Abstract

In „Forum Philosophicum" vol. 7 a paper has been published in which J. R. Spitzer's proof for the existence of God has been analysed. The proof proceeded from the disjunction: The independent Being exists or does not exists The objective of the paper in „Forum" was to analyse the relation of dependence which was the central point to Spitzer's proof. Since in September 2001 the second part of the american Jesuit's disquisition appeared in the same periodical, it seems suitable to react to this new text too. Spitzer has presented there three new arguments for the existence of God: from the past time, from the distinction between actuality and mere possibility and from a Lonerganian interpretation of the same distinction. While he named the proofs presented in the part I metaphysical, he qualified the proofs brought forward in the part H as cosmological, in view of the facts belonging to inanimate nature, such as: time, space, the velocity of light, etc. which serve him as starting-points. It is worth stressing that Spitzer's method is conducive to discussion, because he adduces concrete examples, something which makes his mind more comprehensible. Had he used some vague descriptions or general definitions, discussion would have been more difficult. So let us analyse the new proposed proofs.