Introduction

One question frequently nags at us as we work through life’s challenges: Is God real? This question has its roots in layers of faith, emotion, and culture for many. But I think that examining this issue logically can help us understand the Divine on a deeper level. I intend to have an insightful discussion on the existence of God in this work. I want to demonstrate that believing in God could be a logical and rational choice by contemplating ideas like cause and effect, the essence of morality, and the very fabric of existence.

This journey isn’t just for those who already believe; it’s an invitation for anyone curious about the nature of existence. Leaning into logic can help us better understand God by demonstrating that both faith and reason can coexist harmoniously. Additionally, I must stress out that practically every topic and point I raise in this work is an oversimplification, and that every question and response from both sides of the debate can go into far greater detail. Taking that into consideration, this paper is intended to help those who have just begun their theological and metaphysical journey, as well as to help already experienced thinkers connect different, already established ideas. Also, I am not planning to analyze this topic through the lens of any specific religion, as Christianity, Judaism and Islam, as the three Abrahamic religions have many differences between themselves. The concept of God that will be mentioned in this work is purely Theistic.

The Necessary Existent

Through analysis of the world around us, one can observe a consistent pattern: everything depends on something else in some way, shape or form. This idea has been proposed throughout history by philosophers like Aristotle and Avicenna (Ibn Sina). This dependency suggests that all things fall into three categories:

• Contingent Existent : A being whose existence depends on something else. Everything in the universe fits this description. For example, humans exist not only because of birth but due to the intricate conditions that sustain life: the particles that form us, the perfect planetary temperature, and the air we breathe, among other factors.

• Impossible Existent : Something that cannot logically exist. Its existence would be inherently contradictory. For example, a “round square” is a logical impossibility because the concepts of “round” and “square” are mutually exclusive

• Necessary Existent : A being that must exist by its very nature and does not depend on anything else for its existence. This concept is often referred to as the “uncaused cause” or “unmoved mover”; an entity that initiates existence without itself being caused.

Explanation:

Everything in the universe is contingent. For a galaxy to exist, it must contain solar systems; for a solar system to exist, it requires planets and stars. Their existence depends on energy, molecules, gravity, space, etc. You yourself also exist not just because of your, but because of organs that keep you alive, air that you breathe in and food that gives you energy as well. This is known as the Chain of Contingency .

A Necessary Existent is the being that initiates this entire chain. There must be something that started it all, serving as the foundation for everything contingent that follows.

Why the Necessary Existent Must Exist?

It is illogical to have an endless regress of contingent beings in which each one is utterly dependent on the others. Nothing could exist without a foundational entity (something that started it all), as such a chain would never have an ultimate cause. In order to get around this problem, we must assume that there is a being that exists by itself as it needs nothing else to exist; otherwise, it would be dependent on it. We refer to this entity as the Necessary Existent. The Necessary Existent exists by definition and is independent of everything else. All other beings emerge from this foundation, which is the uncaused cause. Unlike contingent beings, which are subject to time, change, and external conditions, the Necessary Existent is timeless and immutable. Its existence is not constrained by time, space, or causality, making it eternal and unchanging. The argument for the Necessary Existent is based on the idea that something must explain the existence of contingent beings. If everything were contingent, the chain of dependency would never be complete, and we would be left without an explanation for why anything exists. The Necessary Existent provides that explanation by being thefirst cause , the ultimate reason for the existence of everything else. Therefore, the Necessary Existent must exist, as it is the only being capable of grounding the reality of contingent beings and giving them their existence.

But, for a Necessary Existent to be one, it must have these attributes:

• Simplicity : Meaning it is not composed of parts of which it is contingent off. Therefore it is indivisible and completely unified.

• Self-Sufficiency : It is independent and does not rely on anything else for its existence

• Immutability : It cannot change because change implies a transition from potentiality to actuality, which is a feature of a contingent. The Necessary Being is purely actual with no potentiality

• Eternality : Because it is not causal and cannot cease to exist, it is eternal. It must exist outside of time because it is not contingent of anything, including time

• Pure Actuality : The Necessary Existent has no unfulfilled potential; it is fully actualized in every sense. In contrast, contingent beings have actuality (what they are) and potentiality (what they could be). If the Necessary Existent isn’t fully actualized, that means that there is something that It cannot reach yet, putting a limitation on It.

Can there be more than one Necessary Existents?

