| Can we know with absolute certainty that God exists? This paper is an attempt to simplify and condense an argument that has been around a long time and refined by a friend of mine, G. Brady lenardos. If you wish to see a more detailed description of this argument, one can be found at - http://home.earthlink.net/~gbl111/cosmos.htm You've probably heard people say: "No one can prove that God exists." This is usually followed by someone else saying: "Oh yeah! Well, no one can prove He doesn't!" Both statements involve bad reasoning. The first person is wrong because they would have to be all-knowing to make such a statement. (They aren't). The second person is wrong because they are saying that a believer shouldn't be expected to prove God's existence. (They should; Anyone who affirms something to exist has - logically speaking - the obligation to prove this affirmation.) Luckily for the believer, we can demonstrate that God does exist. The person who believes in God does not have to use such lame comebacks as "Nobody can prove that God doesn't exist." However, the believer must take the time to study and research the issues that are being discussed. After you finish studying this paper, when someone says: "You can't demonstrate that God exists!", you can respond: "Sure I can. Let me show you!" The starting point - absolute certainty. In another paper you will see me saying that unless we start with the assumption that our minds were intended to help us discover what is true, we can't really start talking about logic and thinking. Since you are obviously using your mind to read this paper, I'm going to proceed as if you recognize the validity of logic. One of the things logic can tell us is that we can know at least one for certain. That one thing is that "I exist". (I'll refer to myself here but the statement works for everyone). For if you can say "I exist," then you know with certainty that you exist, for you must exist to state "I exist." If one does not exist, then that person would not be around to make the statement would they? This statement is 100% true every time you utter it. This is our starting point, something we know to be true with absolute certainty. Now if I exist, then "something" exists, doesn't it? For the sake of argument and available space, I ask that you grant something that you probably already believe is true: That the universe around us also exists; That is our dimensions of time and space, and energy and matter, and all that are inherent to them. (If you really have a problem with this, please write to me, and I will be happy to discuss it with you individually). Since we know with certainty that something exists, logic can help us determine if the "something" we know that exists (the universe, you, me, etc.) represents everything that exists or if there is something that exists outside the universe (i.e. - God). A way to do this is ask the question: "Knowing that something exists now (the universe and all that is in it) has something always existed? Can we answer the question logically? Fortunately there are a limited number of explanations, and we can readily exclude several of them. Here is a list of all possible explanations for this something that exists: 1) Something always existed. In other words, either this something (the universe) always existed, or there was something else that always existed from which this something is derived. 2) Something did not always exist. Put another way, there was a point when nothing existed. In the longer version of this argument there is a diagram that illustrates how both of these options can't be true but I'm guessing it is pretty clear to you already. Since we only have these two logically possible options, we can prove the truth of one by showing the falseness of the other. You probably already see that option number two doesn't seem possible but let's look at this closer before deciding that option number one is true. For option number two to be true, something would have to come from nothing. This means the universe created itself from nothing or popped into existence from nothing. Remember when we say "nothing" we don't mean the emptiness of space, we mean the absence of space. You might be thinking of mold which seems to form out of thin air - from nothing. But in actuality we know that mold forms from microscopic elements in the air, food, etc. There is plenty of something that mold comes from. For the universe to have created itself, it would have to be and not be at the same time and in the same way - a logical contradiction. If there ever was a point when absolutely nothing existed - as option two suggests - it is logically impossible for something to come from this nothing. This means option two must be rejected. So now we know that something has always existed. By examining our conclusion a little closer we are also able to derive additional information from it. If something always existed, then it does not have a cause that brought it into existence (if it did have a cause, then it did not always exist). If this something had no cause, it is uncaused. If it is uncaused, it is infinite in its existence. These are some things that can be readily deduced, or npacked from the term "always existed." It may not be all that we may know about that which always exists, but it does give us enough information to continue our quest. We now know that there is something that exists that has always existed, that this something is uncaused, and infinite in its existence. Could this always existing, infinite, uncaused something be the universe itself? Some people think so but if it is not, then something outside the universe is