Creator's Room

After Kant, there have been many theories about proving God’s existence, but ever since the modern period, there is one characteristic.

Before Kant, there was a tendency to prove God’s heart (mental perspective) from God’s body (physical perspective), but from the modern period, it has changed to a proving method that aims to directly reach the heart of God.

Here, I would like to deal with the old methods, which are; cosmological argument, physicotheological argument, and Kant’s argument from morality.

The cosmological argument is a method to prove the existence of God through the law of causality.

This method goes back to the time of Aristotle and was asserted by Thomas Aquinas and it states that everything has its cause and effect.

Therefore, by figuring out the cause, we can reach the ultimate; the prime cause.

This method states that this prime cause is God.

Of course, after Kant, this method is declined.

The cosmological argument involves the finding of the cause to prove the existence of God, but according to Kant, this infinite retroaction will never end.

The problem is that we can never reach the prime cause even if we kept on asking for the cause, so it can be said that there is a methodological error in the cosmological argument.

That was what Kant had stated.

The methodological error comes from our way of looking at things.

We look at many phenomena and events empirically through cause and effect.

News, matter, our daily lives, and our actions are recognized through its cause and effect.

For example, “rain” is a cause and “water puddle” is an effect.

“Traffic accident” is a cause and “inattentive driving” is an effect.

We are empirically judging things from cause and effect, and it is explained that way on news.

We explain every event and case with these cause and effect and also are explained from others, so without knowing, we made ourselves believe that everything works that way.

This way of proving things is the cosmological argument.

The cosmological argument is a method that originated from this way of living, and if we apply this cause-and-effect theory to the whole universe, we find ourselves unable to explain with cause and effect.

If there was a cause to the universe, what is the cause beyond that?

If there was a cause to that, what is the cause beyond that and for the one beyond that?

If there was a cause to the one beyond the cause, what comes after that?

Thus, we can keep on questioning.

This chain of infinite retroaction will never end.

Therefore, we could never reach the prime cause nor the God as Thomas Aquinas states.

Meaning that, we could never reach the existence of God.

However, we are always looking at cause and effect, and are told to do so by our daily habits.

We know this is right from our experience, as a phenomenon, and from our custom.

It is explained so in the news as well.

As we are accustomed to thinking this way, we are convinced by ourselves that all things work in this rule.

This is how this method was born.

In spite of this, Kant stated that there is a methodological error.

Individual events and cases can be explained by cause and effect, and we are seeing events with these two.

But, if we apply the method to the whole universe, it becomes impossible to explain with cause and effect.

The infinite retroaction will never reach its end.

Thus, we enter an infinite loop.

How does Nishida Philosophy criticize this cosmological argument?

Nishida Philosophy says, “See, it is proving itself to be incomplete”.

If there was a cause to the universe, what is the cause beyond that?

If there was a cause to that, what is the cause beyond that and for the one beyond that?

If there was a cause to the one beyond the cause, what comes after that and after that?

See, it is proving itself to be incomplete.

The God, which is the prime cause, could never be reached.

Nishida Philosophy criticizes that it is incomplete to prove the existence of God.

Kant has stated that there was a methodological error.

Therefore, the cosmological argument does not prove God’s existence.

As for the physicotheological argument, it is also known as teleological argument, and Kant referred to it using the words “physical theory”.

This method is also denied in proving the existence of God after Kant.

For this method, let me share the episode of Isaac Newton.

Newton used to have a friend who was an atheist.

And one day, that friend came to visit Newton’s house.

Newton used to have this really spectacular model of the solar system at his house.

The atheist friend says to him, “Mr. Newton, this model of the solar system is amazing.

Who made this?”

Newton replies.

“The model of the solar system was formed as a coincidence when the spheres showing the planets and the wires showing the orbits was placed here and there offhandedly. ”

Of course, his friend became angry.

“Mr. Newton. Don’t play with me.

There is no way that a splendid model like this can be formed accidentally by placing balls and wires randomly.”

Newton answers back.

“You think so too?

Then why do you insist that the solar system and the universe, having the perfect laws in the movement of planets and the waxing and waning of the moon, was created by a coincidence?

Why do you claim atheism?”

Hearing this, the atheist friend realized his position and changed to be a theist.

The physicotheological argument works the same way as this episode.

There has to be someone who made this impressive solar system.

It is a theory proven by the thought that something like this can never be created by a coincidence.

However, this physicotheological argument is contradicted nowadays as it cannot prove the existence of God either.

I believe Kant was the first philosopher to deny it, but it is also turned down in Nishida Philosophy.

The relationship between God and the universe is not that of an artist and its work, but of a reality and its phenomenon.

The universe is not a creation of God. It is a manifestation of God. –Kitaro Nishida

The huge universe in front of us is the body of the God and what expresses the God’s heart.

So as to explain in Kant’s word, the obvious sign of complete order can surely be seen in the natural world.

The marvelous sign of order can be seen.

However, Kant stated that it is not the proof of the existence of God.

The God we see through this physicotheological argument is God as the architect of the world.

It does not mean the creator that bears the material of nature itself from nothing.

Kant referred to materials as nature, and if we apply this to the episode of Newton, materials such as balls representing planets and wires representing orbits are “major a priori premise that is impossible to explain”.

The fact that the balls and wires are there without any explanation is a major premise.

God here cannot create balls and wires endlessly from nothing.

It is just that this God used the balls and wires, processed them, put them together, and made it form a model of the solar system.

The God we can see here is like a carpenter building a mansion.

Hey, it’s a lovely mansion.

Who built it?

Oh, it’s the carpenter over there. This is what God is.

Materials such as wood, nails, cement, hammer, window panes, and drain pipes are all there as “major a priori premise that is impossible to explain” and the carpenter appears and process the materials and put them together to form a mansion.

This God is only an architect of the world.

It cannot mean God as in the creator of the world, bringing materials from nothing.

This was Kant’s opinion.

Therefore, the God that we reach through physicotheological argument is like a craftsman of a clock.

The dials, gears, hands, glasses…All these materials are somehow there as “major a priori premise that is impossible to explain”, and the craftsman comes about and uses the materials, processes them, assembles them, and make it form a clock.

This God we can see is not the creator of the world, who can create balls, wires, wood, cement, nails, plane, dials, and gears from nothing and this is the problem with this method.

This was how Kant argued.

Nishida Philosophy also states that physicotheological argument cannot prove the existence of God.

To be frank, this teleological argument is something that originates in purposiveness.

If you look at the events of the natural world, you could tell that it is beyond the human knowledge.

The natural world cannot be made from human intelligence or technology.

Thus, it is beyond our knowledge.

This natural world, all these wonderful creation, this brilliant universe could not be made by an accident.

Someone must have made it. Or at least designed it. This is why we assume and think that there must be someone who gave it meaning.

It is a method of proving things by thinking that the one who gave the meaning is God.

Then, we need to prove that every single one of the millions of species that live on this earth has its purposiveness.

If it will not prove the existence of God until each and every one of them is confirmed, then we need to stay an atheist until then.

However, it is extremely difficult to prove the purposiveness of every living creature on earth.

Also, if we happened to be able to prove the purposiveness of all the living things, we can still say that it was all a coincidence, so it will not be a full proof of the existence of God.

This is Nishida Philosophy’s perspective towards the teleological argument.

To explain physicotheological argument easy, it is a logic asserting that a fine creation has a fine creator.

And it assumes that this fine creator is God.

If we follow this rule, we can say that God is the finest creator, but then, who created God?

We would say, No, God is not designed by anyone.

God is the creator so no one designed God.

It is just the logic of “I am that I am”, so God just exists.

Then we can say the same about nature.

It just was there.

If God just happened to be there, so did all the animals and the natural world.

We do not have to bring up God’s existence when referring to them.

Even if the natural world was beyond our knowledge and if it had the clear sign of order, we can always say that it was all a coincidence.

There is a contradiction in thinking that God just happened to exist and the nature and the living things were not.

This is what Nishida Philosophy wants to point out.

Even if the purposiveness of every living species was proven, we can always say that it was a coincidence, so it cannot prove the existence of God.

In Nishida Philosophy, we believe that the infinite and free activities of the human heart directly prove the existence of God.

It is absurd to prove God’s heart from the natural world, so as to say, God’s cells.

We are all mixing up spirits, materials, lives, and bodies.

Though we may have different opinions about the existence of God, we can all admit that God’s heart is good, kind, and has justice and love.

No matter how we look at the brain cells, we cannot find a loyal heart.

No matter how we analyze the blood veins and blood, we cannot find kindness.

No matter how we study DNA, we cannot find a loving heart.

No matter how deeply we research the brain cells, we cannot find the will that reflects God’s heart, such as the hope to help one’s parents.

No matter how much autopsy we conduct, we cannot find a person’s true character.

Therefore, we cannot prove any of them.

Then would you say that kindness does not exist?

Would you say that love doesn’t exist if we can’t find a loving heart?

Would you turn down justice because it cannot be proven?

Even though we know that loyalty towards people is important, would you say that it doesn’t exist just because we cannot prove it?

Can you neglect them all?

Of course you can’t.

So we point out that you cannot say it doesn’t exist just because you can’t prove it.

Love and justice cannot be seen, cannot be touched, cannot be felt by sensory nerves.

Has anyone touched kindness with their hands?

Has anyone seen love with their eyes?

Still, we can understand that they are important.

But we feel it in our heart, not in our body.

So the thought to believe in God after proven scientifically is all wrong.

They will never be proven.

It is because the reason of existence of the universe and humans is to prove the existence of God.

First, God created the world and proved the existence through the universe and the natural world.

Humans all live to prove the existence of justice, love, kindness, good, and loyalty, thus the existence of God’s heart.

Our lives are used to prove the existence of God.

God is not in a field that needs to be proven to believe.

The meaning of life is not in proving God’s existence through materials or scientifically.

It is in proving the existence of God’s heart itself.

We should not believe because it is proven.

We are to prove that as there is justice and love, there is the heart of God.

If you have the time to wait until the existence of God is proven or to argue how it can be proven, love others, conduct justice, and be kind to people around you.

People who do so is meeting the God’s heart and is proving the existence of God so much more than people who discuss the existence.

The reason why cosmological argument and physicotheological argument fails to prove the existence of God is because both aim to prove God’s heart (mental perspective) from God’s body (physical perspective).

Cosmological argument uses the law of causality and physicotheological argument uses purposiveness of things to prove God’s heart from God’s body so they fail.

God only exist in the lives of each and every human being.

After Kant, in modern times, there is a tendency to prove God’s heart rather than God’s body.

It is a flow to start proving with life rather than materials.

This is the argument from morality presented by Kant.

Good, evil, and moral are something that needs to be felt by heart.

This is how things are moving after Kant.

Due to the limit in the page, I will stop here.

Thank you very much for all the comments in English.

I am sorry that I am unable to answer them properly as I am not good at English.

I do not know how much- maybe once or twice per month- but I am hoping to upload translated versions on a regular basis.

This site applies the Pay What You Want method, in which readers can freely determine the price of articles.

If you find something useful, favorite or worth, click below and pay a reasonable amount.

Of course you do not need to pay.

There is no problem even if you click many times. (PayPal account is required)

The funds will be used for translation costs, site maintenance, and spread of truth.