God Probably Doesn't Exist

Part of the reason for our mutual frustration, I think, is how differently we approach the question of God’s existence. But this realization should not cause despair, but should lead us to take a step back and reexamine the assumptions we bring to the table. As I've said before, this is hard work, but it is necessary work. I. General Overview Pro and I came here to debate the existence of God, understood in a general, commonsense way. Or at least, that is what should have happened. Sadly, Pro spent 60% of his space trying to hammer down a more specific, tight, and/or helpful definition of God. Having looked carefully over Pro’s comments, and through personal correspondence with him, I understand where he’s coming from: Pro is an agnostic, not an atheist. He does not affirm that God does not exist, but withholds judgment. Therefore, he can only refute arguments for theism, not present arguments for atheism. Be that as it may, definitions are decided before a debate takes place. If Pro did not like the way I defined God, or the way the debate was set up, he should have voiced his concerns in the comments section prior to acceptance. Moreover, given his professed agnosticism, it is misleading for him to ostensibly argue that God does not exist. Indeed, I am confused when Pro tells us that his “intent. .. is to show why God probably does not exist. ” This, when several lines down he admits that he has “no ground to stand on. ” The debate was deliberately framed so that Pro could not get away with folding his arms and demanding the theist present evidence for God. The fact of the matter is, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence – ergo, if Pro wants us to believe that God does not exist, he must give us good reasons to think so. But this Pro refuses to do. In sum, his entire process of engagement was wrongheaded. Turning to his latest remarks, Pro asks, “If you were on my position, arguing that a god probably does not exist, how would you go about it? ” I would probably try to show that the universe is eternal, thereby undercutting the concept of a Creator God. Notice, it doesn’t make sense asking why God is the Creator of the universe. That just is the operative concept of God, a concept that coheres well with our intuitive understanding of the word God. Further, I might try to argue that morality is an illusion - that there really are no objective moral values and duties - thereby undercutting the idea of a morally perfect being. Finally, I might argue that the whole concept of a mind without a physical body is incoherent. Granted, getting your fingers dirty and doing the hard work of defending these arguments is “not a simple thing to ask”, but so what? It was never intended to be. So I don't think what we have here is a “bad setup and biased outlook on a debate setting. ” On the contrary, it is not impossible to give arguments for atheism. Philosophers do it all the time. We have, rather, an unwillingness/inability to do so, and that was certainly not my fault. II. The Case for Atheism Throughout the debate, Pro fails to give any good reason to affirm the resolution. We’ve seen that no matter how Pro’s case is spun, it turns up short. The best way to see this is by delineating each argument into a series of premises leading to a conclusion. Doing so will make the logical structure of the argument crystal-clear. 1. God is undefined The intuitive idea here is that undefined words have no referents, and when used in a sentence, the whole sentence becomes meaningless. When I say, "Tripleminac is here", for example, the sentence expresses no content because Tripleminac refers to nothing. The sentence is therefore neither true nor false. Now, if God is similarly undefined, then both the view that God exists and the view that He does not become meaningless. These observations suggest the following argument: 1. The existence of undefined entities is a meaningless question. 2. God is an undefined entity. 3. Therefore, the existence of God is a meaningless question. I grant premise (1). With respect to premise (2), I have consistently provided a robust, if modest, definition of God as the morally perfect, personal Creator of the universe. Again, it does not matter if Pro doesn't like the definition, or doesn't think he can disprove God so-defined. Considerations like these aren't relevant to assessing (2). Given the falsity of premise (2), the conclusion does not follow. 2. God’s existence makes no predictions 1. Hypotheses that make no predictions are unfalsifiable. 2. The God-hypothesis makes no predictions. 3. Therefore, the God-hypothesis is unfalsifiable. Regarding premise (1), I contended that hypotheses can be falsified if a contradiction is found within them, irrespective of their predictions. Pro fails to dislodge the point. With respect to (2), I responded by suggesting multiple ways that God’s existence makes predictions. The God-hypothesis predicts (a) the beginning of the universe, (b) the existence of an objective moral standard, and (c) the possibility of minds existing independently of bodies (a possibility that has enormous implications for understanding our own minds). Finally, I argued that even if we accept the conclusion, all that amounts to is the admission that the resolution cannot be proven. Indeed, I should be the one giving this argument, not Pro. In short, argument (2) is both falsely based and irrelevant. Now in his last round, Pro offers some passing remarks about the problem of evil and the evidence for unguided evolution. But he gives them as illustrations of his inability to prove that God does not exist, so I do not feel compelled to respond to them. So I think it’s clear that Pro fails to support the resolution. III. The Case for Theism By contrast, I gave two good reasons to think that God exists: (1) the argument from the beginning of the universe, and (2) the argument from moral experience. 1. The argument from contemporary cosmology 1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause. 2. The universe began to exist. 3. Therefore, the universe has a cause. 4. If the universe has a cause, a transcendent, personal Creator exists. 5. Therefore, a personal Creator exists. On behalf of (1), I argued that our intuitions of potentiality and actuality strongly support the causal principle. No objections from Pro. In defense of (2), I argued, first of all, that all attempts to avert the beginning of the universe as predicted by the Big Bang model fail, and second, that the BGV theorem is the final nail in the coffin for all eternal universe models. No objections from Pro. Premise (3) follows necessarily from (1) and (2). With respect to (4), I gave a thorough conceptual analysis concerning what a cause of the universe must be like. Not only must such a cause be beyond space and time; it must also be personal. Again, no objections from Pro. Finally, (5) follows necessarily from (1) - (4). Pro drops his objections to the argument as a whole. I showed why the cosmological argument does not commit the god-of-the-gaps fallacy, and Pro never defended his allegation of other fallacious appeals. In his last round, however, Pro asks, “If everything needs a cause, what caused God? ” The question is misconceived. Premise (1) asserts that whatever begins to exist has a cause. But as the argument itself demonstrates, God never begins to exist - He is timeless and eternal – and therefore does not need a cause. “But,” Pro retorts, “Why couldn’t we say the same about the universe? ” Because the empirical evidence indicates that space and time came into being at some point in the past; the atheistic position is no longer tenable. In conclusion, contemporary cosmology indicates that a personal Creator of the universe exists. 2. The argument from moral experience 1. If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist. 2. Objective moral values and duties exist. 3. Therefore, God exists. Turn first to premise (1). In support, I argued that if atheism is true then, firstly, moral values are products of unguided evolution, and secondly, homo sapiens are animals and therefore have no moral value. I explained how (1) concerns the existence of morality, not our knowledge of it, and Pro drops all his previous objections. Concerning premise (2), I left it undefended because it is, to my mind at least, obviously true. Pro replies that “we made [morality] up. ” Surely this is false. For example, no one made up the principle, “Do not torture children for fun. ” Rather, the validity of the moral law is independent of human opinion. Having learned that morality cannot exist without God, I then attempted to explicate how God and morality relate: God’s nature determines moral values, and His commands determine our moral duties. Pro asks, “Which God is the source of our moral duties? Allah? Yahweh? ” The moral argument does not tell us. Once we have established that morality requires a personal foundation, then we can ask whether this being might have revealed Himself and His commands in some religion. But even if He has not, this is no trouble for the moral argument. Perhaps God’s commands are hard-wired into the human brain, thereby obviating the need for special revelation in some religion. In short, morality suggests that there is more to heaven and Earth than is dreamt of in atheistic philosophy. IV. Conclusion What I offer Kryptic is an explanation for the moral values and duties he surely wants to affirm, and an explanation for the origin of the universe that science so powerfully demonstrates. What might that explanation be? A morally perfect, personal Creator of the universe. And why does Kryptic resist this conclusion? Let him not say, “Because I can’t test God’s existence”, or “Because God is undefined”. I have answered both objections, so Pro really has no reason not to go where the evidence points - to the existence of God.