God exists from reason, and is the source of all evil.

[Glenn Lyvers]

God exists from reason, and is the source of all evil.

 

The idea of a creator God, in and of itself, is the belief that there is a source of all creation. God exists from reason. If we accept that God exists from Ontological reason, then we must also accept that God is the source of all evil. It is the essence of God that he possesses all attributes of good and evil.

 

We are faced with the question of how science and religion should be employed to seek answers about God’s existence and essence. Ted Peters addresses this concern in his article, Techno-Secularism, Religion, and the Created Co-Creator. He writes that it is not our place as religious men to push away science or try to otherwise undermine it. He states, “Christian ethics is born out of the Bible’s promise of the new that is to come, not out of protecting or preserving the old in its inherited and unredeemed state” (484). This state is one in which he argues, science can serve to redeem, or rather, shed light upon. Men should not attempt to prevent science from investigating the truths of the Bible, in some effort to protect it from scrutiny, or preserve its’ historical interpretation for the faithful.

 

As we face down the challenge of techno-secular society, we dare not shrink back and abandon all science and all technology to the secular sector or run like frightened dogs with our religious tails between our legs. Rather, we need to lift up the fact that scientific study and technological innovation belong to our human nature, a human nature created and inspired by God (848).

 

To this end, I champion the idea of God’s existence from the science of reason. There are several arguments for God’s existence from reason. I will address only one, an Ontological Argument of sorts. The Ontological argument itself, as presented by Anselm, is based simply upon the fool’s declaration. Anselm demonstrates instability between the two statements; that one understands the claim that God exists, and that one does not believe in God. Descartes explores this issue, and its’ primary criticisms in his meditations. Taking these ideas, I assert that the logic below, being my twist on the work of greater philosophers than myself, serves as an argument from reason for the existence of God today.

 

Consider this, someone asks you to imagine something that does not exist. You might first imagine a glass of water on a shelf, or a slug surfing in the bay on an Oreo cookie. I now assert that it is the case that you cannot imagine anything that exists without using some notion of things you already know about. I have asked you to imagine “something” that does not exist, and challenged you to do so without using your pre-existing knowledge as a reference point. So, start to imagine, but keep in mind that whatever you imagine cannot have a shape, because you already know about shapes. Indeed it cannot have a size or a color, or exist in time or take up space. It cannot have a name, and it cannot even be true that it exists because "truth" is a pre-existing condition, a reference to logic, which is indeed something you already know. What is it that you have imagined? How can you relate it to me or explain what it is, for it has no name and it is not even true that it exists? It is inconceivable.

 

Now meditate with me a little further and I will add some simple supportive logic for your consideration. The concept of God is that of a “Supreme Being.” It must be true that if he is indeed “supreme,” then he must exist. A "supreme" being must have to exist everywhere. This principle might be easier to understand this way; something which is supreme cannot be limited – and to say that it does not exist is a limit to its existence. Put even more simply, something that exists is more perfect than something which does not exist. Therefore, if something does not exist, it is imperfect and as such, it cannot be the Supreme Being. This is not in question.

 

If it is true that one’s mind can only conceive of things related to what already exists, then because we can conceive of God, it must be true that God possesses the property of being relative to what already exists. To possess something, he needs to exist somewhere. Moreover, since we can conceive of God as a being, of which no greater being can be conceived, then as a “Supreme Being” he must exist in all possible worlds. Therefore, it can only follow from absolute logic, God exists in our world.

 

Anselm’s actual argument reads, “Then is there no such nature, since the fool has said in his heart: God is not? But certainly this same fool, when he hears this very thing that I am saying - something than which nothing greater can be imagined - understands what he hears; and what he understands is in his understanding, even if he does not understand that it is. For it is one thing for a thing to be in the understanding and another to understand that a thing is (Proslogium). The more modern argument above is Anselm’s, I have just reworked it.

