[Note: While I had intended to avoid writing any more about atheism for a long, long time, I thought I'd add just a couple of more posts on the topic. It tends to be a bit slow around here on the weekend so I thought it couldn't hurt to extend the conversation for one more day.]
You have to pity the modern atheist who attempts to present arguments for her cause. Unmoored from any respectable intellectual tradition, each generation is forced to recreate anti-theistic arguments from scratch. The result is that the claims which they believe to be clever and damning often turn out to be—to use a technical philosophical phrase—just plain silly.
Take for example, the Flying Spaghetti Monster. According to Wikipedia, The Flying Spaghetti Monster is the deity of a parody religion founded in 2005 by Oregon State University physics graduate Bobby Henderson to protest the decision by the Kansas State Board of Education to require the teaching of intelligent design as an alternative to biological evolution. In an open letter sent to the education board, Henderson professes belief in a supernatural Creator called the Flying Spaghetti Monster, which resembles spaghetti and meatballs. He furthermore calls for the “Pastafarian” theory of creation to be taught in science classrooms, essentially invoking a reductio ad absurdum argument against the teaching of intelligent design. (The FSM has been popularized by the otherwise charming and intelligent folks at BoingBoing.)
What Henderson actually showed was (a) a profound ignorance of the design argument, (b) a profound ignorance of what the Kansas board was actually proposing, and (c) that OSU should require physics graduates to take courses in philosophy. But what Henderson was trying to get at, though he doesn’t seem clever enough to grasp his own point, is similar to what Bertrand Russell was arguing with his “celestial teapot” analogy. In the famous passage from “Is There a God?”, Russell writes:
If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.
Russell’s rather unoriginal argument has recently rehashed by atheism’s most unoriginal apologist, Richard Dawkins. Both Russell and Dawkins (and everyone else who uses this line of reasoning) attempt to argue along the lines that “If the existence of X (celestial teapots, FSMs, God) has not been disproven, it does not follow that X exists, or even that it is reasonable to believe that X exists.”
This point is both obvious and uncontroversial. The problem comes when they try to suggest, as philosopher William Vallicella says, “that belief in God (i.e., belief that God exists) is epistemically on a par with believing in a celestial teapot. Just as we have no reason to believe in celestial teapots, irate lunar unicorns (lunicorns?), flying spaghetti monsters, and the like, we have no reason to believe in God.”
Vallicella points out the key problem with this thinking: we have all sorts of reasons for believing that God exists. True, atheists may not find them compelling. But so what? “The issue is whether a reasoned case can be made for theism, and the answer is in the affirmative,” says Vallicella. “Belief in God and in Russell’s teapot are therefore not on a par since there are no empirical or theoretical reasons for believing in his teapot.”
Celestial teapots and FSMs do, however, differ on one key point. The celestial teapot is a contingent being, its coming into being and continued existence is contingent on the existence of something else (namely the universe). The teapot is a physical being whose existence is radically dependent on the existence of matter. The teapot could cease to exist without affecting the universe. But if the universe ceased to exist, so would the celestial teapot.
The Flying Spaghetti Monster, however, is akin to God in that it is posited as a being that creates contingent beings. As Henderson claims in his letter, “We have evidence that a Flying Spaghetti Monster created the universe.” If the FSM created the universe then the universe is radically dependent on the FSM. As I pointed out in my previous post, if the universe was created into existence then it is possible for the entire universe to go out of existence, to simply cease to exist. Its continued existence therefore requires a causal agent to keep it from ceasing to exist, to prevent its exnihilation. (Note: This would be true even if the universe has always existed and was uncaused (i.e., the view of steady-state cosmology).)
In his attempt to be clever, Henderson misses the point that his FSM is more philosophically plausible than what (I suspect) he actually believes. Presumably since he is a physicist, Henderson believes either that the universe was created from nothing (everything from nothingness) or that he subscribes to some alternate view such as the multiverse theory. The idea that (a) absolute nothingness (non-existence) created the universe and that (b) this nothingness sustains the universe from exnihilation (complete non-existence) is philosophically and scientifically absurd.
That leaves us with the second option, that the universe was created by something else, such as a Perpetual Universe Generator (PUG). In essence, the PUG plays the same roles as God or the FSM. Each is an entity that exists non-contingently and resides outside of the normal laws of the known physical universe. (The FSM is a creature comprised of stringy noodles while the PUG is a construct comprised of noodly theories about strings.) The only difference is that Henderson is positing an un-intelligent designer (nothingness, the PUG) while the alternatives are intelligent designers (the FSM, God).
Why exactly we are to prefer an unintelligent designer to an intelligent one is one of the questions that remains unanswered. Obviously, not all atheists believe that arguments must be intelligently designed; but that does not mean that all arguments for intelligent design* are without merit. Perhaps if they used their noodles for something other than creating spaghetti creatures they’d see that obvious point for themselves.
(Note: By “arguments for intelligent design” I do not mean merely argument for Intelligent Design theory but all arguments that claim that the the universe was created and sustained by a self-existing Being who possesses intelligence (or, a minimum, a Being that possesses teleological intention and the ability to act in accordance with that self-willed intention). In other words, arguments that are made by almost all forms of theism and deism.)
May 15th, 2010 | 5:07 am
As you pointed out, spegetti monsters, and teapots, are contingent beings, meaning that they’re dependant on other causes/things for their existence.
But God, is the originator of all beings, all causes, everything. It follows that He would transcend all physical properties, everything, since He’s their cause.
The atheist could direct his criticism to, say, the possible logical problems with Christianity, in terms of hhow God, a non-physical, non-contingent being, becomes indentical with a physical, contingent being, Jesus Christ. I’m NOT saying that they would be successful in their criticisms here, but they would be on better logical ground.
May 15th, 2010 | 8:14 am
We humans have an uncanny ability to believe what we want to believe, and come up with reasons later, to jusify what we ALREADY believe. And, if our reason or reasons for justifying what we already believe don’t work, well, no sweat,we, being the creative (read self deceptive) beings we are, will just come up with something else.
Usually, it’s religious believers who are accused of believing what’s comforting, regardless of the evidence. However, I think that, considering that the evidence for atheism is, well, not exactly abundent, atheists are rather prone to this tendancy themselves.
Thomas Nagal, a philosopher, wrote that he WANTS atheism to be true. This is ironic, considering that Nagel, wrote an excellent book, called The Last Word, where he argued for the objective reality of truth in both metaphysics,and morality. Considering that reason and empirical evidence supports theism, more than atheism, Nagel must be one unhappy camper.
May 15th, 2010 | 9:28 am
Is that all they have … absurdity?? They’re saying it!
May 15th, 2010 | 9:28 am
What a futile attempt at convincing yourself that we atheists are silly.
The problem is, it’s not very convincing.
Come to reality Joe, we all can tell you want to.
May 15th, 2010 | 10:30 am
Wow! Are you so satire-challenged that you fail to understand that the FSM was not an argument for atheism but mockery of the idea that “the universe was created and sustained by a self-existing Being” is “science” suitable for teaching at taxpayer expense?
May 15th, 2010 | 10:34 am
so what’s your point?
May 15th, 2010 | 10:41 am
Proponents of Intelligent Design hold that it is logical and reasonable to infer a Creator from the creation.
Maybe so.
However, if we are unable to discern from Creation what His attributes are or even whether He still exists, what’s the point? What is gained, exactly?
Claims about His omniscience, goodness (or any other attributes) are claims of faith, not science or reason. We cannot determine anything about Him using methods similar to how we determine that some planets are hostile to life or how water evaporates, for example.
May 15th, 2010 | 10:49 am
Stop wasting your time, atheism means you dont believe in God for whatever reason, nothingness turning into soemthing does sound silly, but this is the first plave Ive heard this theory, funny how you aviod talking about the big bang or what the big bang really is, which is not nothing. The FSM is a joke, but so is your God as well, that is the purpose of the FSM, to prove ho stupid a belief in a God is, and your here using the very science you avoid when it comes to your belief to disprove something that cannot be disproved, it is simply what you believe in a different form with a different name.
May 15th, 2010 | 11:21 am
“Vallicella points out the key problem with this thinking: we have all sorts of reasons for believing that God exists. True, atheists may not find them compelling. But so what?”
Reasons, yes. Very bad reasons, all based on an infantile view of the world.
Evidence, no. None at all. Not one iota.
A believer trying to use reason is like a child trying to operate a nuclear reactor.
May 15th, 2010 | 11:26 am
I would point out that in order for a being to be maximally perfect and without potential for change or contingency, that being would have to be without extension of any kind (i.e., would have to be non-material, non-temporal, and so on). This rules out the FSM, which is posited as material and temporal and with extension.
The use of a name like the Flying Spaghetti Monster is simply intended as mockery, and appeals, I suspect, to those who think mockery wins an argument. So it doesn’t matter how often we point out that the FSM misses the point philosophically, it will continue to be used.
May 15th, 2010 | 12:14 pm
“The FSM is a creature comprised of stringy noodles while the PUG is a construct comprised of noodly theories about strings.”
Somehow I saw it coming, but I had to say “ouch” when it hit just the same.
May 15th, 2010 | 1:31 pm
I agree with you that the intention of the Intelligent Design movement is to demonstrate the existence of the non-contingent God.
But isn’t there a problem in trying to go from contingent properties of contingent living things to the non-contingent? God, as you point out, is totally different from things like teapots and vertebrate eyes.
May 15th, 2010 | 2:06 pm
Here are the main idiocies in his “argument”:
1) “…believes either that the universe was created from…”
No. False dichotomy. One need not believe that the universe was “created” at all. Why is it so hard for religious folks who believe in an imaginary being of infinite power to simply believe in an infinite universe? One that has always existed and always will…. See More
2) “Belief in God and in Russell’s teapot are therefore not on a par since there are no empirical or theoretical reasons for believing in his teapot.”
No. There is no “empirical” evidence for god at all, either. If there was, scientists would, by definition, believe in god then, and we wouldn’t be having this discussion. Everything you consider “empirical” evidence for god vs. a teapot is just whatever nonsense you were brought up to believe — on FAITH. Basically your justification for believing in god instead of a teapot is because “everyone else does”. If primitive throwbacks 2000 years ago had decided to worship a teapot instead, you’d be the exact same person you are now, but you’d worship a kettle.
It’s really disturbing that Christians can’t see that their religion is EXACTLY THE SAME as all the other silly ones they look at and think are ridiculous, and that those who worship the others look at them the same way. You’re all so busy pitying outsiders and praying for their souls, that you are totally incapable of looking in an intellectual mirror. This smug, conceited blind spot will hopefully be bred out of our species as education improves so that in another 1000 years, our culture will look at the religious of today like we look at shamans in ancient culture.
May 15th, 2010 | 2:11 pm
LMAO You guys are completely missing the point of the flying spaghetti monster. *sigh, wandering off shaking my head*
May 15th, 2010 | 2:33 pm
I’m not persuaded by arguments that claim that God has been shown to exist by reason. Each of those arguments that theists are willing to rely on has a counter-argument that is nearly as old. Given that there is no evidence for God, it’s pretty well a waste of time to argue about it.
I don’t quite understand why you think you get to move the burden of proof to atheists. I am atheist because there is no evidence for any gods. If there ever were evidence for any gods, I would reconsider my point of view. It seems quite clear that the evidence to date shows that the God of Abraham, whether described by Judaism, Christianity, Islam or Bahai does not exist and that He is described in a way that He cannot exist. If you ever find some evidence, please let me know.
May 15th, 2010 | 2:59 pm
“The issue is whether a reasoned case can be made for theism, and the answer is in the affirmative”
And yet, it is a curious thing how no religion has ever been able to climb above minority status. I would have thought that any religion which could mount a truly rationally-compelling case for its god would achieve at least a simple majority–especially any religion which claimed to represent for a god of limitless power who actually wanted the inhabitants of this cosmic dust speck to know of its existence.
The real basis and motivation for theistic belief is emotion. The rationalizations are only needed when child-like faith isn’t enough to sustain conviction. And even if some rationalizations seem convincing to those wishing to be convinced, it doesn’t make unbelievers obstinate, perverse or contrary if they don’t lower their normal standards of reason and rigor to accommodate such post-hoc apologetics.
May 15th, 2010 | 3:30 pm
The author claims that an argument from mockery is not valid, yet that is all he offers against the idea that something can come from nothing or that exnihilation is not a problem.
Truth is often stranger than fiction, or so it is said, and the current scientific consensus on quantum mechanics predicts that particles pop into existence from nothing on a regular basis.
Also, contingent things are not dependent on their source for protection from exnihilation; if this were not so, then nobody would outlive their parents.
May 15th, 2010 | 3:44 pm
what an utter load of Bollox!
May 15th, 2010 | 3:53 pm
Mockery is not an argument. It is the means of dealing with ideas that are so bizarre that mere reason alone will not dispense with them. In other words, any argument for taking the God described in the Bible seriously.
May 15th, 2010 | 5:11 pm
Joe, for those of us who have a naturalistic worldview, it is always interesting to watch you struggle with the idea that someone, some where thinks differently than you. Rather than belittle and demean people with different view points, maybe you should try talking to them. According to the mythology of the bible, that is what Jesus Christ would have done.
May 15th, 2010 | 5:20 pm
The thing about the Flying Spaghetti Monster is the whole argument behind it is based on comedy. All you have to do to demolish it is take it seriously.
May 15th, 2010 | 5:38 pm
Note the bait-and-switch: “compelling.” Strictly speaking, in face of free will, there is no such thing as a compelling argument for anything.
May 15th, 2010 | 6:05 pm
Dear Freelunch: You wrote:
“I’m not persuaded by arguments that claim that God has been shown to exist by reason. Each of those arguments that theists are willing to rely on has a counter-argument that is nearly as old. Given that there is no evidence for God, it’s pretty well a waste of time to argue about it.
I don’t quite understand why you think you get to move the burden of proof to atheists. I am atheist because there is no evidence for any gods. If there ever were evidence for any gods, I would reconsider my point of view. It seems quite clear that the evidence to date shows that the God of Abraham, whether described by Judaism, Christianity, Islam or Bahai does not exist and that He is described in a way that He cannot exist. If you ever find some evidence, please let me know.”
Dear Freelunch: I picked you for two reasons: first, your questions seem representative; and second, you seem normal and calm enough actually to converse with.
I posted this in another thread that Joe Carter started (and please, Mr. Carter, stop stirring things up!). So I’ll just re-post it here.
Is there a God? If by God one means a supreme being or an absolutely perfect being, then the answer is yes. A supreme being would have no potential for change, as pointed out by Aristotle (among many others), since change implies either a decline from perfection or some kind of improvement on perfection, which is illogical. A supreme being, therefore, could neither decline nor improve in any way.
So:
(1) If there is a God right now, then God has to exist. (If a supreme being exists right now, and cannot decline or pass out of existence, this supreme being necessarily exists.)
(2) If there is not a God right now, then it is impossible for God to exist. (If there is no supreme being right now, then a supreme being cannot come into existence, since coming into existence implies contingency and the potential for further change. If God does not exist now and cannot begin to exist at some time, then it is logically impossible for God to exist, ever.)
(3) Either there is a God right now or there is not a God right now. (Law of Excluded Middle.)
(4) Either God has to exist or it is impossible for God to exist. (From 1, 2, and 3, Copi’s Law of Constructive Dilemma.)
(5) It is not the case that it is impossible for God to exist.
(6) God has to exist. (From 4 and 5, Copi’s Law of Disjunctive Syllogism.)
(7) God exists. (From 6: According to modal logic, if something necessarily exists, then it exists.)
Notice that this also shifts the burden of proof. If someone wants to argue that God does not exist, that person has to disprove premise (5). In other words, the atheist has to prove that the existence of God is not simply unlikely to him or her, but that the existence of God is logically impossible. On the other hand, if God’s existence is not logically impossible, then God’s existence is entailed.
Now I’m not expecting to change many, if any, minds with this. But at least could folks stop saying there’s “no evidence” for God’s existence? What you really mean is that there’s no evidence you agree with, right? Which is not the same thing at all.
If you (not just talking to Freelunch here, but to anyone) want to respond to this, I would appreciate it if you would point to THE EXACT PREMISE you are disputing. Name-calling won’t cut it. If you claim to be “logical,” here’s your chance to prove it.
May 15th, 2010 | 6:07 pm
I really don’t think they know how ridiculous believe in God seems to us Atheists. Atheists really are non-theists. I am an Atheists and It just seems stupid to believe in something that has no evidence that it even exists. Maybe believers need to say why they believe in such things. If it is just faith alone then just say that and leave it at that. If you think you have one shred of evidence then point to it. But don’t condemn Atheists for not believing in something that gives us no reason to think it’s true.
May 15th, 2010 | 6:47 pm
I do not understand why anybody has to give a reason for not believing in something where there is no evidence for its existence. It is entirely up to the believers to convince, not the other way round.
May 15th, 2010 | 7:44 pm
This is how Disjunctive Syllogisms work:
Given A or B.
Not-B.
Therefore, A.
Given that God has to exist or that it is impossible for God to exist.
It is not the case that it is impossible for God to exist.
Therefore God has to exist.
Two more points before anyone bursts any blood vessels: First, the above premises didn’t just pop out of nowhere; the argument led up to them.
Secondly, you might say: Okay, I deny the other side; I simply deny that God has to exist. Therefore, it is impossible for God to exist. But that’s begging the question, since the point precisely under discussion is whether or not God exists, as a maximally perfect, non-contingent, eternal, changeless Being.
Now you still could be an atheist in perfectly good logical standing. All you have to do is disprove premise (5): that it is not the case that it is impossible for God to exist. Or, to put it in a more understandable way, you have to prove that it is impossible for God to exist. Otherwise, according to the logic of the argument, God’s existence is entailed.
David, you wrote, “It is entirely up to the believers to convince, not the other way round.” I do agree that some other forms of argument could make God’s existence more convincing or compelling. But I hope you see now why, according to this argument, I disagree.
But I’m open to change. Where’s that disproof of the logical argument?
May 15th, 2010 | 7:48 pm
Here are the main idiocies in his “argument”:
1) “…believes either that the universe was created from…”
No. False dichotomy. One need not believe that the universe was “created” at all. Why is it so hard for religious folks who believe in an imaginary being of infinite power to simply believe in an infinite universe? One that has always existed and always will….
M, did you actually read the sentence you are quoting from? Here it is:
Presumably since he is a physicist, Henderson believes either that the universe was created from nothing (everything from nothingness) or that he subscribes to some alternate view such as the multiverse theory.
Let’s read that again: “or that he subscribes to some alternate view such as the multiverse theory.” The multiverse theory is, of course, one of several theories that postulate an eternally existing universe.
Second question: Why, when you have so thoroughly botched your own argument, do you feel entitled to insult Carter with sneer-quotes and by calling his arguments “idiocies”? Might a little modesty be in order, and perhaps some politeness?
May 15th, 2010 | 7:55 pm
Craig Payne -
While I’m not saying that I accept or reject the argument, I would like to know how you came to step five? I was under the impression that was the question you were asking. It also appears that step five contradicts step 2. Five is not a valid conclusion from steps 1-4.
May 15th, 2010 | 7:57 pm
M, again:
2) “Belief in God and in Russell’s teapot are therefore not on a par since there are no empirical or theoretical reasons for believing in his teapot.”
No. There is no “empirical” evidence for god at all, either.
Dude, he said “empirical and theoretical reasons. All the classic arguments for the existence of God are theoretical.
May 15th, 2010 | 8:32 pm
Why don’t you worship a Flying Spaghetti Monster?
I can “prove” he exists, because you can’t prove he can’t… apparently. Number 5 proves he’s alive.
(1) If there is a FSM right now, then FSM has to exist. (If a supreme being exists right now, and cannot decline or pass out of existence, this supreme being necessarily exists.)
(2) If there is not a FSM right now, then it is impossible for FSM to exist. (If there is no supreme being right now, then a supreme being cannot come into existence, since coming into existence implies contingency and the potential for further change. If FSM does not exist now and cannot begin to exist at some time, then it is logically impossible for FSM to exist, ever.)
(3) Either there is a FSM right now or there is not a FSM right now. (Law of Excluded Middle.)
(4) Either FSM has to exist or it is impossible for FSM to exist. (From 1, 2, and 3, Copi’s Law of Constructive Dilemma.)
(5) It is not the case that it is impossible for FSM to exist.
(6) FSM has to exist. (From 4 and 5, Copi’s Law of Disjunctive Syllogism.)
(7) FSM exists. (From 6: According to modal logic, if something necessarily exists, then it exists.)
May 15th, 2010 | 8:43 pm
Craig Payne -
My earlier comment was in regard to your 6:05 comment, but your later comment makes your error more clear. You need to have a reason to assert not-B. You need to explain why it is not impossible for God to exist, particularly the God you defined in 6:05.
You wrote: “Or, to put it in a more understandable way, you have to prove that it is impossible for God to exist.”
Why? How did you manage to support your burden?
Please also explain why I cannot substitute any item that is agreed to be completely imaginary and have the same conclusion.
May 15th, 2010 | 9:18 pm
Dear Freelunch: Let me tackle your last question first, since it also addresses the objection of Zarathustra, right before you.
Not any item can be substituted, because any “item” (such as the FSM) would possess extension in space, time, etc.; in other words, it would have potential for change (could change location, get older, etc.) and thus would not be already perfect. The only Being to which my argument would apply would be a maximally perfect, changeless Being. Part of that perfection (lack of potential) would be the attribute of necessary existence.
So, Zarathustra, I’ll concede your argument if you concede mine. If you are using the ridiculous name of FSM simply to mock, that’s fine with me. The FSM you are describing is a maximally perfect Being possessing necessary existence–otherwise known as God. Thank you for conceding God’s existence.
Freelunch, let me post this and then go back over the argument before I respond to your other post. Best, cp
May 15th, 2010 | 9:19 pm
Premise 5 is simply an assertion. You are offering a syllogism; it it encumbent upon you to establish the truth of all premises. You have not done so.
It is also interesting that your claim that the atheist has evidence available to him is not supported – even by your syllogism, which does not offer empirical evidence, but merely a logical construct you have not demonstrated to be sound.
May 15th, 2010 | 9:32 pm
Okay, back again. Freelunch, you wrote, “My earlier comment was in regard to your 6:05 comment, but your later comment makes your error more clear. You need to have a reason to assert not-B. You need to explain why it is not impossible for God to exist, particularly the God you defined in 6:05.”
Actually (interesting argument, isn’t it?), I do not have to explain that, since that is not really the point of the argument. The point of the argument is that God (as a perfect Being possessing all perfections and no defects) also has to possess necessary existence; i.e, that God has to exist.
Of course, you can’t stop right there. The argument leads to “Either God has to exist or it is impossible for God to exist.” I do not think it is logically impossible for God to exist (at least, I haven’t seen the argument yet), so I deny that. That leaves ONLY the other option.
Now, the other option could be wrong; maybe God does not have to exist (possess necessary existence). But I don’t have to worry about that, since that is the only option left. If anyone wants the other option left open (that it is impossible for God to exist), he or she would need to show the argument. Again, I haven’t seen it yet.
If I may insert something personal here: I recognize what you are asking for. Do I have any other reasons for rejecting “It is impossible for God to exist”? The answer is yes, of course, including the incorrigible fact that God has saved me and therefore must exist. But the point of the argument is that I don’t really need to produce those arguments in order for the Disjunctive Syllogism to do its job.
Best to you (forever, I hope), cp
May 15th, 2010 | 9:52 pm
I agree with the previous commenter who pointed out that if the evidence and reason supported the existence of God then this debate, this discussion would not be happening. God, therefore, would be a scientific theory and any debate would be left to the finer details between experts in the field just like in any other scientific investigation.
However, to the dismay of the theist/deist, no such evidence exists to support the God theory so what you have remaining is faith.
Faith alone isn’t enough for me and a lot of other people to simply accept something as true, we need evidence and reason. There is no evidence to disprove the existence of God, but I have absolutely no reason to believe in the existence of God. That is the whole point of Bertrand Russell’s celestial teapot analogy! I can’t, technically, disprove a celestial teapot/God but what reason do I have to believe there is one? None.
You may, in return, point out the absurdity that atheists believe nothing created something, but this isn’t the case at all. Atheists accept the Big Bang theory and what came before it – if there was ever a ‘before’, some physicists say you can’t even ask the question – is simply a mystery and we are humble enough to admit we don’t know.
May 15th, 2010 | 10:05 pm
Dear Malchus: Thank you for your comment; however, I will allow my second response to Freelunch also to serve as my response to you. Best, cp
Dear Matthew: I would disagree with your initial statement: even if logical arguments for God’s existence (such as the one I presented) were demonstrated to be sound, we would still be having this argument. Our wills do not always necessarily follow our reason.
May 15th, 2010 | 10:18 pm
Re: Note the bait-and-switch: “compelling.” Strictly speaking, in face of free will, there is no such thing as a compelling argument for anything. (-Mary)
The term was “rationally compelling” –ie, forceful and convincing enough to warrant acceptance or belief–IF one wishes to submit to the constraints of reason. But the decision to be rational could be considered a matter of choice.
May 15th, 2010 | 10:21 pm
Chris, I note that you did not actually address Freelunch’s concerns. You are merely restating and old attempt at s formalization of the Ontological argument – which fails st any number of levels, not least of which is your unsupported asssertion that “existence” is even a meaningful property in the context of God.
And the atheist has a perfectly logical argument for the incoherence of the God concept: the Problem of Evil.
May 15th, 2010 | 10:24 pm
Hey everyone–where I’m at (Central Standard) it’s getting late, so I’m shutting down for the night. God bless us, every one. Love and affection, cp
May 15th, 2010 | 10:44 pm
“The point of the argument is that God (as a perfect Being possessing all perfections and no defects) also has to possess necessary existence; i.e, that God has to exist.”
Two problems. First, the above particular bit is just a variation on the well-critiqued ontological argument, so there’s nothing to be gained by going back over that ground. Second is the assumption on your part that a universe created by God is somehow superior to one that occurs as a part of natural processes.
“I do not think it is logically impossible for God to exist (at least, I haven’t seen the argument yet), so I deny that.”
Does the Problem of Evil show that the god you posit does not exist? If not, why not?
May 15th, 2010 | 11:11 pm
Joe Carter, what was the purpose of your post? We are Christians; the atheist should be among our special concerns. But all you have done is write an extended – and not well informed – sneer. You are clearly not trying to engage atheists in rational discussion; you are not witnessing to them.
Would Christ mock and sneer as you do? I think not.
May 15th, 2010 | 11:17 pm
@ Craig Payne
Your reasoning appears to be that for any given X defined to contain the attribute of eternality, such an X either necessarily exists if it is possible for it to exist, or it necessarily does not exist if it is possible for it not to exist.
You then assert that it is possible for it to exist and lay the burden of disproof on any would-be challenger, presumably based on the general principle that any proposition should be considered possible until demonstrated impossible.
If that’s where you were trying to go, here’s a rather obvious question. What if I replace premise 5 with: It is not the case that it is impossible for X not to exist. Does this not lead to the conclusion that X must not exist with just as much force as your argument leads to the conclusion that X must exist?
