36 Arguments for the Existence of God: A Work of Fiction

_{Donald McLaughlin

November 23, 2009

Cosmology, Culture, Philosophy, Physics, Religion, Science}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

The title of this post is also the title of a recent book by Rebecca Newberger Goldstein. According to the website for The Edge Foundation,

Rebecca Newberger Goldstein, known to Edge readers as a philosopher who has interesting things to say about Gödel and Spinoza, among others, enters into this conversation, taking on these and wider themes, and pushing the envelope by crossing over into the realm of fiction.

Goldstein isn’t the first novelist to appear on Edge, nor the first to discuss religion. In October 1989, the novelist Ken Kesey came to New York spoke to The Reality Club. “As I’ve often told Ginsberg,” he began, “you can’t blame the President for the state of the country, it’s always the poets’ fault. You can’t expect politicians to come up with a vision, they don’t have it in them. Poets have to come up with the vision and they have to turn it on so it sparks and catches hold.”

It’s in this spirit that Edge presents a brief excerpt from the first chapter, and the nonfiction appendix from 36 Arguments for the Existence of God: A Work of Fiction by Rebecca Newberger Goldstein.

Included in the review by John Brockman is an excerpt from the first chapter along with a non-fiction appendix that lists the 36 arguments for the existence of God to which the book title refers. The latter includes analysis of the ‘flaws’. I’ll give one example here. The appendix discusses the cosmological argument thusly:

1. The Cosmological Argument

1. Everything that exists must have a cause.

2. The universe must have a cause (from 1).

3. Nothing can be the cause of itself.

4. The universe cannot be the cause of itself (from 3).

5. Something outside the universe must have caused the universe (from 2 & 4).

6. God is the only thing that is outside of the universe.

7. God caused the universe (from 5 & 6).

8. God exists.

FLAW 1: can be crudely put: Who caused God? The Cosmological Argument is a prime example of the Fallacy of Passing the Buck: invoking God to solve some problem, but then leaving unanswered that very same problem when applied to God himself. The proponent of the Cosmological Argument must admit a contradiction to either his first premise — and say that though God exists, he doesn’t have a cause — or else a contradiction to his third premise — and say that God is self-caused. Either way, the theist is saying that his premises have at least one exception, but is not explaining why God must be the unique exception, otherwise than asserting his unique mystery (the Fallacy of Using One Mystery To Pseudo-Explain Another). Once you admit of exceptions, you can ask why the universe itself, which is also unique, can’t be the exception. The universe itself can either exist without a cause, or else can be self-caused . Since the buck has to stop somewhere, why not with the universe?

FLAW 2: The notion of “cause” is by no means clear, but our best definition is a relation that holds between events that are connected by physical laws. Knocking the vase off the table caused it to crash to the floor; smoking three packs a day caused his lung cancer. To apply this concept to the universe itself is to misuse the concept of cause, extending it into a realm in which we have no idea how to use it. This line of skeptical reasoning, based on the incoherent demands we make of the concept of cause, was developed by David Hume.

COMMENT: The Cosmological Argument, like the Argument from the Big Bang, and The Argument from the Intelligibility of the Universe, are expressions of our cosmic befuddlement at the question: why is there something rather than nothing? The late philosopher Sydney Morgenbesser had a classic response to this question: “And if there were nothing? You’d still be complaining!”

This analysis doesn’t work because the argument is mis-stated. The first premise is not “anything which exists must have a cause”, but “anything which begins to exist must have a cause”, which makes a huge difference in the analysis. Well known theistic philosopher William Lane Craig states the Kalaam Cosmological Argument this way:
Premise 1 – Anything that begins to exist must have a cause
Premise 2 – The universe began to exist
Conclusion: Therefore, the universe must have a cause.

So stated, this is a deductively valid argument in that if both premises are true, the conclusion logically follows. The question is are the premises true? I don’t know of anyone who has refuted this form of the argument, though there is debate on premise 2. Premise 1 seems unproblematic. The analysis presented in the appendix simply does not address the correct form of the argument, but gives the impression that the cosmological argument is easily refuted. I guess you can make that claim when you mis-characterize an argument.

I’ll leave it to readers here at UD to discuss some of the other analyses of the 36 arguments presented in the appendix. Its interesting reading for sure.

