'The Existence of God
The following is a except from pages 82 through 86 of Love, Power, and Justice: The Dynamics of Authentic Morality by William S. Hatcher.
Copyright 1998 by William S. Hatcher
Posted with the permission of the author
Chapter 3, section 4
The Existence of God
In the foregoing, there has been much talk of the causality relationship and the fundamental role it plays in the whole process of moral and spiritual development. We need now to take a closer look at some of the general logical properties of this relationship, as well as the logical connections between causality and a few other fundamental relations. Our purpose in undertaking this study is to establish the existence of God on a totally objective basis, as a necessary logical feature of the overall structure of reality itself.
By the term reality we mean the totality of existence, everything there is. A phenomenon is some portion of reality, and causality is a relationship between two phenomena A and B, which holds whenever A is a cause of B (symbolized A → B). This means that A contains a sufficient reason for the existence of B. More generally, everything B that exists must either be preceded by a cause A different from B (A → B and A ≠ B), or else contain within itself a sufficient reason for its existence (B → B). In the former case, we say that B is caused or other-caused and in the latter uncaused or self-caused. The principle that every existing phenomenon must either be caused or uncaused (and not both) is the principle of sufficient reason.
Another basic relation between phenomena is the relation of part to whole: we write A ∊ B whenever the entity A is a component of the system (composite phenomenon) B. Notice that A may also be composite, but must be an entity (not just an arbitrary system) in order to be a component of another system B (whether the latter is an entity or not). Two systems (whether entities or not) may also be related by one being a subsystem of the other. We write A ⊂ B whenever A is a subsystem of B. This means precisely that every component E ∊ A is also a component E ∊ B. For example, a single leaf would be a component of a tree, but all the leaves together would constitute a subsystem of the tree. If E is either a component or subsystem of B, then E is a part of B.
From the strictly logical point of view, the defining or characteristic feature of an entity A is that A can be a component of some system B, A ∊ B. In other words, entities are components while systems have components (they are composite phenomena). Moreover, some systems also are components. Thus, with respect to composition, we have three distinct categories of phenomena. A phenomenon may be noncomposite (have no components), in which case it is necessarily an entity. A phenomenon may be a composite entity, in which case it both has components and is a component. Or, a phenomenon may be composite without being an entity, in which case it has components but can never be a component.
Causality and composition are related to each other by the obvious potency principle, which says that if A → B, then A must also be a cause of E, where E is any component or any subsystem of B. In other words, to be a cause of B is to be a cause of every part of B – its components and its subsystems. This means that our notion of causality is that of complete cause (philosophy recognizes several different notions of “cause”).
Finally, the existence of a whole system obviously cannot precede the existence of its components (rather, the constitution of a whole obviously supposes and depends upon the prior or simultaneous existence of its components). We thus have the principle of limitation, which asserts that, for every composite phenomenon A, A cannot be a cause of any of its components.
It follows immediately from these principles that no composite phenomenon can be self-caused, for suppose A → A where A is composite. Then, by the potency principle A → E, where E is any component of A. But this contradicts the limitation principle.
In fact, from these valid principles of causality and composition, we can logically deduce the existence of a unique, noncomposite, self-caused, universal cause G. This entity, whose existence we prove, is God (by logical definition). This God is not some abstract figment of our imagination but the actual, ultimate cause of all existing phenomena and entities, the origin of all being.
Since the proof is easy, we give it here in full. However, the reader who already accepts and understands the existence of a universal uncaused cause (i.e., God) can safely skip the details of the proof without diminishing his or her understanding of the subsequent sections of the course.
Let V be the collection (universe) of all existing entities. Since V is composite it cannot be self-caused (see above) and so must have a cause G (different fromV itself). Thus, G → V, G ≠ V Moreover, every existing phenomenon A is either an entity, and thus a component of V, or else a system all of whose components are in V – in which case A is a subsystem of V. Thus, G is either a component or a subsystem of V. But, in either case, G → G by the potency principle. Thus, G is self-caused and hence noncomposite (no composite can be self-caused as shown above). Finally, since G → V and every phenomenon A is a part of V then by the potency principle, G is a universal cause (the cause of every existing phenomenon, including itself).
Finally, we show that G is the only uncaused phenomenon, for suppose there is another such phenomenon G’. Then G → G’ (since G is a universal cause). But since G’ is self-caused it cannot be other-caused by the principle of sufficient reason. Thus, G = G’ and the uniqueness of G is established.
This clear, logical proof of God’s existence and uniqueness is due in its essentials to the great Muslim philosopher Avicenna (ibn Sina, 980 - 1037). By making use of a few notions of modern logic, our presentation here somewhat simplifies Avicenna’s exposition.
The relationships of causality and composition, and the logical connections between them, give us the knowledge of God’s existence. This naturally raises the further question of God’s nature (what is God like?). To answer this, we need now to consider the value relation ≥, mentioned in chapter 1, and which only holds between (i.e., is meaningful for) entities. To say that the entity A is as valuable as the entity B, A ≥ B, means that A is either more refined (higher) – or at least no less refined – than B.
For example, in the physical world, humans are higher (more complex) than animals, animals higher than plants, and plants higher than minerals (inorganic substances). In the spiritual world, the relationship of higher to lower is the relationship of universal to particular (e.g., the relationship between the form of the human in the mind of God, embodied in the Manifestations, and any particular individual human soul).
The fundamental logical connection between causality and value is given by the refinement principle: where A and B are entities,
if A → B then A ≥ B. This means that any causal entity must be at least as refined as its effect. Since God is the unique universal cause, God is also the most refined entity in existence.
In particular, humans have the positive qualities of consciousness, intelligence, feelings, and will. Moreover, although each human soul has these qualities to a specific, finite, and limited degree, there is no limit to the degree that these qualities can exist generally in human beings. (For example, no matter how intelligent a given human being may be, it is possible for another human to be more intelligent.) Since God is the unique cause of every human being, God must have these positive qualities (and undoubtedly others) to a degree greater than every limited (finite) degree, thus to an unlimited (infinite) degree. Hence, God is infinitely conscious, infinitely knowing, infinitely loving, and infinitely willing (all-powerful). In fact, since God is the only Being whose existence is absolute (i.e., uncaused), God has these qualities to an absolute degree.
Thus, the logical answer to the question “what is God’s nature?” is to say that “God is like us except for possessing none of our limitations and all of our positive qualities to an infinite degree.” Of course we cannot really imagine what it means to possess such qualities as consciousness or will to an infinite degree, but the refinement principle does nevertheless gives us at least a minimal, purely logical notion of God’s nature.
Footnotes:
-
We have already observed (cf. chapter 1 above) that an authentic relationship with God constitutes the very basis of authentic morality. However, there is a widespread conception that knowledge of God’s existence can only be based on subjective emotions or an act of “blind faith.” By establishing God’s existence in an objective and logical manner we seek to implement 'Abdu’l-Bahá’s definition of faith as. “…first, conscious knowledge, and second, the practice of good deeds.” (Bahá’í World Faith, p.383) Once we have attained to the conscious knowledge of God’s existence, we have fulfilled the first of 'Abdu’l-Bahá’s conditions of faith and can then proceed to the second stage, which is “good deeds,” i.e., the establishment of an appropriate (authentic), ongoing dialogue (relationship) with God.
-
For more on the proof of the existence of God, see appendix II, pp.139-141. Professional philosophers should take note here of my somewhat broader (and thus slightly nonstandard) definition of the term “phenomenon.” This usage is consistent throughout the present work.
-
For an extended discussion of this proof and its historical context, see The Law of Love Enshrined, pp. 19-42.
Excerpted from Love, Power, and Justice: The Dynamics of Authentic Morality by William S. Hatcher (Bahá’í Publishing Trust: Wilmette, IL, 1998) pp 82-86.
© Copyright 1998 by William S. Hatcher’
onecountry.org/e102/e10214xs.htm
