Locke’s proof that God exists

As I mentioned in a previous post, John Locke believed that the existence of God was as certain as a theorem in geometry, and that no rational person who had examined the question of God’s existence could possibly fail to be convinced. Having now finished Locke’s Essay, I’ve finally read the part (Book IV, Chapter X) where he explains why he thinks that and spells out his proof.


Something has always existed.

Locke’s contention is that the existence of God follows logically from the fact that we exist and think. (Cogito sumque. Unlike Descartes, Locke sees these as two facts as equally self-evident and therefore feels no need to derive one from the other.)

  1. Something exists now; if nothing else, each person can be sure that he himself exists.
  2. We intuitively believe that it is impossible for something to “come from” — that is, to be temporally preceded by — nothing.
  3. Therefore, since something exists now, there never was a time when nothing at all existed. Something has always existed.

The third step is a little tricky, because “something has always existed” could be interpreted in two ways. The first interpretation — the one that actually follows from the premises — is that for every point of time in the past, there is at least one thing that existed at that time (not necessarily the same things at every point in time). The second interpretation — the one Locke assumes — is that there is at least one particular thing which has always existed.

Obviously, the argument will end with the conclusion that that thing is God, but until we come to the point where Locke “proves” that, I’ll follow my standard practice of referring to this hypothetical always-existing thing as Q.

Locke’s proof of Q is invalid, based on logical sleight-of-hand — or perhaps that is an unfair term to use, since Locke is clearly sincere. At any rate, he conflates “for all x there exists a y such that…” with “there exists a y such that for all x….” However, in order to evaluate the rest of Locke’s argument, I will take Q as proven and proceed.


Q is all-powerful.

Having established (not really, but let’s humor him) that there is some particular thing which has always existed, Locke goes on to show that this thing is all-powerful.

  1. Q — whatever it is which has always existed — must be the ultimate cause of the existence of all other things. Otherwise, they would have come from nothing, which is absurd.
  2. “What had its being and beginning from another, must also have all that which is in and belongs to its being from another too.”
  3. Therefore, all the properties of all existing things must be present in Q. “Whatsoever is first of all things must necessarily contain in it, and actually have, at least, all the perfections that can ever after exist; nor can it ever give to another any perfection that it hath not either actually in itself, or, at least, in a higher degree.”
  4. Specifically, Q must have every power which is or has been present in anything in the universe. Thus, Q is the most powerful thing in existence.

This line of reasoning seems obviously false, since it is easy to think of things which have properties that their creators did not have. Given a basketball, it would not be valid to conclude that it must have been created by someone who was round, orange, and bouncy. Of course a man’s “creation” of a basketball is not the same sort of thing as God’s creation of something from nothing — but analogy, which is the only tool we have for thinking about something as completely foreign to our experience as creatio ex nihilo, suggests that God/Q need not have any (let alone all) of the properties of his/its creatures.

Later on in his argument, Locke will contradict this idea that all properties of all creatures must be present in the Creator, when he proposes that the material universe was created by an immaterial God.


Q thinks.

The next point to establish is that Q is a thinking thing.

  1. Man knows not only that he exists, but that he has knowledge and perception.
  2. It is “as impossible that things wholly void of knowledge, and operating blindly, and without any perception, should produce a knowing being, as it is impossible that a triangle should make itself three angles bigger than two right ones. For it is as repugnant to the idea of senseless matter, that it should put into itself sense, perception, and knowledge, as it is repugnant to the idea of a triangle, that it should put into itself greater angles than two right ones.”
  3. Therefore, Q has knowledge — is, in fact, “most knowing.”
  4. Q is thus “an eternal, most powerful, and most knowing Being; which whether any one will please to call God, it matters not.” Locke does call it God.

Locke does not spell out the jump from “not wholly void of knowledge” to “most knowing,” but I suppose he is following the logic of points 5 and 6 above — that all properties of all creatures must exist to an equal or greater degree in the Creator, and that therefore God must possess all possible knowledge as well as all possible power.


Q is not material.

  1. God, being a mind, is not material. No particle of matter can think, and it is absurd to think that a thinking thing could be built up of unthinking components.
  2. Nor need matter be co-eternal with God. Although creation out of nothing seems absurd, we must admit that our own minds were created from nothing (or else that each of us has  “always been a thinking thing from eternity; the absurdity whereof I need not confute, till I meet with one who is so void of understanding as to own it”). And if mind can be created from nothing, why not matter also?

This is completely inconsistent with what Locke has said about mind and about power. If the creature is mental in nature, the creator must necessarily be mental in nature as well. If the creature has a particular power, the creator must necessarily have that power as well. But if the creature is material, it is for some reason not necessary that the creator be material as well.


Did I miss something?

I have to say I’m disappointed with the abysmal quality of this “proof.” I admire Locke very much as a thinker and had been expecting something compelling — had half-expected him to convert me. Instead I get this.

There’s nothing strange about Locke being wrong, of course; I expected him to be wrong. What I didn’t expect was for so intelligent and careful a thinker as John Locke to be so obviously wrong, to serve up such sloppy non sequiturs — which makes me think that I’ve likely misunderstood him or overlooked some important point. Locke was very far from being an idiot, so if I think he wrote something idiotic maybe I’m the one with the problem.

I’ll go through his argument a few more times and see if I can salvage it. In the meantime, I welcome comments from anyone who can defend the validity of Locke’s reasoning.


Filed under God

8 responses to “Locke’s proof that God exists

  1. chrstphre

    Obviously Locke was not being motivated by Logic or Reason to Construct this ‘Proof’; He was Appeasing his Morlock Masters and bowed low to prostrate himself before them.

    i have noticed that you often ‘Drop Names’ in order to Promote an Idea, believing that this will strengthen it. i like to do the same thing, but i just make up references and attribute them to well considered journals or magazines such as Time, Newsweek or Scientific American.

    The Approach that you should be using when considering a bogus Argument like this is to take The Seed of it, and Construct your own ‘Better’ or ‘Irrefutable’ Argument for Gawd ( Or The Lesser Position of A Transcendental Reality ).

    A Great Many ‘Smart’ People of the Past were not particular Smart at all,
    and many of Our Contemporary Smart Traffic Cones are riding on a Populist Parade Float which will soon be forgotten as soon as it starts raining.

    i am beginning to suspect that when you left The CoLDS ( i don’t think i’ve ever seen that Acronym before ( ? ) is it actually quite common ? ) It left a Hole in your Soul and it may be that you’re trying to rediscover gawd or some facsimile?

    ( ? )

  2. CJ

    @Wm Jas. I would suggest reading Section 19 again where I think Locke helps explain your problem you have. Here is the beginning of the Section 19, which I think helps explain why Locke left this conundrum which you point out: “But you will say, Is it not impossible to admit of the making anything out of nothing, since we cannot possibly conceive it? I answer, No. Because it is not reasonable to deny the power of an infinite being, because we cannot comprehend its operations. We do not deny other effects upon this ground, because we cannot possibly conceive the manner of their production.”

    I would view Locke as like Socrates where we should assume we know nothing but let’s try to find what we can with our limited reason. Remember that at the beginning of Ch. X Locke says God has provided us with reason so far “as is necessary to the end of our Being, and the great concernment of our Happiness.” So, I think with this outline for the existence of a God, Locke wants us to realize that for sure, as Rational beings, we can conclude there is a God, but that we also have a limited reason because we are human. But, let’s not throw out altogether the existence of God merely because we have come to a kink in the road of our limited reason. Let’s try to remember the overall point, that there is a God.

    I think this is what Locke is trying to get at.

  3. Wow, the counter-arguments themselves are so filled with assumptions. As a Deist I have a few beefs with Locke’s argument as well, since Nothing by its very nature does not exist anywhere in the universe, but it does in our minds; proof of ex-nihilo, countering Locke’s claim.

    An easy example is using a BASKETBALL in comparison to “God”…which Basketballs themselves are artificial idea’s which are absolutely created “ex-nihilo” from people’s minds. So if the op-ed is accusing John Locke of making stuff up, then the op-ed making stuff up, & I am also making stuff up, at the very least we should all acknowledge that we each inherit the power to create, which logically is also inherited from the original who by deed & merit is glorified with title of Creator & God…for many reasons that I can argue logically based on essential values that even “Atheists” have…but of course I’m not going to do that here.

    I’m not saying that God created matter or energy or universal law…but to say that all life is as mundane as the universe is absolute nonsense.

    John Locke’s argument is specifically that NOTHING does not exist. He is correct in this, but forgot to mention how we have also created the idea of “Nothing” & “Something”, which ironically is proof of Ex-Nihilo.

    It was the coherency of his argument that falls short….nothing more, nothing less.

    [scatological language edited out – WJT]

    • Basketballs themselves are artificial idea’s which are absolutely created “ex-nihilo” from people’s minds.

      Basketballs are not ideas; they are physical objects which are created from existing matter. As for the idea of making such an object and calling it a basketball, that never comes ex nihilo, either, but flows from what preceded it in the stream of consciousness.

      to say that all life is as mundane as the universe is absolute nonsense

      I am not aware that either Locke or I have said anything like that.

      we have also created the idea of “Nothing” & “Something”, which ironically is proof of Ex-Nihilo

      Ideas don’t come from nothing any more than anything else does. They are part of a connected stream of consciousness and also reflect input from the outside world.

      • Cody Fan

        What he means is that you view a basketball and you think that it is a basket ball. If you say that ideas don’t come from anything… then there must be a God, as we have to get our ideas from somewhere right?
        Anyways, we have emotions right? When we are little babies we have emotions. These emotions are a better analogy then the idea of something and nothing IMO.

  4. Robin ("Anonymous")

    Couldn’t you rectify part of the argument if you thought of matter to be simply a lesser degree of the immaterial substance of God/Q? That God’s/Q’s form is superior to our corporeal presence? Then Locke wouldn’t be “. . . contradict[ing] th[e] idea that all properties of all creatures must be present in the Creator.” Perhaps God/Q is a being purely of quality (that is, omniscience, omnipotence, etc.), and matter is a manifestation of God’s/Q’s power, so that the matter which our world and our bodies are composed of is God/Q to the infinitesimal degree? I haven’t developed this idea a whole lot, but it offers a potential solution, I think.

    • That does seem like an idea worth considering and developing. Thank you!

      (By the way, I don’t like people to comment anonymously, since the readers can’t tell which “Anonymous” is which. Therefore I’m going to call you Robin, an gender-neutral name since I don’t know whether you’re male or female. My apologies if, by some bizarre coincidence, your real name just happens to be Robin. Feel free to edit your comment and change your handle — but, please, not “Anonymous.”)

      • Robin

        I’m glad you see some merit in it. You are very welcome!

        (I completely understand, and apologize for the inconvenience. I actually did consider the potential problems of my use of Anonymous as a pseudonym, but alas, only afterwards. I was going to invent something new the next time I commented. However, I like Robin, and so I am.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s