Comments

Note that each of Aquinas's arguments for the existence of God started from observations of the natural world.Mung_{November 28, 2009
November
11
Nov
28
28
2009
12:31 PM
12
12
31
PM
PDT}

olin (#28) In an earlier post, I suggested that Dr. Koons' teleological argument could take us one step beyond the Uncaused Cause of the modal cosmological argument to an intelligent being. But in case you're worried about God's goodness, here's a much-neglected (and frequently misunderstood) argument that does purport to show that God is intrinsically good, and that He is the source of all goodness: Aquinas' Fourth Way. Aquinas' Fourth Way by "oohlah" (Joe Ulatowski) on Praeter Necessitatum. Aquinas on Perfectionby "oohlah" (Joe Ulatowski) on Praeter Necessitatum. Defending the Fourth Way by "Saint Sebastian" (Daniel Jones) on Praeter Necessitatum. I hope that helps.vjtorley_{November 25, 2009
November
11
Nov
25
25
2009
04:42 PM
4
04
42
PM
PDT}

vjt, Thank you. That was an interesting thread, but alas, was not the one I was thinking of. I don't recall it being a philosophical argugument, but just a comment you made from logic that was rather profound, and I wanted simply to revisit it. I appreciate your help though. -best regardsUpright BiPed_{November 25, 2009
November
11
Nov
25
25
2009
09:42 AM
9
09
42
AM
PDT}

Olin, "If the only conclusion is that the universe must have a cause, and there is nothing to indicate that God is that cause, then it’s a fairly limited argument. That is, the cause could be natural or supernatural, and hence, it isn’t much of an argument for or against a supernatural being." It depends on what YOU mean by God. But this causeless entity is very Other. Furthermore, that which is the cause and source of existence is, by definition, God. I don't really relate to calling God supernatural or natural. I guess I am a panentheist, I believe that there is nothing BUT God, because there cannot be anything else, ever. Yet I also think that the universe could become non manifest without affecting God's existence and that God transcends nature/matter.avocationist_{November 25, 2009
November
11
Nov
25
25
2009
09:36 AM
9
09
36
AM
PDT}

Well, that’s a start, anyway. And don’t forget, there are other arguments for the existence of God.
Yes. Thomas did not conclude with, therefore the Christian God exists. his conlcusion was, and this being we call God. (See post #4.) You have to put all the pieces together to come up with Christian theism, not just one of them.Mung_{November 25, 2009
November
11
Nov
25
25
2009
09:03 AM
9
09
03
AM
PDT}

olin (#28) You are quite right in saying that the cosmological argument doesn't get us very far by itself. However, it does yield some important negative results, as Dr. Robert Koons argues in his article, A New Look at the Cosmological Argument : whatever the Uncaused Cause is, it is not contingent, which means it is not a mere aggregate, it does not have any quantitatively measurable attributes, it is not essentially located in space or time, and it is not a physical object. In section 7 of his article, Dr. Koons does however suggest a way in which the cosmological argument can lend support to the teleological argument. He carefully distinguishes the Thomistic teleological argument from Paley's version (which he regards as flawed), and proposes an updated version of the Thomistic argument:
Suppose, however, that we think about the teleological argument in close connection with the cosmological argument, as Aquinas did. In this case, we already know that the cosmos has a First Cause, and that this cause is necessary and involves a necessary being, whom we call "God". The fact that a set of facts has been ordered to some purpose is empirically verifiable and does not logically entail (although it may suggest) the existence of any personal intentionality. A teleological law is simply a projectible, empirical generalization, which can be used to explain a set of facts by reference to their common effects (not their causes).... For the sake of this argument, let us presume that we have discovered such teleological generalizations at the level of the cosmos, such as: all physical constants and Big Bang conditions are such as to make possible complex life forms. The cosmos, so characterized, is the effect of the First Cause. We attribute intelligence to human beings because of the teleological generalizations that characterize the actions of normal human beings. Since the effects of the First Cause are strongly analogous to the effects of human action in exactly this respect, we have the strongest possible reason for attributing to God something analogous to intelligence.... In the Thomistic argument, we start with four causally related terms: humans as cause of human actions, and the First Cause as cause of the cosmos. We notice that the cosmos shares the very feature of human actions upon which we base our attribution of intelligence to humans. We conclude that the First Cause is in some sense intelligent. Dissimilarities between the cosmos and human actions are irrelevant to this inference.
Well, that's a start, anyway. And don't forget, there are other arguments for the existence of God.vjtorley_{November 25, 2009
November
11
Nov
25
25
2009
07:49 AM
7
07
49
AM
PDT}

Upright BiPed (#26) Thank you for your question. The only discussion that I've been able to find on Uncommon Descent of Aquinas' First Way - the Argument from Motion, which goes back to Aristotle - is this one, in which StephenB was defending the soundness of the argument: https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/faith-and-reason/ Personally, I'm somewhat leery of using this argument in an apologetic context, because it requires so much unpackaging to make it intelligible to moderns, and also because it requires a certain level of familiarity with multiple disciplines (from quantum physics to neurophysiology) to refute all possible lines of attack by skeptics. That said, I think it is a good argument. Here are some links which will help you. I've listed them roughly in order of digestibility, with the easiest at the top: Jerry Coyne and Aquinas’ First Way by Dr. Michael Egnor. The First Way by Dr. Christopher Martin. Aquinas' First Way by Brandon (a lecturer in philosophy) at http://branemrys.blogspot.com/ and Further Thought on Aquinas's First Way by the same author. Audio of talk on Aquinas's First Wayby Professor David Oderberg, given at the Joseph Butler Society, Oriel College, Oxford, May 2009. The talk is 1 hour, followed by 1 hour of Q&A. I hope that helps.vjtorley_{November 25, 2009
November
11
Nov
25
25
2009
07:30 AM
7
07
30
AM
PDT}

avocationist (#27) Dr. Robert Koons provides an answer to your question about separate existences in his article, A New Look at the Cosmological Argument (page 5):
Axiom 6 is intended to capture Hume's insight that a cause and its effect must be "separate existences". The language of mereology, when applied to facts, enables us to state Hume's principle precisely: a cause must not overlap its effect. It is very important to bear in mind that Axiom 6 does not require that a cause must not overlap its effect in space or time: it is only mereological overlap (the having of a common part) that is ruled out. (Emphases mine - VJT.)
So there you have it. "Separate" does not mean "able to exist on its own." It simply means that God and His creation have no common parts - i.e. pantheism is false. Perhaps a better word than "separate" would be "distinct." You are quite right to say that "Without God nothing can exist."vjtorley_{November 25, 2009
November
11
Nov
25
25
2009
06:04 AM
6
06
04
AM
PDT}

Hmm, then I see then the cosmological argument as problematic as as argument for God. If the only conclusion is that the universe must have a cause, and there is nothing to indicate that God is that cause, then it's a fairly limited argument. That is, the cause could be natural or supernatural, and hence, it isn't much of an argument for or against a supernatural being.olin_{November 25, 2009
November
11
Nov
25
25
2009
05:46 AM
5
05
46
AM
PDT}

So once you understand the meaning of true nothingness, there are just two possible explanations for existence: That a universe popped into existence from absolute nothingness, or that there is something uncaused and which is therefore existence itself. The first is absurd, and the second is a mystery. We cannot fathom it, yet it becomes a logical necessity. Once clearly understood (and it is an argument of logic and not one of spiritual feeling) all doubts about the existence of God cease, and not only cease but can never again arise. However, I do not agree with this: "a cause and its effect must both be actual; they must be distinct from each other, with no overlapping parts (”separate existences” in Hume’s terminology),a cause and its effect must both be actual; they must be distinct from each other, with no overlapping parts (”separate existences” in Hume’s terminology)," I see no reason for this, nor do I even see how it can be so. Everything must arise out of God, and remain within God. Without God nothing can exist. If something could exist as separate from God it would have power indeed! If it were separate and without overlap, how would God reach it?avocationist_{November 25, 2009
November
11
Nov
25
25
2009
12:19 AM
12
12
19
AM
PDT}

