Bill: All you have said sounds very nice, Tom, but I don't
have enough faith to trust in some old man up in heaven that made
everything. You'll have to do some major convincing to get me
to believe - and leave religion out of it!
Tom: You have every right to demand evidence, Bill. Christianity does not
ask for blind faith. So, besides religion, what would you suggest
as a means of inquiry?
Bill: Well, scientific proof would be nice.
Tom: Science cannot say anything about God. Science studies repeated events
in the material world. God is neither. Asking science for demonstrative
proof of God is like asking a biology text to explain how your car
runs.
Bill: Well what, besides religion, can say anything about God then?
Tom: Before science became so narrowminded as to only study material things
it was called “philosophy.” Philosophy is an acceptable
method for investigating God, for it studies all of reality.
Bill: OK, so what does philosophy have to say about God?
Tom: Well, let's start with a premise that everyone can agree upon: Things exist.
Bill: That's a pretty safe starting point!
Tom: Still, considering your naturalism, I thought it wise to make sure
you trusted your senses and reasoning abilities (however incoherent
it might be to do so).
Bill: Ha ha ha, very funny. OK, so things exist. Now what?
Tom: Let's begin with only one thing - a triangle. What is the definition
of a triangle?
Bill: How about “a three sided, two dimensional figure”?
Tom: Sounds good. Now, suppose I went through the universe and destroyed
all triangles. How would that affect the definition?
Bill: It wouldn't - triangles would still have the same definition.
In fact if they didn't we wouldn't know what one was if
we saw it.
Tom: Very good. So what does that tell you about the existence of triangles?
Bill: Um . . . that they don't have to exist to be triangles?
Tom: Excellent! You're well on your way to theism.
Bill: Pffffft. I think you skipped a step or two.
Tom: You are correct of course. Let's move on. So far we have discovered
that triangles do not have to exist. That means they are not “necessary.”
In philosophical terms, “necessary” means something that
necessarily exists. It cannot come into, nor go out of, existence.
Bill: And triangles are not necessary because they can exist or not.
Tom: Yes. And it tells us something about a triangle's essence -
it's “definition” so to speak.
Bill: I thought we already defined what a triangle is.
Tom: Truly, and what did we say in this definition regarding existence?
Bill: We didn't say anything about it in our definition.
Tom: And why not?
Bill: Because . . . because existence is not part of its definition?
Tom: Correct again. What would happen if existence were part of a triangle's
definition?
Bill: Then . . . they would have to exist, if they were triangles.
Tom: Very good. So you see then that we cannot simply define something
into existence. For example, I could not define a unicorn as “a
horse with a magic horn in its forehead that exists.”
Bill: Right, because then unicorns would just pop into existence. But they
don't.
Tom: You've got it. Now - let's go back to triangles. Suppose
that all triangles were in fact destroyed, could one come into existence?
Bill: Sure, I could draw one.
Tom: For the sake of brevity I will not be considering the impossibility
of drawing an actual triangle, nor, for the sake of this illustration,
discuss why drawing a triangle is not really creating one (in the
ex-nihilo sense).
Bill: Thank you . . . ?
Tom: Certainly. Now, what would drawing a triangle do to its essence?
Bill: Nothing - there would just be one.
Tom: You mean that what a triangle is (its essence) would not change, but
what a triangle is (its essence) would come to exist?
Bill: Yes. That is exactly what I meant.
Tom: So what does that tell us about the essence and existence of triangles?
Bill: Phew. Um . . . that their essences must come to exist?
Tom: Close. That essence and existence are not necessarily the same thing.
Bill: Oh. OK, that makes sense - they couldn't be separate if they
were the same thing.
Tom: Exactly. And what would happen if essence and existence were the same
thing?
Bill: You'd have one of those definitions that says, “and exists,”
at the end.
Tom: Close enough for now. OK, let's sum up what we have so far:
Unnecessary things (like triangles) exist, but they do not have to.
Therefore essence and existence must not necessarily be the same thing.
Bill: Is that all we've got so far? Took long enough!
Tom: I am just making sure we don't miss anything. Now, you said
a minute ago that if all triangles went out of existence you could
make one come to exist (so to speak).
Bill: Yes, I could draw one.
Tom: But what would be drawing you?
Bill: Huh???
Tom: Analogical predication according to mode of being, my dear William.
What I mean is this - while you are giving existence to the triangle,
what is giving existence to you?
Bill: What do you mean? Nothing is, I already exist.
Tom: Yes, you do exist. But do you exist necessarily?
Bill: You mean is existence part of my definition - my essence?
Tom: Precisely.
Bill: Well, I guess not.
Tom: You don't have to guess. Have you always existed?
Bill: No.
Tom: Could you cease to exist?
Bill: Yes.
Tom: Then is existence part of your essence?
Bill: No.
Tom: And therefore . . .
Bill: Something else is drawing me?
Tom: Exactly!!! Can you feel the yawning chasm of theism opening up beneath
you?
