DOES GOD EXISTS OR NOT EXIST?: THE GREAT DEBATE (Part 2)

I publish for blog readers the second part of the video (subtitled) of the debate “Does God exist or not exist?” which I held against Luis Arbaiza, representative of the Peruvian Association of Atheists, at the Faculty of Arts and Human Sciences of the Major National University of San Marcos (Lima - Peru) on May 10, 2013.

Here is the link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3QDZ-cniwaY (This second part corresponds to reply, closing speech and questions of the audience).

In what follows, the referential quotations that I used in my interventions:

Reply

“The natural laws formulated mathematically in quantum theory no longer deal with the elementary particles themselves but with our knowledge of them”. (Werner Heisenberg, “The Idea of Nature in Contemporary Physics”, en: Franklin Le Van Baumer ed., Main Currents of Western Thought, Yale University Press, New Haven, 1978, pp. 706-707)

“"If the individual atom is anarchic, why would be this regularity in large numbers? (...) I do not think there is any alchemy by which it can produce regularity in large numbers on the base a mere whim in each individual case”. (Bertrand Russell, Religion and Science, Oxford University Press, New York, 1980, pp. 160-161)

On Borde-Guth-Vilenkin Theorem, see: Alvin Borde, Alan Guth y Alexander Vilenkin, “Inflationary space-times are incomplete in past directions”, Physical Review Letters, nº 90, 2003, pp. 151-301

“A remarkable thing about this theorem is its sweeping generality. We made no assumptions about the material content of the universe. We did not even assume that gravity is described by Einstein’s equations. So, if Einstein’s gravity requires some modification, our conclusion will still hold. The only assumption that we made was that the expansion rate of the universe never gets below some nonzero value, no matter how small. This assumption should certainly be satisfied in the inflating false vacuum. The conclusion is that past-eternal inflation without a beginning is imposible”. (Alexander Vilenkin, Many worlds in one: The search for other universes, Hill & Wang Press, New York, 2006, p. 175)

“It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning”. (Alexander Vilenkin, Many worlds in one: The search for other universes, Hill & Wang Press, New York, 2006, p. 176)

“At this singularity, space and time came into existence; literally nothing existed before the singularity, so, if the Universe originated at such a singularity, we would truly have a creation ex nihilo”. (John Barrow y Frank Tipler, The Antropic Cosmological Principle, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1986, p. 442)

Closing speech

“Belief in the explanation for everything in the future is an act of faith. By definition unscientific”. (Luis Arbaiza, “Are the laws of nature finite or infinite?”, luisarbaizaescalante.blogspot.com, June 13, 2008)

“The universe doesn’t have just a single history, but every possible history. (… ) Ours is not the only universe. Instead, M-theory predicts that a great many universes were created out of nothing”. (Stephen Hawking y Leonard Mlodinow, The Great Design, Bantam Books Press, 2010, pp. 7, 10)

“The universe appeared spontaneously from nothing. (…) Because there is a law like gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing”. (Stephen Hawking y Leonard Mlodinow, The Great Design, Bantam Books Press, 2010, pp. 136, 180)

DOES GOD EXISTS OR NOT EXIST?: THE GREAT DEBATE (Part 1)

I publish for blog readers the video (subtitled) of the debate “Does God exist or not exist?” which I held against Luis Arbaiza, representative of the Peruvian Association of Atheists, at the Faculty of Arts and Human Sciences of the Major National University of San Marcos (Lima - Peru) on May 10, 2013.

Here is the link: http://youtu.be/6Ou5h_MkpBk (This first part corresponds to the presentation, the opening speeches and rebuttals).

In what follows, the referential quotations that I used in my interventions:

Opening speech:

“If the universe has a finite stock of order, and is changing irreversibly towards disorder - ultimately to thermodynamic equilibrium - two very deep inferences follow immediately. The first is that the universe will eventually die, wallowing, as it were, in its own entropy. This is known among physicists as the “heat death” of the universe. The second is that the universe cannot have existed forever, otherwise it would have reached its equilibrium end state an infinite time ago. Conclusion: the universe did not always exist. The universe cannot have existed forever, otherwise it would have reached its equilibrium state an infinite time ago. Conclusion: the universe did not always exist”. (Paul Davies, Dios y la Nueva Física, Salvat Press, Barcelona, 1994, p. 16)

On the Spacetime Singularity Theorem, see: Stephen Hawking y Roger Penrose, “The singularities of gravitational collapse and cosmology”, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series A, Mathematical and Physical Sciences, vol. CCCXIV, nº 1519, 1970, pp 529–548.

“The human body is constantly undergoing repair and renewal to such an extent that we undergo a complete turnover in (molecular) parts every seven years (on average)”. (Michael Murray, “God and Neuro-Science”, www.reasonablefaith.org, question nº 42)

Rebuttal

“The Creator’s aim must have been [precise] to an accuracy of one part in 10 to the Power of 10 to the ower of 123. This is an extraordinary figure. One could not possibly write the number down in full in the ordinary denary notation: it would be 1 followed by 10 to the Power of 123 successive “0”s! Even if we were to write a “0” on each separate proton and on each separate neutron in the entire universe -and we could throw in all the other particles as well for good measure-we should fall far short of writing down the figure needed”. (Roger Penrose, The Emperor’s New Mind, Oxford University Press, New York, 1989, p. 344)

“According to this pattern of evolution, the brain is an object made of cells, electrical circuits, and reaction mechanisms (...). This could happen perfectly without an inner self, it would suffice the existence the inert consciousness but not so. That is, the brain should be a machine chemical to react very efficiently to the world, but should not be a self, lived awareness spare, is a gratuity. A blemish on the perfect material explanation of the world”. (Luis Arbaiza, “The biochemistry can’t explain consciousness”, luisarbaizaescalante.blogspot.com, July 4, 2007)

“The unification of Kaluza-Klein was merely a mathematical trick to put the Maxwell and Einstein’s equations in one five-dimensional mathematical matrix, but did not integrate these equations in a real and physically meaningful manner”. (Hans Ohanian, Einstein’s Mistakes, W.W. Norton Press, 2008, p. 304)

To be continued…

DOES GOD EXITS?: THE BOOK THAT EVERY BELIEVER SHOULD READ AND ALL UNBELIEVER WILL FEAR READ Extract from Part II, chapter 3 – “Third way: the argument from contingency”

(Are welcome the guidance and indications -emails, web addresses, name of head of area publications, etc.- about publishing houses and institutions that could publish the book).

Enunciation

The third and most direct way to prove the existence of God is based on the contingency of beings and is structured as follows:

1. It is evident, and we know by our direct experience of the world that contingent beings exist, that is, beings that depend on others to exist.

2. Now, as we just said, a contingent being depends on another to exist. Then, if we find that exists a contingent being is necessary to infer that there is another being of which depends.

3. But if we assume that all beings are contingent will have that this first depends on a second, to be contingent, so that a third party will depend also contingent, and the third depends on a fourth and so on. But you can not go on indefinitely because if that is the case could not exist any being because it would have to spend an infinite process of ontological dependence so that may exist a being, which is obviously absurd. Therefore, it is necessary to postulate the existence of a Subsistent Being, a being that does not depend on any other to exist but rather himself takes fully the whole foundation of his being.

4. This Subsistent Being which does not depend on any other to exist and which is constituted as the foundation of the existence of all other beings is what all we know with the name of God.

5. Therefore, God exists.

(…)

(The detailed explanation of each premise is in the book. Likewise the answer to the main objections that have been made to this argument. Here we will only present the answer to one of them)…

Objection 2: It is false that contingent beings require a Subsistent Being to exist because they in reality give to themselves continually the existence to each other by means of a circular chain of ontological dependence, subsisting as a whole. Moreover, science has proven the possibility of a cyclic universe which is generated to itself constantly through a continuous process of expansion (Big Bang) and contraction (Big Crunch). Therefore, the third way is invalid.

Response: It is absolutely wrong to think that the existence of contingent beings can be fully explained only by saying that "they  give to themselves continually the existence to each other by means of a circular chain of ontological dependence" because we are talking here of a problem of substance not of a problem of form. In fact, the issue  is not whether ontological dependence chain is linear or circular but rather that it is an absolute impossibility metaphysics that mere contingent beings can give us the ultimate foundation of being. The addition what is contingent can never give what is subsistent. Multiply zero ad infinitum and never get a positive amount. Let's gather all the world's blind, and we will have none who can see. The unlit torches will give never light, no matter how many we have.

As seen, the above problems are not resolved by the mere fact that beings are grouped circularly or cyclically and after let us say that “existence is continuously give each other”, because the alleged “circle of ontological dependence” is not ontologically independent from the beings which compose it. In any case we should say that the analogy of the circle could at most explain in part the dynamics of ontological dependence but not its foundation.

In order to make it clear this point we will give an example: Imagine a round circle of people holding hands representing every beings in the universe. All these people are contingent and their contingency is manifested in that every so often, by turns, begin to fade. However, when this begins to happen to one of them the person who is in his right side squeezes his hand tightly, conveying to him something of being, so that he not disappears.

But when the second person does this too begins to fade. But at that instant a third person squeezes his hand tightly to the second and so on to each other along the round. But is it enough with that to say that these people give sufficient reason for their being? By no means. That dynamic only explains how they are transferred the being each other but not why they exist. That's why the example must necessarily to start from already existing beings without ever explain their existence, ie without ever resolve the problem that really matters to us: Why is there something rather than nothing? Or to put it with the analogy: on what basis the whole round is sustained?

We turn now to the question of Cyclic Universe theory or Steady State theory. John Gribbin introduced this model with the following words: “The biggest problem with the Big Bang theory of the origin of the universe is philosophical--erhaps even theological--what was there before the bang? This problem alone was sufficient to give a great initial impetus to the Steady State theory; but with that theory now sadly in conflict with the observations, the best way round this initial difficulty is provided by a model in which the universe expands from a singularity, collapses back again, and repeats the cycle indefinitely”. (1)

As seen in the quote, given the growing scientific acceptance of the Big Bang as an explanation of the origin of the universe, the cyclic universe theory became a sort of “Great Hope” for scientists atheists, who wished with all his might that be certain to avoid an absolute beginning of the universe.

But what exactly is the oscillating universe theory? Dr. Hugh Ross explains to us as follows: “In the oscillating universe model, it is assumed that the universe has sufficient mass so that gravity eventually put the brakes on its expansion. And not only stops the expansion, but rather reverses it, causing a total collapse. However, instead of shrugging himself into a singularity, the universe somehow bounces right back and is expanded again, and so the cycle repeats, according to this model. An infinite number of such cycles is thought to relieve us the need to understand the origin of matter at some finite time in the past”. (2)

However, as well reminds us Dr. William Craig, there are two well-known difficulties with respect to the oscillatory model. The first is that “the oscillating model is physically impossible. That is to say, for all the talk about such a model, the fact remains that it is only a theoretical possibility, not a real possibility. You can draft such models on paper, but they cannot be descriptive of the real universe because they contradict the known laws of physics. As the late Professor Tinsley of Yale explains, in oscillating models even though the mathematics says that the universe oscillates, there is no known physics to reverse the collapse and bounce back to a new expansion. The physics seems to say that those models start from the Big Bang, expand, collapse, then end”. (3)

The second difficulty with this model is that it is clearly contradicted by the observational evidence. For example, as noted Craig: “There is no way to account for the observed even distribution of matter in the universe on the basis of an oscillating model. This is because as the universe contracts, black holes begin to suck everything up, so that matter becomes very unevenly distributed. But when the universe supposedly rebounds from its contracting phase, there is no mechanism to “iron out” these lumps and make the distribution smooth. Hence, the scientists cited above confess that even if there is some unknown mechanism that could cause the universe to bound back to a new expansion, it is still not clear that it would prevent the unevenness that would result from the black holes formed during the contraction phase. 18 The present evenness of matter universe begins with matter unevenly distributed. 19 The oscillating model therefore cannot satisfactorily account for the presently observed evenness of the distribution of matter in the universo”. (4)

Thus we see that the oscillating universe model can not even solve physical problems (in fact, already been rejected by the current scientific consensus). Therefore, it can not solve metaphysical problems.

Thus is maintained conclusion of the third way.

References:

1. John Gribbin, “Oscillating Universe Bounces Back”, Nature, nº 259, 1976, p. 15

2. Cf. J. P. Moreland, The Creation Hypothesis, InterVarsity Press, 1994, p. 149.

3. William Lane Craig, Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics, Crossway Books, Wheaton, 1994, pp. 103-104.

4. Ibídem.

DOES GOD EXIST?: THE BOOK THAT EVERY BELIEVER WILL MUST (AND ALL ATHEIST WILL FEAR) READ Extract from Part II, chapter 2 – “Second way: the argument of causality”

(Are welcome the guidance and indications -emails, web addresses, name of head of area publications, etc. - about publishing houses and institutions that could publish the book).

Enunciation

The second way to prove the existence of God is based on efficient causality and is structured as follows:

1. We found that in the sensible world there are an order of efficient causes that are subordinate to each other.

2. But can not happen that a thing to be his own cause because in that case should be prior to itself, which is impossible.

3. However, the series of efficent causes can not be extended indefinitely because there is always subordinate causes which dependent on the influence of all the causes previous and as,  suppressed a cause, the effect is removed, if there were any cause that be the first, neither would exist the intermediate or the last, or any effect, which is obviously false. It is therefore necessary to have a First cause that is not in turn caused.

4. This First cause that is not caused by any other and to the which are subordinate all other causes is that we all know by the name of God.

5. Therefore, God exists.

(The detailed explanation of each premise is in the book. Likewise the answer to the main objections that have been made to this argument. Here we will only present the answer to one of them)…

Objection 2: The argument of the second way incurs in an insurmountable internal contradiction because first tell us that “everything has a cause” and after tell us that there is something that has no cause and that something is God. In any case, if it’s mantained the principle that "everything has a cause", it could still ask "What caused God?" and after "What caused what caused God?" and so on to infinity. However, as the chain can not be extended to infinity, we must stop us in God. But why should we stop there? why we can not stop us in the material world itself? There is no reason, then, to think that God is necessarily the First cause. Therefore, the second way is invalid.

Response: Evidently this objection is based on a poor understanding (if not ignorance) of the starting point of the second thomist way. In first place, Saint Thomas Aquinas at no moment says that “everything has a cause” but rather simply that “we find that in this material world there is a certain order of efficient causes” (1). Moreover, as already was clarified in the explanation of the first premise, the definition that we have taken of the principle of causality is not that “everything has a cause” but rather that “every contingent being has a cause” or “Whatever begins to exist has a cause”. But God is not a contingent being nor has begun to exist because He is, by definition, Subsistent and Eternal. Therefore, He does not require a cause (at least in the sense of “efficient cause”). Then, there is no “insurmountable contradiction” in the thomist argument.

However, there are still those who ignore all the metaphysical background of the five ways and persist in error asking “But then what caused God?” Pathetic example of this is the English philosopher Bertrand Russell whom, in his famous book Why I am not a Christian?, says: “When I was young and was debating these questions very seriously in my mind, had accepted the argument of the First Cause, until the day that, at age 18, I read the Autobiography of John Stuart Mill, and found this sentence: “My father taught me that the question “Who made me?” can not be answered, because immediately suggests the question “Who made God?”. That simple sentence showed me, as I still think, the fallacy of the argument of the First cause. If everything must have a cause, then God must have a cause”. (2)

No Mr. Russell, to God nobody did him. He is the Subsistent Being. He exist by himself, by its very essence and, therefore, does not require of another being for to exist. Then, there is no reason for that He ask to himself, “Where am I?”, as Kant pretended (3). In any case we can say that God has a reason for be, not cause. His  reason for be is himself. So if it wants to talk about cause, the most that one could speak would be of a “aristotelian formal cause” (understanding that in this case God is totally identify with his “form”, being Pure Form) but never, in any sense, of something like the “efficient cause” (as if the being of God were materially configured by another being).

Finally, the objection tells us that, in any case, if it’s required a First causa, this cause does not have to be necessarily God because we can simply stop the chain of causality in the material world itself. In particular, this objection comes from Hume. In his Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion he tells us: “How can we satisfy ourselves in regard to the cause of that Being, whom you suppose is the Author of Nature, or, according your system anthropomorphic, the ideal world which give sense to the material world? Have we not the same reason to refer this ideal world to another ideal world, or rather, to a new intelligent principle? But if we stop here, what is it that makes us stop in this point? Why we not stop us at the material world?”. (4)

With respect to this critique we must reply that the material world can no be in no way the First uncaused cause. Why? Because it presents the two characteristics that make necessary that a being has a cause: 1) is contingent (as we will prove in the explanation of the first premise of the third way), and 2) has begun to existence (as we will prove in the response to the fifth objection to this way). Instead God is by definition Subsistent and Eternal, so that has his reason for be in Himself and, therefore, it is unnecessary to refer him to another God or to “another ideal world”.

Thus is maintained conclusion of the second way.

References:

1) St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Ia, q. 2, a. 3, response.

2) Bertrand Russell, Why I Am Not a Christian, Edhasa Press, Barcelona, 1979, p. 10.

3) Cf. Immanuel Kant, Critique of Pure Reason, Taurus Press, 1993, p. 375.

4) David Hume, Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, 1779, Part. IV.

DOES GOD EXIST?: THE BOOK THAT EVERY BELIEVER WILL MUST (AND ALL ATHEIST WILL FEAR) READ Extract from Part II, chapter 1 – “First way: the argument of movement”

(Are welcome the guidance and indications -emails, web addresses, name of head of area publications, etc. - about publishing houses and institutions that could publish the book).

Enunciation

The first and clearest way to demonstrate the existence of God is based on the movement and is structured as follows:

1. It is evident, and it is verified by our experience, that there are things which move, that is, they change.

2. Well, everything that moves or changes is moved by another, since nothing moves but rather when is in potency with regard to that for which it is moving. By contrast, move requires being in act, because move is nothing else to do to pass some of the potency to act and this can not do more than what it is in act.

3. But if what moves another is, in turn, moved, it is necessary that be moved by a third, and to this one other. But we can not go on indefinitely, because then there would be no first mover, and, consequently, there would be no any mover, as the intermediate movers move only by virtue of motion they receive from the first. Therefore, it is necessary to reach a First mover which is not moved by another.

4. This First mover which is not moved by another, and that is the principle of movement of all the other beings is that we all know by the name of God.

5. Therefore, God exists.

(The detailed explanation of each premise is in the book. Likewise the answer to the main objections that have been made to this argument. Here we will only present the answer to one of them)…

Objection 3: It is not necessary the First mover in the light of modern science since this tells us about the 4 fundamental interactions: gravitational, electromagnetic, strong nuclear and weak nuclear, being that it is these (and not God) which put in motion and action to the things of the universe (not to mention that, for be “forces” and not “beings”, this also invalidate the assumption that "everything that is moving is moved by another”). Therefore, the first way is invalid.

Response: False. The four “fundamental forces” can not be the primary foundation of the movement and action of things of the universe plain and simple because they do not exist by themselves! What? Yes, it is. In reality the “forces” do not exist in themselves, they exist in the beings who act with this or that force over other beings in the same way that colors do not exist in themselves but rather in the colored things.

Perhaps we can better understand this if we analyze the meaning of the word “interactions” that uses the objection to refer to these forces. And is that the “interactions”, regardless of how fundamental they are, can never be conceived as a “something” existing in itself independent of the “beings” which interact. What really exists are “beings” and not the “interaction” between them because this is just a relationship that has no being-in-itself.

Moreover, with respect to that which sustains the objection that, as it is “forces” and not “beings”, it invalidates the assumption that “everything that is moving is moved by another”, we must reply that the very notion of “fundamental forces” instead of contradict this principle is an application of it. Take for example the gravitational force. In physics, gravitation is defined as “the property of all bodies to exert over each other attractive forces proportionally to its gravitational mass”. Therefore, there is one attracted and other which attracts. In other words, “one is moved by another”.

In conclusion, the force is always the force from something which exerts a force. The motor is the being which exerts the force, no the very force, the same way as the speaker does not is the words spoken but rather the emitter. Then, the First mover has to be a “Being”, not a “force”.

Thus is maintained conclusion of the first way.

DOES GOD EXIST?: THE BOOK THAT EVERY BELIEVER WILL MUST (AND ALL ATHEIST WILL FEAR) READ Extract from Part I, chapter 2 – “Metaphysical and semantic assumptions of the demonstrations of God's existence”

(Are welcome the guidance and indications -emails, web addresses, name of head of area publications, etc. - about publishing houses and institutions that could publish the book).

Semantic assumptions: definition and attributes of God

Semantic is understood as the study the sense and meaning of the words, phrases and sentences. So, what are the semantic assumptions for demonstration of God’s existence? Are all those definitions necessary to demonstrate the existence of God. And which is the most important of all these? The definition of “God” itself, of course! And is that as you said Aquinas, “to prove the existence of something, you must be taken as a mean "what its name means"” (1) because if we not we do that could ever really to know that we have found the existence of that thing in place of another.

Understand this last is extremely important because it implies that to make a valid demonstration or a successful refutation of the God’s existence is absolutely necessary to have a coherent concept of what is Him. Otherwise we would not be proving or refuting the existence of God but the existence of an idol! This observation may seem trivial, but it is not. And is that, as the reader may verify by reviewing the third part of the work, several of the pretended proofs of the inexistence of God end up demonstrating the inexistence of a “god” who in reality is not God (or at least not the God in whom we believe)!

Well, it is pertinent to make an important remark here: that are the theists, and not the atheists, who must make the definition of God later to be able begin to discuss the subject of his existence. Why? The reason is very simple: because believers are precisely those who have to define what is going to believe. The atheist may try to refute the believer's faith, but he can not in no way establish it.

Let us now turn to the concept of God. The definition of God that we will use in this treaty will be: “God is the Subsistent Being”. Here is the highest truth of the natural order, the apex higher than human reason can reach: God is the “Subsistent Being”. But what exactly is the “Subsistent Being”? It is the being that exists by itself without needing any other to exist. It possesses the plenitude of being without any limitation or deficiency. Even more: He himself is the plenitude of being (2).

This definition has exceedingly great advantages. First, it comes to something exclusive to God. No other being can be “Subsistent Being”. In effect, all other beings have their being received or participated, while God have it by essence. Then, just belongs to Him be the “Subsistent Being”.

Moreover, by defining it as "subsistent being" we are taking as a starting point the first attribute in the order of being, because this divine attribute can not be deduced from any other and, instead, we can deduce all other attributes from this. Furthermore, as we will see, there is not divine attribute that can not be derived directly or indirectly from the notion of “Subsistent Being”.

Thus, we can conceptualize to God as a being who possesses in full and without any deficiency or contradiction the following attributes (*):

- Simplicity

- Perfection

- Omnipotence

- Omniscience

- Omnipresence

- Goodness

- Immutability

- Eternity

- Infinity

- Uniqueness

- Transcendence

- Immanence

- Personality

- Spirituality

(*) The demonstration of how each of these attributes are derived logically from the notion of "subsistent being" is found in the book.

References:

1. St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Ia, issue 2, article 2, reply 2.

2. Note to the biblical theist: This philosophical definition is absolutely consistent with the revelation that God gives Himself in the Scriptures: “Moses said: - The problem is that if I go and say to the Israelites, “The God of your ancestors, He has sent me to you”, they are going to ask, “What's his name?”And then what will I say?

And God said: - I AM WHO I AM, that's my name. Say to the Israelites: “I AM has sent me to you'” (Exodus 3:14). “I am who I am” is just another way of saying “I am the Self Subsistent, which does not require the other to exist, which exists by itself and contains within itself the fullness of being”.

DOES GOD EXIST?: THE BOOK THAT EVERY BELIEVER WILL MUST (AND ALL ATHEIST WILL FEAR) READ Extract from Part I, Chapter 1 – “Preliminary epistemological questions”

(Are welcome the guidance and indications, emails, web address, name of head of area publications, etc. - about publishing houses and institutions that could publish the book).

Nature and scopes of the demonstrations of God’s existence

With respect to its nature and scopes, demonstrations of the existence of God here present will be characterized by:

1) Be reasonable

Here we present reasonable proof that can convince reasonable people. It is not our purpose the elaborate those absolutely accurate proofs that convince irrationally obstinates atheists and agnostics. That is simply impossible. When the will reject what the intellect knows no sense argue. As Saint Augustine said: “For those who want to believe I have thousands arguments, but for those who do not want to believe I have none”.

One can only to reason with reasonable people. Consequently, it is not relevant or necessary to prove with absolute certainty the existence of God to the obstinate atheist. Simply you give him reasonable evidence showing that theism is set up as a world view much more rational than atheism because, after all, one can not have absolute certainty of anything but even so relies on what is reasonable and acts accordingly. For example, I can not make an absolutely accurate demonstration that will exist day tomorrow. Might well happen, for example, the destruction of the universe for a unknown cause by scientists. I have no way to prove with absolute certainty that this will not happen. But even so think that will not happen reasonably and act accordingly. It would be foolish to say: “Well, as I can not prove with absolute certainty that will exist day tomorrow I have no reason to enlist my business”. However, this is not very different from the case of the atheist or agnostic who says (or thinks): “As I have not been persuaded with mathematical certainty that God exists will continue living my life as if He does not exist”. That's not reasonable. While it is true we can not be absolutely certain of anything, and that ultimately we have to believe everything by faith, it is also true that there are some “faiths” that are more rational than others and -as we will show throughout this book- atheism is a “faith” especially irrational (or better said anti-rational).

2) Be philosophical

Evidence for the existence of God that we will present in this book will be primarily philosophical. Consequently, those who seek direct scientific demonstrations will be disappointed, and not by our fault. It is a big epistemological error to think that science by itself can not prove or refute the God’s existence. He is not a piece more of what exists and therefore can not be coherently absorbed by single causes which act within reach of telescopes or microscopes. Then, it is absurd to demand direct scientific proof of the existence of God.

In other words: the question of God's existence is not really a matter of physics but of metaphysics because, as the pope John Paul II said, “science can not by itself resolve the issue, it is necessary that knowledge that rises above physics and astrophysics, and that is called metaphysics” (1).

However, this does not mean in any way that we will not appeal to the advances of science to illuminate the issue. Quite the opposite. This book will seek to show that the philosophical proofs of the existence of God are entirely consistent with the current cientific evidence.

Our methodology will be starting from facts of reality perceptible to prove the existence of God and, therefore, it’s evident that we have to appeal to scientific knowledge to better elucidate the basic premises and respond to objections. However, it should be noted that in any case the validity of our reasoning depends primarily of what is reasonably established by philosophy in general and not so much on what is provisionally established for science in particular. Science can change but even so we may continue concluding, with equal metaphysical rigor, that God exists. Thus -at least philosophically speaking- the atheists “have no excuse” (cf. Rom 1:20).

3) Do not substitute the knowledge and personal relationship with God

Finally, the most important of all the clarifications that we will do in this book: be rationally convinced that “God exists” does not necessarily mean “to know God”. These are different things. For example, I can establish that exists a certain John Pérez talking with people who know him, seeing his birth certificate or searching for him on the Internet, but that does not mean I really know John Pérez.

Perhaps someone thinks that this clarification is trivial. But no. It is of utmost importance. What would happen, for example, if John Pérez is the most important person in the universe? Or if he is the only person that can give real meaning to my life? Or if he is the only person who can make me truly happy? Or if he is the foundation of happiness? Would I be happy just knowing that “he exists”? Would not it be personal relationship with him the most important thing in life? Well, for our case, “John Pérez” is God.

It is therefore of paramount importance that believers who will delve into the present book never forget that, as the great Christian apologist William Lane Craig said, “the belief in God is, for those who know him, a properly basic belief grounded in our experience of God. Now, if this is right there's a danger that arguments for God's existence could actually distract your attention from God himself. (…) We mustn't so concentrate on the external arguments that we fail to hear the inner voice of God speaking to our own hearts” (2).

“There are only two kinds of people who can be called reasonable: those who serve God wholeheartedly, because they know him, and those who seek God wholeheartedly because they do not know him”, said the philosopher and mathematician Blaise Pascal (3). So those who know God take this book to serve Him wholeheartedly through the preaching apologetics, helping the conversion of his brothers atheists. And those who do not know God use the present book to begin to look for Him with their whole heart.

References:

1) John Paul II, “Speech to the participants in the plenary session of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences”, October 3, 1981.

2) William Lane Craig, “The existence of God”, debate against Christopher Hitchens, held at Biola University on April 4, 2009, opening speech.

3) Blaise Pascal, Thoughts (1670), Ed Espasa-Calpe, 7th ed., Madrid, n. 194.