4. Toward the Existence of the God of Philosophers
In the previous chapter, we started from the following axioms (see Chapter 2 for a definition of axioms):
Axiom 1: Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
Axiom 2: The universe began to exist.
From these, we derived the following statement:
Statement 1:
Since the universe had a beginning, it must depend on a cause outside itself — an uncreated, immaterial, timeless, supremely powerful, and intentional or personal reality. This reality constitutes the First Cause of all that exists.
But can we go further? Can we show that this First Cause is not a mere impersonal force, but a being endowed with intelligence and will — what philosophers have long called God, not in the religious sense, but in the philosophical one?
That is what we shall explore here, following a purely rational line of reasoning while addressing the main objections.
1. The First Cause Is Necessary #
Let us begin by distinguishing two fundamental notions:
A contingent being is something that could have failed to exist. Its existence depends on something else — on external conditions or causes.
Examples: a tree, a star, a person, a planet… all appeared at some point in time and could just as well not have existed.
A necessary being, by contrast, is one that cannot not exist.
It exists by itself, independently of anything else. It has no cause, no beginning, and no end.Its essence entails its existence.
These two notions are essential to understanding why the First Cause cannot be contingent but must be necessary.
Reasoning — why the First Cause cannot be contingent:
- A contingent being does not exist by itself; it requires an external cause.
- But the First Cause is, by definition, the ultimate explanation of everything else — the source of all that begins to exist.
- If the First Cause were contingent, it would itself require a cause — and would no longer be “first.”
- It is therefore incoherent to suppose a “First Cause” that depends on another reality.
Hence, the First Cause cannot be contingent. It must be necessary — existing by its own nature, uncaused and unconditional.
2. The First Cause Is Immutable #
We have seen that the First Cause is a necessary being — existing by itself, without dependence or external cause.
But why must it also be unchanging?
- Change means passing from one state to another — gaining what one previously lacked or losing what one had.
- Every change therefore implies:
- a kind of imperfection or lack,
- a transition from potentiality to actuality,
- and dependence on something external to actualize that change.
- A necessary being, however, cannot possess potentiality:
- It is fully actual, complete, and self-sufficient.
- It lacks nothing, since it is the cause of all and depends on nothing.
- It is not subject to becoming or transformation.
Thus, a necessary being must be immutable.
It does not change because it is pure act — it is, fully and eternally.
3. The First Cause Is Intelligent #
- The universe exhibits a profound order: consistent laws, elegant mathematical structures, and astonishing harmony.
- Such order naturally suggests intelligence — just as a plan implies an architect.
Objection:
Order might arise spontaneously from physical laws. The anthropic principle claims that we observe an ordered universe simply because only ordered universes can host observers like us.
Response:
Even if one posits a multiverse, this does not explain why any universe — or its laws — should be mathematically elegant, stable, and intelligible. The very intelligibility of reality remains puzzling unless there is an intelligence at its source.
4. The First Cause Is Unique #
- Two “first causes” would be absurd, for there would need to be something that differentiates them — and that “something” would then be more fundamental.
- Hence, there can only be one necessary being: unique, infinite, intelligent, and free.
Objection:
Why couldn’t two necessary realities coexist without causing each other?
Response:
Two distinct realities would entail differences that call for explanation. A truly necessary being cannot include within itself anything contingent or dependent — and thus cannot be multiple.
✧ Intermediate Conclusion #
Statement 2:
This First Cause is a necessary, immutable, intelligent, free, and unique being — what philosophers call the God of philosophers.
5. Omnipresence, Omniscience, Omnipotence #
- Omnipresence: Being beyond time and space, God is present to all of creation.
- Omniscience: Being present to all things, He knows all things directly and perfectly.
- Omnipotence: As the source of all that exists, He can bring about everything that is logically possible.
Objection:
If God already knows everything, can He still be free? Can He change His mind? Richard Dawkins once asked ironically:
“Can an omniscient God, who knows the future, find the omnipotence to change His future mind?”
Response:
God, being outside time, does not have a “future” to change. He knows all things in a single, timeless act — including what He has freely willed. Moreover, divine omnipotence does not include the power to do what is logically absurd (e.g., create a square circle); this is not a limitation but a reflection of coherence.
6. Is God Perfect? #
Before affirming that God is perfect, we must clarify what “perfection” means in philosophy. In the classical tradition (Plato, Aristotle, Aquinas), a being is perfect when it fully realizes what it is by nature. That is:
- It lacks nothing.
- It fully achieves what it is meant to be.
- It possesses, to the highest degree, all positive attributes (perfections): being, intelligence, goodness, power, etc.
For example, a perfect circle is one whose points are all exactly equidistant from its center. Likewise, a perfect being possesses all perfections without deficiency.
To affirm that God is perfect, we must show that He possesses:
- All possible perfections (being, unity, truth, goodness, power, wisdom, etc.),
- To the maximal degree — without limit, defect, or dependence.
The key point is that God is a necessary being. A necessary being cannot lack anything, for lack implies dependence. It cannot change, for change implies potentiality. It cannot be limited, for limitation implies imperfection. Therefore, a necessary being is necessarily perfect: lacking nothing, dependent on nothing, and possessing all perfections compatible with its nature.
Note:
The problem of evil is a classic objection to divine perfection. We will address it in a later chapter.
7. Is God Just? #
In classical philosophy (Plato, Aristotle, Aquinas), justice is defined as:
“The constant will to render to each what is due to them.”
A being is just if it:
- Recognizes the intrinsic value of each being,
- Acts accordingly,
- And treats each according to what they deserve or are owed.
For a being to be just, it must:
- Know what is due to each (omniscience),
- Will the good of each (goodness),
- Act according to that knowledge and will (freedom and omnipotence).
Hence, God is just because He possesses intelligence to know, will to desire, and power to accomplish what is right — perfectly and without error.
Objection:
How can divine justice be reconciled with the existence of suffering and injustice in the world?
Response:
Divine justice may operate on a plane that transcends our immediate temporal perspective. It encompasses what we cannot yet see or understand — a topic that will also be explored later.
Conclusion #
From Statement 1 and Statement 2, we can infer:
Consequence 1:
God is omnipotent (all-powerful), omnipresent (present everywhere and at all times), and omniscient (of infinite knowledge).Consequence 2:
God is perfect, possessing all possible perfections (being, unity, truth, goodness, power, wisdom, etc.) to the highest degree — without limit, defect, or dependence.Consequence 3:
God is just: He recognizes the intrinsic worth of each being, acts accordingly, and treats each according to what they deserve or are owed.
These divine attributes, however, are the subject of significant philosophical debate. But if God truly exists and possesses such perfections, a decisive question arises: how can human beings reasonably draw near to Him? Among the revelations, traditions, and spiritual experiences that claim to provide access to the divine, which ones deserve to be taken seriously? This is what I propose to explore in the following chapter.