Presentation of the objections.
Presentation of the materialist objection.
Everything that exists is material.
God is not material.
Therefore, God does not exist.
Presentation of the scientistic objection.
Everything that exists is capable of verification by means of the scientific method.
The existence of God is not scientifically verifiable.
Therefore, God does not exist.
Presentation of the logical objection.
The notion of “Infinite Being” is absurd, because it implies the simultaneous predication of contradictory attributes (such as P and non-P).
The notion of “God” includes the notion of “Infinite Being”.
Therefore, God does not exist.
Presentation of the cosmological objection.
If God exists, then an imperfect world cannot exist.
The world is imperfect, because evil exists.
Therefore, God does not exist.
Presentation of the anthropological objection.
If God exists, then no free being distinct from God can exist, because His infinite knowledge and freedom would annul man’s finite freedom.
Man is free.
Therefore, God does not exist.
II. Refutation of the objections.
In each of the five syllogisms presented in section I, the major premise is false. Therefore, although the minor premise is true and the syllogism is well constructed, the conclusion is invalid. To refute these syllogisms, the corresponding major premises must be refuted.
Refutation of the materialist objection.
The basic axiom of materialism (“everything is matter”) must be rejected, at least for the following two reasons:
This assertion by the materialist about the “whole” is completely unfounded; therefore the well-known dialectical rule of the scholastics must be applied here: Gratis asseritur, gratis negatur (what is asserted without proof may be rejected without proof).
There are many realities known by man (for example, human knowledge and human freedom) about which it cannot be meaningfully alleged that they are material realities. That is, there is no intelligible notion of “matter” that encompasses that kind of reality.
Refutation of the scientistic objection.
We must bear very much in mind that the concept of “science” used by the scientistic thinker includes only the particular sciences (mathematics, physics, chemistry, biology, etc.), excluding the universal sciences (philosophy and theology).
From the major premise of the scientistic objection one easily deduces this other assertion: “Only scientific knowledge is true knowledge”. Now, this assertion is self-contradictory and therefore false. The contradiction lies in the fact that, by denying the existence of true assertions not founded on science, one is making an assertion not founded on science, but on a false philosophy. That is, no particular science demonstrates or can demonstrate that the only valid knowledge is scientific knowledge. From this follows the falsity of the major premise of the scientistic objection.
On the other hand, the scientistic objection can be reduced to the materialist objection, which we have already refuted in the previous point.
Refutation of the logical objection.
The major premise of the logical objection is valid only against the pantheistic notion of Infinite Being, not against the corresponding Christian notion. The Infinite Being of the Christian faith is not the set of all entities, but the first (uncaused) Cause of the being and becoming of all other entities (created entities). Created entities are really distinct from God; therefore there is no reason to affirm that God is at once (for example) wise and ignorant, merciful and cruel, powerful and weak, etc.
Between the being of God and the being of creatures there is analogy, that is, likeness in one sense and unlikeness in another. The transcendental properties of being (unity, truth, goodness, beauty) also correspond to God, but we do not know the infinite mode in which these properties exist in God. For these reasons, there are three ways for the knowledge of the divine attributes: causality, negation and eminence. Let us see an example:
Causality: God’s goodness is the first cause of the goodness of creatures (there is a likeness between cause and effect).
Negation: God’s goodness is not the same as the goodness of creatures (the unlikeness is greater than the likeness).
Eminence: God’s goodness is eminent, infinite.
Refutation of the cosmological objection.
Precisely the contrary of what is affirmed by the major premise of the cosmological objection is true: if God exists, then He cannot create an absolutely perfect world, because an absolutely perfect being (most perfect) is a divine being. If God had created a most perfect world, He would have created a second God. But there cannot be two distinct gods, because then neither of them would be God, the most perfect Being, since each would lack something of the perfection of the other. Therefore, if God creates a world, He must necessarily create a world with some kind of imperfection.
Moreover, God cannot create another God, because the very notion of “another created God” is absurd, since a created God would have to be at once uncaused and caused. This does not imply any limitation of divine omnipotence, because it embraces everything possible, that is, everything that in itself does not imply contradiction.
We shall add some brief considerations on the problem of evil:
Evil is an imperfection, but not every imperfection is an evil. “Evil” is the name given to that imperfection which deprives a being of a perfection that in principle would correspond to it according to its nature. Thus, for example, lacking sight is not an evil for a stone, but it is an evil for a lion.
Evil is not a being, but a lack or privation of being. There are two great kinds of evils: physical evils (such as pain and death) and moral evils (sins or evil human acts).
Everything God has created is good. God is not the author of evil, but He permits evil for reasons that He, in His infinite wisdom, can judge much better than we can. It makes no sense for man to try to set himself up as judge of God’s creative work.
We can intuit some of the reasons why God permits evil (physical or moral):
In the biological order, pain serves the purpose of informing the living being about some threatening reality.
The death of plants and irrational animals does not frustrate the fulfillment of their function in the cosmos.
The death of the human being is not his annihilation, but his entrance into eternal life, which gives meaning to his earthly life.
Excepting the very particular case of Jesus of Nazareth, we can say that, as things in fact are, if a man, during his earthly life, could not sin (do evil), neither could he love (do good). Freedom is man’s greatness, but also his risk. God did not wish to take delight in creating robots or slaves, but in creating beings made in His image and likeness, destined to be His children and to participate in the divine nature.
Refutation of the anthropological objection.
We shall examine two possible attempts to justify the major premise of the anthropological objection:
God is omniscient and eternal; therefore God knows simultaneously all past, present and future events, including the future acts of men. In this way He predetermines them and prevents them from being free acts.
The error of this argument lies in confusing foreknowledge with predetermination. God can know a future human act without eliminating its character as a free act.
God not only knows future events, but is the first cause of all of them. Therefore, the ultimate determination of human acts (good or bad) is in God, not in man. Therefore, if God exists, man loses his freedom.
The error of this argument lies in opposing the infinite freedom of God and the finite freedom of man, and in confusing the ways in which these two freedoms operate. God’s freedom and man’s freedom do not oppose each other and do not operate on the same plane. God is the first cause of everything that exists, including human acts; but the divine cause does not suppress created causes. God has willed that secondary causes exist and that they be truly causes, not mere appearances. In a human act we cannot separate one part that would come from God as First Cause from another part that would come from man as secondary cause. Every human act proceeds entirely from God and entirely from man, but in such a way that the planes of action of both causes are neither confused nor opposed. The fact that we cannot fully understand how this is possible does not imply that this Christian conception is irrational, but that it is an example of the finitude of man’s cognitive capacity.
Author: Daniel Iglesias Grèzes
Source: revistafeyrazon.wordpress.com/