Bill: Hold on there professor. I exist because my parents made me, and their
parents made them, and so forth all the way back to . . . oh. That
answer won't really help will it?
Tom: No, but its failure is greater than you realize. There is of course
the problem of an infinite number of causes regressing into the past
(which you might say is impossible), but even more destructive is
the fact that your parents are not the primary cause of your existence.
Bill: They're not?
Tom: If your parents ceased to exist would you?
Bill: Not necessarily.
Tom: So your parents . . . ?
Bill: OK, I got it. They can't be causing my existence because then
I'd go out with them.
Tom: And that's not even the biggest problem.
Bill: (sighing heavily . . . )
Tom: Is existence part of your parent's essence? Or their parent's? Or
whatever slime you believe your ancient ancestors came from?
Bill: Hey, that's not nice.
Tom: It's not my theory.
Bill: Whatever. OK, so . . . no, it's not. So you're saying
that all people are unnecessary?
Tom: All finite people. But we're getting ahead of ourselves. What
thing in the universe is necessary?
Bill: Well, if the universe is all there is, and it began with the Big Bang,
then everything came into existence at once. Scientists say that someday
there will be a Big Crunch and everything will be destroyed. So according
to you - nothing is necessary.
Tom: Do you see a problem with that statement?
Bill: Well, if things exist that don't have to then something else
has to give them existence. If everything in the universe doesn't
have to exist then something else has to . . . Wait, what if everything
just gives everything else existence?
Tom: You mean like “A” gives existence to “B” which
gives existence to “C” and so forth?
Bill: Yes, but that's like your slime question earlier. I see that
it can't just go on forever - you still need something to cause
“A”. So what if “Z” causes “A”?
Then everything is accounted for!
Tom: Not everything.
Bill: Why not? It would be "A through Z" in a perfect circle of
“existence-giving.”
Tom: But what caused the circle?
Bill: Um . . . Dang it! Wait, what about itself?
Tom: Nothing can cause itself, Bill, that's a contradiction. In order
for something to cause itself to exist it would already have to be
existing in order to cause.
Bill: OK, OK. I see where you're trying to go with this.
Tom: Delightful, why don't you tell me?
Bill: If the whole universe is made up of things that exist but don't
have to then something else has to give the whole universe existence.
I suppose you're going to say God did it.
Tom: Interesting supposition, but you brought it up - not me. We agreed
not to discuss religion though, so let's stick to philosophy
for now and just see where we are. If there has to be some thing causing
all other things to exist what sort of a being would that be?
Bill: An old man with a beard up in heaven?
Tom: (rolls eyes . . .)
Bill: Sorry. OK, well it couldn't be just another unnecessary being
because that would just push the question back another step. So it
would be . . . necessary.
Tom: Meaning . . . ?
Bill: Its essence and its existence were . . . wow, the same thing I guess!
It's definition would be “existence”!
Tom: Close enough. Now consider this: a thing's essence is what limits
it to the kind of existence it has. That is why dogs are not cows
and rocks are not trees. Their existence is limited to what they are.
Bill: OK, that makes sense.
Tom: So, what would a necessary being be limited to?
Bill: Its essence. Wait . . . its existence? Somehow that doesn't
make sense.
Tom: That is because existence's limit comes from essence.
Bill: Then pure existence would be . . . unlimited.
Tom: Precisely. An unlimited being cannot have any limit properly attributed
to it. That is why when we say things about unlimited being we must
either negate them (in-finite, im-mutable, im-passable, im-mense,
etc.), or if we say things positively of unlimited being we must understand
them in an unlimited way (goodness, love, mercy, wrath, knowledge,
etc.). So what would be true of an unlimited being with regard to
its power?
Bill: It would be . . . unlimited power?
Tom: Yes, or “all-powerful” - what theologians call “omnipotent.”
And what would be true of an unlimited being with regard to its presence?
Bill: It would also be unlimited.
Tom: Yes, what theologians call “omnipresent.”And what would
be true of an unlimited being with regard to its relation to time?
Bill: Also unlimited . . .
Tom: Yes, but time requires a limit, that's why unlimited being would
be “eternal.” So you see, not only does the existence
of unnecessary things require a necessary thing, we can actually discover
quite a bit about that necessary thing.
Bill: This "thing"is starting to sound familiar.
Tom: It should.
Bill: And it just happens to be the God the Bible talks about.
Tom: I haven't used "God" or "Bible" once in this discussion.
But since you insist on bringing up religion in our purely philosophical
discussion, I will allow it. You know, the apostle Paul said that God's invisible attributes were
made obvious to all people through His creation. Perhaps this is what
he was referring to.
Bill: Yeah, yeah, yeah. I suppose Paul came up with this argument too?
Tom: Aristotle actually came pretty close about 400 years earlier - although
he did not have a Bible to compare to his god.
Bill: Well, just because this argument sounds good that doesn't mean I have
to believe in God.
