Common fallacies in the proofs of God's existence

[R_Daneel]

All the alleged “proofs” for God’s existence must start with the physical world, and attempt to prove that the materialistic worldview presents some problems. First, we have to clarify that the materialistic worldview does not deny the existence of non-material entites, which are concepts, ideas and abstractions. But the existence of concepts is different from physical, ontological existence, and the two should not be confused.

Now, the attempted refutation of the materialistic view must start from the physical world. It would be a fallacy to assume a-priori that non-physical existence (apart from the concepts) is even defined. This should be the successful endpoint of a proof - eagerly awaited. It cannot be assumed as one of the premises - that would be the fallacy of begging the question. (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question)

Next, the properly formed proof must avoid the fallacy of the stolen concept. (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-refuting_idea) Examples are the incorrect assumptions of “time before the universe”, “place outside the universe”, “causation applied for the universe”, and so on. None of these concepts are defined for the universe, they are only defined within the universe.

Furthermore, the proper proof must avoid the fallacy of composition. The proof cannot arbitrarily generalize form the particular to the whole. (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_composition)

I have never seen an argument which did not contain one or more of these fallacies. I wonder if there is one, which does not. If you think you have one, present it. But, please think it over first. It is fruitless to spend time on presenting yet another argument which fails because it depends on these fallacies.

 

[DOShea]

Seems to me you’ve painted yourself into a corner with your first two a-priori sentences.

Using your a-priori argument, one would have to conclude that any scientist currently searching for a unified theory in physics is a fallacious work in progress, being that they have conceptualized the existence of such a theory before proving it, thus all of them are begging a question. I don’t think that is a rational working view of that fallacy. There is a difference between conceptualizing something you are searching for and assuming its existence as an argument from which a conclusion is drawn. Where is the fallacious example of this in the proofs of God you are referring to?

It’s difficult to even discuss the issue of “time before the universe” without being given an example of the way you perceive it to be applied fallaciously. Can you provide one that illustrates your point?

 

[JohnDamian]

All the alleged “proofs” for God’s existence must start with the physical world, and attempt to prove that the materialistic worldview presents some problems. First, we have to clarify that the materialistic worldview does not deny the existence of non-material entites, which are concepts, ideas and abstractions. But the existence of concepts is different from physical, ontological existence, and the two should not be confused.

First off; not all proofs must start with the physical world; or for that matter be a posteriori. Moreover; we should not presuppose to draw a distinction between concepts and existence; insofar as many philosophers hold the quiddities of things to be as real as the things themselves. It would be unfair and incorrect to assume one must adopt conceptualism or nominalism before one can argue about the universe; the positions of realism and moderate realism should be allowed to be argued from; although naturally those who are not realists would not accept these premises.

Now, the attempted refutation of the materialistic view must start from the physical world. It would be a fallacy to assume a-priori that non-physical existence (apart from the concepts) is even defined. This should be the successful endpoint of a proof - eagerly awaited. It cannot be assumed as one of the premises - that would be the fallacy of begging the question. (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question)

One could a priori posit the potential of an extra-physical existence; although such positation would not constitute a proof per se; although it is not by necessity begging the question if one merely demonstrates the necessity of a previously defined object or entity. It is only begging the question if it is assumed; if the premise is a justified premise then it can be used to support the conclusion.

Next, the properly formed proof must avoid the fallacy of the stolen concept. (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-refuting_idea) Examples are the incorrect assumptions of “time before the universe”, “place outside the universe”, “causation applied for the universe”, and so on. None of these concepts are defined for the universe, they are only defined within the universe.

The universe is not really distinct from it’s constituant parts. The existence of the universe shares a real unity with the existence of a prior constituant.

Furthermore, the proper proof must avoid the fallacy of composition. The proof cannot arbitrarily generalize form the particular to the whole.

Like the above; anything which shares an essential unity in a genus or species is essentially predicated in such a way by particulars that unite it to a genus; it follows from this that if any genus is instantiated; then any genus must have a prior constituant; and thus the contingency or existence of the prior consitutant has a real (although accidentally ordered) causal unity with the instantiation of the genus itself; as does that which essentially sustains such an instantiation of a genus or species.

