In all the universe, there are thoughts and
ideas that define universal things. We love, we hate, we think, and we aren't
immune to the universal truths in this existence. The very first foundational
thing that must be established before proving anything is that, truth exists.
It sounds almost contradictory to prove that truth exists because by trying to
prove anything, one is proving that truth exists, that premise is undoubtedly
based on the truth believed. Therefore, to believe that truth does not exist,
is to believe that truth exists because one believes something. Furthermore, to
trust in science, or history, or to believe that anything can be learned, is to
believe that truth exists. Regardless of what modern philosophy teaches, truth
is not relative because the definition of truth is something undoubtedly
correct. Life itself is based on truth. In the most honest way, a cell conducts
its programmed responsibility to bring oxygen where it must be, as well as
performing its other functions. The truth is that the cell works. It works
because the machines it's based on work. Those machines and molecules are based
on systems smaller than most of us can comprehend, and they work
systematically. Any system working is in its most basic way, is truth. It is
truth because it's based on laws that govern it. One knows the laws that govern
a cellular machine because the machine works. This reasoning continues in a
circular fashion. The question goes, can God be philosophically provable?
Throughout history, philosophers attempt to prove this very thing. One of the
most well known philosophers and theologians who attempted to prove this is
Thomas Aquinas. Aquinas is not the only philosopher to seek the answer to this
question. The question has revolved throughout the history of the human race,
even today it ranges as the hottest topic. If someone says anything about God,
ears perk up. Instantly interests are brought to attention. There are only two
choices to the question of God. In the infinite spectrum of understanding, if
there is a true answer, there is undoubtedly reason and evidence to believe
that reason. A truth cannot exist without reason to believe it. God is true,
so there must be a reason to believe he exists. The concept of God and God
himself is a provable philosophical concept. If God isn’t true, there is
evidence to coincide. As Sir Author Conan Doyle said, with his unusually potent
logic, “When you have eliminated all which is impossible, then whatever
remains, however improbable, must be the truth” (Doyle 375).
Aristotle had his own evidence for God. For anything to exist, there must be an
eternal form to begin the process. Aristotle proposed that there is an “Unmoved
Mover” (Sproul 49). That for anything to begin, the mover must have been
eternal and unmovable. Thomas Aquinas later attaches his own ideas onto this
very same philosophical argument. Aristotle lays down the foundation of his
argument saying that “everything is both the form or reality which has grown
out of something which was its matter or raw material; and it may in its turn
be the matter out of which still higher forms will grow” (Durant 56).
Basically, Aristotle is saying that you can’t toss random matter into a pot and
birth life. Life does not birth from death. A dog comes from an embryo and is
born of another dog. That matter is an organized map of protein. Before that,
protein is organized into its most basic components of carbon, hydrogen,
oxygen, and nitrogen (Tortora 44). It has the potential of being formed, not
the actuality of form. In the same way, a sculptor does not make a statue of a
great warrior by letting formless clay sit by itself or be twisted around in a
tornado. Of course not, the sculptor arranges it as he should have it, and so
the creation of this statue is in order because it was placed in order. This
argument is similar to the argument that nothing can come from nothing. If you
have no direction or form in the beginning, you will not end up with form,
because there is simply no form without purpose. All things on earth serve a
purpose, even formless matter, but only to be used as a supply for form. From
this argument, you can evolve to understand the “Unmoved Mover,” argument
(Sproul 49).
Since order cannot come without order, who or what started this order, and what
is the nature of this entity? The Unmoved Mover argument is the theory of God.
Aristotle deduced that for God to exist, he must be the ultimate reality or
“pure actuality.” He is the potential, the choice, being, eternity, Alpha and
Omega, and true actuality. If the Unmoved Mover were simply the first “Mover,”
that Mover would also need a Mover and there would be an endless number of Movers.
Thomas Aquinas later expounded on this argument saying, “It has been shown that
God is the first Unmoved Mover. Now the first Mover, moves no less than the
second Movers; more so, indeed because without Him they do not move other
things” (Aquinas 113). Richard Dawkins narrows his ideals a slight bit more in
the book, God Delusion, “ Nothing moves without a prior mover. This
leads us to a regress, from which the only escape is God. Something had to make
the first move, and that something we call God” (Dawkins 77). To dispute this
claim, there are predictable avenues to follow. Richard Dawkins, popular
atheist author lays out his argument saying that this is a good argument
except, Thomas Aquinas “assumes” that God is immune to regress (Dawkins 77.78).
