Common fallacies in the proofs of God's existence

[Spirithound]

What do you mean?

Why?.

I don’t know why, but atheists exist.

 

[R_Daneel]

You are correct in saying that a property of a member of the set, even though it belongs to each member, can not necessarily be ascribed to the set as a whole. But is “being caused” such a property? I don’t think “caused” is a property like “red” or “square”. “Caused” denotes a transitive relation.

That does not make it automatic, especially since the concept of causation cannot be meaningfully defined to all the possible sets.

 

[R_Daneel]

All I can say, and I’m not a mathematician by trade, is that you and Hilbert (and some other philosophers of mathematics) are on opposite sides of the fence with regard to infinite sets.

Well, I am a mathematician, and I understand that some “aggregate set of sets” can lead to paradoxes, but not all infinite sets thave that problem. I think you have the problem of Hilbert’s Hotel in mind, which does present a “problem” for traversing an infinite chain of causes - depending on the understanding of it. But this would lead to a derailment of the thread.

Your comment highlights the point at issue. Aristotle, Aquinas and others will point out a necessary chain of causes… going back to a “First Cause” (and the sequence is not necessarily temporal). So, even if the secondary causes for two different things are not the same, if one proceeds back to a necessary First Cause, then the First Cause for the different things are the same.

That is a problematic assumption. Some things are simply “brute facts”, they simply “exist” without the need for an external causative factor. The believers assert that God is a “brute fact”, unexplained and unexplainable. Materialists say the same about the Universe. So we are at an impasse. You cannot say that “everything” needs an external explanation, because that would include God. The modified version, namely that “everything which started needs an external explanation” is an equal non-starter. Time cannot be applied to the Universe (fallacy of the stolen concept), so “beginning” cannot be applied to the Universe either. At best you can say that the Big Bang is the starting point of the current form of the Universe. But our physics cannot say anything about the singularity.

 

[Anselm33]

Well, I am a mathematician, and I understand that some “aggregate set of sets” can lead to paradoxes, but not all infinite sets thave that problem. I think you have the problem of Hilbert’s Hotel in mind, which does present a “problem” for traversing an infinite chain of causes - depending on the understanding of it. But this would lead to a derailment of the thread.

That is a problematic assumption.** Some things are simply “brute facts”, they simply “exist” without the need for an external causative factor**

I think the bold-faced part of the statement is the core of our disagreement. In Fr. Spitzer’s book “New Proofs for the Existence of God”, he “shows” (“proves”?) that there is one “unconditioned reality”, i.e. first cause. You might look at the web site: magisreasonfaith.org
Thanks again for your comments.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

I think the bold-faced part of the statement is the core of our disagreement. In Fr. Spitzer’s book “New Proofs for the Existence of God”, he “shows” (“proves”?) that there is one “unconditioned reality”, i.e. first cause. You might look at the web site: magisreasonfaith.org
Thanks again for your comments.

Thanks for the link. I see you have been hiding a few gems.

 

[awatkins69]

Hi. Do you think it is possible for there to be a place other than our universe, e.g. other universes?

 

[R_Daneel]

I think the bold-faced part of the statement is the core of our disagreement. In Fr. Spitzer’s book “New Proofs for the Existence of God”, he “shows” (“proves”?) that there is one “unconditioned reality”, i.e. first cause. You might look at the web site: magisreasonfaith.org
Thanks again for your comments.

I looked. It is a blog. Which part of it is the purported “proof”? Or is it the book he wrote? A short quote from the blog:

Let me put it in reverse: If one believes that there is significant evidence for a beginning of the universe then one is confronted with the question, “what was the universe before the beginning?” If the beginning is truly a point at which the universe came into existence then one is confronted by the fact that prior to the beginning, the whole physical universe was nothing.

The highlighted text is a typical fallacy of the stolen concept. “Before” is a concept which is only applicable within the universe.

 

[awatkins69]

Hi there. To be quite honest, R Daneel, I think the only real novel question you bring up in this debate is the “fallacy of the stolen concept”. In all my reading, both atheistic and theistic, I have never heard this brought up before. Maybe you could point me to another philosopher who has tried to use this sort of reasoning? Also, please explain to me why you think that causality is limited only to the relationship between physical objects. Also, please explain to me why you think existence is limited only to physical objects. Do you think symphonies exist per se? I might even say that you are begging the question with your definitions of existence and causality. However, I’ll assume you have your reasoning for saying this. The definitions of these concepts do not logically entail this, unless you’ve already arbitrarily defined these terms this way. Thanks.

