Analese Johnson

Philosophy 0030
Professor Ackerman
December 4

Can We Actually Know that God Exists?

To the Muslim woman sitting in the mosque at the back, can you actually say that
you know god exists? Youve read countless of texts that tell you about god and all the
mysterious things that he has done. But have anyone of those texts actually confirmed to
you his existence? To say that something exists one must believe it, have evidence of it,
and know the truth about it. God has been argued to be good, selfless, all knowing, and
so on, but can one actual prove all these claims? The idea of god has been argued for
centuries now and still has current conflicting arguments. Three main arguments that
have been used to argue the subsistence of god are the cosmological argument, the
argument from miracles, and the teleological argument also known as the argument from
design. All of these theories, however, go no further to explain god himself.
In the book An Introduction to Philosophical Analysis, Hospers explains these
three theories. The first theory he explains is the cosmological argument, specifically the
casual argument.
The most popular form of the cosmological argument had been Thomass
second one, the causal argument. Everything that happens, it is said, has a
cause. (The causal argument assumes this proposition to be true.) But if
everything has a cause, the universe too must have a cause, and that cause
must me god.1

1 John Hospers, An Introduction To Philosophical Analysis(207)

This argument, however, brings up a question. If everything has a cause and god
is known to be all powerful and the only high being, then he must also have a cause for
creating the universe. Because of this contradiction, many philosophical conversations
would go like this.
A: God simply does not exist because if he was omnipotent and all knowing then I
would be able to at least see or hear him, however, those factors are clearly not evident so
god as I said is not in existence
B: You fool how can you say god does not exist. He clearly does exist. God does not
need to speak nor does he need to show himself in order to be considered omnipotent.
A: Go ahead and explain yourself
B: Well everything in the world has a cause. Something caused the universe
A: Well science proposed the Big Bang Theory
B: Lets suppose the Big Bang Theory caused the universe, what caused the Big Bang
Theory?
A: Well there was really nothing before the big bang theory
B: The only possible explanation for what caused the Big Bang would be God. God
caused the Big Bang.
A: So if God caused the Big Bang Theory what caused God?
B: God is omnipotent, so nothing can cause God. God was just here
A: Your argument that everything has a cause cannot be justified because if everything
has a cause then that would also mean that god has a cause so if god doesnt have a cause
what makes you justified to say that everything has a cause. Your claim is not valid
because it contradicts the statement everything has a cause.

2 John Hospers, An Introduction To Philosophical Analysis(207)

B: God is never considered the first event so he cannot have a cause. He is the being that
created the material universe. Since he created it, he caused the first events that occurred
to occur.
A: So if god himself has no cause, does that then mean that god caused himself
B: That is correct.
A: But if he caused himself how can that even be if he already existed. He doesnt
need to be caused if he already exists and if he did indeed cause himself then he could not
have existed. How can something that hasnt been existed yet cause something else to
occur?
The conversation would end up stopping right there because person b does not have a
response to that. The causal argument then cannot be used to justify the existence of god
because it contradicts its very own premise. A premise that has contradicted itself can
then no longer be used as a justification. The Causal argument has been proven to be a
contradiction and can no longer be used. The causal argument is used only when
believers want to lead themselves to god. Hospers explains this as using a taxi.
They use the taxi to get them where they want to go, and they dont care
what happens to the taxi after that. They use the causal principle to get
them to god, and take no thought of the fact that if the causal argument is
true it applies to God to.2

3 John Hospers, An Introduction To Philosophical Analysis(207)

4 John Hospers, An Introduction To Philosophical Analysis(207)

5 John Hospers, An Introduction To Philosophical Analysis(207)

6 John Hospers, An Introduction To Philosophical Analysis(207)

Work Cited
Hospers, John. "Philosophy of Religion." An Introduction to Philosophical Analysis.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1997. N. pag. Print.

7 John Hospers, An Introduction To Philosophical Analysis(207)