Dawkins solution sounds valid except through closer analysis. If God is immune
to regress, God is not all powerful. If God is not all powerful, the question
of how everything began is left open because if God is not immune to regress,
there is a mover before that mover. Is this confusing enough yet? This fallacy
is a very complicated fallacy. Dawkins answers the question without answering
it. He demonstrates a logical fallacy called a Straw man essentially redefining
and creating his own scenario for the Unmoved Mover, and disproving it. Dawkins
condemns the concept of God being Unmovable by assuming that an Unmoved mover
is an assumption. He builds his argument on these two flaws. Of course
God can’t exist if he isn’t immune to regression, that’s why Thomas Aquinas
doesn’t believe the existence of God is regress-able. The reason Aquinas and
Aristotle believe there is an Unmoved Mover is because there must be. It's
undeniable to reason anything other than that there was a first mover. If there
was no mover, how did anything begin to move? All other possible truths are
eliminated and an Unmoved Mover is the last avenue offered for the existence of
the universe. It can't be believed that everything has always moved because
matter is not immune to regression. Current science shows us that there was a
beginning in the universe. Dawkins’ reasoning is a circular argument leaving
the question that the Unmoved Mover was supposed to answer, open like a wound
still yet to be bandaged. The assumption that Dawkins presumes, is in fact the
only option available. If it can be proved that dead matter and everything form
order, regenerates itself and is on an ever progressing path, Dawkins’ argument
deserves a second look. However, we’re still left with another question, if
everything regenerates itself without plan or purpose, founded on mere chance,
where did everything come from? Since science tells us that the universe had a
beginning, for anything to exist with order, there must be an absolute threshold
by which all things come from. If an absolute threshold doesn't exist,
everything in existence is left to the merciless hands of nothing, and how can
anything exist without plan?
To greater understand the argument for
the Unmoved Mover, there must be a reason why Aristotle believed that the mover
must be the ultimate reality. There are three possibilities for how the universe
came into being. First, the Universe was an infinite and absolute nothing.
Since nothing can come from nothing as earlier described, this argument can be
crossed out. The second is that matter in the universe existed for all
eternity, but without a plan, it’s the same as saying nothing makes nothing.
This argument depends foundationally on
chance for the development of everything. As described by R.C. Sproul in his
book The Consequences of Ideas, “Chance is a perfectly meaningless term
to describe mathematical possibilities, but the word becomes a sneaky bogeyman
when used to describe something that has not power to influence anything.
Chance has no being, and that which has no being has no power to do anything”
(75). Chance is another word for nothing, and nothing makes nothing without a
plan. Can you imagine flinging metal and other natural resources into a pile,
letting it sit for millions of years, and expecting it to produce a computer?
We established that chance doesn’t
create anything; therefore, this argument raises yet another question, where did
the original matter come from? Through science, we are told that time and space
had a beginning. The second argument can be thoroughly discarded. The third
possibility is an ultimate actuality. This is why the ancients held on to this
so called, “assumption.” Like everything else in the universe, this conclusion
wasn’t arrived at by chance. Aristotle believed that it may have been possible
for matter to have always existed, but it could not have moved into form
without a mover to move it. Aristotle’s god is not like the Christian God. His
god is passionless and really only sits around doing nothing but think. Since,
he made everything and knows everything intimately, he doesn’t have much to do
but nothing. In this way, Aristotle’s god is perfect, without desire because he
has everything, and nothing to take up his eternal time (Sproul 47). This
employs yet another question. If God is passionless, and does nothing, why did
he create the universe? The argument has now been “moved” from truth, to
existence, to existence needing a mover. Knowing the argument we know, God as a
mover must exist. Having already been through the argument of purpose, we know that
all things need purpose! Aristotle leaves us hanging with the notion that God
simply does nothing for without purpose, thereby disrupting his own rules. God
as a mover is a necessary argument for the nature of the universe. But one must
still ask, why would an eternal God, want to create us or anything if he is
passionless.
“In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth” (Gen 1.1). This is
one of the most famous, statements in the world. Since it was written, it has
since encompassed all religions, and all religions battle for the right to
define who God is. Assume for a minute that God is evil. If God is evil, why
should he create anything beautiful? Why should food taste good or sex feel
good? Why do we laugh? Yes there is pain in the world, but if God is not evil
because he created so many good things for us, then one must assume that
something went horribly wrong. For if God created the world and it was good,
evil would be good as well. We know that evil is not good. If God is perfect,
he would create a perfect world. What is the answer? The answer is free will.
