God Argument Power Rankings

The following is my personal assessment of the validity of popular apologetic arguments. The list goes from most valid to least valid.

The Fine Tuning of the Universe: Could be valid, currently based on assumptions.

1. There are a vast number of physically possible universes.
2. A universe that would be hospitable to the appearance of life must conform to some very strict conditions. Everything from the mass ratios of atomic particles and the number of dimensions of space to the cosmological parameters that rule the expansion of the universe must be just right for stable galaxies, solar systems, planets, and complex life to evolve.
3. The percentage of possible universes that would support life is infinitesimally small (from 2).
4. Our universe is one of those infinitesimally improbable universes.
5. Our universe has been fine-tuned to support life (from 3 and 4).
6. There is a Fine-Tuner (from 5).
7. Only God could have the power and the purpose to be the Fine- Tuner.
8. God exists.

This argument, had we just a little more supporting knowledge, could make me deist. It says that the physical laws and constants that allow for a life-sustaining universe lie in a very small fraction of the possible spectrum of values and the fact that our universe is within that unlikely range is evidence that it was designed with us in mind. Many atheists argue the anthropic principle here, which says that we can only come to this conclusion because we are, in fact, here. If we weren’t, we wouldn’t. Obvious, I know. The anthropic principle is worthwhile when arguing against the fine tuning of earth specifically, but we don't have enough information for it to be meaningful in terms of the fine tuning of the universe.

The difference is that the variables that can vary widely and affect the possibility of life on a planet (such as distance from a star, having a moon/asteroid belt to deflect impacts with space objects, the presence of water, etc.) are most likely all fulfilled throughout the universe. There are enough planets that one can say, “sure, we are alive on this planet because we couldn’t be alive elsewhere.” However, we can only account for one universe. If this universe is all there has ever been, and if the aforementioned laws and constants can vary to the degree apologists claim, then I agree that we are such a coincidence that a designer is a better explanation than chance. I’m just not convinced because those "if"s are not answered. I tend to think that the laws and constants can vary, but that enough other universes either have, will or currently exist to make the anthropic principle meaningful--but that’s just personal speculation.

The Kalam Cosmological Argument: Invalid, only replaces one mystery with another.

1. Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence;
2. The universe has a beginning of its existence;
3. Therefore: The universe has a cause of its existence.
4. (Implied) God is that cause.

This argument is at least based on something that is most likely true--the Big Bang Theory. So, I won't argue premise 2. As much as they like the Big Bang, apologists stop paying attention to the science after it can be used to support their beliefs. Traditional causation could very well not apply in general at the quantum level in which we find the singularity, and especially in the case of the universe with no prior time or space for a cause to occur or God to exist. The Big Bang, after all, isn't just the beginning of our universe, but also space and time as we understand it. To posit otherwise is merely an "of the gaps" argument. The implication of 4 is hasty now that there are more hypotheses than ever for possible causes of the universe and likely others that haven't occurred to us. In the end, the biggest weakness is that the argument establishes a rule because a lack of counter examples and then arbitrarily makes what they want to believe an exception. If we say that everything that begins to exist has a cause because we have no examples of things that exist without a cause, then we can also say everything that exists is within time and space because we have no examples of things that exist outside time and space. Since apologists require their God to be outside time and space for this argument to work, they would have to explain why the first statement is legitimate while the second it not.

The Ontological Argument: Invalid, basically it's just wordplay.

1. Nothing greater than God can be conceived (this is stipulated as part of the definition of “God”).
2. It is greater to exist than not to exist.
3. If we conceive of God as not existing, then we can conceive of some-thing greater than God (from 2).
4. To conceive of God as not existing is not to conceive of God (from 1 and 3).
5. It is inconceivable that God not exist (from 4).
6. God exists.

"Greater" is a value judgement that can vary from person to person, which is problematic to this argument. However, the real problem is that the argument works for any concept that includes the linguistic trick of including "must exist" in it's definition. For example, if one said the Fly Spaghetti Monster exists, by definition, then it exists. Somehow I doubt many Christian apologists would accept that definition. Nor should they, because existence isn't a property one can prescribe conceptually. Neither is "greatness" for that matter.

The Argument from Moral Truth. Invalid for a variety of reasons.

1. There exist objective moral truths. (Slavery and torture and genocide are not just distasteful to us, but are actually wrong.)
2. These objective moral truths are not grounded in the way the world is but, rather, in the way the world ought to be.
3. The world itself—the way it is, the laws of science that explain why it is that way—cannot account for the way the world ought to be.
4. The only way to account for morality is that God established morality (from 2 and 3).
5. God exists.

I don’t know if this is the worst argument for God in my book, but it is certainly the worst of those still popular in the apologetic community. Why? Because it has so many points of failure. There is Euthyphro’ Dilemma that shows that God is a redundant factor if objective morality is valid. There is the impossibility of ascertaining exactly what the objective morals are if they exist, unless. of course, they are defined by humans in relation to social interactions which would discount a need of a supernatural law giver. There is the question if morality is objective at all (I see morality as a broad concept including the possibility for a variety of moral codes--which may be applied objectively but are hardly transcendent.) There is evolutionary biology that suggests moral instincts are selected traits which are passed down genetically. I feel apologists over estimate the argument’s power because the opposition can seem scatter brained when refuting it because the number of ways to refute it makes one’s mind spin out. That, and it’s the one argument that allows them to both claim there is a god and take the moral high ground in one fallacious move.

Sylogisming

I've been asking theists which argument for God they find most compelling. So far, the Kalam Cosmological Argument is leading the pack. I find this sad. I've already said why, then I said why again, but I'll try a different way of looking at it today.

Again, here is their argument.

1. Everything that has a beginning has a cause.
2. The universe had a beginning.
3. Therefore the universe had a cause.

Maybe apologists just like arguments formulated as obvious sylogisms. That's fine. Here's one.

1. Everything that exists is finite.
2. The universe exists.
3. Therefore the universe is finite.

From this argument we can conclude that God, defined as an eternal being, doesn't exist.

Admittedly, this argument has a few problems. Apologist Glenn helped me hash them out in the comments of his blog. I'll post what is relevant, but you're welcome to view the original exchange here.

• The premise 1 is not demonstrated. You would have to show that it is true that everything in existence is indeed finite. One of the main points we are trying to demonstrate is whether or not all things are indeed finite, and this sylogism assumes it from the start.
• If this sylogism is trying to be used to conclude that an eternal creator cannot exist, then the conclusion is assumed in premise 1, and is therefore circular. It would then be saying, ’1: Everything in existence is finite, therefore a non-finite does not exist.’ A tautology at best.
• The conclusion 3 does not contain the conclusion that an uncaused effect can happen, nor that an infinite string of causes is possible, or that a creator cannot exist. 3 merely says that whatever is assumed in “universe” in 1 is finite.
• This sylogism does not negate the fact that everything that has a beginning is caused. Even if we call it valid, it merely concludes that the universe is finite, not that a finite thing does not need a cause.

Smart guy, Glenn, he just doesn't apply his keen mind to arguments he agrees with. His first and second points can be applied almost word-for-word to the Kalam. “Everything that has a beginning has a cause” is an assumption, exactly as “everything in existence is finite.” They are both somewhat justified assumptions. They are both generalizations taken from what we know about reality and applied to what we don’t know. How is “everything in existence is finite” any less demonstrated than “everything that has a beginning has a cause?”

Glenn's third and fourth points are valid, but my sylogism doesn't set out to disprove a creator or the Kalam, only an eternal creator, which it does. If God is not eternal, then he needs a cause according to the Kalam Argument. Either both arguments both work here or (as I show below) neither do.

The law of conservation of energy shows something is not finite. If energy cannot be created nor destroyed within a closed system, that implies it is eternal within the closed system. This only tells us that individual quantum particles could be eternal, while the chemistry or biology or whatever they eventually form can't be. I've already discussed how quantum mechanics breaks the classical logic that both these sylogisms really on. The second problem is that eternal in this case can only be defined as lasting as long as the universe. The law of conservation of energy only works for closed systems, in this case that's the universe. Just as causality only works in relation to our perception of time, this law only works in relation to a predefined space. Before the Big Bang, there is no time or space, so both arguments are void.

Thanks for reading, I wish you all a happy and healthy armageddon. I'll see you in hell.

...or more likely in a couple days.

The Argument Against Any Cosmological Argument

I’m convinced that the cosmological argument is the most convincing argument for God among the least skeptical people. This is speculation on my part, but it is informed speculation. Let’s look at the argument.

