Ο Descartes παρέχει τρία επιχειρήματα υπέρ της ύπαρξης του Θεού.
– Το πρώτο επιχείρημα, το οποίο έχει χαρακτηριστεί ΙΔΕΟΛΟΓΙΚΟ, βασίζεται στην σαφή και διακριτή ιδέα που έχουμε για τον Θεό ως τέλειο ον.
Η ιδέα αυτή δεν μπορεί να προέρχεται από εμάς, ισχυρίζεται ο Descartes, εφόσον εμείς είμαστε πεπερασμένα και ατελή όντα[17]· προέρχεται επομένως από τον Θεό, άρα ο Θεός υπάρχει.
– Στην ίδια πεποίθηση για την σχέση αιτίου-αποτελέσματος βασίζεται και το δεύτερο επιχείρημα του Descartes για την ύπαρξη του Θεού, το οποίο συμβατικά ονομάζεται ΚΟΣΜΟΛΟΓΙΚΟ.
Το επιχείρημα αυτό έχει ως εξής: έχω αποδείξει την ύπαρξή μου· ωστόσο το αίτιο της ύπαρξής μου δεν θα μπορούσε να ήταν ο ίδιος μου ο εαυτός, εφόσον τότε «δεν θα αμφέβαλλα, δεν θα επιθυμούσα και δεν θα μου έλειπε τίποτα, διότι θα χορηγούσα στον εαυτό μου όλες τις τελειότητες των οποίων υπάρχει μέσα μου κάποια ιδέα, και έτσι θα ήμουν εγώ ο ίδιος Θεός»· επομένως το αίτιο της ύπαρξής μου είναι ο Θεός, άρα ο Θεός υπάρχει.
– Το τρίτο επιχείρημα, τέλος, το οποίο έχει καθιερωθεί να ονομάζεται ΟΝΤΟΛΟΓΙΚΟ, δεν αντλείται εκ των αποτελεσμάτων του Θεού (a posteriori), όπως τα δύο προηγούμενα, αλλά από την ίδια την φύση του Θεού (a priori).
Σύμφωνα με αυτό, στον Θεό κατηγορούνται όλες οι τελειότητες, μια εκ των οποίων είναι και η ύπαρξη, επομένως ο Θεός υπάρχει.
Με άλλα λόγια, η ύπαρξη ανήκει στην ουσία του Θεού.
Εφόσον, λοιπόν, κατά τον Καρτέσιο, η ύπαρξη του Θεού έχει αποδειχθεί, «αποκαθίσταται η εμπιστοσύνη στο lumen naturale [φυσικό φως], δηλαδή στην άμεση προφάνεια της έλλογης γνώσης, η οποία έτσι θεμελιώνεται οριστικά»[18].
[17] Ο Descartes πίστευε ότι το κατηγόρημα που αποδίδουμε σ’ ένα πράγμα εμπεριέχεται αναγκαία και στο αίτιο του πράγματος αυτού (βλ. Cottingham, ό.π: 133).
Εν προκειμένω, δηλαδή, εφόσον η ιδέα του Θεού εμπεριέχει την τελειότητα, το αίτιό της θα πρέπει κι αυτό αναγκαία να εμπεριέχει την τελειότητα· επομένως, το αίτιο αυτής της ιδέας δεν μπορεί να είναι ο ίδιος ο άνθρωπος αλλά ένα τέλειο ον.
The polytheistic conceptions of God were criticized and derided by
the monotheistic religions. Since the Enlightenment, monotheistic
concepts have also come under criticism from atheism and pantheism.
Arguments for the Existence of God
Philosophers have tried to provide rational proofs of God’s existence that go beyond dogmatic assertion or appeal to ancient scripture. The major proofs, with their corresponding objections, are as follows:
1. Ontological: It is possible to imagine a perfect being. Such a being could not be perfect unless its essence included existence. Therefore a perfect being must exist. Objection: You cannot define or imagine a thing into existence.
2. Causal: Everything must have a cause. It is impossible to continue backwards to infinity with causes, therefore there must have been a first cause which was not conditioned by any other cause. That cause must be God. Objections: If you allow one thing to exist without cause, you contradict your own premise. And if you do, there is no reason why the universe should not be the one thing that exists or originates without cause.
3. Design: Animals, plants and planets show clear signs of being designed for specific ends, therefore there must have been a designer. Objection: The principles of self-organization and evolution provide complete explanations for apparent design.
3a. Modern design argument: the Anthropic Cosmological Principle. This is the strongest card in the theist hand. The laws of the universe seem to have been framed in such a way that stars and planets will form and life can emerge. Many constants of nature appear to be very finely tuned for this, and the odds against this happening by chance are astronomical. Objections: The odds against all possible universes are equally astronomical, yet one of them must be the actual universe. Moreover, if there are very many universes, then some of these will contain the possibility of life. Even if valid, the anthropic cosmological principle guarantees only that stars and planets and life will emerge – not intelligent life. In its weak form, the anthropic cosmological principle merely states that if we are here to observe the universe, it follows that the universe must have properties that permit intelligent life to emerge.
4. Experiential: A very large number of people claim to have personal religious experiences of God. Objections: We cannot assume that everything imagined in mental experiences (which include dreams, hallucinations etc) actually exists. Such experiences cannot be repeated, tested or publicly verified. Mystical and other personal experiences can be explained by other causes.
5. Pragmatic: Human societies require ethics to survive. Ethics are more effectively enforced if people fear God and Hell and hope for Heaven (cf. the origin of ethical systems). Objections: The usefulness of a belief does not prove its truth. In any case, many societies have thrived without these beliefs, while crime has thrived in theistic societies believing in heaven and hell.
General objection against all the rational proofs for God:
Each of the above arguments is independent of the others and
cannot logically be used to reinforce the others.
The cause argument – even if it were valid – would prove only a first
cause. It would tell us nothing about the nature of that cause, nor
whether the cause was mental or physical. It would not prove that the
first cause was the personal, judging, forgiving God of Judaism,
Christianity, or Islam. It would not prove the existence of a
designer or of a perfect being. Equally, the design argument would
prove only a designer, the ontological argument would prove only the
existence of a perfect being, and so on. None of these arguments
individually can prove that the cause, designer or perfect being were
one and the same – they could be three different beings.
Arguments against the existence of God
The major philosophical criticisms of God as viewed by Judaism, Christianity and Islam are as follows:
1. Evil: Because evil exists, God cannot be all-powerful. all-knowing and loving and good at the same time.
2. Pain: Because God allows pain, disease and natural disasters to exist, he cannot be all-powerful and also loving and good in the human sense of these words.
3. Injustice: Destinies are not allocated on the basis of merit or equality. They are allocated either arbitrarily, or on the principle of “to him who has, shall be given, and from him who has not shall be taken even that which he has.” It follows that God cannot be all-powerful and all-knowing and also just in the human sense of the word.
4. Multiplicity: Since the Gods of various religions differ widely in their characteristics, only one of these religions, or none, can be right about God.
5. Simplicity: Since God is invisible, and the universe is no different than if he did not exist, it is simpler to assume he does not exist (see Occam’s Razor).
None of these criticisms apply to the God of pantheism, which is
identical with the universe and nature.
See also:Has Science Found God?: Examining the Evidence from Modern Physics and Cosmology
"There is no royal road to science, and only those who do not dread the fatiguing climb of its steep paths have a chance of gaining its luminous summits."-Karl Marx
La Asamblea de los Pueblos Indígenas del Istmo en Defensa de la Tierra y el Territorio - APIIDTT, somos una organización comunitaria de base integrada por asambleas y autoridades; indígenas, tradicionales y agrarias, asambleas en resistencia civil, colectiv@s y cooperativas indígenas de la región del Istmo de Tehuantepec, Oaxaca, México.
qrhskeutika 