I have never seen an argument which did not contain one or more of these fallacies. I wonder if there is one, which does not. If you think you have one, present it. But, please think it over first. It is fruitless to spend time on presenting yet another argument which fails because it depends on these fallacies.

I shall give a few VERY SHORT ones; which were cited in Quastiones in Lib. I Physicorum, Q. cxxxv. I feel that none of your “fallacies” are violated in these; however please point out if so; where. Please note that I am presupposing a moderate realism; see Summa Theologica; or Opus Oxioneise for more information on that.

1- Essentially ordered effects have a cause; therefore there is some cause which does not belong to this totality, otherwise one and the same thing would be the cause of itself.
2- The totality of the things which are caused is dependent, but not upon something which is part of this totality; otherwise a thing would be dependent upon itself.
3- Otherwise an infinity of essentially ordered causes would be in existence at the same time, since all the essentially ordered causes concur for causations; if therefore there were an infinity of causes, an absurdity follows & etc.
4- What is prior is nearer to the first principle; therefore where there is no first principle, nothing is essentially prior.
5- A superior cause is more perfect in its way of causing; therefore a cause infinitely superior is infinitely more perfect; such a case, however does not cause in virtue of another; therefore etc.
6- Causal efficiency does not imply imperfection; hence it can occur in some being without imperfection; but if it does not occur in any being without dependance upon something prior then it does not exist in any being without imperfection; hence a first efficient cause is essential.
7- Otherwise an infinity of accidentally ordered causes would be impossible; for such an infinity cannot exist simultaneously; but only successively; one thing after another - so that the second cause is caused by the first cause, without however depending on the first cause in causing; for a son generates in the same way whether his father be living or dead. Such an infinity can have being only from some nature that endures to infinity, on which the whole succession of and each part of depends.
8- No deformity is perpetuated except in virtue of something permanent which is not a part of this succession; because all successive things are of the same king; therefore there is something essentially prior on which everything in this succession depends; and that in an order different from that of the proximate cause which is a part of this succession and etc.

 

[Aboveallbereal]

Philosophy, physics etc cannot prove God nor can they disprove Him.

It is of course an interesting game but there is no end to it.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Philosophy, physics etc cannot prove God nor can they disprove Him.

It is of course an interesting game but there is no end to it.

So you are saying that the Catholic faith is false? Then it seems to me that you are rejecting a principle of the Catholic faith. It says in the Catechism and the bible that Gods existence can be “known” without rational excuse, and that God can be known a-posterior via Gods works.

If that is untrue, than it seems that you are not being totally true to your Catholic faith or the Bible.

 

[R_Daneel]

Seems to me you’ve painted yourself into a corner with your first two a-priori sentences.

Using your a-priori argument, one would have to conclude that any scientist currently searching for a unified theory in physics is a fallacious work in progress, being that they have conceptualized the existence of such a theory before proving it, thus all of them are begging a question. I don’t think that is a rational working view of that fallacy. There is a difference between conceptualizing something you are searching for and assuming its existence as an argument from which a conclusion is drawn. Where is the fallacious example of this in the proofs of God you are referring to?

Sure thing. I heard the following argument:

Hypothesis: God is infinitely good.
Definition: An infinitely good entity would not allow needless suffering.
Fact: There are many instances, when the “need” for some suffering is impossible to see.
Conclusion: God’s infinite goodness is contradicted by the facts.

Theist said: Ex-hypothesi, God’s infinite goodness “proves” that all those seemingly needless examples of suffering are simply “measurement errors”. They may seem to be “needless” to us, but according to the hypotheses, they cannot really be needless.

This is the example of question begging. The person who presented this argument used the hypothesis (assumption) as an argument.

It’s difficult to even discuss the issue of “time before the universe” without being given an example of the way you perceive it to be applied fallaciously. Can you provide one that illustrates your point?

Any assumption of an “absolute” time is a fallacy of stolen concept. Time is a property of the universe. It cannot be applied to the universe. To ask: what happened “before” the Big Bang is an invalid question. To ask: what caused the Universe to exist is an invalid question. Causality is observed within the Universe. It cannot be applied to the Universe. The question is another example of the stolen concept.

 

[R_Daneel]

First off; not all proofs must start with the physical world; or for that matter be a posteriori. Moreover; we should not presuppose to draw a distinction between concepts and existence; insofar as many philosophers hold the quiddities of things to be as real as the things themselves.

Some philosophers may do that. So what? Other philosophers may contend that everything is just an illusion. I am not concerned with every possible idea as a starting point. I stand firmly of the platform of reality, and I make a distinction between an ontologically existing object and our mental perception of that object. The attributes of an object cannot be confused with the object itself. For example: a lamp may emit light between certain wavelengths. We may perceive that light “red”, but “redness” is dependent on our eye’s structure.

It would be unfair and incorrect to assume one must adopt conceptualism or nominalism before one can argue about the universe; the positions of realism and moderate realism should be allowed to be argued from; although naturally those who are not realists would not accept these premises.

Why would one introduce an argument if the parties cannot even agree on the foundation of the argument?

One could a priori posit the potential of an extra-physical existence; although such positation would not constitute a proof per se; although it is not by necessity begging the question if one merely demonstrates the necessity of a previously defined object or entity. It is only begging the question if it is assumed; if the premise is a justified premise then it can be used to support the conclusion.

The hypothesis can be presented (and needs to be presented), but cannot also be used as a supporting argument. Whether it was a “justified” assumption or not, will be shown by the proving process, after the process has been successfully concluded.

The universe is not really distinct from it’s constituant parts. The existence of the universe shares a real unity with the existence of a prior constituant.

The universe is a composite entity, mathematically speaking, it is a set. The individual properties of the elements cannot be automatically transferred to the set. That would be a fallacy of the composition.

1- Essentially ordered effects have a cause; therefore there is some cause which does not belong to this totality, otherwise one and the same thing would be the cause of itself.

Unsupported assumption. The “things” in question may be the causative result of some external entity, or they may “simply” exist, as a brute fact.

2- The totality of the things which are caused is dependent, but not upon something which is part of this totality; otherwise a thing would be dependent upon itself.

Fallacy of composition. Causality may not even be defined (and cannot be defined) for the set.

3- Otherwise an infinity of essentially ordered causes would be in existence at the same time, since all the essentially ordered causes concur for causations; if therefore there were an infinity of causes, an absurdity follows & etc.

It may be counterintuitive, but that is not a proof that it is impossible. Lots of things “sound” impossible by intuition alone, but they are not. Light was supposed to be either a wave, or a particle. Such a distinction was the result of our “intuitive” understanding. But light does not “care”. It is both a wave and a particle. This is a problem of intuition. Reality is under no “obligation” to correspond to our perception of it.

 

[R_Daneel]

Philosophy, physics etc cannot prove God nor can they disprove Him.

To be more precise, it cannot prove God’s existence, but it can disprove it, depending on how God is defined.

It is of course an interesting game but there is no end to it.

I agree. But the rules of the game should be defined, before it can be played.

 

[R_Daneel]

It says in the Catechism and the bible that Gods existence can be “known” without rational excuse, and that God can be known a-posterior via Gods works.

Oh, well, both the Bible and the Cathecism asserts many things. Too bad that the process stops there at the bold assertion, and does not go into the details. As they say the devil is in the details - and those details are sadly missing. To refer to the Bible or the Cathecism is an empty argument.

 

[memo42]

How can the mind of man define God? God does not, apparently, allow proof of His existence. I’m sure He has His reasons, it’s frustrating to a lot of us, but enough of God has been revealed throughout the centuries to make a choice. Faith is not a cop-out, it’s a prerequisite. Not everything is provable. How do you prove the existence of color to a person blind from birth? How do you know that the woman or man you love will be faithful to you? Even if the physicists prove that the universe could have come into being without God’s intervention, it does not prove that God does not exist…and it doesn’t prove He didn’t create the universe.

 

[JohnDamian]

I stand firmly of the platform of reality, and I make a distinction between an ontologically existing object and our mental perception of that object. The attributes of an object cannot be confused with the object itself. For example: a lamp may emit light between certain wavelengths. We may perceive that light “red”, but “redness” is dependent on our eye’s structure.

If redness exists as the real consequence of a real perception; even if that perception is relative; then that redness has a distinct and real existence; even if such an existence is not an objective or universal existance.

Why would one introduce an argument if the parties cannot even agree on the foundation of the argument?

You make the premise that God cannot be proven; merely upon your assumption that your position (some odd form of conceptualism from the sounds of it) is the correct one. From the perspective of people who are realists (moderate or extreme) the existence of God (in general) has been demonstrated.

The hypothesis can be presented (and needs to be presented), but cannot also be used as a supporting argument. Whether it was a “justified” assumption or not, will be shown by the proving process, after the process has been successfully concluded.

No conclusion cannot occur that does not first share an assumption as a premise. It is the question as to what is a reasonable assumption that is important; not to say that all assumptions invalidate arguments; that would undermine all reason.

The universe is a composite entity, mathematically speaking, it is a set. The individual properties of the elements cannot be automatically transferred to the set. That would be a fallacy of the composition.

“Mathematically speaking”?

That would only be the case if a numerical unity was shared by individuals. This is not the case. For if there was a numerical unity then Socrates would be as distinct from Plato as from a log; this is absurd.

The universe shares a real unity with it’s present prior constituant. This is a real unity; the universe is therein only modally distinct from this object.

Unsupported assumption. The “things” in question may be the causative result of some external entity, or they may “simply” exist, as a brute fact.

That is absurd!!! You state it is “of some external entity” which is identical to the claim that it was caused by “some cause which does not belong to this totality”. This is an Equivocal fallacy and is absurd.

Fallacy of composition. Causality may not even be defined (and cannot be defined) for the set.

No Genus exists without an inherance in individuals.

Demonstrate a real (instantiated) Genus or Species which lacks an inherance in an individual.

This is impossible; thus no contrarity is entailed; thus it is no Fallacy of Compositon. Clearly the set is identical to the (prior instantiative) individuals.

It may be counterintuitive, but that is not a proof that it is impossible. Lots of things “sound” impossible by intuition alone, but they are not. Light was supposed to be either a wave, or a particle. Such a distinction was the result of our “intuitive” understanding.

That is also an Equivocal Fallacy. You cannot compare the ignorance of scientists to a tautology; the distinction between accidentally and essentially ordered sequences is correct in regards to the law of noncontradiction; in such that one is the formal contrary of the other. There is no contrarity entailed by the inherance as both a particle and a wave; by consequence your analogy committed an Equivocal Fallacy.

An accidentally ordered sequence and an essentially ordered one are distinct in the same manner as a prior causitative event is distinct from it’s posterior; they are irreconcilable.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Sure thing. I heard the following argument:

Every argument against theism that i have seen has been based on either a rejection of rationality, and thus any meaningful sense of truth, or a straw-man.

Hypothesis: God is infinitely good.
Definition: An infinitely good entity would not allow needless suffering.
Fact: There are many instances, when the “need” for some suffering is impossible to see.
Conclusion: God’s infinite goodness is contradicted by the facts.

This argument is epistemologically invalid.

Firstly you cannot possibly prove that suffering is needless since you are speaking from a finite context, and not viewing reality from the context of an all powerful all knowing God.

Secondly, God can only be expected to do what is meaningful. God cannot do the logically impossible, since the impossible is meaningless.

Thirdly, when it comes to deductive arguments, we have reasonable knowledge that a thing is impossible when we have epistemic certainty of the conditions involved. For instance, we know that all bachelors are unmarried because we have certain knowledge of what a bachelor is and thus we have certain knowledge that such a person cannot legitimately be thought to be married so long as that person or persons remain defined with the word bachelor.

Thus a keen eye will see the tremendous whole in your argument. Because we our finite in knowledge, context, and being, our limited spectrum cannot determine what a good God would do in every context of reality, since different contexts demands different moral actions. This is to say that what is right in one context can be wrong in a different context; what is possible in one context is perhaps impossible or morally negligible in another, even though we might feel offended by Gods refusal to act. We cannot predicate the context of our perception or situation on God, since God is necessarily viewing things from a different overall context, and that makes all the difference. We would have to have absolute epistemological knowledge of all contexts in-order to give a legitimate deductive judgment of Gods behavior or absence in times of moral crisis. Thus as a deductive argument your syllogism is invalid.

Fourthly; what is truly objectively good for humans is determined by what the greatest overall good of human existence is. It is determined by the end to which we are in act, and God has absolute knowledge of this end since it is Gods own nature (given the christian definition of God). In respect of objective morality, the goal of morality is the absolute fulfillment of human existence and thus all acts must be in line with what will determine that end and at the same time respect the freedom of creatures. One cannot guarantee that a great amount of suffering will not be the expense of that which is objectively good, and if something is truly objectively good, then human opinion cannot determine it to be otherwise.

Any assumption of an “absolute” time is a fallacy of stolen concept. Time is a property of the universe. It cannot be applied to the universe. To ask: what happened “before” the Big Bang is an invalid question. To ask: what caused the Universe to exist is an invalid question. Causality is observed within the Universe. It cannot be applied to the Universe. The question is another example of the stolen concept.

Firstly, to say there is no before has no relevance to the fact that change has an absolute beginning by necessity and is thus potentially real, rather than absolute and necessarily real. Thus one cannot say that this potentiality doesn’t require some kind of explanation. Since out of nothing comes nothing, an effect cannot be its own cause; despite appearances to the contrary.

Secondly, to use the word before in a different context is not fallacious. For example, the number 1 comes before the number 2. This is to say that in the order of additional the number 1 is fundamental to 2, and 2 is fundamental to the number 3, etc etc. Also, to say there is no before change, makes a “physical cause” invalid. However, an absolute non-physical cause by definition of being non-physical doesn’t need to be “before” in the sense of time, but rather, in the order of being, it is ontologically first in that it is hierarchically necessary for the actuality of potentiality.

The first cause has never be argued in the sense of time, but rather, the first cause is argued in the context of that which is absolute and fundamental to potential existence.

Thus your objections really are one big straw-man, that leaves out any consideration for context and knowledge.

Nice try.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Oh, well, both the Bible and the Cathecism asserts many things. Too bad that the process stops there at the bold assertion, and does not go into the details. As they say the devil is in the details - and those details are sadly missing. To refer to the Bible or the Catechism is an empty argument.

I was not presenting it as an argument. I was presenting it as a condition of Catholic belief. Its a dogma of faith. Regardless of whether or not people have actually proven Gods existence, Catholics must at the very least believe that it is in principle a possibility.

If you are incapable of seeing the difference, i can’t say that i am confident in your cognitive ability to discern whether or not God exists. How embarassing that you opened this thread. Don’t you feel embarrassed?

 

[Anselm33]

All the alleged “proofs” for God’s existence must

 

[JohnDamian]

Descartes, the ultimate skeptic: “Cogito, ergo sum”? And there are many dualists who would not agree with your premise.

Just as an aside; he’s not the ultimate skeptic; Ambrose Bierce was when he said “Cogito Cogito Ergo Cogito Sum”… ( I think that I think; therefore I think that I am ).

I suppose Descartes could reclaim his title by claiming Bierce didn’t exist however…

 

[JDaniel]

All the alleged “proofs” for God’s existence must start with the physical world, and attempt to prove that the materialistic worldview presents some problems. First, we have to clarify that the materialistic worldview does not deny the existence of non-material entites, which are concepts, ideas and abstractions. But the existence of concepts is different from physical, ontological existence, and the two should not be confused.

RD:
Why must we so limit non-material entities to concepts, ideas and abstractions? Anyway, these are at least as poorly defined as God might be. For example, what is a concept or idea? What is an abstraction? They are but beings of the mind. You say they have an ontological existence, but, do they not actually have a metaphysical existence?

Now, the attempted refutation of the materialistic view must start from the physical world. It would be a fallacy to assume a-priori that non-physical existence (apart from the concepts) is even defined. This should be the successful endpoint of a proof - eagerly awaited. It cannot be assumed as one of the premises - that would be the fallacy of begging the question. (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question)

There is no logic, no set of premises, and no syllogism that irrefutably, defeats the existence of connatural and metaphysical exigencies. That which over half the population of the world believes exists – has a much right of expression as does any knowledge from science. It is knowledge that exists about “real objects” and “objects of knowledge” and existence – just like science; therefore, to merely postulate their fate to myth is to commit a fallacy of Appeal to Consequences of Belief.

Next, the properly formed proof must avoid the fallacy of the stolen concept. (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-refuting_idea) Examples are the incorrect assumptions of “time before the universe”, “place outside the universe”, “causation applied for the universe”, and so on. None of these concepts are defined for the universe, they are only defined within the universe.

None of the so-called fallacies you mention are valid. To annihilate those things is to annihilate the first 3,000 years of science, and allow only the past 100 or so. Why? It is not our fault that scientists cannot properly define, or explain, time. It is not our fault that modern science cannot properly define place. And, causation, is still a word and concept used by every scientist whether or not they can define it. Your fake distinction between for and within will not stand either. All that we know about for the universe is from within the universe. If as an intelligent creature I watch some giants on the outside of a bell jar removing the air from within the bell jar, I can surely make conclusions about it, and what will happen

Furthermore, the proper proof must avoid the fallacy of composition. The proof cannot arbitrarily generalize form the particular to the whole. (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_composition)

The fallacy of composition goes both ways.

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

Some philosophers may do that. So what? Other philosophers may contend that everything is just an illusion. I am not concerned with every possible idea as a starting point. I stand firmly of the platform of reality, and I make a distinction between an ontologically existing object and our mental perception of that object. The attributes of an object cannot be confused with the object itself. For example: a lamp may emit light between certain wavelengths. We may perceive that light “red”, but “redness” is dependent on our eye’s structure.

Glad to hear that. Then you are not properly defining what a thought is or what an object of thought is. An object of thought is a snapshot, in glorious 3-D, that contains all of those things that make the original object Real, including its precise smells! Now, people can have certain abberated senses, but, not 6.5 billion of us.

The universe is a composite entity, mathematically speaking, it is a set. The individual properties of the elements cannot be automatically transferred to the set. That would be a fallacy of the composition.

Only if can be proven that the individual properties did not match the object.

Unsupported assumption. The “things” in question may be the causative result of some external entity, or they may “simply” exist, as a brute fact.

There are no such things a “brute facts.” Those are things humans are either unable or too lazy to explain.

Fallacy of composition. Causality may not even be defined (and cannot be defined) for the set.

Not so. “May not” = possible, but, “cannot” = not possible.

God bless,
jd

 

[MindOverMatter2]

The fallacy of composition goes both ways.

God bless,
jd

Exactly, such as the claim that because we have develop our concept of “cause” through our sensory perception of physical beings that therefore the only valid kind of cause that can be said to exist is “physical”. Or another classic would be the idea that because one can only perceive physical things that therefore all is physical and all causal claims must be confined to physical parameters.That seems to me to be a grand example of the fallacy of composition; and this is for the simple fact that you must first disprove that there is no other kinds of causes in order for the argument to be valid.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

There are no such things a “brute facts.” Those are things humans are either unable or too lazy to explain.jd

Precisely. If a thing exists, then there is a reason why it is not nothing, and we can say this simply because it has a real difference to nothing, and that difference is determined by the nature of its existence in reference to nothing. Therefore we are forced to ask “what is the nature of its being that it is not identical to nothing”.

Thus a thing either has the explanation for its existence in itself or in something else besides itself.

Brute facts can only be epistemological in nature, not ontological.

 

[R_Daneel]

How can the mind of man define God?

God’s concept undoubtedly exists, just like many other concepts do. If this concept cannot be defined, then it is a meaningless concept. The Catholic Encyclopedia gives a lot of properties of God, so at the very least there is an approximate definition of God. Let’s not go into that, however.

God does not, apparently, allow proof of His existence.

I agree. That is why I started this thread, to show that all the alleged proofs are erroneous in some respect.

I’m sure He has His reasons, it’s frustrating to a lot of us, but enough of God has been revealed throughout the centuries to make a choice. Faith is not a cop-out, it’s a prerequisite. Not everything is provable.

Correct. There are some basic principles and axioms which are not provable. I disagree with the notion that these basic concepts are accepted on “faith”. The word “faith” is not applicable here. But I don’t want to go deeper into that.

Even if the physicists prove that the universe could have come into being without God’s intervention, it does not prove that God does not exist…and it doesn’t prove He didn’t create the universe.

Correct again. It would not prove the nonexistence of God. It would only prove that the assumption of the creator is an unnecessary hypothesis.