We Catholics believe in God by the Faith we 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, making you submit 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 reason, since reason confirms Faith; these lines have been written for that purpose.
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 it said: “That is your truth” or… “if this film is not bad for me, then it is not a sin”? It is a prolongation of the same democratic political behavior that proclaims that what 51% decide is what is true, what is error, what is good, or what is bad.
At the root of all these behaviors lies implicit subjectivist philosophy, that is, the position that expresses the following opinion: objective truth does not exist.
This error dates back to antiquity, when some ancient philosophers such as Protagoras proclaimed that each person is the one who decides what is true or false, bad or good…; it was the great philosophers such as Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle who undertook to bury that famous error.
In the seventeenth century, the world revolution, in order to justify all its excesses, had to re-exhume the corpse of subjectivism.
The one charged with this was René Descartes, who introduced it with his essay “Discourse on the Method,” where he proposes:
1) To demonstrate the aptitude of the spirit for truth, it is fitting to begin with universal doubt: to doubt everything (he called it “methodic doubt”).
2) To seek a truth of which one cannot doubt.
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 scientific knowledge.
Catholic response
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. Example: sensible reality, mathematics, etc., as we shall demonstrate immediately.
2) The procedure is contradictory: it claims to discover truths that are absolutely evident while affirming that they may be errors; if evidence has no value in the face of doubt, how can it have value afterward?
3) One cannot demonstrate the veracity of the intelligence by the intelligence itself; it is a vicious circle. The veracity of the intelligence is compared, shown, experienced, but not demonstrated.
What is not logical in Descartes is not extending methodic doubt as far as thought; in fact, thought can deceive me. For example: if I think that a tree in front of me does not exist, and then, imagining that there is nothing there, I headbutt “the air,” I will probably hurt myself…
We advise modern man, infected with subjectivism, to disinfect his soul by once again taking possession 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 me? (Let us see whether the senses teach me nothing certain!).
Put this way, the matter sounds evident, but in order to reach certainty, we advise doing the anti-subjectivist exercise: stand in front of a tree and think intensely that thought is what creates reality (since, according to Descartes, only thought could construct certainty); then, thinking that the tree does not exist, move your head against it. After a few exercises, the bumps will teach me that thought deceives me and the senses give me certain knowledge: SENSIBLE REALITY IS OUTSIDE ME, IT IS OBJECTIVE. I cannot doubt.
Obviously, the senses do not tell me what wood is; the intelligence tells me this, but they give me certainty that it is outside 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 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 violently upon me… I am the one who must adapt to its stability, and not it to my imagination. We enjoy the existence of things, even though people now watch a great deal of 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 opinion.
For this reason subjectivism is a spiritual error that creates destabilization and fears, and loses itself in the abyss of chaos and fantasy.
The Revolution wants to remove stability so that nothing is firm, so that everything troubles you, so that we are frightened by everything and are left with nothing upon which to rest.
On the contrary, when I ascertain that reality is outside me, this stimulates interest in knowing who made it; it is stimulating to consider its beauties (the importance of aesthetics), and here we go to…
2. Second point
Very well, reality is outside 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 non-intelligent, chaotic, disorderly force that would not know how to add “two plus two equals four,” or…
2) An Intelligence Superior to men.
We avoid considering here that it was men who created natural perfections, because not even the Japanese can make an animal as small and perfect as the classic little ant.
So, who is at the origin of these stones we see, of water, fire, air, and the other objective creations that are outside 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 set forth the principle by which the existence of God is demonstrated:
“The empirical proof that an intelligence exists is its work”
Likewise, we could imagine a dialogue. In it I ask 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 affirm to you.
—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 looking 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 may already have died. But you still believe that he exists without seeing him.
And this applies to 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”
Therefore you are a believer, since you believe in things and persons you have not seen.
Let us pass, then, to…
4. Fourth point
Continuing with the example of the watch, now I ask you: For what is more intelligence needed? To make a watch or to make an ant?
If, to make a watch or a car, you yourself believe that 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, disorderly, blind force to do it?
Let us see how the contrary is totally absurd:
Imagine that I told you that I had a car in Mexico, in a town near a volcano, and that this car was not a “Ford,” as was written on it, but that one day, from the slope of the volcano where rubber plants were cultivated, by chance, 4 masses of rubber came out and began to roll down the slope. There, by chance, they collided with some masses of iron from a previous eruption, and practically the front axle of the car was formed, which kept rolling around the hill.
Then, still 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 start laughing.
But in all the schools it is being taught that at the beginning of the world there was an original 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 came loose which, because of certain conditions we do not know, practically transformed into a plant, a little branch, practically a bone, and another little stone going around…
It also transformed by chance into a sponge, practically into a lung; the two came together by chance and practically the cat came out: “meow!”.
Do you believe that cats are made like that?
But let us go further.
Let us seek 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 a time, make this little egg break its shell and from it be born a little helicopter that will grow with a gasoline tube?… (ha!)
And well… the worst laying hen does it…
How is it possible that a blind, non-intelligent force is at the origin of a machine with its reproductive apparatus, and that we, intelligent beings, cannot make them?