1. Everything that exists has a cause of its existence.
2. The universe exists.
   Therefore:
3. The universe has a cause of its existence.
4. If the universe has a cause of its existence, then that cause is God.
   Therefore:
5. God exists.

This form of the argument is laughable. The conclusion of (5) makes God subject to (1) which begs the question who or what created God? It doesn’t answer the question of First Cause thereby making it pointless. Many theists realize this and have tweaked the argument to avoid criticism...or tried to.

Kalam cosmological argument

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

This argument takes into account the Big Bang Theory, giving weight to premise (2). (I must say that it bothers me that many theists only find the science that could support their beliefs compelling while finding the rest somehow erroneous) I could argue that (1) is an assumption, but based on experience, it seems correct. William Lane Craig throws in his two cents with a sub argument.

Argument based on the impossibility of an actual infinite:

1. An actual infinite cannot exist.
2. An infinite temporal regress of events is an actual infinite.
3. Therefore, an infinite temporal regress of events cannot exist.

I imagine WLC is attempting to make the argument stronger in regards to God as First Cause, but claiming that an infinite can not exist makes God, who relies on infinities in a variety of ways, nonexistent. If God cannot exist infinitely into the past, he is not eternal and subject to the necessity of a cause according to this vary argument.

Then we have...
Thomistic cosmological argument

1. What we observe in this universe is contingent (i.e. dependent, or conditional)
2. A sequence of causally related contingent things cannot be infinite
3. The sequence of causally dependent contingent things must be finite

And...
Leibnizian cosmological argument

1. Every existing thing 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 is an existing thing.
4. Therefore the explanation of the universe is God.

Which can be tied together to be...

1. Every finite and contingent being has a cause.
2. A causal loop cannot exist.
3. A causal chain cannot be of infinite length.
4. Therefore, a First Cause (or something that is not an effect) must exist.

If your cosmological argument of choice isn’t here, I’m not surprised. The apologist presents whichever form has help up the best under criticism, which speaks more to the quality of religious debates in their past than the quality of the argument. Ultimately they all rest on the same assumptions–that the universe needs a cause and that the cause must be God. If you define God as simply the thing that causes the universe, then I freely admit that God could exist, but most define God as an agent possessing will/intellect/personality/and the like, which is a definition unwarranted by every cosmological argument.

The arguments also suffer from a fundamental misunderstanding of the universe. The Big Bang Theory, which lends weight to the claim that the universe even had a beginning, involves space and time’s origin as well. Ask a layperson to describe the Big Bang and you’ll likely hear about an explosion in space from which all matter and energy came forth to eventually form stars, planets, etc. I would guess this misconception draws the ignorant to the First Cause arguments. The scientific consensus is that space/time exploded outward with the matter and energy that eventually formed the universe. Scientists determined this, in part, from observations of celestial bodies drifting apart, marking the predicted expansion of space. The repercussions of this accurate understanding of the Big Bang Theory means that time began at the moment of the effect (the Big Bang) leaving no time for the cause. This leaves the apologist with the task of weighing which counter-intuitive statement is more logical--that every effect must be preceded by a cause or that anything can precede the arrow of time. It’s quite the chronological conundrum...that somehow doesn’t bother theists that much.

I’m not sure “logical” is the operable word here. At the first moment of the Big Bang, and therefore time, everything that would become the universe was a singularity, or something close to it. At this size it was subject to the strangeness that is quantum mechanics. While scientists don’t yet have clear explanations for everything we observe at the quantum level, we have repeated and repeatable results that inform particle/wave duality, the uncertainty principle, super positioning and all kinds of other phenomenon that most everyone would say seems impossible if they don't see it with their own eyes and instruments. Some of these phenomenon even open possibilities that may violate causality and the arrow of time. I look forward to having my mind further blown as humanity hashes this all out.

I Can't Think of Nothing

Ever since the publication of On the Origin of the Species, the crown jewel of the apologist’s costume collection has slowly moved from the argument from design to the argument from first cause. I’ve talked about the Cosmological Argument in the past, but new readers should know that I’m not impressed. Version 1.0 of the argument was one big fallacy, and, while the current iteration taking into account scientific data supporting the Big Bang has improved the argument’s foundation, it only manages to include Bible-damning evidence into a theistic statement that’s only achievement is explaining one mystery with a larger mystery. That’s all there is to it. No more to say.  It’s for this reason the current post is only incidentally about a "first cause." In fact, it’s about nothing.