PS I’ve never heard about the fallacy of the stolen concept in a logic textbook ever. Probably the worst thing about it is that it is associated with Ayn Rand. LOL!

 

[R_Daneel]

Hi there. To be quite honest, R Daneel, I think the only real novel question you bring up in this debate is the “fallacy of the stolen concept”. In all my reading, both atheistic and theistic, I have never heard this brought up before. Maybe you could point me to another philosopher who has tried to use this sort of reasoning?

For example, you could read about it in “Atheism: A case against God”, by George H. Smith. (amazon.com/Atheism-Case-Against-Skeptics-Bookshelf/dp/087975124X)

Also, please explain to me why you think that causality is limited only to the relationship between physical objects. Also, please explain to me why you think existence is limited only to physical objects.

I did not say that I reject everything else a-priori. I only said that a reasonable starting point should be what we both (regardless of belief or lack of) know to exist. The physical reality exists, of that there is no doubt. We use this as a starting point, as a common platform. If you can start from there, and show that it is meaningful to speak of a “new” type of existence, which is neither physical, nor just conceptual, then you won your case. I only object to posit this assumption as a starting point of the argument. It is perfectly acceptable to posit it as a hypothesis.

Do you think symphonies exist per se? I might even say that you are begging the question with your definitions of existence and causality. However, I’ll assume you have your reasoning for saying this. The definitions of these concepts do not logically entail this, unless you’ve already arbitrarily defined these terms this way. Thanks.

Sure, symphonies exist. They exist physically, as a sequence of musical notes, printed on paper. And they also exist as the neural responses of our brain when those musical notes are being played by physical instruments - or for some very talented musicians, who simply look at the pages, and can imagine the sounds as if they were actually performed.

A more pertinent objection might have been if “justice” exists? The answer, yes, the concept of “justice” exists, not as a physical object, rather as a mental image, as a concept.

Let me repeat, I do not say that P-existence and C-existence is “all there is”. I allow for the existence of God, which is not physical, nor simply conceptual. But it “prove” such an existence, you cannot automatically assume it. It must be the end result of a reasoning chain, which starts from the physical / conceptual existence. And, of course, the reasoning chain should be free of fallacies.

PS I’ve never heard about the fallacy of the stolen concept in a logic textbook ever. Probably the worst thing about it is that it is associated with Ayn Rand. LOL!

She is not my favorite philosopher, not by a long shot. Both she and her followers are extremely dogmatic, and simplistic. But she certainly had some ideas, which are worthy to contemplate.

 

[awatkins69]

Very good. However, it seems that you were asserting earlier that the concept of non-physical existence and non-conceptual existence is *meaningless *or impossible. It also seems like you asserted that causality that is not amongst physical objects is *meaningless *or impossible. No? Re: “you must prove this existence”. Isn’t this what arguments for God purport to do? If you don’t assert that p-existence and c-existence is all there is, then what’s the problem? Do you need an example?

Also, have you ever read the argument of Saint Thomas Aquinas’ “De Ente et Essentia” or Bill Vallicella’s argument “From Facts to God”? If so, what are the main problems you find with these arguments? Thanks.

 

[R_Daneel]

Very good. However, it seems that you were asserting earlier that the concept of non-physical existence and non-conceptual existence is *meaningless *or impossible. It also seems like you asserted that causality that is not amongst physical objects is *meaningless *or impossible. No? Re: “you must prove this existence”. Isn’t this what arguments for God purport to do? If you don’t assert that p-existence and c-existence is all there is, then what’s the problem? Do you need an example?

Oh, yes, examples would be most welcome. What I said, might have been misunderstood. For me as an atheist, these concepts are meaningless. But it is the reason for this thread to hear arguments to show that my assessment is incorrect, and indeed to posit the “X-existence” is meaningful.

Also, have you ever read the argument of Saint Thomas Aquinas’ “De Ente et Essentia” or Bill Vallicella’s argument “From Facts to God”? If so, what are the main problems you find with these arguments? Thanks.

No, not the books themselves. I read all the arguments for God, most definitely the “famous” 5 proofs of Aquinas. They are not convincing at all. Actually, they have been refuted many times, and even Aquinas himself did not consider them as “proofs” which would present a compelling argument for the unbelievers.

