We, humankind, don’t know anything about the concept of life and reality, fear death more than all naturally and are inclined to believe in higher groups of deities. The concept of a god comforts us in many ways, whether it’s the afterlife to live forever or the poetic justice that keeps evil away from our lives.
Then, what is a god? The concept of a creator or a supreme being, traditionally called a god, has lots of philosophical positions regarding its existence, with relatively the most popular ones being theism, atheism and deism. One thing to note in that regard is that these positions’ difference mostly come from their view of the role of the creator and sustainer of the universe and whether it’s separated. For example, in theism, God is both the creator and sustainer of the universe. While in deism, God is the creator, but not the sustainer of the universe. In atheism, on the other hand, God is neither the creator nor the sustainer of the universe because it simply doesn’t exist.
The theistic sense of God is traditionally viewed in two kinds of belief systems which are monotheism and polytheism. Monotheistic belief suggests that God is the one being above all and the creator of everything. It attributes God with characteristics such as but not limited to omnipotence, omniscience, and omnipresence. On the other hand, polytheistic belief comprises multiple deities and their assembly of a pantheon. Both of these belief systems think of a god or gods as the principal object of faith, which is a concurring feature in theism.
Among numerous arguments concerning God, the existence of it is relatively the one that is discussed the most and observing the positions on the existence of a deity or deities and arguments for and against the idea is helpful in that regard. Richard Dawkins’ spectrum of theistic probability describes his view of milestones in philosophical positions. The spectrum is from theism to atheism and it’s an easy way of understanding a position. Some worth mentioning positions other than the aforementioned ones are agnosticism, belief that the existence of God is unknowable, and pantheism which claims that God is the universe itself which is related to the famous doctrine, “God becomes the Universe”.
Maybe the most important part of the essay is the arguments which are for and against the existence of God. Arguments regarding it can be categorized as logical, empirical, inductive, deductive and subjective. One of the most popular argument for it is Aquinas’ Five Ways. Five Ways are the collection of five arguments summarized, not necessarily produced, by the Catholic philosopher Thomas Aquinas. They are most probably the most known and shared arguments concerning this subject. These arguments are:
1. Unmoved Mover Argument: This argument suggests that if a change of motion came to existence, there must also be something that causes the change as the chain can’t be infinitely long.
2. First Cause Argument: This argument is somewhat similar with the First Way as it also suggests that the causes are not sequential events, but rather have simultaneously existing relationships. This argument is expressed in the popular question, “Who created God?”.
3. Contingency Argument: Everything that is existing will always be corrupted. But if everything would come to be nothing, then how do we exist now? So, there should be an entity incapable of getting corrupted.
4. Degree Argument: Things that are partially or fully flawed exist, and since they can’t be their own source of creation, there must be another source that has no flaws which created everything.
5. Final Cause Argument: There are objects that lack intelligence in regard to how they see the universe. And since they can’t set their own behavior due to them behaving with predictable results, their behavior must be set by an entity which is intelligent. This argument basically summarizes the theistic way of viewing fate and destiny.
These arguments have been a part of a great controversy since the day they were published. Kant argued that a “necessary being” is incoherent, and since the arguments are based on the opinion that it’s not, the arguments fail. Hume argued that explaining the causes of individual elements explains everything, and therefore there is no need for a cause of the whole of reality. Some of the recent philosophers, such as Edward Feser, simply thought that Kant and Hume failed to understand what Aquinas actually meant due to their lack of understanding of the terms which Aquinas use. Mostly, the arguments are considered weak because they are only strong when collected together, and that individually each of them do not propose a valid opinion.
Most of the philosophers of today approach these bases based on logical perspectives due to us mostly viewing the world solely on scientific evidences. And since no lasting scientific evidence of God’s existence has been found, the existence of God is thought to be impossible to prove by some as of today and it’s simply a matter of belief and faith.
A family of paradoxes regarding this discussion, called the omnipotence paradox, is widely used in today’s popular culture. These kinds of paradoxes arise from the understandings of the term “omnipotence”. A definition for the term is the quality of having unlimited or very great power. A modern version of these paradoxes can be summarized with the question, “Can God create a stone so heavy that it can’t lift it?”. This question generates a dilemma. God can either create a stone it can’t lift, or it can’t create a stone it can’t lift. If God can create a stone that it can’t lift, then it is not omnipotent because its power must be above all. If God can’t create a stone it can’t lift, then there is something it can’t create, and is therefore not omnipotent. In either case, God isn’t omnipotent. This paradox is somewhat similar to the irresistible force paradox which one basic version of it goes as, “Can a sword that can cut through any shield cut through a shield that can’t be cut through by any sword?”.
These paradoxes derive from the fact that omnipotence is a transcendent concept, and therefore can’t be understood by human minds. One response to these paradoxes is disallowing the formulation. For example, if there is a sword that can cut through any shield, then there can’t be a shield that can’t be cut through by any sword. So, in a reality which God is considered omnipotent, a rock that God can’t lift simply can’t exist, thus making the question illogical. This isn’t an actual solution to the paradox because, as mentioned before, the concept of an omnipotent god is transcendent while a rock is an object from a materialistic world and therefore they can’t be compared together. Some Christian philosophers argued that the paradox’s foundation is false as they think that God can’t do anything that isn’t according to its nature and therefore, for example, can’t make 2+2 equal to 5, or in this case can’t create a rock that’s impossible to lift since the concept of omnipotence can be discussed from numerous points of view.
In summary, the existence of God and other kinds of discussions regarding God will always exist until either God is scientifically proven to exist, since lack of it is impossible to prove, or everyone appears to be in the same position on the spectrum. But it’s almost certain that it will always be a fun and productive thought experiment.