Existence of God

Introduction:  Works on systematic theology generally begin with the doctrine of God.  The prevailing opinion has always recognized this as the most logical procedure and still points in the same direction.  There are good reasons for starting with the doctrine of God, if we proceed on the assumption that theology is the systematized knowledge of God, of who, through whom, and unto whom, are all things.  We start the study of theology with two presuppositions, namely (1) that God exists, and (2) that he has revealed himself in his divine Word.  Now we will mainly dwell on the existence of God

.  We will see first the classical/traditional arguments for the existence of God and then the Scripture proofs for the existence of God.

1          Classical arguments:  In the course of time certain rational arguments for the existence of God were developed, and found a foothold in theology especially through the influence of Wolff.  Some of these were in essence already suggested by Plato and Aristotle, and others were added in modern times by students of the Philosophy of Religion.  Only the most common of these arguments will be mentioned here:

             (a)          Ontological argument:  This argument was first formulated by St. Anselm (1033-1109), Archbishop of Canterbury.  This has been presented in various forms by Anselm, Descartes, Samuel Clarke, and others.  It has been stated in its most perfect form by Anselm.  He argues that man has the idea of an absolutely perfect being; that existence is an attribute of perfection; and that therefore an absolutely perfect being must exist.  But it is quite evident that we cannot conclude from abstract thought to real existence.  The fact that we have an idea of God does not yet prove his objective existence.  Moreover, this argument tacitly assumes, as already existing in the human mind, the very knowledge of God’s existence which it would derive from logical demonstration.

             Descartes (1596-1650) stated the argument in a clearer form.  The concept of God is that of a being who possesses all perfect qualities.  Existence is a perfect quality.  Therefore God exists.

             We notice that the ontological argument takes as its premise simply the concept of God.  The argument is that merely by analyzing what we mean by the word ‘God’ we can prove that God exists.  This is sometimes expressed by saying, ‘God necessarily exists’ or        ‘God is a necessary being.

             The ontological argument seems to prove a great deal from very little within a short space and makes us feel that there must be a catch somewhere.  It seems odd that merely by making up concepts, such as that of absolutely perfect being, we can prove something about what actually exists.  The ontological argument assures existence to be a quality of a thing, like goodness or strength.  But existence is not a quality.  Existence is not part of the description of anything.

             The ontological argument assumes that the concept itself differs when we say that it has a real counterpart.  It makes a distinction between the concept of God and the concept of God existing and says one is greater than another.  But there is no difference of concept here.  The distinction lies in the counterpart of the concept whether it is present or absent, whether the concept has a counterpart or not.  We can conclude that the ontological argument is invalid.  We cannot prove that God exists by analyzing what we mean by ‘God.’

             (b)          Cosmological argument:  Thomas Aquinas said that God is an act of existing of such a kind that his existence is necessary, as such, he is the source of everything both in respect of what it is and in respect of the fact that it is.  What Aquinas meant to present is that in this universe or nature we always faced something wonderful which always makes us think about God.

             This argument rests on axiom-self evidence truth.  It points to the regularity and order of the universe (cosmos)-the stars in their courses, the cycle of the season, the consistent structure of the universe-and says that this is clear evidence of an orderly mind behind it all.  All this could not happen by chance.  All that is moved is moved by another.  Every event in this universe must have a first cause.  Ultimately there must be a First Cause, a cause which is not itself caused by anything else, and this is obviously God.  In other words, the supreme is uncaused cause and God is therefore called the First Cause.  The argument runs that this universe is contingent.  It is unsatisfactory to rest with a contingent world.  There must be a being who produced the universe and whose existence is not just a fact which could have been otherwise but is necessarily so.  A contingent world would need a necessary being to produce it.  This necessary being is identified with God.

             The Cosmological argument is found invalid.  Taking the existence of the physical universe as a premise, we cannot reach the conclusion that there is God.