 

[awatkins69]

Hi. An example of immaterial causation would be the creation of the universe if you hold to an A-Theory of time (on a side note, an A-theory of time means that time before the universe is *not *meaningless at all, and the KCA works) or the continual existence of anything composed of essence and existence if you hold to a B-Theory.

While I think Aquinas’ five ways work, and are ofttimes misunderstood, we can throw them completely aside if you want. I’m talking about the argument from “De Ente et Essentia”. It’s not necessary to subscribe to an A-Theory of time. Aquinas even believed that the universe *could *be eternal. If you are interested in reading about it, I’d suggest reading it with commentary by Gyula Klima. The argument from De Ente, however, is probably going to be too scholastic for your tastes, but if you ever get a chance to read on it please let me know if you think there is faulty reasoning somewhere.

Probably more appealing to your analytic sensibilities would be Bill Vallicella’s argument “From Facts to God”. It’s what he calls an “onto-cosmological argument”. It’s certainly much too long and complicated for me to do it any justice at all. While I’m sorry that I can’t provide a link, I would be happy to send you a .pdf file. Let me know in a private message.

 

[Anselm33]

I looked. It is a blog. Which part of it is the purported “proof”? Or is it the book he wrote? A short quote from the blog

 

[DPMartin]

R Daneel

thank for the reply

Well, this argument definitely avoids the mentioned fallacies. The trouble is that you view “life” as something that needs some “non-physical” justification for its existence. Life is notoriously hard to define. The best definition is “life is complex responses to complex stimuli”. But there is no clearcut line between the “living” and “inanimate” objects. Some biologists consider viruses as “living organisms”, others do not. Crystallic structures have some properties, we usually consider as properties of “living” organisms - namely they grow, and “consume” external material into themselves. Yet, we do not consider chrystals to be “living organisms”. The truth is that the line between “living” and “inanimate” organisms is simply a matter of more of less subjective choice.

I would disagree with that my friend, life does not need no justification by man nor science in order to be alive. The act of will to sustain presence in the physical, need no justification nor definition in order to be an act of will. For without the presence of life in the physical there would be no need for definition in the first place, and definition serves the judgement of the definer, not the act of living. Physical is what it is, but the act of will to sustain presence therein is not of the physical. For the physical is, whether there be presence of life therein or not. Therefore the physical need not seek to be, nor sustain itself.

The dove need not prove that he is in the physical, he merely acts according to the necessity to sustain that which he is in the physical. And therein is the proof of life in the physical. The act of will to live is not of the physical, the presence of life uses what it has in the physical to sustain it’s presence of what it is therein.

I do not agree that there is any sign of “design” when I look at “life”. As a matter of fact, when you look at living creatures, you can see very “useful” properties which a good designer would incorporate into many species. And we can see horribly misguided features, too, which no good designer would incorporate into its “handwork”. I don’t think there is a need to go into details about these.

Well my friend it is interesting that life does not meet your satisfaction, considering your not the one who has given life, nor the means to live to anything. Not even yourself. You would be a liar if you say you need not do, what is necessary to sustain your presence in the physical. And you well know, the physical is there whether you are present therein or not. Therefore life is not of the physical, or the physical would act of it’s own will without the presence of life therein.

Life anticipates, the physical only responds to that which it is in the presence of.

 

[R_Daneel]

Hi. An example of immaterial causation would be the creation of the universe if you hold to an A-Theory of time (on a side note, an A-theory of time means that time before the universe is *not *meaningless at all, and the KCA works) or the continual existence of anything composed of essence and existence if you hold to a B-Theory.

While I think Aquinas’ five ways work, and are ofttimes misunderstood, we can throw them completely aside if you want. I’m talking about the argument from “De Ente et Essentia”. It’s not necessary to subscribe to an A-Theory of time. Aquinas even believed that the universe *could *be eternal. If you are interested in reading about it, I’d suggest reading it with commentary by Gyula Klima. The argument from De Ente, however, is probably going to be too scholastic for your tastes, but if you ever get a chance to read on it please let me know if you think there is faulty reasoning somewhere.

Probably more appealing to your analytic sensibilities would be Bill Vallicella’s argument “From Facts to God”. It’s what he calls an “onto-cosmological argument”. It’s certainly much too long and complicated for me to do it any justice at all. While I’m sorry that I can’t provide a link, I would be happy to send you a .pdf file. Let me know in a private message.

