What is God? Understanding of God in Orthodoxy. Is there a God? Evidence for the existence of God. Faith in God

The answer to the question of what God is depends primarily on the adherents of which religious and philosophical worldviews it will be asked. For adepts (followers) of monotheistic religions, the most widespread of which are Christianity, Islam and Judaism, this is, first of all, the Creator of the world and the personification of the Absolute in all its manifestations. For them, one God is the fundamental principle and beginning of all things in the world. Being eternal and unchanging, He is at the same time beginningless, infinite and comprehensible to the human mind only within the limits that He Himself sets.

What is God in the understanding of the pagans?

Each individual person’s idea of ​​God depends not only on the characteristics of the culture and religion of his people, but to a large extent on personal qualities, among which the key ones are spiritual maturity and level of education. It is not enough to just give yourself an answer to the key question “is there a God”; it is also important to have at least some clear idea of ​​what meaning is put into this concept. Otherwise, it is impossible to understand the ways and forms of His influence on the world.

Adherents of polytheism (polytheism), or, as they are commonly called in Christian theology, pagans, believe in several gods at once, each of which, as a rule, is capable of influencing only one aspect of human life.

In the pre-Christian period in Rus', both the highest gods, which included Perun, Mokosh, Dazhdbog, Svarog, Veles and a number of others, and the patron spirits of the clan were revered. There was also a cult of dead ancestors ─ ancestors. The various rituals performed in their honor were aimed, first of all, at ensuring earthly well-being, bringing success, wealth, many children, and also protecting them from the influence of evil spirits, natural disasters and enemy invasions. Belief in God, or rather, in a whole pantheon of gods, was an important component of their lives for pagans. This approach to the perception of deity was characteristic of almost all peoples of the world at the early stage of their development.

Two ways of knowing God: denial and absolutization

Religion does not set itself the main goal of knowing God. Christianity does not even know for sure whether He is knowable. Religion is a set of methods for bringing a person closer to God through love, service and friendship.

But besides this, there are two approaches to understanding Him:

Apophatic - we deny everything: God is not a table, God is not a day, God is not a person. God is unknowable, He is somewhere beyond. Throwing everything away, we will get some idea about it.

Cataphatic - God manifests himself in different things. Goodness, love, beauty - all this is divine. Through these qualities you can get closer to God. The Apostle Paul writes about this principle:

“For His invisible things, His eternal power and Godhead, have been visible from the foundation of the world through the consideration of creatures, so that they are without answer.”

(Rom. 1:20)

Understanding of God in Orthodoxy

Within the framework of Orthodoxy ─ a religious denomination that covers the majority of the inhabitants of Russia ─ God is perceived as an incorporeal and invisible Spirit. On the pages of the Old Testament there is evidence that it is not possible for a person to see God and remain alive. Just as the rays of the sun, warming everything earthly, are capable of blinding those who dare to raise their gaze to the shining disk, so the great holiness of the Divine is inaccessible to human contemplation.

God is omnipotent and omniscient. He knows about everything in the world, and even the most secret thought cannot hide from him. At the same time, the power of the Lord is so limitless that it allows Him to do everything for which His holy will is. God, in the Orthodox understanding, is the creator and exponent of all the good that exists in the world, and therefore, when speaking about him, it is customary to use the expression “all-good.”

What did Jesus mean by Son of Man?

In the New Testament, Jesus calls himself “Son of Man” more than eighty times. So what did Jesus mean by the Son of Man and what did this mean to the Jews who heard him? Packer writes that the name “Son of Man” refers to the role of Jesus Christ as the Savior King who fulfilled Messianic prophecy 53 in the book of Isaiah.[7] This is the most complete prophetic passage concerning the coming of the Messiah and clearly describes him as a suffering Savior. Isaiah also calls the Messiah “the Mighty God,” the “Everlasting Father,” the Prince of Peace,” Isaiah 9:6), indicating that the Messiah will be both man and God. It seems clear from the context that Jesus called himself this in fulfillment of Daniel's prophecy about the “son of man.” Daniel prophesies that the “son of man” will have power over humanity and will be worshiped:

“I saw in the night visions, behold, one like the Son of Man walked with the clouds of heaven. He reached the Ancient of Days and was brought to Him. And to him was given dominion, glory and a kingdom, that all nations, nations and languages ​​might serve him.” (Daniel 7:13, 14)

Jesus said that when he returned to earth, he would fulfill Daniel's prophecy about the Son of Man.

And then everyone will see the Son of man in the clouds with power and great glory” (Luke 21:27).

