The Existence of God, according to St John of Damascus

[Zenith Darksea]

St John of Damascus is a very famous Orthodox Christian saint from, as his epithet implies, the city of Damascus in Syria. He was an extremely wise and intelligent man (as exemplified by the fact that, though an Orthodox Christian, St John served as Vizier to the Muslim Caliph of Damascus, before retiring to the Roman Empire), and wrote the seminal work An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith. Even Roman Catholics, usually reticent when it comes to Eastern saints, venerate St John of Damascus. I thought I'd post up the part of his work (Chapter 4) dealing with the existence of God so that you could read and discuss it. As you read it, do remember that this man was writing in the seventh century AD!

A full text of An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith can be found here.

That there is a God, then, is no matter of doubt to those who receive the Holy Scriptures, the Old Testament, I mean, and the New; nor indeed to most of the Greeks. For, as we said, the knowledge of the existence of God is implanted in us by nature. But since the wickedness of the Evil One has prevailed so mightily against man’s nature as even to drive some into denying the existence of God, that most foolish and woe-fulest pit of destruction (whose folly David, revealer of the Divine meaning, exposed when he said, The fool said in his heart, There is no God), so the disciples of the Lord and His Apostles, made wise by the Holy Spirit and working wonders in His power and grace, took them captive in the net of miracles and drew them up out of the depths of ignoranceto the light of the knowledge of God. In like manner also their successors in grace and worth, both pastors and teachers, having received the enlightening grace of the Spirit, were wont, alike by the power of miracles and the word of grace, to enlighten those walking in darkness and to bring back the wanderers into the way. But as for us who are not recipients either of the gift of miracles or the gift of teaching (for indeed we have rendered ourselves unworthy of these by our passion for pleasure), come, let us in connection with this theme discuss a few of those things which have been delivered to us on this subject by the expounders of grace, calling on the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

All things that exist are either created or uncreated. If, then, things are created, it follows that they are also wholly mutable. For things, whose existence originated in change, must also be subject to change, whether it be that they perish or that they become other than they are by act of will. But if things are uncreated they must in all consistency be also wholly immutable. For things which are opposed in the nature of their existence must also be opposed in the mode of their existence, that is to say, must have opposite properties: who, then, will refuse to grant that all existing things, not only such as come within the province of the senses, but even the very angels, are subject to change and transformation and movement of various kinds? For the things appertaining to the rational world, I mean angels and spirits and demons, are subject to changes of will, whether it is a progression or a retrogression in goodness, whether a struggle or a surrender; while the others suffer changes of generation and destruction, of increase and decrease, of quality and of movement in space. Things then that are mutable are also wholly created. But things that are created must be the work of some maker, and the maker cannot have been created. For if he had been created, he also must surely have been created by some one, and so on till we arrive at something uncreated. The Creator, then, being uncreated, is also wholly immutable. And what could this be other than Deity?

And even the very continuity of the creation, and its preservation and government, teach us that there does exist a Deity, who supports and maintains and preserves and ever provides for this universe. For how could opposite natures, such as fire and water, air and earth, have combined with each other so as to form one complete world, and continue to abide in indissoluble union, were there not some omnipotent power which bound them together and always is preserving them from dissolution?

What is it that gave order to things of heaven and things of earth, and all those things that move in the air and in the water, or rather to what was in existence before these, viz., to heaven and earth and air and the elements of fire and water? What was it that mingled and distributed these? What was it that set these in motion and keeps them in their unceasing and unhindered course? Was it not the Artificer of these things, and He Who hath implanted in everything the law whereby the universe is carried on and directed? Who then is the Artificer of these things? Is it not He Who created them and brought them into existence. For we shall not attribute such a power to the spontaneous. For, supposing their coming into existence was due to the spontaneous; what of the power that put all in orders? And let us grant this, if you please. What of that which has preserved and kept them in harmony with the original laws of their existence? Clearly it is something quite distinct from the spontaneous.And what could this be other than Deity?

At first sight, some of what he says suggests the ignorance of his era. For example, it would seem foolish of us nowadays to speak about four elements - air, earth, fire and water - and St John obviously did not know about such things as molecular interaction and so forth. Nonetheless, if you make allowances for his arcane terminology, and bear in mind that he is speaking about the laws of physics in general, I think that you will find his reasoning pretty sophisticated for a man of the seventh century AD.

At any rate, I hope that it interests you.

[Black Francis]

And even the very continuity of the creation, and its preservation and government, teach us that there does exist a Deity, who supports and maintains and preserves and ever provides for this universe. For how could opposite natures, such as fire and water, air and earth, have combined with each other so as to form one complete world, and continue to abide in indissoluble union, were there not some omnipotent power which bound them together and always is preserving them from dissolution?

If you substitute the four elements for the complexity of the molecular universe I think his argument has even more weight and becomes even more relevant.

The more complex and diverse the constituent parts of the world are the greater the awe we have for the Creator Deity (by his reckoning). I am inclined to agree.

[Zenith Darksea]

Yes indeed. In fact, I'm surprised that this thread hasn't attracted more interest from our 'intellectuals' here.

[Black Francis]

Yes indeed. In fact, I'm surprised that this thread hasn't attracted more interest from our 'intellectuals' here.

Well, thanks for posting the topic anyway, I certainly enjoyed it.

[Manji]

Well I don't know if i'm part of the "intellectual" bunch but this was very interesting.

Just one minor note:

Even Roman Catholics, usually reticent when it comes to Eastern saints, venerate St John of Damascus.

Er... that would be considered heresy for the Catholic Church; at least according to St. Thomas (II-II:11:1) which defines heresy as: "a species of infidelity in men who, having professed the faith of Christ, corrupt its dogmas" and, as far as I know, veneration of a non-approved Saint is considered heretical.

Anyway, apart from that note, personally it sounds a very fascinating Saint, not so much in line with the usual "healed two people and was canonized" standard. The "doctor of the Church" are always more interesting than the "popular saints", in my perspective.

[Last_Crusader]

And even the very continuity of the creation, and its preservation and government, teach us that there does exist a Deity, who supports and maintains and preserves and ever provides for this universe. For how could opposite natures, such as fire and water, air and earth, have combined with each other so as to form one complete world, and continue to abide in indissoluble union, were there not some omnipotent power which bound them together and always is preserving them from dissolution?

Forgive me for not addressing the whole tract, but this argument can be given a simple counter.

For how could opposite natures, such as fire and water, air and earth, have combined with each other so as to form one complete world, and continue to abide in indissoluble union, were there not some omnipotent power which bound them together and always is preserving them from dissolution?

Now,the implied meaning here is that the existence of the world would be so unlikely as to be unthinkable without Deity, but critically there is no implication of the impossiblity of same. If one deals a randomly shuffled pack of cards, then the resultant combination is still there, even despite the (52!-1)/52! chance of another combination having been dealt; probablility does not preclude existence. I believe the original context for this counterargument was intelligent design, against William Dembski's refuation of evolution on basis of statistics.

[Dromikaites]

The basis of St. John of Damascus' proof that God exists is the assumption the Universe must have been created. This year's Nobel Prize for physics was awarded to two scientists who discovered additional evidence in favor of the Big Bang theory (the blackbody form and anisotropy of the cosmic microwave background radiation).

Of course St. John of Damascus knew nothing about the Big Bang theory nor about the cosmic background radiation. However there was no reason for him to assume the Universe must have been created. He simply chose to believe that.

In the 19th century a Hungarian mathematician called Janos Bolyai and a Russian mathematician called Nikolai Lobachevsky independently developed a non-Euclidian geometry. There was no experimental proof at their time that such geometry is better at describing the Universe. To both of them the non-Euclidean geometry (which basically says that either there are no paralel lines or that through a point exterior to a line there can be drawn an infinity of distinct paralels) was a product of their imagination. They found it interesting to assume that an Universe like that is logically possible though everything around them seemed to indicate the Universe is best described by the Euclidean geometry.

My point in making a paralel (pun very much intended ) between St. John of Damascus on one side and Bolyai and Lobachevsky on the other side is one doesn't need material proofs to make assumptions about the Universe. During St. John of Damascus' time there was nothing preventing one from assuming the Universe was not created but simply came into existence by itself. St. John of Damascus rejected this idea because he believed God exists. So his "proof" is actually circular thinking: "the Universe was created because God created it therefore God exists because He created the Universe"

[Manji]

My point in making a paralel (pun very much intended ) between St. John of Damascus on one side and Bolyai and Lobachevsky on the other side is one doesn't need material proofs to make assumptions about the Universe. During St. John of Damascus' time there was nothing preventing one from assuming the Universe was not created but simply came into existence by itself. St. John of Damascus rejected this idea because he believed God exists. So his "proof" is actually circular thinking: "the Universe was created because God created it therefore God exists because He created the Universe"

Or religious-based logic.
Logical assumptions can be biased too depending under which background they are set ergo compare St.John of Damascus to Descartes and you will find "Christian logic" even if split by dogma and rite (one orthodox the other catholic) but compare any (or both) of the above with a more "atheist" perspective (eg. Platonic/Aristotelian philosophy & logic or Realism/Positivism) and you end up with the same logic deductions but with different guiding lines.

[Dromikaites]

Or religious-based logic.
Logical assumptions can be biased too depending under which background they are set ergo compare St.John of Damascus to Descartes and you will find "Christian logic" even if split by dogma and rite (one orthodox the other catholic) but compare any (or both) of the above with a more "atheist" perspective (eg. Platonic/Aristotelian philosophy & logic or Realism/Positivism) and you end up with the same logic deductions but with different guiding lines.

