ON THE EXISTENECE OF GOD

ON THE EXISTENECE OF GOD

Opinions

The Quinque Viae

Position of the Church

What to say on atheism?

I.             Different Opinions Regarding the Existence of God.

    A. Traditionalism

      Human reason is by itself not of truth. It needs the external instruction from Divine Revelation. God must teach men not only supernatural truths but also the natural truths of the existence of the immortality of the soul, the moral law, the nature of authority, and the concept of being. The revelation of God is diffused among men by traditions, that is, by oral and social instruction. The human mind, therefore, is not able to demonstrate God’s existence, but that it gets its knowledge of God by way of faith in a primitive revelation made to the first men by almighty God, Himself, and handed down through all generations of men by oral tradition.

AGAINST TRADITIONALISM (DZ 1622, 1625)

Reason can prove with certitude the existence of the freedom of men. Faith is posterior to revelation and hence, it cannot be conveniently alleged to prove the existence of God to the atheist, or to prove the spirituality and freedom of the rational soul against a follower of naturalism and fatalism.

Vatican I, Session III (April 24, 1870) affirms that holy mother church holds and teaches that God is the Alpha and Omega of all things known by the natural light of reason.

    B. FIDEISM

      A philosophical and theological doctrine or attitude that minimizes the capacity of the human intellect to attain certitude and assigns faith as a criterion of the fundamental truths. Thus, God’s existence, the immortality of the soul, the fact of divine revelation and the credibility of Christ cannot be proved by reason alone but must be accepted on authority. Man’s nature is weakened by original sin.

FORMS OF FIDEISM:

1.      Broad sense: the fundamental truths of the speculative and practical orders cannot be established by reason alo9ne, but must be admitted on the authority of other men, or because of a human, spontaneous propensity to do so.

2.      Strict sense: ascribes men’s knowledge of the basic truths of God’s divine revelation.

AGAINST FEDEISM (DZ 1650, 1622)

Reasons can prove with certainty the existence of God and the infinity of His protection. Faith a heavenly gift, is posterior to revelation, hence, it cannot be brought forward against an atheist to prove the existence of God. We know God through creatures, according to the Apostle (Rom 1:20), the invisible things of God are clearly seen being understood by the things that are made: while the first object of our knowledge in this life is the quiddity of a material thing, which is the proper object of our intellect…

“If there existed in our souls a perfect image of God as the Son is the perfect image of the Father, our mind would know God at once. But the image in our mind is imperfect: hence, the argument does not prove (ST I, Q.88, a.3)

    C. INNATISM

      It holds that the knowledge of the existence of God is known to all as the most universal principle in the order of knowledge. As if the knowledge of God is naturally implanted in all (St. Damascene).

AGAINST INNATISM (DZ 1622, 1625, 1650)

     D.  AGNOSTICISM

      Our intellect cannot have any certitude about God. This position does not deny whether or not we can know God but it denies our being certain about it because it does not follow the order of sensible spirits. It is not the denial of God’s existence; it is the denial of His knowability.

AGAINST AGNOSTICISM (DZ 1627, 1786)

Although the human intellect was rendered weak and obscure by original sin, yet, there remained in it sufficient clarity and power to lead us with certitude to the knowledge of the existence of God, to the revelation made to the Jews by Moses, and to the Christians by our adorable God-man.

Indeed, it must be attributed to this divine revelation that these things, which are divine, are impenetrable. The human reason by itself can even in this present condition of the human race, be known readily by all with firm certitude and with no admixture of error. Nevertheless, it is not for this reason that the revelation is absolutely necessary, but because God in His infinite goodness has ordained men for a supernatural end, to a participation, namely: in the divine good which altogether surpasses the understanding of the human mind, since “eyes has not seen nor ears heard, neither hath it entered into the heart, what things God hath prepared for them that love Him (1 Cor. 2:9; Canon 2 and 3)

    E.ONTOLOGISM

      It holds that the existence of God is the first thing known by the intellect, informing our intellect and through this informed God we come to know other things. What is first in reality is also first known by us. The first thing in the intellect is the essence of God. He is an impressed species in our intellect.

Against Ontologism

This position is contrary to reason because it confuses what we call common idea of being (ens commune) which is the proper object of Metaphysics and Esse Subsintence applicable to God. Since ens commune is one and esse subsistence is one, therefore, God is one and only as existing in the mind since ens commune only exists in the mind. This is contrary to faith.

 “ Since human intellect in the present state of life cannot even understand immaterial created substances, much less can it understand the essence of uncreated substance. Hence it must be said simply that God is not the first object of our knowledge. Rather, do we know God through creatures, according to the Apostle (Rom 1:20), the invisible things of God are clearly seen being understood by the things that are made; while the first object of our knowledge is this life in the quiddity of a material thing, which is the proper object of our intellect…

If there existed in our souls a perfect image of God, as the Son is the perfect image of the Father, our mind would know God at once. But the image of our mind is imperfect; hence, the argument does not prove (ST I, Q. 88, a.3)”

    F. Kantian Criticism

      It limited the speculative or theoretical reason to the area of possible experience. Accordingly, it conceived human knowledge as arriving at necessary and universally of a valid judgment by way of a priori form. But it held that these judgments refer only to the appearances or the phenomena. The ‘noumena’ or ‘the thing –in-themselves’ were conceived as hidden. Our consciousness of all existence (whether immediately through perception, or immediately through inferences which connect something with perception) belongs exclusively to te unity of experience; any alleged existence outside this field, while not indeed such as we can declare to be absolutely impossible, is of the nature of the assumption which we can never be in apposition to justify.

    G. Neo-Criticism

      It has the conviction that the scientific content of reality was exhaustibly dealt with by the particular sciences.

    H. Pragmatism

     Our knowledge must be essentially related to action to be authentic. An idea without any conceivable experiential consequences is empty or trivial. Truth frequently changes, as it is merely the functioning of ideas in human experience. God is outside the realm of experience, thus, God has no meaning at all.

II.          The Quinque Viae of St. Thomas (S.T. 1. Q.2, art3)

1.      Argument from Motion

      The first and manifesting way is the argument from motion. It certain, and evident tour senses, that in the world some things are in motion. Now whatever is in motion is put in motion by another, fro nothing can be in motion except when it is in potentiality to that towards which it is in motion; whereas things moves in as much as it is in act. Fro motion is nothing else than the reduction of something from potentiality to actuality. But nothing can be reduced from potentiality to actuality, except by something in a state of actuality. Thus, that which is actually hot, as a fire, makes wood, which is potentially hot, to be actually hot, and thereby, moves and changes it. Now it is not possible that the same thing should be at once in actuality and potentiality in the same respect, but only in different respects. For what is actually hot cannot simultaneously be potentially cold. It is, therefore, impossible that in the same respect and in the same way a thing should be both mover and moved, i.e., that it should moved itself. Therefore, another must put whatever is in motion in motion. If that by which it is put in motion be itself be put in motion, then, this also must need be put in motion by another, and that by another again. But this cannot go on in infinity, because then, there would be no first mover, and consequently, no other mover; seeing that subsequent movers move only inasmuch as they are put in motion by first mover, as the staff moves only because it is put in motion by the hand. Therefore, it is necessarily to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this anyone understands to be God.

2.      Argument from the Nature of the Efficient Cause

      In the word of senses, we find that there is an order of efficient causes. There is no case known (neither it is indeed possible) in which a thing is found to be the efficient cause of itself; for it would be prior to itself, which is impossible. Now, in efficient causes it is impossible to go to infinity, because in all efficient causes following in order, the first is the cause of the immediate cause, and the intermediate is the cause of the ultimate cause, whether the intermediate be several or one. Now, to take away the cause is to take away the effect. Therefore, if there is no first cause among efficient causes, there will be no ultimate, nor any intermediate cause. But if in efficient causes it is impossible o go on to infinity, there will be no first efficient cause, neither will there be an ultimate effect; nor any intermediate efficient causes, all of which is plainly false. Therefore, it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause to which everyone gives the name of God.

