(8) Other Arguments[1]
(a) Maimonides
Maimonides’s proof is in the first chapters of Guide For the Perplexed, and is complex and, to many, controversial. Indeed, Maimonides himself stated in the introduction to the Guide that he has intentionally left contradictions (his “contradiction of the seventh kind”) because he did not want all of his readers to understand the most complex and mysterious of his teachings. However, in the interest of completeness, it will be summarized here. However, a complete discussion of the proof is far beyond the scope of this essay, therefore, the essay will only attempt to present a summary. In summarizing the proof and, hence simplifying it, there is a great risk in being in error. It is requested that the reader keep this in mind.
Maimonides based his proof of the existence of God on two proofs: one that assumes the world was created and one that assumes it has always existed thereby freeing himself from the question of how the world came to be[2]. He argues that God is both immaterial (because a material thing would have many parts which are subject to change, and God is unchanging) and infinite (because the heavenly spheres which support planets and stars) are in perpetual and infinite motion and only an infinite entity can move an entity in infinite motion. He then argues that God is a necessary entity for this world (because this world would not exist without a first cause – God) and, indeed, is the only necessary existent[3].
Hence, Maimonides concludes that God is a necessary existent, is infinite and unchanging.
(b) Mortimer J. Adler
Along these lines of reasoning to the existence of God, it is worthwhile to consider the arguments made by Mortimer J. Adler in his book, How To Think About God published by Collier Books Macmillan Publishing Company of New York in 1980, and the follow-up book How To Prove There is a God, edited by Ken Dzugan and published by Open Court of Chicago in 2011.
Adler’s argument for a reason to believe in the existence of God seem to follow from answers to a couple of questions: (1) since the universe as we know it exists and there is now something which was created out of nothing (Adler defines this as exnihilation)[4], the only possible answer to the question of what entity could create something out of nothing is God; and (2) since the universe as we know it continues to exist, there must be an entity that causes this continued existence, and that entity is God (our world is contingent and all contingent entities depend on a non-contingent entity for their continued existence, and the only non-contingent, sustaining being is God, and once a sustaining God is accepted a creating God can also be accepted). Adler also considers the possibility of the existence of other worlds, and this consideration supports the answer that the continued existence of our world is caused by an entity which is God (because if other worlds can exist, there is not sufficient reason to believe that our world could cease to exist).
(c) Stephen Hawking[5]
The problem with the Adler analysis seems to be that it assumes our universe could not be created out of nothing. Stephen Hawking refutes this argument on two grounds: (1) Hawking can visualize a self-creating universe based on the existence of gravity and quantum fluctuations; and (2) Hawking can visualize a boundless world (if the world has no boundaries, it is completely self-contained and will have no edge and hence no beginning, without a beginning, there is no need to visualize a first cause entity, God). The first ground seems to be refutable with a simple question of “Where did the gravity and/or quantum fluctuations come from?” The second ground borders (no pun intended) on trying to grasp infinity[6], which is where this discussion began. Human beings are simply not equipped to grasp, or even consider infinity. When one really considers infinity, “infinity” is a contradiction in terms since by definition, the term infinity is used in place of the unknowable. In fact, the concept of infinity is, nearly by definition, a contradiction. “Infinity” is only meaningful to a finite entity, however, the very concept of “infinity” means something beyond finite. Hence, by definition, “infinity” is beyond the grasp of a finite entity. It is an exercise in futility for a finite being, i.e., a human, to try to define something that is infinite. Saying the universe simply is “boundless” merely avoids the question, it does not answer it.
In their book, The Grand Design, Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow discuss the weak anthropic principle which holds that our being restricts the characteristics of the kind of environment in which we find ourselves. That is, the fact that we breathe oxygen restricts our environment to an atmosphere that contains sufficient oxygen to support us. While we may have adapted to the amount of oxygen in the atmosphere, the fact is we are oxygen-breathing mammals and thus the atmosphere must have contained this amount of oxygen for us to adapt to it. The authors extend this to a principle they call the “Strong anthropic principle” which states that the fact that we exist in our present form imposes constraints not just on our environment but also on the possible form and content of the laws of nature themselves. These authors also discuss the M-Theory and the concept of multiple universes “M-theory has solutions that allow for many different internal spaces, perhaps as many as 10500, which means it allows for 10500 different universes, each with its own laws.” Combining the M-Theory multiple universe concept with the weak anthropic principle one can conclude that because there may be millions of different universes, the probability that one universe will have conditions that will lead to an evolution which will result in us is quite high. This evolution can be according to Darwin because the conditions amenable to such evolution are present in this universe but perhaps not in others[7]. Accordingly, based on this it might be concluded that it is probability theory that dictates our present state and not an intelligent designer. However, again, one must ask where the multiple universes came from and what started those. Even assuming that a universe can self-create based on gravity, one must ask where the gravity came from. Certainly, once things have begun, these theories appear quite adequate; however, it is the beginning which still is puzzling and not explained by the theories. As with all science, science is exceptionally good at explaining what can be sensed and imagined, but cannot explain what cannot be sensed or imagined or empirically tested. The Hawking/Mlodinow theories will be further discussed below.
(9) Observation
A fundamental aspect of faith is the belief in something in the absence of evidence. Therefore, faith in God must be absent evidence. Furthermore, faith in God must be without logical proof. A God susceptible of proof would actually destroy religion. A God open to human logic, to scientific study, to rational understanding, would have to be definable, delimitied, finit, amenable to human concepts, obedient to scientific law, and thus not be God. Thus, it appears that the above-discussed attempts to prove God’s existence must fail because they originate from a counter premise: if humans could prove God’s existence, then it would not be God.
Furthermore, there could be no faith
if God’s existence could be proved. Destruction of this portion of faith would
destroy religion which is based on the faith that a higher power exists and is
“looking out for us” (“partnering” with us in exercising dominion over all of
the entities created in Genesis, see various essays, including the essay titled
“Partners”).
[1] Immanuael Kant’s “Moral Argument” that since it our duty as human beings to seek to further realization of the highest good, that goal must itself be capable of realization which is possible only if there exists a sovereign moral Being who has the power to bring about coincidence of happiness with morality will not be presented or discussed since this argument assumes that there are human beings who can judge what is moral in a universal manner. See the essay “Imagination and Moral Responsibility”.
[2] See Guide for the Perplexed, 1:71.
[3] See, Guide 2:1.
[4] Note, however, that the Bible does not suggest that God created the universe out of nothing. The Bible states that the earth was tohu vanohu, which can be interpreted as unformed and unfashioned matter, or even a wind which implies that there was something already there when Genesis opens There was already something there: “When God began to create heaven and earth – the earth being unformed and void, with darkness over the surface of the deep…” Gen 1:1-2. Of course, this could also be interpreted as meaning that the earth was unformed during the time God created and He had already created the earth and the story simply picks up at this time – after God had already created the earth and the deep. The Bible thus neatly avoids the issue by simply beginning where it wishes to begin, there was something there and God worked with it. How “it” got there is not an issue faced by the Bible. See also, the discussion on pages 36-38 of “Genesis” by Bill T. Arnold, published by Cambridge University Press of Cambridge and New York in 2009.
[5] Stephen Hawking famously asked “Where is there a place for the Creator of the Universe?” As such, Stephen Hawking must be viewed as an atheist and his words and teaching viewed accordingly. However, Stephen Hawking has attained such a respected position, his views must be considered in any discussion of God.
[6] In the essay “Does the Universe Have a Purpose,” infinity is defined as being related to the definition of “universe” as follows: the concept of infinity which is that of a value or thing larger or smaller than any value or thing we can sense, understand or imagine. By this definition, something is infinite if it lies beyond our ability, present or future, to sense and understand something which will provide a basis for imagining some related thing. When we reach this point, we have reached the limit of our universe and anything that lies beyond is infinite relative to us. It is unknowable and unimaginable for us. It is infinite and beyond our universe. For a better discussion of the concept of infinity, see Beynd Infinity by Eugenia Cheng, Basic Books (2017). In this book, Ms. Cheng defines infinity in the context of mathematics. Ms. Cheng defines infinity as “NOT an integer, a rational number, or a real number; Infinity IS a cardinal number and an ordinal number”. The circle is an infinite path. The Möbius strip is an infinite path. As stated in Beyond Infinity: “we know there is no end, because not only does infinity go on forever but the hierarchy of infinities goes on forever, with bigger and bigger infinities, even though we’re sitting quietly inside our large but finite world.” Basic Books (New York, 2017), Page 277.
[7] For further discussion of this concept, see “The Rise of Animals” by Rachel A. Wood, Scientific American, June 2019, Volume 320, Number 6, pages 24-31.