Logical reasoning is in itself neutral, I think. The conclusions depend on the premises/initial assumptions/inputs. The premises that are fed into the logical machinery are chosen and it's the choice that can be biased by prejudice, beliefs or simply by the imagination of person who makes the choice.

St. John of Damascus believed in the existence of an imaginary being because he was a religious person. He then "proved" that imaginary creature exists. Lobachevsky and Bolyai imagined a non-Euclidean universe and showed such a supposition doesn't lead to contradictions. They however made no attempts at persuading people that their geometry is the most appropriate one for describing the Universe. That only became obvious once Einstein's General Relativity Theory was validated through scientific experiments in the first half of the 20th century.

The religious people of today also chose to believe in fantasy characters without seeming to care about the fact as early as 10,000 years ago none of those fantasy characters were venerated (there were other fantastic creatures, but not those venerated today). Even though the archeological evidence shows that man created God and not the other way around, religion is mainly an issue of choice and not one of logic reasoning nor of physical evidence.

[Manji]

Logical reasoning is in itself neutral, I think. The conclusions depend on the premises/initial assumptions/inputs. The premises that are fed into the logical machinery are chosen and it's the choice that can be biased by prejudice, beliefs or simply by the imagination of person who makes the choice.

I agree that the logical process is neutral in itself but it's application is always biased, be it religious bias or atheistic bias. The neutrality of the process does not confer rightness or wrongness to what is being deducted only a process by which we can later apply other, non-neutral, concepts (morality, etc).

St. John of Damascus believed in the existence of an imaginary being because he was a religious person. He then "proved" that imaginary creature exists. Lobachevsky and Bolyai imagined a non-Euclidean universe and showed such a supposition doesn't lead to contradictions. They however made no attempts at persuading people that their geometry is the most appropriate one for describing the Universe. That only became obvious once Einstein's General Relativity Theory was validated through scientific experiments in the first half of the 20th century.

By using a logical process I can prove something that is in fact wrong because, and this is the key issue for me, there isn't a single, codified, logical process than can be applied by all to achieve proper (neutral) results and instead each human and in some cases human groups ("schools of thought", "ideologies") use different approaches on logical matters.

The religious people of today also chose to believe in fantasy characters without seeming to care about the fact as early as 10,000 years ago none of those fantasy characters were venerated (there were other fantastic creatures, but not those venerated today). Even though the archeological evidence shows that man created God and not the other way around, religion is mainly an issue of choice and not one of logic reasoning nor of physical evidence.

Fantasy characters for you, real characters/entities for them, it's a matter of perspective. :wink:
Personally I'm not affiliated with any religious group but I can understand the logic/non-logical paradox that pushes some people to the quasi-religious experiences; I think it is part of the human instinct to search for fatherly/motherly figures that give a non-logical support to logical but yet frightening situations (death, sin, sexuality, taboos, etc...), that and the innate need for order and inner stability; some feel adapted and "safe" in the knowledge that there is nothing else "out there" while others feel "safe" in the knowledge that there are/is a "superior" entity; like I said before, different approaches, different perspectives.

Ummon should have posted here by now... :tooth:

[Dromikaites]

Fantasy characters for you, real characters/entities for them, it's a matter of perspective. :wink:

He, he very true. My own argument that the gods of today didn't exist 10,000 years ago can be countered with a similar argument I used to support the Trinity against those who were saying on other threads it's an "imported concept": "just because those gods were not called Yahveh or Allah it doesn't mean they didn't exist before under other names - archeology can only prove the rites of worshiping them were diferent than today"
In the end what St. John of Damascus did was to make a choice based on his faith which led him to circular reasoning.

Personally I'm not affiliated with any religious group but I can understand the logic/non-logical paradox that pushes some people to the quasi-religious experiences; I think it is part of the human instinct to search for fatherly/motherly figures that give a non-logical support to logical but yet frightening situations (death, sin, sexuality, taboos, etc...), that and the innate need for order and inner stability; some feel adapted and "safe" in the knowledge that there is nothing else "out there" while others feel "safe" in the knowledge that there are/is a "superior" entity; like I said before, different approaches, different perspectives.

Yes, the need for making sense out of situations that do not make sense at first glance is hardwired in our brains and probably caused Homo Sapiens Sapiens to become the dominant species on Earth. I have no problem with that and therefore I am not in favor of forbidding religion (trivia: the only country in the world in which that was attempted was Albania, during the communist times). If God or Ganesh helps people feel better and act better, that's fine with me. I'm only against claims of one religion being better than the others and against religion restricting the exercise of the human rights.

[Ummon]

Ummon should have posted here by now... :tooth:

I was busy with Islam, as usual.