Off topic question for vjtorley... Did you not recently have a conversation on UD that centered around the idea (please forgive the substandard recall) that something cannot change itself...the conversation was something to the effect that (geeez) a thing cannot change itself, but must have two or more parts (?) in order to have such a change... I know that sounds simply crazy....but I did not bookmark it and now would very much like to review your conversation. Thanks.Upright BiPed_{November 24, 2009
November
11
Nov
24
24
2009
11:30 PM
11
11
30
PM
PDT}

Olin (#21) Thank you for your post. You wrote:
Actually, I view premise 6 in the longer version of the cosmological argument to be a bigger problem: "God is the only thing that is outside of the universe." That implies that "God exists," and hence the whole argument is circular.
You're perfectly correct, if you're referring to Professor Goldstein's mischievous mis-representation of the cosmological argument. Few atheists are capable of stating the case for theism fairly. (Bradley Monton is one exception that comes to mind.) In fact, no proponent of the cosmological argument has ever used such a question-begging premise as #6. If you check out Professor Robert Koons' very readable online History of Western Theism you can ascertain this for yourself.vjtorley_{November 24, 2009
November
11
Nov
24
24
2009
10:59 PM
10
10
59
PM
PDT}

I think in that statement Aquinas was referring to a larger DP, even though he might not have called it that.
Could be close. It's sort of an argument from regularity where one can at best expect chaos. Why do things behave in a regular/predictable way?Mung_{November 24, 2009
November
11
Nov
24
24
2009
06:09 PM
6
06
09
PM
PDT}

zeroseven in #22. Interesting question. Before it can be answered where design falls in the conceptual hierarchy needs to be established. But,exactly where design falls in the conceptual hierarchy of science has not received a whole of attention in discussions of the philosophy of science, unlike, say, the uniformity principle (UP). Most philosophers of science would probably agree that the UP is as foundational a principle of science as you're likely to find, but is not itself derived from the methods of science, as those very methods depend on the UP in order for results to have meaning. What if it were the case that Design is on the same level, or one level above the UP? Put another way, what if the UP is derived from a larger design principle (DP). Nature is uniform because it is designed to be uniform. If that were the case, then, ultimately, yes, everything is designed, at least in a broad sense. My take on Aquinas's version of the teleological argument is that he may have recognized this DP as being nearly self-evident (hence his statement that
We see that things that lack intelligence, such as natural bodies, act for an end, and this is evident from their acting always, or nearly always, in the same way, so as to obtain the best result. Hence it is plain that not fortuitously, but designedly, do they achieve their end.
I think in that statement Aquinas was referring to a larger DP, even though he might not have called it that.DonaldM_{November 24, 2009
November
11
Nov
24
24
2009
05:45 PM
5
05
45
PM
PDT}

Mung, "A really poor analogy. Give us one that has the appearance of being designed, but isn’t." How can I do that - don't you think everything is designed?zeroseven_{November 24, 2009
November
11
Nov
24
24
2009
04:40 PM
4
04
40
PM
PDT}

Actually, I view premise 6 in the longer version of the cosmological argument to be a bigger problem: " God is the only thing that is outside of the universe." That implies that "God exists," and hence the whole argument is circular. Certainly, there is no way to know that God is the only thing outside the universe. Furthermore, the term "thing" itself is vague in any form of the argument.olin_{November 24, 2009
November
11
Nov
24
24
2009
04:14 PM
4
04
14
PM
PDT}

zeroseven responds to Barb:
Barb, my point is that it’s a huge jump to say that just because something “appears” to be designed that it is.
I don't think it's a great jump at all. In our experience, most things that appear to be designed, actually are. It's a much greater jump to say that for something which appears to be designed, the appeareance of design is just an illusion.
I wouldn’t expect any biology teacher to make that sort of unscientific leap.
What on earth is unscientific about the observation that in our experience things which appear to be designed, usually are? And then what is so unscientific about an inference that something which appears to be designed, actually is designed? That is how science works. I would expect a biology teacher to know this and explain it, not accuse their students of having illusions.
The sun “appears” to revolve around the earth.
A really poor analogy. Give us one that has the appearance of being designed, but isn't.
And the “illusion” of design means just that – an illusion.
The "illusion" of design doesn't mean anything. It's a denial of valid scientific inferential reasoning. Barb, there are pleny of books out there by people who accept evolution who admit to the presence of design. You mighth collect soem quotes from such books. You might then ask your son's teachers why they talk out of both sides of their mouth and explain that your son finds it altogether confusing when they say things and then deny that the words they used actually mean what they say.Mung_{November 24, 2009
November
11
Nov
24
24
2009
01:46 PM
1
01
46
PM
PDT}

