Dustin Kesselberg
Illuminator
- Joined
- Nov 30, 2004
- Messages
- 4,669
I was asked by KingMerv00 to try and type up some arguments in support of a God or rather in support of Theism in general, so I decided to type this up in defense of God and Theism. This post is a continuance of this post and this post. You should probably read all three posts respectively in order to fully understand this following post.
C.S. Lewis once said concerning Christianity "I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen. Not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else." I am writing up this short post concerning theism though not necessarily Christianity itself and the credence in theism and or deism in order to provide an efficacious and determinative composition concerning the beliefs thereof and the extenuation or apologia in a palliative framework based upon dialectic syllogistics in coherence which will in my assessment be unambiguously irrefrangible. I want to stress that the following post was condensed into a breviloquent and concise framework who’s aim is sheer simplicity and practicality. Furthermore much of what I wrote in this post was removed due to conservation of space.
I’m going to prove a couple of things including the existence of God, validity of theism and faultiness of a distinctly secular or atheistic worldview. I’m going to do this by drawing together some of the philosophical and scientific developments of the past few centuries into a consistent logical and reasonable framework relying on epistemological certitude which will negate the need for dogmatism in theistic beliefs. Much of what I will provide as proof has been presented by past philosophers ranging from Descartes, Gödel, Lewis, Kant to Aquinas however with my personal adjustments which will remove any inconsistencies and fallacies and will beyond any reasonable doubt prove that God must exist, does exist, is good and must be exalted in genuflections worship. I have seen a considerable amount of the arguments for God or theistic beliefs in general and know how many of them are inconsistent and fallacious so I personally have experience with this endeavor to prove the existence of a God or validity of theism.
As I present my proofs with as much brevity as I possibly can and I want you to remember that these arguments have been invented by men much more intelligent than yourselves and denying them on a whim without proper investigation would not only be ignorant and impractical but also potentially dangerous due to their prodigious implications. Many theists tend to attack science or specifically evolution in an attempt to prove a God. They believe that by attacking evolution they can prove a God exists or by making straw men concerning evolution or atheism they can prove a God exists. I personally can sympathize with you on how bromidic and platitudinous many theists and creationists can be however I wish you to bare with me because the following proofs are anything but and are positively imperative to properly investigate and study under distinct circumstances. The following expostulations will be outlined below in detail before I commence with the actual arguments themselves.
My first proofs will investigate epistemology and the existence of knowledge itself to lay a framework for my future proofs. I will examine the origin of epistemology, it’s validity, the origin of knowledge itself as well as our ability to truly ‘know’ specific aspects of our universe in it‘s relation to our conscious minds. I will then move onto familiar theistic beliefs including the existence of a creator God and the origin of our universe as well as a specifically omnipotent and omni-benevolent personal God who cares for humanity. I will do this by also pointing out foibles, fallacies and pitfalls in many atheistic arguments against the existence of an omnipotent creator God who cares for humanity that have long been cherished. I will now venture into my first attempt at proof which is an exposition of epistemology and it‘s relation to our everyday lives and conscious minds.
We live in a complicated and sonorously convoluted world where we make decisions daily and in order to make decisions relevant to our existence in such a world we must have several axioms already prepared before we do anything. If we walk onto a bridge we must believe apriori that the bridge will hold our weight. This apriori assumption is based on the premise that most bridges that exist will hold the weight in question and the bridge probably wouldn’t be allowed to exist if it didn’t. This means in order to believe the bridge will hold our weight we must also hold other beliefs including the existence of some administrative body that oversees the building of bridges. Such apriori inductive conclusions are clearly fallacious but for practical purposes we must make hundreds assumptions each and every day. Do we sit down into a chair without knowing absolutely whether or not it will collapse? Do we drive our car without knowing absolutely whether or not it will burst into flames? Do we step outside without knowing whether or not a hammer will fall from the sky and instantly kill us where we stand? Of course the answer to all of the above is a resounding ‘yes’ unless of course one has infinite knowledge of the future.
In order to live any sort of reasonable existence we must make assumptions everyday about the world we live in, most of the time with a limited amount of evidence present to prove them. We can’t prove that a hammer will not fall on our hands the minute we walk outside and instantly kill us, however we must assume that the statistical probability of such a thing occurring is so rare that the disadvantages from never going out side far out weigh the 1 in a hundred million chance a hammer will fall from the sky and kill us. We believe a-priori that no hammer will fall onto our heads and kill us and we base this belief on other beliefs . In order to hold those such beliefs we must also hold moreover other beliefs and so on and so forth until we’re left with a single originating belief of all beliefs.
All beliefs about the world are dependent upon other beliefs excluding one. The one belief that is in itself independent is the belief in our own existence. Our own existence can be proven by itself and requires no faith, no axioms, simply logic and reason. This endeavor popularized by French philosopher and mathematician René Descartes. In his now famous phrase from his Discourse on Method “Cogito ergo sum” (French: "Je pense, donc je suis") he established a way to no longer doubt the most basic belief, our very own individual and personal existence. Cogito ergo sum translate often into the English phrase “I think, therefore I am!” which means that if one is able to think then one must reasonably exist. Descartes used this as a ground frame from which he could restore his previously doubted beliefs. No matter how hard he tried he could not convince himself that he himself did not exist.
Descartes in attempt to find the undoubtable and essential truths of the universe and in an effort to rid his mind of those beliefs that cannot or are not founded on factual evidence he decided to start by the beginning and by clearing his mind of all beliefs, doubting everything he has ever known he was lead to the conclusion that the one thing he could not initially doubt was his own existence. In his second meditation on the first philosophy he had this to say: “I have convinced myself that there is absolutely nothing in the world, no sky, no earth, no minds, no bodies. Does it now follow that I too do not exist? No: if I convinced myself of something then I certainly existed. But there is a deceiver of supreme power and cunning who is deliberately and constantly deceiving me. In that case I too undoubtedly exist, if he is deceiving me; and let him deceive me as much as he can, he will never bring it about that I am nothing so long as I think that I am something. So after considering everything very thoroughly, I must finally conclude that this proposition, I am, I exist, is necessarily true whenever it is put forward by me or conceived in my mind.” (Med. 2, AT 7:25)
However “Cogito ergo sum” is often criticized and any criticism of the phrase is inherently based on simplistic misunderstandings of the phrase itself and it‘s implications. The most common criticism of the phrase is that it assumes the existence of a thinker before even proving the existence of a thinker and thus is begging the question for which it initially sets out to prove. This however is incorrect and invalid for two reasons. Firstly, Simply assuming the existence of something prior to proving it is a common route of inference. Secondly, “Cogito ergo sum” was never actually used by Descartes. A more reasonable phrase would be “Thought, therefore existence!” which excludes the initial assumption of existence and only states a fact: ‘thought‘. This is also the case in the less common extension of the phrase which is “Dubito, ergo cogito, ergo sum” and translates to “Doubt, therefore thought, therefore existence!” and means that if doubt exists then by definition thought exists and if thought exists then a thinker must also exist by definition.
It has also been criticized where its critics make the assertion that the argument makes the assumption that “Whatever thinks, exists” however this is no assumption. Logically whatever has the property N, exists. That is to say, whatever has any property by definition must exist or it couldn‘t have a property. This means that if anything has anything then that thing must exist. If N has ‘thought’ and can think then logically N must exist for it could not have thought if it didn’t exist. We can’t logically be mistaken about our own existence for if we did not exist then how could we mistake our own existence? Could such a capacious aberration possibly be made? Perhaps as Descartes put it, some ‘demon’ (Or maybe God) is deceiving or deluding us to think and therefore our thoughts are not our own. However in such a circumstance this does not disprove our existence but simply proves our existence as well as the existence of some ‘demon’ (Or God) deceiving us for it would be impossible for a demon to deceive us into thinking if we did not exist in the first place.
So far I have proven that the individual (I) exists and possibly a God. That I personally exist and for you who are reading this, you can be sure that you yourself exist and can not reasonably doubt such a contention no matter how you attempt to convince yourself otherwise. This is the first step in a long road to proving things that generally have a much higher degree of doubt at first glance but can be proven to be just as reasonable as the initial contention that you as an individual entity must logically exist.
The next step is examining our own experiences of the apparent world around us. Currently in our endeavor we have proven our own personal and individual existence through the fact that we are ‘thinking things’ however we have yet to prove that our personal experiences of the world around us are legitimate experiences of something ‘out there’ opposed to hallucinations distinctly inside of our own consciousness. In order for our experiences to exist they must have an origin whether the origin is our own unconscious mind or something separate from us (Perhaps Descartes demon, or perhaps God). We now have to look at our two possibilities and discern the most rational one from the most irrational one, or maybe they both lead to the same conclusion. If our experiences of the world around us originates from our own minds then they must have a cause thereof. Rationally every event precedes a prior cause and if we are experiencing something (let’s say a tree) then our thoughts of the tree whether real or delusional must have been preceded by a cause which brought about the experience of the tree. That cause could not have been ourselves because then we face the regress problem and are forced to come to the conclusion that the cause of our experiences are outside of our own minds. If we are experiencing a tree and the cause of that experience exists within our own unconscious minds then that cause of that experience must itself have a previous cause which itself has a previous cause, etc. This would result in a never-ending chain of causes and effects all inside of our unconscious minds and nothing to distinguish between unconscious causes and conscious effects (such as the aforementioned tree) which would be impossible.
Now that we have come to the conclusion that the origins of our experiences are outside of our own minds, we now have to attempt to figure out whether or not our experiences as they appear to be are caused by what we also experience. That is to say, Are our experiences of the “world out there” caused by the “world out there” or are they caused by Descartes demon? There are two approaches one could take towards this problem. This could easily be approached from a pragmatic standpoint which would suggest that it is most rational to simply assume that our experiences are caused by a real and physical “world out there” simply because believing otherwise would no doubt result in problems. For instance if we believed that there was no world outside of our consciousness and deciding to get into a vehicle and drive off of a cliff under the faulty assumption that there was no car, no cliff, no gravity, no universe. This can be verified by working under the assumption that there is no world outside of our consciousness and deciding to get a sharp pencil and stabbing ourselves in the arm. This will lead to suffering which is undesirable and thus from a pragmatic standpoint makes more sense to assume that a pencil exists, that our arm exists, that the laws of physics exist because otherwise we would face problems daily.
However aside from the pragmatic stance, we can also use deductive reasoning to come to conclusion that there is an “outside world” apart from our own experiences. This can easily be done by looking at the fact that as we have concluded earlier, our experiences logically must be caused by an outside entity whether it be some deceiving demon or the world itself as we perceive it. If it is indeed Descartes demon then this will also lead us to the conclusion that an outside world exists separate from our own minds. If Descartes demon exists then it must have a motivation for deceiving us. If it has a motivation for tricking us then that motivation must have an origin and that motivations origin must have an origin and so on and so forth. It must also be working within a universe that physically allows it to deceive us. It must also itself have had a beginning per the laws of causality. This leads us to the conclusion that even if Descartes demon existed, then it must be working within a universe outside of both it and our minds.
Now that we have proven that we exist and an outside world apart from our senses exists where are we left? We are left with the question of the origin of us and our world. We exist and we exist in a world. Where did we come from? Where did our world come from? We can come to conclusions about this using deductive and inductive reasoning which I will do. I will show using logical reasoning that a God must exist and does exist. That God made this world and this universe and that this God is the God described in the biblical narrative. I will now move into the arguments showing that a God must and does exist logically.
I will arbitrarily choose an argument to begin with and the following argument has no special implications that would warrant it’s being mentioned first and is totally arbitrary and random. The first argument, or rather the first ‘type’ of argument I will use is a basic ‘ontological’ argument. Ontology is the study of the basic properties of existence itself and ranges from questions concerning what constitutes actual existence and to what the various ranges of existence are.
Now we’re all familiar with Anselm's Ontological Argument for the existence of God posited by Anselm of Canterbury which has historically been shown to be flawed. The argument is basically that “God” is the being from which no greater being can be conceived and in order for God to fit this definition he must logically exist for a God that is imaginary is surely less great than a God that is actual. If God does not exist in reality and the concept of God existing exists in and only in the human imagination we’re left with a God less great than it would be if it existed in the imagination as well as reality.
This argument has been criticized by many and rightfully so, most notably for it’s assumption that a God would be greater if it actually existed than if it existed merely inside of the human imagination. Philosophers (most notably Gasking) have even created an alternative to this argument that disproves the existence of a God and goes as thus:
1.The creation of the world is the most marvelous achievement imaginable.
2.The merit of an achievement is the product of (a) its intrinsic quality, and (b) the ability of its creator.
3.The greater the disability (or handicap) of the creator, the more impressive the achievement.
4.The most formidable handicap for a creator would be non-existence.
5.Therefore if we suppose that the universe is the product of an existent creator we can conceive a greater being — namely, one who created everything while not existing.
5.Therefore, God does not exist.
As comically ironic as this refutation is, it relies on intrinsic weaknesses of the ontological argument as it was presented by Anselm of Canterbury and many other previous philosophers. In my revision I will get rid of the unnecessary and flawed components of the ontological argument and present it in a mathematical framework that proves the existence of a God.
Now as revised I will attempt to explain this ontological proposition in as simple terms as possible limiting my use of mathematics throughout though some logical equations will need to be used in limited quantity for specific purposes however don’t let them mesmerize you they are actually very simple. I will first attempt to explain the argument in words which I aptly admit will be difficult and limiting due to the limits on language.
Firstly we must look at the definition of the “God” we are referring to. The definition is as follows: the supernatural being conceived as the perfect and omnipotent and omniscient originator and ruler of the universe. By this definition we can see that one inherent property of our would-be god is being “supernatural” which means ‘above or beyond what is natural’, one inherent property is omnipotence and omniscience which mean having all powers or abilities and having all knowledge or wisdom respectively. A common attribute ascribed to “God” is omnipresence (existing everywhere at once) however for the sake of this argument I won’t use such an attribute.
This means that ‘N’ is “God-like” if and only if it’s inherent properties are those properties as defined and explained in the previous paragraph. Now I will make the first postulation which is ’N’ is “God” if and only if it’s essential properties are “positive” where in this context positive is defined as ‘explicitly stated’ or otherwise ‘admitting of no question’ in this specific context. I do not mean ’positive’ to be any sort of moral aesthetic definition. Now let assume ‘E’ where 'E' is an inherent attribute of ‘N’ if and only if for every instance of 'D', 'N' entails B necessarily if and only if 'N' results in 'D'. This means that since ‘N’ is positive it’s negation would not be positive but negative. Since N=God therefore the property of being God is essentially positive and is thus necessarily positive because as previously explained it’s negation would logically be negative. By the previous definition essentially existing would be defined as ‘positive’. This means that if God is a positive being necessarily God is thus positive and if God is God-like then the property of being God-like is an essence of God. Which is to say, If God is by definition positive then a necessary component of God which would be “Godlike” is thus necessarily positive as well. N exists in some possible ’world’ where N is defined as encompassing all possible worlds including this one, ergo N exists in every possible world. Such contingent propositions rely on plenitudes that which lead us to the logical conclusion that the property of being God is illustrated. This bears out in the following modal logical equation:
N ◘ G iff O ├ N ◘ G iff P ├ E-F N iff D ◘├N ├N┬P ├ N˜P↔¬N
Where N is an entity, G is Godlike, and P are inherent properties. Excuse my logical syntax If it has some mistakes, the premise and conclusions themselves are adequately valid which show that it would be logically impossible if a God could not or did not exist and the only conclusion we are left with is that a God does exist and must exist.