3.      Argument from Possibility and Necessity

      We find in nature things that are possible to be and not to be, since they are found to be generated, and to corrupt, and consequently, they are possible to be and not to be. But it is impossible for these always to exist for that which is possible not to be and sometimes is not. Therefore, if everything were possible not to be, then at one time there would have been nothing in existence. Now, if there were true, even now there would be nothing in existence, because that which does not exist only begins to exist by something already existing. Therefore, if at one time nothing was in existence it would have been impossible for anything to have began to exist; and thus, even now nothing would be in existence, which is absurd. Therefore, not all beings are merely possible, but there must exist something the existence of which is necessary. But every necessary thing either has its necessity caused by another, or not. Now, it is impossible to go on to infinity in necessary things which have their necessity caused by another, as has been already proved in regard to efficient causes. Therefore, we cannot but postulate the existence of some being having of itself its own necessity, and not receiving it form another, but rather causing in others their necessity. This, all men speak of as God.

4.      Argument from the Gradation To Be Found in Things.

      Among beings there are some more or less good, true, noble, and the like. But “more” and “less” are predicated of different things, according as they resemble in their different ways in something, which is the maximum, as a thing is said to be hotter according as it more nearly resembles that which is the hottest; so that there is something which is turest, something best, something noblest; and, consequently, something which is uttermost being; for those things that are greatest in truth are greatest in being, as it is written in Metaphysics II. Now, the maximum in any genus is the cause of all in that genus; as fire, which is the maximum of heat is the cause of all hot things. Therefore, there must be something, which is to all beings the cause of their being goodness, and every other perfection; and this we call God.

5.      Argument form the Governance of the World

      We see that thing lack intelligence, such as natural bodies act for an end, and this is evident from their acting always, or nearly always, in the same way, so as to obtain the best result. Hence, it is plain that not fortuitously, but designedly, do they achieve rgei end. Now, whatever lacks intelligence cannot move towards an end, unless it be directed by some being endowed with knowledge and intelligence; as the arrow is shot to its mark by the archer. Therefore, some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are directed to their end; and this being we call God.

III.       Efficacy of the Quinque Viae: An Appraisal by the Church

       An appraisal by the Church

1.Each of them is a strict demonstration a posteriori because each of them begins from objective reality, which is a matter of experience and is found out to be essentially an effect. Hence, the human intellect acting or working under the light of the principle of efficient causality arrives to the existence of a proper cause of such an effect, which is more evident to us than the cause itself.

2.Each of them is enough to prove the existence of God, because each of them arrives at the existence of God through some attributes, which belong only to God.

3.All of them together exhaust the possibilities (from the part of the effect of making other arguments) to prove the existence of God. Hence, if any other argument built up to prove the existence of God, either it is not against truly, but only reducible to the five ways.

IV.       On Atheism

1.Atheism- Negative erga existentium dei humanae mentis dispositione (a negative disposition or attitude of the human mind regarding the existence of God). It is supposed that the man has the normal use of reason and knows the notion of God.

2.Kinds of Atheism:

a.Practical – it denies God not by words but by action.

b.Speculative- it is a mental or reasoned denial of God. It is either negative or positive. Negative when it is indifferent to God’s existence and positive when those who intend to prove the non-existence of God simply.

3.      How can it be that there are atheists?

A.    secundum quid is possible ‘per accidens’ because it depends on the will only.

B.      Atheism simpliciter is absolutely impossible

1.)     Because atheism simply means that there is evidence or that it is possible to demonstrate the non-existence of God.

2.)     The existence of God is not self-evident to us. As the demonstration of the non-existence of God supposes its possibility soothe demonstration of the existence of God supposes its possibility too.

3.)     The possibility of Demonstrations- the existence of God and non-existence are separate but contradictory because by their two

propositions, one is either true or false.