Following an earlier post in which certain commenters doubted the possibility of demonstrating it, I publish here a very simple work that I helped to put together when I was young, for apologetics talks.
It is simple and entirely improvable, but the effect it had on me still endures despite its simplicity. I hope it helps.
Introduction
We Catholics believe in God through the Faith we have received in baptism; therefore, if in the coming years, as in the past, a new persecution comes and they want to put you in prison as a fundamentalist, subjecting you to re-education with atheist university professors who profess atheism, do not be afraid. Certainly, they will try to confuse you with their apparent demonstrations. They may be more intelligent than you, but answer firmly: “I believe in God by Faith!”[1]
But it is also good to know how to demonstrate the existence of God by means of reason, since reason confirms the Faith; that is why we give you this booklet.
The first pope, Saint Peter, tells us: “Know how to give a reason for your faith.”
1. First point
Before anything else, we must realize that modern man possesses an implicit subjectivist philosophy.
How many times do we hear people say: “That is your truth” or… “if this movie is not bad for me, it is not a sin”? It is an extension of the same democratic political behavior which proclaims that whatever the 51% decide is what is true, what is error, what is right or what is wrong.
At the base of all these behaviors lies the implicit subjectivist philosophy, that is, the position which expresses the following opinion: there is no objective truth.
This error dates back to antiquity, when certain ancient philosophers such as Protagoras proclaimed that each person decides what is true or false, what is bad or good…; it was the great philosophers such as Socrates, Plato and Aristotle who took it upon themselves to bury that famous error.
In the seventeenth century, the world revolution, in order to justify all its excesses, had to exhume the corpse of subjectivism once again.
The one charged with doing so was René Descartes, who introduced it with his essay “Discourse on the Method,” where he proposes:
1) To demonstrate the mind’s aptitude for truth, it is advisable to begin with universal doubt: to doubt everything (the “methodical doubt,” he called it).
2) To seek a truth which cannot be doubted.
3) To extend doubt to all spontaneous certainties: the existence of the external world, mathematical truths, etc.
4) To respect only this certainty: I think, therefore I am (Cogito ergo sum)
5) To build upon these “premises” the whole edifice of science or of scientific knowledge.
The Catholic answer
1) Descartes’ doubt, or “Cartesian doubt,” as it is called, is too broad: it is not reasonable to extend doubt to facts guaranteed by absolute evidence. For example: sensible reality, mathematics, etc., as we are about to demonstrate.
2) The procedure is contradictory: it claims to discover absolutely evident truths while affirming that they may be errors; if evidence has no value in the face of doubt, how can it have value afterwards?
3) The truthfulness of the intelligence cannot be demonstrated by the intelligence itself; that is a vicious circle. The truthfulness of the intelligence is compared, shown, experienced, but not demonstrated.
What is not logical in Descartes is his failure to extend methodical doubt to thought itself; indeed, thought can deceive me. For example: if I think that a tree standing in front of me does not exist, and then, imagining that there is nothing there, I butt my head “into the air,” I will probably hurt myself…
We advise modern man, infected with subjectivism, to disinfect his soul by taking possession once again of the true theory of knowledge.
How do I know?
1) I have 5 senses… deny it, if you can… 5 and distinct: I do not hear with my eyes, etc.
2) When I open my eyes, what do I see? Colors and shapes.
3) Is it my thought that creates them? Or are they outside of me? (Let us see whether the senses teach me nothing certain!)
Put this way, it sounds evident; but, in order to attain certainty, we advise doing the anti-subjectivist exercise: stand in front of a tree and think intensely that it is thought that creates reality (since, according to Descartes, only thought could build certainty); then, thinking that the tree does not exist, swing your head against it. After a few exercises, the bumps will teach me that thought deceives me and that the senses give me certain knowledge: SENSIBLE REALITY IS OUTSIDE OF ME; IT IS OBJECTIVE. I cannot doubt it.
Evidently, the senses do not tell me what wood is — that, the intelligence tells me — but they give me the certitude that it is outside of me, and this demonstrates that thought, which is immanent, cannot tell me this (this, we repeat, only the senses can teach me).
