God Existence: Proof, Purpose, and the Human Experience

The most overwhelming circumstance of personal human tragedy is that of

isolation. Rightfully so, the apex of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs is inclusiveness—

the woeful yearning to be organized within some higher order of things; to find

solace within a consensus of shared acceptance. Indeed, it is both human and

animal nature to seek security in this world through assembly, so as not to be easily

consumed by its limitless horrors and curiosities. And it is this latter aspect that is

perhaps more frightening, consolidating the bonds that make us human. How do we

explain the unexplainable? How can we objectively attribute purpose and meaning

to an existence that, by all knowledgeable understanding, appears devoid of such

purpose and meaning? The futility of existential inquiry may precede human

communication itself, yet the profound implications of an unanswerable question

are essential to the intellectual pursuit of knowledge and definition. Likewise, the

paradoxical notions of existence’s definition and ambiguity incite this innately

human desire to belong—yet, we are still confused as to where we most belong.

God, supreme creator and ruler of all things, omnipotent, omniscient, and

omnipresent in everything, provides this sense of belonging to those with faith in his

existence. Studied throughout human history by countless scholars of genius

intellect, the notion that God is both the question and answer to mankind’s

existence and sense of purpose is a topic that is not lightly discussed by those who

have attempted to prove and disprove his existence. Certainly, even the concept of

a singular, unifying theory of existence has enough merit to warrant a lifetime of

discussion, if not dedication, towards reaching some sort of conclusion. However,

despite the best efforts of human logic and reason, it becomes clear that such a

1
conclusion would be worthless, if not contradictory, to the concept of God itself.

There can be no proof for the existence of God but the existence of God itself.

Through careful analysis of previous attempts at proving His existence, this

statement can be validated by a contemporary societal climate surrounding a mixed

belief and disbelief in His existence.

But first, in order to more thoroughly understand the contemporary issue of

God’s existence, it would be wise to examine the philosophical reasoning of those

medieval thinkers who tried to create a proof for it. Historic philosophers such as St.

Augustine of Hippo, St. Anselm of Canterbury, Avicenna, and St. Thomas Aquinas all

attempted to rationalize the unthinkable: proving the existence of God. Although

several of their ideas are contradictory, they all shared a common belief in God’s

existence and that there may be some logical method of extrapolating His existence

as inscrutable truth. Furthermore, as societal notions of faith were indeed a

backbone to the societal order of the time, they attempted this feat with the highest

of motivations and intellectual prowess, which make their proofs all the more

significant to the discussion of what God is and whether He must necessarily exist.

Augustine’s proof for the existence of god relies on a hierarchy of three

essential truths: that we exist, that we are alive, and that we have reason. We can

infer these as undeniable because we must exist in order to question our existence.

Therefore, we must be alive to ponder such a question, and if we can understand

these first two notions as having validity, we must have the ability to reason. Using

these three essential truths, Augustine sets up his argument mathematically

whereas to prove that if there is something greater than human reason it must be

God. We affirm that two plus three equals five because it is necessarily true and

does not rely upon human existence, life, or reason; it is simply understood and

2
accepted. Therefore, the truth of mathematics, which is beyond human reason,

proves the truth of God’s existence.

While this argument is quite rational and strong in its design, is does nothing

to prove the existence of God as any sort of worldly entity. One must compromise

with faith to purport the corporeal nature of his existence, or we could instead

redefine the concept of God to be an interpretation of natural principles. Likening

God’s existence to mathematical truth may bolster one’s preexisting faith in God’s

existence, but it could just as easily bolster one’s faith in the natural science that

governs our universe. Therefore, we are still left to wonder as to what the concept of

God truly describes, and whether there His being shares the same self-awareness of

human existence.

Anselm’s proof for the existence of God, utilizing a similarly mathematical

conception and existential hierarchy, attempts to affirm necessary truth through

logical reasoning. If one can envision the concept of “something that which nothing

greater can be thought”, it can be said to be interchangeable with the commonly

held notion of God as a perfect being. Likewise, if we have this concept of which

there can be no greater concept, it must have been instilled by the truth of its

existence. For if we deny the existence of “something that which nothing greater

can be thought”, then we contradict ourselves by saying that there must be

something greater, something greater that which nothing greater can be thought.

While this proof provides logical evidence that human beings can rationalize

the concept of an infinite existence and being, it falls short with Augustine in

providing any sort of necessity for the existence of a self-aware God-like being.

Anselm can argue any number of ways that our conceptualization of infiniteness

3
must be attributed to the form of infiniteness being instilled upon us by an infinite

being, yet psychological reasoning and ability could just as easily account for us to

envision such a concept through comparative analysis. We understand the concept

of finite because can perceive things with finite beginnings and endings, so that if

we were to creatively conceive of an opposite entity, such as a Godlike being, we

would assume such infinite proportions to be necessary. Therefore, Anselm’s proof,

though quite grand in its scope, does little more than prove the existence of the

concept of God.