Barb, my point is that it's a huge jump to say that just because something "appears" to be designed that it is. I wouldn't expect any biology teacher to make that sort of unscientific leap. The sun "appears" to revolve around the earth. And the "illusion" of design means just that - an illusion.zeroseven_{November 24, 2009
November
11
Nov
24
24
2009
12:31 PM
12
12
31
PM
PDT}

vjtorley (in #5)
In short, Professor Goldstein: if you’re going to criticize a widely-respected philosophical argument for God’s existence, academic courtesy demands that you make sure you criticize the best version of it that you can possibly formulate.
I couldn't agree more. Unfortunately, the pattern I've often observed in both online forum discussions as well as in many of the popular books (and even some of the scholarly ones) is for the ID critics or the atheists to not present the strongest formulations of the arguments they wish to refute. Thus Dawkins breaks his arm patting himself on the back when he dismisses all 5 of Aquinas's arguments in about, oh, 4-5 pages in his The God Delusion. The same pattern is often the case with ID critics who misrepresent the actual arguments of ID proponents and then claim victory when they've demolished their little straw man. NZer (in #10)
IIRC, William Lane Craig says that he was working on the Kalam Cosmological Argument, he was surprised that atheists in fact went after premise 1, rather than premise 2 as he has expected.
Yes, this is correct. He went on to say the confusion seems to arise because the critics do not have an accurate concept of what nothing is. WLC discussed how some scientists and philosophers talk about things like virtual particles (which aren't even known to be actual as opposed to theoretical)arising in a vacuum as evidence that its possible the universe spontaneously arose out of the pre-cosmos vacuum. But, he argues, such a vacuum isn't "nothing", but a sea of flucuating energy, raising the question of where the energy came from. (oh those pesky infinite regresses!) Real nothingness is just that - absence of absolutely everything and anything at all. From such a state of affairs, nothing would arise. WLC's point is that if one has a proper understanding of what nothingness really amounts to, then premise one in the Kalaam argument ought to be unproblematic. Mung (in #9)
Yes, it does. Substantially. As you point out in quoting Aquinas, the classical teleological argument has nothing to do with living creatures or their complexity at all, therefore replication is a non-starter as a rebuttal.
I do see your point. However, replication doesn't necessarily have to apply to just biological systems. In the Summa I quoted above Aquinas states "We see that things that lack intelligence, such as natural bodies, act for an end, and this is evident from their acting always, or nearly always, in the same way, so as to obtain the best result." I took a broad view of this as an example of replication of a pattern. So what I was trying to say is that if you remove the parenthetical references to biological systems from the formulation given in the Appendix, (and if "replication" could apply to patterns in general), then the formulation isn't too far off the mark. Having said that, I do see your point. However, the real issue is, as I said earlier, in the analysis given in the Appendix.DonaldM_{November 24, 2009
November
11
Nov
24
24
2009
07:26 AM
7
07
26
AM
PDT}

Re #15 - my error. I was confusing premise 2 and flaw 2. I see nothing wrong with premise 2.Mark Frank_{November 24, 2009
November
11
Nov
24
24
2009
02:01 AM
2
02
01
AM
PDT}

#14 For those willing to contemplate the possibility that the universe may have had an uncaused beginning, I have a question: what if it turned out that the universe in its initial state was extremely complex – in fact, more complex than a human brain? The trouble about this question is the thought experiment carries a whole lot of baggage with it. Cosmology is way beyond me, but I think that physics tells us that any complex state (in the sense of being heterogeneous) cannot be the first moment in time - being the first moment in time entails being a singularity which has no real characteristics.Mark Frank_{November 23, 2009
November
11
Nov
23
23
2009
10:42 PM
10
10
42
PM
PDT}

#10 William Lane Craig says that he was working on the Kalam Cosmological Argument, he was surprised that atheists in fact went after premise 1, rather than premise 2 as he has expected. The two premises are intimately linked. If you have an event for which the concept of causality cannot be applied then you have an event without a cause.Mark Frank_{November 23, 2009
November
11
Nov
23
23
2009
10:35 PM
10
10
35
PM
PDT}

For a good online treatment of Aquinas' five ways, see Professor Christopher Martin's Thomas Aquinas: God and Explanations . Martin's treatment of the Fifth Way is excellent. For those willing to contemplate the possibility that the universe may have had an uncaused beginning, I have a question: what if it turned out that the universe in its initial state was extremely complex - in fact, more complex than a human brain? Would you still be more inclined to say that it popped into existence, than that it was caused?vjtorley_{November 23, 2009
November
11
Nov
23
23
2009
08:14 PM
8
08
14
PM
PDT}

---NZer: "IIRC, William Lane Craig says that he was working on the Kalam Cosmological Argument, he was surprised that atheists in fact went after premise 1, rather than premise 2 as he has expected." He should visit this site. There he will find Darwinists insisting that something can come from nothing--- or that causation is non-negotiable when it serves their purpose and negotiable when it doesn't---or that something can begin to exist without a cause---or that the law of non-contradiction does not apply to the real world---or that the whole can be less than one of its parts---or that matter can investigate itself, ---or my favorite--- that it is absolutely true that there is no such thing as absolute truth. It is with these malformed tools of reason that they critique ID without providing a shred of evidence for their own position. No wonder they are always on offense and never on defense.StephenB_{November 23, 2009
November
11
Nov
23
23
2009
07:50 PM
7
07
50
PM
PDT}

zeroseven: I am happy to state that something appears designed. Please inform the people teaching my son biology, as they are the ones who have a problem with it.Barb_{November 23, 2009
November
11
Nov
23
23
2009
05:54 PM
5
05
54
PM
PDT}

I reckon that anyone who believes that something can begin to exist without a cause for its beginning to exist can believe just about anything. Hence atheism?Matteo_{November 23, 2009
November
11
Nov
23
23
2009
05:48 PM
5
05
48
PM
PDT}

IIRC, William Lane Craig says that he was working on the Kalam Cosmological Argument, he was surprised that atheists in fact went after premise 1, rather than premise 2 as he has expected.NZer_{November 23, 2009
November
11
Nov
23
23
2009
04:23 PM
4
04
23
PM
PDT}

If you take out the parenthetical examples from the version in the Appendix, it doesn’t differ too much in substance from this one, I don’t think.
Yes, it does. Substantially. As you point out in quoting Aquinas, the classical teleological argument has nothing to do with living creatures or their complexity at all, therefore replication is a non-starter as a rebuttal.
Whether or not Darwin showed that “the process of replication could give rise to the illusion of design without the foresight of an actual designer” is even true is itself part of the issue.
Whether it is true or not is irrelevant and is therefore not itself part of the issue. As an aside, even if we deal only with the existence of replicators, they still act toward an end, and the teleological argument therefore still holds.
Therefore some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are directed to their end; and this being we call God.”
This is the conclusion. It follows quite logically and irresistably from his premises. To defeat it requires that one attack the premises. The article does not do this, and thus it does not address itself to the classical teleological argument at all. But then, I already said that.Mung_{November 23, 2009
November
11
Nov
23
23
2009
03:56 PM
3
03
56
PM
PDT}

---Mark Frank: "A lot of good philosophers do find premise 1 problematic –" Anyone who thinks that something can begin to exist without a cause is not a good philosopher. ---so maybe a bit of justification would appropriate." One doesn't use rationality and evidence to justify the point; rationality and evidence depend on the point. We don't reason our way to self evident truths; we reason our way from them. If the statement isn't true [anything that begins to exist must have a cause], science, reason, and rational discourse would be impossible. Indeed, it is not even possible to THINK without assuming it.StephenB_{November 23, 2009
November
11
Nov
23
23
2009
03:49 PM
3
03
49
PM
PDT}

Barb, 'Um, if something appears to be designed or has the illusion of design, why not state clearly that it was designed?' Um, I think you have answered your own question.zeroseven_{November 23, 2009
November
11
Nov
23
23
2009
03:18 PM
3
03
18
PM
PDT}

1 2 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply