Can we demonstrate the existence of God?

(Originally written February 20, 2007 in Book 13)

Can we demonstrate the existence of God?

Objections

1) Can never demonstrate an infinite cause from a finite effect.
2) God's existence is known through faith. Reason cannot prove matters of faith.
3) Even a demonstration that's logically valid may not correspond to reality.
4) We are limited by being enclosed in a finite universe, which we cannot escape. God exists outside of the universe, thus we cannot demonstrate his existence or non-existence.
5) Every argument for the existence of God must first assume His existence, thus all arguments are circular.
6) No argument for the existence of God is ever going to convince who doesn't already believe.
7) God's essence is the middle term, but we cannot comprehend God's essence.

Explanation of 7)

All birds are egg layers (major premise)
All penguins are birds (minor premise)
Therefore, all penguins are egg layers (conclusion)

"Birds" - the middle term
"egglayers" - major term, always the predicate of the conclusion
penguins - minor term, always the subject of the conclusion

The essence of God must function as the middle term, but we do not have any comprehension of the essence of God, so it cannot function that way.

8) There is no such thing as metaphysical knowledge. All knowledge is limited to experience.
9) God cannot be proven by scientific experiments.
10) The term 'God' is meaningless.

Can we demonstrate the existence of God?
Based on Summa Theologic 1, q. 2a.2

Objections revisited

1. A priori objections
2. A posteriori objections

A priori objection #1

Religious language is meaningless
- Ayer, Wittgenstein, logical positivists
- In order to be a meaningful a statement must be, in principle, verifiable

A priori objection #2
- We cannot validate religious experience empirically
- Flew

A priori objection #3
- What is rational, needn't be true
- post modernism
All dragons have wings
All monsters are dragons
Therefore, all monsters have wings

A posteriori objection #1
-Knowledge of God can only be based on faith
- Kierkegaard

A posteriori objection #2
- We cannot apprehend God's essence

A posteriori objection #3
- The finite can never extend to the infinite
- Alfred North Whitehead

A posteriori objection #4
- Presuppositionalism: Since God is first in Being, we must begin with God
- Kierkegaard, Van Til

Transcendental argumentation

Ways to draw valid logical inferences
1) Deduction - formal inferences from premises
2) Induction - probable conclusions from observations

We know there is a world
- What are the conditions that are necessary for there to be a world?
- We cannot look outside o the world to find God
- If there is a God, there could be evidence for a God in the world.

Any attempt to simply close the option of there being theistic proofs are purely arbitrary.

Can the finite attain infinity?

Georg Cantor's set theory

{1, 2, 3, 4 ... infinity}
{1, 2, 3, 4

but the set of real numbers, which is infinite is longer than the set of integers, which is also infinite.

Metaphysical infinity is more than mathematical infinite.

Important considerations

- Distinction between that something exists and comprehending its essence.

Distinction between ontology and epistemology.
-Ontology (being)
-Epistemology (knowing)

Ontologically, God exists or he doesn't.

Theistic proofs deal with the epistemological question: "Can one know that God exists".

Ontology - God exists
Epistemology - Ascertaining the ontology

Arguing in a circle.

God exists
Therefore, he has shown his effects
Therefore, he has ...
Therefore, he has ...
Therefore, God exists.

Believing the ontological statement that "God exists" and then providing an epistemological proof is not circular, so long as one does not assume it in the actual argument.

Assignment: argue for the ontological argument.