The Teleological Argument for God's Existence

And here is what W. L. Craig offers as a basic teleological argument:

1. The fine-tuning of the universe is due to either physical necessity, chance, or design.
2. It is not due to physical necessity or chance.
3. Therefore, it is due to design.

The Cosmological Argument for God's Existence

Here are two cosmological arguments for the existence of God.

First, Leibniz:

1. Anything that exists has an explanation of its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause.
2. If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God.
3. The universe exists.
4. Therefore, the universe has an explanation of its existence.
5. Therefore, the explanation of the existence of the universe is God.

And next, the kalam argument:

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

These arguments, along with those of my previous posts, are all taken from Reasonable Faith by William Lane Craig.

The Ontological Argument for God's Existence

Here is the ontological argument outline as formulated by Alvin Plantinga, taken from Reasonable Faith by William Lane Craig.

1. It is possible that a maximally great being exists.
2. If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world.
3. If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world.
4. If a maximally great being exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world.
5. If a maximally great being exists in the actual world, then a maximally great being exists.
6. Therefore, a maximally great being exists.

The Moral Argument for God's Existence

In order to keep these arguments handy, here I am going to outline the basic premises/conclusion of the moral argument.

1. If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist.
2. Objective moral values and duties do exist.
3. Therefore, God exists.

The Unperceiving Fruit of the Pseudo Intellectuals Has Ripened

‘We played the flute for you, yet you did not dance; we wailed in mourning, yet you did not weep.’

Update: Looks like an honest naturalist, materialist, atheist has beat me to the punch on this.

Bravo! Must Read!


It feels useless to “debate” the existence of God online. It seems that 95% of the non-believers’ arguments boil down to, if they are not outright, ad-hominem, argument from authority, question begging, fallacy after fallacy — but almost never an attempt on the non-believer’s part to actually reason for themselves. It is very strange since it would appear that, otherwise, such posters are often actually smart, well educated, intelligent people.

Perhaps this should be no surprise, however, since the “high intellectual debates” that top scientists, professors, and philosophers take part in to defend naturalism, materialism, and atheism, also show clear signs of an intellectual breakdown occurring in this area. There is, for whatever reason (sin???), a serious disconnect.

I think a large amount of the disconnect for the layman can be linked to what I see as the main fallacy advanced as arguments by atheists — the argument from authority.

Although within any particular argument there may be other fallacies advanced, it seems that most are assured, finally, in the fact that they are able to cite that so-and-so teaches such and such. And this indicates a big problem indeed: a vast number of people, even very smart people, are not willing or not able to think through these questions for themselves and come to coherent conclusions, one’s they are confident enough about to advance “in the heat of battle” and have them subjected to scrutiny.

Time and time again arguments for the existence and coherence of God, as well as for the incoherence for the non-existence of God and atheism, are just shut down without argument whatsoever. Again, for whatever reason, people are unwilling or unable to formulate and articulate their own reasoning for their position.

But, neither, I think, should this be surprising. For decades now our society has been inundated with the philosophy that materialism has been scientifically established, as if material can account for itself apart from a cause; that naturalism explains everything, from the cosmos to our brain functions. In short, no appeal to God is necessary to answer the big questions: Who am I? Where did I come from? Why am I here? Where am I going?

What is very unfortunate, however, is that, because of this inundation, so many have simply shut-off from even contemplating these questions for themselves (I mean really contemplating them), as well as contemplating the far reaching implications of the materialistic, naturalistic answers they’ve already been spoon-fed.

This, I submit, is the ripened fruit that has come from the years of pseudo intellectualism advanced in the halls of “higher” education. Group think, at least in this area, has been deemed sufficient. The authorities have marked this ground out of bounds for any serious thought or contemplation by “normal” people.

How have they done this? I suspect a very big part has been accomplished quite easily enough. When we ship our kids off to college, professors have it as their aim quite often to ridicule any thought of God. Professors attack viciously those who show any belief in God, and in many cases dare Christians to defend themselves. And what kind of effect does this have on the bystanders? A quite profound one. After all, would a college professor be so aggressive toward religious belief without a good cause? Surely, they would think, the professors are simply being the leaders they are expected to be and using ruthless methods where need be. If God has been disproved, well, Christians should be ridiculed, shamed, and any other thing necessary to “help” them get over their delusion.

The only problem? Well, God has not been disproved; not even close. In fact, the “intellectuals” are often misled themselves. But the effect on the bystanders is on display everywhere it seems. Ridicule for any displayed belief in God is now the most common and “normal” reaction. Outright hostility toward religious belief hardly surprises anyone these days. In other words, what has been happening on college campuses for decades is now on our front lawns. And I suppose you can take that quite literally, too, since even our front lawns are subject to vandalism and lawsuits these days if there are any religious symbols displayed, even around Christmas for crying out loud!

It’s as if the whole notion of actually thinking about the question has been forgotten. It’s treated as a foregone conclusion by atheists nowadays that God has been disproven. Ask them to reason that out, however, and you’ll get some “facts” thrown at you — like the “fact” that there is no evidence for God — some ad-hominem attacks frequently, a sprinkling of Dawkins warmed over, and often enough vitriol directed at God, the ancient Jews, and the Bible. But when a believer actually engages these “arguments”, atheists don’t know where to begin to reason things through coherently using their own brains. Clearly, most have not seriously thought any of this out; not even the elementary things.

This is why I say the “unperceiving” fruit has ripened. The layman atheists have been content to adhere to arguments from authority for so long that they are in many cases just not able to perceive that the actual arguments for naturalism and materialism are self-refuting. In the end, all of the arguments cut off the branch they are trying to rest on. This may be a hard fact to bring oneself to consider, much less accept, for who would advance such arguments if they were not valid? But the question of the existence of God is one question where we ALL have a dog in the fight. It matters at the most personal level possible. It would be a great mistake to dismiss the emotional influences that otherwise upright people are swayed by in this debate.

A recent example of this came on a forum where the debate comes up often, but which threads are usually deleted by moderators. An obviously very smart and well educated fellow (“he” came across as a “fellow”, anyway) said that it was patently obvious that, since God didn’t exist and nature, produced from the Big Bang is all there was, that every event in the universe was predetermined by the events preceding them, all the way back to the initial bang. Well, I agree with him. IF God doesn’t exist, then, yes, all events can be explained by simple cause and effect. But, the topic (I don’t remember specifically) was about things we believed and why, and his argument was supposed to be taken as a disproof of the existence of God (which also makes it circular). Yes, it is an obvious and inevitable conclusion to think that all events in the universe are predetermined if naturalism is true, but that obviously includes our thoughts and “reasoning”. Yet, he was advocating this position as if he had real insight. But what insight can he claim to have if his own position is actually true? None! His “insight” was just the cause of certain particles of matter bouncing around in the right combination to produce the thoughts he had in his brain.

When I pointed this out to him, however, he cited the “authorities” who have written books on the matter, and it was therefore obviously correct, and that my “ass” (his word), on an internet forum, was in no way going to be able to refute it. Now, I still hold very strictly to my position, but it sure would have been nice to be able to actually dialogue with him and see if I may have overlooked something that would undermine my point. But he simply shut off and either would not, or could not, reason it out himself.

I’m reminded of the very well known classic, How to Read a Book by Mortimer Adler. In it he said that, until you can take what you’ve read and put it in your own words, you don’t understand it. I’m strongly inclined to agree. And from the looks of it, many atheists don’t understand the arguments for their own declared position.

Now, I expect that last comment to be strongly taken issue with. But, what I said was that many atheists don’t UNDERSTAND the arguments! Not that they don’t confidently and very vocally boast in their position and belief in their arguments. There’s a big difference. It’s when they are challenged on those arguments that the lack of understanding and perception becomes evident.

God’s Omnipotent Nature is Not Contradictory: A Belated Followup pt. II

This is the third post related to God’s omnipotence and contradiction. The previous post can be found here, God’s Omnipotent Nature is Not Contradictory: A Belated Followup. The first post can be found here, God’s Omnipotent Nature is Not Contradictory.

Should God’s omnipotence allow Him to also do the logically impossible?

 

Jam’s response was that it should, by virtue of the meaning of omnipotence (no lack in power).

Let’s go with that, then. Yes, God can do the logically impossible.

Then the argument becomes:

Can God create a rock that He cannot lift? Answer: Yes

God creates the rock that He cannot lift, and then attempts to lift it. He cannot.

Jam says, “Aha! God is not omnipotent, and therefore not God.”

I say, “What do you mean? Of course God can lift it.”

God then lifts the rock.

You protest that God could’t then create a rock He cannot lift.

“What do you mean? Of course He cannot lift it”, I say. And then God cannot lift the rock.

“Well, that is a contradiction! He cannot both be able and unable to lift the rock!”, you declare.

But you said that God’s omnipotence should allow Him to do the logically impossible.

You cannot protest against God for doing the logically impossible if you assert that He should be able to! If you ride the “God’s omnipotence should allow Him to do the logically impossible” taxi, then you have to pay the fair at the other end! Otherwise you commit the taxicab fallacy whereby you only hold to certain premises throughout the parts of your argument that are convenient for you. But logic doesn’t allow this.

So, either God can or cannot do the logically impossible. If He cannot, then I must explain why that does not conflict with God’s omnipotence, as much as it appears that it would.

So:

Should God’s omnipotence allow Him to also do the logically impossible?
I said, no.

Let’s go with that, then. God cannot do the logically impossible.

Then the argument becomes:

Can God create a rock that He cannot lift? Answer: No.

Jam says, “Why not? He should be able to if He is omnipotent.”

Let’s experiment:

God creates a rock. He can lift it.

God creates a bigger rock. He can lift it.


God creates bigger and bigger rocks, but can always lift them.

Where does this stop? Or, better: How could this stop?

It could only stop with God creating something more powerful than omnipotence. But here is the problem of definitions again. It isn’t in any way a lack of power of God to form bigger and bigger rocks. God can always make bigger rocks, and God can always lift them. Forever and ever and ever and ever . . . So, even if we say “No” in answer to the question, it doesn’t limit God’s power.

Can God create a rock He cannot lift? No.

Does the inability of God to create a rock He cannot lift limit His power? No.
At any rate, the bigger problem is the question itself. Again, it is really asking if something can be better than perfect. It is, by definition, a nonsensical question.

So then: Is it possible for there to be anything greater than perfection? No.

If Perfection cannot create something greater than itself, does It cease to be Perfection? No.

Is it even reasonable, then, to ask Perfection to be better than Itself? No.

The Conclusion of the Matter

 

Should an omnipotent being be able to do the logically impossible?

Jam says, “Yes”. (Though he consistently refused to directly answer this, it is implied in the dilemma proposed and the only position possible to be taken that would propose to do damage to the coherence of the idea of God’s omnipotence.)

But if he says yes, then he has no argument.

If an omnipotent being should be able to do the logically impossible, then the cat is out of the bag I’m afraid. God both can and cannot create a rock He cannot lift. He both can and cannot lift any rock He creates, for God’s omnipotence, according to Jam, allows Him to do the logically impossible. Therefore when he says “yes”, he loses the argument, for he has nothing left to argue.

If Jam would like to change his answer to “no”, then we are in agreement and he loses his argument.

The original challenge was: Can God create a rock that He cannot lift? But that implies that an omnipotent being should be able to do the logically impossible, i.e., create something better than the best, or something more powerful than the most powerful, or something more omnipotent than simply omnipotent, which is all clearly nonsense.

But, if we just grant, for the sake of argument, that omnipotence should include the ability to actually do the logically impossible, then we have no basis left to accuse God of not being omnipotent because He can do the logically impossible, i.e., create a rock that He is both able and not able to lift.

You say, “But it’s a contradiction that God is both able and unable to create a rock that He cannot lift.”

I say, “Well, yes, it is a contradiction, but we’ve already allowed Him that because of His omnipotence.”

God’s Omnipotent Nature is Not Contradictory: A Belated Followup

In my arguments earlier in God’s Omnipotent Nature is Not Contradictory I purposed to defend the idea that the Christian concept of God is indeed coherent, and non-contradictory. Before making any arguments, I made some initial points. They were:

1) God is not a material being. Christians tend to believe that He is more analogous to a mind. 2) God is omnipresent. He is present everywhere, and there is nowhere where He is not present, either within or without the universe. 3) God is omnipotent. He is all powerful. It is important to note that this doesn’t mean God is simply the “most powerful” being, but omnipotent, or, without limit in power. 4) Christians do not believe that God’s omnipotence makes it possible for Him to do the logically impossible. For instance, God cannot make a round square, or create a married bachelor. This is not a limit on God’s omnipotence, but rather a simple fact that a thing cannot be both A and non A at the same time and in the same way.

Jam immediately took issue with points 3 and 4. He said that he thought point 3 was fine by itself, but that 4 then immediately contradicted it. And while I agree that to many, at first blush, it would appear he is correct, indeed he is not.

Note that I did anticipate at point 4 that some may balk. I gave a short explanation of what a logical contradiction would be, and then a very brief remark why even an omnipotent being could not violate this rule of non-contradiction. I will now explain a little further.

