Philosophy and God
Philosophy and God
Abstract
The issue whether God really exist or it is just an imagination created in minds of people has been debated for centuries. Many scientists and philosophers believe that God does not exist. They have challenged believers to scientifically or logically prove that God really exists. Ontological arguments have been put in place by theology philosophers with the aim of proving, logically and scientifically, the existence of God. Philosophers such as Anselm and Aquinas have put across some logical arguments to prove that God really exists. On the other hand, some atheists such as Bertrand Russell have argued that God does not exist; that the idea of God was just created by people to create fear among us and to make us believe that there is someone superior watching over us. The aim of this paper is to analyse these arguments critically. According to the writer, the existence of God is a matter of faith, and the endeavour by some people to logically and scientifically approve or reject His existence is futile.
In his ontological argument, St. Anselm of Canterbury used philosophical equations to prove that God really exists and that his existence is necessary. Anselm was the first theological philosopher who attempted to reason logically with the existence of God. He was able to convince people with statements which looked like logical equations. In my point of view, I believe that his argument does not hold any water; in other words, I disagree with his conclusions.
His basis of the argument was that God is one greatest being that can ever be conceived. The greatness of God, he argues, is one fact that everybody can always comprehend. Even the fools can acknowledge the greatness of God. Anselm was not trying to prove that God exists, but rather he was just working on his meditation. He believes that if everybody including the fool appreciates the knowledge of God's greatness, then the idea of God’s existence is in our mind. He, however, says that the greatest being is that who exists both in our minds and in reality. That means that if God only exists in our mind, then there has to be another being which is greater than God. But remember, God is the greatest being conceivable (Miller, 2015).
The summary of chapter two of his book is as follows. There is one superior being, greater than any other being in existence, and this is God. The greatness of God is one thing that everybody acknowledges. The point, therefore, remains that there is nothing superior to God. Secondly, the fact that everybody believes that God is the greatest of all being means that it exists in their minds. However, there is something greater than what exists in our minds, and that is what exists both in our minds and in reality. This means that there is something greater than God. But remember, there is nothing superior to God, and therefore God is both in our mind and reality. So, God is real ; hence, God exists (Miller, 2015).
I will counteract his statement in a very simple way. Let us take an example of number “infinity”. Infinity s a number that does not actually exist in reality as it disobeys most of the arithmetic rules and logic. In other words, Infinity is an imaginary number which really does not exist. So let us use the steps and logics of Anselm to evaluate the existence of the number “infinity”. Infinity is one number that everybody believes that is the greatest number in existence. According to Anselm, anything that everybody conceives to be greatest must always be in their mind. So far this is true, and that is the reason why everybody believes that Infinity is the greatest number available. Anselm also believes anything which is greatest must always exist both in our minds and reality. The question here is, now that Infinity is the greatest number perceivable, does it really exist in real life? The answer is NO.
Let us also give an example of Vampires. They are the scariest, evillest, bloodsucking creatures we can ever imagine. This, therefore, means that the notion of vampires is always in our mind. But remember that St. Anselm wants to convince us that the most extreme thing must always be both in our mind and reality. In other words, when we follow his arguments, then vampires both exist in our imagination and reality. But we all know that vampires are always just imagination. This, therefore, means that not every greatest or supreme or worst thing must always exist both in our imagination and in reality. This is the basis of Anselm’s argument, hence making his argument null and void. Don’t get me wrong; I am not contradicting the existence of God by any means, I am just saying that Anselm’s argument for his existence is quite non-convincing. I believe that there can always be other better ontological theories that can best describe the existence of God.
Five Proofs for the Existence of God by Aquinas
St. Thomas Aquinas tried to supply the real evidence by providing five tests that should make anybody believe that God exists. In his book, Five Proofs for the Existence of God, Aquinas endeavours to explain the existence of God by referring to the originality of events. According to him, for an existence of any event or anything, there has to be a brainchild or the starter of these events, and the starter is who we refer to as God. Aquinas’ so called proofs are full of logical loopholes and inconsistencies that make me reject his argument. This does not mean that I do not believe in the existence of God, I just don’t believe in inconsistent statements called “proofs”.
Aquinas’ proofs were divided into five different ways:
Way I: We can always prove that things are always moving in this world. The only way anything can move is only when something which was at rest was moved by something which was in motion. This, therefore, means that there has to be a mover of everything and that the mover must be moved by something. We can’t assume that this sequence started from infinity because infinity does not exist in the first place. Therefore, there has to be the first mover, and this is God (Kenny, 2014).
