God's Existence

The proof of the existence of God has been probably the most debated issue in the history of philosophy, most likely because it is of much greater interest to those outside of philosophy than the rest of what philosophers discuss. Philosophers may care whether we can have a priori knowledge of synthetic truths; but the general public could not care less. But ask just about anyone whether he or she believes God exists, and there will be an opinion; ask whether God can be demonstrated and likewise an opinion will be there.

Whether Leibniz's proofs work I will not dare to say. I will simply try to explain what the arguments mean to propose, while leaving the possibility that there is a hole in them I can't see, and likewise leaving open the possibility that there are none. My opinion? Does God exist and is there proof? I don't believe ultimately that it matters. People will either be theists or atheists, as William James said, not because of a convincing display of logic, but due to their natures. The various arguments that "prove" God are always dubious enough such that one can never be sure there is no sophism. They do not work like syllogisms, and are not clear deductions. Certainly it can be proved that there are such things as necessary truths; but the proofs of God are in no way this demonstrative. There is always that "desire to believe" that convinces one of these arguments; they are not so demonstrative as Aristotle proving Socrates was mortal. Likewise those who claim the opposite—that God is not subject to rational demonstration—such as Kant, require some measure of sympathy for the thinker to agree. There has never been a proof of God that rests entirely upon deductive demonstration; if there were no philosopher would be an atheist, just as no philosopher believes that nothing at all exists.

This is somewhat of a copout I admit, but at the same time I am avoiding the arrogance of claiming to know whether God exists. Men with minds not inferior to genius have claimed God is demonstrated; likewise greater minds than mine have shown such proof impossible. I will not claim my mind is keener than theirs, for one or the other side.

In any case, a word needs to be said on Leibniz's metaphysics, specifically his cosmology. Leibniz's schematic for the organization of the cosmos at times seems circular, and indeed would be had he no demonstration of God. These are a few of the aspects of Leibniz's world: This is the best possible world over an infinity of worlds that are possible but not actual, due to their inferiority. Thus, since God cannot create a true contradiction, the evil in this world is indeed created by him, but reduced to the minimum logically possible. Not everything possible exists, but what is more perfect exists, since God would create what is most perfect and good among what is possible. Thus there is no truth without a reason why it is true (the principle of sufficient reason); everything that is actual is actual because it has greater perfection over what is possible but not actual. There are no two things alike that differ in number alone (that is, there are no two things precisely the same but differing only in that they are duplicated: the principle of the identity of indiscernibles). This is true because given two things that are exactly alike, there would be no reason for God to create one over the other, and thus the principle of sufficient reason would be violated. Thus there is no atom (those things that are exactly alike and yet duplicated over and over) and no object in this world is precisely the same as any other object.

Of course the whole schematic hinges on God. If there were no God, would the best possible world come about? Probably not. Therefore there may be things that are true without any reason why—there would not be the perfection that is the criterion. And so the principle of sufficient reason is out, and likewise the principle of the identity of indiscernibles, which depends upon it. And so there may be atoms after all. As you can see, without God Leibniz's whole system seems to fall apart. Given that God exists, it is an incredibly intricate and coherent cosmology. God is where Leibniz starts; he seems in a way to be a man trying to reconcile the world with the concept of God, and propound the intelligibility of a world with God, while spending less time actually demonstrating the being. But demonstrate him he does, after all, if not exactly conclusively.

So let us consider the two arguments Leibniz believed proved the existence of God below.

[The Ontological Argument]
[The Cosmological Argument]

Angelhaunt.net: Because earth's madness is heaven's sense.