Existence of more than one necessary Exists contradicts the very definition of it. Having two or more of them means that something separates them, meaning that they have similarities and differences. That goes against the unity of its being and makes the Necessary Existent composed of those similarities and differences, making the Necessary Existent contingent of them.

If the Necessary Existence is divided into differences and similarities, than it contradicts the simplicity of the Necessary Existent.

Why can’t the universe itself be the Necessary Existent?

As the universe is a collection of all the things which exist within it, it is contingent of all those things. The universe is made of parts which give the universe its characteristics, therefore it is contingent of all of the contingents within it.

If the Necessary Existent is simple and immutable, how did the universe start existing after not existing?

Using this logic, the Necessary Existent never created the universe, but they always coexisted as the Necessary Existent could never change “its mind” from the state of non-creating to creating, making it contingent on the act of creating.

Answer:

The Necessary Existent exists outside of time, thus its act of creation is not something that happened within time, like a temporal event where “God” moves from the state of not creating to creating.

From Necessary existent’s perspective, the universe doesn’t go from non-existence to existence in a temporal sense; the entire timeline of the universe, from its beginning to the end, exists all at once. We experience time within the universe, but that does not apply to “God” as it is not contingent of it. Therefore, for the Necessary Existent located outside of time, the concepts of “before” and “after” do not apply.

Quantum Fluctuation and Causality

Quantum Fluctuation refers to temporary changes in energy that happen in “empty” space, referred to as the quantum vacuum. These fluctuations can give rise to virtual particles that appear and disappear seemingly without a cause. On the quantum level, events can take place without a clear cause, challenging the principle of causality and the necessity of the Necessary Existent.

Answer:

• Even if the quantum events seem uncaused, they still happen within a broader quantum field and set of laws. These laws, fields and conditions that allow quantum events to take place are still contingent and would themselves require and explanation. This pushes the question back further: Why and how do these laws exist in the first place and why do they behave the way they do?

• Quantum mechanics deals within the universe, not before or outside of it. Even if the quantum events are uncaused, that doesn’t explain how the universe exists or even how the quantum laws exist.

• Quantum vacuums are also not truly “nothingness”, as they still involve energy fields, laws and a structure that allows particles to pop in and out of existence. “Nothingness” in a philosophical sense is the total absence of anything in the most literal sense; thus, even if the universe arose from the quantum vacuum, the vacuum itself is still something that requires an explanation.

The argument is that the existence of quantum fields, laws and even the multiverse would still require a Necessary Existent to explain why it even exists.

Is the Necessary Being personal or non-personal?

To be considered personal, the Necessary Existent must possess the attributes of intellect or consciousness., such as intention, will, or purpose. A personal Necessary Existent would be capable of making deliberate choices, creating the universe with intent, and possibly interacting with creation in meaningful ways.

If the Necessary Existent is non-personal, it is an impersonal force or principle, existing without will, consciousness, or intent. In this case, it would simply be the fundamental cause of the universe without having desires, goals, or a relationship with its creation.

If the universe began to exist, it implies a deliberate “choice” to bring it into being. Only a personal being can make such intentional decisions. Additionally, the argument of order and fine-tuning suggests that the Necessary Existent is personal, as the precise values of physical constants appear “set” to allow for life and prevent the universe from simply collapsing. Even considering the theory of a multiverse or universe forming from the collapse of the one before it (which posits infinite chances for our universe to exist depending on the interpretation) they still imply that the multiverse itself is perfectly constructed to host these universes. Mentioning the omniverse merely pushes the question of origin further back as well.

Simplicity and Impossibility

Because the non-personal counterpart does not require all the complex attributes like consciousness, will, or knowledge, a non-personal Necessary Existent may be simpler and easier to describe than a personal one.

Answer:

The concept of “Nous” (Greek for “divine intellect/mind”), suggests that if the Necessary Existent is personal, its nature is fundamentally different from our human understanding of personality. This personality transcends human experiences, understanding and limitations, making it very difficult to define in traditional terms. Reducing the Necessary Existent to a non-personal being oversimplifies its greatness and limitlessness too much. Instead, “Nous” presents an intellect that is higher than human comprehension, representing a profound, unbounded essence that governs existence beyond our conventional perceptions. As our understanding of the world and language itself are limited to the universe itself, calling the Necessary Existent personal would technically be as wrong as calling it non-personal, as the concept of a persona derives from within the creation of the Necessary Existent, but using the word “Nous” can allow us to point at that concept of higher existence, based outside of our limited understanding. But the concept of “Nous” is closer to our day-to-day understanding of the word “personal”.

Why would the Necessary Existent be Omniscient?

The Necessary Existent, by its very nature, must be omniscient, or all-knowing. As the ultimate foundation of all reality, this being is responsible for creating and sustaining everything in existence. To fulfill this role, it must possess complete knowledge of all things like past, present, and future. Since the Necessary Existent transcends time and space, it perceives all events simultaneously, unlike humans who experience time sequentially. Omniscience is also required for perfection, as any limitation in knowledge would represent a deficiency, contradicting the idea of a perfect, self-sufficient being.

Moreover, for the Necessary Existent to cause and maintain the universe, it must fully understand every relationship and process within it. A lack of knowledge would imply that certain aspects of reality exist independently of the Necessary Existent, undermining its role as the ultimate cause. Therefore, omniscience ensures that all of creation is both dependent on and perfectly known by the Necessary Existent, solidifying its role as the complete and foundational being.

The Paradox of Omnipotence

There is an infamous question: Can God create a stone so heavy that He cannot lift it?

If He can’t, He is not all-powerful.

If He can, He has limitations.

Answer:

A personal Necessary Existent has free will, but Its decisions are perfect and aligned with logic, as it is Fully Actualized as already mentioned, so even though it is omnipotent, omnibenevolent and omniscient, It still freely chooses the most logical decision. Its will is free but not arbitrary or flawed buy Its definition, so It would never do such a thing. An example would be that God would never create an impossible existence such as a round square, as it is illogical.

Divine Foreknowledge and Free Will

If the personal Necessary Existent knows everything that will happen, including the future, then your actions are predetermined.

Answer:

To answer this, we first need to understand what free will really is.

• Free Will : Free will is the ability of individuals to make choices that are not predetermined by external circumstances or fate. It implies that people have control over their actions and decisions, allowing for moral responsibility

The Necessary Existent exists outside of time; thus, it does not “foresee” the future in the same way humans would. For It, all of the time, as mentioned before, is presented simultaneously. From our limited perspective, we experience time sequentially, but the Necessary Existent does not. It knows future choices not because they are predetermined, but because It is not bounded by time.

Transcendence vs. Immanence

• Why would God (the Necessary Existent) be involved in the happenings within the universe?

Answer:

The Necessary Existent, by not being limited by any physical limitation, is omnipresent. That means that it is not logical for It not to be present in our world in any way.

• How so that we do not have a proof of Its existence if It is omnipresent? Wouldn’t its interaction be seen?

Answer:

There are many interpretations and answers, but one of the more logical answers is that the Necessary Existent sustains the universe through the natural laws. It created the world with built in natural laws and the laws function consistently over time. So, if a smart, personal Necessary Existent created the universe with intentions, the laws were created with intentions as well. If the laws and logic itself were created buy will, then the execution of the same is done by will as well.

Why would God be Omnibenevolent (All-good)?

The logic behind God being all-good stems from the concept of perfection. If God is the Necessary Existent, existing outside of time and space, God is the ultimate and self-sufficient being. To be perfect, God must be without flaws or deficiencies (fully actualized), including moral imperfections. Evil or malice would imply a lack of goodness, which contradicts the idea of perfection. Therefore, being all-good is a necessary attribute for God, as it aligns with the notion of a being who is both infinite and morally perfect.

The Problem of Evil

To understand this argument and counter-argument, we first need to understand what is evil and how do we interpret it.

• Evil: Generally defined as the absence or opposite of good. It involves actions, intentions, or events that cause harm, suffering, or moral wrong.

• Moral Evil: Harm caused by humans like war, injustice, crime, ext.

• Natural Evil: Harm not caused buy any concise human decision like disease, floods, earthquakes, ext.

If God is all-powerful, He could prevent all evil.

If God is all-good, He would want to prevent all evil.

Evil exists; therefore, God does not exist or is not all-good or all-powerful

Answer:

• Natural Evil:

By now, we have concluded that God is perfectly logical, with perfectly logical actions and that God is also beyond our human comprehension, so the reasoning for allowing evil is by default beyond our comprehension. Even if this answer sounds too lazy and simple, it is logical to its full extent.

• Moral Evil:

Things that we, as humans, do are our own choices brought by our own free will.

