The attributes of God can be understood and perceived in what He has made.[i]  The Psalmist is particularly harsh with those who say, “There is no God.”[ii]  However, modern society has no lack of nonbelievers.   

Unbelief comes in several, sometimes overlapping, forms.  For example, there is unbelief in the existence of God, the relevance of God, the presence of God, and the goodness of God.  The main focus of this essay is atheistic unbelief.   

Let us start with questions about our destiny.  Do we need to be saved?  If so, saved from what?  The Christian message is that we are fallen creatures.  What we call the Fall of Man was an historical event of cataclysmic proportion by which mankind lost his former relationship with God, his Creator.  From that time on, mankind was blinded by the effects of sin and wandered in a lost world alienated from God, nature and himself.  The gate of Heaven was closed to him until God sent His only Son into our world in the person of Jesus Christ, to take on human nature and become one of us.  Jesus suffered and died on the cross to atone for our sins, and, in this act of Redemption, opened up the possibility for us of everlasting life with God in Heaven.  

However, nonbelievers[iii] consider this to be at best wishful thinking, and at worst a malicious fairytale.  For the nonbeliever, there is no God.  There is no hope of any life after death.  The world is what it is.  It always was and always will be.  We make the best of it, try to make life as pleasant as possible, and then die.  C’est finis.  

But what if there really is a God?  How can we know?  In this essay I wish to demonstrate that many attributes of God can, in fact, be known either by proof or rational supposition from the existence of the natural world.  The first attribute of God is existence.   

Proofs for God’s existence have been around for many centuries.  Perhaps the most famous are the five ways of proving God’s existence as formulated by St. Thomas Aquinas.  By itself, a philosophical demonstration may not convince a committed secularist.  We need the grace of God to acquire supernatural faith.  But revisiting the philosophical arguments for God’s existence is useful for demonstrating that belief in God is not a matter of self-deception, mistaken mythology or an obscurantist ignoring of scientific facts.  If anything, an examination of reality shows that it is not the believers with deadened intellects, but the nonbelievers.  The natural world testifies to the existence of its Creator.  

How does the natural world speak to us about anything which is outside of nature?  Firstly, the very existence of the natural world presents us with questions.  How did it come to be?  Why is there something rather than nothing?  In the natural world we observe a nexus of causes and effects.  What is it, then, which caused the world?  

We can eliminate the supposition that the world caused itself.  For something to be the cause of itself, it would have to have existed prior to its own existence, which is clearly impossible.  A thing cannot be and not be at the same time and in the same respect.  This is a fundamental law, the Law of Non-Contradiction, which would be violated by self-causation.  

All things in nature are contingent.  Existence is not of their essence.  They can be or not be.  And, indeed, they are for a time, and then are not.  They require that there be some principle of existence outside of themselves which brought them into being, which is to say, a cause.  This principle must come before created things in the order of existence.  Considering the natural world as a whole, either there is a self-existing outside of the world which brought it into being, or the world itself is self-existing and uncaused.   

Let us first examine the principles of self-existence, eternity and time.  A self-existing being has within itself the principle of Being.  It is a necessary being and cannot not-exist because existence is of its very essence.  Because it has within itself the principle of its own existence, it cannot change.  It cannot go from potentiality to actuality because that would require a cause outside of itself.  But a self-existing being is uncaused.  The fact that it cannot change means that it is an eternal being.  Eternity does not mean time without beginning or end.  The terms “everlasting” and “eternal” are not synonyms.  Rather, eternity is altogether outside of time.  

One of the objections to the view that the universe had a point of creation a finite time ago, a cosmological theory discussed below, is raised in the form of questions such as “Why didn’t God create the world sooner?” or “What was God doing before He created the world?”.  On the surface, we understand what the questioner is driving at.  If the universe were created at a point in time, say 10,000,000,000 B.C., what was going on at a point in time, say 10,000,000,001 B.C.?  The problem is a confusion of an understanding of time in a purely abstract and notional sense, with real time.  Time cannot exist before creation.  Time and change are two sides of the same coin.  Change occurs in time and is its measure.  There cannot be time in a physical sense without change.  There cannot be change unless there is something changing.  And there cannot be something changing unless it exists.  Accordingly, time is not self-existing.  It is part of creation and there can be no time outside of creation.  So, God could not create the world sooner because there was no “sooner”, nor was God doing anything before the creation of the world, because there was no “before”.  This is really a very old insight explained about 16 centuries ago by St. Augustine.[iv]   

Another attribute of a self-existing being is unity of essence.  If a being has separable parts, it can be decomposed of its parts.  But, by definition, a self-existing being cannot decompose.  Therefore, it must be one and simple in substance.  

The fact that there is something in existence now means that there must be something eternal and self-existing.  The question now is whether the natural world itself has the power of self-existence or whether there is a self-existing being outside of the natural world.  

If the natural world had a temporal beginning, it must be concluded that the self-existing being is apart from the natural world (i.e. that it is transcendent).  It is an established principle that nothing can come from nothing.  If there was absolutely nothing in existence, not even a self-existing being, there could be nothing now.  But since there is something now, it is inescapable that there must be something with the power of self-existence apart from the natural world to have created it.  

But what can one make of the supposition that the world did not have a beginning?  That is to say, that the existence of the natural world goes back infinitely in time and will continue indefinitely into the future.  This was the belief of the ancient pagans, and is now that of some modern secularists as well.  

However, the empirical evidence points to a beginning to the universe.  For example, according to the “Big Bang”[v] theory of cosmology, the universe began in an explosive moment about 10 to 20 billion years ago.  The expansion of the universe since the Big Bang is so far confirmed by the “red shift”.[vi]  Secondly, according to the second law of thermodynamics, entropy always increases in a closed system.  This means that the universe, in some sense, is “running down” and eventually will come to a state of universal disorder – a kind of “heat death” in which heat differentials will be reduced to zero and no further work can be performed.  The second law of thermodynamics precludes the universe from existing for an infinite period of time until now because we would already be in a state of entropic death.  The second law of thermodynamics requires a starting point.  

To avoid the creation-based theory, some cosmologists have proposed other theories.  But none of them is anything more than speculation, and the evidence seems to be against them.  Fred Hoyle proposed a Steady-State model of continuous creation in which, as the universe expands, matter is somehow created to maintain a steady state mean density of matter in the universe.  However, this theory is inconsistent with galactic red shift and the observation of radio astronomers.  Another theory which has been postulated is the “oscillating universe” wherein the universe expands, reaches a maximum extension, and then collapses in a “Big Crunch”, ultimately to bounce back into another expansion.  The cycles repeat indefinitely.  This theory, too, has its evidentiary problems.  In the first place, it is highly speculative, and known physics cannot explain such a bounce.  Secondly, there is no known reason why entropy would decrease from one cycle to the next, so we still have the factor of entropic death which precludes infinite oscillations.  Thirdly, it has not been shown that there is sufficient mass in the universe to provide enough gravity to reverse the expansion.   

Other cosmological models have also been proposed.  But even if the universe did exist for an infinitely long time, the problem of self-existence would not be resolved by postulating that the universe by itself had the power of self-existence.  Everything in the universe changes.  Nothing in the natural world has the power of self-existence.  Can the universe, taken as a whole, have the power of self-existence even though none of its parts have it?  As we have seen, a self-existing being must be eternal and changeless and have unity of essence.  On all counts, the universe, which includes a multiplicity of changing parts, fails to meet these criteria.  Therefore, even if one were to postulate a universe existing infinitely in time, there must still be a self-existing eternal being apart from the universe to bring it into existence.  That being, as stated by St. Thomas Aquinas, we understand to be God.   

The existence of the natural world clearly points to something beyond itself, a creator, to account for its existence.  But is this creator a “what” or a “who”?  That is, is the creator something inanimate, like a force, or is it a person?  What can we infer from what we have shown so far?  

We believe that God is a personal being.  We know this is so because the act of creation was not an absolutely necessary act.  If it were, it would mean in some sense that the world was self-existing, a necessary being.  This is an alternative which was excluded above, and which would negate the fact of a self-existing being apart from the universe.  What I am saying here is that the creation of the universe was a matter of choice.  God is not required by any fundamental principle of being to create the world.[vii]  To make a choice implies intellectual awareness and will.  These are the attributes of a personal being, one who makes knowing choices, an intending agent.  

Furthermore, to knowingly and willingly embark upon a course of action also implies a desire to do so.  Desire is prompted by love of some type.  Therefore, God, in some sense created and maintains the universe out of love - a love which we may poorly understand, but still love.  In contrast to the belief of the Deists, one would hardly expect an agent who creates something from nothing out of love to thereafter abandon it.  To the contrary, the act of creation is not a one-time event, but an ongoing work.  God is necessary not only to bring the world into existence, but to maintain its existence.[viii]  

We can also conclude that God is omniscient.  The human artisan who creates a work is presumed to understand its parts and their functioning.  How much more so do we not presume that God, who created the natural world from no pre-existing matter, knows and understands everything in it down to the hairs on one’s head.[ix]  Furthermore, from the standpoint of eternity, which is outside of time, God can know everything occurring inside of time: past, present and future.  

God is all-powerful.  Having the fullness of Being, God can create the universe out of no pre-existing matter and set the heavens themselves into motion.[x]  

Also, God is simple.  That is, God is not composed of multiple parts.  If God were composed of multiple parts, there would be the possibility of those parts separating, thereby leading to disintegration.  If God is, as we have said, a necessary being, then the possibility of disintegration must be excluded.  This means, also, that there is only one God.  If the entity which created the universe was a conglomerate of a multiplicity of beings, several gods, that creative force would also not qualify as a necessary eternal being.  Therefore, we can proceed with the principle that there is only one God and that He is not composed of parts.[xi]  

If the evidence reasonably points to the fact of God’s existence, one may well ask why so many highly educated people oppose this conclusion.  Neither is it a mere intellectual opposition.  Rather, many scientists are unseemly hostile to anything not grounded in a purely materialist conception of reality.  They maintain this stance, even though the scientific method in no way presupposes the unreality of non-physical or even supernatural entities.  