Well, you sure said a lot in scuh a short post. I followed your link and went to the Stanford Encyclopedia, too. A few thoughts for the time being.

About “time”. Newton’s worldview postulated an absolute space and absolute time, and in this framework the fully deterministic universe “traveled” from the past to the immutable future. This view was abandoned when Einstien presented his theory of relativity. According to this view, space and time are not independent variables, they are contingent upon the mass of the objects. Einstein himself refused to accept quantum mechanics, and the view that the Universe is not deterministic.

But the fact remains, the old Newtonian view is now obsolete. The concept of time is tied to the physical universe. Now, some philosophers may have problem with this, but that is their problem. As far as I am concerned, “time” is simply a variable in some equations. As long as the equations work, and we can make predictions based upon them I could not care less, what those equations “mean”. This may sound strange, but it is not. We are unable to “visualize” many things. Quantum mechanics is one of them. The equations have many “interpretations” and all of them have “troubles” in some respect.

Metaphysics can have two ways. It may be congruent with physics, and in this case it is not relevant. Or it may contradict physics, in which case it is sheer speculation. There is an old saying: “shut up and calculate”. If it can be calculated, it is useful, even if its cannot be visualized.

I also went to your posted link, and by looking at the title, I got discouraged. I will explain why. It started by the concepts of “being and essence”. I simply do not accept this way of approach. I find it meaningless to talk about some abstract “essence”. Some philosophers talk about “necessary” and “contingent” existence, as a valid dichotomy. Some others talk about “abstract objects”, which “exist” independently from our concepts of them.

I do not accept any of these approaches. I stand on a simple ground. Physical existence, which is objective, and conceptual existence as a reflection of of the physical existence. Conceptual existence can extend beyond that, and can incorporate other “things”, which only exist in our imagination, which do not have a physical counterpart. Physical existence is active, it changes, it effects other things. Conceptual existence is “inert”, the concept of 2 hydrogen molecules and the concept of one oxygen molecule will not combine into one water molecule. If you, or anyone else can start from this standpoint, and can reach a valid conclusion, which must be accepted on either physical or logical grounds, if you can substantiate that a non-physical, yet active way of existence is meaningful, then we can reach a great understanding. But, please, don’t bring up ancient philosophers, with their exotic vocabulary, which need a special dictionary to even understand the meaning of their terms. Use your own undertsanding, use your own words.

I see that such an approach will make it hard to even start a conversation. Too bad, but it cannot be helped.

 

[R_Daneel]

Scroll down. There is also evidence from Second Law considerations for a finite time, and therefore for a beginning…

Well, I did. I found another example of the fallacy of the stolen concept. The “second law of thermodynamics” is only applicable to isolated (or closed) and finite systems. It is not applicable to the Universe. Besides, the second law is a stochastic one. It does not prevent local fluctations when entropy decreases. So, it is not much of an argument.

Also the Big Bang can only be taken as the beginning of the current form for the Universe. Our physics does not allow us to “peek” into the singularity.

 

[R_Daneel]

I would disagree with that my friend, life does not need no justification by man nor science in order to be alive. The act of will to sustain presence in the physical, need no justification nor definition in order to be an act of will. For without the presence of life in the physical there would be no need for definition in the first place, and definition serves the judgement of the definer, not the act of living. Physical is what it is, but the act of will to sustain presence therein is not of the physical. For the physical is, whether there be presence of life therein or not. Therefore the physical need not seek to be, nor sustain itself.

The dove need not prove that he is in the physical, he merely acts according to the necessity to sustain that which he is in the physical. And therein is the proof of life in the physical. The act of will to live is not of the physical, the presence of life uses what it has in the physical to sustain it’s presence of what it is therein.

Well my friend it is interesting that life does not meet your satisfaction, considering your not the one who has given life, nor the means to live to anything. Not even yourself. You would be a liar if you say you need not do, what is necessary to sustain your presence in the physical. And you well know, the physical is there whether you are present therein or not. Therefore life is not of the physical, or the physical would act of it’s own will without the presence of life therein.

Life anticipates, the physical only responds to that which it is in the presence of.

I am very sorry, but I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

 

[R_Daneel]

OK. I am about to leave for a nice 6-days long vacation to celebrate our 30th anniversary. So please do not think I am neglecting this thread and your (name removed by moderator)ut. See you next week…

 

[awatkins69]

Well, you sure said a lot in scuh a short post. I followed your link and went to the Stanford Encyclopedia, too. A few thoughts for the time being.