May 15th, 2010 | 11:21 pm
It’s rather incredible how many atheists have shown up here at a Christian site for the sole purpose of showing the superiority of reason by calling people names. I have to admit, I saw no value in atheism until I saw its strongest philosophical component was name-calling. As one that has always equated reason with the ability to call names, I’m impressed. Count me a convert!
May 16th, 2010 | 12:02 am
Malchus Joe Carter, what was the purpose of your post?
To show, once again, that the clever retorts of the atheists turn out to be rather silly.
We are Christians; the atheist should be among our special concerns.
I completely agree.
But all you have done is write an extended – and not well informed – sneer.
What was I not informed about?
You are clearly not trying to engage atheists in rational discussion; . . .
There is nothing rational about atheism—nothing. Take a look at some of the responses in this thread. You won’t find a lot of them responding with reason because atheism is about emotion, pathos rather than logos.
. . . you are not witnessing to them.
It depends on what you mean by witnessing to them. Before we could “witness” we must first establish the plausibility that God exists. For people who are not rationally capable of grasping that obvious fact, there isn’t much else we could say that would be effective.
Would Christ mock and sneer as you do? I think not.
I am neither mocking or sneering at the atheist. If you read the post again I think you’ll see that.
But I think I should point out again that if the Bible is to be believed, there is nothing intellectually respectable about atheism. The Bible doesn’t soften that point to make it easier to “witness” to the lost. In fact, the Bible refers to such people as “fools”—which is much harsher than anything I have said.
While I can appreciate your motivation, I think you are falling for the idea that we must be politically correct for the sake of evangelization. That is not, in my opinion, an idea that can be supported by the Bible. We must speak the truth, even when it requires telling the truth about nonsensical beliefs like atheism.
May 16th, 2010 | 12:32 am
Through all of Joe’s postings and supposed ‘evidence’ of an existence of god, I have never seen anything that goes beyond invoking the supernatural to fill the ‘god of the gaps’. These are tired and old arguments Joe. Come up with something other than the ‘we can’t explain it so it must be god’ argument. What really upsets you is that these silly atheist arguments (FSM etc.) have just as much evidence as your own.
May 16th, 2010 | 12:44 am
Joe,
I find it interesting how you attempt to uphold Christianity by defending deism. These are inherently two very different belief systems.
May 16th, 2010 | 1:02 am
“Why exactly we are to prefer an unintelligent designer to an intelligent one is one of the questions that remains unanswered.”
Leaving aside the potentially problematic usage of the word “designer,” the answer is Occam’s Razor.
Since we can only observe the known universe and all its properties, the question of how the singularity came into being or what initiated the big bang remains an intensely difficult one. These problems are not, however, resolved by assuming the existence of an intelligent creator.
It does not result in a superior explanation for the origin of the universe nor does it resolve the problem of existence we set out to explain in the first place.
May 16th, 2010 | 1:12 am
“But I think I should point out again that if the Bible is to be believed, there is nothing intellectually respectable about atheism.”
You could say the same about Judaism*, also. Do you, in fact, say it or are there different standards for different belief systems?
* Maimonides, for instance, says “[Jesus] interpreted the Torah and its precepts in such a fashion as to lead to their total annulment, to the abolition of all its commandments and to the violation of its prohibitions. The sages, of blessed memory, having become aware of his plans before his reputation spread among our people, meted out fitting punishment to him. Daniel had already alluded to him when he presaged the downfall of a wicked one and a heretic among the Jews who would endeavor to destroy the Law, claim prophecy for himself, make pretenses to miracles, and allege that he is the Messiah…”
May 16th, 2010 | 1:37 am
Mark You could say the same about Judaism*, also. Do you, in fact, say it or are there different standards for different belief systems?
I’m not sure I understand your point. How does a claim about atheism in a book that is part of the canon of Judaism (Proverbs) apply to Judaism?
May 16th, 2010 | 3:13 am
The mockers and deniers of Jesus Christ will soon be His footstool (Psalm 110:1). Why will you perish? Turn to Jesus in faith, and receive Him as your Lord and Savior before it’s too late.
May 16th, 2010 | 3:33 am
“if the Bible is to be believed, there is nothing intellectually respectable about atheism.” -That’s a very big “if”, isn’t it? What christians assume is the written word of god, atheists believe to be a human piece of literature. And for most people, belief in the bible as the written word of god has more to do with their being born in a christian (I assume) country , and being exposed to christianity at a small age, than the use of their rational mind.
May 16th, 2010 | 3:46 am
@Craig Payne,
Your revised MOA is excellent! Is that your personal formulation?
@Malchus
First, in response to your comment about whether or not “existence” is meaningful to the concept of God, surely it is. In the traditional discussion one must ask would it be better for a maximally great being to exist or not to exist? Obviously, since lack of existence would mean the lack of the other maximally great qualities, it is necessary that he exist…or he is not maximally great.
Second, as for the PoE, are you offering this in response to Premise 5? I’m sure that Craig and others would move to a discussion of the PoE if we need to move there, but why don’t you make a formulation of the PoE in response to Premise 5 (therefore showing that it is impossible for a maximally great Being to exist, and we will see where it takes us.
I’ve yet to find a compelling version of the PoE that does not fall apart in light of Plantinga’s Nature of Necessity and the subsequent literature that basically nailed the final coffin in the logical PoE., so I’m interested to see your formulation. Rowe’s evidential PoE, and others seem to rely too much on emotion and stray from reason…at best they offer reasons for critiquing our understanding of a maximally great Being (especially if you have other reasons for believe that such a Being exists), but certainly do not show its existence to be impossible.
May 16th, 2010 | 3:50 am
@Trey
You said, “I find it interesting how you attempt to uphold Christianity by defending deism. These are inherently two very different belief systems.”
You seem not to have read the post, because the purpose was never to “uphold Christianity,” but to show the claims of atheists are “just plain silly.” Since the purpose is to show the irrationality of atheism, then an argument against atheism from any tradition (Islam, deism, Buddhism, etc.) works.
May 16th, 2010 | 3:57 am
“How does a claim about atheism in a book that is part of the canon of Judaism (Proverbs) apply to Judaism?”
The claim was “if the Bible is to be believed, there is nothing intellectually respectable about X.” The Christian Bible, as you well know, contains specific claims in the Gospels about Jesus being the son of God — claims that are rejected by Maimonides and all serious religious Jews (as well as secular or atheistic Jews).
Since the Gospels are part of the Christian Bible (and I have to assume that is what you were referring to as a believing Christian — the Gospels are a necessary part of Christian faith), it follows that if it is appropriate to substitute “atheism” for X in the above claim, it is equally appropriate to substitute “Judaism.”
So why then won’t you defy political correctness in this instance and write about how religious Judaism is silly, irrational and not intellectually respectable?
May 16th, 2010 | 4:14 am
Craig’s argument — as others have alluded to — is a reformulation of Anselm’s ontological argument for the existence of God. I don’t see any substantive difference between the two so I’ll direct my comments at Anselm’s original argument (which has been extensively debated in the philosophical literature).
There are at least three problems with the ontological argument:
1. It presupposes that “existence” is a property of an entity. This is problematic and appears to be a smuggled premise (Immanuel Kant pointed this problem out originally). For instance, a chemist might talk about the properties of CO2 (e.g. a certain molecular weight, a certain freezing temperature in a vacuum, etc.) but “existence” is not a property itself. Instead, it is a fact that is verified or refuted by empirical observation. Beware anyone who claims to prove existence through purely logical argument as existence inherently refers to the material, observable world, not the Platonic world of abstract entities and logical constructs (David Hume wrote on this, also).
2. We need a rigorous definition of “possible.” I can think of at least two relevant definitions. Possible may pertain to a statement of lack of information or knowledge (e.g. “it is possible Richard Nixon did not order the Watergate break in” — he either did or he didn’t but I lack the information to state with certainty which is true). Another definition is lack of proof of logical contradiction. A third, but not relevant, definition would deal with random processes. What is the precise definition we are dealing with when we say it is “possible” that God exists?
3. Some definitions of God could, in fact, imply logical contradictions. Since the definition of God is such a critical part of the argument, it needs to be fairly rigorous. An all-powerful God can result in well-known logical problems, for instance (if God is all-powerful, can it annihilate itself? — either a yes or a no seems to cast the property “all-powerful” in doubt). I won’t press this line of argument but it’s also a concern for any such ontological argument.
May 16th, 2010 | 4:38 am
Craig Payne,
Thank you Anselm, but I will not concede your argument. Plantinga’s modal form has a flaw.
One can have an experience as of a universe that is uncreated, eternal and godless (i.e., devoid of a maximally great being), which, if experienced, must be possible, therefore breaking the necessity of said maximally great being.
A maximally perfect being can not exist. Your re-hash of the ontological argument in no better than the original.It does not shift the burden of proof to the atheist. It does not make a case for the nature of this alleged being. And with out that, it is meaningless.
Even if this argument “proved” that a god must exist (and it does not), it does NOT lend any favor to a Christian version of this god. In fact, a perfect being is completely incompatible with the ridiculous mythology of the old and new testament.
