Atheism (Con) vs. The Existence of God (Pro)

Pro Strategy In accordance with the preset structure of the debate, the next round will contain my response to Con. This round however contains my positive case showing that theism better explains what we know of reality than atheism. It is not my goal here to prove God (hardly anything is proven). Rather what is intended will be to show both that it is rational to believe in God and that his existence better explains the relevant data than atheism. This will be accomplished first by making explicit those sundry facts of our reality. Namely that it was this cosmos that came to be. A cosmos which is first of all contingent by nature. One which is conceptually describable having an organized structure complete with reliable regularity, beauty and embodied conscious moral agents attuned to, and capable of understanding this beauty given that our mental faculties have been adequated to such a contingent cosmos. [10] Then second, I will show how theism better explains this data where atheism is either impotent to do so, explains it away, or offers the usual blank check of a promissory naturalism. The Facts to be Explained The Cosmos & Its Collective Properties Facts I. Personal Cosmos Let us recognize some things about the cosmos and ourselves. Zooming in from left to right in the picture above, notice that inside our reality lies near unlimited creative potential. It not only has a finely-tuned structure allowing for that creative potential, but also permits the possibility of conscious embodied moral agents who emerged with intrinsic value and dignity capable of understanding and enjoying this reality. So what emerged are persons who can interact with a beautiful world full of enjoyable secondary properties like colors, smells, sounds, tastes, textures. Despite the fact that some of these agents misuse their freedom to harm others both individually and corporately, life is generally worth living. We can be hedonists in this universe, live as scholars, write as poets and build as kings. Beauty exists superabundantly both intellectually in architecture and aesthetically in landscapes, stars and natural fractals. The beauty that extends to the intellectual realm is easily seen through our best, most mathematically elegant scientific theories that describe the world in which we thrive. Let us complete the picture below, Notice from left to right as we zoom in further the pattern remains the same. The mind-like structure is consistent all the way from the observable universe to the human brain and onto our creation of the map of the internet; that dynamic collection of mastered human knowledge and experience. More fundamentally than this is the fact that our cognitive faculties are assumed to be generally reliable within this reality so that we can gradually learn something about ourselves, our world, and about our possible Creator, presumably himself a personal mind. Our globe is rich in theological inquiry dominated by religions, spirituality and existential yearning. I will argue that these facts are readily explained on theism, but is left mysterious on atheism. Facts II. Contingent Cosmos Notice in the figure above representing our contingent reality, that this reality as a whole has a “now” slice in which something presently exists. To date only finitely many things have existed. For an actually infinite is not just physically unlikely, it is metaphysically impossible! Con accepts the big bang model so we both affirm that the cosmos came to be a finite time ago, and so it is contingent. But now in our reality we understand that every temporally contingent thing is possibly generated and later corrupted; such things exist for a finite period of time. But if everything is temporally contingent like this, then there was a state in which nothing existed; in which case nothing presently exists, which is absurd: it leaves us with a discrepancy requiring an explanation. I will argue that this fact is readily explained on theism, but a mystery on atheism. The Explanation of The Facts The Necessary Creator Who Endowed Us With Rational & Moral Faculties Explanation of Facts II. Contingent Cosmos by Necessary Being Let’s begin with the second fact set first. It doesn’t at all seem unreasonable to try and seek a solution to the discrepancy mentioned in the second figure. Thankfully, theism provides an answer where atheism averts their gaze. Theism’s solution is God, a temporally necessary reality. Thus our figure becomes, Note that a temporally necessary being is not temporally contingent. For where a contingent reality is generated we see that God is necessarily ungenerated, and where God is incorruptible, our cosmos is so... Now it just needs to be possible that everything have a sufficient reason for its existence (either in the necessity of its own nature or by an external reason), from which it follows that anything having a sufficient reason for its existence [that is a sufficient reason for its own existence] is unlimited, it is necessary. Furthermore a contingent thing cannot be the sufficient reason for a necessary thing. Such an unlimited being is necessarily greater than any other being because an unlimited being possesses every great making property in some logically possible state of affairs w, including unlimitation in w1 … but if that is the case then the unlimited being possesses every great making property in w1 and since w1 is an arbitrarily selected logically possible state of affairs, then such a being is unlimited in all logically possible states of affairs including this one, the actual world. Now it is impossible that anything is greater than itself for “greater than” is asymmetric. Therefore, insofar as these propositions are merely possible then a Supreme being, God, exists. Con would have to show that what I’ve said above is impossible. [11] Explanation of Facts I. Personal Cosmos by Personal God Given that the finely-tuned cosmos is contingent because it came into being a finite time ago, and since things which come to be require causes, then it follows deductively that this cosmos has a first cause. This cause is more plausibly an immaterial mind or person who willed the cosmos into being from a timeless state. First because either minds or abstract objects are immaterial, yet abstracta can’t cause anything so that leaves a mind. Second there are two types of explanations, scientific, which investigates physics; or there are personal, non-physical explanations in terms of volition. But since the cosmos is all of physics then the explanation can’t be scientific so it must be personal. Third in order to get a temporal effect from a timeless cause there is only agency causation, otherwise the effect would be coeternal with the cause. Also, the First Cause is an entity that has produced a finely tuned cosmos, containing beauty and creatures attuned to beauty, containing moral prescriptions (which itself requires a moral prescriber) and creatures aware of those prescriptions, a universe containing conscious beings with free will, a universe some of whose contents have objective functions (eyes are for seeing, and so on). Thus it is very plausible that the first Cause is an extremely intelligent and very powerful person acting purposively. [12] Now the question is, how on atheism do non-rational causes result in rational beings? Rationality would simply be a by-product of physical cause-and-effect of evolved material, we would have no warrant for trusting our mental faculties for anything outside of survival and instinct. Yet science supposes that these faculties are indeed reliable, say, for theorizing and so on. So which came first; the the mental or the material? Theism favorably answers that the mental was prior and so rationality is more fundamental to the universe than what atheists would have us think. It wouldn’t be surprising on theism then if matter is created with potentialities to produce minds distinct from itself with the ability to reason. But it would be surprising on atheism! So if Con is even to get off the ground with atheism, he must either deny evolution or answer this challenge, why think it is more likely that reason should emerge if some of the fundamental causes of the universe are not more like a mind? But since explaining reason in terms of unreason explains reason away, and undercuts the very reason on which the explanation is supposed to be based, then it becomes an insuperable problem for Con’s atheism! For without reason, he cannot argue against theism or for atheism. He must therefore deal with this problem! Lastly, why on atheism should we think that the world would include anything more than natural facts and properties along with our subjective reactions to those properties? There’s no clear way atheists can affirm human dignity as being real! But on theism, God values human persons because they are intrinsically valuable; namely because God created them after his own image as a person with rational and moral natures. On theism, human persons have been fashioned after the most ultimate and sacred feature of reality and thus participate in that sacredness. So, the personal is far more at home in such a universe than on an atheistic one. Conclusion Therefore theism better explains both the contingency of the cosmos and its contingent, collective properties better than atheism. I will handle Con’s arguments next round as well as his rebuttal to this modest case for theism. Sources 10. By cosmos I include all of spacetime reality in general; including whatever multiverse there may be. It is interesting to note that the multiverse itself requires not only a beginning, but also fine-tuning in order to continue spawning other spacetime realities. I will provide literature and argument on this point if pressed. 11. Robert Maydole, 1980, p.180 12. Pruss, Cosmological Arguments, bearspace.baylor.edu/Alexander_Pruss/www/papers/LCA.htm