that uncaused, infinite origin for the universe. Let's take a logical look at the universe to see if it satisfies what we know about the always existing something that we are certain of. The attribute of "always existent being" that we will focus on is infinity. As we discussed above, an always existent being would have to be infinite in its existence. Since the attribute of infinity is inherent to always existing, if we can demonstrate that the universe does not have this attribute, then we have demonstrated that the universe does not fall into the category of "always existed." So, is it possible that the substance, or stuff, or being of this universe is infinite in existence? Is it possible that the universe existed in some form prior to the first motion event, outside of a dimension of time, and in a completely static condition? The answer is no and here is why. What some people say is the nature, or stuff, or substance of this universe is infinite; it always existed. The changes we see are changes in appearance not in substance. Others say that the nature, or stuff of the universe is finite, but there was an infinite chain of events that lead up to now. While these two views are different in some ways, they do share a key point that makes them both false. Both views maintain that an infinite number of events have preceded the present event, the event we are experiencing right now. They say that an infinite series of events that stretch out into the past has been crossed to bring us to the current event we are now experiencing. This means we would be living in an infinite reality right now - but we aren't. Here's how we know we aren't existing in an infinite universe. In your mind's eye, consider the chain of events that lead up to now. Let's say we can reverse the logical order of events. So we begin going backward, crossing all events in the logical order except reversed. If we have really crossed an infinite number of events in the past, we should be able to retrace them going backwards, right? After all, there are no more events going backward than there are coming forward; there are the exact same number of events. But if we can retrace all past events going backwards, we will have come to a point when there are no more events to cross. Thus, all events would be traversed. If all events have been traversed going backwards, and no events remain to be traversed, then we will have come to an end. If we come to an end, then the series of events is finite, not infinite. You see, an end going backward would be a beginning coming forward, and if it had a beginning it must be finite. If it is finite it is not infinite. According to some people, we never get to an end going backwards, that all past events could not be retraced or traversed. But if all past events cannot be traversed going backwards, then they could not be traversed coming forwards either. The same number of events are involved. If the series of events could not be traversed coming forward, then we would never be able to get to the current event we are experiencing right now. Yet, we are at the present event. Therefore, there are not an infinite number of events. If the stuff of the universe was static for an infinite time and then suddenly popped into what we know today, wouldn't that avoid the problem of infinity identified above? Let's look at this idea closer. If universe that is currently in motion existed in some form prior to it's being in motion, it would have had to been at one point, in a state of absolute static (without motion, or event) and absolutely timeless (without a dimension of time). If this was the case, the universe itself could not be the cause for the change to what it is now since something that is absolutely static does not have the ability to change. (That's what absolute static means.) This means there was another outside cause for the first event or motion. So though this a hypothetical idea avoids the fallacy of an infinite chain of events in a finite universe, it requires an impossibility - that something absolutely static would of itself become non-static. To summarize: If all past events could be retraced, then the past is not infinite. If the past is infinite then all past events could not be retraced to get us to the present event. Since the latter is clearly false (we are at the current event), and the former denies the main premise of the infinite universe, we can conclude that the universe does not satisfy the definition the "always existed something". Although we have found that this universe did not always exist, we are still stuck with the fact that there is something in the category of "always existed." We also know that this "something" is infinite, and uncaused. The philosophical term for an actual always existent that is other than our universe is "transcendent". This argument also shows that if the universe is not infinite, it had a beginning, it is finite. If it is finite, then it is derived. That means it had to come from something else. For, as we have already seen, something cannot come from nothing. So, here is what we have learned through our discussion: 1. Since something exists, something has always existed. 2. The something that has always existed is uncaused, infinite in its existence. 3. This always existing something is transcendent to our universe (a universe that did not always exist, and is derived). Although minimally so, isn't the term 'God' consistent with what we mean when we talk about an infinite, uncaused, always existent, that is transcendent to our finite, derived (created) universe? The answer is obvious and you now have logical proof of the existence of God. |