Week Two: Views of God, part one

The Seven Main Views of God

Broadly defined as a “Worldview”, how you view God is usually what defines how you view all else. As A. W. Tozer said, “What comes into our minds when we think about God is the most important thing about us.” There are many different ways to think about God, but they all fall roughly within the following seven categories:

1) Atheism (there is no God)
2) Agnosticism (God can’t be known)
3) Finite Godism (God is limited)
4) Pantheism (Everything is God)
5) Panentheism (God is in everything)
6) Deism (God exists but doesn’t interact)
7) Theism (God is real and He interacts with us).


(The basic diversity of belief within a worldview: Not every Pantheist or Deist or Panenthist will believe everything stated here; we are painting with broad strokes)

1) Atheism: No God exists beyond or in the universe.
a. “A” (non) and “Theism” (God)
b. Also known as “Non-theism” and “Anti-theism.”
c. Atheism affirms that there is no God. They are not making the assertion that there is no God beyond the world; they are saying that there is no God in the world, beyond the world, or otherwise. There is no God now, nor has there ever been a God, nor can there ever be a God.
d. Atheism excludes all possible views of God, including Polytheism, Pantheism, Panentheism, Deism and Theism.
e. Atheism does not exclude Agnosticism, as it is possible for there to be no god and also no knowledge of this non-god.
f. Atheism is not simply a position of negation, stating, “There is no god.” Many atheistic positions are positive, affirming both the non-existence of god and a replacement system, such as humanism, materialism, or naturalism.
g. Many atheists also promote an ethical system, though upon further examination, it can be demonstrated that these systems quickly will degenerate to a form of ethical relativism and are thus self-defeating.
h. Varieties of Atheism:
i. Traditional – There is no god now, there never was a god at any previous time in history, and there never will be a god in the future (God is not “out there”, “up there”, “in here”, or “any where.” It’s like the cosmic version of Green Eggs and Ham, but instead of Green Eggs and Ham, you’re talking about God and you don’t actually discover that you “like it” in the end; there’s nothing to like.)
ii. Mythological – The “myth” of “god” was once alive in the world in various different forms, but these “myths” are no longer necessary and have thus died out.
1. As Nietzsche wrote, “God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him. How shall we comfort ourselves, the murderers of all murderers? What was holiest and mightiest of all that the world has yet owned has bled to death under our knives: who will wipe this blood off us? What water is there for us to clean ourselves? What festivals of atonement, what sacred games shall we have to invent? Is not the greatness of this deed too great for us? Must we ourselves not become gods simply to appear worthy of it?”
iii. “Christian” Atheism (or Dialectical Atheism) – God was once alive and well, but he died on the cross after the incarnation and remains dead to this day; there was no “resurrection” for god.
i. Atheistic proofs for god’s non-existence fall into several broad categories, several of which we will consider here:
i. Cosmological (arguments from cause)
1. Atheistic Philosopher Bertrand Russell, in a lecture titled, “Why I am Not a Christian” offers the following argument against God: “I may say that when I was a young man and was debating these questions very seriously in my mind, I for a long time accepted the argument of the First Cause, until one day, at the age of eighteen, I read Jon Stuart Mill’s Autobiography, and I there found this sentence: ‘My father taught me that the question, “Who made me?” cannot be answered, since it immediately suggests the further question, “Who made God?”’ That very simple sentence showed me, as I still think, the fallacy in the argument of the First Cause. If everything must have a cause, then God must have a cause. If there can be anything without a cause, it may just as well be the world as God, so that there cannot be any validity in that argument.”

Rebuttal: Bertrand Russell (and evidently Jon Stuart Mill) misunderstands the kind of being that God is. They commit in essence a Categorical Fallacy. They place all things (including God) in the category of “Created Things”. If a thing is “Uncreated”, then it needs no “Creator”. If it was not “made”, there is no necessity for a “maker”. Bertrand Russell asks, “If everything must have a cause, then God must have a cause.” He then states, “If there can be anything without a cause, it may just as well be the world as God…” First, “Everything” does not need a cause; only “caused” things need a “cause”. Second, if anything can be “without a cause”, we must prove it to be so; we can’t arbitrarily assign which things are and are not caused. They must meet the criteria for being “uncaused”. The universe does not meet this criterion (we will explore this in week 4). It’s not honest to presume that there is only one category (Created things) when you start off to prove that everything falls into one category. If you exclude the possibility of another category at the outset, you will obviously end with the conclusion that there is only one category.

2. Jean-Paul Sartre, in his book, “Being and Nothingness”, presents another cosmological argument against the existence of god. The gist of the argument is as follows:
a. Everything must have a cause either within itself or outside itself (must be either self caused or caused by another)
b. Therefore, God must either be self caused or caused by another
c. However, in order to be self caused, God would have to exist prior to His own existence (which is impossible)
d. If God were caused by another, then there would be another that is more infinite than God (which is also impossible)
e. Therefore, there can be no God

Rebuttal: Jean-Paul Sartre makes essentially the same error that Bertrand Russell made. Sartre’s reasoning is sound, but his first premise is flawed. The only things that require a cause are things that are caused. This whole argument assumes that God is a “caused” being, and thus needs a cause either within Himself or external to Himself. However, you can’t assume the conclusion to be true in order to support your proof. If God is indeed uncaused, then He does not need a cause outside himself nor does He have to be “dependent” upon Himself for His own cause. This argument mistakenly places God within the category of “created things that need a cause.” If God is real, then He would be “Uncreated” and “Uncaused” and would therefore not need any explanation for “cause”. That would be like asking what kind of flowers a bee would have to pollinate to fertilize babies kittens.

ii. Ontological (arguments from “being” or “existence”)
1. God by nature must be defined as a Necessary Existent [Being]
2. But necessity cannot apply to existence; necessity is a characteristic of propositions, not of reality
3. Therefore, there cannot be a Necessary Existent

Rebuttal: The second premise is flawed. It states that it is necessarily true that things cannot be necessarily true in reality. But this is a claim about reality that is taken to be necessarily true about reality. It is therefore self defeating.
Out another way, if the second premise is false, then it is possible that a Necessary Being (God) exists. If you maintain that the second premise is true, then it is “necessarily” false, because it fails its own standards for reality. Either way, this argument doesn’t disprove God’s existence.

iii. Moral
1. If God were all good (omni-benevolent), He would destroy all evil
2. If God were all powerful (omnipotent), He could destroy Evil
3. But there is evil in the world, therefore, one of the following must be true:
a. There is no God
b. He is not all powerful
c. He is not All good

Rebuttal: This can be approached either of two manners:
First: If you admit “evil”, you presuppose the existence of God. If there were no ultimate standard for good, then there could be no departure from this ultimate standard. Anything we call “evil” could simply be reduced to a matter of personal preference. As C. S. Lewis said, “My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust?” Without God, there isn’t even a standard against which we can measure “evil” to be actually “evil”. It’s simply distasteful, or inconvenient, or some other form of problematic; but we have no grounds upon which to classify anything as actually universally evil if there is no universal standard (such as God).

Second: This argument does not consider the Cross. God has done something about evil in the world. However, God still allows for the personal freedom of free moral agents (people). God could not destroy evil ultimately without either destroying humanity (which He is not willing to do *yet*) or removing free will (which would not be a “victory” over evil, but rather a removal of evil). God has conquered evil on the Cross, but the complete effects of this act are not yet realized in history; the Bible is clear that evil will ultimately be conquered both ontologically and existentially.

iv. Antithetical nature of Omnipotence – If God were actually “all powerful”, then he could do anything, including creating a stone so big that he couldn’t lift it. (Or microwave a burrito so hot that even he couldn’t touch it). But if god “could” use his power to create something that he couldn’t control with his “power”, then there cannot be an all-powerful god.

Rebuttal: This argument is flawed because it confuses the meaning of “All Powerful”. The problem is not with God, it’s with the question. “All powerful” doesn’t mean “can do anything”; it means “can do anything that power is capable of doing.” There are some things that power simply cannot do. God can’t make a rock so heavy that He can’t lift it; this is not because He doesn’t have enough power, but because no amount of power (even infinite) can violate the laws of logic. God can’t make an infinitely heavy finite rock. It’s a contradiction, similar to asking God to make a square circle. Once you put corners on the shape, by definition, it ceases to be a circle. It can’t be a circle and a square at the same time, it’s just not possible and the amount of power you have simply isn’t a factor. The contradiction is in what the question is asking, not in God’s abilities or “power”.

v. God’s “Subordination” – If there were a God, he would be “subject” to things like Logic or Ethics; or else he would be above them and assign them arbitrarily. If God were subject to Love or Logic or Ethics, then there would be something “above” God and God would no longer be supreme. If God arbitrarily assigned these things, then God is not essentially good, as “good” is simply what ever God decides; God cannot be “rational” as rational is whatever God thinks, even if it’s contradictory.

Rebuttal: This position misunderstands the relationship between God and His attributes. Things like Love and Reason and Ethics flow necessarily from God’s Nature; He isn’t subordinate to them and he doesn’t assign them arbitrarily. Logic, for example is part of God’s nature. He thinks Logically. God is not bound by logic, the laws of logic flow necessarily from Him. He does not “assign” them arbitrarily, they are an expression of His thoughts. Furthermore, with the example of logic, God is technically, not “bound” by logic, it is simply our statements about God that must adhere to the laws of logic in order to qualify as “sensible” or “logical”. God is not bound by reason, He is not above reason, He is the representation of and justification for reason.

"Atheism turns out to be too simple. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning. . ." – Mere Christianity

2) Agnosticism
a. Agnosticism, while similar to Atheism, is not the same. The Atheist says that there is no god; the Agnostic says that he does not know if there is a God. (“A” = non; “Gnosis” = Knowledge)
b. Agnosticism is not to be confused with Skepticism, which says that we should always doubt our conclusions about reality; we should never propose certainty about anything.
i. Skepticism, as a fairly popular view, deserves a passing mention and rebuttal. If we are to be skeptical of “everything”, would this also include our conclusion to be “skeptical”? Should we then also call this belief into question?
ii. One simply cannot suspend judgment on everything, as this is simply not possible; one would have to suspend judgment on whether or not to suspend judgment on even the judgment to suspend judgment. This will not work.
c. There are two forms of Agnosticism
i. Hard Agnosticism states that knowledge about God cannot be known
ii. Soft Agnosticism states that knowledge about God is personally not known (either “I don’t know” or “We collectively don’t fully know”).
d. Soft Agnosticism is no real threat against the Theistic worldview, it’s actually rather part of it. In a sense, we’re called to have a certain agnosticism about God, in recognition that we’re finite and God is infinite. It is not possible for our finite minds to fully comprehend the infinite God; we only know of Him by analogy.
e. It turns out that Soft Agnosticism is a fairly easy worldview to dismantle. If you don’t know anything about God, then you simply need to find a resource to educate you. The only remaining problem becomes whether or not this resource is reliable…
f. Hard Agnosticism, on the other hand, is a bit more complex, but not really any more difficult.
i. Complete (or “hard”) agnosticism is reducible to the claim that “one knows enough about reality in order to affirm that nothing can be known about reality.”
ii. This claim is self defeating and need not be taken seriously.

g. How to take an Atheist and hold their hand through agnosticism into theism:
i. The Atheist affirms that there is no god anywhere nor has there been any god in all of history, nor can there be any god in the future.
ii. But in order for this claim to be known with “certainty”, one would have to have some kind of absolute knowledge about history, the future (?) or culture.
1. For example, literally millions have claimed to have had some kind of an experience with some form of god (pantheistic, polytheistic, or theistic) through all of history. If ONE of these people is right, then god at least did exist and potentially still exists.
2. The atheist is claiming that all of these millions of people was mistaken; based on… what? They can’t claim that these experiences are impossible because god doesn’t exist in any form, because that would be begging the question (assuming that the conclusion is true in order to prove that the conclusion is true).
iii. Therefore, at least on a practical level, the atheist is really an agnostic who must allow the theoretical possibility that god either has existed in history and potentially still exists somewhere either spatially or metaphysically in the vast universe beyond the scope of their meager observation.
iv. Now that your new “atheist” friend is freshly converted agnostic, you must determine whether they are a “hard” agnostic or a “soft” agnostic (and it’s safe to assume that they don’t know either at this point; they were an atheist a few minutes ago, remember?).
v. Once they decide which kind of agnostic they are going to be, you either inform them (since they have no knowledge) or you enlighten them (since they are holding to another impossible position, that knowledge about reality cannot be known, but they know enough about reality to know that what they know is not knowable…).
vi. Even the famous “Atheist” Bertrand Russell would not debate Fredrick Copelston as an Atheist; rather he debated as an Agnostic.


3) Finite Godism (Polytheism): God is limited.
a. Varieties of Finite Godism:
i. Finite Monotheism: There is only one finite god, who resembles the Theistic God, though he (it) is limited in power, knowledge, scope, nature, etc.
ii. Henotheism: There are many finite gods, with one supreme god ruling over the rest. Think of Zeus in Greek Mythology.
iii. Polytheism: There are many finite gods (2 or more, with no actual “upper limit”)
b. Reasons for presenting a view of God that is limited (as Finite Monotheism):
i. Cause: The cause need not be more sufficient than the effect. For example, we have a finite universe; we need only a finite cause to explain a finite effect.

Rebuttal: While the argument is “sound”, it is nonetheless flawed. A Finite God cannot account for His own existence; who made this God? You cannot have an unending succession of “causes”; you must be able to at some point put your “foot” down on something solid, and this solid thing would be an infinite, uncaused, unchanging “God.” If Finite Godism were true, it would depend on Theism as an underlying foundation to support it.

ii. Evil: That evil exists in the world is not denied by Finite Godists. Their answer to the presence of evil is either that God is unable to defeat it (is not strong enough) or is not willing to defeat it (is not loving enough). Either way, they find the lack in God, not in the world.

Rebuttal: This argument was addressed already while dealing with Atheism. However, an additional point must be made here, because the argument from the Finite Godist smuggles in another assumption, “If God were all powerful, He would destroy evil (without eliminating free will).” This plays on the improper understanding of “Omnipotent”, also addressed previously.

c. Polytheism:
i. Polytheism (and Henotheism) fails for a different reason than Finite Monotheism.
1. Polytheism cannot explain the universe that it claims to support. If the “gods” are not eternal (not infinite), then they need a cause beyond themselves. But you cannot have an unending succession of causes, it simply can’t be. You must eventually end with a solid foundation to stand on.
ii. Many polytheistic religions are born out of ancient man’s amazement and misunderstanding of nature. These “forces” are deified and a pantheon of “gods” (and/or goddesses) is born.
1. Examples of God defeating the forces of nature in the Bible are many
a. The Exodus
b. The sun dial of Hezekiah
c. The Long Day of Joshua
d. The Miracles of Jesus
d. Mormonism is a Polytheistic religion.
i. “God himself once was as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens! …Here then is eternal life – to know the only wise and true God; and you have got to learn how to be gods ourselves…the same as all gods have done before you.”
e. Finite Godism fails to account for an ultimate reality.