As Hume said…
” [T]here is an evident absurdity in pretending to demonstrate a matter of fact, or to prove it by any arguments a priori. Nothing is demonstrable, unless the contrary implies a contradiction. Nothing, that is distinctly conceivable, implies a contradiction. Whatever we conceive as existent, we can also conceive as non-existent. There is no being, therefore, whose non-existence implies a contradiction. Consequently there is no being, whose existence is demonstrable.”
Though this criticism is directed against a cosmological argument similar to that defended by Samuel Clarke in his first Boyle Lectures, the point applies to ontological arguments as well.
And don’t pull your Paul J. Glenn crap on us, the FSM is Gaunilo’s island to your argument.
There is a strong general case against the intelligibility of the concept of an absolutely necessary being.(Kant) Google it.
Just give up Plantinga’s argument. He merely re-assumes that existence is a property and continues the argumentation by tautology.
May 16th, 2010 | 5:28 am
[J.C.]“There is nothing rational about atheism—nothing.”
A cognizant lack of belief in any deity is not an actual process of reason per se, and it is possible to arrive at atheism without recourse to reason (eg. as the result of indoctrination into a religion which has no gods) so it’s fair to say atheism isn’t inherently or necessarily rational. But atheism can still be the result of reason. Indeed, I’ve only seen reason lead in that direction, given the objective evidences we’ve had so far.
(A personal appearance from a god might be rationally compelling to someone who directly experienced it, but such would not qualify as objective evidence to anyone who did not.)
May 16th, 2010 | 9:12 am
Zarathustra,
I hate to be this way, but I’m truly interested in what you have to say and its hard to sort through the rhetoric and insults to get to your argument (not to mention sorting through various assertions devoid of argument).
It seems your argument consists of:
1. Craig’s version is no different than Anselm (and you go so far as to refer to it as Plantinga’s argument)
2. Plantinga’s argument has a fatal flaw
2a. If such a world could be experienced that was devoid of a maximally great being entailing possibility.
2b. If possible, then a maximally great being does not exist in every possible world and cannot be necessary
2c. If not necessary, then does not exist.
3. If 2 holds, then Plantinga’s argument fails
4. If 1 is true, then Craig’s version also fails
Are there any reasons why a theist should accept 2? Are there any evidences that 2 is even a possibility? Are there reasons that Craig’s argument avoids this move?
Anyways, please avoid the rhetoric, but continue the conversation. I could care less whether or not you are capable of finely worded insults, but I am interested in any actual arguments you have to offer.
May 16th, 2010 | 9:53 am
Way too much for me to try to get caught up on. But here’s a stab:
Dear Zarathustra: You wrote, among other things: “Just give up Plantinga’s argument. He merely re-assumes that existence is a property and continues the argumentation by tautology.” Mark also pointed this out.
Actually, my argument owes more to Norman Malcom. But that’s a side note. The point is that neither Plantinga nor I assume that existence is a property–nor does Anselm, in his second formulation of the argument. However, NECESSARY existence is a property, and thus can be treated as a predicate, contrary to Kant and Hume. Necessary existence is a “great-making property,” as a friend of mine once put it. A maximally perfect Being would therefore possess it.
This also responds to Hume’s objection that there is nothing contradictory about thinking of something as either existing or not existing. It seems that it is contradictory to think of a Being as possessing necessary existence–but also as not existing. (This, in my opinion, is Anselm’s true contribution.)
Several people pointed out that “this is just a variation on Anselm’s ontological argument” and then said something like “and therefore we don’t need to address it.” Isn’t that something of a side-step–akin to name-calling (or name-dropping), but on a slightly higher level? “Ah, yes, Anselm’s argument–well, now that we recognize it, no further arguments are required.”
A good and relatively short overview of these topics can be found in Katherin A. Rogers’ book “Perfect Being Theology,” for anyone who might be further interested.
Let’s see, what else? Freelunch, you wrote, “Second is the assumption on your part that a universe created by God is somehow superior to one that occurs as a part of natural processes.” But I don’t actually have that assumption, and I don’t really remember saying anything at all about the universe being created by God.
Likewise, Nick wrote: “Your reasoning appears to be that for any given X defined to contain the attribute of eternality, such an X either necessarily exists if it is possible for it to exist, or it necessarily does not exist if it is possible for it not to exist.” Well, eternality would certainly be a feature of a maximally perfect being, but the real focus is God’s perfection and hence necessary existence, not His eternality.
A couple people pointed out the problem of evil, which in my opinion is the strongest argument to try to prove that it is impossible for God to exist. I will, God willing, take that up after I return from church.
Let us worship together!
May 16th, 2010 | 9:57 am
I’m not Zarathustra and I’ve only seen Plantinga’s argument as it is recounted in Wikipedia. With that disclaimer, here’s what I think is the fatal flaw:
Platinga relies on the possible worlds interpretation of the word “possible.” In my earlier comment I pointed out that any ontological argument has to be very explicit about what the relevant definition of “possible” is. So Platinga uses the possible worlds framework [not my favorite, but that's beside the point] and then makes two statements:
“It is proposed that a being has maximal greatness if it has maximal excellence [omnipotent, omniscient and wholly good] in every possible world.”
Then we get to the critical premise: “[I]t is possible that there be a being that has maximal greatness.”
But notice this statement does not use “possible” in a coherent or well-defined manner. Let’s break it down:
“It is possible that there is a being that has maximal excellence in every possible world.” This simply joins the two statements together. But something is only “possible” if it obtains in some worlds but not others. If something obtains in all possible worlds, it is necessary, not “possible” in this framework.
So Plantinga is saying it is possible that God necessarily exists. But that simply is not a meaningful or coherent statement in the possible worlds framework. Something is either necessary (its negation leads to logical contradiction and therefore it obtains in all possible worlds) or else it is contingent and therefore does not obtain in all possible worlds.
This “possibly necessary” business does not make sense under the definition Platinga chose for his argument.
May 16th, 2010 | 10:14 am
Let me correct one small mistake in what I previously wrote. I said that for something to be possible it must obtain in some possible worlds but not others. It’s been a while since freshman philosophy class and it seems that definition is wrong. The word I am looking for is “contingent.” It still doesn’t change the essence of the critique. Here’s the premise:
“[I]t is possible that there be a being that has maximal greatness.” We can split this into two propositions with the revised definition:
1. It is necessary that there be a being that has maximal greatness.
2. It is contingent that there be a being that has maximal greatness.
Platinga’s premise is #1 OR #2. #1 is begging the question so we have to discard it. Then we are left with #2 which is what the rest of my comments above addressed. It is incoherent to talk about contingency in some meta-statement about possible worlds since contingency is only defined in the context of possible worlds.
May 16th, 2010 | 11:21 am
Atheists and their friends continue to make an assertion, perhaps thats to strong a word, that I find galling. It comes up in just about everything I read that they are involved with. It is the mantra that believers are stupid at worst or duped at best and anti science to boot.
I’m sure that this is true of some but they are not representative. I’m equally sure that there are a couple of stupid atheists around.
Of the believers that I know and of those I read science per se presents no problem and in fact is seen in its better practitioners as providing a worthy service to mankind. Not being a scientist myself I have a minimal grasp of all that it claims but what grasp I do have tells me that to this point in history science itself has not made the metaphysical leap to any “therefores” regarding the ultimate nature of existence. There is nothing in science that could make one necessarily and definitively conclude that there is no God or that there is. There is however an interesting, to me, tidbit that points to the reality of at least one element of a theistic world view and it is this: For the last hundred years or so one of the great pursuits of science, at least in theoretical physics, has been the unified field theory, that is the idea that there must be a single unifying principle underlying all of existence. From what I know this endeavor has reduced the primary principles in the last hundred years from 5 to 2.
I find this interesting because 3 or 4 thousand years ago some guys in an arid backwater area of the world concluded the same thing and so was created monotheism, the One. Just a thought.
May 16th, 2010 | 12:07 pm
Michael Currie -
Haven’t you reduced the God of Abraham to some sort of deistic force with your argument?
May 16th, 2010 | 12:42 pm
As an atheist, I will also comment. Mine is not a “belief system”. I simply do not find your arguments for the existence of your god compelling. You have only arguments, no evidence, and nothing in your arguments are at all testable. “the sun rose, therefore God”. “My cancer went into remission. therefore God”. “This painting is beautiful, therefore God”. How does one even begin to test these assertions? They are entirely based on faith, and that faith is entirely based on believing in the claim of revelations. Maybe you can accept that the Creator of thue Universe wrote a book and gave it to one Middle Eastern tribe of desert nomads, but I find that assertion to be ridiculous, especially when the claims of that book are set against what humans have discovered in the past 3000 years. As for the argument of complexity, that is also an argument from ignorance. “This is really complex, therefore God.” “I don’t understand this, therefore God.” Pretty much every example of complexity has been shown to have a natural explanation that does not require diviine intervention. And those that have not yet been explained may eventually be explained by natural means. Again, I simply reject YOUR arguments. Doesn’t mean that all believers are stupid or ignorant. Just means that I do not accept your arguments. Sure, there COULD be beings that exist beyond our known Universe, but it sure ain’t Yahweh or Allah or Jesus! I do not believe in your claims or in your tribal gods!
May 16th, 2010 | 1:09 pm
[CP] “Well, eternality would certainly be a feature of a maximally perfect being, but the real focus is God’s perfection and hence necessary existence, not His eternality.”
Okay, well, you can derive eternality from perfection, and your argument could have been driven by eternality directly, but however you want to get there, the critical part would seem to be that X somehow be defined to arrive at the crucial premise: if it is possible for X to exist, then X necessarily exists, and if it is possible for X not to exist, then X necessarily does not exist.
All that remains then is to assert that it is possible for X to exist, and from that conclude that X necessarily exists, and presto, you’ve pulled a God from a hat. But it seems to me that whatever justification there could be for making the assertion that it is possible for X to exist could equally apply to the assertion “it is possible for X not to exist”. Including both of those assertions in the same argument would lead to the conclusion: X necessarily exists and X necessarily does not exist. To me, it looks like the strength of your argument rests on sweeping half of the implications under the carpet.
May 16th, 2010 | 2:46 pm
[Note: Since I started way too many posts on atheism and people are commenting on each one, I thought I should put this comment on each thread.]
For most of this discussion I’ve come across as antagonistic to atheism, so let me try a different approach by offering some friendly advice: If you want to convince people to take you seriously they you really have to stop saying that theist don’t have “evidence” that their is a God.
No atheist who was serious about carrying on a discussion would ever make such a juvenile, ridiculous claim. Let me try to explain why.
First, let’s look at the definition of the term “evidence”: that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof.
The theist uses the term in all of these ways:
“that which tends to prove or disprove something” — the theist has a variety of items—from philosophical proofs to religious experiences—that serve to prove (or confirm) the existence of God.
“ground for belief” — There may be theists who believe in the existence of God without having a ground for this belief—but I’ve never met them. As a rule, theists have a ground for their belief in empirical observation, tacit knowledge, etc.
“proof” — Even if we limit this to philosophical proof, the theist certainly has evidence on his side. The philosophical proofs for the existence of God, though not indubitable, are stronger and more sound than their counter-arguments.
What you mean, of course, when you say that the theist has no “evidence” is that you do not find the evidence persuasive. Rather than strengthening your case, it weakens it by showing that you are probably not in an epistimic position to make a relevant judgment.
Consider this analogy. There are some severely autistic people who are unable to read other people’s emotions. They therefore have no direct, personal “evidence” based on their own experience that it is even possible to read other people’s emotions by observing their behavior.
Now imagine if an autistic person were to say that not only do they not have evidence that another person’s emotional state can be discerned by observing their facial expressions but that no one has such “evidence.”
I daresay that no one would take such a claim seriously. We know from our own experience—tested and proven beyond a shadow of a doubt in our minds—that their claim is false. So how should they expect us to respond? For them to claim since they don’t have compelling evidence of the phenomena that no one has it would be quite absurd.
Yet that is the very thing that many atheists claim. They are extrapolating from their own epistimic inadequacies and expecting the rest of us to be persuaded by something that we know is false.
If you truly believe that we have no evidence for our belief in God, then you have to do more than repeatedly restating that silly claim ad nauseum. You have to show that what we consider proof is not only not convincing to you, but that it should not be convincing to us either.
May 16th, 2010 | 4:18 pm
Dear Mark: Hello again. I’m not a huge fan myself of the “possible worlds” argument of Plantinga’s, but I don’t think you are stating it exactly as P. would state it (although you are very close). You wrote, “So Plantinga is saying it is possible that God necessarily exists. But that simply is not a meaningful or coherent statement in the possible worlds framework. Something is either necessary (its negation leads to logical contradiction and therefore it obtains in all possible worlds) or else it is contingent and therefore does not obtain in all possible worlds.”
See, you are right on target: if something is necessary it obtains in all possible worlds. God is a Being whose perfections include necessary existence. So if God exists AT ALL, in any possible world, then God would exist in all possible worlds, including ours. For God not to exist would mean God could not exist at all in ANY possible world.
This is what I meant by “If God exists right now, then God has to exist” and “If God does not exist right now, then it is impossible for God to exist.” The rest of the argument follows from that. To say that God does not exist is in this argument the same thing as saying that it is impossible for God to exist.
Dear Nick: I think the above also applies to your objection: “But it seems to me that whatever justification there could be for making the assertion that it is possible for X to exist could equally apply to the assertion “it is possible for X not to exist”.”
X in this case is a maximally perfect Being whose perfections include necessary existence. So, according to the argument I just brought up with Mark, if X’s existence is possible, it is necessary, and I couldn’t say “It is possible that X exist” but also “it is possible for X not to exist.” That would be like saying “This statement is necessarily true” but also “This statement could be false.”
One reason this argument looks so odd, according to Anselm, is that it applies ONLY to a maximally perfect Being with no potential for change or extension: not to a teacup, not to a spaghetti monster, not to a perfect island, not to a perfect horse, and so on.
Let me bring up the problem of evil briefly (too briefly, and I know treating the subject logically will seem cold-hearted).
Typically the argument is something like the following modus ponens:
If unnecessary evil or suffering exists, then God does not exist.
UEOS exists.
Therefore, God does not exist.
However, let’s apply a modus tollens to that instead of modus ponens:
If UEOS exists, then God does not exist.
However, it is not the case that God does not exist.
Therefore, UEOS does not exist. What we think of as UEOS, if we could see it from an all-knowing perspective, would have some sort of reason explaining it, even if in many cases the reason is simply bad human choices (child abuse or murder or war, for example).
What this argument immediately does is switch the topic away from unnecessary evil or suffering, to the existence of God (again). At this point, I would acknowledge the “believers need faith” argument of the atheist; that is, if there is a God, then I do need faith in Him, because I do not understand the suffering in the world.
As God tells Abraham (and us), “Shall not the Judge of all the earth do what is right?” I accept that.
May 16th, 2010 | 4:47 pm
[JC] “For them to claim since they don’t have compelling evidence of the phenomena that no one has it would be quite absurd. Yet that is the very thing that many atheists claim. They are extrapolating from their own epistimic inadequacies and expecting the rest of us to be persuaded by something that we know is false.”
This amounts to a claim that you have access to some form of evidence which is unavalable to unbelievers. This is, of course, unassailable, but it is, by the same token, unconfirmable. It is also characteristic of almost all of the competing and mutually-incompatible god-belief systems, so the most objective conclusion to be drawn from an outsider’s perspective is that at least some, indeed, at least a majority of all people who have found such personal evidences convincing, and believe they have arrived at truth and knowledge, have nonetheless arrived at error. And it’s possible that all of them have.
But you do have a fair point. We really should make more of an effort to qualify our assessment from “you have no evidence” to “you have no evidence that you can show us”.
May 16th, 2010 | 5:33 pm
[CP] “X in this case is a maximally perfect Being whose perfections include necessary existence.”
Excuse me, but I thought “God has to exist” was one of the very conclusions which you were attempting to establish with your argument. If you had simply begun with the premise, “God is a being which has to exist” that would have greatly reduced the number of steps needed to arrive at your final conclusion that God does exist.
You are correct that including “it is possible that X does exist” and “it is possible that X does not exist” would lead to an outright contradiction in your argument, but that’s my point. It either needs to be shown why this outright contradiction is not fatal to your argument, or it needs to be shown why “it is possible that X does exist” can be asserted with no need for justification while “it is possible that X does not exist” cannot? If you say that the assertion of the possibility of X leads to the necessity of X, which negates the possibility of no X, then by the same token, it could equally be said that the possibility of no X leads to the necessity of no X, which negates the possibility of X.
[CP] “One reason this argument looks so odd, according to Anselm, is that it applies ONLY to a maximally perfect Being with no potential for change or extension:”
It has been many years since I looked at Anselm, but my recollection is that the starting point he proposed was that God is that being greater than which no other being can even be conceived. That seemed an odd and rather self-defeating starting point to me. Which seems “greater” to you? A god which is restricted and utterly incapable of imagining anything even the slightest bit greater than itself, or a God with no such constraint on its powers of imagination?
May 16th, 2010 | 5:35 pm
You have to check your brain at the door to be an atheist. Here is an example of atheist “logic”: A simple toy bird is evidence of intelligence. A real bird, which is infinitely more complex, more beautiful and more functional, is not. Every atheist is in denial. “Give me evidence of God’s existence”, they say, when it’s all around them. The truth is, they don’t want to see it for what it is. They’re having too much fun living their life without accountability to God (or so they think).
Why will you perish in the Lake of Fire (Rev. 20:15)? Turn to Jesus in faith and receive Him as your Lord and Savior today, and you will be forgiven your sins and be given eternal life.
May 16th, 2010 | 6:57 pm
Hi, Nick. You wrote, “Excuse me, but I thought “God has to exist” was one of the very conclusions which you were attempting to establish with your argument. If you had simply begun with the premise, “God is a being which has to exist” that would have greatly reduced the number of steps needed to arrive at your final conclusion that God does exist.”
My actual premise is “If God does exist right now, then God has to exist” (based on the definition of God as a Being possessing all perfections). The argument starts with that premise, not the premise “God has to exist,” and then works to the conclusion (which is, in fact, “God has to exist”). In other words, you think of the argument as begging the question; I do not.
Your other argument: If God could imagine a greater being than Himself, that would mean that God would have to lack a perfection which this other being would possess. So (I’m paraphrasing here, but I think it’s accurate) you are saying that God, a Being who possesses all perfections, would be even greater if He would lack perfection–and then be able to imagine a being which is perfect!
I don’t see how that view of God could be that of a maximally perfect Being, which is what I’m arguing for.
May 16th, 2010 | 8:57 pm
Re Joe’s autism analogy: There are a couple of reasons this analogy does not work. First, there is a testable hypothesis. Photograph people in different emotional situations (under stress, laughing, annoyed, etc) and then have volunteers look at the photographs and identify the emotion. This study has been done by psychologists and the hypothesis has been confirmed.
Of course, most of us didn’t need psychology professors to tell us this. But the point is that whether the ability to read facial expressions is genuine or not is subject to scientific inquiry. It is a claim that can be falsified.
Second, it is also the case that most non-autistic people agree on what different facial expressions mean, even across cultures. By contrast, the world is full of people who have had profound religious experiences that they choose to interpret in a manner quite different from how Joe Carter would probably interpret the experience. Unlike agreeing what different facial expressions mean, there is no widespread agreement or social consensus on what religious experiences mean.
So the fact that religious experiences are deeply personal is all the more reason to be a bit skeptical of them and not to assume they apply to others (indeed, they almost certainly would not be interpreted the same way by the majority of fellow humans) or say something about the outside world. We know that personal experience can be deeply misleading — eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable, for instance. And everyone seems to “know” how to cure a common cold.
May 16th, 2010 | 9:07 pm
@Craig Payne, Nick and Freelunch,
Thanks for a very interesting read. When I originally heard Anselm’s argument as a college student it seemed like a party trick or something. Whenever I read Plantinga’s version a few years back it finally “clicked” and I started to understand it. What Craig has done here is show that the modal ontological argument can be argued and more than adequately defended against intelligent criticism.
May 16th, 2010 | 9:20 pm
Mark Re Joe’s autism analogy: There are a couple of reasons this analogy does not work.
All analogies have points of dissimilarity. The question is whether they invalidate the points of similarity. In this case, I don’t think they do. The reason, I believe, is because, as you say, “Of course, most of us didn’t need psychology professors to tell us this.”
The point of the original analogy is that people trust what they already know and are skeptical about claims made by people who claim that the tacit knowledge they possesses is erroneous. Whether that knowledge can be confirmed by empirical observation is irrelevant.
. . . there is no widespread agreement or social consensus on what religious experiences mean.
True, but that does not invalidate the face that for the person in question, the religious experience can serve as “evidence”for their belief.
So the fact that religious experiences are deeply personal is all the more reason to be a bit skeptical of them and not to assume they apply to others (indeed, they almost certainly would not be interpreted the same way by the majority of fellow humans) or say something about the outside world.
I don’t understand how the fact that they are deeply personal invalidates the experiences as evidence. I may, based on extensive experience, be able to discern changes in my wife’s emotional state in ways that other people could not. Should I be skeptical about my “evidence” for my belief about her emotional state?
You seem to think that we must privilege what can be scientifically verified over basic beliefs or tacit knowledge. I’m not sure why that should be the case.
eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable, for instance.
If eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable, then why has it been—for centuries—one of the most fundamental sources of “evidence” in law?
May 16th, 2010 | 9:43 pm
Joe,
You do have evidence that God exists, but no more than the witnesses of the Loch Ness monster. Why is your ‘evidence’ not compelling to us? It’s because it is not scientific evidence… you know, testable, falsifiable, and repeatable.
May 16th, 2010 | 10:16 pm
I always enjoy First Things discussions.
Craig Payne, I still think you fall for the Anselm-ish begging the question of defining a God that has to exist and then goes to try and prove it. Your opening premise (1. If God does exist right now, then God has to exist) essentially includes the idea that God must possess existence.
I like the beyond-Anselmic definitions of God where a real supreme being like God should also be able to possess the property of non-existence. Why is God so limited that it must not be able to partake in the “other half” of existence? A true, all-powerful God should be able to possess all qualities that we can recognize, including existence/non-existence, and many other qualities which we cannot even name or conceive of.
That is one (of many) reasons that defining God as existing early on results in a lot of mental horseplay when you try to prove it’s existence.
Having said that, there are faith reasons to believe in God. (Reasons which are beyond rationality.) I continue to think that rational reasons to believe in God are red-herrings and try and make believers feel like philosophers.
May 16th, 2010 | 10:18 pm
Whoops – Freudian slip – I said “it’s existence” instead of “its existence”. I didn’t consciously mean to say “it IS existence”.
May 16th, 2010 | 10:20 pm
http://www.wordonfire.org/WOF-TV/Commentaries-New/Father-Barron-on-The-New-Atheists.aspx
May 16th, 2010 | 11:44 pm
We could start with the premise that it is possible that there exist a being that doesn’t exist at all worlds, but which is the most excellent being at all the worlds at which it does exist. This rules out the existence of a maximally great being.
Plantinga concedes that such an argument would be as sound as his own, and that therefore his is not a knock-down ontological argument in the way that Descartes’ and Anselm’s tried to be, but that it’s at least a rational argument, because it is perfectly rational to accept the premise at issue. This is not good enough, however.
If there are two contradictory premises, and either is possible, then what grounds do we have for accepting one or the other? We seem to be back at the accusation of begging the question.
So, if the existence and non -existence of God (as defined as a maximally great Being with no other defined attributes) are equally defensible…. how are atheists foolish and silly for picking the option that there is no God till proven otherwise?
May 17th, 2010 | 1:11 am
“I don’t understand how the fact that they are deeply personal invalidates the experiences as evidence.”
I’d suggest talking to a police officer who works with troubled youths sometime. They are filled with stories of returning miscreant children to ungrateful parents only to be derided with assertions of “I know my kid better than you do. He would never do anything like that. I don’t care what you say.” If the officer has a video or a packet of drugs with the kid’s fingerprints on it, the parents change their tune very fast, though, unless they insist on pursuing a conspiracy theory of some kind.
The point of all this is that most people don’t know nearly as much as they think they do and a skeptical mindset is generally healthy. You should be open to even deep-seated convictions being disproved by evidence. Even in the face-reading example, the point I made is that the hypothesis is falsifiable.
“You seem to think that we must privilege what can be scientifically verified over basic beliefs or tacit knowledge. I’m not sure why that should be the case.”
If we are to give “basic beliefs or tacit knowledge” any weight, I’m not sure how you suggest that people refute allegations of witchcraft or black magic that periodically spring up in isolated rural communities around the world, for instance (as they did once in Salem, Mass and do now in the Islamic world and sub-Saharan Africa). They are certainly based on “basic beliefs or tacit knowledge” and even on fairly convincing eye-witness accounts.
Moreover, by any standard, most (if not almost all) religious experiences are highly misleading unless you are going to indulge in relativism of some kind. India at any given time has large numbers of supposed holy men roaming the country side claiming to have experienced a profound divine revelation of some kind (invariable not of the Christian variety). Do you believe them?
The point about eye-witness accounts, finally, is that an awful lot of research has come out showing just how fallible eye witnesses are. Historians tend to downgrade eye witness accounts relative to other forms of evidence and courts are slowly starting to do the same.
May 17th, 2010 | 8:32 am
It’s Monday morning, I’m back at work and finishing out a term, so I’ll have to beg off at this point. Thanks, everyone.
Joe Carter, I blame you for blowing pretty much my whole weekend. It was a good discussion, though. How about your next couple of threads be about “Lovable Pets I Have Owned” or something like that? :)
May 17th, 2010 | 8:35 am
Hi Craig!
‘X in this case is a maximally perfect Being whose perfections include necessary existence.’
This is where the argument starts to sound circular and question-begging. If necessary existence is attributed to a maximally perfect being by definition, what does the argument go on to show? Kant, for example, has queried that existence is a predicate.
‘As God tells Abraham (and us), “Shall not the Judge of all the earth do what is right?” I accept that.’
If you accept that, then you don’t know right from wrong in any sense independent of what the Judge does. If right is what the Judge does, by definition, then you’re impaled by the Euthyphro dilemma.
May 17th, 2010 | 9:04 am
All right, one more comment and then I really am begging off.
Dear Overseas: Regarding the first objection–I do agree with Kant that existence is not a meaningful predicate. “Necessary” existence, however, is a predicate, as it is a property making something greater than those things existing only contingently. So I don’t think that to say “If God exists right now, then God has to exist (by definition)” is begging the question. If there is a maximally perfect Being, then that Being would possess necessary existence. So the question is, Is there a maximally perfect Being in existence right now? And the argument takes off from there.
Regarding the second objection, about right and wrong: I see the force of your comment; however, I don’t think the two are mutually exclusive. I can accept that God’s character, as possessing all perfections, is perfectly good, and that God operates out of His character exclusively, while still holding to an account of right and wrong that is rationally accessible to all people without appealing to God’s character or nature.
To put it in the Euthyphro terms: I do not think of right and wrong as arbitrarily decided by God, since God’s very nature is perfect Goodness; His commands and actions are therefore not arbitrary. The Judge of all the earth shall do what is right.
On the other hand, I do not think of the standard of right and wrong as being above God in authority, for exactly the same reason: His very nature is perfect Goodness.
