(idea) by in10se Wed Aug 28 2002 at 20:09:52

This IS confusing, and there is no way around it.
(Hey you try to prove/disprove the existence of God...)

Is there a God?

This question has puzzled philosophers since time began. Various "proofs" have been constructed both for and against the existence of God. The Cosmological Argument is one of the most widely accepted of these proofs of God's existence. Its basic premise is that the universe exists, and must have been caused by something outside of its existence. William Rowe, a professor of philosophy, built upon Samuel Clarke's proof of the existence of God using the Cosmological Argument.

Clarke attempts to prove specifically that, "There has existed from eternity some one unchangeable and independent being." While a very complex and often confusing argument, Rowe attempts to simplify it by breaking it down into pieces, and explaining it in more modern English. Here, in nine steps, is how Rowe explains this version of the Cosmological Argument:

  1. If there is no original creator or cause of the universe, then everything that is and ever has been is a dependent being relying on another dependent being for its existence stretching backwards into infinity.
  2. Since this collection of dependent beings makes up all things that are now and ever were, there must be an explanation for the existence of this infinite collection of beings.
  3. The explanation is either contained inside the infinite series, or outside the infinite series. In other words, something cannot come from nothing.
  4. It cannot be explained from a source outside the series, since everything that exists is supposed to be contained within the series.
  5. It cannot be explained from a source inside the series, since every being in the series is dependent and not self-existent or necessary.
  6. Therefore, a series of dependent beings, which has no initial cause, has no reason or explanation (#3) for its existence.
  7. Therefore, the infinite collection of dependent beings (#2) is false
  8. Therefore, all beings are not dependent (#1)
  9. Therefore, there must be an eternal, independent Being (hereby referred to as God)

Or, using more logic symbols and less English:

  1. (every being is dependent) --> (infinite collection of dependent beings)
  2. (infinite collection of dependent beings) --> (there is an explanation for its existence)
  3. (there is an explanation) --> ( (explanation is outside collection) OR (explanation is inside collection) )
  4. ~(explaination outside)
  5. ~(explaination inside)
  6. ~(there is an explanation for its existence)
  7. ~(infinite collection of dependent beings)
  8. ~(every being is dependent)
  9. God exists

The argument is structured such that it will lead to an absurd or incorrect conclusion. This type of logical proof is called reductio ad absurdum or in other fields, proof by contradiction. In the case of Rowe's argument, the contradictions in steps four and five (their order is not important) lead to the conclusion that statements one, two and three are false. Since they are false, the converse is true. Because the question of God is not easily proved by a direct method, it is much easier to prove what is false, and lead up to the truth.

As a whole, this argument is deductively valid, and while this does not necessarily make the conclusion true, it is a step toward determining whether or not it is true. If each premise is true in a deductively valid argument, then the conclusion is true. By looking at The Principle of Sufficient Reason, we know that there must be an explanation of the existence of any being, and also of any positive fact. This in itself equates with step one in the argument above. Some may argue with step two. Going from part (each dependent being) to whole (the collection of dependent beings) may cause an error in logic.

Does this seeming inconsistency mean the logic is flawed? Possibly not. While an infinite series of dependent objects might not have a single first cause, one may ask what caused the series to come into being. The Principle of Sufficient Reason states that all things have a reason. If the PSR is to be believed, one could just as easily say that the series itself must have a cause that is independent of the individual parts. Perhaps this is the step that both Clarke and Rowe are taking. If this is the case, then these two philosophers make a respectable case for the existence of God.

Of course there is another opposing view related to step two. One might say that since all the objects in the series have a cause, (i.e. another dependent object) the only explanation needed for the series is the objects themselves. In other words, if you know the cause of each object, then this entire group of causes is the cause of the whole, and no other explanation is necessary (See also: It's turtles all the way down). In addition, nothing in the nine step proof above takes into account that there may be or may have been multiple gods who created the universe. There is also the possibility that the universe as we know it is actually just a small part of a larger whole. These two points only make things much more difficult to prove, but nonetheless should be considered.

Lastly, it could be questioned that if all things have a cause, then what is the cause of God? Simply stated, the meaning or definition of God implies that He is a self-sufficient necessary Being whose only explanation is Himself. In fact, if the Bible is to be believed, when Moses sees the burning bush on top of Mount Horeb (the mountain of God) and hears God speaking through it, he asks, "Suppose I go to the Israelites and say to them, 'The God of your fathers has sent me to you', and they ask me, 'What is his name?' Then what shall I tell them?" To this God replies, "I Am Who I Am. This is what you are to say to the Israelites: 'I Am has sent me to you.' " Notice God does not say, "I am God", just an all encompassing "I Am".

Who is correct in these arguments for and against God's existence? That, unfortunately, may never be known. Scholars have debated this for centuries. What it comes down to is personal belief. If you want to believe in God, yet need some rational behind your beliefs, Clarke and Rowe may provide all that you need. If you don't want to believe, then nothing short of concrete proof that you can touch, taste, smell, see, or hear will sway your own (dis)belief. It might be that proving God on paper is an impossibility. Perhaps it can only be confirmed through personal experiences, understanding, and faith.

See also: Ontological argument

This paper was written by me for an undergraduate religious studies class. Node your homework.

I like it! 2 C!s