Can we prove that God exists?
The article was taken from a
The question of God’s existence has occupied philosophers for millennia. In this post, we present a philosophical case for God based on reason rather than revelation.
The First Cause
Aristoteles, „the Philosopher‟, explains: Every effect must have a cause. Consider any object or event in our universe:
- Where did the first human come from?
- Where did the first cell come from?
- Where did the matter that formed our universe come from?
We face a fundamental choice: either regress infinitely (causes behind causes forever), or acknowledge a first cause – something that wasn’t caused by anything else.
An infinite regress is mathematically untenable. If we posit an infinite chain of causes stretching backward eternally, we encounter N+1 problems – we always need to explain one more cause. Every number, even an extremely large one, is finite. Logic compels us to accept a first cause.
Properties of the First Cause
If there is a first cause, what properties must it have?
Outside Time and Space
Since the first cause created everything, including time and space, it must exist outside these dimensions. It cannot be bound by what it created. This implies:
- It never began (has no beginning)
- It will never end
- It has no physical extension or limitation
Perfect Simplicity
The first cause cannot be composed of parts. If it were, we would need to explain what assembled those parts – which returns us to our original problem. Therefore:
- It must be perfectly simple
- It cannot gain or lose attributes
- It cannot change (change implies moving from one state to another)
Mind and Pattern
The universe demonstrates patterns everywhere:
- Human fingerprints follow consistent designs
- Galaxies organize around similar principles
- Physical laws operate uniformly
Patterns imply a mind. Just as we recognize patterns in art or music as evidence of an intelligent creator, the patterns throughout creation suggest an intelligent first cause. This intelligence is not a mere force but something capable of conceiving and implementing design.
Self-Existence
The first cause’s most fundamental attribute is self-existence. It depends on nothing else for its being. When Moses asked for God’s name, the response was simply „I AM‟ – the perfect philosophical description of a self-existent being requiring no external cause.
Implications
If we accept this chain of reasoning, we arrive at a first cause that is:
- Eternal (outside time)
- Immaterial (outside space)
- Perfectly simple (uncomposed)
- Intelligent (capable of design)
- Self-existent (requiring nothing else)
These attributes align remarkably with classical theistic conceptions of God.
First cause: a fallacy?
Argument: Modern physics suggests some events occur without specific causes. Quantum fluctuations and virtual particles appear to violate strict causality. Perhaps the universe itself emerged from such quantum phenomena without requiring a first cause?
Similarly, the argument applies causality (which operates within the universe) to the universe itself. This might be a category error – like asking what’s north of the North Pole.
Response: The philosopher and the scientist always reason from observable reality towards the philosophy, not the other way around. It is generally accepted that forming reality to conform to philosophy is outside the bounds of reason.
One could defer the argument indefinitely, saying that, since one is constrained by the universe, one cannot know what is outside of it. However, this view is quite literally non-sense, in that it cannot be proven by any senses. If a God exists, „so what‟: for the practical purpose of religion, we are interested in how that fact effects us humans. We could ignore it, but what if he does exist? In favor of the first-cause argument we have the observable universe and our intellectual capability, towards the alternative we merely have wishful thinking.
Multiverse theory
Argument: Perhaps our universe is one of infinitely many universes, each with different physical laws. In an infinite multiverse, universes could emerge from natural processes without requiring intelligent design. Some cosmological models propose that time itself is circular, with no absolute beginning. The universe might be self-causing or eternally existent.
Response: Okay, prove it, then. You can’t, since one cannot escape the universe. Therefore, it is more reasonable to stick with the assumption of Gods existence: even if it would turn out to be wrong, it would not be unreasonable, given our current, relatively advanced science.
Patterns where none exist
Argument: Humans are predisposed to recognize patterns even where none exist (pareidolia). What appears designed might be the result of natural selection and physical laws operating over billions of years. Complex patterns can emerge from simple rules (see cellular automata or fractal mathematics). The apparent design might emerge from natural processes without requiring intelligence.
Response: Calculating the (im)probability of a simple biological cell existing and evolving would take many more articles. In short, itt is about as probable that the ordered – or at least seemingly-ordered - design of the universe created itself from scratch as that completely random bytes would eventually evolve themselves into a copy of Microsoft Windows.
Conclusion
While this argument doesn’t prove all aspects of religious doctrine, it provides a rational foundation for belief in a creator with specific attributes. The philosophical case for God doesn’t require revelation – it follows from logical analysis of causality and existence.
From here, one might explore whether this God has communicated with humanity, whether religious texts contain genuine revelation or just hallucinations - and what implications this has for how we should live.