 

A perfect creator would create perfect creations. Remember, a perfect God, is a being of which no greater being can be conceived. Consider this, you know two carpenters, and both seemed to be perfect, but one of the two made a single mistake years ago. If you were asked, which of these two carpenters is the best, then that single mistake would make all the difference. How does this relate to God? Well, if you only knew the carpenter that made a mistake, then you could conceive of a carpenter that did not make any mistakes, and therefore, the former would be imperfect. If God, like the carpenter, were to create something less than perfect, then he could not be “God” because a greater conceivable being could exist – that of a God which created everything perfectly. The obvious reply to this argument is that God could create something flawed on purpose, but then it would still be the case that an absolutely perfect creator, who never created anything imperfectly (even on purpose), would be intuitively greater. Putting aside, that creating anything would show wantonness, and therefore imperfection, creating anything imperfect would also be a flaw. It would seem then, that if God created the world, then it follows that this world is the best of all possible worlds. This idea has plagued theologians for centuries, because it seems so absolutely simple, and yet, most of us can imagine a world which is more perfect than the one in which we live. The idea of what is and is not “perfect” is often mistaken by mankind for what is and is not more “desirable.” This brings up the issue of evil in the world. This has been explained by viewing evil as a necessity. It is necessary to have evil, in order for the most perfect world to exist.

 

This idea of God as a perfect creator, bound to create the best possible world, is an idea supported by philosopher Immanuel Kant, he writes,

 

“That the world created by God is the best of all possible worlds, is clear for the following reason: If a better world than the one willed by God were possible, then a will better than the divine will would also have to be possible. For indisputably that will is better which chooses what is better. But if a better will is possible, then so is a being who could express this better will. And therefore, this being would be more perfect and better than God. But this is a contradiction; for God is omnitudo realitatis. ( Lectures on Philosophical Theology 137).

 

Jesse Steinberg, author of Leibniz, Creation and the Best of All Possible Worlds, supports Kant in this conclusion but also goes further, to declare that God not only does not, but cannot create imperfectly. He writes, “Kant’s argument appears to show that if God were to choose to do less than His best (e.g., create a world that was not the best possible), He would thereby show Himself to be morally surpassable. Since it is not possible that God be morally deficient, God must do the best that He can. Thus God would, on pain of contradiction, choose to create the best possible world He could create” (125). So why does evil exist in the best possible world?

 

We know that evil does exist, and as such, there is either a need for it to exist, or God intended that evil exist unnecessarily (we suffer needlessly). We must, therefore, accept that evil is a necessary element - or conclude that God would include evil in our world if it were not necessary to do so. However, to say that the best possible world is one in which evil must exist would seem to limit God, by stating that he cannot create a perfect world without evil. So, are we then left to conclude the latter? This type of argument recurs over and over when considering the nature of God from reason. If we put that argument aside, then we simply acknowledge that goodness and evil are attributes of our world. Because God is an infinite God, he would possess all attributes to an infinite degree - God is therefore infinitely evil, and infinitely good. Anything less would imply a limit to his power. To say that it was only possible for God to possess goodness would be a limit of his power, and vice verse, because we can conceive of a God which possesses all attributes without limits.

 

It is unclear that goodness and evil are traits that we can attribute to God, at least in a human sense. We must accept that the emotions we feel, as finite beings, may not be a reflection of the attributes of God because if God possesses infinite goodness and infinite evil, it would seem that he might be neutrally bound. To say that God had attribute preferences would be to imply that some things which possess attributes (people, qualities, virtues or other attributes of the universe) are more perfect than others. Remember, if God possesses infinite attributes, then it cannot be said he possesses more goodness than evil etc. If God did have a preference, then that preference itself might create a state where one attribute has a greater value than another. This is because that attribute would also possess the added attribute, of being that which is more desirable to an infinite degree. If one thing in the universe exists as "more valuable or closer to perfection" than something else, then it follows that imperfection would exist, and this cannot be the case if God is indeed infinite and perfect. It might be the case that God can have a preference between contingent forms, but not to qualities, because he possesses all qualities to an infinite degree, and none is more or less perfect than any other.

