Can God Be Proven? | Hamid Entezam

 One of the important questions that philosophers and scientists (as well as the masses of people) have long had is whether the existence of God can be “proven.” What conclusive and irrefutable reasons do we have that God has a real, objective, and external existence, and is not the product of human illusion and imagination? “Proof” means establishing the truth of a matter or subject through independent evidence and documentation, such that any rational human being (regardless of culture, creed, or faith) can accept it. At least two types of evidence can be adduced to prove a matter: 1) logical reason 2) scientific reason. Philosophers and empirical scientists have offered various arguments for and against proving the existence of God. In this program, we will explore the question of God’s existence.

Can God be proven? In this phrase, the word “proof” is very key. Proof means establishing something through which its truth and correctness are demonstrated in such a way that no room for any doubt or hesitation remains. We can adduce two types of evidence and documentation to prove the truth of a matter. The first type of document or evidence is technically called a logical argument. In this type of proof, premises are first arranged alongside one another. Then, through the method of deduction, a conclusion is drawn from those premises. If those premises are correct, consistent with one another, and have a logical connection, then we can have confidence in the conclusion that is drawn. The second type of evidence and documentation presented to prove the truth and correctness of a matter is empirical evidence. In this type of evidence, things are presented that are observable and examinable with the five senses. That is, the correctness of that matter can be examined empirically. This is also a method of providing reasons, which, as it happens, is widely used by scientists in the empirical sciences. If you can provide logical reasons or objective documents and evidence for a matter, then any rational human being can accept the correctness of that subject.

Now, with these descriptions, can the existence of God be proven? And if so, what logical reasons or objective evidence do we have in favor of this claim. Throughout history, philosophers have offered arguments for proving the existence of God. I think that among those proofs, three are important.

First Argument: The Cosmological Argument

In this argument, the philosopher of religion is essentially seeking to identify the cause through the study of the effect. That is, they look at an effect and, by following the trail, want to reach the effector. The basis of this cosmological argument is that, fundamentally, everything that exists requires a cause to come into existence. Every event that occurs in this world requires a cause. For example, for my existence, the existence of my parents is necessary. For the existence of my parents, the existence of other parents is also necessary, and if you follow this causal chain in the same way, you will reach an infinite regress and will inevitably have to stop somewhere and identify a cause from which all these creations and existents have originated. That matter and force from which everything emanates is called the “Ultimate Cause” in philosophical terminology. In religious literature, this Ultimate Cause is called “God.” That is, the being who is uncreated but from whom all creation originates and emanates. This, in brief, is the cosmological argument. But does this argument really prove the existence of God? In my belief, the answer is negative. There is a contradiction inherent in this argument. The starting point of this argument was that everything requires a cause to come into existence, and the conclusion reached at the end is that we need an uncaused cause. But this conclusion contradicts the very premise we stated at the beginning! If everything requires a cause for existence, then speaking of an uncaused cause is a contradiction in terms.

Second Argument: The Teleological Argument

The starting point of this argument is the observation that nature is purposive. That is, if we look at nature, we do not see it as a collection of confused elements and beings. Rather, we can derive at least three major features from observing nature. First, nature is highly complex; second, there is a kind of harmony among the constituent parts of nature; third, we also observe a particular order and regularity in nature. And it is this very order in nature that indicates a conscious orderer and regulator. That orderer and regulator is God—an orderer who is omniscient, omnibenevolent, and also omnipotent. A famous analogy used by philosophers in this teleological argument is that if you look at a watch, you will notice that it is composed of various parts. These parts are precisely arranged together to serve a purpose (telling time). The moment you see a watch, you know that a watchmaker must have been involved. It is impossible for a watch to come into existence by itself, without a maker. By the same analogy, nature, which is far more complex than a watch, has a maker and a creator. Critique of this argument: But does this argument really prove the existence of God? In my opinion, the answer to this question is also negative. Philosophers such as David Hume have raised fundamental objections to this argument. I will mention just two or three. First, the extent to which order exists in nature is a matter of dispute. That is, the amount of order one observes in the world depends on one's perspective—the angle from which one looks at the world. There are thinkers who see abundant order, and there are thinkers who see no order in it. In other words, the order one sees in nature is a subjective and mental matter, not something objective and concrete. Second, this teleological argument can at most prove the existence of a maker, but it is not clear that this creator is one, for it is possible that multiple makers had a hand in creating nature. Third, this argument does not prove that this maker of the world is necessarily omnipotent, omnibenevolent, and omniscient. (For instance, one can speak of the theory of evolution to explain this.)

The Ontological Argument

Ontology means the study and identification of a being through its existence and essence. In the two previous arguments, as you observed, at least one of the premises had to be examined empirically and through observation in the world. But this argument has no relation to the sensible world or the objective, material world; rather, it is an argument that is fundamentally purely analytical. That is, you do not look at the natural world at all. Due to the limited time and the complexity of this argument, I will only give a brief explanation of it. According to this ontological argument, the existence of God can be deduced from the definition of God. The definition given of God is that God is an infinite and perfect being. According to the proponents of this argument, from this definition of God, His existence can also be proven. According to these philosophers, when we think about something, that thing must first exist in order for its idea to then settle in the human mind. Because existence always precedes thought and idea. Now, when we think about an infinite existence that has no defect or imperfection, where did that idea form in our mind? What is the source of the idea? According to the proponents of this argument, that idea of a God who is perfect and infinite cannot have been derived from nature, because nature is constantly changing and transforming. Therefore, if the idea of a perfect and infinite being exists in our mind, there must also be a non-mental form of that idea in the external world that causes that idea to form in our mind. The cause of the emergence of the idea of that perfect being must have been derived from something beyond nature. Hence, the conclusion drawn from this argument is that the idea and conception of God as an infinite and perfect being entails the perfect and real existence of God as well. Critique of this argument: Again, in my belief, this argument also cannot prove the existence of God. Philosophers such as David Hume and Immanuel Kant have raised serious objections to this argument. Again, there is no room to discuss all those criticisms. But if we want to summarize, the upshot is that the conception and idea of existence is not proof of its objective reality either. For example, I have the idea of a golden mountain in my mind, but a golden mountain does not exist in the external world. That is, what my mind does is merge the idea of gold and the idea of a mountain, and from the combination of these two ideas, it creates a new idea called the idea of a golden mountain. But this new idea itself does not exist in the external world. And therefore, between the idea of the existence of a perfect being and its objective reality, there is a deep chasm that this argument cannot easily build a bridge over.

The conclusion is that these arguments presented to prove the existence of God do not truly prove God. And if they did prove it, every sane and mature human being would affirm the existence of God.

But another path that can be taken to prove the existence of God is the path of empirical scientific proof. Can the existence of God be proven by referring to the world of sensibles? Some scientists have answered in the affirmative; for example, Max Planck, who is also the founder of quantum physics, took this path and presented a book titled "Proof of the Existence of God." In this book, he gathered information from physics and placed it side by side to reach the same conclusion drawn in the teleological argument in philosophy. That is, that nature is fundamentally very complex, and without a conscious regulator, nature essentially cannot possibly exist. Critique of this method: Bringing forth some scientific evidence and arranging it in a particular way does not mean that we are proving a religious matter. Unfortunately, among religious people, such recourse to scientific proofs and arguments is very prevalent, which, in my belief, is not a correct way to discover the truth. Because when we speak of the scientific proof of a subject, it has a specific meaning in the empirical sciences. To scientifically prove something, we must first form a hypothesis, and then, using the scientific method, observe and gather information, then examine these, and finally see whether this scientific evidence confirms that hypothesis or not. The fact of the matter is that no one has yet been able to provide such a scientific proof regarding God. If such success had been achieved, we would no longer find any chemist, physicist, or biologist who denies the existence of God. Whereas we see the opposite.

Final word: If God cannot be proven rationally and scientifically, does this mean that God is an imaginary thing and does not exist? The answer to this question is also negative. Just as God cannot be proven rationally and scientifically, He also cannot be denied or refuted. That is, God is neither provable nor refutable by rational and empirical means. The question may arise for you as to why God cannot be rationally and empirically proven or refuted. The answer to this question, as it happens, is found in all religions. And this goes back to the way religions conceive of and present God. In all religions, it is said that God is transcendent and beyond the sensible world. God is exalted above the world of sense and matter. Therefore, God cannot be examined or explained with these scientific and philosophical tools. That is, He does not fall within the bounds of rational cognition and empirical science. A very important point is that if God were provable through reason and the five senses, faith would have no meaning at all. The religious say that we have "faith" in God. The use of the word faith in this sentence is neither accidental nor superfluous. The religious say we have faith in the existence of God because God is not rationally and empirically provable. We never say we have faith that the earth revolves around the sun, because this statement is empirically provable. As Thomas Aquinas said, the absence of scientific and philosophical certainty is the ground of faith. Faith is always accompanied by risk-taking and the acceptance of danger. Rumi, in the story of the pillar and the palm trunk, says: If this taste were rational, what need would there be for so many miracles? Whatever is rational, reason consumes it, without the exposition of miracles, without dispute and struggle.

If the prophets spoke of miracles, it is because fundamentally, God and faith in God are not matters that can be rationally and empirically proven.

Proof, in positions and places where it is attainable, must be the basis. That is, in that domain, we must seek proof. But proof is not feasible in all domains. Where proof is unattainable, reasonableness suffices. Reasonableness and rational provability are two completely different things. Some things are not provable, yet they are reasonable. That is, their acceptance poses no obstacle for a wise person. Accepting God is reasonable, but it is not provable.

Download audio file: Proving the Existence of God