Indeed, when considering the question of the origin, or end, of the universe, we are necessarily in the realm not only of the physical sciences, but of philosophy or theological speculations in measuring the spectral characteristics of a distant star.  But in accounting for its existence and purpose, one cannot avoid such considerations.  To exclude theology – and when we deal with metaphysics, we cannot exclude questions about God – one is not so much acting un-philosophically as he is anti-philosophically.  That is to say, such exclusion is born of an ideological stance which deliberately negates the function of philosophy.  Philosophy is a search for truth born of a love of wisdom.  As such, no source of insight should be excluded.  But there has been an attempt in modern times to dismiss metaphysics and ontology as functions of philosophy.  Indeed, the objective reality of truth itself is questioned.  Philosophy is regarded as being limited to such pursuits as the study of language and a positivist epistemology.  

There are several reasons for this unfortunate state of affairs.  Some are philosophical, others rooted in spiritual and emotional factors.   

The believer can understand the world view of the nonbeliever, but to the nonbeliever, the world view of the believer is an impenetrable mystery.  This is because all of us start off as fallen creatures, as nonbelievers.  It is only with God’s grace of supernatural faith that believers acquire a vision of existence which nonbelievers cannot achieve.  Believers are those who have been, so to speak, on both sides of the fence and possess a larger perspective.  The larger perspective encompasses both aspects of reality: the natural and the supernatural.  This saves the believer from two trends running through modern secularist society like toxic effluents.  One is the humanist trend which regards man as the measure of all things, an end unto himself.  The other trend, a natural accompaniment to the first, regards man as a “useless passion”.[xii]  The first is presumption and the second is despair.  They are two sides of the same coin of unbelief.  

The limited perspective of the nonbeliever confines him to a cramped world view with no focal point other than himself.  Herein arise emotional and spiritual forces which, absent grace, tend to harden the intellect and will into a persistent animosity to anything which challenges that world view.  The emotions are engaged because anything tending to open the intellectual horizon so as to dislodge individual man as a self-created center of his own little world is seen as a threat.  It is an intellectual agoraphobia.  If there is no God, then man has no purpose.  If he has no purpose, then he has no responsibility to anything outside of himself.  He doesn’t need salvation; he needs gratification.  

But secularist man’s intellect would be troubled unless there was a rational prop for the emotional and spiritual currents rushing through his psyche.  Modern and post-modern theories hasten to the rescue with every means possible to discredit classical and Christian philosophy.  This is not to say that all post-Enlightenment philosophies are of a piece.  To the contrary, they encompass a conflicting hodgepodge of academic theories, often at odds with common sense, whose only shared feature is exclusion of Revelation as a relevant consideration.  

Rational inquiry is impeded by an irrational rationalism founded upon the exclusion of any explanation for things which are not based upon materialism.  The following comments in a book on cosmology are illustrative:  

For the practice of rationalism is an irreversible process.  If once one loses the innocence of naïve belief by venturing to stray into rational thought, there can be no honest way of recovering it.  When one has cut himself off from God by a first sip from the cup of knowledge, one will not rediscover Him by drinking its dregs, no matter how hard they may be boiled.[xiii]  

It truly misses the mark to mistake knowledge for ignorance and vice-versa.  One is not cut off from God by sipping from the cup of knowledge, but rather by drinking the dregs of unbelief.  The two are not the same.  Belief is neither naïve nor wishful dreaming.  It places demands upon the believer.  Unbelief is not supported by rational thought or science.  It is an ideological choice, and it leads to misunderstanding of the world and man because it closes itself off from knowledge of causation and ultimate purpose.   

If a nonbeliever is pressed to explain what caused the world, the best he can answer is: “The universe is just there and that’s all.”[xiv]  Just there?  If ever there was an expression of obscurantism, atheist materialism and intellectual defeat, it is here in secularist society, which presumes to follow reason.  

What we see today is the resurrection of an ancient Sophism which Socrates confronted, only to be executed for his troubles.  Apparently, an uncompromising pursuit of objective truth was as incompatible with Athenian democracy as it is today.  But today, it is the Church which stands in the breach, as it did centuries ago.[xv]   

The child fascinated by sparkling trinkets is easily distracted from nearby dangers.  Technology is the sparkling trinket of modern society, and we, too, can become so fascinated with our technological ability that we become distracted from the dangers at hand.  The dangers are subtle.  They are both intellectual and spiritual, and only a believer has vision broad enough to recognize them.  What is at stake here is man himself: his body, his soul, his mind, his will, and his relationship with the rest of creation and with God.  This is what the Church endeavors to rescue.  And the Church has what Socrates didn’t.  We have Christ.  

Adrian Calderone is an attorney who lives in Brooklyn, New York with his wife and three daughters.  He has contributed articles to Homiletic and Pastoral Review; The Remnant; and the recently published Encyclopedia of Catholic Social Theory, Social Science and Social Policy.