Theologians and philosophers have made many attempts to prove the existence of God using a priori reasoning. Most logicians reject these attempts as circular arguments, in which the consequent and antecedent presuppose one another and are self-confuting. They therefore reject the attempt on the basis of the logical fallacy of circularity. But then God is the alpha and the omega, the beginning and the end of all existence and creation, so the Hebrew Bible or Old Testament tells us, so the argument of circularity may not be as convincing as it at first appears. Perhaps the most well known of these so-called “proofs” for the existence of God is the ontological argument for God’s existence conceived of by the medieval theologian, St. Anselm. According to the argument, “God is that being greater than which nothing greater can be conceived.” St. Anselm reasoned from this premise that this Creator, this Divine Being and author of all Creation, who had spoken the original logos or first word and saw that it was done, was a Being of such infinite perfection that such a Being would have to exist in actual fact and not just as an imagined agent of Creation conceived of in the minds of men.
To conceive of a Being of such infinite perfection that such a Being is more perfect than anything in conception, it would have to exist in reality, argued St. Anselm, and not just in the minds of men. The same argument can be used to define the ontological status of God. The reasoning would go as follows: If God is that Being greater than which nothing greater can be conceived, then God cannot be male, for a male being would not be able to conceive and give birth to life. Since, according to Aristotle, the antecedent or efficient cause has to be equal to or greater than its effect, it holds that God as an efficient cause would have to exceed the capacity of the consequent, namely created life, by having the greater capacity to produce life. Since Creation is incapable of giving birth to itself, there must be a Being, whose agency as efficient cause is greater than that which is unable to bring itself into creation or inception. It holds then that there is a Being that is the prima causa or first cause of Creation, the antecedent of antecedents, the most primordial and the greatest efficient cause in the whole of Creation. Such a Being would have to be female and capable of producing life, otherwise said Being would not be equal to and greater than its effect as an antecedent or efficient cause, since it would be incapable of conceiving and giving birth to life.
God, therefore, must be female, for it is only a female God that id capable of conceiving and giving birth to life. Creation, therefore, is the province of a female God and not a male one, as generations of theologians and philosophers have attempted quite wrongfully to argue. It is logically absurd to imagine a male God as the author of Creation, when a male of any description, whether spiritual or material, is incapable of conceiving and giving birth to life. Such fallacious reasoning is probably the major reason Anselm’s ontological argument and other “proofs” for the existence of God have not seemed sufficient as causal ontological arguments. If God is that Being greater than which nothing greater can be conceived, then God must be a female, since a female God would exceed the capacity of a male God, and would, therefore, in surpassing the attributes and capacities of a male God, in being able to conceive and give birth to life, would needs be greater than a male God in terms of capacity.
Hence, that Being greater than which nothing greater can be conceived would have to be a female God, since only a female God would have the capacity to conceive and create life. St. Anselm is not alone in devising a proof for the existence of God. His ontological argument, while brilliant and thought-provoking in its own right, is surpassed by the Cartesian ontological-cosmological arguments of the French philosopher, Rene Descartes. His cosmological-ontological argument (COA) for the existence of God, while not bulletproof, is convincing nevertheless and far more difficult to refute than the ontological argument of St. Anselm. Descartes begins by arguing that everything must have a cause. Therefore, to conceive of a God, who is an infinitely perfect Being, demands or necessitates that there must be a cause of such “beingness” that is inherently and infinitely perfect. The individual thinking human agent is not infinitely perfect. Therefore, such a being would not on its own have the ability to conceive of an infinitely perfect Being. Hence, such an infinitely perfect Being would have to exist outside imperfect and finite human agency. Since human beings do have an idea of God as an infinitely perfect Being, such a perfect idea could never have occurred to such a finite being, unless there was an infinitely perfect being existing independently and outside the finite human agent.
The mind of man is incapable of having such a conception of a perfect Being on its own and through its own agency, without an infinitely perfect Being existing outside and beyond the human subject, creating and infusing such a conception into the mind of the human agent. Therefore, it holds that an infinitely perfect being, namely God, exists outside and independently of any human agency. Taking the argument further, such an infinitely perfect Being would have to be female, otherwise it would be lacking in efficient cause and agency, in that a male God would not be able to conceive of and give birth to life. In addition, since a female God is able to conceive and give birth to life, it holds that She has the agency and capacity to conceive and give birth to all things, including ideas. It is therefore only logical that a being of infinite perfection would also be responsible for creating and inculcating a conception of such perfection in the mind of the human agent. Just as an infant child yearns for its mother at the time of birth, seeking the warmth, comfort and nourishment that only the mother can provide to the suckling infant, so it holds that, the human being, as created life, when first able to develop the intellectual faculty granted it by God, would naturally conceptualize and seek a connection with the Being who gave it life.