I would now like to get into an interesting set of evidences which will suggest many unbelievers arguments are inherently flawed for one primary cause: Biology. Scientists have been studying our Genome for years and only recently have they found new and exciting evidence suggesting a biological basis for religion. Dr. Dean Hamer from the U.S. National Cancer Institute has proposed a very intriguing theory about the biological basis of religion which points out the VMAT2 gene which is responsible for religious experiences. VMAT2 is a monoamine and monoamines are neurotransmitter which are with the many chemicals related to emotional sensitivity including Epinephrine, Dopamine and Serotonin.
Let us now look at the circumstance of proving something exists which obviously exists without a shadow of a doubt (assuming certain axioms about our world obviously). Let’s use the example of a fire truck, if I see a big red fire truck blazing down the road all sirens screaming then I will believe and rightfully so that a fire truck is indeed blazing down the road across from me with all of it’s sirens screaming as loud as they can. I believe this simply because I see it and would not believe it otherwise. Now let’s imagine a deaf and blind man, could he have any sense of the truck? No. It’s obviously too far away for him to feel it’s vibrations and since he is deaf and blind he can’t hear or see it. Would this deaf and blind man be correct in his statement that there is no fire truck blazing down the road all sires screaming? Of course not. The fire truck exists despite the fact he can’t hear or see it. He is simply physically limited and therefore is unable to perceive the presence of the fire truck.
Where does this leave us? Let’s look at the facts: In the entire world around 5-10% of people have no belief in a God. The other 85-95% of them have a belief in God in one form or another whether it be Muslims, Christians, Jews, Hindu’s, or just simply theists without a specific religion. (Cia.gov) What does this tell us? That a small minority of the world lacks a belief in a God for one reason or another. Since as stated above there is genetic evidence religion has genetic components, one possible reason so many belief in a God is because they are genetically predisposed to believe in such. People who are religious have naturally different digoxin synthesis which relates to dopamine, noradrenaline, and morphine synthesis than individuals who are ’atheistic’. (PMID: 12803140) What implications does this have for our argument? Think back to the deaf and blind man who can not perceive the fire truck right in front of him. Let’s say he is genetically deaf and blind and was born that way. Given that religious people make it clear that they can “feel” the prescience of God what are we to say about this? Can we say their sense of God existing is faulty and nothing more than a delusion? Can a blind deaf man say that the fire truck is nothing more than a delusion? What right does the man who lacks adequate perception to perceive such a deity to say to those who do perceive it that they are delusional? Perhaps religious people have a specific ability to sense the creator the way people with working eyes and ears have a specific ability to sense the fire truck. Albert Hofmann said: “God only speaks to those who understand the language.” Perhaps the people who are unable to perceive a creator are just as crippled as those who are deaf and blind and can not see the fire truck when it is obviously right in front of their faces. Those who deny a creator are as biologically crippled as the man who was born blind and deaf.
Opp:
There is no evidence of a God, What proof do you have that there is one? I can envisage no evidence for a creator so your entire argument is pointless. People were born with religious predispositions because in our evolutionary past it benefited them in some way or another. This can’t be used as evidence of a creator because these people who hold religious sentiments are simply delusional and suffer from mental illness.
Rep:
On the contrary, We can not say for sure what advantages those with religious predispositions had in ancient times if any. The fact that they did seems to be totally irrelevant to the argument. Those who have eyes seem to have an advantage over those without them (though for different reasons obviously). The man who is deaf and blind can not see any evidence in support of the existence of a fire truck barreling by with it’s sirens screaming. Does this mean it isn’t there? Of course not. The fact that he suffers from a biological impairment doesn’t mean that he is right to claim that there is no evidence of a fire truck simply because he can not perceive it. He is not justified in doing so.
This brings us to another road of argumentation which will examine epistemological worldviews and our current understandings of science and philosophy. C.S. Lewis once said: "Now that I am a Christian I do have moods in which the whole thing looks improbable: but when I was an atheist I had moods in which Christianity looked terribly probable." One very prominent worldview is one that uses something called epistemological pragmatism or pragmatic epistemological objectivity, which basically says that the only way to truly understand the world we currently live in with all of our limited abilities of perception is to use what “works best” in our lives. As mentioned earlier one method of solving the problem of Descartes ‘Cartesian other’ is using a form of pragmatism. This philosophy says that we can’t actually prove the Cartesian other however in order to live our daily lives we must assume such entities or else we would fall into deep troubles. If for instance we thought that an angry man with a Gun were nothing more than imaginary fabrications of our minds or simply tricks which did not exist we would quickly find ourselves in trouble if we didn’t take such circumstances seriously from a point of view that they actually exist and can harm us. This type of pragmatism says that we can’t truly ‘know’ the world outside of our sense but we can know what ‘works best’ and for all practical purposes what ‘works best’ is what is actual.
All of the scientific method rests on the idea of a pragmatic epistemological worldview. If we were to do scientific tests to confirm or deny a specific phenomena and we didn’t truly believe that there was even a “world” outside of our sense then none of our tests would mean anything. In order for science to work we must be practical and posit such entities otherwise any attempts to measure or deduce them would result in utter failure. Living in a world where we doubt everything and believe only which can be totally proven via logical argumentation we would surely die within minutes. This means that it is pragmatic and simply common sense to hold some beliefs simply for their practical value and nothing else.
Where am I going with this? Let’s look at religion itself and determine if it has any practical value apart from purely empirical proof supporting it’s assertions. Studies have shown that on average people who are religious, attend church often, pray often and believe in God are more happier than those people of the same age group and demographic who don’t. Belief in God makes people happy and it’s no wonder, pleasure causing chemicals are pumping through their brains controlled by the VMAT2 gene I mentioned earlier. (Borg, Jacqueline et tal.) What does this have to do with anything? Going with our previous pragmatic worldview, we believe things to be true if they “work” for our existence. If something works within our worldview and reference frame then we use it for practical reasons. We must hold it to be true even if it can’t necessarily be empirically proven.
Religion makes people happy and “works” in their lives on a daily basis. Some people including Richard Dawkins might say that this is not in the least bit a justification for such beliefs let alone a proof of them, however this is clearly false. Living in a purely pragmatic world we can never truly ‘know’ what is real and what isn’t real. (Aside from the base beliefs established above) The best we can possibly do is look at what fits best within our worldview and use that as a basis of reality. If “God” fits into our pragmatic worldview like a puzzle piece then it must logically be true or else our entire puzzle falls apart just as the scientific method falls apart if specific axioms aren’t assumed including the ‘Cartesian other‘. Denying an intrinsic piece of the puzzle in an epistemologically pragmatic worldview simply leaves us left with nothing to base our daily lives on, nothing to base science on, nothing to base common sense upon.
Opp:
This is hogwash. The fact that religion makes people ‘happy’ has no bearing on it’s validity. It would make me happy to believe that there is a pot of gold buried in my yard however this doesn’t mean such a belief would then automatically be justified. There is no reason to believe something simply because it makes one “happy”.
Rep:
On the contrary, The argument isn’t that theism is justified because it makes people ‘happy’ but is justified because it ‘works’ in their lives. Let me ask you a question. I assume that you believe in science and hold an empirical and material worldview. You believe that anything that exists is material and the only way for us to have any knowledge of anything is for such things to be ‘material’ otherwise we couldn’t perceive them. I also assume that you do not doubt the existence of reality simply because it can’t positively and absolutely be proven. What justification do you have for believing that you’re sitting at your computer right now reading this? Perhaps you are a “brain in a vat” and are imagining it all or dreaming it all. Perhaps you’re sleeping and are having a dream that you’re reading it. You can’t prove you aren’t.
Can you prove that anything material exists? That it's not all some fantasy of your mind? No. You must assume it exists for pragmatic purposes. Pragmatism is using what "works" best. You can't provide evidence the world outside your consciousness exists. Evidence that can't be explained by the whole brain in a vat scenario. You use pragmatism to assume it to be true to go about your daily life because assuming otherwise would mean sure death. For those of you who have been reading this far and don’t know the meaning of ‘pragmatism’, the dictionary defines it as thus: character or conduct that emphasizes practicality. Or: a philosophical movement or system having various forms, but generally stressing practical consequences as constituting the essential criterion in determining meaning, truth, or value.
Now I want to move onto a few common arguments which purport to disprove the existence of a God. As you know, there are numerous definitions for “God” however the most common definitions include specific attributes including ‘omnipotence‘. Omnipotence literally means “all power” and is defined as the ability to manipulate reality in such a way one is able to do anything. Basically power without any limits. Now the monotheistic God of Abraham is defined as being omnipotent or all powerful (Example being Matthew 19:26). Unbelievers contend that there is an “omnipotence paradox” that makes it impossible for omnipotence to logically exist which would disprove God. I will explain how this is incorrect.
The omnipotence paradox basically asks whether or not an omnipotent being (God in this example) can perform an action that would make it impossible for it to perform another action thus negating it’s omnipotence. I will assume that God is indeed ‘omnipotent’ and all powerful and can do anything, so I won’t argue that the argument is valid due God not being omnipotent. One very common form of the argument is "Can an omnipotent being create a stone so heavy that it cannot lift it?" The argument claims that there are only two possibilities. God CAN make a stone so heavy he can’t lift and in which case he can’t lift it thus negating his omnipotence. Or alternatively God can NOT make a stone that heavy and his omnipotence is instantly negated. There are numerous flaws in this reasoning and I will explain a few of them.
One common response is one that Aquinas made in his Summa Theologica where he stated :”It remains therefore, that God is called omnipotent because He can do all things that are possible absolutely; which is the second way of saying a thing is possible. For a thing is said to be possible or impossible absolutely, according to the relation in which the very terms stand to one another, possible if the predicate is not incompatible with the subject, as that Socrates sits; and absolutely impossible when the predicate is altogether incompatible with the subject, as, for instance, that a man is a donkey.” Here he seems to be arguing that God can do anything that is “possible” and if something is logically impossible then he can not do it. Asking whether or not he can make a stone so heavy that he can’t lift is a meaningless question according to him.
This is one possibility to the omnipotence of a being that doesn’t necessarily negate it’s omnipotence. Another argument put forward is the contention that if God can do ‘anything’ than he should be able to remove his own omnipotence for a temporary amount of time while creating the stone (which at the time is too heavy for him to lift as it’s created) and then restore his omnipotence and lift the stone. Logically when the stone is being made he is not omnipotent and is making a stone that he could not lift however after it was made he could restore his omnipotence and then be able to lift the stone.
This leads to another and in my opinion the most convincing solution to the omnipotence paradox. “Can God make a stone so heavy that he can’t lift it?” Yes and No. Without removing his omnipotence, God can make a stone so heavy that he can not lift and then he can lift it. How? Remember the definition of omnipotence? It means “All powerful” which means that God can do “anything”. Not simply “anything logically possible” but “anything logically impossible” as well. God can create a stone so heavy he can not lift and then he can easily lift it. This is logically impossible however what’s stopping being who can “do anything” by definition from…Doing anything? God could even microwave a burrito so hot that he himself could not eat it!”
Another very common argument against the existence of a God is the so called “Problem of Evil”. This argument states that if a omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent God made the world then logically “evil” could not exist in such a world because the creation is the result of the creator and a bad creation can only mean a bad creator and by definition an omnibenevolent God would do all he could to prevent evil from occurring. If such a God can not prevent evil from occurring then he must not be omnipotent which would disprove his existence by definition. The origin of this argument as stated above probably comes from Plato who said in his Timaeus that: Either God wants to abolish evil, and cannot; or he can, but does not want to. If he wants to, but cannot, he is impotent. If he can, but does not want to, he is wicked. If God can abolish evil, and God really wants to do it, why is there evil in the world? Epicurus put it; “Either God wants to abolish evil, and cannot; or he can, but does not want to... If he wants to, but cannot, he is impotent. If he can, but does not want to, he is wicked... If, as they say, God can abolish evil, and God really wants to do it, why is there evil in the world?” There are several problems with this argument and I will explain them.
Many things must be clarified before this argument can mean anything. Firstly one must define “God”, Not all definitions of “God” include omnibenevolence however for the sake of argument let’s assume he is perfectly ‘good’ as well as omnipotent and omnipresent. We’ll assume this simply because it’s not necessarily required to refute the argument. The next question we encounter is the definition of “evil” and this one is a bit more difficult to simply dismiss. How does one define “evil”? Who defines ‘evil’? Who gets to say whether or not something is bad or good? Can such a thing be done? Many people do not believe ‘evil’ can be defined and this would mean that the entire argument is worthless and invalid. However if someone assumes that a ‘evil’ and ‘good’ exist then again, who defines ‘good’ or ‘evil’? C.S. Lewis once said: “My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust?” Clearly, A moral law means that there must be a moral law maker. Someone who created the universe and it’s inherent properties and who defines “good and evil”. This conclusion would negate the argument again because it proves a God exists.
Another common argument is the so argument that if God is perfect and omnipotent then why does the world seem to be designed so poorly? We encounter the same problems with this argument as we do in the above argument. How does one define “poorly”? Can it be defined or is it simply an epistemologically subjective term without any concrete meaning? Moreover who said that the apparent poor construct of the world we live in is a result of the creation of God and not a result of something else? This argument presupposes that God constantly controls the universe in such a way to prevent so called ‘incompetent design’ from appearing and this is to say the least baseless. If God is omnibenevolent he MUST control his design to make sure bad things don’t happen? We encounter the same problems with this logic as we did above in the question of ‘evil’. All conclusions will get to the same results which were stated above.
The so called “Physical mind argument” against not necessarily the existence of a God but an afterlife is another common argument used against theistic beliefs, in this case in an afterlife. I’m going to explain how these types of arguments are inherently false. First let us examine the argument itself and I’m going to quote Keith Augustine from infidels.org who has put forth this argument: “If a nonphysical mind (rather than the brain) does our thinking, then altering the brain (say by lobotomy) should have no effect on one's ability to think. But, in fact, altering the brain does (often dramatically) affect one's ability to think. Therefore, thinking is probably not something done by a nonphysical mind, but rather something that the brain does. And since the brain is destroyed by death, thinking--or one's mind as a whole--is probably destroyed by death too.”
In essence he is arguing that if a nonphysical conscious is controlling our physical bodies then physically affecting the brain with drugs or even lobotomy shouldn’t have any effect on our ability to think. However when we do alter the brains physical attributes or chemistry we do see drastic changes in the way we think ergo our brains are the controlling our thoughts and when our brains die so does our consciousness and our ability to think or perceive. This argument has many flaws and I will outline the main flaws here.
This argument hits on the so called “mind body” problem of philosophy which is one of the central problems in the philosophy of the mind. The mind-body problem deals with the supposed relationship between the brain, the physical organ in the skull and our consciousness and whether or not our brain is the actual cause of our consciousness. There are two basic schools in this philosophy are Dualism and monism. Dualists hold the position that our minds and bodies are distinctly separate and some of the first to espouse specifically dualism in this context were Plato and Aristotle. Dualists do not believe that our brains are the cause of our consciousness. The other school of thought in this philosophy are Monists. Monists contend that the mind and body are not separate but are essentially linked together, generally though biological processes.
The problem with the assertion that if a nonphysical conscious is controlling our physical bodies then physically affecting the brain with drugs or even lobotomy shouldn’t have any effect on our ability to think is our brains could easily work like televisions that receive information but are not forming the information themselves. This is to say, our consciousness isn’t a direct result of our brains but our brains simply work as receivers. If one toys with a television antenna then the reception will change, the same way as if one toys with our brains our consciousness changes. Though one might say that our consciousness doesn't work like a 'receiver' though this is false. We receive information everyday from the outside world through our sense. Our brains are receiving input from our senses every second of every day.
I hope this following was as simple and clear as I hoped it would be, I did not spend as much time as I should have copy editing it as I typed it up in about 20 minutes. Some of the things I say might not be totally referenced and if that's the case please do not hesitate to ask for sources for it or further explanations of something that isn't totally clear to you.
C.S. Lewis once said concerning Christianity "I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen. Not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else." I am writing up this short post concerning theism though not necessarily Christianity itself and the credence in theism and or deism in order to provide an efficacious and determinative composition concerning the beliefs thereof and the extenuation or apologia in a palliative framework based upon dialectic syllogistics in coherence which will in my assessment be unambiguously irrefrangible. I want to stress that the following post was condensed into a breviloquent and concise framework who’s aim is sheer simplicity and practicality. Furthermore much of what I wrote in this post was removed due to conservation of space.
I’m going to prove a couple of things including the existence of God, validity of theism and faultiness of a distinctly secular or atheistic worldview. I’m going to do this by drawing together some of the philosophical and scientific developments of the past few centuries into a consistent logical and reasonable framework relying on epistemological certitude which will negate the need for dogmatism in theistic beliefs. Much of what I will provide as proof has been presented by past philosophers ranging from Descartes, Gödel, Lewis, Kant to Aquinas however with my personal adjustments which will remove any inconsistencies and fallacies and will beyond any reasonable doubt prove that God must exist, does exist, is good and must be exalted in genuflections worship. I have seen a considerable amount of the arguments for God or theistic beliefs in general and know how many of them are inconsistent and fallacious so I personally have experience with this endeavor to prove the existence of a God or validity of theism.
As I present my proofs with as much brevity as I possibly can and I want you to remember that these arguments have been invented by men much more intelligent than yourselves and denying them on a whim without proper investigation would not only be ignorant and impractical but also potentially dangerous due to their prodigious implications. Many theists tend to attack science or specifically evolution in an attempt to prove a God. They believe that by attacking evolution they can prove a God exists or by making straw men concerning evolution or atheism they can prove a God exists. I personally can sympathize with you on how bromidic and platitudinous many theists and creationists can be however I wish you to bare with me because the following proofs are anything but and are positively imperative to properly investigate and study under distinct circumstances. The following expostulations will be outlined below in detail before I commence with the actual arguments themselves.
My first proofs will investigate epistemology and the existence of knowledge itself to lay a framework for my future proofs. I will examine the origin of epistemology, it’s validity, the origin of knowledge itself as well as our ability to truly ‘know’ specific aspects of our universe in it‘s relation to our conscious minds. I will then move onto familiar theistic beliefs including the existence of a creator God and the origin of our universe as well as a specifically omnipotent and omni-benevolent personal God who cares for humanity. I will do this by also pointing out foibles, fallacies and pitfalls in many atheistic arguments against the existence of an omnipotent creator God who cares for humanity that have long been cherished. I will now venture into my first attempt at proof which is an exposition of epistemology and it‘s relation to our everyday lives and conscious minds.
We live in a complicated and sonorously convoluted world where we make decisions daily and in order to make decisions relevant to our existence in such a world we must have several axioms already prepared before we do anything. If we walk onto a bridge we must believe apriori that the bridge will hold our weight. This apriori assumption is based on the premise that most bridges that exist will hold the weight in question and the bridge probably wouldn’t be allowed to exist if it didn’t. This means in order to believe the bridge will hold our weight we must also hold other beliefs including the existence of some administrative body that oversees the building of bridges. Such apriori inductive conclusions are clearly fallacious but for practical purposes we must make hundreds assumptions each and every day. Do we sit down into a chair without knowing absolutely whether or not it will collapse? Do we drive our car without knowing absolutely whether or not it will burst into flames? Do we step outside without knowing whether or not a hammer will fall from the sky and instantly kill us where we stand? Of course the answer to all of the above is a resounding ‘yes’ unless of course one has infinite knowledge of the future.
In order to live any sort of reasonable existence we must make assumptions everyday about the world we live in, most of the time with a limited amount of evidence present to prove them. We can’t prove that a hammer will not fall on our hands the minute we walk outside and instantly kill us, however we must assume that the statistical probability of such a thing occurring is so rare that the disadvantages from never going out side far out weigh the 1 in a hundred million chance a hammer will fall from the sky and kill us. We believe a-priori that no hammer will fall onto our heads and kill us and we base this belief on other beliefs . In order to hold those such beliefs we must also hold moreover other beliefs and so on and so forth until we’re left with a single originating belief of all beliefs.
All beliefs about the world are dependent upon other beliefs excluding one. The one belief that is in itself independent is the belief in our own existence. Our own existence can be proven by itself and requires no faith, no axioms, simply logic and reason. This endeavor popularized by French philosopher and mathematician René Descartes. In his now famous phrase from his Discourse on Method “Cogito ergo sum” (French: "Je pense, donc je suis") he established a way to no longer doubt the most basic belief, our very own individual and personal existence. Cogito ergo sum translate often into the English phrase “I think, therefore I am!” which means that if one is able to think then one must reasonably exist. Descartes used this as a ground frame from which he could restore his previously doubted beliefs. No matter how hard he tried he could not convince himself that he himself did not exist.
Descartes in attempt to find the undoubtable and essential truths of the universe and in an effort to rid his mind of those beliefs that cannot or are not founded on factual evidence he decided to start by the beginning and by clearing his mind of all beliefs, doubting everything he has ever known he was lead to the conclusion that the one thing he could not initially doubt was his own existence. In his second meditation on the first philosophy he had this to say: “I have convinced myself that there is absolutely nothing in the world, no sky, no earth, no minds, no bodies. Does it now follow that I too do not exist? No: if I convinced myself of something then I certainly existed. But there is a deceiver of supreme power and cunning who is deliberately and constantly deceiving me. In that case I too undoubtedly exist, if he is deceiving me; and let him deceive me as much as he can, he will never bring it about that I am nothing so long as I think that I am something. So after considering everything very thoroughly, I must finally conclude that this proposition, I am, I exist, is necessarily true whenever it is put forward by me or conceived in my mind.” (Med. 2, AT 7:25)
However “Cogito ergo sum” is often criticized and any criticism of the phrase is inherently based on simplistic misunderstandings of the phrase itself and it‘s implications. The most common criticism of the phrase is that it assumes the existence of a thinker before even proving the existence of a thinker and thus is begging the question for which it initially sets out to prove. This however is incorrect and invalid for two reasons. Firstly, Simply assuming the existence of something prior to proving it is a common route of inference. Secondly, “Cogito ergo sum” was never actually used by Descartes. A more reasonable phrase would be “Thought, therefore existence!” which excludes the initial assumption of existence and only states a fact: ‘thought‘. This is also the case in the less common extension of the phrase which is “Dubito, ergo cogito, ergo sum” and translates to “Doubt, therefore thought, therefore existence!” and means that if doubt exists then by definition thought exists and if thought exists then a thinker must also exist by definition.
It has also been criticized where its critics make the assertion that the argument makes the assumption that “Whatever thinks, exists” however this is no assumption. Logically whatever has the property N, exists. That is to say, whatever has any property by definition must exist or it couldn‘t have a property. This means that if anything has anything then that thing must exist. If N has ‘thought’ and can think then logically N must exist for it could not have thought if it didn’t exist. We can’t logically be mistaken about our own existence for if we did not exist then how could we mistake our own existence? Could such a capacious aberration possibly be made? Perhaps as Descartes put it, some ‘demon’ (Or maybe God) is deceiving or deluding us to think and therefore our thoughts are not our own. However in such a circumstance this does not disprove our existence but simply proves our existence as well as the existence of some ‘demon’ (Or God) deceiving us for it would be impossible for a demon to deceive us into thinking if we did not exist in the first place.
So far I have proven that the individual (I) exists and possibly a God. That I personally exist and for you who are reading this, you can be sure that you yourself exist and can not reasonably doubt such a contention no matter how you attempt to convince yourself otherwise. This is the first step in a long road to proving things that generally have a much higher degree of doubt at first glance but can be proven to be just as reasonable as the initial contention that you as an individual entity must logically exist.
The next step is examining our own experiences of the apparent world around us. Currently in our endeavor we have proven our own personal and individual existence through the fact that we are ‘thinking things’ however we have yet to prove that our personal experiences of the world around us are legitimate experiences of something ‘out there’ opposed to hallucinations distinctly inside of our own consciousness. In order for our experiences to exist they must have an origin whether the origin is our own unconscious mind or something separate from us (Perhaps Descartes demon, or perhaps God). We now have to look at our two possibilities and discern the most rational one from the most irrational one, or maybe they both lead to the same conclusion. If our experiences of the world around us originates from our own minds then they must have a cause thereof. Rationally every event precedes a prior cause and if we are experiencing something (let’s say a tree) then our thoughts of the tree whether real or delusional must have been preceded by a cause which brought about the experience of the tree. That cause could not have been ourselves because then we face the regress problem and are forced to come to the conclusion that the cause of our experiences are outside of our own minds. If we are experiencing a tree and the cause of that experience exists within our own unconscious minds then that cause of that experience must itself have a previous cause which itself has a previous cause, etc. This would result in a never-ending chain of causes and effects all inside of our unconscious minds and nothing to distinguish between unconscious causes and conscious effects (such as the aforementioned tree) which would be impossible.
Now that we have come to the conclusion that the origins of our experiences are outside of our own minds, we now have to attempt to figure out whether or not our experiences as they appear to be are caused by what we also experience. That is to say, Are our experiences of the “world out there” caused by the “world out there” or are they caused by Descartes demon? There are two approaches one could take towards this problem. This could easily be approached from a pragmatic standpoint which would suggest that it is most rational to simply assume that our experiences are caused by a real and physical “world out there” simply because believing otherwise would no doubt result in problems. For instance if we believed that there was no world outside of our consciousness and deciding to get into a vehicle and drive off of a cliff under the faulty assumption that there was no car, no cliff, no gravity, no universe. This can be verified by working under the assumption that there is no world outside of our consciousness and deciding to get a sharp pencil and stabbing ourselves in the arm. This will lead to suffering which is undesirable and thus from a pragmatic standpoint makes more sense to assume that a pencil exists, that our arm exists, that the laws of physics exist because otherwise we would face problems daily.
However aside from the pragmatic stance, we can also use deductive reasoning to come to conclusion that there is an “outside world” apart from our own experiences. This can easily be done by looking at the fact that as we have concluded earlier, our experiences logically must be caused by an outside entity whether it be some deceiving demon or the world itself as we perceive it. If it is indeed Descartes demon then this will also lead us to the conclusion that an outside world exists separate from our own minds. If Descartes demon exists then it must have a motivation for deceiving us. If it has a motivation for tricking us then that motivation must have an origin and that motivations origin must have an origin and so on and so forth. It must also be working within a universe that physically allows it to deceive us. It must also itself have had a beginning per the laws of causality. This leads us to the conclusion that even if Descartes demon existed, then it must be working within a universe outside of both it and our minds.
Now that we have proven that we exist and an outside world apart from our senses exists where are we left? We are left with the question of the origin of us and our world. We exist and we exist in a world. Where did we come from? Where did our world come from? We can come to conclusions about this using deductive and inductive reasoning which I will do. I will show using logical reasoning that a God must exist and does exist. That God made this world and this universe and that this God is the God described in the biblical narrative. I will now move into the arguments showing that a God must and does exist logically.
I will arbitrarily choose an argument to begin with and the following argument has no special implications that would warrant it’s being mentioned first and is totally arbitrary and random. The first argument, or rather the first ‘type’ of argument I will use is a basic ‘ontological’ argument. Ontology is the study of the basic properties of existence itself and ranges from questions concerning what constitutes actual existence and to what the various ranges of existence are.
Now we’re all familiar with Anselm's Ontological Argument for the existence of God posited by Anselm of Canterbury which has historically been shown to be flawed. The argument is basically that “God” is the being from which no greater being can be conceived and in order for God to fit this definition he must logically exist for a God that is imaginary is surely less great than a God that is actual. If God does not exist in reality and the concept of God existing exists in and only in the human imagination we’re left with a God less great than it would be if it existed in the imagination as well as reality.
This argument has been criticized by many and rightfully so, most notably for it’s assumption that a God would be greater if it actually existed than if it existed merely inside of the human imagination. Philosophers (most notably Gasking) have even created an alternative to this argument that disproves the existence of a God and goes as thus:
1.The creation of the world is the most marvelous achievement imaginable.
2.The merit of an achievement is the product of (a) its intrinsic quality, and (b) the ability of its creator.
3.The greater the disability (or handicap) of the creator, the more impressive the achievement.
4.The most formidable handicap for a creator would be non-existence.
5.Therefore if we suppose that the universe is the product of an existent creator we can conceive a greater being — namely, one who created everything while not existing.
5.Therefore, God does not exist.
As comically ironic as this refutation is, it relies on intrinsic weaknesses of the ontological argument as it was presented by Anselm of Canterbury and many other previous philosophers. In my revision I will get rid of the unnecessary and flawed components of the ontological argument and present it in a mathematical framework that proves the existence of a God.
Now as revised I will attempt to explain this ontological proposition in as simple terms as possible limiting my use of mathematics throughout though some logical equations will need to be used in limited quantity for specific purposes however don’t let them mesmerize you they are actually very simple. I will first attempt to explain the argument in words which I aptly admit will be difficult and limiting due to the limits on language.
Firstly we must look at the definition of the “God” we are referring to. The definition is as follows: the supernatural being conceived as the perfect and omnipotent and omniscient originator and ruler of the universe. By this definition we can see that one inherent property of our would-be god is being “supernatural” which means ‘above or beyond what is natural’, one inherent property is omnipotence and omniscience which mean having all powers or abilities and having all knowledge or wisdom respectively. A common attribute ascribed to “God” is omnipresence (existing everywhere at once) however for the sake of this argument I won’t use such an attribute.
This means that ‘N’ is “God-like” if and only if it’s inherent properties are those properties as defined and explained in the previous paragraph. Now I will make the first postulation which is ’N’ is “God” if and only if it’s essential properties are “positive” where in this context positive is defined as ‘explicitly stated’ or otherwise ‘admitting of no question’ in this specific context. I do not mean ’positive’ to be any sort of moral aesthetic definition. Now let assume ‘E’ where 'E' is an inherent attribute of ‘N’ if and only if for every instance of 'D', 'N' entails B necessarily if and only if 'N' results in 'D'. This means that since ‘N’ is positive it’s negation would not be positive but negative. Since N=God therefore the property of being God is essentially positive and is thus necessarily positive because as previously explained it’s negation would logically be negative. By the previous definition essentially existing would be defined as ‘positive’. This means that if God is a positive being necessarily God is thus positive and if God is God-like then the property of being God-like is an essence of God. Which is to say, If God is by definition positive then a necessary component of God which would be “Godlike” is thus necessarily positive as well. N exists in some possible ’world’ where N is defined as encompassing all possible worlds including this one, ergo N exists in every possible world. Such contingent propositions rely on plenitudes that which lead us to the logical conclusion that the property of being God is illustrated. This bears out in the following modal logical equation:
N ◘ G iff O ├ N ◘ G iff P ├ E-F N iff D ◘├N ├N┬P ├ N˜P↔¬N
Where N is an entity, G is Godlike, and P are inherent properties. Excuse my logical syntax If it has some mistakes, the premise and conclusions themselves are adequately valid which show that it would be logically impossible if a God could not or did not exist and the only conclusion we are left with is that a God does exist and must exist.
I would now like to get into an interesting set of evidences which will suggest many unbelievers arguments are inherently flawed for one primary cause: Biology. Scientists have been studying our Genome for years and only recently have they found new and exciting evidence suggesting a biological basis for religion. Dr. Dean Hamer from the U.S. National Cancer Institute has proposed a very intriguing theory about the biological basis of religion which points out the VMAT2 gene which is responsible for religious experiences. VMAT2 is a monoamine and monoamines are neurotransmitter which are with the many chemicals related to emotional sensitivity including Epinephrine, Dopamine and Serotonin.
Let us now look at the circumstance of proving something exists which obviously exists without a shadow of a doubt (assuming certain axioms about our world obviously). Let’s use the example of a fire truck, if I see a big red fire truck blazing down the road all sirens screaming then I will believe and rightfully so that a fire truck is indeed blazing down the road across from me with all of it’s sirens screaming as loud as they can. I believe this simply because I see it and would not believe it otherwise. Now let’s imagine a deaf and blind man, could he have any sense of the truck? No. It’s obviously too far away for him to feel it’s vibrations and since he is deaf and blind he can’t hear or see it. Would this deaf and blind man be correct in his statement that there is no fire truck blazing down the road all sires screaming? Of course not. The fire truck exists despite the fact he can’t hear or see it. He is simply physically limited and therefore is unable to perceive the presence of the fire truck.
Where does this leave us? Let’s look at the facts: In the entire world around 5-10% of people have no belief in a God. The other 85-95% of them have a belief in God in one form or another whether it be Muslims, Christians, Jews, Hindu’s, or just simply theists without a specific religion. (Cia.gov) What does this tell us? That a small minority of the world lacks a belief in a God for one reason or another. Since as stated above there is genetic evidence religion has genetic components, one possible reason so many belief in a God is because they are genetically predisposed to believe in such. People who are religious have naturally different digoxin synthesis which relates to dopamine, noradrenaline, and morphine synthesis than individuals who are ’atheistic’. (PMID: 12803140) What implications does this have for our argument? Think back to the deaf and blind man who can not perceive the fire truck right in front of him. Let’s say he is genetically deaf and blind and was born that way. Given that religious people make it clear that they can “feel” the prescience of God what are we to say about this? Can we say their sense of God existing is faulty and nothing more than a delusion? Can a blind deaf man say that the fire truck is nothing more than a delusion? What right does the man who lacks adequate perception to perceive such a deity to say to those who do perceive it that they are delusional? Perhaps religious people have a specific ability to sense the creator the way people with working eyes and ears have a specific ability to sense the fire truck. Albert Hofmann said: “God only speaks to those who understand the language.” Perhaps the people who are unable to perceive a creator are just as crippled as those who are deaf and blind and can not see the fire truck when it is obviously right in front of their faces. Those who deny a creator are as biologically crippled as the man who was born blind and deaf.
Opp:
There is no evidence of a God, What proof do you have that there is one? I can envisage no evidence for a creator so your entire argument is pointless. People were born with religious predispositions because in our evolutionary past it benefited them in some way or another. This can’t be used as evidence of a creator because these people who hold religious sentiments are simply delusional and suffer from mental illness.
Rep:
On the contrary, We can not say for sure what advantages those with religious predispositions had in ancient times if any. The fact that they did seems to be totally irrelevant to the argument. Those who have eyes seem to have an advantage over those without them (though for different reasons obviously). The man who is deaf and blind can not see any evidence in support of the existence of a fire truck barreling by with it’s sirens screaming. Does this mean it isn’t there? Of course not. The fact that he suffers from a biological impairment doesn’t mean that he is right to claim that there is no evidence of a fire truck simply because he can not perceive it. He is not justified in doing so.
This brings us to another road of argumentation which will examine epistemological worldviews and our current understandings of science and philosophy. C.S. Lewis once said: "Now that I am a Christian I do have moods in which the whole thing looks improbable: but when I was an atheist I had moods in which Christianity looked terribly probable." One very prominent worldview is one that uses something called epistemological pragmatism or pragmatic epistemological objectivity, which basically says that the only way to truly understand the world we currently live in with all of our limited abilities of perception is to use what “works best” in our lives. As mentioned earlier one method of solving the problem of Descartes ‘Cartesian other’ is using a form of pragmatism. This philosophy says that we can’t actually prove the Cartesian other however in order to live our daily lives we must assume such entities or else we would fall into deep troubles. If for instance we thought that an angry man with a Gun were nothing more than imaginary fabrications of our minds or simply tricks which did not exist we would quickly find ourselves in trouble if we didn’t take such circumstances seriously from a point of view that they actually exist and can harm us. This type of pragmatism says that we can’t truly ‘know’ the world outside of our sense but we can know what ‘works best’ and for all practical purposes what ‘works best’ is what is actual.
All of the scientific method rests on the idea of a pragmatic epistemological worldview. If we were to do scientific tests to confirm or deny a specific phenomena and we didn’t truly believe that there was even a “world” outside of our sense then none of our tests would mean anything. In order for science to work we must be practical and posit such entities otherwise any attempts to measure or deduce them would result in utter failure. Living in a world where we doubt everything and believe only which can be totally proven via logical argumentation we would surely die within minutes. This means that it is pragmatic and simply common sense to hold some beliefs simply for their practical value and nothing else.
Where am I going with this? Let’s look at religion itself and determine if it has any practical value apart from purely empirical proof supporting it’s assertions. Studies have shown that on average people who are religious, attend church often, pray often and believe in God are more happier than those people of the same age group and demographic who don’t. Belief in God makes people happy and it’s no wonder, pleasure causing chemicals are pumping through their brains controlled by the VMAT2 gene I mentioned earlier. (Borg, Jacqueline et tal.) What does this have to do with anything? Going with our previous pragmatic worldview, we believe things to be true if they “work” for our existence. If something works within our worldview and reference frame then we use it for practical reasons. We must hold it to be true even if it can’t necessarily be empirically proven.
Religion makes people happy and “works” in their lives on a daily basis. Some people including Richard Dawkins might say that this is not in the least bit a justification for such beliefs let alone a proof of them, however this is clearly false. Living in a purely pragmatic world we can never truly ‘know’ what is real and what isn’t real. (Aside from the base beliefs established above) The best we can possibly do is look at what fits best within our worldview and use that as a basis of reality. If “God” fits into our pragmatic worldview like a puzzle piece then it must logically be true or else our entire puzzle falls apart just as the scientific method falls apart if specific axioms aren’t assumed including the ‘Cartesian other‘. Denying an intrinsic piece of the puzzle in an epistemologically pragmatic worldview simply leaves us left with nothing to base our daily lives on, nothing to base science on, nothing to base common sense upon.
Opp:
This is hogwash. The fact that religion makes people ‘happy’ has no bearing on it’s validity. It would make me happy to believe that there is a pot of gold buried in my yard however this doesn’t mean such a belief would then automatically be justified. There is no reason to believe something simply because it makes one “happy”.
Rep:
On the contrary, The argument isn’t that theism is justified because it makes people ‘happy’ but is justified because it ‘works’ in their lives. Let me ask you a question. I assume that you believe in science and hold an empirical and material worldview. You believe that anything that exists is material and the only way for us to have any knowledge of anything is for such things to be ‘material’ otherwise we couldn’t perceive them. I also assume that you do not doubt the existence of reality simply because it can’t positively and absolutely be proven. What justification do you have for believing that you’re sitting at your computer right now reading this? Perhaps you are a “brain in a vat” and are imagining it all or dreaming it all. Perhaps you’re sleeping and are having a dream that you’re reading it. You can’t prove you aren’t.
Can you prove that anything material exists? That it's not all some fantasy of your mind? No. You must assume it exists for pragmatic purposes. Pragmatism is using what "works" best. You can't provide evidence the world outside your consciousness exists. Evidence that can't be explained by the whole brain in a vat scenario. You use pragmatism to assume it to be true to go about your daily life because assuming otherwise would mean sure death. For those of you who have been reading this far and don’t know the meaning of ‘pragmatism’, the dictionary defines it as thus: character or conduct that emphasizes practicality. Or: a philosophical movement or system having various forms, but generally stressing practical consequences as constituting the essential criterion in determining meaning, truth, or value.
Now I want to move onto a few common arguments which purport to disprove the existence of a God. As you know, there are numerous definitions for “God” however the most common definitions include specific attributes including ‘omnipotence‘. Omnipotence literally means “all power” and is defined as the ability to manipulate reality in such a way one is able to do anything. Basically power without any limits. Now the monotheistic God of Abraham is defined as being omnipotent or all powerful (Example being Matthew 19:26). Unbelievers contend that there is an “omnipotence paradox” that makes it impossible for omnipotence to logically exist which would disprove God. I will explain how this is incorrect.
The omnipotence paradox basically asks whether or not an omnipotent being (God in this example) can perform an action that would make it impossible for it to perform another action thus negating it’s omnipotence. I will assume that God is indeed ‘omnipotent’ and all powerful and can do anything, so I won’t argue that the argument is valid due God not being omnipotent. One very common form of the argument is "Can an omnipotent being create a stone so heavy that it cannot lift it?" The argument claims that there are only two possibilities. God CAN make a stone so heavy he can’t lift and in which case he can’t lift it thus negating his omnipotence. Or alternatively God can NOT make a stone that heavy and his omnipotence is instantly negated. There are numerous flaws in this reasoning and I will explain a few of them.
One common response is one that Aquinas made in his Summa Theologica where he stated :”It remains therefore, that God is called omnipotent because He can do all things that are possible absolutely; which is the second way of saying a thing is possible. For a thing is said to be possible or impossible absolutely, according to the relation in which the very terms stand to one another, possible if the predicate is not incompatible with the subject, as that Socrates sits; and absolutely impossible when the predicate is altogether incompatible with the subject, as, for instance, that a man is a donkey.” Here he seems to be arguing that God can do anything that is “possible” and if something is logically impossible then he can not do it. Asking whether or not he can make a stone so heavy that he can’t lift is a meaningless question according to him.
This is one possibility to the omnipotence of a being that doesn’t necessarily negate it’s omnipotence. Another argument put forward is the contention that if God can do ‘anything’ than he should be able to remove his own omnipotence for a temporary amount of time while creating the stone (which at the time is too heavy for him to lift as it’s created) and then restore his omnipotence and lift the stone. Logically when the stone is being made he is not omnipotent and is making a stone that he could not lift however after it was made he could restore his omnipotence and then be able to lift the stone.
This leads to another and in my opinion the most convincing solution to the omnipotence paradox. “Can God make a stone so heavy that he can’t lift it?” Yes and No. Without removing his omnipotence, God can make a stone so heavy that he can not lift and then he can lift it. How? Remember the definition of omnipotence? It means “All powerful” which means that God can do “anything”. Not simply “anything logically possible” but “anything logically impossible” as well. God can create a stone so heavy he can not lift and then he can easily lift it. This is logically impossible however what’s stopping being who can “do anything” by definition from…Doing anything? God could even microwave a burrito so hot that he himself could not eat it!”
Another very common argument against the existence of a God is the so called “Problem of Evil”. This argument states that if a omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent God made the world then logically “evil” could not exist in such a world because the creation is the result of the creator and a bad creation can only mean a bad creator and by definition an omnibenevolent God would do all he could to prevent evil from occurring. If such a God can not prevent evil from occurring then he must not be omnipotent which would disprove his existence by definition. The origin of this argument as stated above probably comes from Plato who said in his Timaeus that: Either God wants to abolish evil, and cannot; or he can, but does not want to. If he wants to, but cannot, he is impotent. If he can, but does not want to, he is wicked. If God can abolish evil, and God really wants to do it, why is there evil in the world? Epicurus put it; “Either God wants to abolish evil, and cannot; or he can, but does not want to... If he wants to, but cannot, he is impotent. If he can, but does not want to, he is wicked... If, as they say, God can abolish evil, and God really wants to do it, why is there evil in the world?” There are several problems with this argument and I will explain them.
Many things must be clarified before this argument can mean anything. Firstly one must define “God”, Not all definitions of “God” include omnibenevolence however for the sake of argument let’s assume he is perfectly ‘good’ as well as omnipotent and omnipresent. We’ll assume this simply because it’s not necessarily required to refute the argument. The next question we encounter is the definition of “evil” and this one is a bit more difficult to simply dismiss. How does one define “evil”? Who defines ‘evil’? Who gets to say whether or not something is bad or good? Can such a thing be done? Many people do not believe ‘evil’ can be defined and this would mean that the entire argument is worthless and invalid. However if someone assumes that a ‘evil’ and ‘good’ exist then again, who defines ‘good’ or ‘evil’? C.S. Lewis once said: “My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust?” Clearly, A moral law means that there must be a moral law maker. Someone who created the universe and it’s inherent properties and who defines “good and evil”. This conclusion would negate the argument again because it proves a God exists.
Another common argument is the so argument that if God is perfect and omnipotent then why does the world seem to be designed so poorly? We encounter the same problems with this argument as we do in the above argument. How does one define “poorly”? Can it be defined or is it simply an epistemologically subjective term without any concrete meaning? Moreover who said that the apparent poor construct of the world we live in is a result of the creation of God and not a result of something else? This argument presupposes that God constantly controls the universe in such a way to prevent so called ‘incompetent design’ from appearing and this is to say the least baseless. If God is omnibenevolent he MUST control his design to make sure bad things don’t happen? We encounter the same problems with this logic as we did above in the question of ‘evil’. All conclusions will get to the same results which were stated above.
The so called “Physical mind argument” against not necessarily the existence of a God but an afterlife is another common argument used against theistic beliefs, in this case in an afterlife. I’m going to explain how these types of arguments are inherently false. First let us examine the argument itself and I’m going to quote Keith Augustine from infidels.org who has put forth this argument: “If a nonphysical mind (rather than the brain) does our thinking, then altering the brain (say by lobotomy) should have no effect on one's ability to think. But, in fact, altering the brain does (often dramatically) affect one's ability to think. Therefore, thinking is probably not something done by a nonphysical mind, but rather something that the brain does. And since the brain is destroyed by death, thinking--or one's mind as a whole--is probably destroyed by death too.”
In essence he is arguing that if a nonphysical conscious is controlling our physical bodies then physically affecting the brain with drugs or even lobotomy shouldn’t have any effect on our ability to think. However when we do alter the brains physical attributes or chemistry we do see drastic changes in the way we think ergo our brains are the controlling our thoughts and when our brains die so does our consciousness and our ability to think or perceive. This argument has many flaws and I will outline the main flaws here.
This argument hits on the so called “mind body” problem of philosophy which is one of the central problems in the philosophy of the mind. The mind-body problem deals with the supposed relationship between the brain, the physical organ in the skull and our consciousness and whether or not our brain is the actual cause of our consciousness. There are two basic schools in this philosophy are Dualism and monism. Dualists hold the position that our minds and bodies are distinctly separate and some of the first to espouse specifically dualism in this context were Plato and Aristotle. Dualists do not believe that our brains are the cause of our consciousness. The other school of thought in this philosophy are Monists. Monists contend that the mind and body are not separate but are essentially linked together, generally though biological processes.
The problem with the assertion that if a nonphysical conscious is controlling our physical bodies then physically affecting the brain with drugs or even lobotomy shouldn’t have any effect on our ability to think is our brains could easily work like televisions that receive information but are not forming the information themselves. This is to say, our consciousness isn’t a direct result of our brains but our brains simply work as receivers. If one toys with a television antenna then the reception will change, the same way as if one toys with our brains our consciousness changes. Though one might say that our consciousness doesn't work like a 'receiver' though this is false. We receive information everyday from the outside world through our sense. Our brains are receiving input from our senses every second of every day.
I hope this following was as simple and clear as I hoped it would be, I did not spend as much time as I should have copy editing it as I typed it up in about 20 minutes. Some of the things I say might not be totally referenced and if that's the case please do not hesitate to ask for sources for it or further explanations of something that isn't totally clear to you.
Last edited:
