What would have to be true for the God of classical theism to be real?

7) Summing up

What constitutes the sum total of reality? If there is just the physical realm, then God cannot exist (except as a psychological state in the human mind). However, if there is also the metaphysical realm, then God becomes a possibility. Of course, if we use the word “metaphysical” to refer to principles, values, ideas, intangible qualities, such as love or patriotism, then the metaphysical definitely exists, but we are not making an opening for God other than as an idea. So, when we talk about metaphysics, we are asking if, as well as “physical stuff” existing, it is also possible for “spiritual stuff” to exist – things like God, souls, heaven. Clearly, if you do not accept the existence of the metaphysical in this sense, then you are ruling out the existence of the God of classical theism, as you are not allowing anything supernatural to exist. This would be a fair judgement – certainly we are only sure of the existence of the natural, and have no way to establish for certain the existence of anything beyond it.

So, we might want to say that it argues against theism that in order for God to have any chance of existing, we have to put forward the existence of a totally new category of being – the metaphysical. This seems so extraordinary, that we can see why modern atheists argue: “Yes, once upon a time, it made sense to believe in God, but now we know better, we really ought to drop these strange and false ideas”.

Yet why did humanity ever put forward such absurd ideas – if absurd they are? We acknowledge the power of belief in God as an explanatory mechanism to justify what seemed unfathomable without positing the existence of God (or gods) – namely: “Why are we here?”. But was this all there was to it? Isn’t it rather that human beings feel the call of something beyond themselves, and through generations of discovery and self-searching came to the conclusion that there is a God, who is “out there” but who is calling us to know him. I must beware of intellectual sleight of hand. The physical realm has the hard evidence of scientific verification, while I slipped in the existence of the metaphysical realm because we (humanity) “feel” the call of something beyond ourselves. Yet I do want to challenge the atheistic claim that religion began as an explanatory device, rather than in response to the experience of God. (I have argued elsewhere that today we can fully accept the scientific explanation of the universe while still responding to the call of God.)

So, for God to exist, in the way he is generally understood to exist, we need to assert the existence of the metaphysical realm in which spiritual beings are a reality.

A final question is why would such a God, if he exists, bother with people like us? God needs to have an immense love for those who don’t deserve it. Why should such a wonderful God pay any attention to creatures such as us? When we take a sober look at humanity, this seems very unlikely – we are not a nice species! However, this would be what makes God, God. He loves us because he has such a quality of love, and it is our ability to recognise this love that makes us accept him as our God.

What would have to be true for the God of classical theism to be real?

6) God really does need his “omni” qualities.

If any sort of God exists, such as we are positing, then it is not unreasonable for him to hold all the omni qualities that we expect of him. In fact, it would be rather odd if God was rather like the ancient Greek Gods – with superhuman powers, but still limited. That could simply be a “law of the universe” that spiritual beings just are like that, but they sound rather like a continuation of the natural world, rather than the supernatural one – that is, we would be positing the existence of a new species of spiritual beings, who have both their good points and bad points. However, the key monotheistic insight seems sound: IF there is a supernatural force then there is likely only to be one of them. IF a spiritual being worthy of the name “God” is possible, then it is likely that he will gather to himself the perfection of all good qualities.

If we take just one example – his quality of omnipotence, it would feel strange to believe in a God who was very, very powerful, but who had to say, now and then, “Sorry, no, I can’t do that”.

This is vital if we are to have hope that good will ultimately prevail. Personally, I don’t think it is necessary that we have to believe in a spiritual force of evil if we want to believe in God. Clearly, this is a very common and attractive belief, and we can see why. It serves as a powerful explanatory vehicle for why there is suffering in the world, and many feel that they experience the presence of evil as a counterpart to their religious experiences of God. I have never had any substantial sense of a presence of evil as a counter-force to God myself, though there is no doubt that evil works in human society in very malign ways. Further thought is required on this, but for now my key point is that it is essential that evil has no chance of ever overcoming God, for God’s goodness is invincible. (I think it more likely that what we experience as a force of evil opposing God is really the absence or corruption of the good, plus there is a peculiar reality to how evil has extraordinary power – just one example: it can take a moment to destroy what someone spent years building).

There are a number of coherence issues that we need to sort out in relation to God: eg how can he be omnipotent and eternal, or everywhere at once? The classic example: “Can God create a stone too heavy for him to lift?” is very searching. However, the great philosophers such as Aquinas and Boethius have explored these matters expertly and have suggested sufficient answers.

What would have to be true for the God of classical theism to be real?

5) Life after death – is this possible; is it essential?

