Back
to Tracts Page
God’s
existence and ours: He’s necessary, we ain’t
Is it true that if God isn’t a necessary part of our equations he isn’t necessary to our universe? Fundamentalist atheists and fundamentalist Christians think so. In this essay the question of the existence of God is investigated from a philosophical perspective. At the end are some tables summarising the main points.
Two
of the most important questions we can ask are “Is there a supreme being, a
God, who made and rules over everything? And if there is, what does he have to
do with us and us with him now?” Many people make it difficult for themselves
even to start on a journey towards an answer to those questions by having an
image of God as, literally, an “old man in the sky”, a kind of super-Zeus. He
supposedly occasionally interferes with things down here by performing a
helpful miracle, but otherwise just watches (disapprovingly!). They probably even
think this is what the Church teaches. However, this misunderstanding fails to
do justice to the Church’s genuine teaching. Indeed, this way of thinking
reduces God to basically the same kind of thing as us, just a bigger or more
powerful version! This is the viewpoint expressed in the inscription on one
Scottish tombstone:
“Here lie I, Martin Elginbrodde;
Ha’e mercy o’ my soul, Lord God,
As I would do, were I Lord God
And ye were Martin Elginbrodde.”
But, of course, to treat ourselves and God as
interchangeable is, quite apart from being possibly disrespectful, basically silly!
As we will see, God is completely different to anything or anyone else.
Another
problem people have is that they see science and God as competitors. God vs the
logical Mr Spock from Star Trek. This, too, is a misconception. Let’s look at
this one first.
Many
people believe science can explain everything and we don't need to think about
God at all. They point to the progress of science and the fact that more and
more things which seemed to be beyond natural explanation in the past are now
understood as the result of natural causes.
(E.g., lightning or life.) Others claim that there must be “gaps”
in nature which cannot be filled by science but only by divine miracles. For example, they point to the big-bang at
the very beginning of the universe and ask “Ah, but who caused that, if there
was nothing before it in time!” So, who is right? Neither, as it turns out!
In
the end, science can do absolutely nothing to help us answer the two most
important questions of all about the cosmos: Why does anything exist,
rather than nothing? And why this particular something, this universe? The
reason for this is that science is about explaining change. It shows how we get
from one state in nature to another using the concept of scientific laws, which
describe the patterns or regularities that natural processes follow. In other
words, science needs 2 things to start with to explain or predict anything:
- A set of natural
laws.
- Something for the
laws actually to describe (since a mere set of equations don't have the
power to do anything or make reality).
Now,
obviously, this means science can never explain why there is a
universe described by these laws.
Indeed, the ultimate goal of physics is to work out the one great
equation that governs the whole material universe and includes within it all
the other equations. (They already have a name for it. The T.O.E., “theory of everything”!)
Therefore, when science has gone as far as it can go, the biggest questions
remain untouched.
Let's
have a look at this fundamental question of existence. Now, either something exists because it has
to, by its own very nature, or it doesn't have to exist, but does exist because
of something else. Philosophers say the first kind of being is necessary,
while the second type is contingent[i].
Contingent Nature
Clearly,
none of the particular things that make up the universe have to exist.
They are contingent, not necessary.
There is no reason that the clothes you are wearing must exist: as you
would soon see if you took them off and set them on fire. (This is not a
recommendation!) However, somebody could claim that while none of the
individual bits and pieces that make up the universe are necessary, and so need
“something else” to cause them, they cause each other. And so the universe as a
whole is necessary. This could be represented by the following diagram:
Each arrow represents the process
of one thing/being/event leading to, or causing, another. Where arrows
begin or end there is a thing/being/event.
A self-explanatory
universe?
Notice that there are no “loose ends” in this
network, nor things without a cause. Well, except for one thing: the network
itself! The universe as a whole does not explain itself, so to speak. Why is it there at all? Drawing a clever
little web does not get us any closer to answering this basic question.
(In fact, a similar idea to this has been proposed by
Professor Stephen Hawking, where the apparent “loose end” of the beginning in
time of the universe, the start of the Big Bang, is re-attached as an effect (more
or less) to the space-time matrix by virtue of some sublime mathematics
associated with a branch of Physics called quantum mechanics. In other words,
the beginning of the universe no longer looks like an inexplicably unique point
which explains everything coming after it, but cannot be explained naturally
itself. Professor Hawking has provocatively implied that nature might then be
self-sufficient, with no need for God, as there is nothing left for him to do,
not even set the ball rolling, so to speak! On the other hand he has admitted
that such clever mathematics does not solve the fundamental problem of
accounting for the existence of the universe. Indeed, he asks "[w]hat is
it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to
describe?” and admits that "[t]he usual approach of science of
constructing a mathematical model cannot answer the question of why there
should be a universe for the model to describe.")
To say a set of contingent beings can explain or
cause each other is rather like this. Imagine you came across a circle of
people holding hands — but all apparently hovering with their feet a metre
above the ground! You ask them how they are managing this, where are the
strings or ropes? What will be your reaction if they answer “No, no, each of us
is able to be up here because the person on our left is pulling each of us up,
and since we are in a circle, that means we can all be pulled up”? I hope you
wouldn’t accept the explanation! Try it if you like!