Perhaps the greatest metaphysician of Islamic philosophy, Avicenna departs

slightly from Anselm’s ontological proof for the existence of God. By first outlining

what he believes to be an intrinsic truth, that the existence of some beings is

necessary while others are simply possible, he attributes a causal relationship to

existential thought. His argument is that the existence of possible beings must be

caused by some previous being’s actions; for example, reproduction. Therefore, we

can infer that in order for earthly creatures to exist as possible beings, there must

be some initial, necessary being which acted as a prime mover—a cause to the

effect. Avicenna further rationalizes that the only being to which we can attribute

such causal efficacy is God, who we must then say has a necessary existence.

Indeed, the Islamic God of the Qu’ran, memorized by Avicenna at an early

age, is a transcendental being quite different from other theological interpretations.

Therefore, Avicenna’s God would not necessarily need to have any sort of corporeal

existence or continued relationship with His subjects following the initial cause for

life. Nevertheless, this proof also lacks any substantial evidence for the existence of

a God outside of conceptualization. The initial cause need not necessarily be any

sort of self-aware being, and thus does not necessarily prove any sort of intelligent

4
design or purpose in its cause. In order to prove the existence of a God apart from

scientific interpretations of universal randomness and entropy, it must be

established that such a being understands its own existence and necessarily intends

for the causation of possible existence. Otherwise, Avicenna, along with Augustine

and Anselm, all develop proofs for the existence of God without necessarily proving

the consensually defined characteristics of a Godlike being.

Aquinas’ proof is altogether an affront to previous ontological arguments for

God’s existence. Doctor Angelicus emphasizes the notion that God’s existence is not

self-evident, and instead requires contemplation upon how and to what extent we

can know of God’s infinite characteristics. The existence and essence of God are

two separate notions of which we can understand, of which the latter notion is

impossible for us to understand, as one thing cannot know the essence of another

thing without essentially having one and the same essence. Therefore, to say that

God exists mentally and God exist both mentally and actually are two completely

different understandings of the concept of God’s existence and God’s real existence.

However, to say that God’s existence is only true through demonstration of faith is

unacceptable, seeing as His existence may be demonstrated by the effects of his

initial creation. This demonstration of God’s existence can be proven in five ways,

all of which have been supposed by the aforementioned philosophers: initial cause

for the motion of all things, the necessity of an initial cause, the necessary form of

all things possible, the forms of goodness and perfection, and the cause for

intelligence in natural things. These multi-faceted aspects of existence are what

Aquinas purports human beings reason is God, which is a being who must actually

exist in order to rationalize human experience.

5
 As Aquinas’ argument is by far the most expansive of all proofs for the

existence of God, it can perhaps be said to be the only one with reasonable validity.

Nevertheless, it relies upon the faith of the individual to either accept the truthiness

of his understanding of the world or deny such an outline for the properties of our

existence. While it might certainly bolster one’s notion of faith in God’s existence, it

simultaneously affirms in the non-believer a sense of order in the universe. Those

who believe the mysteries of science to be reasons for God’s existence will similarly

be disappointed by the almost comprehensive description of human existence

implied by Aquinas’ proof. The fact remains that observed chaos in the universe

devalues any sort of unified understanding of existence, even when the aspects

described can be so well reasoned. Critically analyzed, Aquinas’ conclusion that all

existence is governed by five ordered aspects inherent to pre-conceived notions of

the concept of God seems almost to be a pretentious exclamation of omnipotence

by the philosopher. Comprehensive reasoning and logic aside, to have faith in his

proof is akin to already having faith in a biblical God and it becomes a necessary

pre-requisite to belief in his argument.

Despite the best laid foundations of understanding God’s existence, it must

be emphasized that any attempt at concluding God’s necessary existence as both a

concept and corporeal, self-aware being will ultimately fall short of undeniable truth.

Historically, belief in God’s existence can be likened to countless centuries and

millennia saturated by bloodshed over religious disparity. There is both reason and

lack of reason in proving his existence, the effects of which lead to enumerable

complications in our contemporary understandings of the universe and

mechanisms. Therefore, it must be reasoned that only God’s existence itself can

prove God’s existence. Or perhaps it is more desirable to assert that either only God

6
can understand Himself, or he does not exist. As it has been countlessly reaffirmed

by failed attempts at a unifying theory and proof for God’s existence, to attempt

any sort of understanding greater than this will only result in affirming those with

faith and those without to their respective personal inclinations. Perhaps the

musings of the great renaissance philosopher, Voltaire, best sum up this volition as,

“If there were no God, it would have been necessary to invent him.” Idealistically,

the notion of God’s existence as a being or concept, whichever He may be or both,

is a notion irrelevant to the pursuit of continued human existence and virility.