After reading this article, I was encouraged to rebut the interesting, yet unfounded speculation of the author. While the scientific and evolutionary explanations presented are both plausible and justifiable, they lack the explanation for the origin of the very first being, of all beings in all levels of the universe, and how they got there. The first chapter of the book is missing, and therefore, in my mind, renders their argument unsound. I started writing the first part of my philosophical argument for God when I was living in California. I won’t discuss my own spiritual beliefs- assuming I have any to discuss with you is your prerogative. What you are about to read is my philosophical exercise for the topic of God, and nothing more.
To explain, or even try to understand God, three separate arguments must be considered. There is the argument for the existence of God (that is to examine the proof for God’s existence), another for the definition of God, and the last for the nature of God. To argue for the existence of God by his definition may presuppose the definition of God. For example, to say God is the creator of everything, therefore he exists, presupposes that God God is the creator, but does not prove as much. The same might occur by trying to understand God by arguing the nature of God. For example:
St. Anselm gives us the definition of God as, “The being than which nothing greater can be conceived.” He claims that if the being than which nothing greater can be conceived, can be conceived to exist in thought, than it must exist in reality. The conclusion of this argument is not invalid, but the premise is presupposed. The truth of the syllogism does not prove that God is in fact the being than which nothing greater can be conceived. It proves only that if one accepts the premise to be the true definition of God, then it necessarily follows that the conclusion is also true.
To sum up the task at hand in simpler terms, how would one be best advised to prove whether or not something was real gold? They would first have to understand the chemical composition of gold (or what gold is) and then test against it the object in question. Clearly, defining God must be the first argument considered.
If then, defining God must be the first argument for proving his existence, as it has been clearly demonstrated that it must be, the definition cannot consist of the nature of God. The nature of God can only be understood after we have defined what God is. For the following reasons, it follows necessarily that God is that which is infinite.
If the objective of this philosophy is to determine the realness and existence of God, the nature of things that are real must be the first step approached in defining God. If God exists, God must be real. In reverse, the same applies; if God is real, than God must exist. We know this to be true because only real things exist. If the state of existence is to be, then clearly something that is not, cannot be. Only that which is real exists, and that which exists can exist only as that which it is. The state of water will serve as an analogy for this concept:
Take water in the form of an ice cube. The water is frozen. If heat is applied, the water will melt, taking it from frozen to liquid form. The minute the water melts, it ceases to be frozen; a thing cannot be both liquid and frozen at the same time. The same applies to the nature of being. Being is a singular state. The moment a thing becomes something else, it ceases to be that which it was.
The astute reader will have immediately recognized the discrepancy in this analogy. The water may in fact cease to be frozen as soon as it is melted (thus preventing it from being two things at once), yet it is still water when it is both frozen and liquid. Hence the distinction between a state of being, and the essence of what a thing is. It is important to realize that in order to define what God is, we must seek the essence of God (what God actually is), and not the state of being in which God is in.
So what do we know about God? Only that if God exists, God must be real. However, we also know that if God is real in essence, than God has always been real, and therefore, always existed. The principle of negation will help to clarify this concept:
Take the example of a tree. A tree is a plant; but only in so much as it is a form of life existing in a tree. Note the distinction of the trees essence (a form of life), from its state of being (existing as a living plant). While the tree is alive, it is a form of life that exists as a living tree- having a growth cycle, a life span, and a time of death. Once it dies, it ceases to exist as a tree, but decomposes, becomes soil, and allows for new life to form. The soil created from the dead tree is still a form of life- without it, new trees would not grow. Because the soil is not by scientific terms alive, does not mean it is not a form of life. If new life can come from the soil, like a tree, than it must be a form of life. For clearly only life yields life, as things are not born out of thin air. Without the cycle of decomposition, new life would not emerge. So, while the state of being a tree may change, a tree is always a form of life. And when its “offspring” dies, it will decompose, having in some way the life of its origin tree in it, and start the cycle over again. Life gives unto life.
That which is real must exist (because only real things exist), and must always exist (because only things that are not real do not exist). This is the principle of negation. The essence of what a thing is, is only understandable by the negation of what a thing is not. If things that do not exist are not real, then things that exist can never, in the essence of what a thing is, not be real. If the tree ceased to be a form of life, then the tree (as a form of life) would not be real. It would be the negation of a form of life. A tree would be redefined as “that which is not a form of life”, and then more strictly defined when compared to the list of other things that are negations of life forms.
We have now reached quite a milestone in solidifying what God is! We can now prove that if God in essence is real, God must exist- and therefore always have existed.
The principle of negation then proves the principle of infinity. Infinity is the contrary, or negation, of all that is finite. Things can be measured as finite only by their relativity to the infinite. Infinity must exist, because that which is finite exists. This is self-evident. For even if the claim, “Everything that exists is finite.” is made, then all that is finite is so, infinitely. This is simply because that which is, cannot be two things at once. Being again, is a singular state. Therefore, infinity itself must always be infinite. For if it is infinite in essence, it cannot ever be finite.
The philosophy of time must be briefly examined to prove the former. As some argue that time is a man made concept, with which I emphatically agree that it is, yet either way the principle of infinity remains sound. If time exists as a quantifiable thing, then it must have a beginning and an end. In simpler terms, it must have two solid points of reference (smallest to largest) against which time can be measured. Without as much, time is limitless- therefore not real, and incapable of being measured. If time exists with a beginning and an end, it is finite. If it is finite, that which is infinite must exist, as proven by the above principle. If time does not exist, and there is only change, then change exists limitlessly, or infinitely. Again, proving the principle of infinity by negation.
God either exists, or does not exist. Or to be put more plainly, God is either real, or not real, in essence, (a thing cannot be both real and unreal). If a thing exists, it must be real. If a thing is real, it must be true because the nature of falsity is the negation of truth; that which is not. If God is real, the definition of the essence of God (not the stage of being in which God is in), must always be real, so it must be that God is that which is infinite. For if God is not that which is infinite, then God would have to fall into the realm of that which is finite. If God is finite, then God must have at some point ceased to exist, or not have always existed, which is a contradiction by the principles of both real things, and negation. Therefore, if God exists, God- is infinity.
There is more on the nature of God, and the proof for God’s existence, but my brain is pretty fried right now...
