Arguement Against God's existence

[Marc_Anthony]

I shall give it a shot; from the start! I am not too familiar with Craig’s work, I didn’t like his version of the cosmological argument and I think he is too popularist and not a serious academic.

The potentially infinite is unknown, because only to the extent that something is in act it is knowable. But it is not so unknown that it would be impossible for an actual infinite intellect to know it; nontheless a potential infinite cannot be conceived by even an intellect which proceeds to know it in the way that is infinite. For, it is infinite only in so far as the mind in considering only one thing after another never comes to an end. Now the mind which considers only one thing after another in this way always considers something finite, and never something infinite. An infinite intellect, which is infinite in quality - and not in numerical unity, can conceive this one thing at once; and not in a sequencial modum; thus - any object can be conceived instantaneously. Therefore, we are left with the fact even if we actualise such a conception; that if it is concieved methodically it proceeds to be only a potential infinite; and if it is concieved instantaneously - it is seen as individual and singular ; and all the space around it illustrates it’s potential extension! Thus! No infinite can exist.

You assume a numerical univocity – these are infinite in quale–; If every real unity is numerical unity; evert real diversity is numerical diversity. The consequent is false, for every numerical diversity, insofar as it is numerical is equal. And so all things would be equally distinct, it follows from such nonsense that the intellect could not abstract some commonality from Socrates and Plato any more than it can from Socrates and a line. Every universal would be a pure figment of the intellect. I’ll mention here that I am a Realist.

I will agree that the Kalaam is the worst rendoration of the cosmological argument. However, the Big bang as an event is irrelevant to the nessecary finitude of time (& causal chains).

Virtual particles are caused. They emerge from energy.

Most of the other criticisms of Craig’s argument seem fair. I have never been a fan of his, if you want a real argument for the existence of God go to Bl Duns Scotus, scholastic philosopher, critic of Aquinas, teacher of William of Ockham etc.;

Here is a rendition of A TREATISE ON GOD AS FIRST PRINCIPLE:

ewtn.com/library/THEOLOGY/GODASFIR.HTM

John, I always find your posts interesting. However, I must confess that I am no philosopher. I tried reading that article and I’m afraid that I’m utterly confused. Is there any chance you could summarize the main points?

 

[tonyrey]

Doesn’t it also follow from Ockhams teachings (a form of nominalism/conceptualism) that the external universe cannot be said to have any universal thing; such as goodness, redness etc. Too many people use Ockhams Razor out of the context of the works it was presented in. It was abused so much by its creator that he even denied the reality of universal things outside the soul in his Ordinatio. I would be wary of using any idea from this spurious philosopher.

And the general concept was used more sparingly and appropriatly by Maimonides, Aquinas, Scotus, Durand de Saint-Pourçain, Alhazen, and many more before him.

The actual quotation is Pluralitas non est ponenda sine necessitate; “Plurality should not be posited without necessity.”. Now, applying this idea essentially one is left with a senseless nominalism, or even solipsism.

The key phrase is “sine necessitate”. The abuse of the principle of economy does not invalidate its value. The success of science is a convincing refutation of nominalism and solipsism.

 

[JohnDamian]

John, I always find your posts interesting. However, I must confess that I am no philosopher. I tried reading that article and I’m afraid that I’m utterly confused. Is there any chance you could summarize the main points?

I’ll take the distillation from the Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy; I fear it would take far too long for me to distill it, and I would probably miss something so a critically reviewed distillation would be more accurate;

Proof of the existence of God

Scotus’s argument for the existence of God is rightly regarded as one of the most outstanding contributions ever made to natural theology. The argument is enormously complex, with several sub-arguments for almost every important conclusion, and I can only sketch it here. (Different versions of the proof are given at Lectura 1, d. 2, q. 1, nn. 38-135; Ordinatio 1, d. 2, q. 1, nn. 39-190; Reportatio 1, d. 2, q. 1; and De primo principio.)

Scotus begins by arguing that there is a first agent (a being that is first in efficient causality). Consider first the distinction between essentially ordered causes and accidentally ordered causes. In an accidentally ordered series, the fact that a given member of that series is itself caused is accidental to that member’s own causal activity. For example, Grandpa A generates a son, Dad B, who in turn generates a son of his own, Grandson C. B’s generating C in no way depends on A — A could be long dead by the time B starts having children. The fact that B was caused by A is irrelevant to B’s own causal activity. That’s how an accidentally ordered series of causes works.

In an essentially ordered series, by contrast, the causal activity of later members of the series depends essentially on the causal activity of earlier members. For example, my shoulders move my arms, which in turn move my golf club. My arms are capable of moving the golf club only because they are being moved by my shoulders.