Theists claim that atheists must adopt the logically invalid (or at the least counter-intuitive) stance that something came from nothing. This is completely untrue. Going by the most scientifically accurate origin story available, the Big Bang Theory, we only know that the universe came from a singularity. What came before the Big Bang is unknown. However, it is the believer’s practice to fill gaps of knowledge with the supernatural. In this case, it is God popping space and time into existence. It's the theist who believes that something came from nothing, at least in the material world. The intellectual out of trumping nature with magic is unfounded. There is no reason to believe that anything trumps nature. There is no reason to believe in “nothing.”

I read Lawence Krauss’ book A Universe From Nothing sometime before I started this blog. In it Krauss brings up the theist’s tendency to define “nothing” as that which has no potential to form “something.” The theist works their desired answer into the question. Can something come from nothing? No, according to this definition, it can’t. In fact, even God shouldn’t be able to act on nothing according to this definition. Krauss spends most of the book explaining how the universe could spontaneously spawn from quantum foam. I don’t get into this explanation in debates because, however accurate it may be or may not be, I simply can’t wrap my mind around it. To be honest, “nothing” as a complete lack of anything--a void of the void, the capitol “S” sans--is incomprehensible in it’s own right. Does nothing exist? No, it is the antonym of existence.

So next time a theist says that you must believe that something came from nothing, know that this is untrue. You don’t even have to believe in “nothing.” Something might have come from something, we just don’t know what, and that’s okay.

First Cause

I consider the Cosmological Argument the best argument for a creator God. Given the theme of this blog, I don’t consider it a particularly good argument, but it is the best none the less. What follows is the most fair, if not conclusive, rebuttal I have to give.

The argument from the origin of the universe, or the Cosmological Argument dates back to the beginning of apologetics. If you are interested in the history, Google it. I plan on skipping ahead to the modern version of the argument sometimes called the Kalam cosmological argument.

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

This form of the argument is meant to avoid the easy dismissal of “if everything that exists needs to have a cause, then what caused God?” and the fallacies associated with it. It is implied that God did not begin to exist while the universe did.

It is one of those rare cases that a scientific discovery seemingly hurt the atheistic position. It is hard to argue that the universe did not begin to exist after the Big Bang Theory. Luckily, there are still multiple avenues of rebuttal.

• There is no evidence that there is a God, eternal or otherwise, other than the universe’s existence. (If you consider the other arguments that apologists pose as further evidence, stay tuned, I will take them on in future posts.) The idea of a willful, intelligent, universally powerful entity is an extraordinary claim--which, according to Carl Sagan who I happen to agree with, requires extraordinary evidence. At best, God is a hypothesis that can’t be tested, makes no predictions, and contributes little to explaining how we came to be.
• There are other ideas in theoretical physics that could account for the cause of the Big Bang. For example, the theory of Loop Quantum Gravity says that our universe was preceded by an identical, reversed universe that contracted into the singularity that expanded into our universe. There are multiple theories involving the notion of a multiverse, including one where ours is just a bubble universe that emerged from quantum foam. Actually, the word “quantum” comes up a lot, which is a hard concept to sell to someone who believes the much simpler idea of a creator. None of these theories have much hard evidence behind them, but the fact that we have found elementary particles that pop in and out of existence and can possibly travel through time, makes them all stand on a better foundation of reality than a supreme being existing outside of space and time.
• God would have to exist outside space and time and we have no evidence that there is such a place. The downside of the updated Kalam cosmological argument is the same as it’s advantage--taking into account the Big Bang. The Big Bang did not only explode out matter and energy, but also space and time. It’s not accurate to think of “before the Big Bang” because chronologically “before” didn’t exist. To be an atheist, you only need to accept that the universe either didn’t have a cause, was self-caused, or has a natural cause that we don’t yet understand. To be a theist, you need to accept a variety of magical concepts.
• To posit God is explaining one mystery with another mystery. To most believer’s the buck stops at God, there is no point in trying to understand anything further, because we can’t know the Mind of God. As a proponent of science, I prefer to increase humanity’s collective knowledge and learn more about reality. It is the drive that got us to the moon, split the atom and, like it or not, is making the world more secular. Stopping with God gets us the dark ages. If you insist in believing God did all this, don’t sit on your laurels, find some way to prove it. If you don’t, science will prove you wrong.