We already enjoy the first evidence: sensible reality exists; it is outside of me. Even if I do not believe it, do not like it, do not feel it, or am asleep, it is what it is; it imposes itself upon me violently… It is I who must adapt to its stability, and not it to my imagination. We enjoy the existence of things, even though people now watch too much television and have lost all contact with creation.
That is to say, material reality is there; it is objective; I do not create it with my own opinion.
That is why subjectivism is a spiritual error which creates destabilization and fears, and loses itself in the abyss of chaos and fantasy.
The Revolution wants to remove stability so that nothing stands firm, so that everything unsettles you, so that we become frightened of everything and are left with nothing upon which to rest.
On the contrary, realizing that reality is outside of me stimulates interest in knowing who made it; it is stimulating to consider its beauties (the importance of aesthetics), and here we come to…
2. Second point
Very well: reality is outside of me; it is not thought that creates it; if I deny it, I hurt myself; it is objective. But, who originated it?
There are only two possibilities:
1) A force that is not intelligent — chaotic, disordered, one that would not know how to add “two plus two equals four” — or…
2) An Intelligence Superior to men.
We refrain from considering here that it might have been men who created the perfections of nature, because not even the Japanese can make an animal as small and perfect as the classic little ant.
So then, who is at the origin of these stones we see, of the water, the fire, the air, and the other objective creations which are outside of me even if I do not believe it, do not feel it, do not like it, or am asleep? Let us now pass quickly, then, to…
3. Third point
And here is laid down the principle by which the existence of God is demonstrated:
“The empirical proof that an intelligence exists is its work”
We could likewise imagine a dialogue. In it, I throw you a question:
—Who made that watch you have on your wrist? — I ask you.
– A watchmaker – you answer me.
– But do you see, at this moment, the watchmaker who made the watch?
– No – you answer me.
– Then, he does not exist – I assert.
– But if I look for him, I will find him – you add.
– Then I will give you a thousand pesos right now if you go and look for him; and in fact you will never go looking for the watchmaker, because perhaps a thousand pesos is not enough for you, or he has already died. But you go on believing that he exists without seeing him.
And this holds for all the artifacts you see: that telephone, this chair, this lamp, this pen…
Do you believe that the men who made all these things exist, even though you have not seen them?
Why? Because you use this principle:
“The proof that an intelligence exists is its work”
Then you are a believer, since you believe in things and in people you have not seen.
Let us pass, then, to…
4. Fourth point
Continuing with the example of the watch, I now ask you: For which is more intelligence needed? To make a watch or to make an ant?
If you yourself believe that to make a watch or a car an intelligence is needed even though you do not see it, how much more would be needed to make an ant, which is a complicated and miniaturized machine? And how is it possible for a non-intelligent, disordered, blind force to do it?
Let us see how the contrary is totally absurd:
Imagine that I told you I had a car in Mexico, in a town near a volcano, and that this car was not a “Ford” as it had written on it; rather, one day, from the slope of the volcano where rubber plants were cultivated, by chance, four masses of rubber came out and began to roll down the slope. There, they collided by chance with some masses of iron from a previous eruption, and practically the front assembly of the car was formed, which went on rolling around the hill.
Then, again by chance, an electrical storm came and a lightning bolt formed an electrical system, and in the end, the complete car came out… do you believe this?
Naturally, you would burst out laughing.
But in all the schools it is being taught that at the beginning of the world there was a primordial mineral, or else that nothing existed, and that by chance the first mineral was formed; in short, there was a mountain and by chance a little stone broke off which, through certain conditions we do not know, practically transformed itself into a vegetable, a little branch, practically a bone, and another little stone rolling around…
It also transformed itself by chance into a sponge, practically into a lung; the two joined together by chance and practically out came the cat: “meow!”.
Do you believe that cats are made that way?
But let us go further.
Let us look for the most perfect machine that human intelligence has created, for example, a latest-model helicopter: pure cybernetics, atomic, phosphorescent, etc.
Tell me: do you believe that this artifact of science can swell up until it lays an egg, then give it warmth and affection, and finally, after some time, make this little egg break its shell so that from it a little helicopter is born, which will grow up on a tube of gasoline?… (Ha!)
