On the Existence of God (Part 1 of 2)

Last updated on: November 2, 2016 at 6:19 am by Henry Karlson

On the Existence of God (Part 1 of 2) 2016-11-02T06:19:22-05:00 Henry Karlson

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

Al-Buraf_Hafifar [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons

Many, if not most, of those who want to argue against the existence of God focus their criticism on conceptions of God which few, if any, actually believe in. They engage absurd misreadings of theistic beliefs, thinking that if they can show such particular formulations of divinity to be non-existent, they somehow have demonstrated why God does not exist. At best, what they have done is show why such formulations of divinity are false, not that God does not exist. Such an argument is as foolish as if someone tried to argue that no equines existed because it is impossible for giant invisible purple horses flying around the sun to exist. We can all agree such horses do not exist, but by doing this, we have not proven there is no such thing as horses.

The point is that most criticisms of God really do not engage what people believe about God. They are straw men, constructs carefully made to be denied. Yes, there usually are elements of what people believe about God put into the construction, to give the external appearance of a serious argument, but usually those elements are facile at best, for they do not present the basic core belief about divinity, but secondary derived notions about God. Instead of dealing with the best, most general presentations of divinity, they want to rush in and argue against that which no one believe in, so that God can then be easily denied. To be sure, some might offer several such constructs, several different, and usually bad, presentations about God,put them side by side, and then ask, “Which God is real” as if such a rhetorical flourish proved anything. They ignore that behind most rival conceptions of God there is a principle which is being affirmed – that of God, which can be discussed before secondary considerations are explored and discussed.

When dealing with the question of the existence of God, the issue is whether or not there is a God; only after establishing why the existence of God is sound can secondary considerations be discussed. The same, of course, is true with science. There are many fundamental concepts, such as evolution, which have rival theories of explanation; many theists who have little to no understanding of science will use all the rival theories similar to the way many atheists and agnostics use rival conceptions of God to suggest that the basic principle, evolution, is not agreed upon and proven. And yet, they would be as wrong as the atheists who follow such fallacious modes of argumentation.

Or, if we want something more concrete, it would be as if someone denied President Obama existed and said that the reason they knew Obama does not exist is that there are many contradictory, rival claims about who and what he is (i.e., some say he was born in the United States, others say in Kenya; some say he is good, some say he is evil; some say he is African American, others say he is white; some say he is smart, others say he is not, et. al). It is a typical fallacy which is easy for someone to fall into when entering a debate. We do not have to prove which aspects of Obama are true to show he exists. Likewise, then, those who demand “which God” or “which presentation of God” is true are going about the discussion wrong. Questions about qualities which we associate with God come after we establish that there is some God. Or, as Henry of Ghent explained, “For we can know that this proposition by which we say, ‘God exists,’ is true in the soul, although we do not know the nature of that being that is God’s.”[1]

This is why, when asking whether God exists, the traditional reply was to show we can know some sort of first principle, some form of absolute, some form of being which is greater than all others, exists, and when we find out what it is, we can call it God. It could be that God is the universe (or multi-verse, if you will) and God could end up being an impersonal absolute. Those arguing for the existence of God without going into the qualities of God have no problem as establishing some impersonal first cause as God. Only after the fact that there is a first cause, a God, is established, can what is known about that first cause be explored, often with the caveat of how difficult, if not impossible, it is for us to comprehend it, making it difficult for us to use human reason as a means of discerning what God is like.

And so people of differing faiths, with differing conceptions concerning the nature of God, can come together and say that God exists. They do not presume that by doing this they actually agree to the attributes which they would predicate to God, with the way they perceive God has or has not interacted with humanity in history, or with the way God has or has not actively revealed himself to us. To try to make an author indicating that God exists prove all the qualities they believe about God at the same time or else say they have failed to offer a proper proof would be like someone demanding those who believe in punctuated evolution to prove it when they say evolution is true. When theists offer basic principles about God and use them to show some form of God exists, certainly they would be the first to agree they have not proven all their belief about God, but on the other hand, they would also say it is not their intention, just as a scientist showing the general principle of evolution will not have to prove all the mechanisms they believe are operating in the process of evolution to show evolution is occurring. It is not equivocating to deal with general principles. Atheists who get upset at theists working with the category of divinity and what it represents without going into detail about their belief in God show they have not actually studied theism in general, similar to those who deny evolution because some hypotheses through the years have been proven false fail to understand the general principle of evolution and why such hypotheses do not have to be correct for evolution to be fact.

What is necessary, then, is a basic presentation of divinity, of the category of God. This is what theists who discuss the existence of God generally provide before going into secondary considerations about God. Atheists who have not studied the literature always go for secondary conceptions, often false ones, and so tend to get frustrated when theists remain in the general category which is not so easy to dispute.

By Vergós Group Details of artist on Google Art Project [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons

It is in this manner that St. Augustine, in a dialogue, recommended the way we know that God exists is because we know that there is something greater than us; when we observe it, if we find nothing greater than it, we can declare it to be God, but if we find something greater beyond it, we are then to look until we find that which is greatest, and then realize we have then found God. And so he suggested that if we can find something greater than us, something which is eternal and unconditioned, we know that God exists because either it is God, or God is something from which it flows and is even greater than that which we can observe. In this instance, Augustine is not suggesting we theorize about what God; instead, he suggested that we merely observe, and through observation, we can come to know that some form of divinity exists. But he does offer a bit more than this – he says, in the end, God is either the truth itself, or something which is greater than the truth, by being the one who makes the truth:

Now you had conceded that if I proved the existence of something higher than our minds, you would admit it was God, as long as there was nothing higher still. I accepted this concession, and said that it would be enough if I proved that there is something higher than our minds. For if there is something more excellent than the truth, then that is God; if not, the truth itself is God. So in either case you cannot deny God exists, and that was the very question that we had agreed to discuss.[2]

Truth exists, even if we do not know it or comprehend it properly. While we subjectively engage it, while we might possess only a limited understanding of it, the reason we can judge things as true or false in an objective sense is because we know there is an objective dimension to truth which exists. That what is truth is not mere opinion; what we declare is truth is not merely “true for us,” but it is the precondition which allows us to have subjective dimensions and experiences of truth. Truth itself is absolute, unchanging, which is why we use it to say something is true or false – to say someone is wrong is to presuppose the truth. Pure subjective relativism cannot work because if we were to state all things were relative, that statement itself would be an objective non-relative truth establishing the absolute nature of the truth itself. In this light, then, Augustine presented why the truth is great, greater than us, and is therefore to be the basis to show God exists:

Furthermore, if this truth were equal to our minds, it too would be changeable. For our minds see the truth better at some times than at others, which shows that they are indeed changeable. But the truth makes no progress when we see it better and suffers no setback when we see it less. It remains whole and undefiled, giving the joy of its light to those who turn toward it but inflicting blindness on those who turn away. Why, even make judgments about our own minds in accordance with that truth, while we can in no way make judgments about it. [3]

The key to the realization of God, then, is the acceptance that that there is something which is greater than us, greater than all other things, and so there is something absolute or supreme which actually exists. We might or might not know what it is, but we do know it is, because we can find things in the world which might fit in its place and will fit in it unless we find something greater to replace it. This tradition, this understanding of God, in some form or another, is at the foundation for most discussions of God’s existence.

More to Come

[1] Henry of Ghent, The Questions of God’s Unity and Simplicity. trans. Roland J. Teske, S.J. (Paris: Peeters, 2006), 317.

[2] St. Augustine, On Free Choice of the Will. trans. Thomas Williams (Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing, 1993), 58.

[3] St. Augustine, On Free Choice of the Will, 58.The example Augustine used to demonstrate that there is some eternal, unchangeable truth which we can use to prove truth exists is the universal rules which govern mathematics. We do not create them. We merely observe them. They are true whether or not we observe them, and even if in the modern age we understand the constructed nature of how we represent the rules which govern mathematics, so that there are different forms mathematical formulations can be presented, this only shows that our subjective grasping for mathematical rules engage rules which lie behind the constructs we make to represent them. We can translate one mathematical formulation to another because of the general principles which lie behind them, principles which transcend us and so need the various constructs to represent different elements of those principles.

Stay in touch! Like A Little Bit of Nothing on Facebook:

A Little Bit of Nothing

Previous Post

October 31, 2016

Ante-Nicene Ressourcement: The Intercession and Glorification of the Martyrs

Next Post

November 3, 2016 On The Existence of God (Part 2 of 2)

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Abortion Abraham abuse Aesthetics AI Aliens Ambrose Ancestors and Everything Andrew Angels Animals Anne Anthony Antisemitism apologetics Apophatic Apostle John Aquinas Artificial Intelligence Asanga Ascension Asceticism Assumption Atheism Attachment Augustine Authority Avarice Balthasar Baptism Beauty Biden birthright citizenship Bishops Black History Books Buddhism Bulgakov Byzantine Calendar C.S. Lewis Calcidius Catholic Catholicism Catholicism Celibacy Charity Chastity children Chrismation Christ Christmas Christology Church Climate Change Common Good Communion Confession Confirmation Conscience Constantine conventions conversion councils Covid Creation Cross Dead Death Death Penalty Debate Deception Demagogues Demons Desert Monks Desert Mothers Desire destruction development Dialogue Dignity Dionsyius Dionysius Discipline Diversity Division Doctor Who doctrine dogma Dormition Dualism Easter Easter Series Ecumenical Councils Ecumenism Education Election Empathy Environment Error Eschatology eschaton Eternity Ethics Eucharist Evangelism Eve Evil evolution Faeries Faith Fear femininity Ficino Florence Florensky Folktale Fools Forgiveness Freedom Future gender Gentile Gentiles Glory Gnostic God gods Good Samaritan Goodness Gospel Government Grace Great Fast Guns Hate healing Health Heaven Hell Hellenism Heresy Hierarchy Hildegard Hinduism History Holiness Holy Spirit Holy Week Hope Horror Human rights humanity Humility hypocrisy ICE icon icons Identification Identity Idol II Nicea Immigration incarnation Individualism Informal Reflections Inklings Intention Inter-Religious Interfaith Internet Interpretation Intrinsic evil Irenaeus Islam Israel Jacob Jerome Jesus Jews John Chrysostom John of Damascus John the Baptist Joseph Judaism justice Justification kenosis Kindnesss Kingdom of God Kingdom of Heaven Law Law of Moses Lazarus Leaf by Niggle Lent Lenten Reflection Liberation Theology Lies Life Listen Literature Liturgy locutions Logic Logos Love Marriage Martyrs Mary Mass Maximos The Confessor Meanness Meditation Mercy Middle Path Migrants Mind Miracles Miriam Morals Moses Movies Music Muslims Myths Names Nationalism Native Americans New Year Nicea Nicholas Nothing Novatian Obedience Occam's Razor Ordination Origen Original Sin Orthodox orthopraxis Pagans Palamas Palm Sunday Paradise Paschaltide Paul Peace Pentecost person Peter piety PKD Plato pluralism Plurality Poem Poetry Poiltics Politics Poor Pope Pope Francis Pope Leo XIV Post Office Prayer Pride Pro-life Prodigal Son propaganda Prophecy Prophets Providence Putin Racism Reading Reason Reflection Refugees Relationships Religion Religion Series Religious Liberty Repent Republicans Rest Resurrection Rich Rites Russia Sacraments Saints Salvation Salvian Santa Science Scripture Self-Giving Sexuality Sibyl Sick Silence Sin Singlehood Social Justice Society Sodom Solovyov Speculations Spiritual Reflection St. Cyril of Alexandria St. Justin Martyr Suffering Sunday of the Paralytic Man Sunday of the Samaritan Woman Superhero Supreme Court Teaching Technology Thanksgiving The Father the Universe Theological Reflection Theology Theosis Theotokos Thomas Timaeus Time Tolerenace Tolkien Tradition Transfiguration Trinity Trump Truth Uncategorized Unity Universities USCCB Value Vatican II Vegetarian Vices Violence Virtue Vocations War Water Welcome Wisdom Womanhood Women Work World View Worship Writing Zacchaeus

Select a Month October 2026 September 2026 August 2026 July 2026 June 2026 May 2026 April 2026 March 2026 February 2026 January 2026 December 2025 November 2025 October 2025 September 2025 August 2025 July 2025 June 2025 May 2025 April 2025 March 2025 February 2025 January 2025 December 2024 November 2024 October 2024 September 2024 August 2024 July 2024 June 2024 May 2024 April 2024 March 2024 February 2024 January 2024 December 2023 November 2023 October 2023 September 2023 August 2023 July 2023 June 2023 May 2023 April 2023 March 2023 February 2023 January 2023 December 2022 November 2022 October 2022 September 2022 August 2022 July 2022 June 2022 May 2022 April 2022 March 2022 February 2022 January 2022 December 2021 November 2021 October 2021 September 2021 August 2021 July 2021 June 2021 May 2021 April 2021 March 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz