Chapter 1

Proofs of the existence of God. — God is an individual being. — Attributes of the Divinity. (Questions 1 to 10 a.)

What is God? 71, 72 [Question 1.]

“God is the supreme intelligence, first cause of all things.”

Where can the proof of the existence of God be found? [Question 4.]

“In an axiom that you apply to your sciences: there is no effect without a cause. Seek the cause of all that is not the work of man, and your reason will answer.” To believe in God, it is enough to cast one's eyes upon the works of Creation. The Universe exists, therefore it has a cause. To doubt the existence of God would be to deny that every effect has a cause, and to assert that nothingness could make something.

What consequence can be drawn from the intuitive sentiment, which all men bear within themselves, of the existence of God? [Question 5.]

“That God exists.”

a.

Would not the intimate sentiment we have of the existence of God be the fruit of education and of acquired ideas? 75 [Question 6.]

“If that were so, why would your savages have this sentiment?” God has placed within ourselves the proof of His existence through the instinctive sentiment found among all peoples, in all centuries, and in all degrees of the social scale. If the sentiment of the existence of a supreme being were merely the product of teaching, it would not be universal and, as happens with scientific notions, would exist only in those who had received that teaching.

Could the first cause of the formation of things be found in the intimate properties of matter? [Question 7.]

“But, then, what would be the cause of those properties? A first cause is always necessary.”

To attribute the first formation of things to the intimate properties of matter would be to take the effect for the cause, for those properties are, in themselves, an effect that must have a cause.

What is to be thought of the opinion that attributes the first formation to a fortuitous combination of matter, that is, to chance? [Question 8.]

“Another absurdity. What man of good sense can regard chance as an intelligent being? And, besides, what is chance? Nothing!” The harmony that regulates the forces of the Universe reveals determined combinations and purposes and, for that very reason, denotes an intelligent power. To attribute the first formation to chance would be a contradiction in terms, for chance is blind and cannot produce the effects that intelligence produces.

Where, in the first cause, is to be seen a supreme intelligence superior to all intelligences? [Question 9.]

“You have a proverb that says: By the work the author is known. Well then! Behold the work and seek the author. It is pride that begets incredulity. The proud man admits nothing above himself and, for that reason, deems himself a strong spirit. Poor being, whom a breath of God can lay low!”

The power of an intelligence is judged by its works. Since no human being can create what Nature produces, the first cause is therefore an intelligence superior to Humanity.

Whatever the prodigies accomplished by human intelligence, it too has a cause and, the greater the thing it accomplishes, the greater must be the first cause. It is this superior intelligence that is the first cause of all things, by whatever name it may be designated.

Some philosophers have said that God is the infinite; the Spirits themselves have so designated Him. What is to be thought of this explanation? [Question 3.]

“Incomplete definition. Poverty of the language of men, insufficient to define what is above their intelligence.”

a.

What is to be understood by the infinite? [Question 2.]

“That which has neither beginning nor end.”

God is infinite in His perfections, but the infinite is an abstraction. To say that God is the infinite is to take the attribute of a thing for the thing itself; it is to define a thing that is not known by another that is likewise unknown. And it is thus that, wishing to penetrate what it is not given to him to know, man casts himself into a blind alley, giving rise to discussions.

Is God a distinct being, or would He be, according to the opinion of some, the resultant of all the forces and all the intelligences of the Universe gathered together, which would make each being a portion of the Divinity? [Question 14.]

“Pride of the creature, who deems himself God Himself. Ungrateful daughter who repudiates the father.”

God is a being distinct from all other beings. To see God in the resultant of all the forces of the Universe gathered together would be to deny His existence; He would then be effect, and not cause.

The intelligence of God is revealed in His works as that of a painter in his picture; but the works of God are not God Himself, just as the picture is not the painter who conceived and executed it. This too would be to take the effect for the cause.

Can man comprehend the intimate nature of God? [Question 10.]

“No.”

a.

Why is it not given to man to comprehend the essence of the Divinity? [Question 10.]

“He lacks, for that, a sense.”

b.

Will it one day be given to man to comprehend the mystery of the Divinity? [Question 11.]