Necessary God
Therefore we need to go outside the contingent
universe to explain its existence. Yet, if we just go to another contingent
being such as a previous universe or a cosmic nursery of universes (a
super-universe which develops into ours and many others) we make no progress:
we just extend the extent of contingency, of nature. We need to get back to a
necessary being to account for all these contingent beings. How could a being
be necessary, though? It’s relatively easy to see that an apple, a brick, the
Moon, or even this specific universe as a whole have nothing about them that
makes their non-existence inconceivable or impossible. It’s harder to work out
what could make a being necessary! We can start by going beyond particular
things like those just named to what philosophers call universals;
concepts like truth, love, or even the idea of a sphere. But these are all just
that, concepts, ideas. While they seem independent of the particular
characteristics of particular material universes, how they would actually exist
outside a mind or cause anything on their own is the key question. So we must
leave them to one side for the moment, since they are not the solution to our
problem, even if they are in some sense necessary.
A clue to the solution to our problem is a property
all contingent beings have in common: their existence (that they
are) is separate from their essence (what they are). The difference between the conception of an apple
(that is, the set of qualities or properties of the apple, not the mental act) and
a real apple is in the existence, not the essence, so existence and essence
must be different: and thus the imagined apple does not have existence, while the
real one does. There is no quality or property an apple in itself has that
makes it impossible for it to cease to exist or accounts for its existence in
the first place. In other words, apples
can either exist or not exist. They are not necessary. That means we require,
for a necessary being, one where the essence and existence are inseparable,
identical. We require a being whose very essence is to exist. A
philosopher’s name for such a being would be Existence Itself. When I
said we require it, remember that we are forced to find a real necessary being
to explain all the undeniably real contingent (unnecessary) ones.[ii]
Eureka! We have found it: an explanation for the
existence of the universe! Only trouble is, it raises as many questions as it
answers. What else can we know about this mysterious Existence Itself? Does it
not have any other characteristics? And how does this explain why we have this
particular universe, and not some other type?
Fortunately, it turns out that a lot can be derived
from this rather bare definition and the fact that the necessary being caused
all other beings. Since this being is not limited by particular characteristics,
it isn’t this thing instead of that thing, it is unlimited.
Anything which hints at the inferiority of limits or particularity is out.
Also, we know this being had to have caused everything else, so all the
positive qualities exhibited in Creation must be represented in superior form
in the Creator[iii]. So it
cannot be any kind of object with a specific shape or size or temperature or
composition[iv];
nor can it be in any way “dead”, ignorant, unable to choose, powerless or evil[v].
This means we are dealing with a non-material (spiritual) living being who is
perfectly good, all-knowing, all-powerful and able to do whatever it wants.
Hence, he[vi]
could freely choose to create or not to create, and what kind of Creation to
bring into existence. Thus the reason we have the universe we do can best be
expressed by the statement “it just took the Creator’s fancy to do it that way:
he doesn’t need a reason”[vii].
By now you should recognise the common name for this
being: God.
It should be noted that God is not just another good
“thing”, he is goodness itself. Otherwise he would be limited to a particular
manifestation of goodness; he would be good in “this way”, and therefore not in
“that way”. Indeed, other theological descriptions for God are “the (absolute)
good” and “the (absolute) truth”. In summary, God is Goodness Itself, Existence
Itself[viii],
Cause of every thing.
Does any of this have anything to do with Christianity? Yes! In the Old Testament we have the God revealing his name as “I Am”. Not “I am this” or “I am that”, but just “I Am”{{ — which translates as Yahweh in Hebrew or Jehovah in Latinised Hebrew}}. He simply is. This is all the more compelling because the culture that recorded this was at that time one of the least philosophical in history: Ancient Israel[ix]. And in the New Testament we are told “God is Love”. And of course he is called the Creator throughout.
|
The Big Questions science
cannot answer |
A philosophical answer |
The Bible’s perspective |
|
Why
does the universe exist at all? |
An Absolute Being exists necessarily and is the epitome of every Perfection, and hence may be called Existence Itself or Goodness Itself. He caused all limited, finite, contingent beings, according to his perfectly free choice. |
“In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth” Genesis 1:1 “And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, ‘I AM hath sent me unto you.’” Exodus 3:14 |
|
And
why this universe? |
“our God … hath done whatsoever he hath pleased” Psalm
115:3 |
|
|
Truth,
beauty and goodness are not physical things, but they exist in a physical
universe. Where do they come from? |
“God
is love” 1 John 4:8 “I am … the truth, and the life” John 14:6 |
God
|
Everything
else
|
|
Unlimited (Infinite) |
Limited (Finite) |
|
Is existence |
May or may not have existence |
|
Necessary |
Contingent (not necessary, dependent) |
|
Is Good(ness), Love |
Can be good, but can also fail to be good in some way, and thus be evil to some extent. (Note: Evil does not exist on its own, it is the deprivation/lessening/perverting of good; and so it is a parasite on goodness, rather than an equal and opposite “being”. Indeed, evil is a failure to be, to exist fully or properly.) |