If God created a world where everyone was automatically good, humanity would
certainly not be the one making that decision. Instead, God would have made
that decision and free will would not exist. Instead, bionic robots would roam
the earth and simply exist. However, if free will exists, emotion exists. Here
the Mover takes a huge risk giving humanity the ability to reject or accept the
Him. This is the purpose for much of the pain in the world, because humanity
has a choice to be good or be evil. Without free will, love does not exist. If
there is a creator, all humans must have something in them that is also of the
maker. Every artist leaves his touch. All humans need love. We all need to love
and be loved. In the same way, the reason for free will is that love can exist.
Picture someone who has a child, and they are a father to that child. This
father instructed his child to everyday come and tell him, “I love you daddy.” Picture
another father with a child, and this father didn’t instruct the child to say
anything, but every so often that child out of his own free will, came to him
and said, “I love you daddy.” Which “I love you,” means more? In the same way,
it can be concluded that God must have created free will for that purpose.
Putting the idea of freewill and love together, one is left with one more
question, why again did God create humanity? There is one thing that cannot be
unless a person has free will, the ability to love. The ability to love makes
living worthwhile. To force love would not be love, but true love can only be
given through free will. For God to exist, extending our conclusions by way of
a logical chain, God is love and must be love. God cannot simply be a
passionless Unmoved Mover, for that leaves us wondering why we exist. If God or
the Unmoved Mover exists, a person cannot ask why God exists, only why things
are the way they are. God simply exists for an Unmoved Mover must do just that.
Philosophically God must be, but the nature of God is a far more interesting
question. It’s an interesting concept to believe that maybe everything exists
because of love. As the Apostle Paul says, “If I have the gift of prophecy and
can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move
mountains, but have not love, I am nothing” (1 Cor 13.2). To prove that God is
philosophically provable, one must also come to the conclusion that God is
passionate and loves, without this conclusion, nothing would exist because
there’s no point. Furthermore, for God to be provably true, truth must exist.
In the question of everything, there is undoubtedly one truth in the universe
from which all come, for out of a lie or randomness, nothing true can be.
Works
Cited
Aquinas, Thomas. Basic
Writings of St. Thomas Aquinas. Ed. Anton C.
Pegis. New York:
Random House, 1945. 113.
Dawkins, Richard. The
God Delusion. Great Britain: Transworld, 2006.
77-78.
Doyle, Sir Author C.
Complete Sherlock Holmes, Volume I. Vol. 1. New
York: Barnes
& Noble, 2003. 375.
The Holy Bible. 1
Cor. 13-2. NIV ed. Colorado Springs: International
Bible
Society, 1973.
The Holy Bible. Gen. 1.
NIV ed. Colorado Springs: International Bible
Society, 1973.
Durant, Will. The Story
of Philosophy. New York: Simon and Schuster,
1926. 56.
Sproul, R C. The
Consequences of Ideas. Wheaton,Illinois: Crossway
Books, 2000.
49.75.
Tortora, Gerard J.,
Berdell R. Funke, and Christine L. Case. Microbilogy
2nd ed.
Menlo Park, CA: The Benjamin/Cummings Company, 1986. 44.
Can
You Prove God Philosophically Outline
I. Thesis: If God is
true, there must be a reason to believe he exists. The concept of God and God
himself is a provable philosophical concept. If God is not true, there is
evidence to the contrary.
II. Truth
A. Truth is foundational
B. You must have truth
to prove a stance
C. Life is based on
truth
III. Prove God
Philosophically
A. Two choices
1.God exists
2. God doesn’t exist
B. If God exists, there
is reason to believe so
IV. Actuality and
Potential
A. Everything comes from
something else
B. Order doesn’t form
without reason
V. Unmoved Mover
A. God must be pure
actuality
B. Dawkins against
Unmoved Mover
1. Aquinas assumes God doesn’t regress
C. Dawkin’s Logical
fallacy
VI. Why there must be an
Unmoved Mover
A. Three possibilities
1. Absolute nothing
2. Only matter existed
3. Unmoved Mover
B. Aristotle’s God
C. God’s purpose for
human life
VII. Why God must be a
Loving God
A. Why is there good?
Why is there evil?
B. Free will
C. Love a driving force
VIII. Why did God create
humanity
A. One thing an Omnipotent
God can’t have
B. Love
C. Interesting concept
