self-caused or by other necessary beings, but since there cannot be an infinite regression of necessary beings, and by Copelston’s extension there cannot be infinite regression of causes without rendering the universe inexplicable, there must be a self-caused necessary being, or God.

As an implication of natural law the universe is ordered and possesses many examples of finite structures. Plants and animals are composed of whole cells. It is possible to go within cells to cellular component, molecular and atomic, and even sub-atomic levels but a cell is the smallest unit of the plant or animal that retains definition as the organism. An ice crystal can only be divided to a single molecule of water, breaking it down further it would become hydrogen and oxygen atoms and not longer would be water. Atoms are the smallest unit of a substance that retains the properties of matter. Scientists have proven that the universe does not occupy infinite space but is a given size. The big bang theory has been proposed as an alternate theoretical origin point, but still fails to address the origin of matter. Mathematics presents zero as an origin point via the concept of natural numbers and the concept of an origin geometrically via the Cartesian plane. The natural law of conservation of mass and energy states that there cannot be an infinite amount of combined mass and energy because the total amount of combined mass and energy in the universe can never be created nor destroyed. Natural law accounts for the concept of uncountable and incomprehensibly large or small amounts of numbers, but while there are many examples within natural law to dispute the concept of infinity there are no pure examples existing in natural law that support infinity. Thus, natural law gives us the most likely inference that systems do have a finite or discrete nature and infinity probably does not exist. If infinity does not exist as implied by natural law, then Aquinas’ hypothesis is correct. Therefore God exists. As an aside, supposing that infinity DOES exist, it does so in conflict with natural law, implying that infinity is a Type-A miracle, which also implies the existence of God. This argument is an improvement to the Aquinas’ original argument and other approaches in proving God’s existence presented in the lessons. However it relies on best explanation rather than proof, and expanded scientific information could disprove the theory. The argument only implies the best explanation of the existence of a creator God, but does not prove anything regarding the nature of God.

Other than pointing to non-observability, the existence of God has not been disproven. Calling something false because it is unobservable can be shown to have misled progress. This issue is not limited to religion, but can also be demonstrated in science. The notion of a subatomic particle was widely discredited because it was not observable. Because some scientists viewed quarks as a best possible explanation for certain phenomena, however, they were able to continue theorization and discussion of a topic that, in the end, was proven true, while strict believers in observational deduction may never have discovered this truth.

Because at this point we do not have rational justification for or against the key concepts of faith, it is useful for us to look at the work of William James. James offers us the notion of a genuine option. A genuine option is one that is living, forced, and momentous. By living we mean that there are two or more believable arguments. Because we have neither conclusive justification for or against the concepts of faith, the option is living. By forced we mean that a decision must be made, and if not made will result in a default decision. Even if one does not choose to disbelieve, if they do not choose to believe in the concepts of God and immortality then they do not believe in these concepts. By momentous we mean that the option is significant, timely, and irreversible. Because we have two believable options one of which (belief in) establishes momentous criteria, then the option as a whole must be considered momentous. In his defense of fideism, James tells us that when we do have this kind of genuine option it is not only acceptable to consider passional or pragmatic arguments, but that it is the only argument left for us. So now we consider these arguments.

Even if it is not possible to find a rational justification it is still possible to find pragmatic reasons to justify faith. When matters of human need are not addressed, it becomes difficult, if not impossible, for progression to occur. Thus answers necessary to maintain social stability must be given even if there is not a rational explanation available. Faith can be used to provide moral law an explanation for the unexplained until natural law can be used to provide such an explanation. Aquinas argues that is a society of limited intellectual and rational resources it is necessary to use faith as a way to speed the progress of society. Freud adds to this that for our society to resolve its natural, personal, and social angsts some form of explanation for the behaviors of this world is necessary for psychological health. Mill clarifies this by pointing out the human need for some greater thing to comfort and inspire us. Also while he gives alternatives, he does acknowledge that religion can be one way of establishing moral law. In the context of this pragmatic evidence we must ask ourselves if it can be intellectually virtuous to use these pragmatic reasons.

Intellectual virtue places value on forming an unbiased conclusion based on rational evidence. Specific arguments have not given us the ability to form a rational conclusion about the existence or non-existence of God or immortality, but evidence may point toward the existence of God as a best possible explanation. On the other hand, it can be seen that providing answers to these questions is important to a society or individual’s ability to feel safe, to progress, and to grow. It seems intellectually virtuous that if we can rationalize a benefit to society from things that cannot yet be rationally be justified it would be best to use these things until specific better solutions are found. This is consistent to the idea that we must hold true to those things we can intellectually justify. That is, the benefits of faith. If we can rationally justify the benefits of faith in society but we cannot conclusively rationalize justification against faith, then the most intellectually virtuous action may be to allow those ideas we know to be good for our society and its members. Cohen, Russell, and Freud might claim that religion can create harm in society. Unfortunately there are many examples where religion has been misused for socially destructive ends, but it can just as reasonably be shown to create good. In the context of utilitarianism, this can be used to guide the use of religion towards socially productive ends. It could even be implied that if Mill’s religion of humanity were to be used as a model for the government of a faith-driven society it might be possible to deter the misuses pointed out by Russell and Cohen, while still providing a forum by which new discoveries and justifications can also further society.