關於愛，我是個小學生。

The Existence of God
To come to this question of the existence of God: it is a large and serious question, and if I were to attempt to deal with it in any adequate manner I should have to keep you here until Kingdom Come, so that you will have to excuse me if I deal with it in a somewhat summary fashion. You know, of course, that the Catholic Church has laid it down as a dogma that the existence of God can be proved by the unaided reason. That is a somewhat curious dogma, but it is one of their dogmas. They had to introduce it because at one time the freethinkers adopted the habit of saying that there were such and such arguments [where] mere reason might urge against the existence of God, but of course they knew as a matter of faith that God did exist. The arguments and the reasons were set out at great length, and the Catholic Church felt that they must stop it. Therefore they laid it down that the existence of God can be proved by the unaided reason and they had to set up what they considered were arguments to prove it. There are, of course, a number of them, but I shall take only a few. 

上帝的存在
談到上帝的存在，這是一個涉及很廣的嚴肅問題；要是面面俱到地加以論述，你們可能會待在這兒直到天國降臨。所以我只得講得簡短扼要些，尚祈各位見諒。當然大家都知道，天主教把上帝的存在用毫無理論基礎的理由作為教條而規定下來。這多少有點荒唐，然而規定就是規定，他們採用了這一教條，這是事實。為什麼如此呢？因為當時自由思想家們紛紛採用了論辯的態度質疑上帝的存在，許多論點，僅用理解就可足以使人生疑。他們當然也知道，天主教徒憑者信心知道上帝確實是存在的。可是這些質疑的論點和理由長篇累牘地提了出來，天主教感到勢不可長，於是他們規定上帝的存在可以用明明可知的理由來證明，並且提出他們認為可資佐證的論點。這樣的論點當然不少，在此我只選擇幾點談談。

【論證與主張】歷史事件主觀論述，無重要論證。

【問題與意見】天主教廷昔時用鎮壓迫害手法平息異議份子，使得後世知識份子群起反彈，失敗。教廷之矯枉過正，把原本傳福音、使人得救的美意搞成惡行，失敗。進而使眾弟兄跌倒，使  上帝的名蒙羞，失敗中的失敗！讀到現在，我想如果羅素最後不信  主，英國政府及教廷要負很大的責任吧？

The First-cause Argument
Perhaps the simplest and easiest to understand is the argument of the First Cause. (It is maintained that everything we see in this world has a cause, and as you go back in the chain of causes further and further you must come to a First Cause, and to that First Cause you give the name of God.) That argument, I suppose, does not carry very much weight nowadays, because, in the first place, cause is not quite what it used to be. The philosophers and the men of science have got going on cause, and it has not anything like the vitality it used to have; but, apart from that, you can see that the argument that there must be a First Cause is one that cannot have any validity. I may say that when I was a young man and was debating these questions very seriously in my mind, I for a long time accepted the argument of the First Cause, until one day, at the age of eighteen, I read John Stuart Mill's Autobiography, and I there found this sentence: "My father taught me that the question 'Who made me?' cannot be answered, since it immediately suggests the further question `Who made god?'" That very simple sentence showed me, as I still think, the fallacy in the argument of the First Cause. If everything must have a cause, then God must have a cause. If there can be anything without a cause, it may just as well be the world as God, so that there cannot be any validity in that argument. It is exactly of the same nature as the Hindu's view, that the world rested upon an elephant and the elephant rested upon a tortoise; and when they said, "How about the tortoise?" the Indian said, "Suppose we change the subject." The argument is really no better than that. There is no reason why the world could not have come into being without a cause; nor, on the other hand, is there any reason why it should not have always existed. There is no reason to suppose that the world had a beginning at all. The idea that things must have a beginning is really due to the poverty of our imagination. Therefore, perhaps, I need not waste any more time upon the argument about the First Cause.

肇源論
肇源論也許是最易明瞭的部份了。(一般以為，我們看到的世界萬物都有起因，一步步追本溯源之後，最後會發現一個最初起因，也就是「肇源」，我們就稱為上帝)。這個論點在今天相對顯得無足輕重，因為今天所講的起因，同當年所講的不完全是同一回事。哲學家和科學界人士對起因已進行研究多時，它不再如當年那樣新鮮了。此外，這也是顯而易見的，所謂必有最初起因的論點也是沒有根據的論述；年輕時腦中對這些問題曾進行過認真的思考，在很長一段時間裏，我也贊同最初起因的論點。直到十八歲那年讀到約翰穆勒的自傳時，忽然發現這麼一句話：「父親教導我說，『誰創造了我？』，這是無法解答的難題，因為接著人們必然要問：『誰又創造了上帝？』」今天我仍然認為，這句極端簡單的話指出了肇元論的荒謬。如果說萬物都有起因，那麼，上帝也必有起因；如果起因不存在，那整個世界抑或上帝皆因此毫無主從關係可言。這和印度教的觀點是完全一樣的，他們認為世界置身在一頭大象上，而這象置身在一隻烏龜背上。若有人再追問：「那烏龜又在誰的背上呢？」他們就只能支吾其詞：「還是談談別的吧！」肇元論還比不上這故事高明呢。沒有任何理由能證明世界的誕生不能沒有起因。另一方面，我們也沒有理由說世界不應該本來就是一直存在著的。我們更沒有理由認為世界一定要有個開始。認為萬物必定都有個開始的觀念實際上是因為我們缺乏想像而造成的。因此，我想不必在肇源論上再浪費時間了。


【論證與主張】標準三段式論證：「如果說萬物都有起因 (p,q)，那麼，上帝也必有起因 (g)；如果起因不存在 (~p)，那整個世界抑或上帝皆因此毫無主從關係可言 (~q)。」If p, then q; g = p, so if g, then q. (Requisition: g = p !!!)

另外加二主張：「沒有任何理由能證明世界的誕生不能沒有起因。」

及 「我們也沒有理由說世界不應該本來就是一直存在著的。」

【問題與意見】1. 完全同意！只是，這要有一個先決條件：那就是我們必須先證明肇源論之主張為真。若不能證明，則世上一切事物現象皆可或未必可以有起因。故羅氏以肇源論之框架質疑  上帝的存在或起因，未必為真。2. 該二主張是很好的反面思維範例，值得學習。3. 主張人人可有，那麼，試問這個世界上有沒有一些現象可以是「自有永有」的、而另一些現象是「事出有因」的呢？也就是說，有些事情的起因，我們或許可知且已知；而有些事情，或有起因而我們無從而知，或無起因因我們尚未得知呢？既有黑，亦有白，為何沒有灰？由此觀之，羅氏非不信 上帝，實不信肇源論矣。以肇源論規範 上帝而兼拒之，是為一憾！「因此，我想不必在肇源論上再浪費時間了。」

【待續】