An Argument for God Which Will Make You Feel Uneasy

So far in this series, I have touched upon the Ontological Argument and the Argument from Meaning as convincing reasons to believe in God's existence. After taking a break to discuss issues concerning love, I intend to carry on the theme of God's existence with another argument which is not widely known, yet is very powerful. It was constructed by the brilliant philosopher Spinoza in his masterpiece Ethics, where he lays out a whole system of reality and morality from a few basic axioms. Within this highly complex jungle of logical argumentation, he addresses the question whether God exists. He provides a number of different points for believing in God, but I have only selected the one I consider the strongest, as it is the most persuasive.

What is unique about this argument is that, like the Ontological Argument, it uses a priori reasoning to reach its conclusion. Thus, if the premises are true, the conclusion is 100% true. So if this argument is successful, it proves the existence of God beyond all doubt. So it is really key to see how it works, and whether it is flawed in its reasoning.

The argument is as follows:

1. Inability to exist is impotence. (Premise)

This is self-evident. If an object does not exist, it has no power to effect things and make an impression on reality, whereas an existing one does.
2. Ability to exist is power. (Premise)

Given the truth of the first premise, the second one naturally follows.

3. If only finite entities exist, then finite entities are more powerful than an infinite entity. (From 1 and 2)

This is logically certain given premises 1 and 2. For if only finite entities exist, then infinite entities do not exist. Now if an infinite being does not exist, it has no power. Thus, if a finite being exists (and thus has power) it must be more powerful than any non-existent infinite beings.
4. Finite entities are not more powerful than an infinite entity. (Premise)

This is true by definition. Infinity means limitless. Being a finite entity entails being limited. To be unlimited is to be more powerful than a limited being. So an infinite entity is more powerful than any finite entity.
5. Either an infinite entity exists or nothing at all exists. (From 3 and 4)

This follows logically from 3 and 4. For if only finite beings exist, then they are more powerful than infinite beings. But four correctly points out that this cannot be the case, as infinite beings are necessarily more powerful than finite beings. Thus, if any finite beings exist, then an infinite one must also, as it must be more powerful than an infinite being, which existence is a key part of.

6. Something exists. (Premise)

One may resort to doubting the existence of everything to refute this premise. However, even if you follow this method, there is one thing you cannot doubt. To doubt your own existence, you must be able to doubt. Thus, you must be a being who can produce thoughts of doubt. So you cannot doubt you exist, because to do that, you must exist to doubt your existence as a thinking being. Thus the phrase 'I think, therefore I am', stated by the genius Descartes, provides us with a proof that something, namely ourselves as thinking beings, exists.
7. Therefore, an infinite entity (God) exists. (From 5 and 6)

Given that we our finite beings, it follows that an infinite being must exist, given that by definition we are not more powerful than them, and ability to exist is power.

I have called this the uneasy proof for God's existence because at first sight it seems like there should be something wrong with this argument. If feels like there is a mistake in here somewhere. However, whilst most people think this way, they cannot identify what is actually wrong with the argument. And until someone does, it works as a proof for God's existence (as God is the only infinite entity, so it follows it is most likely to be Him who is the entity in this argument.)

Some people may try to refute this argument by claiming that existence is not power. But this just seems false. If I asked you whether a an existent Rhino or a non-existent Rhino had more power, you would say the existent one, on virtue of the fact it can make a difference to reality, whereas a non-existent one cannot.

Another criticism may be to deny that it makes sense to talk of non-existent entities. Is a thing an entity if it does not exist? An important question no doubt. However, I would argue in light of the idea of possible worlds and modal logic, entities need not exist to be entities. As long as there is a possible world in which they exist (by that I mean a possible state of affairs, not a planet or another universe or whatever) then they are an entity.

With these objections revoked, it seems to me that unless someone can show the logical structure of the argument to be false, it prevails as a proof for God's existence. Disagreeing with the conclusion is not a reason to doubt the argument. You need to specify which premise you disagree with, and then give a reason for that. Until the atheist, agnostic, or even theist does, this is a successful argument for the existence of God, for if the premises are true, the conclusion logically follows.

Just to recap the argument in premise form:

1. Inability to exist is impotence. (Premise)
2. Ability to exist is power. (Premise)
3. If only finite entities exist, then finite entities are more powerful than an infinite entity. (From 1 and 2)
4. Finite entities are not more powerful than an infinite entity. (Premise)
5. Either an infinite entity exists or nothing at all exists. (From 3 and 4)
6. Something exists. (Premise)
7. Therefore, an infinite (God) entity exists. (From 5 and 6)

I encourage you all to read Spinoza when you get the chance, he is a fantastic thinker, controversial, and his style of writing is really enjoyable.