But if God is all-knowing, God knows in advance what all the choices that will be made. Why doesn’t he stop it?

While God knows everything and all the possible outcomes, knowing an action will happen does not cause it to happen. Free will entail that humans can choose their decisions. The foreknowledge of God does not negate the human responsibility and authenticity of their choice. While God is responsible for creating a world with free agents, God is not responsible for their actions. Also, the same argument of humans not understanding the reasoning of God can be applied here.

The question now is if it makes more sense that the Necessary Existent does not exist because there is evil present in the world, or that the Necessary Existent exists, but we as humans cannot understand its reasoning. Currently more arguments stand for the existence of Necessary Existent that we call God, so by logic it is more probable that we just cannot understand the reasoning of such a complex and out-of-world being.

Gods hiding

If God truly loves me, why would He hide the fact that he exists, potentially punishing me for not believing in His existence, despite Him trying to hide his presence as much as possible?

Answer:

• “The punishment” depends on the religion in question, and even the interpretation of the given religion. Thus, the punishment for not believing simply cannot be used for disproving the existence of the theistic God, as this work is not trying to prove nor disprove religions themselves, but provide logical answers to questions about the existence of an intelligent creator.

• If God proved His own existence to a person, that person could not have any other choice but to believe in the existence of God, just like you must believe in the existence of yourself as you have proof of your own existence, and even that can be debated. If God provided you with a concrete proof of His own existence, you would not have a choice to not believe in Gods existence using your own free will. Therefore, a world without proof of Gods existence doesn’t prove that God does not indeed exist.

Does the Necessary Existent need to be God?

Now we know what is the Necessary Existent and how to describe it. We also know what is the difference between a Personal Necessary Existent and a non-personal one, but why did I sometimes use the word God when talking about the Necessary Existent? In the opinions of many scholars, those two terms are the same, but to truly answer the given question, we must know what the Theistic concept of God is.

Theistic God is often conceived of as the supreme, all-powerful entity who created and sustains the cosmos. God’s attributes are omniscience (all-knowing), omnipotence (all-powerful), omnibenevolence (all-good), and omnipresence (present everywhere). God is eternal, existing outside of time and space, and does not require anything else to exist. Truly believing in this concept means truly believing in a pure monotheistic God.

The Necessary Existent, defined as the ultimate source of all reality, possesses inherent attributes that align with the characteristics of God. By establishing the Necessary Existent’s personal essence, we indicate that it not only generates and sustains the cosmos, but also interacts with it in a relational sense. This engagement implies that the Necessary Existent has attributes that we can only associate with intention, desire, and will, which are fundamental aspects of a personal being. Furthermore, if the Necessary Existent is indeed personal, it must also encompass omniscience, omnipotence, and omnibenevolence, just like the Theistic God. Omniscience indicates that this being possesses complete knowledge of all things, including past, present, and future (as we mentioned), again, just like Theistic God. Omnipotence implies the ability to intervene in the universe as necessary, while omnibenevolence emphasizes a nature that is fundamentally good and desires the well-being of creation. By this integration of the personal nature of the Necessary Existent with the attributes associated with God, we arrive at a coherent and comprehensive understanding of divinity. This perspective holds that the Necessary Existent is both the foundation of all existence and a personal being, reinforcing the identity of the Necessary Existent as God. As they say: “If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, then it is a duck”.

Conclusion

After examining the logic behind God’s existence, we reach an interesting realization: both believing in God and not believing in God can be logical choices.

The idea of a Necessary Existent helps explain why anything exists at all. If everything in the universe depends on something else, then there must be something that exists on its own, without needing a cause. This “first cause” must be eternal, unchanging, and completely independent. When we explore its nature, it starts to resemble what many people call God, a being that is all-powerful, all-knowing, and responsible for creating and sustaining everything. At the same time, arguments against God’s existence also make sense, as we are dealing with the un-understandable matter routed outside of our comprehensive limitations. There could easily exist another answer to all of these questions, but using God as the answer is proven to be equally logical as the argument itself does not contain any logical fallacies. This leads us to a balanced conclusion: it is just as logical to believe in God as it is to doubt His existence. Both perspectives rely on reasoning, and neither one can fully disprove the other.

Ultimately, whether someone believes in God or not, the search for answers is what truly matters. Instead of seeking a final, absolute proof, we should remain open to learning, questioning, and exploring life’s biggest mysteries, and thus, explore ourselves as well.