“When his spirit is no longer darkened by matter and, through his perfection, he has drawn near to God, then he will see Him and comprehend Him.” The inferiority of man's faculties does not allow him to comprehend the intimate nature of God. In the infancy of Humanity, man often confounds Him with the creature, whose imperfections he attributes to Him; but, as the moral sense develops within him, his thought penetrates better into the core of things; then he forms of the Divinity an idea more just and more in conformity with sound reason, though always incomplete.

If we cannot comprehend the intimate nature of God, can we have an idea of some of His perfections? [Question 12.]

“Yes, of some. Man comprehends them better as he rises above matter; he glimpses them through thought.”

a.

When we say that God is eternal, infinite, immutable, immaterial, one, omnipotent, sovereignly just and good, do we not have a complete idea of His attributes? [Question 13.]

“From your point of view, yes, because you believe you encompass everything. But know that there are things above the intelligence of the most intelligent man, and for which your language, limited to your ideas and sensations, has no means of expressing itself. “Reason, indeed, tells you that God must possess these perfections in the supreme degree, because, if He had even one less, or did not have it in an infinite degree, He would not be superior to all and, consequently, would not be God. To be above all things, God cannot be subject to any vicissitude, nor suffer any of the imperfections that the imagination can conceive”. (Note 1).

Reason tells us that God is eternal, immutable, immaterial, one, omnipotent, sovereignly just and good, and infinite in all His perfections.

God is eternal. If He had had a beginning, He would have come out of nothingness, or else He would have been created by an anterior being. It is thus that, little by little, we ascend to the infinite and to eternity.

He is immutable. If He were subject to changes, the laws that govern the Universe would have no stability.

He is immaterial. That is, His nature differs from all that we call matter; otherwise, He would not be immutable, because He would be subject to the transformations of matter.

He is one. If there were many gods, there would be no unity of views, nor unity of power in the ordering of the Universe.

He is omnipotent. Because He is one. If He did not have sovereign power, something would be more powerful or as powerful as He; thus He would not have made all things, and those He had not made would be the work of another God.

He is sovereignly just and good. The providential wisdom of the divine Laws is revealed in the smallest things as in the greatest, and that wisdom does not permit doubt either of His justice or of His goodness. [71] Translator's Note: [In the printed book] the questions asked by Allan Kardec appear in italics; the answers given by the Spirits are placed between quotation marks; the comments attributed to the Codifier are set in smaller type, without quotation marks, and in “roman” letters. [72] Translator's Note: As can be seen further on in the digitized reproduction of the French edition of this book, its material is distributed in two columns, which may somewhat confuse the reader and make the reading tedious. To obviate these inconveniences, we have preferred to group it into a single column, as, moreover, Allan Kardec did in the 2nd edition of The Spirits' Book and in the other works of the Codification. [73] Translator's Note: The numbers placed between brackets […], preceded by the abbreviations LE or LM, which appear at the end of the questions of this book [printed] and, more rarely, after the answers of the Spirits or of Kardec's comments, correspond, respectively, to the numbers of the questions alluding to the same subject, existing in the definitive edition of The Spirits' Book (LE) and of The Mediums' Book (LM). Many of them are textual and, although not all follow the same wording, nor present the same developments, they will allow the reader to easily compare the historical text published in 1857 with the current text — definitive — of the first two books of the Spiritist Codification. [74] Translator's Note: In the original edition of this book [printed], divided into two columns, this answer appears without quotation marks, in the right-hand column, a space reserved for the comments of Allan Kardec, leading many people to wonder whether it had been given by him or by the Spirits of the Codification, a doubt that no longer subsists in the 2nd edition of the work, published in 1860, where the said text appears between quotation marks, being, therefore, attributed to the Spirits. The same reasoning applies to the answer to question No. 53 of this work, which, in the original French edition, also appears without quotation marks, in the right-hand column (see digitized reproduction of the book, pages 405 and 418, respectively).

[75] Translator's Note: The original French text does not designate with letters the numbered questions that appear in this translation. In so doing, we had in view to facilitate for the reader the locating of each of them throughout this book.

[76] Translator's Note: This and other Notes that appear in parentheses are developed at the end of this translation (pp. 347 to 364).