About “time”. Newton’s worldview postulated an absolute space and absolute time, and in this framework the fully deterministic universe “traveled” from the past to the immutable future. This view was abandoned when Einstien presented his theory of relativity. According to this view, space and time are not independent variables, they are contingent upon the mass of the objects. Einstein himself refused to accept quantum mechanics, and the view that the Universe is not deterministic.

But the fact remains, the old Newtonian view is now obsolete. The concept of time is tied to the physical universe. Now, some philosophers may have problem with this, but that is their problem. As far as I am concerned, “time” is simply a variable in some equations. As long as the equations work, and we can make predictions based upon them I could not care less, what those equations “mean”. This may sound strange, but it is not. We are unable to “visualize” many things. Quantum mechanics is one of them. The equations have many “interpretations” and all of them have “troubles” in some respect.

Metaphysics can have two ways. It may be congruent with physics, and in this case it is not relevant. Or it may contradict physics, in which case it is sheer speculation. There is an old saying: “shut up and calculate”. If it can be calculated, it is useful, even if its cannot be visualized.

I also went to your posted link, and by looking at the title, I got discouraged. I will explain why. It started by the concepts of “being and essence”. I simply do not accept this way of approach. I find it meaningless to talk about some abstract “essence”. Some philosophers talk about “necessary” and “contingent” existence, as a valid dichotomy. Some others talk about “abstract objects”, which “exist” independently from our concepts of them.

I do not accept any of these approaches. I stand on a simple ground. Physical existence, which is objective, and conceptual existence as a reflection of of the physical existence. Conceptual existence can extend beyond that, and can incorporate other “things”, which only exist in our imagination, which do not have a physical counterpart. Physical existence is active, it changes, it effects other things. Conceptual existence is “inert”, the concept of 2 hydrogen molecules and the concept of one oxygen molecule will not combine into one water molecule. If you, or anyone else can start from this standpoint, and can reach a valid conclusion, which must be accepted on either physical or logical grounds, if you can substantiate that a non-physical, yet active way of existence is meaningful, then we can reach a great understanding. But, please, don’t bring up ancient philosophers, with their exotic vocabulary, which need a special dictionary to even understand the meaning of their terms. Use your own undertsanding, use your own words.

I see that such an approach will make it hard to even start a conversation. Too bad, but it cannot be helped.

I do agree that Newton’s theory of absolute time is wrong. I agree completely. I disagree with your simply ignoring what time actually means. I also disagree with your characterization of quantum mechanics as unintelligible. However, let’s forget about it. I just won’t argue for the Kalaam. If you want we can even say for fun that time does not exist. Aquinas’ and Vallicella’s arguments do not depend on conceding the existence of time at all that. All we have to do is agree about either objects existing (Aquinas), or facts being true (Vallicella).

While I don’t have time myself I certainly think it is incorrect to simply give up. Aquinas does not just assert the distinction. He expounds on it. In fact, the majority of that treatise is about building up the foundations so to speak of his proof in part 4. Got to go, but have fun while you’re gone. Also, PM me for Vallicella.

 

[Anselm33]

Well, I did. I found another example of the fallacy of the stolen concept. The “second law of thermodynamics” is only applicable to isolated (or closed) and finite systems. It is not applicable to the Universe. Besides, the second law is a stochastic

speaking as a physicist, who knows something about thermo, I’ll tell you your argument about the Second Law is incorrect. By the way, how do you know the Universe, at the time of the “Big Bang” was infinite? I don’t think many people would agree with you on that. And whether the Second Law is stochastic is irrelevant. Fluctuations don’t last 13 billion years. Also, I don’t believe the majority of cosmologists and physicists would agree with your judgment that bringing in the 2nd Law is “not much of an argument” (assuming the appeal to authority will be a consideration ). I see it quoted in all sorts of books, and not by theists only.

And the BGV theorem does show that there is a finite time for the existence of the universe (or multiverses), if we believe that realistic systems of physics apply. (The term “realistic” is applied very loosely here). If you want to invoke other types of physical laws for beyond the singularity–that’s a metaphysical choice, but there’s not much empirical or logical basis to do so. By the way, the singularity may not in fact be a singularity, if one brings in quantum effects (as in the Hartle-Hawkings model), but just a region of beginning in which time as a space-like coordinate changes to time (without the imaginary i in front of it) as a space-time coordinate as we know it now.