Do we have to know God, therefore, in order to understand the standards of right and wrong? In general, I would say no. Someone could live by God’s character, in fact, while not even believing in God; we could discern right and wrong by the light of natural reason (while supernatural revelation is a great help and even pushes us beyond natural reason–loving your enemies, for example).
And now I will kick off the “Lovable Pets I Have Owned” discussion: Sylvester is really a great cat–peaceful, non-neurotic, almost like a dog.
(Oh, no; that may have begun a different argument.)
May 17th, 2010 | 9:08 am
“If eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable, then why has it been—for centuries—one of the most fundamental sources of “evidence” in law?”
Because the law developed before there was much forensic evidence available and the law is notoriously slow to change. It has changed to the extent that we do not allow witnesses, no matter how well-intentioned they are, to testify that they saw that X happened when the physical evidence shows that X could not have happened.
Thousands of innocent people have been imprisoned or killed by the government because of untrustworthy eyewitness testimony.
May 17th, 2010 | 10:00 am
“What Craig has done here is show that the modal ontological argument can be argued and more than adequately defended against intelligent criticism.”
Not really. These ontological arguments posit claims that should be supported rather than merely assumed. An argument that can be used to prove that X exists, when evidence shows that X actually does not exist, is defective.
May 17th, 2010 | 10:08 am
“A simple toy bird is evidence of intelligence. A real bird, which is infinitely more complex, more beautiful and more functional, is not.”
No, I don’t think you understand either the toy bird or the real bird. Conclusions about both are arrived at based on the evidence that has been gathered. We can find a history of the design of the toy bird and follow its construction in a factory. Real birds, of course, are not infinitely more complex, though they are far more complex than a toy, yet even these can be understood by learning about biology. Whether we delve into the history of life on earth or into cellular or organism structure or into developmental biology, we always find evidence that shows that there are explanations that do not imply design.
Evolution does not prove that there are no gods, but it does show that we do not need any gods to be as we are.
May 17th, 2010 | 10:20 am
FreeLunch, I hope not. I think I was just trying to make a small point about an underlying similarity between what science insist must be true and what Jews, Christians and Moslems have always insisted was true. My guess would be that what science thinks it will find if it succeeds in its quest will be a far cry from what we believe about the One within whom we live and breathe and have our existence.
May 17th, 2010 | 3:30 pm
I need to head out soon, but I’d like to try to wrap up some loose ends.
Regarding Craig Payne’s original argument, I think the best way to illustrate the problem with it as I see it is to abstract it to its basic logical structure.
Premise: Let X be a proposition such that if X can be true, it must be true, and if X can be false, it must be false.
Premise: X can be true.
Inference 1: X must be true.
Inference 2: X is true.
As I understand it, by Craig’s formulation of “God”, the propositions “God does exist” and “God does not exist” are equally qualified to substitute for X in the above, such that this particular proof of this particular god is equally a disproof of the very same god.
And then regarding perfection. I only understand perfection as being ultimate conformity to a standard. A cube could be perfect with respect to a cube standard, and a sphere could be equally perfect, but with respect to a sphere standard. (Which provides an answer to the claim that mutability is incompatible with perfection, if you can change the standard and still retain perfection.) To me, then, talk of a perfect being, or a perfect entity, or a perfect X means only absolute conformity to some ambiguous standard with undefined properties. It might not be perfect nonsense, but in my view, it isn’t far off.
May 17th, 2010 | 3:40 pm
All that becomes clear is – that you want to believe, what you want to believe. And that’s ok. Everyone is entitled to that. However – what it does NOT do, is to make your line of arguments solid by any logical standard. Apparent by the fact that you do not even try to uphold any appearance of objectivity – as quite obvious in the judgmental way of describing opponents of your belief – e.g. Dawkins. And that just removes any of your credibility right from the get go. Sad!
May 17th, 2010 | 5:00 pm
Bret Lythgoe
May 15th, 2010 | 5:07 am
As you pointed out, spegetti monsters, and teapots, are contingent beings, meaning that they’re dependant on other causes/things for their existence.
But God, is the originator of all beings, all causes, everything. It follows that He would transcend all physical properties, everything, since He’s their cause.
But this is really silly. God is wholly dependant and contingent on the ability of humans to perceive him/it. There is no fundamental difference except of course the teapot is, by definition, not contingent, being the first uncaused cause, and the heart of any good British tea-party – that’s why the Brits ruled the world.
It is only due to the diminution of the use of leaf tea with the advent of the evil tea-bag that the Celestial tea-pot has allowe the empire to fall.
May 17th, 2010 | 7:08 pm
If God is the cause of all existence, Chaz Wyman, then it follows that He’s caused everything, including, paradoxically, causes.
It follows that He would transcend what He’s created, and would not be made of the same substance that He has created. It would follow that He transcends all categories, that humans know about, and hence, the reasonability of Aquinas’s assertion that we can know more of what God is NOT, than of what He IS.
May 18th, 2010 | 5:34 pm
@Craig Payne et al.
St. Anselm’s argument relies on the fact that the phrase “That than which a greater cannot be thought” expresses something which is not self-contradictory. The problem with his argument is that this is difficult, if not impossible, to prove. In fact, there are instances where similar accounts are self-contradictory: for example, “The prime number greater than which no prime number can be thought” or “The planet greater than which no planet can be thought.” Furthermore, it is difficult to see exactly what is meant by greater? Is it larger in size? Or more intelligent?
It seems to me that, given these difficulties, this argument is not the best argument to prove the existence of God. However, there are five extremely good arguments for the existence of God in the Summa Theologiae.
May 18th, 2010 | 8:52 pm
My previous comment on this appears not to have gone through. Sorry if I’m repeating myself.
Ed L: Good comments. Anselm asserted that God’s existence was “self evident”. Aquinas, although he would agree with Anselm that God’s existence is self evident, to those capable of knowing, we humans, don’t have the cognitive capacity to know that God’s existence is self evident, hence his rejection of Anselm’s argument.
Aquinas concluded that, due to all knowledge being obtained through sensation, one could devise arguments, that relied on sensation, to prove God’s existence, hence, his “five ways”.
These “five ways” are inexticably bound together, as one argument, and cannot be taken apart, without doing injustice to Aquinas’s historical intent.
However, one must remove those elements of the five ways, that rely on outdated Aristotilian physics, for them to be convincing to modern, scientifically informed thinkers.
May 18th, 2010 | 10:21 pm
@Bret Lythgoe
Aristotelian physics for the most part isn’t outdated… And it does not really compare with modern physics, modern physics is a mathematical explanation of the “How” of nature, Aristotle’s is an account of the “Why”
May 18th, 2010 | 11:21 pm
@Bret Lythgoe
What needs to be done is a restatement of the Aristotelian principles underpinning all of St. Thomas arguments from natural reason (for the existence of God, the soul, etc.) in a way that the modern mind can understand.
May 19th, 2010 | 6:40 pm
Ed L: There are clearly many aspects of Aristotelian physics that have been superceded by the work of Galileo, Newton, and Einstein. how much, is in dispute.
But it’s fair to say that, some of Aquinas’s arguments presuppose the validity of Aristotle, regarding the natural world, and whether or not Aquinas’s arguments can be saved, without the Aristotelian elements, is controversial.
I’m of the view, and I think you are too, that Aquinas has much to teach the modern world, if the latter is open minded enough to listen.
May 20th, 2010 | 2:30 pm
@Bret Lythgoe
Although Aristotle may have been wrong about several things (i.e. objects falling at speeds proportional to their weights, the earth in the center of the univers, planets moving in perfect circles), yet most of what he says in the Physics and De Anima is still true. (i.e. the account of change in Physics I; the account of nature, the causes, and that nature acts for an end in Physics II; the account of motion in Physics III; the account of the soul in the De Anima; the account of the intellect there, and much more)
May 20th, 2010 | 2:31 pm
Although Aristotle may have been wrong about several things (i.e. objects falling at speeds proportional to their weights, the earth in the center of the univers, planets moving in perfect circles), yet most of what he says in the Physics and De Anima is still true. (i.e. the account of change in Physics I; the account of nature, the causes, and that nature acts for an end in Physics II; the account of motion in Physics III; the account of the soul in the De Anima; the account of the intellect there, and much more)
May 21st, 2010 | 2:36 am
Ed L: I think Aristotle was a brilliant thinker, and certainly got science moving, and provided a metaphysical basis for the scientific method, he was no experimenter.
And this is important. Although he argued that all knowledge arose from sensation, he never really took the findings of observation, and experimented.
So, while you’re right that much of what he asserted was correct, what he got wrong, was directly linked to his failure to systematically experiment.
May 29th, 2010 | 6:45 am
I read Russell’s teapot argument as an implementation of Occam’s Razor. We shouldn’t believe an extravagant explanation if there is a simpler (more modest) explanation available. Arguments for God tend to be explanations for phenomena. But alternate explanations seem to be possible. Russell and other philosophers think that God is an extravagant/ambitious explanation when a more modest one is available. The teapot argument isn’t a knock down argument because it might be that God is truly necessary to explain a phenomena.
I recently wrote about the Teapot argument as well as the objection given to it by a religious philosopher, which is similar to the one presented here. I suspect that you can click on my name to get to my site.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact