Beyond Proof and Necessity: Logically Establishing God’s Existence
Scott F. Davis
April 29, 2013

Beyond Proof and Necessity: Logically Establishing God’s Existence Monarchs have claimed divine ascension through Him; centuries of popes have directed pilgrimages and holy crusades according to His divine wishes, and as long as mankind’s time on Earth has been in existence, brother has slayed brother in the name of one singular and all powerful God. To be certain, no telescope ever designed could reach outwards through the universe to see God’s kingdom; no microphone ever produced would be able hear the sound of God, and no camera ever invented possessed the ability to record the likeness of God--yet somehow it became inherently possible that over three billion of the earths’ population today believe in God—whether He be called Jehovah, Yahweh, Allah or the Great I Am. What remains is the time immortal question which mankind has been left to reason: Is it necessary to prove His existence? This paper serves to clearly answer the question, using logic, reason and evidence to support, that it is not necessary to prove the existence of God. Demonstrated within this paper will be the arguments of proof, or the proof of God, that is, an address of the cosmological, ontological and origination by design theories of existence, with centering on the ontological theory. Further contained will be assessments of existence as is inherently essential to evaluate the matter of necessary existence. An address of evidence, as applied to both the proof and existence of God will conclude this paper, save a summation at the conclusion. Before we address the topic question at hand, we must first ask ourselves—what, or who, is God?
There are countless possible answers to this question, and no one answer can be definitively the standard for all persons and religions. Through his article entitled The Quest for God, A. Eustace Haydon dedicated himself to categorizing some of the myriad of titles or references regarding God accumulated through his research: Some of these being God is the infinite life of the universe, the inscrutable mystery of the universe, the austere, the inexorable power, the unknown purpose, the loving Father, and many more. (Haydon, 1923, pp. 592-597) Summarizing, God is everything imaginable based on one’s perception or view of Him. Ibn Tufayl, regarding the existence of God and attributes, consolidated his list to merely state, “God is powerful, and God is wise.” (Hawi, 1975, p. 64) When Tufayl compressed all other possible identities or appellations to the clear and concise, he furthered these into a logic statement, thus constructing or framing theories of proof and existence. To be exact, Tufayl reasons that God possesses power and wisdom, but they are “not like ours.” (Hawi, 1975, p. 65) Therefore, Tufayl argues a series of logical arguments help one to arrive at a causal point, where he implies God’s existence a Necessary Being, and as such, “Nothing can subsist except through Him.” (Hawi, 1975, p. 66) In his review of Ibn Tufayl’s works, Sami Hawi, clarifies, citing, “He is the cause of all things and all are His effects. He is the Necessary Existent Being, which means He furnishes a rational guarantee for the existence of other entities.” (Hawi, 1975, p. 61) This definition transcends everything; nature, the universe and the complexity of the world as we know it. (Hawi, 67) Advancing from individual beliefs towards argumentative theories, Georg W. F. Hegel, noted German philosopher, addressed three proofs of God’s existence; cosmological (first cause, or everything because of God), ontological (perfect, by thought or conception from God), and by design (only God has the power to create), which he would contend are not separate arguments, but are all part of one single proof. (Taylor 214) Hegel’s focal point is centered upon the point that proofs, if defined in traditional terms, “…do no more than show how they establish, or fail to establish, the truth of the proposition that God exists.” (Bench-Capon, 1980, p. 299) Hegel maintains that the resulting flawed logic is that many attempt to force evidence upon the argument rather than affording the evidence to rightly support it. “The danger Hegel identifies is that all sides have ignored the role that behavior has to play in religious belief.” (Bench-Capon 300) These dilemmas eventually diminish arguments made by theists (believers of or in God) against those of atheists, or traditional non-believers. Concentrating on the ontological proof of God’s existence, which is most commonly evaluated by philosophers, theists, atheists and scientists, we are ultimately asked to think of God, and all His creations, as being perfect. The points of disagreement arise when we are asked to distinguish between an existence, or the concept of an existence, and an idea or thought which is beyond comprehension. Simply put, we cannot base an argument with perfection as either the claim or premise, when we realistically have no concept or frame of reference. Therefore, if we stipulate God exists, he simply exists and any attempt to justify perfection would contradict this statement. (Benjamin, p. 369) Ibn Tufayl believes the answer, or basis for argument, is not founded in nature alone, but rather, the causes of nature. Tufayl holds that for every cause there is an “observable effect” within nature. The way Sami Hawi addresses it, is based on Hume’s argument that, “…if we stop, and go no further, why go so far?” (Hawi, 1975, p. 63) To defend that God exists within nature (and summarily, this argument), is to relinquish every prejudice and preconceived notion about God and His existence. (Hawi, 1975, p. 63) Both science, evidence and reason tell us when we maintain that something exists “necessarily” as Tufayl described, and as mentioned earlier in this paper, we are committed to the ideal that summarily, it may not exist “necessarily”, and therefore, it should never exist in the first place if you remove it from all consideration. God would not exist using this logic if you remove the observable effect referenced by Tufayl as, if once removed, always removed. (Nelson, 236) While no one person possesses real, not empirical, but real and conclusive evidence for supporting that God does or does not exist, what could this evidence consist of? By theory and logical application, Gold would have to exist if anything ever existed, either in our knowledge or reality, then that argument of the existence of God would be nothing more than a contradiction. Specifically, when God is thought to transcend all time and existence, then God is thought to transcend all other things ever in existence. Therefore, based on this argument, the answer to God’s existence, based on ontological arguments, would be that it would be highly improbable that He could not, or did not, exist. Converse to this would be a false assertion that God did not exist as it is believed to be empirically impossible to possess conclusive evidence that God does not exist: Therefore, God simply exists as no other proofs are relevant or applicable. (Nelson, 237) With the logical case for God’s existence made, Ibn Tufayl poses a further challenge to clarify his point that, if anything exists, and is in a process of generation or re-generation, it must be contingent upon an absolutely necessary being as he has identified. Tufayl states, “In fact, the universe as a whole is an accident of God, and [it] is not dependent upon another substance. Consequently He is beyond any descriptive attributes, modification or definition.” (Hawi, 1975, p. 64) Therefore, one not need to prove God’s existence, as proof that His existence is necessary, rather, because He simply exists as one can equate existence with essence, since essence is the root of life. (Hawi, 61) Thus, as David Werther, in his article Leibniz and the Possibility of God’s Existence, argues, if the actual existence of God follows from the mere possibility of God and His existence, “…then it can be directly correlated that with the possibility of God’s existence is a sufficient condition for the necessity of God’s existence.” (Werther, 1966, p. 39) If the possibility of God’s existence is that God exists is true, then the proof of God’s existence would not be necessary: He would simply just exist. To advance this discussion into a greater scale, where one were to consider God from His creation of the universe, the sole argument made (and as is necessary) according to Tufayl, is that the universe could not have come into its own. Logic would dictate that the creation of the universe cannot be attributed to a productive factor, meaning, by scientific generation, or means of scientific explanation. This argument Tufayl makes further supports the existence of God as he theorizes, “A productive factor cannot be a body because its nature and destiny would be that of material objects and then itself would be in need of producer.” (Hawi, 1975, p. 63) If a scientific producer existed, and were of physical composition, it would need no less than one motivator, throughout infinity, to sustain creation and generation throughout the universe. If not the first, then, there could be no corresponding existence, and because we cannot possible comprehend the enormity, then God must simply exist without corresponding, universal proof. (Hawi, pp. 62-64) Denying God’s logical existence, and the attempts to argue from other than factual premises for the existence of a divine being, although this being possesses attributes necessary then the existence is factually necessary, unless it can be established God is dependent upon another being for His existence. (Swineburne, p. 1) The belief that God exists, as Richard Swinburne, author of The Existence of God, states, is based upon the belief, “…that there exists a person without a body (i.e., a spirit) who is eternal, is perfectly free, omnipotent, omniscient, perfectly good, and the creator of all things.” (Swineburne, 1979, p. 8) The flaw here is that proof regarding the existence of God as a necessary being would not be required, as, if God logically existed, and God did not rely or be dependent upon another factor, then He would have existed in the first place. (Clark, pp. 61-62) Summarily, it is highly improbable that a universe could have been created uncaused: It is more likely to be the result of divine generation. Therefore, His existence, and proof as such, cannot be measured nor evaluated: It must either be accepted or rejected, however, without sufficient proof, it must be presumed that God exists, thus negating the need to establish proof. (Clark, p. 60) Moving from the logical to the spiritual, or religious, realm, since an atheist believes that the existence of the world can be accounted for by a natural or scientific process, then the universe (and its creation) therefore cannot be attributed to a spiritual being. If this were to be held true, “The balance of probabilities therefore, comes out strongly against the existence of God.” (Mackie, p. 13)

The principle motivator why atheists either do not, or cannot, wish to believe in the existence of God, and that man was created in His likeness, is that no one can demonstratively prove to them that either condition does in fact exist. (Holley, 384) Still, it is here where a potential rift in thinking occurs. If God cannot exist but only in the mind, and if atheists claim that God existing in the mind is not a tangible argument, then “If He exists at all, He exists in all modes of being.” (Armour, 1986, p. 90) From a corresponding theistic standpoint, it would be drawn conclusive that God must exist in everything as it would not be possible for Him not to exist if He existed in everything. As such, once this argument were to be sustained, proof of His existence would no longer be necessary. (Armour, 90) A theist believes that everything in their life depends on God, and they perceive their success(es) as being preeminence from God, not as a by-product of their own efforts or will. “For it is a characteristic theistic belief that unaided by God, he can achieve nothing, and aided by God, he can achieve anything.” (Bench-Capon, 1980, p. 302) An argument made by T. J. M. Bench-Capon, author of Reinterpreting the Proofs of the Existence of God, to support theism, is where if [a] the theist were trying to convince an atheist of the existence of God, using a rabbit as an illustration(s), “He might I suppose use the following quasi-deductive argument that I can see it as a rabbit, therefore, it can be seen as a rabbit.” (Bench-Capon, 1980, p. 305) If an atheist, Bench-Capon contends, accepts the rabbit as real, and can prove it can be seen as a real rabbit, then the atheist would only accept the first truth and not the second proof of God, that is, unless they could see Him. However, the theist, in disagreement, would more than likely establish that if one exists, so must both, and so is in or with the existence of God: If we see creation, then so must it be that God exists. (Bench capon 305) Following the rabbit example with one along a broader scale, if a theist believes that if a substance cannot be produced by anything else, and an atheist would similarly agree, than that substance must inhere in itself, or that, “…if everything is caused by itself or another than God must be a substance, and as a substance, then His existence involves essence. Since God’s essence exists, then so does God.” (Lin, 2007, p. 274) What if an atheist believed that the cosmological argument was unsound because they were quite certain that God did not exist. Given their argument, they would in fact, by rejecting God’s existence, be acknowledging it based on a logical inference suggested by Kelly Clark, author of Proofs of God’s Existence, where Clark states, “…[their] reasoning process would be an instance of the logical inference from modus tollens, which is symbolized as follows: If A then B; B is false; therefore A is false.” (Clark, 68) If one is a theist, then one will surely opt for the former; if one is an atheist, and they accede to God’s mere possibility entailing God’s necessary existence, then one will believe that God’s existence is not even possible. (Clark, p. 75) This idea contents that the universe requires explanation and that the existence of the universe is best explained by a theistic belief, therefore, the world is in fact the evidence, or proof, of God’s existence. (Clark, 76) According to Charles Hartshorne, in Anselms Discovery: A Re-Examination of the Ontological Proof for God’s Existence, four positions are established by comparing both an atheistic and theistic view of the existence of God as compared to empirical proof. In these positions, it is acknowledged by Hartshorne that if a theist believes God’s existence is logically possible and is true in fact, then the only logical argument available to an atheist would be that God’s existence is logically possible, but is false in fact: Leaving it to decipherment that with Hartshorne’s argument, God logically, but factually, may not exist. (Hartshorne, pp. 411-413) Bringing science or even mathematics into the evidence equation, Nobel Laureate Eugene Wigner was asked if he knew of any inherently unknowable laws of physics, to which he replied, “I don’t know of any.” (Richman, p. 303) It is because of this argument made, albeit unintentional, but now applied to the issue of religion, that the theory of religion as applied to physics and mathematics cannot be substantiated save by constructively designed equations, with no reference points for value: Meaning, if infinity is your only true reference point as applied to the theory that God’s existence is and has been infinite, then there truly are no certain and calculable values to equate. (Richman, p. 303) To conclude, if existence is proven by faith or by reason, therefore it is deemed by mankind that God does logically or internally exist based on the arguments of existence and of God, then we can substantiate his existence by these means, it then no longer becomes necessary to prove his existence--he already, in effect, exists. So was it necessary to prove God’s existence? This paper served to clearly answer that question, using logic, reason and evidence to support, that it is not necessary to prove the existence of God. Demonstrated within this paper were arguments based on proof, or the proof of God, that is, an address of the theories of existence, with centering on the ontological theory. Furthermore, assessments regarding the existence, as is inherently essential to evaluate the matter of necessary existence, were made. An address of evidence, as applied to both the proof and existence of God concluded this paper.

References
Armour, L., & Amour I., (1986). Newman, Anselm and Proof of the Existence of God. International Journal for Philosophy of Religion, Vol. 19, No. 1; pp. 87-93.
Bench-Capon, T. J. M., (1980). Reinterpreting the Proofs of the Existence of God. Religious Studies, Vol. 16, No. 3; pp. 299-306.
Clark, K. J., (Jan. 1989). Proof’s of God’s Existence. The Journal of Religion, Vol. 69, No. 1; pp. 59-84.
Hawi, S. S., (Jan.-Mar. 1975). Ibn Tufayl: On the Existence of God and His Attributes. Journal of the American Oriental Society, Vol. 95, No. 1; pp. 58-67.
Hayden, A. E., (Nov., 1923). The Quest for God. The Journal of Religion, Vol. 3, No. 6; pp. 590-597. Holley, D. M., (Oct., 1983). Should Believers Be Interested in Arguments for God’s Existence? American Philosophical Quarterly, Vol. 20, No. 4; pp. 383-389.
Lin, M., (Sep., 2007). Spinoza’s Argument for the Existence of God. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, Vol. 75, No. 2; pp. 269-297.
Mackie, J. L., (1982). The Miracle of Theism. Clarendon Press: Oxford, England; p. 13.
Mavrodes, G. I., (1970). Belief in God. New York, NY: Random House; p. 46.
Nelson, J. O., (1963). Modal Logic and the Ontological Proof for God’s Existence. The Review of Metaphysics, Vol. 17, No. 2; pp. 235-242.
Swinburne, R., (1979). The Existence of God. Oxford, England: Clarendon Press; p. 8.
Swinburne, R., (1977). The Coherence of Theism. Oxford, England: Clarendon Press; p. 13.
Taylor, M. C., (1977). Itinerarium Mentis in Deum: Hegel’s Proofs of God’s Existence. The Journal of Religion, Vol. 57, No. 3; pp. 211-231.
Werther, D., (1996). Leibniz and the Possibility of God’s Existence. Religious Studies, Vol. 32, No. 1; pp. 37-48.