Lecture Series: 'Proofs for the Existence of God' by Mostafa Malekian

An entry point to the argumentative discussions concerning religious propositions

The discussion reached the common ground between the theories of Durkheim, Freud, Fromm, and Jung. We said that we look for the psychological and social motives for believing in the existence of an object when that object's existence cannot be rationally proven. Can religious beliefs truly not be rationalized? The most important and principal doctrinal belief is the proposition "God exists."

Second Discussion: Proving the Existence of God

From here we enter another discussion called proving the existence of God. Views on the Existence of God Regarding the existence of God, philosophers of religion are divided into three groups: 1- The existence of God has been proven. 2- The existence of God has not been proven. 3- The existence of God cannot be proven. The discussion is not about the proposition "God does not exist," but rather "God exists" is the subject of discourse.

The method of reasoning for each of the three views

The First View: Presenting at least one reason for the existence of God

In brief, if someone adheres to the first view, this person must present at least one rational reason that is free from flaws in terms of both formal logic and material logic.

The Second View: Finding fault with all arguments for the existence of God

As for the adherent of the second view, they must find fault with all arguments for the existence of God put forth by religions and philosophers. And the adherent of the third view must take a different path.

The Third View:

Those who say the existence of God cannot be proven have taken two paths:

The First Path: The limitations of our cognitive faculties

How can a limited intellect attain comprehensive knowledge of a God who is, by hypothesis, unlimited? As long as human reason is limited and God is assumed to be unlimited, the existence of God is unprovable. This path has a long history in human culture, just as some mystics have spoken in this way.

The Second Path: The paradoxical nature of the concept of God

A paradoxical concept is a concept within which some components contradict one another, like the concept of liquid ice. It must be noted that proving the existence of something means proving that a concept has an instance. Therefore, the path to proving the existence of liquid ice is closed, because ice is that which is solid, and liquid is that which is not solid. So we would have to prove the existence of something that is both solid and not solid, and this entails the realization of a contradiction. This second path does not have much of a history.

Proponents of the second path:

Some philosophers make such a claim regarding God. They say the God of religions and denominations has certain attributes. For example, He is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent. Or other concepts not mentioned in sacred texts but believed by the faithful. For instance, God is the Necessary Existent, infinite, and without time and space. Some have said that omniscience is paradoxical, some that omnipotence is, and so on. Among the six attributes mentioned, omnipotence has been challenged the most.

Some logical implications of the third view

1- The lack of a necessary connection between the assertion of the non-proof or unprovability of God and the assertion of God's non-existence

A point: If someone holds that the existence of God has not been proven or is unprovable, this does not mean that God does not exist. Indeed, there are many who say God exists, but His existence has not been proven so far or will never be proven. So there is no necessary connection between these two meanings. It is possible for someone to believe in the existence of God through innate nature, the heart, or other means, yet consider it rationally unproven. For example, Kierkegaard, the great Christian philosopher and mystic, says the existence of God has not been rationally proven.

2- The necessary connection between the assertion of God's paradoxical nature and the negation of God

Yes, if someone says that the existence of God is unprovable because God is a self-contradictory concept, then there is a necessary connection between this statement and the denial of God's existence. These three views each have numerous proponents. Before addressing the views, it is necessary to mention a few preliminaries.

A Logical and Epistemological Discussion at the Threshold of Argumentative Discourses on the Existence of God

Ways of Proving a Proposition

First Preliminary: When is the proposition "x exists" proven? First Way: The object of the proposition (x) being perceivable. The first way to prove this proposition is to say: "x is perceivable to me." In this case, I can say that "x exists," because if it were non-existent, it could not be perceived. Perception and the perceived are used here in the broad sense, encompassing both outer and inner senses. Perceived by the outer senses, such as colors, smells, tastes, and perceived by the inner senses, such as anger, hope, love, envy, etc. The only deniers of this way are extreme skeptics, whose opinion we will set aside for now. But is there a second way or not? If no other way exists, we must first abandon the assertion of the existence of substances. That is, there is no substance called chair, door, wall, cat, human, etc. Matter, form, body, intellect, and even possibly the soul do not exist; relational accidents also do not exist. The accidents of the soul, namely quantity and quality, are also limited.

Second Way

We will express the second way in two formulations:

First Formulation: At least one of the effects or properties of X is perceivable.

First – At least one of the effects or properties of X is perceivable to me. According to the first way, I say A exists because it is perceivable to me. And since A is an effect or property of X, then X also exists.

Second Formulation: Something connected to x is perceivable.

The second formulation is this: Sometimes something becomes perceivable to me, so we say it exists, and then we see that its existence cannot be justified unless I affirm the existence of another thing; therefore, I also affirm the existence of that other thing. Example: Suppose you suddenly land in a barren, empty desert. After walking, you suddenly see a bowl of hot soup in the middle of the desert. We assume that the existence of the bowl of soup is what you perceive. But affirming the existence of the bowl of soup depends on affirming that there is a human being in this vicinity, that this person knows how to cook, had water, had salt, had chickpeas and beans, had a need to cook soup, had a means of cooking, that this pot was on the fire until a few minutes ago, and so on. But none of these things were perceivable to you; however, you affirm these things through the second way. Here, something is perceivable whose existence cannot be justified except by assuming the existence of X, Y, Z. Now, is there a third way or not? No.

Ockham's Razor and the Denial of a Third Way

One of the philosophers and bishops of the Christian Middle Ages has a saying here. William of Ockham, from one of the cities of Europe, says: If a person claims the existence of X and then has perceived neither X itself nor any effect of it, this person has stepped outside the circle of humanity. We have no third way to affirm the existence of X. If someone denies this statement, they must accept every absurd matter. For example, they must accept that a two-headed, six-tailed horse exists. That such-and-such a thing also exists. That is, for any other object, under every bush in the deserts, a ghoul lies sleeping. In bathhouses and storerooms, jinn exist. In the deserts, kidnappers exist. In the seas, nisnas exist, and so on. But if one applies this double-edged rule, the world becomes sparse and stripped bare. Hence, this double-edged rule is called Ockham's Razor.

The Difference Between Mystics and Philosophers in Affirming the Existence of God

The only group that says God exists through the first way are the mystics. They say that they find God through presential knowledge and inner sense. But non-mystics affirm the existence of God through the second way. Either through motion, or order, or the moral command and prohibition that proves a commander and prohibitor, or...

.

---

.

PDF of Forty-Nine Sessions of the Lecture Series on Proofs for the Existence of God

Download from Server One | Server Two | Server Three | Server Four

.

---

.

Lecture Series on Proofs for the Existence of God Imam Sadiq Institute | 49 Sessions | Year 1371

.

---

.