Proving God’s existence

Jared Staudt

If someone asked you if you could prove that God exists, what would you say? What would you have to draw upon to answer this question — revelation, science, or philosophy? Revelation gives us knowledge of God as a free gift and does not require us to prove its contents, but to understand them with the help of the Church. Science cannot prove God’s existence, because God is not an object of empirical study that can be measured with earthly means. This leaves us the option of philosophy — making arguments of reason based upon the nature of things and the dynamics of causality.

Thomas Aquinas makes an important distinction about proving God’s existence through reason: we can know naturally that God exists, that there is an infinite and perfect Being who created the universe, but we cannot know who God is by reason alone. The universe may bear the footprint of its Creator, but God is not a being or object within the universe, but BEING itself — he IS the One who IS. Nonetheless, knowing that God exists does help the mind a great deal, recognizing its natural dependence on the Creator and removing a major obstacle in coming to faith.

Edward Feser has become one of the most distinguished Catholic philosophers in the United States and his new book, Five Proofs of the Existence of God (Ignatius, 2017), can help Catholics to be prepared to answer objections to God’s existence and will strengthen our own understanding of the truth. It is significant that of the five thinkers Feser uses for the arguments of the book, two are pagan, Aristotle and Plotinus, and another Protestant, Leibniz. The other two are St. Augustine, one of the greatest Fathers of the Church, and the Common Doctor, Aquinas. The variety of historical and cultural contexts from which these figures come itself proves the point: reason, not simply Christian revelation, can know that God does exist.

A little more than halfway through the book, Feser offers a brief recap of the five arguments:

The Aristotelian proof begins with the fact that there are potentialities that are actualized and argues that we cannot make sense of this unless we affirm the existence of something which can actualize the potential existence of things without itself being actualized, a purely actual actualizer. The Neo-Platonic proof begins with the fact that the things of our experience are composed of parts and argues that such things could not exist unless they have an absolutely simple or noncomposite cause. The Augustinian proof begins with the fact that there are abstract objects like universals, proposition, numbers, and possible worlds, and argues that these must exist as ideas in a divine intellect. The Thomistic proof begins with the real distinction, in each of the things of our experience, between its essence and its existence, and argues that the ultimate cause of such things must be something which is subsistent existence itself. The rationalist proof begins with the principle of sufficient reason and argues that the ultimate explanation of things can only lie in an absolutely necessary being (169).

The book explains each of these proofs at length and details the more technical terms employed. The beginning of chapter six also explores some of the philosophical concepts in more depth and offers a brief primer that helps readers to understand the logic of the arguments.

Feser makes it clear that the book is not a study in the history of philosophy. His arguments refer to key elements of the thought of each of the five thinkers, but he actively constructs a compelling argument that stands on its own terms today. He also spends a considerable amount of time engaging opposing views and objections raised by atheists, both throughout the book and in an entire chapter to conclude the book. The book is not written in scholarly language, but will provide a challenging read. Ultimately, it provides another way of forming our minds in faith.

COMING UP: Denver bishops issue statement on ‘Family Separation Policy’

Sign up for a digital subscription to Denver Catholic!

Denver bishops Archbishop Samuel J. Aquila and Bishop Jorge Rodriguez have released the following statement regarding the family separation policy being utilized at the U.S./Mexico border:

“We join our brother bishops around the United States in calling on the Trump administration to end its recent practice of separating children from their parents at our southern border. These children and their parents are often fleeing violence and our country should not add to the inhumanity of their situation. While we understand a desire to protect our borders, we call on all lawmakers to urgently seek an end to this immoral policy and pursue solutions that support family cohesiveness.”

Their statement echoes the statement Cardinal Daniel N. DiNardo (Archbishop of Galveston-Houston), president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, released last week at the USCCB Spring General Assembly in Fort Lauderdale, Florida: http://www.usccb.org/news/2018/18-098.cfm

“At its core, asylum is an instrument to preserve the right to life. The Attorney General’s recent decision elicits deep concern because it potentially strips asylum from many women who lack adequate protection. These vulnerable women will now face return to the extreme dangers of domestic violence in their home country. This decision negates decades of precedents that have provided protection to women fleeing domestic violence. Unless overturned, the decision will erode the capacity of asylum to save lives, particularly in cases that involve asylum seekers who are persecuted by private actors. We urge courts and policy makers to respect and enhance, not erode, the potential of our asylum system to preserve and protect the right to life.

Additionally, I join Bishop Joe Vásquez, Chairman of USCCB’s Committee on Migration, in condemning the continued use of family separation at the U.S./Mexico border as an implementation of the Administration’s zero tolerance policy. Our government has the discretion in our laws to ensure that young children are not separated from their parents and exposed to irreparable harm and trauma. Families are the foundational element of our society and they must be able to stay together. While protecting our borders is important, we can and must do better as a government, and as a society, to find other ways to ensure that safety. Separating babies from their mothers is not the answer and is immoral.”

Featured image by  Loren Elliott/AFP/Getty Images