Does God Exist?

(Presented on the 28. May, 1997 Meeting of the LU Students of Objectivism.)

DISCLAIMER: LU Students of Objectivism is not an official spokesman of Ayn Rand's philosophy of Objectivism. While this essay is an attempt to apply Objectivist principles authentically and sincerely, any mistakes or misrepresentations are those of the writer alone.

Tonight we are going to examine an age-old proposition: the existence of God. In days gone by, the mere asking of the question, "Does God Exist?" would be enough to get the questioner convicted of heresy. Needless to say, ours is a more liberal environment than that. However, for a person to ask the same question today is nonetheless to evoke a conviction of heresy in people's minds. Ours is a predominantly religious society and to reject mysticism today is to feel the full brunt of the disapproval of most. But in the interests of reason, this is what we must have the courage to do.

The question of the existence of God is largely a question of metaphysics. Metaphysics (or ontology) is the most basic branch of philosophy, the branch which studies the fundamental nature of the universe, the branch which answers the question, "What kinds of things are there?". Because this is a meeting of the LU Students of Objectivism, it will be necessary to examine Objectivist metaphysics first in order to appreciate fully the Objectivist position on God. In the end, we will find that a position of atheism is the only one compatible with the Objectivist respect for reason.

I. OBJECTIVIST METAPHYSICS

The authoritative treatment of Objectivist metaphysics is given by the first chapter of Dr. Leonard Peikoff's book, Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand. I shall follow his outline in presenting this theory to you.

Before we can start to philosophize about anything, the first thing that must be said is that there is something. Existence exists. This may sound trivial and undeniably simple, but you would surprised by the extent to which said fact has been evaded by centuries of philosophers. To say that existence exists, to say that there is something, is not to specify the nature of existents. It is not to say that all existents are of a particular kind, such as "everything is matter" or "everything is an idea". Rather, it is simply to say that there is everything. Everything is. This is the ground, the base, the starting point--the first axiom of philosophy.

By listening to my speech so far this evening, and by comprehending what I have been saying, you can come to know the second axiom. To say that you are aware of existence is to say that you are aware of existence. In other words, you exist possessing consciousness, which is a faculty of awareness of what exists. This axiom is not something which I can demonstrate to you; you must demonstrate it to yourself. I am quite sure that I can do it for myself.

(Incidentally, one implication of the consciouness axiom is that the senses are necessarily valid. Please raise any objections about this point during the discussion.)

At this point, I can't help but wish to quote from the passage in Atlas Shrugged essential to Objectivist metaphysics, so here goes:

Existence exists--and the act of grasping that statement implies two corollary axioms: that something exists which one perceives and that one exists possessing consciousness, consciousness being the faculty of perceiving that which exists.

If nothing exists, there can be no consciousness: a consciousness with nothing to be conscious of is a contradiction in terms. A consciousness conscious of nothing but itself is a contradiction in terms: before it could identify itself as a consciousness, it had to be conscious of something. If that which you claim to perceive does not exist, what you possess is not consciousness.

The third and final axiom, the law of identity, is implicit in the first two: a thing is itself. Miss Rand's new formulation of this axiom is that existence is identity. In other words, to say that something exists is to say that something exists. On this view, existence is not a predicate or an attribute, just some other property which you tack onto a thing. "Thingness" and "existence" are inseparable. As we shall see, this will be a crucial point for answering several questions about God.

An observation is now required about the status of the three axioms which I have just presented. Axioms are very special beasties. In her Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology , Miss Rand identifies the three components of any axiomatic concept:

[An axiom is] the identification of a primary fact of reality, which cannot be analyzed, i.e., reduced to other facts or broken into component parts. It is implicit in all facts and all knowledge. It is the fundamentally given and directly perceived or experienced, whcih requires no proof or explanation, but on which all proofs and explanations rest.

The first attribute of axioms suggests that they cannot be defined, save in ostensive manners. I once saw a book on the shelf of a prominent professor of philosophy entitled, "What is existence?". What a silly question, I thought. All that can be said of existence is that it is. I can say, "Look, there's some existence! Theres some more of it!". But I cannot break it down into constituent components much as I would be able to do in the case of a concept like "man" ("the rational animal"). "Existence" is the most abstract of all abstractions, because it is the one thing that everything shares in common. The same goes for other axioms. I cannot define "consciousness", but I can point to it, introspectively. The same goes for the rest of you.

The second and third attributes suggest that axioms cannot be proven. This is not a problem, because axioms are implicit in all knowledge. You can't get any proof off the ground without presupposing them. "Proof" consists of pointing to facts of reality, deriving a conclusion from antecedent knowledge. If there is no reality--if existence doesn't exist--then there can be no facts of reality to which one can point and no no existing knowledge from which to derive anything.

While axioms cannot be proven, they can be validated. The means by which one does that is to look at reality. Axioms are self-evident: they show themselves to be true by means of our very awareness of them.

One final corollary of the identity axiom must be presented: the law of causality. Things are what they are, and they do what they do. To speak of action is to speak of the action of an entity. Causal relationships are not ones which exist between various actions, but ones which exist between the nature of the entity and the action which the entity performs. For instance, one cannot determine what the action of a billiard ball will be merely by referring to the actions of other billiard balls striking it. Is the billiard ball in question made of lead or wood? Is it glued to the pool table or not? The nature of the entity causes the action of the entity. The law of causality is merely the law of identity as applied to action. Rest assured, this formulation shall soon become important.

The next point of Objectivist metaphysics is to observe the importance of the relationship between the axioms: existence comes first. Or, in the standard Objectivist formulation: existence has primacy over consciousness. Epistemologically, one (implicitly) recognizes the fact of existence before one recognizes one's consciousness of existence. Metaphysically, it is possible for there to be existence without any consciousness of it, which is to say that existence is independent of consciousness, which is to say that reality is objective.

Once again, this is not a relationship which can be proven. The independence of reality is a presupposition of the possibility of proof. One cannot demand a proof for the existence of things independent of one's mind (as Descartes did), because to assume that any proof would reveal the truth is to presuppose that pointing to facts of reality is the way to go--which presupposes that such facts facts are there. The realistic formula is not, "I think, therefore I am", but rather "I am, therefore I must think". Reason, not faith or intuition, is to be the standard of knowledge.

The final point of metaphysics is merely an elaboration of the last. Existence exists, and only existence exists--the metaphysically given is absolute. There are no other alternatives, no other "possible worlds" or "contingent facts". With the exception of those deriving from human will, every fact of reality is necessary--it had to be. Even within the free domain of human action, it is still the case that "Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed."

Having firmly established our theoretical foundation, we can now move on to address the more specific question of the existence of God.

II. THE CONCEPT OF GOD

Before we can ask if God exists, we need to know what God would be, were such a entity to exist.

The all-too-often lack of an answer to that very question is the beginning of the trouble for the concept of "God". Very few actual definitions have ever been formulated. Some have even had it that God is precisely that entity or force which cannot be defined. Were this the case, God could not be an entity. Every entity has an identity--A is A--and that identity must be specified through either ostensive definition or conceptual definition. Since very few are willing to admit that the existence of God is self-evident, a conceptual definition would be needed.

Many definitions of God have been attempted. However, what shall become apparent is that each and every one of them is at war with basic metaphysical principle. The outlines that have been sketched of what God would be firmly establish that He could never be any such thing.

God has been defined as the creator of the universe. According to this view, there had to be some first cause of everything, some starting point for the universe. There are several mistaken metaphysical views attached to this notion.

Fundamentally, this view presupposes a primacy of consciousness metaphysics, as against a primacy of existence one. It holds that some consciousness is able to control facts of reality to its own ends. Rather than consciousness being conscious of existence, this view holds that it is possible for there to be a consciousness of conscious of nothing but itself--hence the possibility of the existence of God prior to the existence of his creation, the universe. But as we have established, any version of the primacy of consciousness is flawed; existence has primacy over consciousness, which is an uncontestable fact.

The creation story also makes a mistake about the role of causality. It assumes that every entity (or collection of entities) must be caused. However, what is caused by the nature of an entity is the action of that entity. As Leonard Peikoff writes:

Some of the things commonly referred to as "entities" do not come into being or pass away, but are eternal--e.g., the universe as a whole. The concept of "cause" is inapplicable to the universe; by definition, there is nothing outside the totality to act as a cause. The universe simply is ; it is an irreducible primary. An entity may be said to have a cause only if it is the kind of entity that is non-eternal; and then what one actually explains causally is a process, the fact of its coming into being or another things passing away. Action is the crux of the law of cause and effect: it is action that is caused--by entities.

God has been defined as an omnipotent being, one who is all-powerful to control the course of nature. However, the law of causality dictates that things act in accordance with their nature, and that their doing so is metaphysically given and absolute. No one and no thing has the power to act otherwise.

God has been defined as an infinite being. "Infinity", here, is taken to mean "greater than any particular quantity". Something which is greater than any particular quantity has no particular quantity. To be of no particular quantity is to have no identity. However, existence is identity. For something to be , something must be. There can be no such thing as the actually infinite, only the potentially infinite. For instance, one can add to the length of a line, and then do so again, and again, etc. Nothing in principle is stopping you from making any line longer at any given point. However, at any given point in you doing so, the line will always be of some particular length. An actually infinite existent is a logical impossibility. The recognition of this claim acts as a razor to slash off the meaning of most of the omni- qualities of God (omniscience, omnivolence, omnibenevolence, omnipresence, omnipotence, etc.), all of which are supposed to indicate that He is infinite in one respect or another.

A final definition posits God as a purely spiritual being. The only rational meaning of "spiritual" possible is "of or pertaining to consciousness". However, consciousness is not a mystical faculty. It is a natural, this-worldly attribute of living organisms. Furthermore, as mind and body are integrated, there can be no mind without a body. A disembodied mind or spirit is only imaginable to one who presupposes the primacy of consciousness and discovers that reality doesn't follow his wish. The resulting incorrect notion of a mind/body split is all that makes the conception of minds without bodies plausible.

Do none of these definitions fit your definition of God? What, then, is your definition? The least that Objectivism can say is that any claim about the existence of God is arbitrary, for which no evidence has been provided. At this level, there is no God, for the same reason that there are no unicorns, trolls, faeries or demons: none have ever been observed, and none have ever left any tracks.

Prove that God doesn't exist, you might demand? The request to prove a negative is a logically faulty one. If something does not in fact exist, then there is nothing in reality which it effects, which means, it leaves no evidence. To prove something is to point to facts of reality. One cannot point to any facts as evidence of the non -existence of something. One cannot step outside of reality and point to all of the things that there aren't. The onus of proof is on he who asserts what is so. A theist has the burden of proof to show that God exists, not the other way around. Unless and until any such evidence is offered, the claim to the existence of a God is merely an arbitrary claim, bearing no relationship to the realm of cognition, being neither true nor false.

III. CONCLUDING REMARKS

It should be clear by now that the only position compatible with a rational metaphysics is a position of atheism. Objectivism does not stand for agnosticism, the position that God might or might not exist. To concede as much is to concede to the arbitrary claims of those who demand that a negative be proven and that the mere imaginability of a supernatural being presents evidence for the possibility of its existence. It is not possible for a God to exist. For a God to exist would mean for all of the basic principles of the reality which we know to be flawed, which would be self-contradictory. One must take as a matter of philosophical principle that if one knows anything at all, one knows that there was never, is not, and never will be a God.

I should add that the absence of a God should not engender in you the sort of nausea which the existentialists experienced. Dostoevsky was profoundly wrong when he said, "If there is no God, then anything is possible". He had it quite backwards. If there were a God, then everything would be possible because the primacy of consciousness would hold. God could and would do anything he so chose. On the other hand, because there is no God (as a consequence of the primacy of existence), only certain things are possible--those which are in accordance with the law of causality.

The absence of a God does not mean the absence of morality. I could spend an entirely different lecture explaining to you how Objectivism argues for an objective, scientifically verifiable code of morality--one holding man's life as the standard of value. This is a moral world view which is quite available in the absence of any supernatural dimension.

Having recognized this much, I must emphasize that Objectivism is not essentially atheist. Objectivism isnt essentially "a"-anything. Emphasizing negatives is a poor way to describe what a thing actually is. What Objectivism really is is a pro-reality, pro-reason, pro-individualism, pro-capitalism philosophy. As against the sort of nihilism which most atheists preach, Objectivism offers an alternative, and quite a constructive one at that.

America was founded on two conflicting principles: One, the recognition of man's right to pursue his own happiness with his reasoning mind. The other, the acceptance of Christian theism with its consequences of the morality of altruism. This is an unreconcilable contradiction. If America is to move on, it must accept the rational alternative, the one which emphasizes reason above faith. And God help us if we don't.