A Level Religious Studies - 'Logic cannot prove the existence of God' essay

‘Logic cannot prove the existence of God.’ Discuss (40)

Many philosophers try to prove and disprove the existence of God in a number of ways, and many of these theories use logic. Logic is something that both believers and non-believers possess, and to which everyone has access which is perhaps why it plays such a dominant role in proving whether or not God exists. Whilst it could be argued that logic cannot prove the existence of God, this essay will argue that logic can play a role in this and will highlight the issues presented with arguments centred on things other than logic.

Aquinas would say that logic cannot prove the existence of God and this is shown through his teleological argument. Aquinas’ 5^th way is to do with the observable universe and order of nature, so it is a posteriori knowledge. He states that this tells us that the universe works in such a way and that can conclude that it was designed by an intelligent designer, God. This depends upon Aristotle’s final causes – the concept involving ‘ends’ which are goals towards which something strives. An example would be the oak tree being the ‘end’ of an acorn. The implication is that if something has a goal and it works towards it, it is because it has something guiding it. Aquinas says that this guidance comes from God.

David Hume assessed this argument, criticising the link between evidence of design and the conclusion it was the classical God. He said humans have no proof it’s God, and no proof God is benevolent, designed it well or designed it to work together. He also looks at causation – why should similar effects have similar causes? If things work together, it doesn’t mean they were all designed by the same being. Therefore, we shouldn’t think of the universe in man-made terms. Hume argued that proving God’s existence requires empirical evidence as we need to go beyond something’s describing to determine existence. He says that something cannot have a definition that automatically means it exists no matter how perfect said thing is. Hume wrote that “a wise man proportions his belief to the evidence” which shows how our opinions should be based on the evidence available, logic and reasoning to come to a conclusive answer.

Anselm argued that logic can prove the existence of God. He suggested that God is ‘that than which nothing greater can be conceived’, showing God as the highest figure and as unsurpassable. If God were to only exist in our minds, then he would be able to be surpassed as one can conceive a greater being. Anselm developed his argument by saying that it is impossible to conceive God not existing. This is because he is a necessary being. If God were a contingent being (one whose existence depends on something else), he would not be the greatest since we could imagine him not existing. Anselm explained this: ‘contingent beings are inferior to beings with necessary existence’. Logic is an integral part of Anselm’s argument because it aids the understanding of God being a necessary being, as it allows for the conclusion that nothing can be greater than God thus proving his existence.

Gaunilo countered this, arguing that if what Anselm said was true, then the same could be said to prove the existence of an imaginary island. You think of an imaginary island, and because it is perfect, it must exist. If Anselm’s argument for the existence of God is substantial, then we can give an equally good argument for the conclusion that the greatest imaginary island exists in reality. Gaunilo thinks that Anselm’s idea that God exists in the mind is the reason his argument falls apart. Gaunilo goes on to say that the definition of ‘that than which nothing greater can be conceived’ is only verbal and is where the argument goes wrong. Conjuring things in the mind does not make them true by definition and in reality. According to Gaunilo, it is wrong to bring something into existence through defining it as a superlative.

Descartes developed Anselm’s argument, writing that God is a ‘supremely perfect being’. Existence is part of the essence of God, and it is illogical and contradictory to think of God and not understand he must exist: ‘from the fact that I cannot conceive of God without existence, it follows that existence is inseparable from Him’, and hence that He really exists’. Descartes compares this to a triangle, saying that however many sides we may think a triangle has, it can only have three sides and this will not change. Descartes uses this idea of a triangle to represent God; God is immutable and cannot change even if we doubt his existence. He said that we can use our knowledge to understand God as a perfect being that has and will continue to exist forever. The sheer fact that we acknowledge the concept of God and his perfection through our logic means that logic can provide us with the needed proof to demonstrate the existence of God.

Norman Malcolm disagrees with Anselm and says that God’s existence can indeed be proved through analysing his nature. God cannot be contingent because this would involve a cause to bring them in or out of existence, limiting him, but by definition, God is limitless. This means that God is either impossible or necessary. He can only be impossible if he is contradictory, so he must be necessary. Malcolm said that you need faith to understand the argument fully because the understand comes “from the emotions” (Kierkegaard) which deepens the level of understand.

In conclusion, logic can be used on either side of the debate on whether God exist or does not exist, making it a difficult thing. Logic is stronger when used trying to prove that God does not exist because the existence of a ‘God’ who is omnibenevolent and omnipotent struggles to make sense when we consider the fact evil exists in the world. Ultimately, it depends upon whether God’s existence is an analytical or synthetic statement. Analytic sentences are true by definition and are generally self-explanatory. Synthetic statements, on the other hand, are based on our sensory data and experience. The arguments above dispute God’s existence being an analytic statement because there is no proof of God’s existence and simply thinking about him, in the mind, should not translate to a true existence in reality. Besides, God’s existence would be impossible to be proven with our logic anyway as his logic is superior to ours, so using an inferior set of logic would be problematic.