             (c)           Teleological argument:  The word ‘teleological’ is taken from the Greek word ‘telos’ meaning ‘purpose’.  This teleological argument is also a causal argument, and is more or less an extension of the Cosmological argument but concentrates on the evidence of purpose in creation.  This argument draws attention to the design (order) and harmony in the universe; everywhere in the universe we see evidence of design.   The universe is intelligible and orderly.  For instance, the regular sequence of day and night and the seasons of the year, the marvelous process of nature by which plants and animals grow.  Here is the work of Almighty hand.  The structure of a bird’s wing or a man’s hand or eye shows that the organ was designed to carry out a particular piece of work, and this again seems to prove that something more than random chance is at work, every created thing seems to have been made with a purpose, and this indicates a divine intelligence behind all that exists.  This argument may be stated in the following form:  The world everywhere reveals intelligence, order, harmony, and purpose, and thus implies the existence of an intelligent and purposeful being, adequate to the production of such a world.

             Many people, even philosophers like Hume and Immanuel Kant, found this argument very impressive.   Particularly, Kant regarded this argument as the best of the three which we have named, but claims that it does not prove the existence of God, nor of a Creator, but only of a great architect who fashioned the world.  We found that this argument is impressive but invalid as a conclusive proof of existence of God. Because it would only prove God as a Great Designer of the universe, but not as a Creator.  God not only creates the universe but calls the creatures into being.   God creates the universe out of nothing.  All creatures  have been set in right order.

             (d)          Moral argument: Just as the other arguments, this too assumed different forms.  This argument points to the fact that men of every race and culture have certain moral standards and codes of conduct.  Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) was the champion of the subjective idealism based on a morality.  He took his starting point in the categorical imperative and from it inferred the existence of someone who, as lawgiver and judge, has the absolute right to command man.    In his estimation this argument is far superior to any of the others.  It is the one on which he mainly relies in his attempt to prove the existence of God.

             Kant criticized the above other arguments.  He said that these arguments are applicable only to the world of appearance as a present itself in experience.  In his criticism, he removed knowledge and used ‘faith’, and he used the word ‘will’ in place of ‘intellect.’  He called it ‘primacy of practical reason.’   He was against a speculative method.  The universal conviction of mankind obtained from practical reason.  The universal conviction is that God is good, wise, holy, and therefore, God ordains complete good in the world.  There is antinomy at the heart of the moral life of man.  To Kant, conscience plays a great role in men to prove God. The other arguments try to locate God somewhere from external to man whereas Kant tries to locate nowhere else but inside man.

Evaluation:  These are the traditional arguments for the existence of God. In evaluating these rational arguments it should be pointed out first of all that believers do not need them.  Their conviction respecting the existence of God does not depend on them, but on a believing acceptance of God’s self-revelation in Scripture.  If many in our day are willing to stake their faith in the existence of God on such rational arguments, it is due to the fact that they refuse to accept the testimony of the Word of God.  Moreover, in using these arguments in an attempt to convince unbelievers, it will be well to bear in mind that none of them can be said to carry absolute conviction.  No one did more to discredit these arguments than Kant.  Many

Philosophers and theologians have discarded them as utterly worthless.  A major attack on this rational approach to God was mounted by Karl Barth (1886-1968), who felt that the ‘God’ to whom these arguments pointed had nothing to distinguish him as the God who is the Father of Jesus Christ, and who acts in history to man’s redemption.  In his Neo-theology, Karl Barth introduced threefold ways of knowing God: (1) way of negation; (2) way of analogy; and (3) way of causality.  There is no particular place to locate God, He is around us, with us and in us.  He said, “Whatever we say of God in such human concept can never be more than indication of him; no concept really conceive the nature of God.  God is inconceivable.  What is called God’s goodness and holiness cannot be determined by any view that we, men, have of goodness and holiness but it is determined from what God is, He is the Lord, the truth, and is a basic measure of everything real possible.”