The law of non-contradiction (LNC) is that a thing cannot be both A and not A at the same time and in the same way. If a ball is all green, it cannot also be all white. It may be of mixed color, and therefore all green and white, but it cannot be all purely white and all purely green at the same time.

A car cannot also be a bus at the same time and in the same way. It may be a car that is shaped like a bus, or use some bus parts, but then it would simply be a hybrid, and not strictly one or the other, and therefore would not violate the law of non-contradiction. A car may be converted into a bus, but it could never be both at the same time; strictly a car and strictly a bus.

Interestingly, however, sometimes a van may be a bus, and a limousine may be a van. How? Well, in different cultures they use different words to describe the same type of vehicle. In Japan where I’m living, a van is a bus. But if a Japanese person went to the U.S., a bus would be a van. It could be the exact same model of vehicle, but they are referred to differently in different parts of the world. So, even though what something is never actually changes, it can have different words to identify it.

To state this as a positive rather than a negative is to say, simply, a thing is what it is. This is referred to as the law of identity (LOI). If a thing is a mixture of two things, then it is a mixture of two things. That’s just what it is. A thing is never, and can never be, what it is not. A thing is what it is and never what it is not.

So, how does this affect God’s omnipotence? It doesn’t. If God is omnipotent He also cannot do the logically impossible. Why? Because no matter what God does, that will be what He does. It will be what He did and not not what He did. Even for God, then, the LOI (law of identity) will hold, and by extension also the LNC (law of non-contradiction). If He does A, then it means necessarily that He didn’t do B. Interestingly, the logically impossible really only comes down to definitions, i.e., what we call a certain thing, event, or action.

If God made something totally unique and sent it to earth, something of totally unique materials and shape for instance, we may not know what it was, but it would still be what it is. Eventually some name would be attached to the object and then people would refer to it by that name. The name that it is called by will never change the thing. Even if we called the object water, for example, it would still be unique and not become water as we now know it.

So, lets look at a logical contradiction like a square circle. A proper square cannot also be a proper circle. It may be a hybrid of the two, perhaps with slightly rounded corners, but it cannot properly be both. So, the question would be whether or not an omnipotent God could create such a thing.
Can God make a square circle? No. But let’s think about this for a moment.

Firstly, can we even rightly imagine what a square circle would look like? No. If you can, please draw one. But, no, we cannot. However, for the sake of argument, let’s say that God did send this “something” to earth like earlier and that it was, indeed, a square circle. We should now begin to see the problem. If we perceive it to be a square, we will call it a square. If we perceive it to be a circle, we will call it a circle. But, even if by God’s standard it really is a square circle, we wouldn’t be able to perceive it or call it a square circle. Technically speaking, we could of course call it anything we liked, for it would be something unique that we’ve never seen before. We may call it water as per above, or we may for some reason call it a duck, or for another reason call it a surzzalupe. But if we called it a square circle, it would be pure luck.

You see, the problem is with definitions of what things are. When something appears to us as unique, not quite like a circle, and not quite like a square, we would give it some other name. A square circle cannot be a square, and cannot be a circle. It must be something else. It must be what it is. We could name and begin to call anything we want a square circle, and from then on square circles would be coherent. But it could not be a proper square or a proper circle. To be neither a square or a circle it must be unique.

So in what is probably an utterly too long and unnecessary attempt to show what is obvious, the problem is simply a definition problem. A circle is a circle. A square is a square. And a square circle is, or would be anyway, yet a third thing, not properly a square and not properly a circle, for if it were then it wouldn’t be a square circle but one of the other things. So square circles are possible only if we make them possible by defining what one would be. When we say that God cannot make a square circle, then, it is because we haven’t defined what one is, and cannot even conceive of one because of the two mutually exclusive (contradictory) terms, and not because God isn’t powerful enough to make anything. And just to refocus a bit, this is all going back to the logical contradiction that is proposed in asking if God can create a rock that He cannot lift. The challenge itself is a logical contradiction, as it boils down to asking the logically absurd question of whether anything can be better than the best, or greater than the greatest, or more perfect than perfect.

This is the sense in which God cannot do what is logically impossible. It isn’t a power limiting problem for God, but a definition limitation on our behalf. A thing will always be what it is. It will either be this, or that, or something else, even if God is directly responsible for making or doing it. It is up to us to define things, just as Adam did in the beginning.

There will be yet another post to tie up one loose end, and to show how truly ridiculous the position is that suggests it’s a logical impossibility for God to be omnipotent.