So who is this “son of man” and why is he worshiped when only God alone should be worshiped? Both the statements that he is the “I AM” and that he is the Son of man indicate his divinity.

God is one in three Persons

The main dogma of Orthodoxy is the doctrine of the Holy Trinity. It contains the statement that the one God has three hypostases (persons), bearing the following names: God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit. They are not connected to each other, but at the same time they are not separate. This seemingly complex combination can be understood using the example of the sun.

Its disk, shining in the sky, as well as the light emitted by it, and the heat that warms the earth, are essentially three independent realities, but at the same time, they are all unmerged and inseparable components of a single celestial body. Like the sun giving warmth, God the Father gives birth to God the Son. Just as light comes from the sun, so God the Holy Spirit comes from God the Father. Thus, prayer to God is always addressed to all His three hypostases at the same time.

God is a powerful being, and all cultures have different ideas about Him.

God exists in all cultures. It seems to be a universal look. When we talk about God, we mean some very powerful being. It rules our world, and all righteous creatures obey Him.

But this is a very superficial idea of ​​God. In fact, understanding God often depends on what we consider most important in a culture. Examples are relevant here:

For the ancient Egyptians, God is the purest being. The material world is not perfect. And every person has to go through stages of purification in order to become godlike.

God in ancient Mesopotamia is the most important being. Here the hierarchical approach is at the forefront of everything. It is not the properties of God that are important, but his leadership position over the world.

19th century icon depicting the three elements of the Trinity: God the Father, God the Son, and the Holy Spirit. This story is called Hosts. Photo: images.ua.prom.st

God in ancient China is the oldest ancestor. What is God if not the father of our entire world? This is the parent of every living being. The cult of ancestors and family history are very important for the Chinese. Well, the oldest ancestor is God.

God in Hinduism is the most perfect being. God surpasses the whole world in qualities. Any of our virtues are only a reflection of His natural qualities: harmony, love, beauty, strength. Man or spirit cannot surpass God in anything.

In Christianity, all these qualities can be applied to God. He is the Father of the world, the most important and powerful being. The only question is what to focus on. Different authors do this in their own way. We can say that people find in God what they need most.

Sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the Cross

Another important dogma of Orthodoxy is the doctrine of the sacrifice made on the cross by the Son of God, sent by the Heavenly Father to atone for the original sin once committed by Adam and Eve. Having incarnated into man and united in Himself all his properties, except sin, Jesus Christ, by His death and subsequent resurrection, opened the gates of the Kingdom of Heaven to all adepts (followers) of the Church He created on earth.

According to the Gospel teaching, true faith in God is impossible without the love for one’s neighbor bequeathed by the Savior and without sacrifice. Orthodoxy is a religion of love. The words of Jesus Christ addressed to His disciples: “Love one another, as I have loved you” (John 13:34), became the main commandment, expressing the greatest humanism contained in the teaching given to people by the Son of God.

Did Jesus Use God's Name for Himself?

When Jesus Christ began to preach his teaching, with his miracles and radical teaching, he immediately attracted huge crowds of people, creating a great stir. As his popularity grew among the people, the Jewish leaders (Pharisees, Sadducees and scribes) began to perceive Christ as a danger. They immediately began to look for ways to lure him into a trap. During one of the disputes in the temple, Jesus unexpectedly declared to the Pharisees that he was “the light of the world.” It is almost inconceivable to imagine such a scene as a traveling carpenter, originally from the lower Galilee, declaring to these learned men with a “doctorate” in religion that he was “the light of the world.” Since they believed that Yahweh was the light of the world, they responded to him indignantly:

“You are testifying to yourself. Your testimony is not true.” (John 8:13).

Then Jesus told them that 2000 years ago, Abraham prophesied about him. An incredible answer followed:

“You are not even fifty years old. How can you claim that you saw Abraham?” (John 8:57)

Then Jesus shocked them even more with words that no mortal would dare utter:

“The truth is, before Abraham, I AM.” (John 8:58)

Like a bolt from the blue, this freethinking carpenter, who had no academic degrees in religion, declared his eternal existence. Moreover, he called himself “I AM” (ego eimi)5 - the sacred Name of God Himself! These religious experts devoted their entire lives to the Scriptures of the Old Testament, which stated that only Yahweh is God. They knew the Scripture from the words of the prophet Isaiah:

“Only I am God. There is no other God; never was and never will be. I am the Lord, and there is no other Savior.” (Isaiah 43:10, 11)

It is easy to understand the rage of those who realized that Jesus spoke of himself as God. Since blasphemy was punishable by death by stoning, the angry Jewish leaders took the stones with the intention of killing Jesus. To which Jesus could have responded to them: “Wait! You misunderstood me—I am not Yahweh.” But even at the risk of being killed, Jesus did not change what he said. Lewis explains their anger: “He says...I am the begotten of God alone.” Before Abraham was, I am,” and remember what the words “I am” meant in Hebrew. They were the name of God, which could not be uttered by man; their pronunciation meant death.”[6] Some might argue that this was an isolated incident and that Jesus never intended to take God's holy name for himself. But Jesus, speaking about himself, said “I AM” several times. Imagine their reaction when they heard the rest of Jesus Christ's radical statements:

• “I am the light of the world” (John 8:12)
• “I am the way, the truth and the life” (John 14:6)
• “I am the only way to the Father” (John 14:6)
• “I am the resurrection and the life” (John 11:25)
• “I am the Good Shepherd” (John 10:11)
• “I am the door” (John 10:9)
• “I am the living bread” (John 6:51)
• “I am the true vine” (John 15:1)
• “I am the Alpha and Omega” Revelation 1:7,8)

As Lewis notes, if these statements had not come from God Himself, Jesus would have been considered crazy. But those who listened to Jesus believed him precisely because of the compassionate miracles he performed. Moreover, they were surprised by his wisdom and the authority of his teaching. Jesus called himself "Son of Man" and "Son of God" several times. Let's look at the meaning of these names in the context of how they were understood by the Jews who heard him.

Search for truth

Having created man in His image and likeness, the Lord endowed him with reason, one of the properties of which is the ability to critically comprehend everything that happens in the world. That is why for many, the path to religious life begins with the question: “Is there a God?”, and the subsequent path to the salvation of the soul largely depends on how convincing the answer to it is received.

Christianity, like any other religion, is based primarily on blind faith in the dogmas that it preaches. However, over the two thousand years that have passed since the events described in the Gospel, inquisitive minds have not stopped searching for evidence of the existence of God. Many church leaders who lived in different eras and belonged to different Christian denominations, such as Malebranche and Anselm of Canterbury, as well as outstanding philosophers Aristotle, Plato, Leibniz and Descartes, devoted their works to this issue that worries people.

God's Sister Amara (Darkness) is a fictional character from the TV series Supernatural.

Alas, mass culture gives rise to a lot of misconceptions. Here’s one more thing: a person, looking for information about God on the Internet, may come across a hint in a search engine “darkness is the sister of God,” etc. Where does it come from? There is no point in looking for religious roots here.

The creators of the Supernatural series simply invented this character. In general, this series takes a lot of liberties with different urban legends, myths and religions. You shouldn't take this seriously.

By leaving a comment, you accept the user agreement

Statements of Thomas Aquinas

In the 13th century, the outstanding Italian theologian Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) tried to answer the question “what is God” and prove the indisputability of His existence. In his reasoning, he relied on the law of cause and effect, considering God as the cause of everything on earth. He formulated the evidence he derived for the existence of God in five points, which he included in a major work called “Summa Theology.” Briefly, they contain the following statements:

1. Since everything in this world is in motion, there must be something that gave this process the initial impetus. It can only be God.
2. Since nothing in the world can produce itself, but is always a derivative of something, we have to admit the existence of a certain primary source, which became the initial link in the subsequent chain of emergence of more and more new realities. This primary source of everything in the world is God.
3. Each thing can have both real existence and remain in unrealized potential. In other words, it may be born, or it may not. The only force that translates it from potentiality into reality should be recognized as God.
4. Since the degree of perfection of a thing can only be assessed in comparison with something superior to it, it is logical to assume the existence of a certain absolute that stands above everything in the world. Only God can be such a height of perfection.
5. And finally, the existence of God is indicated by the expediency of everything that happens in the world. Since humanity is moving along the path of progress, it means that there must be some force that not only determines the right direction of movement, but also creates the necessary prerequisites for the implementation of this process.

Was Jesus the Alpha and Omega?

