In this blog post, we will look at the reasons why modern Christians seek to prove the existence of God and the meaning of seeking harmony between reason and faith from a philosophical perspective.
For modern Christians, proving the existence of God is more than just an intellectual pursuit. The proof of God’s existence is a question closely connected to the nature of faith, and it plays an important role in forming and maintaining the foundation of faith. As a Christian, I find it interesting to know that the first attempt at proving it, whether it is in progress or planned, and whatever the outcome may be. Efforts to prove the existence of God often deepen an individual’s faith or sometimes lead to a crisis of faith. Among them, the metaphysical proof of the existence of God by the famous theologian Duns Scotus is the most impressive. It very well explains the difference between understanding through faith and understanding through reason, which is powerless in the face of the truth of God, and what that means.
However, this raises an important question: Why do modern Christians still try to prove the existence of God? Especially in an age dominated by science and technology, there is a question as to whether faith is something that can be proven. Many Christians may think that trying to prove the existence of God is an arrogant attempt that goes beyond human limits. Nevertheless, there are still important reasons for such attempts. The relationship between faith and reason has always been a central theme in Christian theology, and for modern Christians, it has become even more important to harmoniously integrate the two. When rational thought and faith conflict, attempts to prove the existence of God can be seen as an effort to understand faith rationally.
Before explaining Duns Scotus’ proof of the existence of God, I would like to talk about the metaphysics established by Duns Scotus. Metaphysics is the study of existence as existence. He focused on special objects such as finite existence, infinite existence, realistic existence, and possible existence. He believed that the terms that denote the basic properties of existence as existence are applicable to God in a similar way as they are to creatures.
In this way, what is important in the process of proving the existence of a deity is not simply a philosophical argument, but a new look at the relationship between faith and reason. By proving the existence of God, modern Christians are trying to confirm that their faith is not just an emotional belief, but can be justified through reason and philosophical thinking. These efforts serve to strengthen one’s faith and deepen one’s understanding of God. Duns Scotus’ metaphysical approach is not simply about proving the existence of God, but rather about showing how reason and faith can work together.
He attached great importance to the fact that the declaration that applies to all beings must be either inevitable or accidental. This is true for all beings. Duns Scotus paid attention to contingency and distinguished between the moment of nature and the moment of time. He called the moment when the moment of time and the moment of nature intersect simultaneous possibilities. The moment of time continues to exist at this very moment when I am writing this, and at the moment when the reader is reading this, so the moment of nature can be seen as a simultaneous possibility. This simultaneous contingency leads to the assertion of an objective potential that objects that do not exist also have the potential to exist. It is said that objects that do not exist are also individualized by this objective potential.
The claim reinterprets the existing concept of form and medical treatment, saying that medical treatment exists even without form and is its own essence. That essence may not be recognized by humans. In addition, form performs the function of individualization in itself, regardless of substance. With the power of God, one can create and preserve form without matter and matter without form. Both the former and the latter have the possibility of being individualized, which is their inherent right. He discusses the proof of God’s existence with this objective possibility.
Duns Scotus used the concept of causality to prove that there is a first cause. For him, the first cause could be God. For example, if something has the ability to exist, the question arises as to what created it. He answers this question by saying that since nothing comes from nothing, there must be something. Also, since nothing can be the cause of itself, the answer is that it is different from something that has the ability to exist. Results must have a cause. Therefore, we can arrive at the first principle by identifying the cause of the result. However, we make the mistake of trying to find the cause of what created something that has the ability to exist, according to which this argument is impossible to repeat forever. In the end, he argues that the principle of the first cause is reached.
He explained the impossibility of this argument by distinguishing between causal chains. He distinguished between what is ordered by chance and what is ordered by nature. Suppose there is a son, a father, and a grandfather. The father is the cause of the son. The father is the cause of the grandfather. It is questionable that the cause of the son is the grandfather. It can be said that there is a correlation, but it does not explain a direct causal relationship. In this regard, Duns Scotus would view the chain of generations as merely a contingent order. An essential order, different from the horizontal order of the contingent order, represents a vertical hierarchical order. For example, let’s say a gardener is carrying a shovel and moving soil. Without the gardener, the shovel cannot move the soil by itself. The soil cannot move on its own without the gardener. This is the gardener’s first principle. It is argued that this represents a vertical hierarchy of order that cannot be traced back infinitely.
There is a major weakness in this argument: it assumes that we can grasp the objective possibility of creating and preserving forms without treatment and forms without treatment. It is also unclear why he uses this argument to produce a unique and infinite first cause rather than a number of finite first causes.
Aquinas took the causal chains that exist in the world as the starting point for his arguments, but Duns Scotus started from the possibility of causality. This is because he wanted to present his proofs based on pure abstract possibilities rather than accidental facts of nature. If we start from natural science, we will never be able to go beyond the finite world. Duns Scotus also accepts that this argument is only possible if there is no contradiction in the concept of existence, which is infinite. He also argues that if there were any contradictions between the concepts of existence and infinity, they would have been discovered long ago.
He would consider infinity to be the most important element of the concept of God. This infinity is not an attribute of God, but a component of the divine being. Infinity is also a defining characteristic of all of God’s attributes. It is said that “in its essence, it has formal perfection as its source and foundation” (Oxcn, 4, 3, 1, 32), meaning that the attributes of God can be derived from the concept of infinity.
If we summarize the proof of the existence of God by Duns Scotus at a macro level, we must first identify objective potential and identify the accidental order and the essential order to find the first cause. The essential order identifies the attribute of infinity, and this allows us to prove the existence of God. This can be considered an important example of the attempts of medieval theologians to harmonize religion and philosophy.
Modern Christians have also continued this tradition and are continuing to attempt to prove the existence of God. What is important in this process is to go beyond simply theoretical arguments, deepen one’s faith, and renew one’s relationship with God. Such arguments can be seen as an effort to gain a deeper understanding of the nature of faith and harmoniously integrate it with reason. Through such efforts, modern Christians will be able to deepen the roots of their faith and pursue a faith life in which reason and faith coexist harmoniously.