Way II: Aquinas believes that there is nothing that always creates itself. There must always be an ultimate creator. And that creator is God.
Way III: Something must have caused the existence of a contingent being. This something or someone must have been definite to enable it to cause contingent beings. This definite being is whom we call God.
Way IV: Things can be categorised in that on becomes better than the other. In this world of comparison, there must always be something which will better than everything else. This best thing is the one we call God.
Way V: Nature behaves in a way that they are directed towards a given direction. However, most of the natural things do not have the brains to direct themselves towards those goals. There has to be one being that directs them, and that is God.
Most of these rules may seem convincing, but the truth is that they are not consistent. Take, for example, the first way. Aquinas tries to convince us that the first mover is God. What he doesn’t tell us is what motivates God to start moving things. This theory tries to convince us that God has always been moving from the beginning of time or maybe he has never moved. But again if He has never moved, he cannot cause any movement. This begs the question, what caused the movement of God? This, therefore, means that Aquinas’ Cosmological Arguments were both inconclusive and inconsistent.
We can also approach this argument in the perspective of science. Aquinas based its case on Aristotle’s theory that a body’s natural state is always at rest. This theory was later rendered redundant by Isaac Newton when he came up with the Laws of Motion. Isaac’s first law of motion states that a body will always continue to be at rest or will always move with a constant velocity until it is acted upon by an external force. This, therefore, means that it is normal for a body always to move as it is okay for it to stay at rest without the need for any starter.
Why I am Not a Christian by Bertrand Russell
Bertrand Russell’s lecture Why I Am Not a Christian is one point of argument which has been used by atheists to “prove” that God does not exist. Russell believes that religion is used as a shield against fear. He believes that people just wanted to believe in something greater than them, some protector; and that this belief has been moved from one generation to the other. People are born and taught this way hence; they grow believing this way. In my opinion, Russell does not really argue against Christianity; as a matter of fact, he is arguing against his own understanding of Christianity. His wrong understanding of Christianity gives him the courage and ability to argue against it. I, therefore, do not support this lecture.
In defining who a Christian is, Russell argues that a Christian is any person who believes in Jesus Christ’s that he is the best and the brightest. He says that a Christian must always believe in God and divinity. His main question was that, who created? He argues that anything that exists must has must have the cause of existence, and therefore by saying that God was not created, then we are implying that God did not exist in the first place (Russell, 2013). Russell believes that the existence of God is a dogma that has been created by the Roman Catholics who didn’t want the freethinkers to question the existence of God. As a result, they made the existence of God be something beyond explanation. However, Russell was able to acknowledge the existence of Jesus whom he said upheld the highest level of moral goodness.
In summary, Russell believed that the issue of Christianity is a sham. It is merely used to create fear among people, to force people to do what is morally good lest they face the hellfire. According to Russell, there are two very possible scenarios; the world must have been created out of nothing by nothing or that the world has always existed from an infinite time. He says that human beings wanted something to believe in, like a big brother that will always be watching over their backs (Russell, 2013). As a result of this, they created for themselves a God, and this information was carried from one generation to another. When a man is born, they find their parents believing in the existence of God they start to follow suite.
The first way Russell defined Christianity was wrong. He says that Christianity is the belief in Jesus Christ, his divinity and his wisdom. One most important thing in Christianity that Russell does not know is that Jesus Christ is God. By having wrong information about Christianity, there is no way he can ever argue against it. The most important thing before you argue against something is that you must have the full knowledge of the subject, something that Russell did not have. In his lecture, Russell tries to quote biblical lines and uses them to oppose Christianity. For example, he uses a verse that says that if someone strikes your cheek you should give them the other side to strike (Russell, 2013). He even gives the example of a Prime minister and asks him if he will do the same. What he does not understand is that most of the biblical writings are in parables and symbolises. According to the Greek, striking in one’s cheek is not just a mere slap but rather an insult. If Russell could have been more versed with the bible and its interpretation, he could have made an entirely different lecture. In other words, he could have made an address that supports Christianity.
Reference
Kenny, A. (2014). Five Ways: St Thomas Aquinas Vo. Routledge.
Miller, E. L. (2015). God and reason: An invitation to philosophical theology. Wipf and Stock Publishers.
Russell, B. (2013). An inquiry into meaning and truth. Routledge.