While the Apostle John was in exile on the island of Patmos, Jesus revealed to him in a vision what would happen in the last days. In the vision, John describes the following incredible scene: “Look! He comes down from heaven. And everyone will see him - even those who pierced him..."I am Alpha and Omega - the beginning and the end," says the Lord God. “I am he who is now, who always was, and who is yet to come, the Almighty.” So who is he, who is called “Alpha and Omega”, “Lord God”, “Almighty”? We were told that he was "pierced." After all, Jesus was pierced on the cross. John then sees Jesus on the throne, judging all people. “And I saw a great white throne, and Him sitting on it. . . . And he told me. . . I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end." (Revelation 20:11; 21:6) It is the Lord Jesus Christ who rules from the great white throne. Jesus had already told his disciples that he would be the final judge of men. And then Jesus removes all doubt about whether he is God. “They that overcome shall inherit all things, and I will be their God , and they shall be My children.” (Revelation 21:7) So, did Jesus Christ claim to be God? He asserted this by calling himself "I AM." He claimed this by calling himself the Son of Man. He claimed this by calling himself the Son of God. He affirmed this by forgiving sins. He affirmed this while accepting worship. And he stated it here in Revelation saying that "I will be their God." Lewis concludes that Jesus Christ is truly both God and man.

“What stands outside of space and time; what was not created; forever; entered the world; descended into its own universe and ascended again.” [13]

Why did God come to earth?

The question is: “Why?” “Why does God have to descend into his own creation to become one of us?” In verse 3:16 from John we get the answer:

Because this is how God loves the world: He gave his only Son so that those who believe in him would not perish, but would find eternal life.

In other words, it was because of God's great love for us that Jesus Christ came to earth, became a man, and died for us on the cross. Through his death, our sins are forgiven, and his resurrection assures us of eternal life with him. The amazing truth is that our loving Creator desires to have a personal connection with us that will last forever. Lewis discovered that his personal connection with Jesus Christ filled his life with meaning, purpose, and joy beyond his dreams. But each of us must make this choice for ourselves. Lewis never regretted his choice. And you? Have you made your choice? Some people believe that being a Christian means following some list of rules. Others think that you need to go to church to be a Christian. But what did Jesus really say about God, about himself, and about us? Click here to find out what message Jesus Christ left for you personally in the article “Why Jesus?”

“Did the apostles believe that Jesus Christ was God?”

If Jesus was God, then perhaps we should expect that his closest followers would claim him as a deity in their written testimonies. “Did the apostles really believe that Jesus Christ was God?” Click here to find out.

Source:

Links:

1. Ravi Zacharias, Jesus among Other Gods (Nashville: Word, 2000), 39.
2. J. I. Packer, Knowing God (Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity, 1993), 189.
3. The Hebrew scriptures sometimes join Yahweh (Jehovah) with an additional word to emphasize God's dealing with man. “Yahweh Elohim” and “adonai Yahweh” are translated “Lord God,” and “Yahweh sabaoth” is translated “Lord of hosts.” (CI scofield, The scofield Reference bible (New York: Oxford University Press, 1996), 6, 983.
4. Ray C. stedman, adventuring Through the bible (Grand Rapids, MI: Discovery House, 1997), 479.
5. Ego eimi is the Greek equivalent of the Hebrew name Isaiah used to describe God in Isaiah 43:10, 11. Dr. James White notes, “The closest and most logical connection between John's usage of ego eimi and the Old Testament is to be found in the septuagint rendering of a particular Hebrew phrase, ani hu in the writings (primarily) of Isaiah. The septuagint translates the Hebrew phrase ani hu as ego eimi in Isaiah 41:4, 43:10 and 46:4.” )
6. C. s. Lewis, God in the Dock (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2,000), 157.
7. Packer, 198.
8. Why I am a Christian, Norman L. Geisler, Paul K. Hoffman, eds, “Why I believe Jesus is the son of God” (Grand Rapids, MI: baker books, 2001), 223.
9. Packer, 57.
10. Cs Lewis, Mere Christianity (san Francisco: HarperCollins, 1972), 51.
11. John Piper, The Pleasures of God (sisters, OR: Multnomah, 2000), 35.
12. Christians believe that there is one God who exists in three distinct, equal Persons: the Father, the son, and the Holy spirit (trinity). No earthly analogy can adequately explain how one God can exist as three Persons. However, two scientific examples illustrate how one entity can exist in multiple forms. 1. Light exists as a duality, appearing in nature as both a wave and a particle. 2. The H20 molecule is one essence, yet exists as steam, water, and ice. The God of the bible, however, is beyond our full comprehension, being infinite, eternal, immutable, omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent.
13. Lewis, God in the Dock, 80.

The proof that wasn't there

However, along with religious philosophers who tried to find arguments to substantiate the idea of ​​the existence of God, there were always those who pointed out the impossibility of a scientifically based answer to the question of what God is. Prominent among them is the German philosopher Immanuel Kant (1724-1804).