God is whatever ultimate thing beyond our capabilities of demonstration. As such, we are free to conceptualize, but we know nothing about Him.

In truth, discussing God is pointless. We can understand something about Him, but in truth, many people will call it understanding stuff about reality.

Honestly, the idea of God is uneliminable. No matter how much effort, God cannot be excluded, nor disproven. Besides, science is a good reason to believe in God. But to explain why, I would need such a long post, that it is pointless to make it.

[AngryTitusPullo]

Even though the archeological evidence shows that man created God and not the other way around, religion is mainly an issue of choice and not one of logic reasoning nor of physical evidence.

Who then created man who in turn created or become these false gods instead ? :hmmm:

[Miraj]

Who then created man who in turn created or become these false gods instead ? :hmmm:

No one created man. Man was formed over hundreds of million years of evolution. Unlike man, god is merely an idea, a claim, a proposed state of how things really are. Man on the other hand is a material and biological being.

[Dromikaites]

Who then created man who in turn created or become these false gods instead ? :hmmm:

The process of evolution created Homo Sapiens Sapiens and the species that eventualy evolved into it.

To our best knowledge today Homo Sapiens showed up some 200,000 years ago in Africa and spent most of the time until about 1800 years ago worshiping all sorts of gods and goddesses. The earliest written mention of the Jews (more precisely of Israel) comes from 1208 BC so we can assume by that time the Jews and the other Semitic people had already invented a god called Eloah (from whom the names Israel and Allah derive).

That god never created anything being the product of human imagination. Several humans however created various religions around that fictional character. A famous one was a certain Joshua ben Joseph, a preacher and healer who pretended to be that god in human form and who was executed by the Romans sometimes around 29 - 36 AD. The religion he invented is currently the most widespread in the world. Another one was a caravan raider called Mohammed who eventually became the ruler of a powerful state in the Arabian penninsula and who lived between 570 - 632 AD. His religion is today the second largest in the world and due to the double standards (Muslims are allowed to do proselytism in Christian countries while the Christians can't do the same in some of the most populous Muslim countries) is currently the fastest growing religion. That situation might be reversed in the near future as the leaders of some of those Muslim countries which also happen to be rich in oil are antagonizing the most powerful Christian state in the world which happens to be also oil-hungry

[Tom Paine]

Who then created man who in turn created or become these false gods instead ? :hmmm:

To ask "Who created man" you must assume the idea of a creator of man to be true. This is inconsistent with man creating God. Your post holds a logically inconsistent position; either God created man or man created God. I personally find the second to be more likely.

[DukeofSerbia]

Of course St. John of Damascus knew nothing about the Big Bang theory nor about the cosmic background radiation. However there was no reason for him to assume the Universe must have been created.

Big Bang theory is, after all, hypothesis and nothing more else. Not even a theory.

He simply chose to believe that.

Believe? I will say he knew it.

[Dromikaites]

Big Bang theory is, after all, hypothesis and nothing more else. Not even a theory.

The thing is that with or without it, St. John of Damascus could have chosen not to believe in God, like Livy before him thought gods were created by the leaders in order to better rule their subjects.

Believe? I will say he knew it.

One cannot simply know God exists. Let's assume one day I see somebody I believe is God. How can I know I'm not delusional like G. Dubya Bush, who thinks he hears Him? There is little reality checkhing I can do on my own, in full isolation from other human beings and without the help of scientific instruments. People would know for sure God exist once they would get to see and study Him as easy as they get to see and study the rest of the Universe. Before that happens believing God exists is just a matter of choice.

[DukeofSerbia]

The thing is that with or without it, St. John of Damascus could have chosen not to believe in God, like Livy before him thought

??????

gods were created by the leaders in order to better rule their subjects.

One cannot simply know God exists. Let's assume one day I see somebody I believe is God. How can I know I'm not delusional like G. Dubya Bush, who thinks he hears Him? There is little reality checkhing I can do on my own, in full isolation from other human beings and without the help of scientific instruments. People would know for sure God exist once they would get to see and study Him as easy as they get to see and study the rest of the Universe. Before that happens believing God exists is just a matter of choice.

Because God is not nature, scientific rules don't apply on Him.

[Dromikaites]

??????

Get a copy of "Ab Urbe Condita" by Livy (Titus Livius) and read the part about king Numa. Livy lived during a time people's scientific knowledge was much more limited than ours yet he didn't believed in any gods.

Well, some Atheists would have the same reaction when hearing/reading about gods. As I was saying, it all boils down to choice.

Because God is not nature, scientific rules don't apply on Him.

Sure, but then it's a bit difficult to prove gods exist, isn't it? One either believes without proof or one has some sort of personal proof (like seeing or hearing gods) but no real way of being absolutely sure one is not simply hallucianting. That's the downside of chosing the phylosophical stance that gods are outside the realm of science.