Does God Exist

Does God exist? That is the question. There are three possible answers: Yes, God does exist; No, God does not exist; and lastly, I don’t know if He exists (i.e. maybe).

An argument, which is circular and needs to be avoided is: I believe in God because the Bible tells me so. Why do you believe in the bible? Because it’s God’s Word. How do you know its God’s Word? Because God told me so.

You can see how weak that type of reasoning is. This does not mean we cannot glean anything from Scripture in trying to prove God’s existence. We can use Scripture to help us but we must also employ reason, intellect, and sound judgment when discerning the “is there a God?” question. There is an old saying, “Faith without reason is superstition, and reason without faith is dead.” (The saying is derived from Albert Einstein’s notion of religion and science working harmoniously.)

First we will look at the Atheist position/premise. An atheist is someone who believes or claims, “God does not exist.” One usually draws this conclusion by pointing out seeming discrepancies in Sacred Scripture or religious corruption, particularly that of religious institutions, deducing that science is the best explanation for our existence, i.e. science proves there is no God. There are probably other factors that lead one to the conclusion that there is no God and many times these are very personal and usually centered on morality.

The atheist is in a very precarious position since he must prove a negative: for example, I will prove that I did not lie, cheat, or steal, etc. Proving negatives are difficult since no action has occurred, (i.e. I did not do it, meaning the action does not exist, as opposed to I did do it, where the action does exist). The greater dilemma is that when an atheist states, “There is no God”, he is declaring an absolute. The problem here is that the atheist cannot believe in absolutes, since there are no absolutes. Allow me to explain.

In the Judeo-Christian tradition, influenced by ancient Greek philosophy, there are absolutes: something that is good is always good, and that which is evil is always evil, regardless of an individual’s opinion. Let us take an extreme example. Murder is always wrong for it is an evil action. It violates justice, that which I owe my neighbor for the simple reason that he is a human being and deserves the respect and dignity of his person. If I murder him, I have violated justice. It does not matter if I believe murder to be good or if society begins to shift its opinion – it will always be wrong, a moral absolute. The atheist cannot defend the evil of murder through absolutes since he does not believe in them. He must therefore tweak the reasoning on the morality of murder according to the norms of society. We decide good and evil. The major difficulty here is what happens when society does not judge well? And who does society think it is anyway telling me what is right or wrong. Am I not the captain of my own destiny? Am I not my own arbiter of what is good or bad for me? Since there are no absolutes, don’t you dare tread on me. Unless there are absolutes!

The issue at hand is that the atheist violates the principle of contradiction, which basically states a thing cannot both be and not be at the same time. On the one hand, the atheist claims there is no God (to be) and yet there are no absolutes (to not be). Reason and logic are violated. By his own premise the atheist contradicts himself. The principle itself is an absolute, i.e. A is A and not B, because B is B and not A. Logic 101.

Some will argue that absolutes, especially in morality, are much more fluid than rigid, and that is true. Every act has circumstances (did you steal the food because your children were starving or because you did not want to pay for the food?). Circumstances must be measured to determine culpability or, if the act was good, the reward. It does not, however, take away objective reasoning in determining if an act is good or evil.

Back to our point, however, about atheists. They will sometimes point out discrepancies in Scripture, the mingling of other cultures’ stories and myths which have influenced the bible, etc. One thing they ignore is this – in every culture, in every part of history, no matter where or when, people in one way or another have looked to something greater than themselves. Also, these people always seemed to be sacrificing in one way or another for their transgressions and to appease the gods. I ask, “Why would they all do this?” Is it by chance? Is it because we share one common beginning and therefore the original story passed down has reached us and helps explain the similarities shared between cultures and history? Or is it that God himself has given us a natural instinct or desire to search him out, regardless of our origin? In some ways, it’s all of the above. To be clear, Scripture is not to be read like a police report; it is a work of theology, written in a certain time, influenced by its own culture, time, and place, and it contains theological Truth. Its history is true but it does not contain every iota of what happened, painting a picture from point A to point B in a nice linear line. The authors were not so much concerned with that type of data. Rather their concern was passing on Sacred Truth which was the same in the past, now, and forever.

There is also Aristotelian logic that St. Thomas Aquinas used to prove God’s existence. St. Thomas in his Summa Theologica gave 12 proofs for God. One of the more famous ones is cause and effect. Nothing can put itself into motion – a match cannot light unless someone strikes it. Also, a human being cannot come into existence on his own – he needs parents. The logic here is two-fold: there cannot be infinite cause and effect; and something cannot come from nothing.

Let’s take human generation as an example. I came to be through my parents. I am the effect, and they were the cause. I know they are also the effect of their parents, who were their cause, going all the way back to the beginning, whatever and whenever that was/is. That chain of events did not start on its own; it was put into motion. Hence, there had to be a first cause. Does it make sense that a baby can come from nothing? No it does not - it needs parents. That whole process had to start somewhere. There cannot be infinite cause and effect, an eternal chain of events without a beginning point. It could not have always been since everything I observe is put into motion, nothing starts itself, therefore it cannot be eternally in motion, except for God – the First cause, or the primary mover of everything, but who himself as Aristotle and St. Thomas called Him, the Unmoved Mover, hence the question, the chicken and the egg, which came first? It does not matter, what does matter is that they did not appear out of thin air.

The atheist will usually argue that all of the above is a construct of the mind, just ideas – nothing more, therefore not real or at least not proofs for God. If that is the case then so, too, is the idea/statement that God does not exist. Again, the atheist defies his own reason in claiming there is no God. The atheist is asking me to live in a world of chaos, one that defies logic and yet at the same time they look to science and reason for the answers in declaring that God does not exist.

Usually the biggest problem for atheists is due to moral issues or the corruption in religious intuitions. If one is atheist, what is their moral standard? Who sets the bar, and what if you don’t agree with society? As far as religious corruption, that should have no bearing on whether God exists or not, since that kind of argument is based on feelings. I admit there will always be corruption, not only in religious intuitions, but even among atheists as well. It is true when the Church does not live up to the bar it causes scandal, but God’s existence does not rely on whether we are good or bad.

The deeper question is, “How did one become an atheist and why?” Usually not because they have a bone to pick with St. Thomas Aquinas, logic, or sound judgment, but usually because of some moral dilemma, growing tired of old-time religion, therefore replacing God with science – since science does not judge.

There are also agnostics who do not answer the question of God’s existence, but simply respond, “I don’t know if He exists or not.” We’ll look at that at a later time.

Christians must logically and scripturally defend the position that God exists. We can make good arguments to that effect. I must note, however, proving God’s existence is one thing, but the more important thing is being in relationship with Him. God is the Unmoved Mover, but more importantly He is my Father, and isn’t it absolutely incredible, wonderful, and reassuring to not only know it, but to believe it with every fiber in one’s body? That question can only be answered by you.

Fr. John

Picture is that of St. Thomas Aquinas, Doctor of the Church who wrote on many doctrinal and philosophical themes, the existence of God being one one of then, picture from http://www.wordonfire.org/WoF-Blog/WoF-Blog/June-2010/Spirituality-The-Influence-of-Thomas-Aquinas.aspx