Conclusion
From everything 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 whom 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…
Appendix I: The “scientific proof”.
Some say that they believe only after scientific proof, that is, by verifying the facts through science and, therefore, seeing it. But afterward, in their daily behavior, they show that this is not so; in fact, they believe in almost all things without their being verified—for example, the existence of the watchmaker, etc.… without verifying it personally.
And they are convinced, very convinced, and they would mock anyone who did not believe in the watchmaker.
This is what we wanted to demonstrate:
Experience shows that men are convinced, or rather, very convinced, that things exist without using scientific proof for this. We repeat: they believe in the watchmaker without seeing him, in the shoemaker by seeing only 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 there exists an intelligence that made it, even though one does not verify it personally. This is what all men do, even the “scientists”; they too believe in the engineer, in the watchmaker, the shoemaker.
All of us, all of us, act in this way, 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…?
Appendix II:10ali The calculation of probabilities
One might say that, in the end, chance could have made the whole universe, saying that this probability cannot be excluded.
Then we too could make this “proof of probabilities”.
Let us take, for example, a statue; or rather, a great statue: Michelangelo’s Pietà.
Looking at it, one might say: if I apply the blind force of dynamite to this block of white marble, how many probabilities are there that a statue like this sculptor’s will come out?
It could be! There is no need to deny it beforehand! —they would say.
All right, but let us calculate the probabilities: How many explosions? 1,000, 10,000…?
Let us suppose that by chance, after 10,000 explosions, one 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 only “external” like the statue, but contains a most complicated internal anatomical organization: the thirty-three billion cells possessed by the human body, 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, by applying a blind force like that of dynamite, this block of marble would by chance produce the human statue with all its internal anatomical organization?
You cannot deny it.
I answer: Very well, let us calculate the probabilities: 10,000 explosions, or better, 100,000,000, and perhaps there is one that occurs…; this means that there would be only one possibility out of 100,000,000 that a chaotic force could make the statue with its internal anatomical organization, and therefore 99,999,999 that at the origin of the statue there is an intelligent force.
But the human body has not only external form and 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.
Appendix III. And then, what is God like?
After having seen that sensible reality is outside me, and that it is not my thought that creates it, and that the proof that an intelligence exists is its work, and that the perfections of creation demonstrate to me that God objectively exists, there immediately 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 function, 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 is as aesthetically attractive and elegant as possible.
If nature were the result of a very long evolution brought about by chance, it would not have been concerned with the aesthetic beauty of beings.
Such beauty is not at all indispensable for the perfect functioning of natural organisms, but objective reality is also beautiful, like sunrise, sunset, flowers, birds, and the other creatures…
This aesthetic beauty is the reflection of the beauty of God. What must the Creator be like if 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. Since He is Being Subsisting through Itself—Ipsum Esse Subsistens—, He contains in Himself all being and also all perfection.
2) God is infinite
By the fact that God is Being Subsisting through Itself, that is, that He needs no one in order to be, He is necessary Being, not caused by another being, and He has in Himself no composition whatsoever (which would be an imperfection); therefore, He has in Himself no foundation for His being to have limits. (Cf. Saint Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, I, pars. 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 not posterior to anything nor caused by anyone.
4) There exists only one single and unique God
The unity of God is deduced from His simplicity: He has no parts, because composition is posterior to the parts, and also from the infinity of His perfection and from the unity of the universe.
5) God is good
Since God is Being Subsisting through Itself, He is also will itself, because He possesses to 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 Himself 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, “Contemplations to Attain the Love of God,” No. 230 and following).
7) Immutability of God
That is, “God does not change”; He is always the same. The foundation of God’s immutability is in His absolute simplicity, which is the absence of parts in composition.
Change implies potentiality, composition, and imperfection; it is therefore incompatible with God, who is pure act, simple and perfect. “Everything that changes ceases to be what it was and begins to be what it was not. True being, pure being, genuine being, belongs only to Him who does not change” (Saint Augustine).
8) The eternity of God
Reason deduces the eternity of God and His absolute immutability. The foundation of God’s eternity is His fullness of being, which excludes all potentiality, and with this all succession afterward is excluded.
9) The presence of God, or of the existence of God in things
God is present in all things because He gives existence. And since the mover and the thing moved must be united in order for movement to occur, so, when a thing exists, it is necessary that it have a certain union with God in receiving being from Him; and in this way, God is present in it.
And since the existing of a thing is what is most intimate to itself, it follows that God is intimately in all things.
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.
NOTES
[1] This case occurred at the University of Buenos Aires. A professor of Philosophy of Law, during one of his classes, called himself a relativist and declared that he did not respect any belief, thereby inviting those who did believe to leave. The eighty students in the course remained in the classroom; then he said: “raise your hand if you believe in God.” No one raised a hand (falling, through fear, ignorance, human respect… into the sin of apostasy).
Having obtained 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 more prepared than you, what you must do is affirm that you believe in God by Faith and reason, and that if a Catholic professor well prepared on the subject were there, he would know how to answer such atheist provocations.
Author: Javier Olivera Ravasi
