Jafar

My professor just assigned this question to my Metaphysics class for our next discussion. Any ideas?

arthra

Well for Baha'is I think we would say that God cannot really be known or qualified by man and so people can think of all sorts of reasons for or against God's existence but the "god" they are thinking of is usually a product of their imaginings. So we would be closer to even an agnostic view ("God is an Unknowable Essence") except we also maintain that what little we do know of God can only be ascertained through His Manifestations.

- Art

Jafar

in SAQ 'Abdul'l-Baha says that we cannot know God's essence, just his qualities. So in a sense we can know God but in a sense we cannot.

I think He also gives a version of the Onotological and Cosmological argument there for the existence of God, but i'm not sure exactly how it works: whether it is a proof of His qualities or of his essence, or both. It would have to be of His qualities, and then simply stating that since there is such a world with limitations and perfections, the cause of the world must be more perfect, thus there is a perfect God. But then this is still only a causal proof, and therefore i don't think you can say its a necessary proof. i.e. we still don't directly know God's essence which is what, i think, some philosophers what. of course, we are not capable of that, so then your back to the agnostic side of it...

Trevathan

As to your question: "Is there reason to believe that God does not exist?", many authors have proffered many reasons for God's non-existence. As example, in Richard Dawkins' book, "the God Delusion", numerous paradoxes are raised to support Dawkins' contentions. For a general discussion of Dawkins' contentions, see: RichardDawkins.net Forum • Index page

For most paradoxes, the problem is usually present in the starting assumptions. “In the investigation of a subject the right method of approach is to carefully examine its premises.” (Abdu'l-Bahá)

In Dawkins' book, he claims that he has no objections to Einstein's "god", but denies existence to any God that answers prayers, performs "miracles" or is teleologically active in the world. Implicit in Dawkins' contention is his assumption that no scientific explanation could possibly exist for these religious claims. Scientists have made assumptions like this in the past; and have been wrong. Is there any reason to believe that Dawkins' assumptions are wrong today. Possibly. See: On the Reconciliation of Science and Religion(v5).doc (which describes the speculative physics I have been exploring.)

What about our assumptions about God? Is there reason to believe that the God "of our belief" does not exist? Again, I believe the answer may be "Yes"; when the the following Writings are considered:

“All the people have formed a god in the world of thought, and that form of their own imagination they worship; when the fact is that the imagined form is finite and the human mind is infinite. Surely the infinite is greater than the finite, for imagination is accidental while the mind is essential; surely the essential is greater than the accidental.
"Therefore consider: All the sects and peoples worship their own thought; they create a god in their own minds and acknowledge him to be the creator of all things, when that form is a superstition -- thus people adore and worship imagination.
"That Essence of the Divine Entity and the Unseen of the unseen is holy above imagination and is beyond thought. Consciousness doth not reach It. Within the capacity of comprehension of a produced reality that Ancient Reality cannot be contained. It is a different world; from it there is no information; arrival thereat is impossible; attainment thereto is prohibited and inaccessible. This much is known: It exists and Its existence is certain and proven -- but the condition is unknown.
" … Other powers are needed and other senses required. If those powers and senses are obtained, then information can be had; otherwise, not. (Abdu'l-Bahá, Bahá’í World Faith - Abdu'l-Bahá Section, p. 381- 382)

"That which we imagine, is not the Reality of God; He, the Unknowable, the Unthinkable, is far beyond the highest conception of man." (Abdu'l-Bahá, Paris Talks, p. 24)

Best wishes,

Jon Trevathan

CK9

It's an interesting question and a balanced 'answer' could quite easily assume very lengthy proportions.

I would argue that the answer to the question is 'no' - there is no reason to believe that God does not exist. I base this largely off an explanation given by Abdu'l-Baha, which I find effectively discredits philosophies like those of Dawkins:

Notwithstanding this, some of the sagacious men declare: We have attained to the superlative degree of knowledge; we have penetrated the laboratory of nature, studying sciences and arts; we have attained the highest station of knowledge in the human world; we have investigated the facts as they are and have arrived at the conclusion that nothing is rightly acceptable except the tangible, which alone is a reality worthy of credence; all that is not tangible is imagination and nonsense.

(Abdu'l-Baha, The Promulgation of Universal Peace, p. 360)

He then continues, culminating in one of my favourite quotes of Abdu'l-Baha:

Strange indeed that after twenty years training in colleges and universities man should reach such a station wherein he will deny the existence of the ideal or that which is not perceptible to the senses. Have you ever stopped to think that the animal already has graduated from such a university? Have you ever realized that the cow is already a professor emeritus of that university? For the cow without hard labor and study is already a philosopher of the superlative degree in the school of nature. The cow denies everything that is not tangible, saying, "I can see! I can eat! Therefore, I believe only in that which is tangible!"

(Abdu'l-Baha, The Promulgation of Universal Peace, p. 360)

The way I see this applying to your question is that God is not tangible--He cannot be verified through our physical senses such as sight or touch. This is crucial, and it's precisely why so many analogies produced by atheists are faulty. Here is just one example, cited by an atheist in response to a person asserting belief in God: -

"I believe that there is a teacup and saucer in orbit around the sun"

The problem with this analogy is that a teacup/saucer is tangible. It's a physical object and physical observation could verify its existence. If one were to say "there is no reason to believe that there is no teacup & saucer in orbit around the sun", then one could reasonable respond "Are you reliably informed that such an object was placed in orbit, and/or that it has been reliably observed?".

With God the situation is entirely different. He is not tangible and therefore there is no observation or evidence that could provide a reason to believe that God does not exist.

jwiegley

Well, I realize this is long past the date of your class or question, but I only just now saw it.

Since the subject it metaphysics, it's interesting that your professor asked if there is a reason to believe God does not exist. I'm not sure metaphysics is interested in beliefs, but rather in forms of knowledge. And since man cannot know that God exists, it is not really a subject of metaphysics at all. You might say that metaphysics defines the boundaries of human knowledge, so that we can have a certain foundation upon which to base our arguments.

Of course, metaphysics doesn't address a lot of things that lie at the core of human existence, so I'm not saddened by its lack of acceptance of God. If metaphysics achieved anything notable in the past 200 years, I'd say it was to acknowledge the severe limits of human understanding -- and that these limits should inform our studies to a profound degree. If we accepted that, we wouldn't be so quick with many of our conclusions.

John

Clex19

I know it's been practically 4 years since this question was asked, but I was interested to see this was specifically for a metaphysics class. In William Hatcher's book Minimalism, he uses what is called minimalist metaphysics to rationally prove the existence of a divine Entity.