Contrary to the assertion of Woland, the hero of Bulgakov’s immortal novel “The Master and Margarita,” Kant did not refute the five proofs of the existence of God that he allegedly constructed and did not invent a sixth, this time absolutely irrefutable. On the contrary, all his life he never tired of repeating that in terms of proving the existence of God, no theoretical construction can have any serious scientific justification. At the same time, he considered faith in God useful and even necessary in moral terms, since he recognized the depth and significance of the Christian commandments.

As a result of this approach to the fundamentals of doctrine, the German philosopher was subjected to severe attacks from representatives of the church. It is even known that some of them, in order to express their contempt for the scientist, called his pet dogs after him.

An interesting detail: the legend that Kant, contrary to his views, created the so-called moral proof of the existence of God ─ exactly the one that Woland spoke about on the bench at the Patriarch's Ponds ─ was born by the clerics themselves, who wanted to take revenge on their fierce one in a similar way after death to the enemy.

Decoding God among Christians and Muslims

What happened when God became man, and how theologians proved his existence

Author Artemy Magun

Christianity combines Judaism and ancient Greek philosophy. It arises among Jews and absorbs the features of rational ancient philosophy. Ideas are not taken directly from Plato, but, of course, through the Stoics, a more modern school at that time, but still everything comes from Plato: the idea of ​​a single God, the idea of ​​spirit (for the Stoics, the first principle already looks more like spirit). But at the same time, this is a mystical religion: there is an idea of ​​miracles, of direct communication with God in certain rituals, that is, this is a real religion, it is not just philosophizing. Moreover, Christianity introduces into the rather strict Jewish monotheism elements of a rather fairy-tale mythology and, in particular, elements of the heroic myth - what in Greece would be called the heroic myth. In addition to God, there is another hero - the Son of God, who, however, is sacrificed by this God, but is sacrificed for the common good. In principle, this is not an unprecedented story; such ideas about heroes existed, in one form or another they were enshrined in rituals. But, of course, Christianity tells all this at a high level of abstraction and philosophical content.

Since Christ - the Son of God - is considered as the descent of God into the world, thereby the strict absoluteness of the deity is mediated, weakened by the fact that this deity materializes, turns into a person. This rather paradoxical logic, after a couple of hundred years, leads Christianity to the formulation of its own central theoretical idea, namely the idea of ​​the Trinity. That is, to the understanding that God is both one and multiple, because in him there is at least God himself, God the Son, that is, Christ, and the Spirit who mediates them. That is, although this is called monotheism, in fact it is not strictly monotheism: the basis of the world is a certain number, unity in non-unity, unity in three persons.

Then quite subtle nuanced battles and polemics began: is Christ identical to God or is he only similar to God. A few hundred years later, the Orthodox Church split from the Catholic Church over the question of how the Trinity worked, because they believed that the Holy Spirit came only from the Father (this was a very complex concept, not everyone understood it). Half of Christianity is contained in this idea of ​​the Trinity. The second half is the idea of ​​suffering and sacrificing God. This Trinity is not without conflict, and Christianity is a religion that connects us to God through compassion for him, through our compassion for God, God for us, and, accordingly, through the love that connects us with him, this is love-pity, love-mercy. Christianity is a very sentimental religion. Trinity and love are the basis. And love is what unites the Trinity together among Christians. So it would fall apart, but due to the fact that God the Father loves Christ, Christ loves the Father, apparently, they all love the Spirit together, well, or the Spirit is love rather, then these three persons stick together. As Thomas Aquinas later said: “God is one, but he is not alone.” In a sense, he creates his own company. Therefore, the idea of ​​the Absolute already contains the idea of ​​communication, society, the idea of ​​love in a broad sense as solidarity and mutual care. Therefore, it is no coincidence that Christianity forms the basis of some social thought.

That is, Christianity is a religion of communication, and it is no coincidence that it was quite effectively used already in modern times to found social and political theory.

We should also briefly mention Islam, another important monotheistic religion, also very influential, very intellectualized. Islam, too, although later, arose as a synthesis of Judaism and the Greek tradition, since in the territory where Islam developed - the Middle East - at that time there was Greek culture: people spoke Greek, read Greek philosophers, prayed to ancient Greek deities, many were also Christians. And when the Arabs come with Islam, they absorb this entire culture, Islam acquires a theology that is, in general, very similar to Christian and Jewish. But Islam is similar to Judaism in that there is still no Trinity, no God the Son, there is only one God in it - Allah. And, like the Jewish God, he is quite opposed, contrasts with the earthly world, and Muhammad is its prophet, and not God, as in Christianity, this is the difference. In the Middle Ages, Arab and European thought developed quite synchronously, European thought was guided by Arab thought, and Arab thought was ahead for a long time.

In all these monotheistic religions we have not just a deity as the Absolute, and not even just a deity who is somehow incarnated. But we have a subject - a person who must do something for this. That is, God, oddly enough, requires constant effort from us. By the way, this was before monotheism; this is the idea of ​​ritual. There is something interesting here, because if God is absolute, good and super powerful, then why does he need our subjective faith. But there has always been an understanding that God may be real, but he is real in some other way, not like the things around us. That is, its reality requires constant effort from us, and this effort is called faith, at least in Christianity. Through faith, loyalty, devotion to God, through our prayer to God, God exists somehow more than he existed. This is an interesting paradox, which, of course, atheists use to criticize this construction. But nevertheless, there is some kind of logic in it, because it depends on what type of being God is, whether he is a being at all. He is somehow present in such a way that we need to participate in his presence.

Now I will say a few words about scholasticism - medieval Christian thought, which developed mainly under the influence of Aristotle. Theology occupied most of the attention of these authors, so a lot is said about God there, we will not reveal everything now, but what is interesting, what you need to know is that in this tradition the proofs of the existence of God are developed in great detail. There are many types of them, but the most famous is the so-called ontological proof, from the word “ontology”, “the science of being”.

The ontological proof (it was invented by the medieval scholastic Anselm of Canterbury) is that the very idea of ​​God, what we thought about him, what we called him by name, already contains the idea of ​​being. It is impossible to imagine that we would think about God, but God would not exist, that is, when we thought about God, God immediately exists. Why? Because the idea of ​​God is the idea of ​​perfection, and being must belong to perfection. Because being is better than non-being.

Think about what is better - existing ice cream or thoughts about ice cream? Of course, what exists is better, there is something good in this, although, in general, - a counterexample - being: it is not a fact that torture chambers are better than the thought of torture chambers. But this is my counterargument; Anselm of Canterbury does not have this.

This means that existence is better than non-existence. Being is a moment of goodness, therefore God must necessarily exist. This is an interesting idealistic concept of God, an idealistic proof of God, very popular because it gives us a philosophical way to connect our thinking, philosophy, to something real. On the other hand, of course, you can argue with him and turn him around, saying that God is just a thought, just an idea.

Well, as I already said, even if this is so and God really is an idea, isn’t he an obsession, that is, some kind of neurotic symptom. Sigmund Freud thought exactly this way, he said: what is God? God is the father we once killed, but since then he has actually become our idefix - an obsession. There is something in this, in a sense it is a joke about ontological proof. Besides the ontological proof, there are others that are older. I have already mentioned to you Aristotle's proof that motion must come from somewhere. The energy that fills the world had to come from somewhere. If it is thrown in again and again, it also comes from somewhere. This needs explanation, and such a proof of the existence of God is called cosmological - from the word “cosmos”, “world”.

Another common proof is teleological. From the word telos, "goal." Much of what we observe strives for some purpose, especially wildlife. We see that over time, organisms become more complex, become more intelligent, more beautiful, more or less objectively we can say that a bird is more beautiful than a worm. This means that nature contains certain ideals, something to which everything should strive. And that means there is a God, that means there is some kind of absolute perfection. Here is the proof.

It is clear that now we would say that Darwin proved that all this development occurs by chance. But I am not sure that this refutation is too strong, since Darwin does not, generally speaking, question the progress of this movement. He describes the mechanism: indeed, everything is gradually improving, and Darwin’s rather vague mystical concept of adaptation, adaptation, is responsible for this improvement. What kind of adaptation this is and what we call an adapted organism is not completely clear. Therefore, theologians can argue here, and they do argue.

Close to this proof is the so-called axiological proof - from the word “axi”, “value”. Why do you and I have moral feelings? Why, if, God forbid, we beat or kill a person, will we be tormented by remorse, even if we are not caught? Why is it difficult for us to lie to others? We do this, but then we worry that something is stopping us. What's stopping us? Some inner voice is bothering us. The instinct of survival, reproduction, and so on - nothing was said about morality. But from somewhere we have it. And it is assumed that morality in general, the desire for good, was laid in us by God. Because who else? Many smart people shared this evidence. For example, Leo Tolstoy. He refutes all other evidence. Anna Karenina ends this way - the main character understands that morality is the only real proof of God. In general, no matter what we think about it, there is such evidence.

And there is another important proof - this is psychological. The simple fact that we have a soul is still in question whether it exists, but if we believe that a person is simply different from an animal and a person, together with an animal, is different from a stick in that he has an attraction, a desire, an ability to understand and feel the environment is self-awareness, roughly speaking, all this together is called the soul. And since it exists, it could not arise by itself. The soul somehow does not simply reduce to the body, it animates it, and this animating principle - the soul principle - had to come from somewhere. Again, apparently, God created the soul and, by the way, the soul is immortal, like God. Plato also proved this: how can the soul die if it is involved in eternal ideas?

Scholasticism also discusses the way in which God creates the world and the extent to which he intervenes. Medieval philosophy is roughly divided into two schools of thought on this issue. In one, God creates the world according to some reasonable principle. God is reasonable, this is a reasonable beginning. Reasonable is better than unreasonable. Then he appears as a kind of hyper-monarch of the universe, who gives him the law. This is what the Italian monk Thomas Aquinas, one of the most famous medieval philosophers, thought. He put forward the idea of ​​a system of laws of nature, laws of God - there are many types of laws. Our life is governed by laws, reasonable principles, and God only gives these principles. This rationalization of the authority of God played a big role further, in modern times, since on its basis an understanding arose, for example, of science as the establishment of the laws of nature, that is, nature obeys certain laws. This idea itself is theological. Where do laws come from in nature? Laws usually exist in society. If there are laws in nature, it means that someone gave them to it - and God acts as such a legislator.

There is another school of thought. Its most famous representative was Duns Scotus, a Scottish theologian. In this school of thought, God is completely incomprehensible to us. Maybe he has some laws and principles, but we still don’t know them, because they are very complex. For us, God is unpredictable, he acts according to his own will, and it is the will that is primary in God - in a sense, it is higher than reason. And therefore, for us, God sometimes looks like an unpredictable, somewhat capricious despot, despite the fact that, perhaps, he has some kind of providence inside, an understanding that is higher than ours. And this medieval doctrine also played a big role in modern times, since, in general, Protestantism, the Reformation, grew out of it. Luther largely shared the ideas of Duns Scotus, his follower Occam. It therefore proceeds from the incomprehensibility of God for man. In this regard, the Reformation maintains a rather strict absolute power. But at the same time, from the Reformation and from this Scotist tradition, roughly speaking - it later begins to be called nominalism - the doctrine of the social contract, for example, grows, at least in some versions. Because the social order and the law begin to depend on the arbitrariness of people, on how we come to an agreement. All in our hands. And if there are any laws, then we create these laws ourselves.

This doctrine of the despotism of God flows very easily into the idea of ​​the despotism of man, or even the despotism of the collective. Well, and, accordingly, it is from the second version of despotism that experimental modern science flows, or rather the experimental aspect, the experimental principle of modern science. She can establish the laws of nature, but she does so through experience. Experience is needed because we do not know in advance how God works. We cannot penetrate into his providence again, that is his business. We can only figure out by touch how everything works, how things are.

The Middle Ages gradually flow into the period that we call the Renaissance, the Renaissance. It must be said that, contrary, perhaps, to the stereotypes from textbooks, the Renaissance is to a large extent a religious movement, a return to aspects of early Christianity, especially Neoplatonism. Neoplatonism is an idealistic movement in ancient philosophy that originated in the 3rd century and is based on the terminology of Plato . The beginning of Neoplatonism is considered to be the teaching of Plotinus (204–269). There really was a turn to Antiquity, but through this very Neoplatonism. But Christianity during the Renaissance was understood in a unique way.

In Renaissance religion there is a strong element of mysticism, that is, all kinds of ceremonies, fortune telling, alchemical practices, and astrology. And at the same time, on the basis of Neoplatonism, the idea of ​​a return to nature, the study of nature, and not just books, is put forward here. Why? Because God is embodied in nature. This is a Christian idea, but it intensifies here, and a current of pantheism arises. "Pan" is "everything". God is understood as dispersed in nature. In the words of Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa, Nicholas of Cusa (1401-1464) is a humanist, the greatest German thinker of the 15th century, a cardinal of the Roman Catholic Church: “God is all in all.” This point of view is shared by many Renaissance intellectuals. It is also necessary to mention Giordano Bruno, a famous mystically oriented researcher, in particular astronomy. He was not only a Neoplatonist, but also a pantheist.

And later, in modern times, at the end of the 17th century, Baruch Spinoza, a Dutch-Jewish thinker, somewhat belatedly turned to Renaissance ideas, who, speaking more about the Jewish than about the Christian God, creates such a large-scale, rational theory of the universe, also based on pantheism. That is, pantheism allows us to move on to the study of nature, to justify, to rehabilitate in some way earthly matter as part of the deity, as its real manifestation. Leave God as an abstraction. Therefore, although, in general, this movement remained heretical, the main doctrine of the Church did not accept pantheism, nevertheless, it played a huge role in the history of our culture.

So if it seemed to someone that the New Age was capitalism, science and that God was gradually moving aside, then in fact everything was not so simple. At least in the early modern era, God plays a very large role. I have already spoken about pantheism. In Descartes' justification of science, God performs the function of such a guarantor; faith in God turns, in essence, into faith in the world, faith in experience, faith in knowledge. God is involved at every step.

Newton, for example, believed that space and time, that is, the basis of his theory, that which provides the equation of the laws of gravity, is, as he put it, the senses of God. By directly studying nature, we study God. There is an element of the mentioned pantheism here. But somewhere around the 18th century, sad consequences really began to arise for religion, for the idea of ​​God, as a result of the development of bourgeois society, capitalism and rational science. Enlightenment is concerned with the fight against superstition. Not with religion, but with superstitions. But, as we have seen, religion is quite difficult to separate from superstition if we read the Holy Scriptures. And many thinkers of the 18th century actually try to minimize the participation of God in solving any practical issues. That is, God actually becomes some very distant principle and subject. As the German philosopher Leibniz believed, for example, God is a watchmaker who once wound up a clock and made sure that the clocks were synchronized. And then he should not constantly interfere. The French enlighteners, Voltaire and Rousseau, believed the same. God exists, but exists as a rational idea and as a very distant principle or source. There is no need, say, to constantly pray to him to stop or start a war. It is pointless. This school of thought was called deism (from the word "god").

It must be said that the Church at one time fought very hard against this very deism, banned books, and put people in prison. But nevertheless it was very popular. And of course, this deistic tradition gradually led to the development of atheism.

Deism, so popular among the intelligentsia of the 18th century, still remains a fairly conformal structure, where a good God somewhere at the foundation of the world still guides us. The split with religion and its real undermining, I would say, still occurs at the end of the 18th century, at the time of the French Revolution. Here revolutionaries and republicans begin to fight Christianity quite harshly. It seems to them an oppressive religion, incompatible with republicanism. And here begins a new era, closer to us, in the understanding and criticism of Christianity.  

Religion as the restoration of man's connection with God

At the end of the conversation, it would be appropriate to dwell on the issue of the emergence of religion. By the way, this word itself comes from the Latin verb religare, which means “to reunite.” In this case, we mean restoring the connection with God that was broken as a result of original sin.

Among historians, there are three main points of view regarding the emergence of religion. The first of them is called “religious”. Its supporters are of the opinion that man was created by God and, before his fall, had direct communication with Him. Then it was broken, and now for a person only prayer to God is the only opportunity to turn to his Creator, who reveals Himself through prophets, angels and various miracles.

Religious compromise

The second point of view is “intermediate”. It is a kind of compromise. Relying on modern scientific knowledge and sentiments prevailing in society, its supporters at the same time adhere to the main religious postulate about the creation of the world and man by God. According to them, after the Fall, man completely broke off communication with his Creator and, as a result, was forced to re-look for the path to Him. It is this process that they call religion.

What does it mean when the names "Lord" and "God" appear together?

For example, “And the Lord God formed man from the dust of the ground...”. This means that mercy and judgment met and kissed each other.

Why is the name "Lord" found at the creation of man? Because man is endowed with free will. The Creator knew that sometimes a person will use free will to harm himself. If man was created only on the basis of justice, then at the first mistake, he would immediately have to be punished or destroyed.

Therefore, first of all, the Almighty creates man on the basis of mercy (“And the Lord created...”), but also on the basis of justice (“And God created man from the dust of the ground, breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living soul”).

RECOMMENDED: Where Jesus was born.

Materialist Point of View

And finally, the third point of view is “evolutionary”. Those who adhere to it insist that religious ideas arise at a certain stage in the development of society and are a consequence of the inability of people to find rational explanations for natural phenomena.

Perceiving them as the rational actions of certain beings more powerful than himself, man created a pantheon of gods in his imagination, attributed to them his own emotions and actions, thereby projecting into his fictional world the features of the society in which he was located. Accordingly, with the development of society, religious ideas became more complex and colored in new ways, progressing from primitive forms to more complex ones.