CHAPTER TWO

AN EXPOSITION ON THE EXISTENCE OF GOD

2.0 INTRODUCTION

One of the distinguishing features of the present day civilization is the presence of a large

number of religions, schools of thought and ethical systems tagged with different beliefs,

conceptions and ideologies. Man had always sought to understand the reason for creation and his

own place in the order of things; that is; the ultimate cause of things, the origin of all things.

Some of these phenomena that put man into rational enquiry was when he observed the order of

the cosmos, environmental or climatic features as well as the contingency in the birth and death

of every living being, reflections on his own existence as well as other humans, plants and

animals, these factors immensely contributed to the rational search for answers to the questions

that arose in his mind as he sought answers to the basic questions about the ultimate meaning of

reality as a whole.

These empirical phenomena thus aroused in the mind of man the possibility of whether

there could be another unseen but potent being who is the cause of these things that were

observed. Some refer to this being as ‘God’, others give it specific names according to their

culture, school of thought or perceptions, some refer to it as just a strong supernatural force,

while there are some who are of the opinion that even though it could be true that there is an

unseen force behind all these, it cannot be seen, understood, known and communicated. In

contrast to this, others do not hold unto these beliefs and have their standpoints on the cause of

things, thus critiquing the possibility of the existence of God. Their quest is to ascertain the

physical and empirical existence and nature of this being called ‘God’ and reconciling the

1
imperfections in the world with his supposed perfection as a being. Thus, the big question is

“Who or what is God and does he really exists?”.

2.1 GENERAL OVERVIEW ON THE CONCEPT OF GOD

The concept of God is that which as for many years intrigued the minds of philosophers

and pertinent scholars tracing back to the ages. One thing that is common in these religions is the

belief in a universal God or in a supreme divine authority, they believe these God (gods) to be

omniscient (all-knowing), omnipotent (all-powerful), omnipresent (present everywhere) and

omnibenevolent (all-good)1. The title given to these gods by the people also varies from one

culture to the other. Examples are God for the Christians, Allah for the Muslims, Buddha for the

Buddhists, Yahweh for the Judaists, etc. Even in African traditional religions, the conception of

God is universal and categorized in different expressions because of the distinction in every

culture2.

We should understand that the Western philosophical conception of God is quite different

from the African conception. In the Western conception, the concept of God arose in the context

of their philosophic project, these projects include the origin of things, the destiny of man, the

source of evil, etc which were nonetheless subjective in view. The African traditional conception

viewed God in objectivity, objectivity here is referred to as the spirit of facing reality squarely as

it is in itself, and avoiding personal influence from man’s taste, sentiments, prejudices or any

other subjective dispositions.3 From one religion to the other, the nature and rites of worship, in

which these gods are worshipped varies especially as it pertains to culture. These gods are

worshipped, celebrated and often times appeased when its worshippers do not live to the divine
1
Dr. Zakir Naik, “Concept of God in Major Religions”, (Darussalam: King Fahd National Library, 2007); 2.
2
Dr. Naik, “Concept of God in major Religions”, 2.
3
Peter Takof Ph. D, Ngoran Matthew Balanjo Ph. D “The Conception of ‘God' in African Philosophy and African
Traditional Religion, ”International Journal of Social Science and Human Research Vol. 5, no. 2914 (2002): 2.

2
principles laid down by it. Thus, in theism, God is believed to be that unseen divine deity that

exists in himself, perfect in all attributes and is the origin of the world, all that there is and the

primordial cause of things. He is also perceived as a spirit believe to be in control of the universe

or life and is thus worshipped for doing so 4. Infact, some religion have it that this God cannot be

fully understood and so humans cannot explain his nature; yet since we have to explain his

nature as we perceive or know, we do that using our own words and vocabulary from our

emotions or feelings which does not fully exhaust or explains his very nature for according to

such religions, humans cannot transcend to know the fullness of the divine and thus, they only

end up reducing the quality of his very divinity even when trying to explain his person. This is

also what is called anthropopathism5.

In these various religions are different conceptions also of the number of god or gods that

there are and are thus worshipped. To believe in the existence of at least one deity, makes one a

theist. Theism arose in the wake of the scientific revolution of the seventeenth century to contrast

with the then emerging ‘deism’ that explained that God, though transcendent and supreme, does

not intervene in the natural world and could be known rationally and not by revelation 6. Theism

is derived from the Greek word ‘theos’ meaning ‘God’, its types are ‘monotheism’ which is the

belief in theology that only one deity exists e.g. Christianity, Islam, Judaism, etc, and

‘polytheism’ which is the belief that there is more than one deity 7. Other forms of theism include

pantheism and panentheism as well. Pantheists believe that the physical universe is equal to a

God or gods, while panentheists believe that the physical universe is joined to a god or gods, but

4
Takof Ph.D, Balanjo Ph. D “The Conception of ‘God’ in African Philosophy and African Traditional Religion”, 2.
5
Philip L. Quinn in Eugene Thomas Long Ed. “ Issues in Contemporary Philosophy of Religion”, (Dordrecht: Kluwer
Academic Publishers, 2001); 57.
6
Deja Chambliss, “All about Theism and Non-Theism”, (New York: University Publications, 2016); 2.
7
Chambliss, “All about Theism and Non-Theism”, 2.

3
this God or gods are greater than the material universe8. The claim of no existence of this God or

gods nor having faith in them is what is defined as agnosticism, atheism or anti-theism9.

Even though there are different or similar conceptions of God by these different religions

and other belief systems, one thing is certain, this is the similar acknowledgement of ‘God or the

gods’ as an unseen divine and supernatural entity; this creates an unbiased, general definition

about the concept or the mystical person of God.

2.2 VARIOUS ARGUMENTS ON THE EXISTENCE OF GOD

Even though there could be other debates or arguments that boil down to the existence of

God also, e.g. arguments on the nature of God, freewill and determinism, etc, the argument on

the problem of evil still stands out as one of the major bone of contention both in ancient,

medieval, modern and the post-modern eras. A critical response to these arguments is called

defense which differs from theodicy in the sense that it seeks to provide an answer to the

question of the problem of evil, it seeks to show that the theistic belief in God even in the face of

evil is rational. The various arguments on the existence of God can be broadly divided into three

broader major arguments which are the cosmological arguments, ontological arguments and the

teleological arguments10.

2.2.1 ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT

The term ‘ontological’ is derived from the root word ‘ontology’. Ontology

etymologically originates from two Greek words; ‘on’ meaning ‘being’ and ‘logia’ meaning

8
Chambliss, “All about Theism and Non-Theism”, 3.
9
Chambliss, “All about Theism and Non-Theism”, 3.
10
Yujin Nagasawa, “The existence of God: A Philosophical Introduction”, (Oxon: Routledge, 2011); 2.

4
‘study’11. Thus, ontology is simply the study of being alive and existing. An ontological

argument for the existence of God is an argument which is drawn from premises that are

supposed to derive from some source rather than what is observed in the world 12 e.g. from pure

reason alone. The nature of an ontological argument is purely analytic, a priori, and derived from

premises that are necessary to conclude that God exists. According to the traditional Kantian

method of classification, the distinctive feature of these arguments is that they proceed from

premises which at least some defenders of the arguments allege can be known as a priori 13. A

priori knowledge is the knowledge that is not based on observation but knowledge derived

without any experience of any kind to justify it. Kant defines a priori knowledge as the

knowledge that is absolutely free or independent of all experience.

A major proponent of the ontological argument was Anselm who was Archbishop of

Canterbury as well as Rene Descartes who bought his position. In his defense for the existence of

God, Anselm pointed to the fact that the degrees of perfection found in all things reveals that

there must be an absolute and highest degree of perfection 14. He argued that since we see things

that are beautiful, and more beautiful than the first, then there must be the most beautiful, this

most beautiful would be the absolute beauty and source of all beauty, he refers to this absolute

beauty as ‘God’15. Apart from beauty, Anselm uses other attributes such as wisdom, goodness,

justice, etc to describe the absolute perfection of the existence of God. When confronted by some

Christians to produce a plausible argument for the existence of God, Anselm gave his ontological

argument in the saying that “God is that being greater than which none can ever be conceived”.

11
Graham Oppy, “Ontological Arguments and Belief in God”, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995); 2.
12
Oppy, “Ontological Arguments and Belief in God”, 2 - 3.
13
Oppy, “Ontological Arguments and Belief in God, 3.
14
Oppy, “Ontological Arguments and Belief in God, 4.
15
Joseph Omoregbe, “A Simplified History of Western Philosophy: Ancient and Medieval Philosophy”, (Lagos: Joja
Educational Research and Publishers Limited, 1991); 118.

5
This means for him, the idea of God is the greatest possible being that can ever be thought and if

such being does not exist, then it cannot be the supreme being that is greater than which none can

be thought.16 Anselm also stated that to think of an absolutely perfect being implies its existence.

By this, he implies that God necessarily exists.

However, Anselm’s argument was also met with criticisms by Gaunilo, Aquinas, Kant,

Hume, etc. In response to Anselm, Gaunilo argued that the fact that we can think of a being does

not necessarily mean it really exists, giving a sample of when we think of a beautiful island while

lying on the bed. His arguments were to prove to Anselm that the sentence ‘God exists’ does not

follow from Anselm’s premises17. Aquinas responded to Anselm also that man cannot ascertain

the nature of God in Anselm’ proposition, thus the argument would be meaningful to the man

who fully understands the essence of God completely while Immanuel Kant considers God as an

ideal of pure reason, he calls God ‘a transcendental example’ and argued that God cannot be

proved in any positive way18. The whole nature of ontological argument is to prove the existence

of God by establishing a necessity of God’s existence through an explanation of the concept of

existence or as a necessary being.

2.2.2 COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT

The term ‘cosmological’ stems from the root word ‘cosmology’. Cosmology is derived

from two Greek words; ‘kosmos’ meaning ‘world or universe’ and ‘logos’ meaning ‘study’19.

Thus, it simplifies to say that it is the study of the cosmos. In a broader view, cosmology is a

branch of physics and metaphysics that deals with the study of the nature of the universe.

16
Omoregbe, “A Simplified History of Western Philosophy: Ancient and Medieval Philosophy”,118 - 119.
17
Omoregbe, “A Simplified History of Western Philosophy: Ancient and Medieval Philosophy”, 119
18
Omoregbe, “A Simplified History of Western Philosophy: Ancient and Medieval Philosophy”, 119
19
William Lane Craig, “ The Cosmological Argument from Plato to Leibniz”, (London: The Macmillan Press, 1980);
Preface x – xi.

6
Cosmological arguments for the existence of God are arguments that uses facts from causation,

change, motion, contingency, finitude, dependency, etc relating to the universe to infer that God

exists20. These arguments build on inferences from particular alleged facts about the universe or

cosmos to the existence of a unique being which is generally referred to as God. This argument

can also be called universal causation, argument from first cause or the prime mover argument21.

Proponents of this theory include Aristotle, Parmenides, Thomas Aquinas, William Craig,

Alexander Pruss, etc. According to William Craig, there are three types of deductive

cosmological arguments22. The first argument is the argument posited by Aquinas, the argument

endorses the kalam proof for the origin of the world and the existence of a creator, this argument

is based on the fact that an ordered infinite regress is impossible. This means that Aquinas argues

based on the degrees of perfection of all things by the first cause (similar to that of Anselm). The

second argument is the kalam argument, that explains the proof according to Aquinas’ first three

ways i.e. arguments from motion, causality and the contingency of being, thus maintaining the

impossibility of an essentially infinite temporal regress of causes. The third argument is that

which does not have any reference to an infinite regress at all, this third type is Leibniz, Spinoza

and Clarke’s version of the proof in the sense that it makes no reference to the impossibility of

any sort of infinite regress, rather it is founded on the principle of sufficient reason23.

Amidst all these, the cosmological arguments were met with criticisms. Amongst these

was Immanuel Kant. In Kant’s criticism of cosmological argument, he claims that ontological

arguments are vitiated by their reliance upon the implicit assumption that “existence” is a real

20
Craig, “ The Cosmological Argument from Plato to Leibniz”, Preface xi.
21
Craig, “ The Cosmological Argument from Plato to Leibniz”, Preface xi.
22
Craig, “ The Cosmological Argument from Plato to Leibniz”, Preface xi.
23
Paul Copan, William Lane Craig Eds., “The Kalam Cosmological Argument”, (London: Bloomsbury Publishing Inc.,
2018): 302.

7
predicate, for him the confusion lies in the fact that existence is not a predicate24. The predicate is

that part of a sentence which is not the subject but which gives information about the subject. A

predicate might be a single word like ‘John laughed’ where John is the subject and ‘laughed’ is

the predicate. For example, in the sentence Clare went to school, 'Clare' is the subject and 'went

to school' is the predicate. A predicate is a property that a thing can either possess or lack. Hence,

Kant concludes that the ontological argument was flawed. Any argument for the existence of

God based on the proposition that a God that exists in reality is greater than a God that only in

the imagination is based on a confusion25.

2.2.3 TELEOLOGICAL ARGUMENT

The last form of argument for the existence of God is what is known as the teleological

argument, it is purely an ‘a posteriori argument’; an argument based on experience. The word

‘teleology’ comes from two Greek words; ‘telos’ meaning ‘end’ and ‘logos’ meaning ‘study’.26

From this, we literally get ‘the study of an end, or purpose or goal’. In a broader view, teleology

is the study of an object or a subject matter in view of its goal or the aim of its existence, it can

also mean the study of why a particular object or subject matter as he case may be takes the form

and features that it does.27 Thus, the teleological argument for the existence of God is the

argument that there must be an intelligent designer for the observed intelligent purpose and order

in the universe that can be observed and this designer they say must be God.28

The earliest proponents of the teleological arguments are Plato, Aristotle, and the Stoics;

though these set of philosophers didn’t refer to the intelligent designer or cause of things as God,
24
Copan, Craig Eds., “The Kalam Cosmological Argument”, 302 - 303.
25
Paul Guyer Ed., “Kant's Critique of Pure Reason”, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010); 303
26
Neil A. Manson Ed., “God and Design: The Teleological Argument and Modern Science”, (London: Routledge,
2003); 2.
27
Manson Ed., “God and Design: The Teleological Argument and Modern Science”, 2 - 3.
28
Yujin Nagasawa, “The existence of God: A Philosophical Introduction”, (Oxon: Routledge, 2011); 68 - 69.

8
there was yet a recognition of a supernatural force acting upon the features in the universe. 29

Plato after his observation on the designs and features of the universe concluded that everything

that begins to exist has a cause, he also added that the universe had not always existed but began

to exist at a particular point in time, and thirdly for him, there is a cause for the existence of the

universe.30 Viable proponent philosophers of this argument are Thomas Aquinas, William

Derham, William Paley, etc. One of the outstanding modern teleological proponent is William

Paley. Paley’s argument is completely based on analogy. He uses the analogy of a watch with its

beautiful design and intelligent structures. Thus Paley argues that just as that watch with its

designs and structures must have made or created by man who is the watchmaker; the same thing

applies to the universe which must have been created by God. Therefore, he argues that a

watchmaker is to God just as a watch is to the universe and all it contains 31. The argument also

brought about some critiques who attacked the nature of these arguments; notable opponents of

this theory are Cicero, Charles Darwin, David Hume and Immanuel Kant.

Teleological argument is thus basically argument from design, those who propose these

arguments look towards the end of an object in view. Their focus is on the designer of the design

than on the design itself, using a pattern of argument that infers from particular observable facts

about the universe to the existence of a unique being, referred to as God.

2.3 SOME PHILOSOPHERS ON THE EXISTENCE OF GOD

There are different strands of philosophers who had placed their views on the existence of

God stemming either from ontology, cosmology or teleology. Of these philosophers shall be

espoused their argument on either of the above views.

29
Nagasawa, “The existence of God: A Philosophical Introduction”, 69.
30
Nagasawa, “The existence of God: A Philosophical Introduction”, 69.
31
Manson Ed., “God and Design: The Teleological Argument and Modern Science”, 276

9
2.3.1 ARISTOTLE ON THE EXISTENCE OF GOD

Aristotle the teleological philosopher, in chapters six to ten of his book ‘Metaphysics’

talks about the existence of God. Although, he did not call this creator as ‘God’ in any of his

works, he however made God passively responsible for change in the world in the sense that all

things seek divine perfection. Aristotle argues that there must be a kind of imperishable and

eternal being, otherwise all other being would be perishable including all that there is in the

world. As a teleologist, Aristotle explains the cause of things into four classes; the material,

formal, efficient and final cause32. The material cause of a thing being that of which a thing is

made of, the formal cause is the form or pattern which makes a thing what it is, the efficient

cause of a thing is the that which is responsible for bringing that thing into existence and the final

cause of a thing is the purpose for which that thing was made33.

Aristotle understood that everything that exists in the universe was moving towards an

end and this end for him is the final cause. He also initiated his doctrine on potency and act

which espouses more on it. He explained that every material being is made up of potency and

act; potency being the capacity to become another thing, or possibility to function while act is the

goal in which the, potency is directed to. He also explains that since this potency is the

possibility to become while act is the goal directed towards, then, every material being is in a

state of potency while the ‘act’ is the being which makes all things in state of potency but is not

in a state of potency in itself34. This ‘act’ is seen as God while ‘potency’ as that which is created

by God.

32
William Lane Craig, “ The Cosmological Argument from Plato to Leibniz”, (London: The Macmillan Press, 1980);
30.
33
Craig, “ The Cosmological Argument from Plato to Leibniz”, 30 - 31.
34
Joseph Omoregbe, “A Simplified History of Western Philosophy: Ancient and Medieval Philosophy”, (Lagos: Joja
Educational Research and Publishers Limited, 1991); 53 - 54.

10
2.3.2 AUGUSTINE ON THE EXISTENCE OF GOD

Augustine a Christian philosopher, defended the existence of God by employing the use

of reason. Influenced by the works of Plato, he developed a comparison of the animate and

inanimate form of nature. He explained that animals and humans are parts of nature with body

and soul each35. For him, what strikes the difference between them is the presence of the rational

mind. He also admitted that the universe is as a result of a cause and every effect can be traced

back to its cause. Thus, one can trace back creation back to its creator by reflecting. He also

explained the fact that reflections on beautiful things could trace it them back to the source which

is beauty itself, this applies to goodness, justice, etc. For him, there must be a source of these

abstract realities and this sources must be an absolute standard of these abstract realities 36. He

calls this absolute standard ‘God’. Augustine also argues for the existence of God in the sense

that there is at least a universal conviction or awareness of mankind that God exists, he argues

that if God does not exist, the whole human race cannot know or talk about God either in

understood or misunderstood terms let alone being convinced about his existence 37. In these

ways, Augustine argues that God really exists. Aquinas however rejects Augustine’s ontological

argument as invalid because it is an unjustifiable transition from the form of ideas to form of

existence. Kant too rejects Augustine’s theory saying that the fact that everyone has an idea or

have heard of God is not a viable justification for the existence of God.

2.3.2 THOMAS AQUINAS ON THE EXISTENCE OF GOD

11
 Thomas Aquinas, the 13th century Catholic philosopher and theologian was influenced by

the works of Aristotle, he agrees with Aristotle on the four divided categories of causes, he also

agrees with Aristotle’s conceptions of matter/form and potency/act. In Aquinas’ book Summa

Theologica, he postulated five logical arguments for the existence of God also known as the five

ways. They are; arguments from motion, from cause, from the contingency of beings, from

gradation of perfection and from order38. On the first argument ‘from motion', he argues that

motion in the world is a daily experience in the world. Using Aristotle's theory, Aquinas

explains that motion is the transition of any thing from state of potency to act, and a being in

potency cannot bring itself to a state of act by itself except another being in the state of act

influences it. Thus, if what is moved is moved by another and that another is moved by another,

we observe that it continues till infinity. Aquinas argues that there must be a first mover who

started this whole process of motion and this mover himself cannot be moved by another for he

is the first. He concludes that this unmoved mover is what men call God. On the second

argument ‘from cause', he argues that it is observed in the world that one thing causes another

and since every effect is as a mater of cause, there must be a first cause or uncaused cause which

is not caused by another, Aquinas says this first cause is what men call God39.

On the third argument ‘from the contingency of beings', Aquinas argues that all living

beings on earth are contingent, which means that they come into existence and after a while, they

perish and no longer exist. For Aquinas, this means their existence is not necessary, and if all

beings were contingent, it will be hard or difficult to explain that which first came to existence,

hence there must be that being which is responsible and necessary for their existence, this being

itself did not come into existence for it is in its very nature to exist forever. Aquinas says this
38
Anthony Kenny Ed.’s “The Five Ways: St. Thomas Aquinas' Proof of God's Existence” In D. Z. Phillips Ed's ‘Studies
in Ethics and Philosophy of Religion, Volume V', (Oxon: Routledge, 1969); 2 - 4.
39
Kenny Ed.’s “The Five Ways: St. Thomas Aquinas' Proof of God's Existence”, 6 - 34.

12
eternal being is God40. On the fourth argument ‘from the gradation of perfection’, we observe

that the qualities to which we ascribe animate or inanimate things have different degrees. While

we may call this thing good, we say another is better. The same is true of justice, truth, etc.

Aquinas argues that if there is good, and better, then there must be best. For him, if one thing is

more perfect than the other and it goes on like that, then there must be that source which is

absolutely perfect from which all others take their own form of perfection. Aquinas says that this

source of perfection ‘God’. On the fifth argument ‘from order’, Aquinas argues that it is

observable that there is order and harmony in the universe both in the cosmos and in the world

(climates, season, day and night), and this order tends to act for a purpose, to an end. Then, these

observable features and their order must have been created by an intelligent being who had given

them that formation to work towards their end. He calls this intelligent being God 41. Aquinas’

argument also sparked criticisms. Philosophers like David Hume rejects his theory and postulates

rather that since humans can separate causes and effects, then there is no necessary connection

between them and we cannot say that there is a cause because of an observed effect. He also

states that the causes of every element is what is necessary and not the cause for the whole of it.42

2.4 SUMMARY

From the above proceedings. it can be understood that the search for a critical

understanding of whether God exists or not has for long intrigued the minds of philosophers and

scientists, yet; the belief in God or some form of transcendent being has been assumed virtually

in every culture and religion, as every culture or religion have their own rites and style of

interpreting who God is in worship while they may actually be referring to the same deity ‘God’.

40
Kenny Ed.’s “The Five Ways: St. Thomas Aquinas' Proof of God's Existence”, 6 - 34.
41
Kenny Ed.’s “The Five Ways: St. Thomas Aquinas' Proof of God's Existence”, 6 - 34.
42
Yujin Nagasawa, “The existence of God: A Philosophical Introduction”, (Oxon: Routledge, 2011); 124 - 125.

13
However, the claim that there is no God or sufficient justification for the belief in God’s

existence is usually based on a negative assessment of the successes of theistic proofs or

arguments. In conclusion, this tussle continues in the minds of intrigued philosophers and

religious bodies.

14