             However, today these arguments are once more gaining favor and their number is increasing.  For example, both Roman Catholic and conservative Protestant evangelical writers tend to place a good deal of importance on these arguments, particularly on the Cosmological and teleological arguments.  The fact that to-day so many find in them rather satisfying indications of the existence of God, would seem to indicate that  they are not entirely devoid of value.  They have some value for believers themselves, but should be called testimonia rather than arguments.  They are important as interpretations of God’s general revelation and as exhibiting the reasonableness of belief in a divine Being.  Though they do not prove the existence of God beyond doubt, they can be construed as to establish a strong probability and thereby silence many unbelievers.

2          Scripture proof for the existence of God:  For us the existence of God is the great presupposition of theology.  There is no sense in speaking of the knowledge of God, unless it may be assumed that God exists.  The presupposition of Christian theology is of a very definite type.  The assumption is not merely that there is something, some idea or ideal, some power or purposeful tendency, to which the name of God may be applied, but that there is a self-existent, self-conscious, personal Being, which is the origin of all things, and which transcends the entire creation, but at the same time immanent in every part of it.  The question may be raised, whether this is a reasonable assumption, and this question may be answered in the affirmative.  However, this does not mean that the existence of God is capable of a logical demonstration that leaves no room for doubt; but it means that, while the truth of God’s existence is accepted by faith, this faith is based on reliable information. 

             The Christian accepts the truth of the existence of God by faith.  But this faith is not a blind faith, but a faith that is based on evidence, and the evidence is found primarily in Scripture as the inspired Word of God, and secondarily in God’s revelation in nature.  Scripture proof on this point does not come to us in the form of an explicit declaration, and much less in the form of a logical argument.  In that sense the Bible does not prove the existence of God.  The closest it comes to declaration is perhaps in Heb.11:6 “for he that cometh to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of them that seek after Him.”  It presupposes the existence of God in its very opening statement, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth,” (Gen.1:1).  Not only does it describe God as the Creator of all things, but also as the Upholder of all His creatures, and as the Ruler of the destinies of individuals and nations.

             The Scripture testifies to the fact that God works all things according to the counsel of his will, and reveals the gradual realization of his great purpose of redemption.  The preparation for this work, especially in the choice and guidance of the old covenant people of Israel, is clearly seen in the OT, and the initial culmination of it in the Person and work of Christ stands out with great clarity in the NT.  God is seen in the Scripture as he reveals himself in words and actions.  The Personal name of the God of Israel, Yahweh, when first conveyed to Moses from the burning bush (Ex.3:11-15), the flame that derived its sustenance from itself and not from its environment, was an impressive symbol of independent existence.  The divine disclosure of the meaning of the name ‘I am that I am’ or ‘I will be that I will be’ announces the faithfulness and unchangeableness of God.  The central manifestation of the living God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob is in the Son, Jesus of Nazareth, through whom the divine righteous and loving will for human being is revealed.  This revelation of God is the basis of our faith in the existence of God, and makes this an entirely reasonable faith.  It is only by faith that we accept the revelation of God, and that we obtain a real insight into its contents.  Jesus said, “If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself,” (Jn.7:17).  It is this intensive knowledge, resulting from intimate communion with God, which Hosea has in mind when he says, “And let us know, let us follow on to know the Lord,” (Hos.6:3).  The unbeliever has no real understanding of the Word of God.  The words of Paul are very much to the point in this connection: 1 Cor. 1:20-21.

Conclusion:  Scholars are struggling to find God in their own way; some follow reasoning, some from presupposition, some from faith alone etc but their end is the conception of God, that is, His existence. In some circles these rational arguments are still considered as important by Roman Catholic evangelists and conservative Protestant evangelists.  However, these traditional arguments do not prove the existence of God beyond doubt and cannot be used as an attempt to convince the unbeliever.  If God’s existence could be proved logically, we should have to believe it, and there would be no freedom of choice.  But God has not chosen to subject himself to logical proof. In stead he reveals himself to men and it is not by our philosophy or speculation that we can find out the nature of God.  This revelation of God is the basis of our faith in the existence of God.