Atheism concludes that God does not exist. To attain to the conclusion, atheism must first ask the question, ‘does God exist?’. By asking this question concerning the existence of God, the atheist must reduce God down to the level of a creature. An example will show why the reduction of God down to a creature is required.
Let us ask the question as follows - does a tree exist? By asking this question, we have reduced the existence of the tree down to a contingent thing, which may or may not exist. In doing so, we have also then reduced the existence, or the very being of the tree to being had by participation. By reducing the being of the tree to being had by participation we are then saying that – if the tree exists, the tree has existence. Or stated in another way, if the tree exists, the tree has being.
So again, for the atheist to ask the question, does God exist?, the being of God is consequently assumed to be like that of the tree, (or any other creature), as being which is had by participation. Put more simply, the question, does God exist?, infers God either has or has not being. If God does exist, then God has being, like a creature has being. If so, then the atheist must firstly assume that if God exists, then God is only a contingent thing, just as all creatures are contingent things. Once the contingency of God is assumed by the atheist, then the atheist may then proceed to produce an argument to then conclude to God does not exist.
The parallel examples of asking the two similar questions -
1) Does the tree exist?
2) Does God exist?
Both imply the tree and God may or may not exist, and thereby both the tree and God must be firstly considered to be contingent creatures.
So, what is the problem that makes atheism so rash? The question, ‘does God exist?’, when understood as shown above must ignore what God is – being itself. For God, which is the nature of being, is itself existence, is that only thing which must exist. So the question, does God exist, may be reformulated as follows –
Does that thing which is being [God], exist?
Or in another way,
Does that thing which must be [God], exist?
Or in another way,
Does that which is existence, [God], exist?
Or finally,
Does that which is being [God], be?
In short, when the question concerning the existence of God is correctly understood, the question is reducible to the principle of identity. For example, we may compare the question, does God exist, to that of the colour blue.
Does God exist?
Is equivalent to saying,
Does that which is existence, [God], exist?
Or more simply.
Does be, be?
Now we can compare the above question to that of the colour blue.
Is blue [be], blue[be]?
Or more simply,
Is be, be?
According to the atheist, the answer to the question, ‘Is blue, blue?’, is yes, in accord with the principle of identity. But when a parallel question, which is reducible down to the same principle of identity is asked, the atheist must conclude to the answer of, no. So, in summary,
Does God exist?
Which is the same as asking,
Does be, be?
Theism says yes.
Atheism say no.
Hence atheism is rash, as shown in the argument presented above.
JM