Hence, it is logical that only a female God would be able to conceive of life infused with the understanding of its own origin, i.e. that it emerged from the womb of the Mother God who is capable of giving birth to all life, in addition to granting the capacity to Her offspring to conceptualize the source of their existence as beings conceived and born at the behest of the Mother God. Descartes’ next proof for the existence of God is the Conservation of Existence Argument (CEA). This argument holds that the human agent exists as a being that has an idea of God. This argument is an extension of the cogito, which posits Cogito ergo sum (I think therefore I am). Since thinking implies being, and being able to conceptualize things requires existence, then it holds that the conceptualization of a perfect being requires the existence of such a being, since it would be impossible for a finite being of limited capacity to conceive of such perfection on its own. And since everything that exists has a cause that brought it into existence in the first place and preserves its existence, it holds that the author of Creation must be a female and a Mother God, since a male God could not be the cause of life, nor could it be the cause of the preservation of that life.
Furthermore, if the human agent were capable of preserving its own existence from this moment to the next for an infinite duration, it would be inherently aware of this capacity within itself to preserve its own existence. However, the human agent is unaware of such a capacity inherent within its own being. The human agent does not know that it is capable of preserving its own existence, and for an infinite duration. Therefore, it holds that the human being is not the cause of its own existence and preservation. It can be logically deduced from this that, any being which is the cause of the existence of the human agent, and which is capable of preserving it, must be the cause of the human agent’s conceptualization of God. The only Being capable of causing and preserving the human being, would have to be a Divine Being which posessed an idea of its own perfection, its own godhood, its own infinite capacity, which could only be God, but not just any God – a female God – and not just any female God – the Mother God.
Therefore, the Mother God must exist by necessity, for how otherwise could our existence have been preserved in the first place, and for so long, for such a timeless duration. Just as the mother is the only being capable of preserving the life of the offspring to which she has given life by suckling the infant and providing it with nourishment that sustains life, its life-preserving milk, so is it that the only Being capable of preserving the life that she has spawned as the Creator of life is the Mother God. Just as the Mother Earth is the only Being capable of preserving the life she suckles on her bosom, so the life of the universe requires a Being capable of providing it with the life-giving agency required for its preservation, whether it be the life-giving milk that falls from the sky, which we call rain or whether it be the source of light and energy that provides all things that live and grow with the life force and energy needed to sustain life, namely the sun in the sky. The fact is that only a Mother God has the capacity to conceive of, preserve and sustain life as the author and preserver of Creation, as God the Creator and God the Preserver as the Hindus have conceived of God. And while the Hindus have conceived of God as God the Creator, God the Preserver and God the Destroyer, the fact is that no mother would ever seek to destroy the life that she has spawned, least of all the Mother God. Far from it.
In addition, the Hindus conceive of their gods as masculine, but with female consorts. For example, Shiva, who in the Hindu pantheon is God the Destroyer, has Kali as his female consort or counterpart. For Krishna, his female counterpart is Radha. For many Hindus, the belief is that, through their love dalliances and cosmic love-making, Krishna and Radha create Creation on an ongoing basis. Indeed, the Mother God is only able to conceive life by the light provided by the Father God. Ultimately, it is the cosmic interplay between the love of the Mother God and the Father God that all life is created, preserved and sustained. Finally, Descartes ends with the Existence is a Perfection Argument (EPA). In this argument, he holds that conception of God emerges originally from the conception of a Being that possesses all perfections.
Existence is a perfection. Therefore, the human agent cannot conceive of God as not existing, otherwise the human agent would be incapable of evolving from potentiality to actuality or potentiality to realization. Therefore, God exists, for otherwise how could the human agent strive to perfect itself or evolve towards higher forms of realization and perfection in the first place. The desire to overcome all deficiency, the striving to transcend all incapacity, to achieve greater abilities and more enhanced capacities is surely because of the idea of perfection that is infused in all of us from the moment of creation by means of that Being greater than which nothing greater can be conceived.
A perceptive analyst and keen thinker will see that Descartes’ proof of God’s existence essentially models the form of his proof of his own existence, namely the cogito, “I think therefore I am.” How can the human agent think unless he exists? This is the import of the argument. The human agent has an idea of itself. Therefore, it must by necessity exist, for how could it otherwise conceptualize its own existence if it did not exist? The same holds true of God’s existence. The human agent has an idea of God, a Being of infinite perfection. Therefore, God exists, for if God did not exist, it could not be perfect, nor could it have a perfect conception of itself, nor could it infuse that concept of perfection in us, who as imperfect beings could never be able to conceive of such a thing on our own.
Both concepts, “I think therefore I am” and “I think of God the Perfect Being, therefore that Being must exist,” rely on a variation of the idea that there must be a subject in which a predicate inheres. So, as self-ascribing the predicate “is thinking” requires a subject that actually manifests that attribute, analogously, the idea of God requires a subject that actually manifests all the attributes inherent in the idea. This means that for God to be the perfect Being God is imputed to be, God must necessarily be female and a mother, for only the Mother God is capable of infinite perfection, since only a Mother God would be able to conceive, give birth to and preserve life infinitely.