The most fundamental question that humans have been asking for thousands of years is: “where do we come from?” and the most fundamental answer has always been “God”. But beginning with eastern philosophers in the 6th century BC and exploding in recent years with enlightenment philosophers and new age ideas, atheism has been on the rise. The idea that there is no God, there is no creator of the universe or anything in it, that human beings are the result not of a loving and perfect thought of God, but are a meaningless by-product of evolution. I believe that this position is harmful to society and leads to widespread feelings of meaninglessness especially among the youth. I believe that based on the evidence, God exists and he loves you, and I intend to prove that by presenting arguments and answering objections. I will present the argument from contingency, I will rebut the two most common objections to this argument those being the infinite universe theory and the question “who made God?” I will also be presenting an argument that proves God loves us and knows us, and answer the problem of evil which is the most common objection to this argument.
Before we begin the discussion of the existence of God, we need to know what God is. There are a few terms needed to understand the metaphysics of God and those are: Necessary, omnipotent, omniscient and simple. First off, God is necessary. Some things in the universe need explaining, take for example a triangle. A triangle can have several attributes for example its size, colour or composition. Some reasonable questions to ask about the nature of that triangle would be “why is that triangle green?” or “why is that triangle so big?” These questions would require a response that sufficiently explains why that triangle has that property, as it isn't necessary for a triangle to be green or big. However if you ask the question: “why does that triangle have three sides?” A sufficient answer is to say: “because it’s a triangle”. Having three sides is an attribute that is inherently grounded in the nature of a triangle, and if it didn’t have three sides it would cease to be a triangle. Now we take this example to God. God is a necessary being as without him nothing else would exist. Similar to the triangle question, if someone asked “why does the universe exist?” A sufficient answer would take time as “because it’s the universe” would imply that the universe is necessary which it is not. Next, God is omnipotent and omniscient. Because God is a necessary being, he inherently would be the highest order of being there is, which means there can be no potentiality in God, potentiality being that which is moved by actuality. For example, an actual oak tree produces the potential acorn. If God was not all knowing or all powerful he would be of a lesser order and he would not be God. And lastly, God is altogether simple, this is known as the doctrine of divine simplicity. This does not mean that the mystery of God or the will of God is easy to understand; what it means is that God is not composed of parts or matter. There are two fundamental attributes to every thing on earth which are matter, and form. For example a wooden chair. The form is a chair and the matter is wood, if the chair is smashed with a hammer, the form of a chair ceases to be but the matter of wood remains. So if God had matter making up a part separate from his form he would owe his goodness to his form as matter makes up the form, though if the matter ceases to exist there is no place in which the form can manifest and would mean there is potentiality in God. Therefore God is a purely actual form with no parts or matter in his being. Now that we know what we are talking about when I say the word “God” I will now begin my first argument for the existence of God, the argument from contingency. In the world there are a series of events which are caused rather than necessary as I explained in my previous paragraph. That which is caused was at one point in a state of potentiality and was actualized into motion by another thing which is in actuality, for example wood is potentially hot, and is made hot by fire which is actually hot. So we can apply this logic to the universe. If there is a chain of causation and each contingent act needs to be actualized by something, we can gather that there must be one necessary being to put the chain of causation into motion taking it from a state of potentiality to actuality. Take for example the chair analogy again. If we see a pile of wood sitting on the floor with a bunch of woodworking tools next to it, it has the potential to become a chair, but without an actualizer which in this situation would be a woodworker, the wood will sit motionless for eternity waiting to be actualized into a chair. It is the same with the universe. If prior to the big bang there was no actuality or even any potentiality it would be illogical to think that the universe was actualized with no necessary being to put the chain of causation into motion. And this necessary being is God. Some common objections to the argument from contingency is the infinite universe theory, and the question “what made God”? So I will answer those objections now. As explained in the argument from contingency, because the universe is a series of caused events, to put the chain of causation into infinity would be impossible as for a chain of causation to begin there must be an actualizer to put the chain into motion. Furthermore, all caused things go through a cycle of decay and generation. Therefore if something is capable of not existing there is a time at which it never existed. The universe and all matter in it are caused, therefore there was a time in which the universe never existed. But then there would be no actuality to put the chain of causation into motion, and the universe would never exist. Take for example a train, say this train had 100 box cars but no locomotive. In order to move, the potential (boxcars) need an actualizer (locomotive), without the locomotive present to actualize the motion of the boxcars the train would remain motionless for eternity. Now imagine the same train but with infinite boxcars. These boxcars would meet the same fate as the 100 box cars with no actualizer (locomotive) to put them in motion. So too with the contingent universe, no matter how much time or potential beings existed, (assuming there were potential beings before the universe existed) without a necessary actualizer which we call God, the void of the universe would lay motionless and empty for all eternity. Second objection, the most asked question when the contingency argument is presented is: “Who made God?” The answer to this question is a simple one: nobody. Nobody made God, if we are speaking about a monotheistic God nobody made him because he is a necessary being, he has always existed and always will exist. If something made God, he would not be the highest order of being and would cease to be God, furthermore if something made God that would mean that at one point he never existed which would mean he has potentiality and isn't pure actuality which would mean that he is not God. Ok, God exists, so what? The universe is billions and billions of light years in diameter, there are billions and billions of galaxies all holding trillions upon trillions of stars, there are 200 billion trillion stars in the universe, that number is 200,000,000,000,000,000,000,000. So maybe God exists, but how do you know he knows us or even cares about us? Why would he care about such small and insignificant people when looking at the massive scale of the universe. We know this because of the hierarchy of God's creation. The hierarchy of God’s creation is clear evidence that he knows and loves humans in a special way separate from all his other creations. All of God’s creations are ordered to some end, take for example plants. They sustain themselves, grow, reproduce and eventually die. As with animals they get food, water, shelter, reproduce and eventually die. Plants and animals are ordered to an end which is growth and reproduction, as are humans, but the difference is that animals and plants are governed to those needs which lead them to that end. For example humans can choose to not have children, or fast for a week on purpose. a bear for example, will always do whatever it can to reproduce and I can guarantee that you will never see a bear intermittent fasting, they will look for food wherever and however they can. God invested into humans the light of reason and free will. This freedom we gain from not being bound to the means that grant us our naturally ordered end sets us apart from animals and all of God’s other creations. A common objection to the existence of God and an objection specifically to the argument I just presented as to why God loves us is the problem of evil. This I believe is one of the strongest arguments against theism, and I will attempt to answer it now. The argument essentially goes like this P1. if God was an all loving being he should will that the highest good happens to his creation, therefore gratuitous suffering should not exist, P2. if gratuitous suffering exists God doesn’t exist, P3. Gratuitous suffering exists C. God doesn’t exist This argument is a strong one because people have a misunderstanding of God. When people think of God, they usually think of a puppet master in heaven pulling all the strings and controlling what people do and say at all times, this is a misconception. God gave human beings the gift of free will as he wants us to freely choose him. God is all powerful, but he cannot do what is logically impossible. It is possible for God to create creatures with free will and the reasonable ability to choose between good and evil, but he cannot also force his creation to do the good act, if he did this we would not have free will. God has told us what good and evil is, but he will never force our hand to choose the good. God has a permissive will, when human beings choose evil he knows that their choice is evil but he respects us enough as to not insult our free will. Furthermore we must not forget that God is omniscient (infinite knowledge) and knows many things we don't, such as the consequences of our actions and the outcomes of scenarios that we could never predict. So something that appears to us as a sorrowful event could have effects that bring about a great good and similarly an event that appears to us as a great good could bring about terrible consequences. For example a puppy going to the vet for shots, the puppy has no idea what’s happening, all it knows is that the people around it are hurting them with these sharp needles and in the moment it seems like a great torture to the animal, due to its limited knowledge. What it doesn’t know is that these shots will protect it from harmful diseases that could bring about terrible sickness and possibly kill the dog. Similarly, if the Dog somehow got into the world's biggest chocolate bar, it might seem in the moment as an amazing treat that tastes delicious, but with his limited knowledge he doesn’t know that if he eats this chocolate bar he will get chocolate poisoning and possibly die. Moreover, our secular society has a false idea of what goodness is. Most people believe that the goodness of God means he should impose that which grants us the highest pleasure, but going back to the dog analogy that might not be true. C.S Lewis writes in The problem of pain: “By the goodness of God we mean nowadays almost exclusively His lovingness; and in this we may be right. And by Love, in this context, most of us mean kindness — the desire to see others than the self happy; not happy in this way or in that, but just happy. What would really satisfy us would be a God who said of anything we happened to like doing, “What does it matter so long as they are contented?” We want, in fact, not so much a Father in Heaven as a grandfather in heaven — a senile benevolence who, as they say, “liked to see young people enjoying themselves” and whose plan for the universe was simply that it might be truly said at the end of each day, “a good time was had by all”. (Lewis 21) God wills that the highest good happen to us, but we need to understand what goodness is, it isn’t just pleasure or feeling good, if God is the highest good there is, God willing us the highest good is to want us to be connected to himself. To conclude this essay, I would like to say that the mystery of God may never be discovered until we get to heaven, however we as humans have been invested with the light of reason where we can at least come to know that God exists. We have discovered that there is very strong evidence for the existence of God with the argument from contingency. I have presented evidence that if God exists, he knows you and loves you, and I have done my best to answer the problem of evil. And based on the evidence I have presented in this essay, I believe that God exists, and he loves you. -Vaughn Walters
0 Comments
Last week, Vladimir Putin took part in his first interview with a Western journalist in years. The significant gap is anything but surprising considering the multiple journalists currently detained in Russian prisons as well as the ongoing war in Ukraine, but Tucker Carlson was seemingly undeterred. After losing his position at Fox News, an agency that skyrocketed him to fame and infamy, he has been looking forward to a large story—a welcome change from his participation in “zyn” ads—and this was certainly that breakthrough moment. Over various platforms, the two-hour interview has been viewed many millions of times over. None of the previous interviews with Putin done by Western journalists—Christiane Amanpour (2019), Megyn Kelly (2017, also a Fox News host before Tucker Carlson), and Oliver Stone (2017)—attracted as much attention as the current one. Yet, there has been no consensus as to what it all means. Journalists and citizens alike have taken to the internet to express their reactions, and it seems the interview has once more further divided Americans; this time whether the interview was a groundbreaking success or merely a rehashing of the same old Russian propaganda. On the one hand, it has been labeled a conservative victory over the corrupt Western nations, while also labeled as a great opportunity for the West to galvanize support against Russia led by a deranged leader. To most, creating a well-formed view is near impossible given the countless directions the media have taken this story, so today a Ukrainian friend of mine and I seek to create a nuanced analysis of what the world witnessed last week. One of the most commonly ‘memed’ moments took place within the initial half-hour of the interview, which saw Putin take the roots of a question about Western aggression back nearly millennia. As someone who closely watched the full half-hour (not to mention the full two-hour interview), I too found it quite comedic, but it certainly raises interesting debates. Foremost, Putin has chosen the wrong direction for the attack. Bringing the ancient history of Russia-Ukraine relations is a mistake. Not only does an average American probably not seriously take historical arguments that took place somewhere in Eastern Europe in 1612 (the Bohdan Khemlnitskyi reference), but they also lack a national understanding of monarch politics due to the democratic nature of the U.S. Looking at this interview as a conversation between a prominent American and prominent Russian, I imagine that a person like Tucker might be able to carefully listen and, perhaps, even engage a little bit in a conversation about medieval Eastern Europe, but let's be honest there, on the following day there isn't much left in his head anymore. In fact, there wasn't even much left in his head before the interview even started. Tucker accurately represents his audience because he doesn't have an elementary knowledge of modern Russia, not even talking about history. He asked only a few questions during the interview, and despite not having much, it took only one of his statements to sign his illiteracy: "Russia is a Christian country." Quite a failure from Tucker's side. Christianity, Islam, Judaism, and Buddhism are four acknowledged religions in Russia. Furthermore, Russia's imperialistic intentions in Georgia and Chechnya show that this country doesn't care about preserving its spiritual identity anymore. Various sources say that Russia has from 6% to 18% of the Muslim population, with some regions being primarily Muslim. Tucker wanted to start talking about general topics that are close to the American right-wing public. Perhaps he planned to idealize Putin's image for U.S. right-wing groups. It's easy to fantasize that Russia is a white, traditional haven full of beautiful blonde women and strong Slavic men. What a contrast and a relief to a culturally shifted United States; a goal to strive for, right? That would be an excellent opportunity for Putin to spin his propaganda propeller on alt-right American viewers. However, this is one of the few moments where Putin does indeed give an honest answer. He says Russia has many religious groups and that being Christian is "not about going to Church every day or banging your head on the floor." It's a terrible answer for the Christian American audience. There are so many ways to gain support from right-wing groups in the U.S., especially if you are Putin and everything you say is taken for granted. Imagine a fat Drew from Alabama. He hates Mexicans, Muslims, abortions, furries, gays, rainbow flags, and everything that starts with homo. He wants to hear how wonderful Russia is. There are no ABCDEFG+ people, no migrants, nothing is imported, and taxes are minimal. I say, take all of these values, slap them on Russia (most of them will work if you try hard enough!), and achieve the support from republican Americans with minimal effort. Don't forget to criticize Biden, NATO, bureaucracy, and Western media on the way. Each method would lead to positive results. However, Drew hears some crazy stories about Kyiv Rus and the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, receives some letters from Bohdan Khemlnytskyi to the Moscow Empire, and realizes that Russia decided to conquer Ukraine because of some bullshit from the 9th century. After attentively listening, Drew tosses his finished can of root beer into the trash bin and asks himself, "Hm... Isn’t Lithuania a city in Munich?" Putin and his media team did a terrible job, but Tucker also wasn't able to show off his favorite minion. His questions were too complicated and confusing for Putin, so he couldn't ride the same message he does in the inner politics of Russia. Hence, Putin struggled to identify the audience he was working for because, ultimately, his argument did not appeal to every single side of the issue. Slightly more specific and straightforward questions could have moved the interview into a more casual flow, where Putin would be comfortable contrasting the ideals of the U.S. to those of Russia and downplaying other factors. The intimidated Carlson must have been afraid to change the subject of Ruriks and territorial wars, and Putin must have really enjoyed talking about his dearest topic in history and decided to continue like that until the end of the interview. Additionally, Putin’s baffling claim surrounding Poland’s supposed collaboration with the Nazi regime quickly squashed any sentiments of respect that may have taken root in the audience during the first few minutes of the interview. For years the right has tried desperately to frame Putin as the strong antithesis to the West to highlight the West’s own decrepit and pitiful ruling class, and while this criticism is valid, Putin is certainly not a correct role model for a traditionalist nation. To summarize, his history lesson was not intended to answer the question provided by Carlson, but rather an attempt to drag the conversation into waters far out of Carlson’s depth in order to dominate the narrative. Carlson is no genius or historian, and this proved to be an easy task. Ultimately, just like Putin’s various “Are we having a serious conversation?” comments, the lecture was nothing more than a way for the leader to assert total dominance over his interviewer. Additionally, Putin is somewhat disappointed by the direction of the interview, seemingly expecting more engagement and follow-up questions from Carlson. However, there's a subtle acknowledgment, perhaps even by Putin himself, that his propaganda tactics may have fallen short. Therefore, Putin downplays the interview's significance to minimize attention and drive away from vulnerabilities in his narrative. Putin’s assertion of control leads cleanly into the next point, which is the unjust criticism of Carlson’s conduct. The media have been quick to lambast him for not ‘pushing’ Putin enough, which is laughable considering where he is. Do they forget he is literally in the heart of the Kremlin? On a personal level, I find that Carlson exhibited remarkable bravery in even suggesting the release of Russia’s American journalist prisoners. However, Carlson certainly understood this balance of power going in, and that is where much of his genuine criticism is drawn from. The main argument states: Carlson knew Putin would have total control over the conversation, so why would he even allow Putin the opportunity to speak through the interview? Of course, it was a foreseeable conclusion that Putin would simply rehash his nation's meticulously crafted propaganda for two hours, but does that mean he should not have the opportunity to do so? Similar to the points made in my last article about the death of liberalism, free media is essential to a nation that claims to be ‘liberal’, and that involves giving a voice to stories with weight. Most Westerners have no idea what Russian propaganda truly professes because it is not targeted at them, and now for the first time, it is. Putin planned to use this as an opportunity to sell himself to the West, and he did so. On the other hand, now the Western citizenry has more knowledge of the ideology and worldview they are up against, so it is certainly a double-edged sword for Russia. After the history lesson, Putin moved to the real meat and potatoes of the interview. Of all the topics spoken about, the most interesting points made by Putin were surrounding geopolitics and ‘how things are really run’. As an outsider to the West with a valuable first-hand understanding of the inner workings of a modern state, his points around the effectiveness of elected leaders were quite poignant. Though these facts were not new to me, I find that it is an ultimate net positive that the average American—especially with an election looming—once more has the depressing reality of modern democracy hammered through their skull. Of course, all his points surrounding these matters had an underlying goal of reaffirming the Russian Crusade against the West, yet a broken clock is right twice a day. Once more, however, the moment I began to have a spark of respect for the points made, that spark was just as quickly pinched out. For years, the most baffling part of Russian propaganda has been the idea of ‘de-Nazification’. I understand why this may work for many Russians—seeing as the ‘great patriotic war’ still stirs up fervent nationalism—yet watching Putin attempt to make the idea applicable to a Western audience was quite entertaining. His main issue is he has to appeal to the West, while also accusing them of supporting Nazism or even being Nazis themselves; a ravine in his argument that is never once bridged. His only two comprehensible points on the matter were the invocation of the Canadian parliament giving a standing ovation to an SS officer and the infamous AZOV battalion, yet the AZOV is a small extreme sect reviled by most Ukrainians, and the Canadian parliament debacle is nothing more than a lack of due diligence in research. The obvious counter comes with the fact Zelenskyy is Jewish, however, Putin foresees this counter-argument and offers a vaguely recalled conversation between the two leaders about how Zelenskyy was forced into compromising with the extreme right to hold power. Once more, knowledge is power, and a Western audience will be deterred by statements as ludicrous as these, no matter how watered down to meet their palate they become. So by this point, we understand what Putin was actually saying and what he intended to achieve, but what will be the outcome? In all honesty, nothing groundbreaking. It will certainly help the Trump campaign, for Americans have seen what they are up against in regard to foreign policy, and for all his faults, Putin certainly maintained a strong presence during the interview. This presence and mere ability to speak for an extended amount of time—a shallow bar I know however one that Biden has created through his own inability—certainly once more struck the jagged nail of reality into the American psyche. In truth, this interview coupled with his press conference fiasco has effectively sealed the Biden campaign's defeat this November; no longer can Americans sit back and allow themselves to be humiliated on the world stage. Besides the electoral impact, it achieved little else of substance. Americans already have a lukewarm view of the war, and Putin offered a lukewarm interview that many Westerners will find an utter bore or at best mildly interesting. On the one hand, Putin has not made himself any more likable and his small but vocal following in the West has suffered a serious blow from his utter unremarkably, however, Putin came across as little more than an average politician, not the fantastical villain he is usually made out to be. Effectively, this has led to the current balance of views on the conflict as well as Russia in their pre-interview trenches, which is increasingly staid and unlikely to shift. In short, I found the interview to be an interesting watch, but I highly doubt it will lead to any revelations in the West or breakthroughs in the ongoing war. |
News mattersThough traditionalism has an eye for the past, it is so much more. We want to change the world to reflect the values of old, and to do so we must stay up to date. ArchivesCategories |