God is Real

Because Pro has introduced too many arguments for the character limit, I have asked him to pick his top 5, and he chose: “Contingency, design, cosmological [argument], creation, and first mover.” This is a wise selection--the archaeological arguments will be dropped, though I was hoping he would keep them. The arguments he chose instead are less empirical but higher-minded. Contingency The weakness of this argument seems to be premise b: “Every contingent thing has a time at which it does not exist because contingent things are not omnipresent.” This premise is neither proven nor prima facie. The microscopic constituent parts of almost any given object have existed for as long as our knowledge of the universe extends into the past (big bang origin). We have no knowledge of existence prior to that. There is only one type of object that we have observed that comes into existence from seemingly nothing: quantum vacuum fluctuations [1]. Even in the case of vacuum fluctuations, the causes are unknown, so we likewise have no knowledge of anything being “contingent.” The premise has no more foundation than if the premise claimed that everything is not contingent. Further, Pro challenged, “For this proof I challenge my opponent to prove that not everything in the universe or the universe itself is contingent.” This would be my burden if the prima facie evidence were that the existence of the universe or any of its constituent parts is contingent. Since that is not the prima facie evidence, the challenge is irrelevant. Design This argument states that objects that act for a seeming “end” must have been designed by a mind. This argument had explanatory power through analogy, and it was widely accepted by the best minds in science, before Darwin’s and Wallace’s theory of evolution by natural selection. The predominant objects designed with a seeming “end” would be living organisms, and their “design” is now seemingly merely the natural expected outcome of the continually-iterative process of unintelligent mutation and natural selection--the variations of the systems that are more capable of reproducing will predominate in the next generation, adapting as expected around every obstacle to reproductive success. Since all living organisms follow the pattern of a single unified family tree (Linnaean taxonomy), the theory of evolution has far superior explanatory power. A hypothesized being with a mind may have designed life following any of a vast number of patterns, not only a family tree. Cosmological Argument The weakness of this argument seems to be premise 3: “No rational person should accept premise (2a) by definition of rationality,” where premise 2a is: “The existence of the universe is… unintelligible.” It may very well be that the existence of the universe is unintelligible, but it does not follow that a rational person should not accept this premise by the definition of “rationality.” The definition of “rationality” was not presented, but it can be surmised that a “rational” person under the ordinary definition of “rationality” may justifiably accept a lack of an explanation for a small subset of his or her general perspective. Otherwise, the argument seems to be self-defeating, as follows: what is the intelligible explanation for the existence of God? In the unlikely event that an intelligible explanation can be proposed (using the given criteria of Scientific, Personal, or Essential), then the argument is not self-defeating. But, if the existence of God is unintelligible, then does it follow from the definition of rationality that no rational person should accept the premise that the existence of God in unintelligible? Creation Pro challenged, “I now challenge my opponent to offer evidence as to how the universe was created independent of a higher being.” That is a challenge that I cannot meet, and I really do think that a “higher being” is a positive explanation that has at least the seeming of superiority over no explanation. It is an argument that I fully grant. I would like Pro to reflect on that reality in light of the knowledge that the same situation would have occurred if, instead of the existence of the universe, the phenomenon of lightning bolts were offered as evidence of miraculous intervention of God in the natural world and we were living in a time before the discoveries of the science of electromagnetism. Suppose Pro had said, “I now challenge my opponent to offer evidence as to how lightning bolts are created independent of a higher being.” Any time before the 18th century, I would be likewise empty-handed, and I would have no choice but to concede that an intelligent higher being is the only explanation for lightning bolts. In the modern age, the weakness of explaining such mysteries with an equally-mysterious intelligent being has become more apparent. Any imaginable mystery may be explained with the gods, but such explanations serve as probable explanations only when they also supply explanatory power and plausibility. This is the reason why “God of the gaps” typically fails as an explanation. Some gaps may indeed be filled with a god when the god is precisely the same size and shape as the gap, but the oversized gods should not be stuffed in a gap with any size and shape. First Mover The problem with this argument seems to be “If an object is in motion, something must have caused it to be in motion.” The argument implicitly presumes that all “movers” are previously-existing objects, such as a moving cue ball that causes an 8-ball to move. Only with this implicit premise does it follow that “there must be a first, unmoved mover.” However, we know from Newtonian and Einsteinian physics that movement is not caused by a previously-existing mover. Movement is instead caused by forces of physics, such as gravity, strong and weak nuclear forces and electromagnetism. Movement of particles, such as radiation, may be caused by a purely internal process. The premise is further undercut and complicated by the observed reality that there are, again, quantum vacuum fluctuations with no known mover or cause [1]. Under this new model of thought, the argument cannot be directly adapted, because there is no apparent observed pattern of nature that requires us to believe that physical forces were ever caused by anything existing previously. Returning the challenge I challenge Pro to present an argument for the existence of God or gods that supplies explanatory power and plausibility, and to explain it in those terms. If Pro shares with me contempt for the “God of the gaps” style of reasoning, then he should detail how his explanation powerfully fits the evidence, and not just cram the gods into the gaps. I also request that Pro be more careful with his quotes--please do not misattribute a quote from the creationist Hugh Ross to the eminent Stephen Hawking (“if the universe is governed by the equations of General Relativity…” [3]). Thank you! References [1] Tryon, E.P. “Is the Universe a vacuum fluctuation,” Nature, 1973. [2] Woese, C.R. “Interpreting the universal phylogenetic tree,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, May 22, 2000. [3] http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com...