And well… the worst laying hen does it…
How is it possible that a blind, non-intelligent force should be at the origin of a machine with its own reproductive system, and that we, intelligent beings, cannot make them?
Conclusion
From all that we have seen, we arrive at the following:
The origin of these marvels — ants, little birds, the human eye, etc. — cannot be chance, but a Superior Intelligence which men call “God.”
And this is objective, just as these stones, these pieces of wood, this flower, etc., are objective; that is, the Cause of so many perfections exists objectively even if I do not believe it, do not like it, do not feel it, or am asleep…
Annex I: The “scientific proof”
Some say that they only believe after a scientific proof, that is, verifying the facts by means of science, and therefore, by seeing it. But afterwards, in their daily behavior, they show that this is not so; in fact, they believe in almost the totality of things without their being verified — for example, the existence of the watchmaker, etc. — without checking it personally.
And they are convinced, utterly convinced, and they would mock anyone who did not believe in the watchmaker.
This is what we wanted to demonstrate:
Experience demonstrates that men are convinced — better said, utterly convinced — that things exist without using the scientific proof for this. We repeat: they believe in the watchmaker without seeing him, in the shoemaker just by seeing the shoes, in the engineer by seeing a car, etc.; because for reasonable beings it is sufficiently understandable to see the work in order to believe that an intelligence which made it exists, even without verifying it personally. This is what all men do, even the “scientists”; they too believe in the engineer, in the watchmaker, in the shoemaker.
All of us, all, act in this way; so then… why not apply these principles of reasoning to the existence of the Superior Intelligent Being who is God, when we see an ant, a little bird, the human eye…?
Annex II: The calculation of probabilities
One could say that, in the end, chance may have made the whole universe, claiming that this probability cannot be excluded.
Then, we too could carry out this “proof of the probabilities.”
Let us take, for example, a statue; or rather, a great statue: the Pietà of Michelangelo.
Looking at it, one could say: if I apply the blind force of dynamite to this block of white marble, how many probabilities are there that a statue like that of this sculptor will come out?
It could be! It must not be denied beforehand! — they would say.
Agreed; but let us make the calculation of the probabilities: how many explosions? 1,000, 10,000…?
Let us suppose that, by chance, after 10,000 explosions, one of them produces the statue; this means that there are 9,999 probabilities that it was the intelligence of an artist that made it, and only one that it was a blind force…
But, in the case of man, that is, of the human body, we have the difficulty that it is not merely “exterior” like the statue, but contains an extremely complicated internal anatomical organization: the thirty-three billion cells which the human body possesses, with their marvelous and complicated internal structure, the thousands of meters of blood vessels in a single human body.
I ask: how many probabilities are there that, upon applying a blind force like that of dynamite, this block of marble should produce, by chance, the human statue with all its internal anatomical organization?
You cannot deny it.
I answer: Well, let us make the calculation of the probabilities: 10,000 explosions, or better, 100,000,000, and perhaps there may be one in which it happens…; this means that there would be one single possibility out of 100,000,000 that a chaotic force could make the statue with its internal anatomical organization, and then, 99,999,999 that at the origin of the statue there is an intelligent force.
But the human body does not possess only an exterior form and an internal anatomical organization: it is alive, it moves by itself, it is not plugged in…
How many probabilities are there that a non-intelligent force, by chance and evolution, could produce life? This is against all reason and sound judgment. God exists.
Annex III. And so, what is God like?
After having seen that sensible reality is outside of me, and that it is not my thought that creates it; that the proof that an intelligence exists is its work; and that the perfections of creation demonstrate to me that God objectively exists, immediately there arises the interest in knowing what God is like.
The beauty of creation reflects that of God
The perfection of the structure of the universe necessarily demonstrates the existence of its maker, and this is enough to say that it works well; but, normally, not much weight is usually given to the beauty of creation. For example, when a technician invents a machine, he is concerned only that it should work, and it does not matter to him that it is ugly; only when it has been put up for sale will he paint it so that it may be as aesthetically attractive and elegant as possible.
If nature were the result of an extremely long evolution made by chance, it would not have concerned itself with the aesthetic beauty of beings.