With that distinction in mind, we can examine Scotus’s argument for the existence of a first efficient cause:
(1) No effect can produce itself.
(2) No effect can be produced by just nothing at all.
(3) A circle of causes is impossible.
(4) Therefore, an effect must be produced by something else. (from 1, 2, and 3)
(5) There is no infinite regress in an essentially ordered series of causes.

(5a) 	It is not necessarily the case that a being possessing a causal power C possesses C in an imperfect way.
(5b) 	Therefore, it is possible that C is possessed without imperfection by some item.
(5c) 	If it is not possible for any item to possess C without dependence on some prior item, then it is not possible that there is any item that possesses C without imperfection (since dependence is a kind of imperfection).
(5d) 	Therefore, it is possible that some item possesses C without dependence on some prior item. (from 5b and 5c by modus tollens)
(5e) 	Any item possessing C without dependence on some prior item is a first agent (i.e., an agent that is not subsequent to any prior causes in an essentially ordered series).
(5f) 	Therefore, it is possible that something is a first agent. (from 5d and 5e)
(5g) 	If it is possible that something is a first agent, something is a first agent. (For, by definition, if there were no first agent, there would be no cause that could bring it about, so it would not in fact be possible for there to be a first agent.)
(5h) 	Therefore, something is a first agent (i.e., an agent that is not subsequent to any prior causes in an essentially ordered series — Scotus still has to prove that there is an agent that is not subsequent to any prior causes in an accidentally ordered series either. That's what he does in step (6) below). (from 5f and 5g)

(6) It is not possible for there to be an accidentally ordered series of causes unless there is an essentially ordered series.

(6a) 	In an accidentally ordered series, each member of the series (except the first, if there is a first) comes into existence as a result of the causal activity of a prior member of the series.
(6b) 	That causal activity is exercised in virtue of a certain form.
(6c) 	Therefore, each member of the series depends on that form for its causal activity.
(6d) 	The form is not itself a member of the series.
(6e) 	Therefore, the accidentally ordered series is essentially dependent on a higher-order cause.

(7) Therefore, there is a first agent. (from 4, 5, and 6)

Scotus then goes on to argue that there is an ultimate goal of activity (a being that is first in final causality), and a maximally excellent being (a being that is first in what Scotus calls “pre-eminence”).

Thus he has proved what he calls the “triple primacy”: there is a being that is first in efficient causality, in final causality, and in pre-eminence. Scotus next proves that the three primacies are coextensive: that is, any being that is first in one of these three ways will also be first in the other two ways. Scotus then argues that a being enjoying the triple primacy is endowed with intellect and will, and that any such being is infinite. Finally, he argues that there can be only one such being.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

R Daneel

An explanation should enlighten us about the ways and means of how something happened.

This is what theism attempts to do.

Atheism makes no such effort to enlighten. It just says the universe is, and needs no cause. That is hardly an explanation of how the universe came to be with the Big Bang.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

Thanks John.

His proof seems quite remarkable, at any rate.

 

[R_Daneel]

These so-called arguments are just too easy to disprove.

(1) No effect can produce itself.
(2) No effect can be produced by just nothing at all.
(3) A circle of causes is impossible.
(4) Therefore, an effect must be produced by something else. (from 1, 2, and 3)
(5) There is no infinite regress in an essentially ordered series of causes.

The errors in this part are quite numerous. First, the use of the concept “effect”. It is trivially true that an “effect” cannot exist without a “cause”. It is obvious that the two must go hand-in-hand. He should have used the concept “event”, and all of a sudden, his reasoning falls apart.

(1) No event can produce itself.
(2) No event can be produced by just nothing at all.
(3) A circle of causes is impossible.
(4) Therefore, an event must be produced by something else. (from 1, 2, and 3)
(5) There is no infinite regress in an essentially ordered series of causes.

Now, (1) is just an assertion, without any justification. (2) is actually false. Two examples: the uncaused events predicted and observed by quantum theory, and the commonly assumed existence of free will. A decision made “freely” cannot be caused (though it may be influenced) by prior causes. To say otherwise would make the adjective “free” meaningless and nonsensical. (3) is just another assumption. And so is (5). Both come from the physical observation that time is unidirectional and the cause precedes the effect. It might or might not be true universally.

Since the rest depends on these partly unjustified and partly erroneous assumptions, it is not necessary to examine them. It is enough to remove the lowest card from a house of cards and it will collapse.

But the author’s name “Scotus” is quite funny. SCOTUS is the abbreviation of the Supreme Court Of The United States. Lucky guy to have such a nifty name.

 

[R_Daneel]

Atheism makes no such effort to enlighten. It just says the universe is, and needs no cause. That is hardly an explanation of how the universe came to be with the Big Bang.

Correct. It does not explain that particular event - since the concept of any explanation rests on some unproven and unprovable basic principles. This happens to be one of the basic principles. Just like yours, namely that God needs no explanation, God is the being that simply “is”. For atheists the universe simply “is”. I wonder why you think that you can blame the atheists for holding the same position as you do? (One correction: the Big Bang is NOT the “beginning” of the universe. It is the beginning of the current form of the universe.)

 

[JohnDamian]

This was not the argument. it was a breif summation of the argument.

Now, (1) is just an assertion, without any justification.

Hogwash:
EXERPT
*1.10 Patent enough is the meaning of the first member of this second division and the fact that it falls under the heading of an essential order of dependence. For it is clear not only what cause and caused are but also that the two are so related that the caused depends essentially upon the cause and the cause is that upon which it depends as something prior in the sense explained above.

1.11 But the [sense] of the second member of this second division is not so self-evident; neither is it immediately clear just how it fits under the notion of essential dependence. Its meaning is explained as follows. If one and the same cause produces a dual effect, one of which is such that by its nature it could be caused before the other and therefore more immediately [e.g. a subject like mind or matter], whereas the second can be caused only if the first is given [e.g. some quality or modification of the subject such as a state of mind or the shape or form of matter], then I say that the second effect is posterior in the order of essential dependence whereas the more immediate effect of the same cause is prior. Such is the meaning of this member.

1.12 From this I proceed to show secondly that this member pertains to the category of essential dependence. In other words there is an essential dependence of the more remote upon the more proximate effect. First of all, the former cannot exist without the latter. Secondly, the causality of their common cause affects them according to a certain order, and they in turn are ordered to one another essentially in virtue of their respective individual relations to a mutual cause. Thirdly, the latter as such need only be considered the immediate cause of the more proximate effect. If the latter is non-existent, this common cause is regarded as only remotely responsible for the rest of the effects, whereas it is considered to be their proximate cause once the first effect has been caused. Now no effect follows exclusively from a remote cause as such. Consequently the second effect depends on this cause as having given existence to the first effect and therefore this second effect also depends upon the existence of the more proximate effect*.

(2) is actually false. Two examples: the uncaused events predicted and observed by quantum theory, and the commonly assumed existence of free will.

Virtual particles are caused by energy. Free will is caused by the primacy of volition. over the intellection of object formation.

(3) is just another assumption.

Poppycock
EXERPT
However, an infinity in the ascending order is impossible; hence a primacy is necessary because whatever has nothing prior is not posterior to anything posterior to itself, for the second conclusion of chapter two does away with a circle in causes.

And so is (5).

Have you even read the argument? Or do you have a habit of reading the content’s page and not the book?

To say they are unfounded is to admit you just looked at the summation, which I provided for Marc, and not read the actual argument itself, which I had provided a link too.

I could pick up any science book, look at the cover and say “heh, that’s an unfounded claim” without reading it; and just throw the book away as unsupported nonsense… This is what you are doing. Tsk tsk.

But the author’s name “Scotus” is quite funny. SCOTUS is the abbreviation of the Supreme Court Of The United States. Lucky guy to have such a nifty name.

Scotus is the latin word for Scottish. John was born in Duns, Berwickshire, Scotland - hence the Name John Duns Scotus, which - him being from the 12/13th centuary is completely unconnected to the Americans.

Oh and incidentally, using effect instead of event is sensible because Scotus denied the Si est, Quid est distinction of Aquinas, and his distinction is based upon predicate causality with regards to the individuating principles. he introduced the term Haecceity and the distinctio formalis a parte rei, a modified form of distinctio intentionalis to discuss the problem of universals. If you do not understand the distinction between effect and event and the fact that their predication of nessecity is comprehensive and important then I suppose you shouldn’t be making silly changes to things you do not understand!

 

[Charlemagne_II]

R Daneel

Just like yours, namely that God needs no explanation, God is the being that simply “is”. For atheists the universe simply “is”. I wonder why you think that you can blame the atheists for holding the same position as you do? (One correction: the Big Bang is NOT the “beginning” of the universe. It is the beginning of the current form of the universe.)

I wonder why you think we hold the same position. Science offers us only one explanation: that the universe did not always exist. It offers us no proof that the universe is eternal.

*(One correction: the Big Bang is NOT the “beginning” of the universe. It is the beginning of the current form of the universe.) *

Says who? You mean there other forms of the universe? Who discovered them? Give the name and the source.

 

[R_Daneel]

Virtual particles are caused by energy.

As if matter (particles) and energy would not be the same. E = mc^2.

Free will is caused by the primacy of volition. over the intellection of object formation.

Free will is made possible by the primacy of volition. A free decision is the manifestation of free will - it is nonsense to say that free will is caused by the primacy of volition. If the decision itself is caused by external factors, it is not free - by definition. If there is free will, then each and every free decison is the start of a new causal chain. Therefore the argument, that the universe is just one, uninterrupted causal chain - is wrong.

 

[R_Daneel]

I wonder why you think we hold the same position. Science offers us only one explanation: that the universe did not always exist. It offers us no proof that the universe is eternal.

Time is defined **within **the universe, but cannot be defined **for **the universe. The Newtonian “asbolute” space and time has been thrown out by Einstein.

Says who? You mean there other forms of the universe? Who discovered them? Give the name and the source.

The singularity is the “other” form.

 

[JohnDamian]

As if matter (particles) and energy would not be the same. E = mc^2.

Free will is made possible by the primacy of volition. A free decision is the manifestation of free will - it is nonsense to say that free will is caused by the primacy of volition. If the decision itself is caused by external factors, it is not free - by definition. If there is free will, then each and every free decison is the start of a new causal chain. Therefore the argument, that the universe is just one, uninterrupted causal chain - is wrong.

Sadly you do not seem to know the difference between essentially and accidentally ordered causality.

That and the primacy of volition is the will, it is prior to intellection, and praxis - it is essentially free. That is, uncausedness is a predicate of it’s essence.

Furthermore, I fail to see the causal connection between “each and every free decision is the start of a new causal chain” and “the universe is just one uniterrupted causal chain - is wrong”. Now, I don’t know about you, but I like to have, say - reasons? to support a conclusion.

I would ask you, if the universe is not at the core an causal chain (predicated essentially), which gives life to a sequence of accidentally ordered occurences. Using accident’s as the predicate of the latter order.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

The singularity is the “other” form.

There is no record of any universe before the Big Bang. The singularity is our universe at the start. There is no scientific record of any other universe than the one we know, and the one we know is certainly proscribed by time … 12 billions of years give or take to date.

What existed before the singularity? Where did the singularity come from? Why did the Bang occur?

Science will never be able to answer these questions because science, despite all its great achievements, cannot enter the mind of God.

 

[R_Daneel]

Sadly you do not seem to know the difference between essentially and accidentally ordered causality.

Indeed, I do not. Gobbledegook, made up words do not have meanings. There is no such thing as “necessary” and “contingent” existence either. Philosophy is loaded with made-up concepts which have have only one reason to exist, to hide the fact that the emperor has no clothes. And most people are scared to proclaim this fact.

 

[R_Daneel]

What existed before the singularity? Where did the singularity come from? Why did the Bang occur?

Science will never be able to answer the question: “what exists to the north from the North Pole?” either. But that is not a problem of science, it is the problem of the person who posits such meaningless questions.

 

[coolduude]

Indeed, I do not. Gobbledegook, made up words do not have meanings. There is no such thing as “necessary” and “contingent” existence either. Philosophy is loaded with made-up concepts which have have only one reason to exist, to hide the fact that the emperor has no clothes. And most people are scared to proclaim this fact.

Then can you fill everyone in on what reality actually is, since ‘neccesary’ and ‘contingent’ are made up by thiest philosophers? I’m very interested in what the Truth actually contains

 

[Marc_Anthony]

Indeed, I do not. Gobbledegook, made up words do not have meanings. There is no such thing as “necessary” and “contingent” existence either. Philosophy is loaded with made-up concepts which have have only one reason to exist, to hide the fact that the emperor has no clothes. And most people are scared to proclaim this fact.

This comment has absolutely no relelvance if you can’t give your reasoning for these statements. It sound to me like John has outsmarted you and in an attempt to deflect attention away from that fact you’re trying to claim that the terms he uses have no meaning, which is of course untrue.

 

[R_Daneel]

This comment has absolutely no relelvance if you can’t give your reasoning for these statements. It sound to me like John has outsmarted you and in an attempt to deflect attention away from that fact you’re trying to claim that the terms he uses have no meaning, which is of course untrue.

Your opinion is yours. Humans can concoct a proposition of any combination of words, and they are responsible to substantiate that the proposition is meaningful. If I would say that “the sound of the color ‘green’ is bitter”, you could rightly chastise me that it is a meaningless statement, and it would be improper from me to demand a reason why it is meaningless… I would have to substantiate that it is a meaningful proposition. The same applies here. The trouble is that philosophers are much to ready to “create” new concepts, which have no meanings. And people are not willing to question them, because they are afraid to be labeled “close-minded”, or “dumb”. The role of the street urchin is not enviable, but necessary.

Edit: when I say that a concept is meaningless, it means that it is meaninless to me. I am willing to reconsider, if an explanation comes, and tells me what is the meaning of the proposition.

 

[R_Daneel]

Then can you fill everyone in on what reality actually is, since ‘neccesary’ and ‘contingent’ are made up by thiest philosophers? I’m very interested in what the Truth actually contains

Go out from the ivoty tower of philosophers, and touch, see, listen, hear and taste reality. The word “Truth” is just another meaningless concept. The word “truth” is not.

 

[stephe1987]

The “infinite universe” or “infinite number of universes” idea has been disproven a long time ago. Read more (fourth question down).