 

All of this is evident if we think of God as timeless and infinite, or "perfect". If the traditional beliefs about the nature of God are at odds with the fundamental facts which would accompany a perfect creator, then it must be the case that God exists very differently than most worshipers profess. A “perfect eternal God” would therefore be a God which exists outside of time because he is without limits. He would not have a need or desire to create because he would be sufficient to himself. He would not interact with men or any of his creations because to do so would be to change the world which is perfect to start with. He would possess all the attributes of creation to an infinite degree, including both infinite goodness and infinite evil - and he would have no preference among his creations. He would not be swayed or compelled to change his mind, or otherwise be lacking in knowledge. He would be all knowing and never changing - perfect unto himself for all eternity. The problem with “creation” remains though. We exist, and therefore, if we accept that God is the creator, then we must find a way to reconcile this with the obvious contradiction which occurs as soon as we conceive of God as both perfect and a creator. Theories exist, such as eternal will, but it remains an important anchor for skeptics to cling to.

 

God does exist. He exists both from reason, and from intuition. However, the common ideas about God and his existence are filled with contradictions. This is due, in part, to the emphasis given to God’s virtues, and not to the other attributes which he must also possess. We must accept from both science and religion that God is the source of all goodness and all evil – and that as such, he possesses these attributes to an infinite degree.

 

©2009 Glenn Lyvers

Glenn Lyvers

 

Works Cited

Peters, Ted. "Techno-Secularism, Religion, and the Created Co-Creator." Zygon: Journal of Religion and Science 40.4 (01 Dec. 2005): 845-862. Philosopher's Index. EBSCO. [Library name], [City], [state abbreviation]. 21 Apr. 2009 <http://library2.iusb.edu:2058/login.aspx?direct=true&db=phl&AN=PHL2080368&site=ehost-live>.

Steinberg, Jesse R. "Leibniz, Creation and the Best of All Possible Worlds." International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 62.3 (01 Dec. 2007): 123-133. Philosopher's Index. EBSCO. [Library name], [City], [state abbreviation]. 21 Apr. 2009 <http://library2.iusb.edu:2058/login.aspx?direct=true&db=phl&AN=PHL2122051&site=ehost-live>.

Kant, I. (1978). Lectures on philosophical theology, tr. A.Wood & G. Clark. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

1. “Anselm (1033-1109): Proslogium.” Medieval Sourcebook. 1998. Fordham University. <http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/anselm-proslogium.html>.

[sman]

WOW!!!

 

Let no one brush off creationists with the excuse that they're unintelligent. I havn't heard the ontological argument in awile and you've elucidated it wonderfully. Thank you.

My two cents won't sound like much - but that never stops me:

 

If God is both infinately good and infinately evil is seem that places him right at NEUTRAL. This is in absolue accordance with observation. A perfect creator would create a universe that was perfect and not require His intervention at all. This also agrees with all observations.

 

"The universe seems neither benign nor hostile, merely indifferent."

Carl Sagan

[Moontanman]

You start out by assuming God exists, I see no reason what so ever to assume this. Having said that I also must say that humans are completely capable of both evil and good with no help from God, Satan or any other imaginary or supernatural source. Until there is some evidence of the existence of God the possibility of anything being due to God is speculation and assuming it is nothing but proselytizing.

[Glenn Lyvers]

RE: You start out by assuming God exists, I see no reason what so ever to assume this.

 

I disagree. I did not start out by assuming that God exists. I derived a conclusion that God exists based on reason. I explained the reasoning from logic. There are numerous, perhaps even more compelling arguments from logic that supports that God must exist.

 

Of course you are free to disagree with the logic, but you should not declare that I have made assumptions. You can say that, from your perspective, I have faulty logic - and I would hope that you would be able to defend that position by pointing out those flaws in an intelligent way.

 

Moreover, your declaration that I am proselytizing is misplaced. It is not the purpose of my article to induce anyone to change their religion. Indeed I even point out an important problem with God as a creator - that of being both perfect and a creator (which are at odds with each other). I have simply stated facts, based on logic and reason, which are as plain as the sky to those who put bias aside, and think.

 

Pointing fingers at the source of the information is obviously a fallacious argument and thus, demonstrates that your reasoning is false, and so weak that it rests on accusations and attempts to shift from logic to "some other subject." Take the time to learn how to argue your point, and then try again. My father had some good words of wisdom for me. He said, "It is better to be quiet and be thought a fool, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt." I always thought that was wise.

[sman]

You start out by assuming God exists, I see no reason what so ever to assume this.

 

The existance of God is the starting point of our knowledge of the world. In the last 500 years or so we've been couching this knowledge in objective observation. I believe this method has whittled the nature of God down to 2 possibilities:

 

(1) Not There

(2) Invisible, Incorporal, Impotent and Indifferent

 

I'm with Moontanman in that I've always gone with (1) just because its more parsimonious to cut out the stuff that just doesn't do anything, but hey...absence of evidence is not evidence of absence...and this is the weakness of parsimony. Humans are not omniscient. Our observations are limited by our senses (extended by our insturments). It could very well be (2). I recently learned from a very wise man to be tolerant of this kind of ambiguity.

[Turtle]

God exists from reason, ...

 

Erhm.... no.

 

Ontological Proof of God (Flaws)

Descartes' (1596-1650CE) and St Anselm's formations of an Ontological Argument for the Existence of God is a traditional philosophical "proof" that has a number of flaws with it but is well-known and still referred to. It is primarily a "proof" that theists use to defend their own position than it is one that would be used to logically convince someone that a god must exist. ...

 

 

Descartes ontological proofs of God - Google Search

[Zythryn]

You do make an assumption, which is:

The idea of a creator God, in and of itself, is the belief that there is a source of all creation.

 

Since the foundation of your entire position is based on an unproven and poorly defined use of 'God' brings down the whole essay like a house of cards.

 

I would argue that the idea of a creator God is based in the belief that there is an intelligent, guiding entity which is the source of all creation.

Once you can prove that this intelligent, guiding entity exists, then you can move on to the rest of your statement (that is, if it is based on reason).

[Glenn Lyvers]

You do make an assumption, which is:

 

Since the foundation of your entire position is based on an unproven and poorly defined use of 'God' brings down the whole essay like a house of cards.

 

I would argue that the idea of a creator God is based in the belief that there is an intelligent, guiding entity which is the source of all creation.

Once you can prove that this intelligent, guiding entity exists, then you can move on to the rest of your statement (that is, if it is based on reason).

 

Yes I do start my essay with the quote, but then if you read just a little further, you will see that I write that I champion the claim based on reason, and then I go on to explain why. I do see how the beginning might be read as though I made that assumption and I confess, I did not realize this earlier before I responded to another post like this.

 

The arguments against Ontological logic fail to disprove the theory. It might, if I am generous, call into question the ambiguous use of the word "greater" which is a common complaint, but I still maintain that, even by stretching the plausibility of the objections in a charitable way, they fail to override the prevailing Ontological claims.

 

Metaphysics is fun to debate. I have no fantasies that I will change the views of others who simply cannot or will not accept the logic. Thanks for your reply though, the interaction with others certainly makes this forum worthwhile and fun to participate in.

[Moontanman]

So far Glenn you have failed miserably to prove god exists via logic or any other way, I may be a fool but at least I don't make wild claims then fail to back them up. Lets see your logic that proves god exists, put up or shut up dude. I do not have to prove God doesn't exist, you need to provide evidence God does exist. Reason and logic in your case is sorely lacking.

[Zythryn]

This reasoning of yours:

Now meditate with me a little further and I will add some simple supportive logic for your consideration. The concept of God is that of a “Supreme Being.” It must be true that if he is indeed “supreme,” then he must exist. A "supreme" being must have to exist everywhere. This principle might be easier to understand this way; something which is supreme cannot be limited – and to say that it does not exist is a limit to its existence. Put even more simply, something that exists is more perfect than something which does not exist. Therefore, if something does not exist, it is imperfect and as such, it cannot be the Supreme Being. This is not in question.

 

If it is true that one’s mind can only conceive of things related to what already exists, then because we can conceive of God, it must be true that God possesses the property of being relative to what already exists. To possess something, he needs to exist somewhere. Moreover, since we can conceive of God as a being, of which no greater being can be conceived, then as a “Supreme Being” he must exist in all possible worlds. Therefore, it can only follow from absolute logic, God exists in our world.

 

also proves that the invisible flying spaghetti monster must exist.

 

It is circular reasoning:

The supreme being 'god' is perfect.

Perfection requires existance.

Therefore god must exist.

 

You didn't need to write a full essay just to obfuscate what the reasoning boils down to.

You should realize that you can call anything perfect and all of a sudden it must exist by that reasoning.

[vanamoinen1]

Seems to me that proof of G-d's existence is antithetical to that "virtue" called faith.

 

I won't disagree with any individual's right to his own faith or lack thereof; however, I wonder about the motivation to "prove" G-d's existence--what does this "proof" yield. Whether I accept that there is a G-d or not fails utterly to illuminate what I should do with this information, but I'll bet my wad that many (if not all) attempts to prove this existence will shortly be followed by a list of "dos" and "don'ts" which fall out of the proof according to the prejudices of person doing the proving. Myself, I'd LOVE to see the proof of G-d and have that G-d be none other than Guan-Yin--afterall, her followers never killed to spread their lists of dos and don'ts--instead, they became Buddhists--who is worthy of a following but noteworthily never claimed to be a god.

 

Ultimately, no proof is necessary to the true believer. And to the non-believer, all proofs will be suspect until he jumps the shark and becomes a believer without that proof.

 

I've found these to be USEFUL: [((a= . (b=c)) U (a=c)]; a=a; 42

[Glenn Lyvers]

So far Glenn you have failed miserably to prove god exists via logic or any other way, I may be a fool but at least I don't make wild claims then fail to back them up. Lets see your logic that proves god exists, put up or shut up dude. I do not have to prove God doesn't exist, you need to provide evidence God does exist. Reason and logic in your case is sorely lacking.

 

I don't think you are a fool. Only that you do not address the logical proof, even when its there to read. You are in good company, and many other reject the proof from reason. I did too, for many years. However, it was pointed out to me that I was bias, and that I needed to consider the idea that I was wrong. The premise, that unless one honestly considers the idea that he/she might be wrong, then no real investigation performed by such a person has credible value.

 

It took some time, but I was able to approach the logic again, from reason, without bias or even expectation. When I did this, I could not discount the arguments out of hand. Instead, I had to evaluate each argument, and the objections thereof. Finally, it became undeniably clear that the logic proves from reason alone that there is a necessary being.

 

Feel free to object but when you say that it is not your job to discredit an argument, then it shows clearly that you possess a bias, and perhaps no logic will persuade you. That's not proselytizing, its simply redirecting you to the arguments. I made an argument, and you prefer to reject it without consideration. That's your right, but make no mistake, my beliefs (which were once your own) are made outside of my ideas about religion, and rest solely in the realm of reason. Like you I wanted "proof" and once I found it, I came to accept it.

[Glenn Lyvers]

Seems to me that proof of G-d's existence is antithetical to that "virtue" called faith.

 

I won't disagree with any individual's right to his own faith or lack thereof; however, I wonder about the motivation to "prove" G-d's existence--what does this "proof" yield. Whether I accept that there is a G-d or not fails utterly to illuminate what I should do with this information, but I'll bet my wad that many (if not all) attempts to prove this existence will shortly be followed by a list of "dos" and "don'ts" which fall out of the proof according to the prejudices of person doing the proving. Myself, I'd LOVE to see the proof of G-d and have that G-d be none other than Guan-Yin--afterall, her followers never killed to spread their lists of dos and don'ts--instead, they became Buddhists--who is worthy of a following but noteworthily never claimed to be a god.

 

Ultimately, no proof is necessary to the true believer. And to the non-believer, all proofs will be suspect until he jumps the shark and becomes a believer without that proof.

 

I've found these to be USEFUL: [((a= . (b=c)) U (a=c)]; a=a; 42

 

I completely agree with you. Once an argument is made, and then the objections are made, it is difficult to know what to believe. It is also tough to accept logic, when you do not know the motivations of those who relate it to you. This is very true, and something I have struggled with. Unfortunately, you might have to consider more than the ontological argument to find answers which will be meaningful. It might be that, so long as any objection exists to any argument, you wont believe. Of course if we really approached things like that in everyday life, we would find it hard to function and we might not have any morals or ethics etc. Equally compelling arguments for the existence of God are made on cosmological, teleological, arguments from design and from nature etc. Speaking only for myself, I had to be exposed to several before I would even relax my defenses enough to try to think through them honestly.

 

I agree that people need not have "proof" to believe, but it is important for those who need more than faith. I would not be a believer if I had to trust faith alone. Proof from reason is a very important aspect of my understanding of the world. I'm fairly skeptical.

 

Thanks for your reply.

 

Glenn

[Turtle]

.. Equally compelling arguments for the existence of God are made on cosmological, teleological, arguments from design and from nature etc. ...

Glenn

 

Erhmm...no they aren't. These are the same tired arguments we see in the creationism threads that litter this place. You'll find the appropriate rebuttals there. :)

[sman]

Proof from reason is a very important aspect of my understanding of the world. I'm fairly skeptical.

 

Good for you. This is 1/2 of scientific scrutiny. The other half is observation, and creative ways to test your reason with experiment.

 

Erhmm...no they aren't. These are the same tired arguments we see in the creationism threads that litter this place. You'll find the appropriate rebuttals there. :)

 

Oh yes, these people are very well versed in these arguments. You would do well to arm yourself. I would suggest The Blind Watchmaker, and The Demon Haunted World, and invite others to use this thread with their suggestions.

[Zythryn]

I don't think you are a fool. Only that you do not address the logical proof, even when its there to read.

 

Glenn, I know this was not addressed to me, but I need to respond. You may have missed my last reply as it is at the bottom of the first page.

 

I will copy it here for your convenience:

It [your logic] is circular reasoning:

The supreme being 'god' is perfect.

Perfection requires existance.

Therefore god must exist.

 

You didn't need to write a full essay just to obfuscate what the reasoning boils down to.

You should realize that you can call anything perfect and all of a sudden it must exist by that reasoning.

[Glenn Lyvers]

Thanks for the reply. I have read the circular reasoning argument. I must admit the fallacy is a compelling objection. However, I don't agree that the argument is fallacious. Of course this is a principle argument dating back to Anselm himself. It is certainly not as simple as you suggest, and possesses people on both sides of the debate with relevant points.

 

One could say that the most perfect apple must exist, but then that's silly. The perfection of an apple is relative to limited attributes, and is therefore not subject to necessity. Even if you use the "perfect" argument... a perfect apple, of which no greater apple could be conceived, it does not follow that the apple must exist, because it is a contingent thing and possesses finite qualities despite the wording.

 

The concept of God, as a being which possesses infinite attributes, is a very different argument. You can change the name of God to anything and the argument works, but it is still God. Thus the spaghetti monster or other perversion of God's form works, but it is not fair minded to try and insult the argument for no credible reason. I don't rest on this alone, but on the compilation of proofs I have examined, but I cannot digress into every aspect here. Maybe over time but it's certainly too much to do in one bite.

 

Thanks for your reply. I respect the objection, as it was one I considered at length before I reconciled it.

 

Glenn