God

1. What is God?

1. What is God?

"God is the Supreme Intelligence—First Cause of all things."⁵

"God is the supreme intelligence, the first cause of all things."⁵

2. What is to be understood by infinity?

2. What is meant by infinity?

"That which has neither beginning nor end; the unknown: all that is unknown is infinite."

"Something that has no beginning or end. The unknown: everything unknown is infinite."

3. Can it be said that God is infinity?

3. Can we say that God is infinity?

"An incomplete definition. Poverty of human speech incompetent to define what transcends human intelligence."

"An incomplete definition. Human language is too limited to define what lies beyond human understanding."

God is infinite in His perfections, but "infinity" is an abstraction. To say that God is infinity is to substitute the attribute of a thing for the thing itself, and to define something unknown by reference to some other thing equally unknown.

God is infinite in his perfections, but "infinity" is an abstraction. To say that God is infinity is to mistake a quality of something for the thing itself. It also defines something unknown by referring to something else that is equally unknown.

4. What proof have we of the existence of God?

4. What proof do we have that God exists?

"The axiom which you apply in all your scientific researches, ' There is no effect without a cause.' Search out the cause of whatever is not the work of man, and reason will furnish the answer to your question."

"The principle you use in all your scientific research is: 'There is no effect without a cause.' Look for the cause of whatever is not made by humans, and reason will answer your question."

To assure ourselves of the existence of God, we have only to look abroad on the works of creation. The universe exists, therefore it has a cause. To doubt the existence of God is to doubt that every effect has a cause, and to assume that something can have been made by nothing.

To be sure that God exists, we only need to look at the works of creation. The universe exists, so it has a cause. To doubt that God exists is to doubt that every effect has a cause. It is also to assume that something can be made from nothing.

5. What is to be inferred from the intuition of the existence of God which may be said to be the common property of the human mind?

5. What can we infer from the intuition that God exists, which may be shared by all human minds?

"That God exists; for whence could the human mind derive this intuition if it had no real basis? The inference to be drawn from the fact of this intuition is a corollary of the axiom. ' There is no effect without a cause.'"

"God exists. Where else could the human mind get this intuition if it had no basis in reality? This intuition leads to a conclusion that follows from the principle: 'There is no effect without a cause.'"

6. May not our seemingly intuitive sense of the existence of God be the result of education and of acquired ideas?

6. Could our seemingly intuitive sense that God exists be the result of education and ideas we have learned?

"If such were the case, how should this intuitive sense be possessed by your savages?"

"If that were the case, how would your savages have this intuitive sense?"

If the intuition of the existence of a Supreme Being were only the result of education it would not be universal, and would only exist, like all other acquired knowledge, in the minds of those who had received the special education to which it would be due.

If our sense that a Supreme Being exists came only from education, it would not be universal. Like all other acquired knowledge, it would exist only in the minds of those who had received that specific education.

7. Is the first cause of the formation of things to be found in the essential properties of matter?

7. Is the first cause of the formation of things found in the essential properties of matter?

"If such were the case, what would be the cause of those properties? There must always be a first cause."

"If that were the case, what would cause those properties? There must always be a first cause."

To attribute the first formation of things to the essential properties of matter, would be to take the effect for the cause, for those properties are themselves an effect, which must have a cause.

To say that the essential properties of matter caused things to form in the first place would be to mistake effect for cause. Those properties are themselves an effect, and they must have a cause.

8. What is to be thought of the opinion that attributes the first formation of things to a fortuitous combination of matter, in other words, to chance?

8. What should we think of the idea that things first formed through a random combination of matter, in other words, by chance?

"Another absurdity! Who that is possessed of common sense can regard chance as an intelligent agent? And, besides, what is chance? Nothing."

"Another absurdity! Who with any common sense could regard chance as an intelligent force? And besides, what is chance? Nothing."

The harmony which regulates the mechanism of the universe can only result from combinations adopted in view of predetermined ends, and thus, by its very nature, reveals the existence of an Intelligent Power. To attribute the first formation of things to chance is nonsense; for chance cannot produce the results of intelligence. If chance could be intelligent, it would cease to be chance.

The harmony that governs how the universe works can only result from arrangements made for specific purposes. By its very nature, this harmony reveals the existence of an Intelligent Power. It is nonsense to attribute the first formation of things to chance, because chance cannot produce the results of intelligence. If chance could be intelligent, it would no longer be chance.

9. What proof have we that the first cause of all things is a Supreme Intelligence, superior to all other intelligences?

9. What proof do we have that the first cause of all things is a Supreme Intelligence, greater than all other intelligences?

"You have a proverb which says, ' The workman is known by his work.' Look around you, and, from the quality of the work, infer that of the workman."

"You have a proverb that says, 'A worker is known by their work.' Look around you, and judge the worker by the quality of the work."

We judge of the power of an intelligence by its works; as no human being could create that which is produced by nature, it is evident that the first cause must be an Intelligence superior to man.

We judge the power of an intelligence by what it produces. No human being could create what nature produces. So it is clear that the first cause must be an Intelligence superior to humans.

Whatever may be the prodigies accomplished by human intelligence, that intelligence itself must have a cause; and the greater the results achieved by it, the greater must be the cause of which it is the effect. It is this Supreme Intelligence that is the first cause of all things, whatever the name by which mankind may designate it.

Whatever wonders human intelligence may achieve, it must itself have a cause. The greater its achievements, the greater its cause must be. This Supreme Intelligence is the first cause of all things, whatever name people give it.

10. Can man comprehend the essential nature of God?

10. Can humans understand the essential nature of God?

"No; he lacks the sense required for comprehending it."

"No, he lacks the sense needed to understand it."

11. Will man ever become able to comprehend the mystery of the Divinity?

11. Will humans ever be able to understand the mystery of God?

"When his mind shall no longer be obscured by matter, and when, by his perfection, he shall have brought himself nearer to God, he will see and comprehend Him."

"When his mind is no longer clouded by matter, and his perfection has brought him closer to God, he will see and understand him."

The inferiority of the human faculties renders it impossible for man to comprehend the essential nature of God. In the infancy of the race, man often confounds the Creator with the creature, and attributes to the former the imperfections of the latter. But, in proportion as his moral sense becomes developed, man's thought penetrates more deeply into the nature of things, and he is able to form to himself a juster and more rational idea of the Divine Being, although his idea of that Being must always be imperfect and incomplete.

The limitations of human faculties make it impossible for us to understand the essential nature of God. In humanity's early stages, people often confuse the Creator with his creation. They attribute the imperfections of the creation to the Creator. But as their moral sense develops, people gain a deeper understanding of the nature of things. They can form a more accurate and rational idea of the Divine Being. Even so, their idea of God must always remain imperfect and incomplete.

12. If we cannot comprehend the essential nature of God, can we have an idea of some of His perfections?

12. If we cannot understand God's essential nature, can we understand some of his perfections?

"Yes, of some of them. Man comprehends them better in proportion as he raises himself above matter; he obtains glimpses of them through the exercise of his intelligence."

"Yes, some of them. People understand them better as they rise above matter. They catch glimpses of them by using their intelligence."

13. When we say that God is eternal, infinite, unchangeable, immaterial, unique, all-powerful, sovereignly just and good, have we not a complete idea of His attributes?

13. We say that God is eternal, infinite, unchanging, immaterial, unique, all-powerful, supremely just and good. Does this give us a complete understanding of his attributes?

"Yes, judging from your point of view, because you think that you sum up everything in those terms; but you must understand that there are things which transcend the intelligence of the most intelligent man, and for which your language, limited to your ideas and sensations, has no expressions. Your reason tells you that God must possess those perfections in the supreme degree; for, if one of them were lacking, or were not possessed by Him in an infinite degree, He would not be superior to all, and consequently would not be God. In order to be above all things, God must undergo no vicissitudes, He must have none of the imperfections of which the imagination can conceive."

"Yes, from your point of view, because you think those terms sum up everything. But you must understand that some things are beyond even the most intelligent person's understanding. Your language is limited to your ideas and sensations, so it has no words for those things. Your reason tells you that God must possess those perfections to the highest degree. If he lacked even one, or did not possess it to an infinite degree, he would not be superior to all. And if he were not superior to all, he would not be God. To be above all things, God must not be subject to change. He must have none of the imperfections you can imagine."

God is eternal. If He had had a beginning, He must either have sprung from nothing, or have been created by some being anterior to Himself. It is thus that, step by step, we arrive at the idea of infinity and eternity.

God is eternal. If he had a beginning, he must have come from nothing or been created by an earlier being. It is through this reasoning, step by step, that we arrive at the idea of infinity and eternity.

God is unchangeable. If He were subject to change, the laws which rule the universe would have no stability.

God is unchangeable. If he could change, the laws that govern the universe would not be stable.

God is immaterial, that is to say, that His nature differs from everything that we call matter, or otherwise He would not be unchangeable, for He would be subject to the transformations of matter.

God is immaterial. His nature is different from everything we call matter. Otherwise, he would not be unchanging, because he would be subject to the changes matter undergoes.

God is unique. If there were several Gods, there would be neither unity of plan nor unity of power in the ordaining of the universe.

God is unique. If there were several Gods, there would be no unity of plan or power in ordering the universe.

God is all-powerful, because He is unique. If He did not possess sovereign power, there would be something more powerful, or no less powerful, than Himself. He would not have created all things; and those which He had not created would be the work of another God.

God is all-powerful because he is unique. If he did not have supreme power, something else would be as powerful as he is, or more powerful. He would not have created everything. The things he had not created would be the work of another God.

God is sovereignly just and good. The providential wisdom of the divine laws is revealed as clearly in the smallest things as in the greatest; and this wisdom renders it impossible to doubt either His justice or His goodness.

God is supremely just and good. The wisdom of his divine laws is just as clear in the smallest things as in the greatest. This wisdom makes it impossible to doubt either his justice or his goodness.

14. Is God a being distinct from the universe, or is He, according to the opinion of some, the result of all the forces and intelligences of the universe?

14. Is God a being separate from the universe? Or, as some believe, is he the result of all the forces and intelligences in the universe?

"If the latter were the case, God would not be God, for He would be effect and not cause; He cannot be both cause and effect."

"If that were the case, God would not be God, because he would be an effect, not a cause. He cannot be both cause and effect."

"God exists. You cannot doubt His existence, and that is the one essential point. Do not seek to go beyond it; do not lose yourselves in a labyrinth which, for you, is without an issue. Such inquiries would not make you better; they would rather tend to add to your pride, by causing you to imagine that you knew something, while, in reality, you would know nothing. Put aside systems. You have things enough to think about that concern you much more nearly, beginning with yourselves. Study your own imperfections, that you may get rid of them; this will be far more useful to you than the vain attempt to penetrate the impenetrable."

"God exists. You cannot doubt his existence, and that is the one essential point. Do not try to go beyond it. Do not lose yourselves in a maze with no way out for you. Such inquiries would not make you better. Instead, they would likely make you more proud. They would make you imagine you knew something when, in reality, you would know nothing. Put aside systems. You have plenty to think about that concerns you much more directly, starting with yourselves. Study your own imperfections so that you can get rid of them. This will be far more useful than the futile attempt to understand what cannot be understood."

15. What is to be thought of the opinion according to which all natural bodies, all the beings, all the globes of the universe, are parts of the Divinity, and constitute in their totality the Divinity itself; in other words, the Pantheistic theory?

15. What should we think of the Pantheistic theory? It holds that all natural bodies, all beings, and all the worlds in the universe are parts of the Divinity. Together, they make up the Divinity itself.

"Man, not being able to make himself God, would fain make himself out to be, at least, a part of God."

"Unable to make himself God, man would like to claim that he is at least a part of God."

16. Those who hold this theory profess to find in it the demonstration of some of the attributes of God. The worlds of the universe being infinitely numerous, God is thus seen to be infinite; vacuum, or nothingness, being nowhere, God is everywhere: God being everywhere, since everything is an integral part of God, He is thus seen to be the intelligent cause of all the phenomena of the universe. What can we oppose to this argument?

16. Those who hold this theory claim that it demonstrates some of God's attributes. The worlds in the universe are infinite in number, so God is infinite. There is no vacuum or nothingness anywhere, so God is everywhere. Everything is an integral part of God, so he is everywhere and is the intelligent cause of all phenomena in the universe. What can we say against this argument?

"The dictates of reason. Reflect on the assumption in question, and you will have no difficulty in detecting its absurdity."

"What reason tells us. Think about the assumption in question, and you will easily see how absurd it is."

The Pantheistic theory makes of God a material being, who, though endowed with a supreme intelligence, would only be on a larger scale what we are on a smaller one. But, as matter is incessantly undergoing transformation, God, if this theory were true, would have no stability. He would be subject to all the vicissitudes, and even to all the needs, of humanity; He would lack one of the essential attributes of the Divinity—viz., unchangeableness. The properties of matter cannot be attributed to God without degrading our idea of the Divinity; and all the subtleties of sophistry fail to solve the problem of His essential nature. We do not know what God is; but we know that it is impossible that He should not be; and the theory just stated is in contradiction with His most essential attributes. It confounds the Creator with the creation, precisely as though we should consider an ingenious machine to be an integral portion of the mechanician who invented it.

The pantheistic theory portrays God as a material being with supreme intelligence. According to this theory, he is only a larger version of what we are on a smaller scale. But matter is constantly changing, so if this theory were true, God would have no stability. He would be subject to all the changes and even all the needs of humanity. He would lack one of the essential attributes of divinity: the quality of never changing. We cannot attribute the properties of matter to God without lowering our idea of divinity. And no amount of clever but false reasoning can solve the problem of his essential nature. We do not know what God is, but we know that he must exist. The theory just described contradicts his most essential attributes. It confuses the Creator with the creation. That is just like treating an ingenious machine as an integral part of the mechanic who invented it.

The intelligence of God is revealed in His works, as is that of a painter in his picture; but the works of God are no more God Himself than the picture is the artist who conceived and painted it.

God's intelligence is revealed in his works, just as a painter's intelligence is revealed in a painting. But God's works are no more God himself than a painting is the artist who imagined and painted it.