Such beauty is by no means indispensable for the perfect functioning of natural organisms, but objective reality is also beautiful, like the sunrise, the sunset, the flowers, the birds, and the other creatures…
This aesthetic beauty is the reflection of the beauty of God. What must the Creator be like, if the creatures are so beautiful?
The attributes of God:
1) God is perfect
Since God is the cause of all created things, He contains in Himself all the perfections of creatures. Being the Subsistent Being Itself –Ipsum Esse Subsistens –, He encloses in Himself all being and also all perfection.
2) God is infinite
By the fact that God is the Subsistent Being Itself, that is, that He needs no one in order to be — He is the necessary Being, not caused by another being — and has in Himself no composition (which would be an imperfection), then He has in Himself no foundation for His being to have limits. (Cf. Saint Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, I, q. 7, a. 1).
3) God is simple
God is simple because He contains no composition, that is, no mixture of perfection with imperfection.
Moreover, composition presupposes a cause that produces the union of the parts, and God is posterior to nothing, nor is He caused by anyone.
4) There exists only one single God
The unity of God is deduced from His simplicity: He has no parts, because the composite is posterior to its parts; and also from His infinity and from the unitary character of the universe.
5) God is good
Since God is the Subsistent Being Itself, He is also goodness itself, because He possesses in the highest degree all the goodness of creatures.
Let us not forget that the goodness of God and that of creatures are infinitely different.
The infinite goodness of God is the foundation of His infinite happiness. He knows and loves Himself as the Supreme Good; therefore He possesses and enjoys in Himself a happiness without limits.
6) The beauty of God
The beauty of God is the cause that embraces the beauty of all creatures and surpasses it in an infinite manner.
It is one of the best spiritual exercises or meditations to ascend from the beauty of creatures to the beauty of the Creator (see Saint Ignatius, Spiritual Exercises, “Contemplation to Attain the Love of God,” no. 230 ff.).
7) The immutability of God
That is, “God does not change”; He is always the same. The foundation of the immutability of God lies in His absolute simplicity, which is the absence of composed parts.
Change implies potentiality, composition and imperfection; it is therefore irreconcilable with God, who is pure, simple and perfect act. “Everything that changes ceases to be what it was and begins to be what it was not. True being, pure being, genuine being is possessed only by Him who does not change” (Saint Augustine).
8) The eternity of God
Reason deduces the eternity of God from His absolute immutability. The foundation of the eternity of God is His fullness of being, which excludes all potentiality, and with this, all subsequent succession is excluded.
9) The presence of God, or the existence of God in things
God is present in all things, because He gives them existence. And just as the mover and the thing moved must be joined in order for there to be movement, so, when a thing exists, it is necessary that it have a certain union with God, receiving from Him its being; and in this way, God is present in it.
And since the existence of a thing is what is most intimate to it, it follows that God is in all things intimately.
And since only God can give being to things, He is therefore present by His Essence also in the lower creatures without exclusion, because nothing escapes divine causality.
PS: this work is very simple, as I said above, and it is not of my authorship. I only helped to draft it before reaching the age of twenty. I wanted to leave it as it is, not because it is interesting, but because I believe it still keeps the freshness of someone who was seeking God with many questions in his soul.
- This case occurred at the University of Buenos Aires. A professor of Philosophy of Law, during one of his classes, declared himself a relativist and stated that he respected no belief whatsoever, thereby inviting those who did believe to leave. The eighty students of the course remained in the classroom, so he pronounced: “Let whoever believes in God raise his hand.” No one raised a hand (falling, through fear, ignorance, human respect… into the sin of apostasy).
Having achieved these first results, the professor repeated the question with a certain provocation, and then two students raised their hands, while the other seventy-eight confirmed their denial of God. For the relativist professor, after a few false arguments, it was very easy to confuse the two Catholics.
In the future, a situation of this kind will be much more common. In that case, finding yourself before a person better prepared than you, what you must do is affirm that you believe in God by Faith and by reason, and that if a well-prepared Catholic professor were there, he would know how to answer such atheist provocations. ↩
Author: Fr. Javier Olivera Ravasi