If God is a spiritual reality apart from the material universe, then it would be entirely possible for there to be life after death. In fact, it would be strange if there was not. If it’s possible for human beings to exist in a spiritual form, then why on earth would a loving God not enable that option to be followed?

It’s important for there to be life after death. It answers a lot of problems, notably evil and suffering. If, in the life of heaven, “every tear is to be wiped from our eyes except for tears of joy”, then I think it’s possible for ALL the heartache of the world “to be put right”.

For life after death to exist, it would mean either that there is an integral spiritual reality to our persons already, or that, at death, God imparts a new sort of spiritual life to us. There are many problems to solve. HOW do you exist without a body? However, this is the same problem that we have about God: if he can exist, then we would be able to as well. I think for me to be satisfied with life after death, I would require that my personality, memories and relationships remained intact – otherwise, I see no point in having a life after death if this life doesn’t seem to mean anything. However, I am fully aware that to be “fitted for the life of heaven” I would need to be utterly radically transformed. So, there would need to be a “perfect version” of me that was perfect, but somehow still recognisably me. This is a tall order, but not, I think, intrinsically impossible. Surely many of the problems in this life, and our moral defects, are caused by having physical bodies, and without them, we will live much more happily. There is still the potential problem of evil and suffering raising its ugly head in heaven: if God had to allow it in this life because he has to give us freedom, then what is to stop us misusing our freedom in heaven? However, if we are free of physical bodies, and if we are now living in union with the God of love, perhaps it will be possible for us to live a perfect life.

There remains a problem about God’s intention: if what he ultimately wants is to live in relationship with eternal, spiritual beings who are perfectly loving, why did he not just create us as such in the first place? There are good arguments to justify physical creation. It’s popular with religious people to think that this life is somehow an essential test, or essential training and spiritual formation to get us ready for the life of heaven. This raises several problems, but is not an unreasonable position to hold. Do we really think our feeble efforts justify – even with God’s transforming help – that we should now enjoy a life of eternal bliss? If God allows everyone (or nearly everyone) into heaven, then what’s the point of this life? How does God disentangle the myriad “issues” that we get ourselves into in this life so that they do not cause problems in heaven? Nevertheless, if we can let go of the problems caused by our physical creatureliness, then perhaps a spiritual life of bliss does come within reach.

It’s also a possibility that it is just “a spiritual law of the universe” that even God – without impinging on his omnipotence – has to work through a physical stage before reaching the goal of a fully spiritual life. It certainly enhances the importance of this life, and living it correctly – which is what religions have always said. Perhaps a physical stage of existence is essential if we are to truly have freedom, and perhaps God’s greatest desire is to share life with other beings who are free.

I don’t think the problem of hell is a particularly difficult philosophical problem (!). There are certainly problems IF God sentenced people to eternal suffering for the “trivial” misdemeanours of humanity or for harm caused in response to pressure they faced, then that seems very unjust. However, a God who simply allowed some people to cease existence if they had not “qualified” for eternal life, while immensely rewarding anyone he could possibly justify giving it to (in his great love) then that seems perfectly moral. And if God can transform even wicked people into their “perfect version” of themselves, then perhaps everyone qualifies for heaven.

We have considered already that life after death is not essential for believing in God, but it is a central plank of traditional belief. If our faith is good for this life only, then we wonder how the God of love can merrily sail on without us – he cherished us while we were alive, but now that we’re dead, although he continues to cherish our memory, we are only memories, while he alone continues to live forever.

People have often said to me, “Oh it must be really boring, living forever in heaven”, but I think this is a failure of imagination. Modern philosophers have put forward strong arguments as to how death is essential for “real” or truly valuable life as, if we lived forever, or even for, say, 10,000 years, life would become meaningless and dull because we would have the opportunity to live multiple lives, eventually becoming utterly bored with its repetitiveness, whereas it is the temporary nature of life that gives it its value. However, if we take the concept of eternal life seriously – a life that is lived overtly in the presence of God – then why should our faculties be limited as they are now? If the value of this life depends on its finality, then God – who is eternal – must be the most bored being ever! However, in heaven, our delight in life and in each other can expand infinitely, to match God’s own.

3) The problem of evil and suffering

There need to be good reasons why God does not keep intervening to achieve good outcomes, yet still be justifiable reasons why sometimes he does. The existence of evil and suffering has been called the “rock of atheism” and is the number one reason why people give up faith, or never acquire it in the first place. It’s a huge issue which we very briefly review here. The complaint is obvious: if God is all loving and all powerful, then why do so many bad things happen? When believers then put forward their examples where they feel God has intervened to help them, this can often make the situation worse, for why on earth did God not save my relative from cancer but then miraculously heal someone else’s athlete’s foot that would have got better in a couple of weeks with a bit of cream without God’s assistance?

The “theodicies” (explanations as to why a good God does allow evil and suffering) are actually very sophisticated, and, I think, very effective. Probably Irenaeus’ ideas are most effective, and revolve around our human cherishing of free will. It really is very difficult to see how God can stop evil and suffering without taking away our freewill. This is combined with the extreme difficulty of stopping evil and suffering from existing in a physical universe. (Very briefly, physical universes change, so even if God started by making a paradise, with, say, a beautiful river, in time, the river erodes its bank to create a cliff over which I might fall – or someone might push me). Clearly, there’s so much more to say, but if you have time to think it through, I think you will discover that it’s impossible to have a physical world without suffering – not unless God “frantically ran around” continually doing miracles in order to “make everything alright”. Even then, such a world would make human actions meaningless, for, whatever we did, God would always give a happy ending. It would, of course, also make it blindingly obvious that God is real, and so, perhaps, destroy the power of having faith (we could look at why God wants faith rather than proof of him another time).

However, the complaint against God caused by the existence of suffering remains an intense, and, for many, an unbearable, impediment to faith, and calls to have a “grown up” philosophy of life may seem cruel in the face of terrible loss. So, we are left with the question: “Why is life so painful?” There is the comfort of the life of heaven: when we are purely spiritual beings, living on a spiritual plane, then suffering will cease, for the causes will no longer apply (a spiritual universe does not change, and, in the heavenly presence of God, our wills will be fully attuned to God’s will).

Does this mean that there are no miracles? That is, that God never intervenes in the world? This is more reasonable, and removes some big problems, but, for some, leaves God impotent. We would therefore have to think that – just on rare occasions – God:-

• Either realises that there is an opportunity to achieve some good without messing up the whole future of the universe (This is “The Terminator” problem of one change, even for the good, affecting other future developments that were even more desirable)

• Or he decides that he really wants to achieve some good thing, so he “breaks his own rule of not usually intervening” regardless of unwanted side effects further down the line.

While this is not impossible, the collated evidence does make it hard to believe the claims that God could not prevent wars, famines, death by illness and accident, but now and then helps someone here and someone else there – sometimes in relatively minor ways.

2) God is able and willing to change outcomes in the world.

For many people, God is not much use if he can’t do anything to help us. So, the interaction that God is able to make with people, as well as involving forming a relationship with people (entailing an interior life within the person’s mind/soul), must also include the ability to change outcomes that would otherwise have occurred in the world.

So, how does a spiritual being effect a change in the material universe? We understood earlier that God, as spirit, might be able to communicate directly to our minds if we are also spirit, but how does a spirit have any capability on the physical world? Perhaps an omnipotent God can just do it. God has never been thought of as “working” to achieve what he wants, he just wills it into being. This includes the whole of creation. God does not assemble materials and spend time and effort in some sort of process of creation, he “just speaks and it is so”. However, there are genuine conceptual problems about this. If the physical and spiritual are completely different ways of being, or exist on totally separate planes, how can they interact? How does a spirit exert the force necessary to stop a car from running over a child? It would have to simply be a law of the universe that this is possible, and we simply haven’t been able to observe this yet because we cannot do scientific experiments on spiritual entities. The evidence that some people detect of miracles would be indications that something is happening, but we are unable to provide proof.

So, there are questions about whether God is able to change outcomes in the world, but the questions about his willingness to do so are the bread and butter of many peoples’ faith – or lack of it. This problem is understood under the question of evil and suffering.

(A theological reflection in 7 parts)

I have recently explored how faith in God might look if the term “God” was defined in very different ways from how he is traditionally understood to be. I now want to give an overview of what would be necessary if we were to continue to believe in God in the traditionally accepted way. I take this to be the God of classical theism – that is the “omni” God (omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, omnibenevolent) – combined with an understanding that God, because he is omnibenevolent, intervenes in the world to achieve his will. I will, in many cases, simply be identifying what would have to be the case, without necessarily being in a position to give an explanation of clear solutions to the issues being raised.

1. The reality of the spiritual

There must be a reality to spiritual beings, who can exist apart from the material universe but interact with it.

This entails the ability of spiritual beings or persons to exist. There needs to be a way for a being to live without a physical body, to think without a brain, to “do things” without a body, to be aware of things without senses. Such a being needs to cohere together and have a consistent unity without having a physical body to delineate the boundary between where I stop and you start. (We could imagine that, perhaps, spiritual beings were like swirls of cloud or smoke, in which case, how could we prevent an intermingling that ends the distinctive separateness of the two persons? Though perhaps this image is inextricably linked with a physical analogy of what spiritual beings might be like, when actual spiritual beings – being truly spiritual – would have no problem in continuing to be themselves – even in a crowd of persons. This crowd aspect is important because, when considering spiritual beings, we are not only considering God, but also our own existence as spiritual beings).

IF spiritual beings were possible, then it would provide a relatively easy way to understand life after death and the ability to live for eternity, for, without a physical body to decay, what danger can be posed to the ongoing existence of beings who are pure spirit?

If God is a spiritual being, then it quite easily explains how God can exist without being seen, and how he can communicate with us, in that a spiritual being would have no difficulty in communicating directly with another spirit, and if we are also spiritual beings, with, for example, there being a connection between our minds and our souls or spirits, then God would simply express his thoughts and we would become aware of them in our own minds.

If God is spirit, then this might explain his ability to be everywhere at once. In our physical bodies, we can only be in one place at one time, but a spiritual being such as God might simply be intrinsically present, everywhere and always, as a latent possibility. Then, when he wishes, he makes himself known to any other spirit he wishes, wherever they happen to be.

God, as a spiritual being, would certainly be an amazing entity, but perhaps we are even more unusual, in that God is always and only a spiritual being, whereas we are either both: a spiritual and a physical being combined, or we start of as one (physical) and then when we die, God imparts a spiritual existence to us that is in some way, consistent and continuous with the physical existence that we previously lived.

Who is God?

Part 12: What if God is not?

An atheist might complain that I am not facing up seriously to the possibility that there is no God. I challenge them to respond to my claims that it is reasonable and beneficial to have faith in God, but am I open to their claim that “He is not there” – out there or anywhere else. However, I think that everything above recognises that possibility. I have acknowledged that extreme scepticism about God is valid, that the evidence for him is at least ambivalent, and the whole discussion above is prompted by an attempt to still find scope for belief when traditional understandings of God – under the banner of “the God of classical theism” – have been undercut. I agree that the best two options to this challenge are to either give up faith and become an atheist, or find an alternative understanding of God. It is that which this article has explored, and, I believe, shown ways forward for belief.

So, when I pose myself the question: “What if it was possible to show definitively that there is no God “out there” as an independent agent?”, I don’t mean to suggest that I have any further doubts. What I mean is that we would have to come to a clearer categorisation of what our beliefs in God actually are. I think a very critical assessment that they are a delusion, a fantasy, simply false, is not justified. Believers would simply have to accept that the word “God” refers to “the idea of God”. In this case, God would indeed be “just in the mind”, or a psychological state, but I don’t see any insuperable obstacle for believers to overcome, and they would just say, “OK, that’s what my belief is then: a set of ideas, values, stories, principles, rituals, a moral code, a basis for community, a way of looking at the world, a way of living. Fine; this is what I choose to live by and how I love living”. All that would have happened is that the inescapable agnosticism that was mentioned earlier – because it is simply impossible to prove God’s existence or lack of existence – has been replaced by certainty – if such certainty was somehow possible.

Believers such as me, who hold to a view of a personal God, would have to accept that God is after all a psychological state that I have created in my own mind. The supremely precious and perfect God whom I believe in is an ideal which I (with thanks to the faithful communities through the ages) have taken to heart and revere, using it as a sounding board for my thoughts and a generator or reflector-back of many powerful and positive values and energy. The supremely precious interior life, which I believed to be caused by a relationship with God is, in fact, an interior relationship with myself, whereby a portion of my mind has taken on the persona and, indeed, the character and qualities of God, and I now happily chat away with myself, using it as a mechanism to encourage myself in the way of life I approve of.

The key question would be whether I could continue with this faith if I knew for certain that this is what I’m doing, and there is “no God out there”. It’s long been observed that the benefits of faith come to us whether God is there or not, just so long as we believe. Once we doubt, the whole positive structure comes crashing down. Thankfully, I can never know for certain if God is there or not – not unless there is a life after death to confirm it. However, our thoughts today indicate that even if we hypothetically face up to a certainty that there is no God, then we still have a basis for a life of faith. Such a faith would then be immune to doubts, because it has fully taken on board the possibility that “God” is simply our word for those beliefs, way of life etc mentioned above.

I repeat my claim that faith in God is entirely reasonable and supremely fulfilling.