God Probably Exists

I.Nature of Argument I will argue that there is no reason to believe that a single god exists over other explanations for the nature of reality. In so doing, I will not attempt to affirmatively prove that God does not exist, but only that the idea that there exists one god (which has the properties defined for purposes of this debate) stands on equal footing with other explanations of the universe. II.Simplicity Much of my opponent's argument relies on the principle that the existence of one god is the simplest explanation of the nature of reality. However, this principle of simplicity needs clarification. There are different formulations of the principle. The principle is often stated as follows: "Entities are not to be multiplied beyond necessity." (http://plato.stanford.edu...). In other words the principle demands that if there are competing theories that have equal explanatory value, choose the simplest theory. It is important to note that this principle was created as a maneuver in developing models that help predict or explain observed phenomenon. In this context, to use a rule that is meant to provide only a useful assumption and not a deductive proof to establish the main fact at issue (i.e. the existence of a single god) seems misplaced. However, even if this principle is applicable, (i) the competing theories have independent explanatory value (which, in the case of multiple gods, means we are not unnecessarily multiplying entities) and (ii) it is not necessarily the case that the positing the existence of a single god is the simplest theory. III.Mental and Non-Mental Phenomenon The debate about whether non-mental objects exist is long-standing in philosophy. I would take it as settled that we cannot doubt the existence of our own conscience. This matter is summed up by Descartes famous saying: "I think therefore I am." However, when it comes to belief in objects independent of what is mental, there is room for doubt, but this doubt does not lead to the definite conclusion that non-mental object do not exist. In examining argument that all we experience and know is nothing but a product of our own minds, Bertrand Russell noted: "There is no logical impossibility in the supposition that the whole of life is a dream, in which we ourselves create all the objects that come before us. But although this is not logically impossible, there is no reason whatever to suppose that it is true; and it is, in fact, a less simple hypothesis, viewed as a means of accounting for the facts of our own life, than the common-sense hypothesis that there really are objects independent of us, whose action on us causes our sensations."" (Bertrand Russell: The Problems of Philosophy) (http://www.gutenberg.org...). My opponent"s argument dismisses the possibility of non-mental objects by stating that there are problems with explaining how the mental and non-mental would interact. The fact that an explanation is needed for a phenomenon is no reason to believe that a phenomenon does not exist. The need for an explanation does not even lead to the conclusion that a phenomenon is unlikely to exist. Instead of providing a model for such interaction at this time (which could be a subject of a lengthy debate on its own), I will note that the existence of the non-mental cannot be dismissed outright on the grounds that an explanation is needed for its interaction with what is mental. Also, I would like to note that my opponent"s argument provides an analogy that is not entirely consistent with the manner in which the mental and non-mental must interact. My opponent"s argument compares the interaction to an English speaker interacting with someone speaking Chinese. The belief in a non-mental world does not require that we interact with it perfectly. It is reasonable to believe that we interact with a non-mental world but that we do so only through our own perceptive mechanisms. In this way, it is possible that we do not actually know the non-mental world itself but only our perception of it. Accordingly, the better analogy could be that of an English speaker listening to a Chinese speaker through an electronic translator: the English speaker does not know the actual Chinese spoken, but only the interpretation brought to him by the translator. However, the possibility of this nature of perception is does not mean that the non-mental does not exist. IV.More/Less Supernatural Minds In light of the above, we can admit various explanations for the nature of our reality. It is as equally valid to believe in multiple gods as it is to believe in one single god. As Louise Antony, a professor of philosophy at the University of Massachusetts noted: "Even if I could be convinced that supernatural beings exist, there"d be a whole separate issue about how many such beings there are and what those beings are like".it"s one thing to argue that the universe must be the product of some kind of intelligent agent; it"s quite something else to argue that this designer was all-knowing and omnipotent. Why is that a better hypothesis than that the designer was pretty smart but made a few mistakes? Maybe (I"m just cribbing from Hume here) there was a committee of intelligent creators, who didn"t quite agree on everything. Maybe the creator was a student god, and only got a B- on this project" (The New York Times: Arguments Against God by Gary Gutting). (http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com...). My opponent"s argument cites the principle of avoiding multiplying entities unnecessarily as the reason for belief in one god. However, the competing theories of multiple gods have independent explanatory value so that the multiplication of entities is not unnecessary. The possibilities mentioned by Louise Antony (although maybe somewhat sarcastically) could provide independent and useful explanation for issues such as the problem of evil, an evaluation of Leibniz"s claim that this is the best of all possible worlds, and possibilities for other or alternative universes or different qualities. My opponent"s argument also relies on digital physics to establish the existence of one god. If digital physics can be defined as the idea that the entire universe is integrated and functions as a single program, it does not simplify matters to state that there is the existence of a supreme being that thinks, has a will, and experience consciousness in the manner in which we do. The objects in the universe (including ourselves and the functioning of our brains we call consciousness) could still be the product of the interaction and evolution of unconscious material according to specific laws. To borrow explanation: "Programs are things. Computations are events. We are programs. And that is all that there is to the universe"" (http://hplusmagazine.com...). My opponent s argument states that consciousness is integration and then goes on to state that the universe must be conscious since integration entails consciousness. However, even if it is assumed true that consciousness is an example of integration, this is no reason to make the leap to the premise if something is integrated, then it entails consciousness. This would be the case of going from one example of two (2) properties appearing together to the conclusion that the two (2) properties always occur together. V. Conclusion In summary, the above argument is not meant to prove affirmatively that no god exists or that there are definitely multiple gods. There are many ways in which people claim to understand or know the existence of a god, and many of such ideas move into different areas and disciplines. However, this debate is not focused on such issues (in that regard, this debate is not even about what I believe, as I have assumed the role of contender). This debate is about whether one can say that a single god probably exists based on logical principles. Accordingly, in this context, the theory of the existence of one single god stands on equal footing with other arguments for the existence of multiple gods or no god.