I meant it in the sense of actually investigating the subject directly.
For instance you probably have no direct perception of quantum mechanics. Rather you have read about it from others who have.
Understanding/evaluating religious/theistic claims.
- Thread starter aaqucnaona
- Start date
For instance you probably have no direct perception of quantum mechanics. Rather you have read about it from others who have.
@LG --
Nobody has direct perception of quantum theory, we only have the technology to observe the effects rather than actual phenomenon that causes them. This hasn't stopped it from making the most accurate predictions in all of science though.
And you're right, I lack the facilities and equipment necessary to test quantum phenomena, however were I to gain such facilities and equipment as are necessary I certainly could run the experiments myself and get virtually identical results. You can't say the same thing about religious faith.
Nobody has direct perception of quantum theory, we only have the technology to observe the effects rather than actual phenomenon that causes them. This hasn't stopped it from making the most accurate predictions in all of science though.
And you're right, I lack the facilities and equipment necessary to test quantum phenomena, however were I to gain such facilities and equipment as are necessary I certainly could run the experiments myself and get virtually identical results. You can't say the same thing about religious faith.
yet it is still split up into two categories in terms of knowledge - those who do it and those who read about what they do
yet you don't
so here we are
PS you forgot the most essential element : training and education
Only in that the tools of the trade are not external to one's self
Name each event in chronological order then
Since you asked so nicely I'll just come out in say it...ANY AGRUEMENT You have for the existence of deities from the being is flawed, no type of experiment or objective variables can be assigned to entices that are supposedly beyond the laws of nature…and if they were..how the fuck could we test them to begin with if we cannot apply the scientific method to incorporate bullshit variables such as : Omnipresence, Omnibenevolence, Omniscience, Omnipotence, and as a really great paradox the ability to exist beyond space and time….seems to be paradox of being Omnipresence. If I t could exist out of our space and time how could it make any decision without the appropriate distinctions of the time needed to make that decision and the multiple causalities that can result from it without space or time?
For all I know it could exist or couldn’t exist…I see no VALID evidence to support your claims good sir…however you are still just adorable in my eyes.
Arguments from Perfection (2011)
Ryan Stringer
In this paper I discuss arguments from perfection, both for and against the existence of God. I begin with a simple argument from perfection for the existence of God and argue that it is unsuccessful. Then I defend two kinds of arguments from perfection against the existence of God. The first ones are inductive and thus present atheism as a tentative conclusion, while the second one is deductive and thus purports to conclusively demonstrate atheism based on the logical inconsistency between God's existence and the imperfect world in which we live.
I. Introduction
Perfection is probably a familiar concept for most people, as it is used on a fairly regular basis. Something is deemed "perfect" when it conforms completely to an ideal standard of that thing, which entails that it cannot be any better. Thus a perfect thing will have no flaws, blemishes, or defects—that is, it will not possess any negative feature or lack any positive feature that pushes it away from the ideal. While what constitutes a perfect car or a perfect burrito may be unclear, when it comes to a perfect being, traditional theism says that by nature God is such a being because he is omniscient, omnipotent, all-loving, fully rational, completely free, eternal, immutable, and infinitely good. And since both theists and nontheists can accept this understanding of God, it is a good starting point for a discussion about God's existence. However, I will not attempt a comprehensive discussion about God's existence in this paper, as that would at least require a book-length treatment. Instead, I will examine what I call "arguments from perfection" to see if God's essence as a perfect being points towards either his existence or nonexistence.[1]
When I think of the description "argument from perfection," the first thing that comes to mind is an argument for God's existence. Specifically, I am reminded of my first undergraduate exposure to René Descartes' Meditations on First Philosophy. In this treatise Descartes gives two arguments for God's existence, the second of which is an argument from perfection that attempts to deduce that God exists from God's essence (or nature) as a perfect being.[2] However, arguments against God's existence based on his essence as a perfect being also come to mind. Obviously the conclusions of each kind of argument cannot both be correct; at least one of them must be mistaken. For the remainder of this essay I will argue that the positive conclusion that God exists is mistaken, while the negative conclusion that God does not exist is correct. In other words, I will argue that atheism is supported by God's essence as a perfect being and that theism is not.
II. Descartes' Theistic Argument from Perfection
I will begin with Descartes' theistic argument, which I have reconstructed[3] as follows:
(P1) God is a perfect being (or a being with all perfections).
(P2) Existence is a perfection.
(C) Therefore, God exists.
The reasoning of this argument seems simple and straightforward: because God has all perfections and existence is one of them, God has existence. But does this argument really accomplish what it so swiftly appears to accomplish? I will argue that it does not.
Let's begin with a brief examination of P1, which can be interpreted either conceptually or existentially. On the conceptual interpretation, P1 says that the concept of God is that of a perfect being (or a being with all perfections). This would make P1 similar to the proposition "A bachelor is an unmarried male," which merely specifies that the concept of a bachelor is that of an unmarried male. On the existential interpretation, P1 says that there is a God and it has all perfections. This would make P1 similar to the proposition "Ryan Stringer is a graduate student," which is not specifying a concept but asserting the existence of someone named "Ryan Stringer" who has the property of being a graduate student. But if the existential interpretation is correct, then Descartes' argument obviously begs the question because then P1 simply asserts what the argument aims to prove—that God exists. So if the argument is to have any chance at succeeding the conceptual interpretation must be the right one.[4]
Now let's assume that P2 is true. Since P1 is a conceptual truth about what God is, P1 and P2 amount to the following, more expanded conceptual truth:
(G) God is an existing being with every other perfection in addition to existence.
In other words, because P1 says that the concept of God is that of a being with all perfections, and P2 says that existence is one of these perfections, together they amount to saying that the concept of God is that of an existing being with every other perfection in addition to existence. Thus, the simple and straightforward conclusion above that "God has existence" means only that existence belongs to the concept of God. But even if God is properly conceptualized as a certain kind of existing being, this does not necessarily entail that he exists. To see why, consider an analogous case. The following proposition is a conceptual truth:
(RU) A real unicorn is an existing being with the body of a horse and a single horn coming out of its forehead.
RU says that the concept of a real unicorn is that of an existing being with the body of a horse and a single horn coming out of its forehead, which of course implies that existence belongs to the concept of a real unicorn.[5] But even though a real unicorn is properly conceptualized as a certain kind of existing being, this does not entail that any real unicorns exist since there are surely no such things. Thus, the conceptualization of something as a certain kind of existing being does not necessarily entail that this something is instantiated.[6] So the conceptualization of God as a certain kind of existing being does not necessarily entail that God exists. Descartes' inference, then, is quite dubious.
On the other hand, perhaps the concept of God is a special case where Descartes' premises do entail God's existence. While the perfect-making feature of existence that belongs to the concept of God and the concept of a real unicorn is not sufficient to show that either exists, perhaps the concept of God has some other perfect-making feature—or some combination of such features—that renders Descartes' argument valid.[7] However, there does not seem to be any such feature or combination of features. Besides existence, the concept of God includes the perfect-making attributes of omniscience, omnipotence, all-lovingness, perfect rationally, complete metaphysical freedom, eternality, immutability, and infinite goodness. But none of these, taken alone or together, seem to imply the coinstantiation of them all in a single being. After all, we can apparently conceive of several possible worlds in which these attributes are not coinstantiated—any world in which one or more of these attributes is not instantiated is such a world. And since the concept of God remains the same in every possible world, it seems that God's nonexistence is possible even if Descartes' premises are (necessarily) true. And this would make his argument invalid.
Another possibility is that Descartes' premises entail God's existence because a contradiction follows from the conjunction of these premises and the supposition that God does not exist. Now the only attempt to demonstrate such a contradiction (that I know of) comes from St. Anselm, and this deserves some comment. In a nutshell, Anselm thinks that God's nonexistence entails that God is not a perfect being, which contradicts P1. This entailment stems from the following line of reasoning. From P2 we know that existing is better than not existing. So if God does not exist, then it follows that he could be better. But if he could be better, then he must not be perfect. So if God does not exist, then he must not be perfect.
However, God's nonexistence does not entail that God is not a perfect being. First of all, the supposition that God does not exist is an ontological claim—that there is nothing that instantiates the concept of God. In order for us to have a genuine contradiction with P1, this supposition must entail the conceptual claim that God is not a perfect being; but it entails no such thing. For even if existing really were better than not existing, all that would actually follow from God's nonexistence is that the ontological status of God could be better—not that God could be better conceptualized and thus is not a perfect being. In fact, the conceptual truth that God is a perfect being is perfectly consistent with his nonexistence; for what God is conceptually (which again remains the same in every possible world) is not affected by there being no God. Thus, an Anselmian attempt to demonstrate that a contradiction follows from the conjunction of Descartes' premises and the supposition of God's nonexistence does not work.
Given the above considerations, Descartes' argument seems to be invalid. Assuming that his concept of God is a coherent one, it is probably like the concept of a real unicorn: it only specifies what counts as an instantiation of the concept. It does not entail, or in any way suggest, that there is such an instantiation. Whether there is such an instantiation is a completely independent issue.[8]
Even aside from the fact that Descartes' argument appears to be invalid, P2 is a rather dubious premise and is probably false, as it seems misguided to say that existence increases the perfection of a thing. For example, we might think of "a perfect friend" as someone that: (a) we never fight with, become frustrated with, or become turned off by; (b) is always there to support us, care for us, and provide assistance when able; (c) spends the exact amount of time doing fun things with us as we wish; and (d) wants to be our friend and likes us for who we are. Whether a person like this actually exists seems utterly irrelevant to whether this kind of a person would be a perfect friend. Obviously it may be better for us and our well-being if there were such a friend. It might even make the world a better place if there were such a friend. But none of this implies that a real person who fits this description would be a better friend than a fictional person from a story who fits the description. Instead, both would be perfect friends, yet one would exist while the other does not.
Similar considerations apply to God. God is thought to be a perfect being because he possesses properties like omniscience, omnipotence, full rationality, and infinite goodness; existence has nothing to do with it. Of course, it may be better for us or the world if God exists. But this does not mean that an actual being that possesses all of the properties that make a being perfect is any more perfect than a fictional character that also possesses all of these properties. Instead, it seems that the real being and the fictional character are both equally perfect beings, but the former exists and the latter does not. Thus existence seems irrelevant to a thing's perfection, and so P2 is probably false.
Because P2 is probably false, and because Descartes' theistic argument from perfection seems to be invalid in any case, the argument provides no support for theism.
III. Inductive Atheistic Arguments from Perfection
As far as I know, my arguments in this section are uniquely my own, though it would not surprise me if they had occurred to someone else before. They do not purport to establish atheism conclusively, but probabilistically. The first evidential argument that atheism is probably true (or at least more likely to be true than not) runs as follows:
(P1) God is a perfect thing (a perfect being).
(P2) Perfect things are usually nonexistent idealizations of real things.
(P3) Perfect things are unlikely to exist. (from P2)
(C) Therefore, it is unlikely that God exists. (from P3 and P1)
That God is a perfect being is a necessary truth from Descartes' theistic argument, and it entails P1. P2 states an empirical observation—that things we call "perfect" are usually idealizations of real things. For example, in the last section I mentioned what a "perfect friend" might be like, yet it is doubtful that anyone has a perfect friend in real life. Anyone who says that so-and-so is a perfect friend is probably exaggerating, and will freely admit it if hard-pressed and not gushing with emotion. The same goes for intimate partners, children, pets, parents, bosses and employees, teachers and students, schools, jobs, cars, computers, houses, philosophers, and so on. Perfection in any of these categories tends to be an idealization of real things, where the good aspects are preserved and perfected while the bad aspects are eliminated. The idealization is rarely if ever instantiated. From P2 we can infer P3: something said to be "perfect" is unlikely to exist because perfect things tend to be nonexistent idealizations of real things. The conclusion then follows from P3 and P1: since perfect things are unlikely to exist and God is a perfect thing, it follows that it is unlikely that God exists.
Furthermore, we could discard P3 and modify the argument to produce the following argument instead:
(P1) God is a perfect thing (a perfect being).
(P2) Perfect things are usually nonexistent idealizations of real things.
(C') Therefore, it is likely that God is a nonexistent idealization of a real thing.
Because perfect things are usually nonexistent idealizations of real things, and God is a perfect thing, it follows that it is likely that God is also a nonexistent idealization of a real thing—a person.[9]
In addition to the empirical support from P2, C' is supported by other considerations. It is a well-known platitude that people are imperfect in various ways; we are error-prone and very limited in terms of knowledge, power, and freedom, and although we can be morally good, we quite often are not. God, on the other hand, is conceived of as the perfect superperson: maximally knowledgeable and powerful, completely free, fully rational, and morally perfect. Moreover, many people tend to create ideal, unattainable standards and fantasize about how perfect things could have been when reflecting on their flaws, so it is very likely that God reflects a nonexistent idealization of a person.
IV. A Deductive Atheistic Argument from Perfection
While the inductive arguments of the previous section were probabilistic, a deductive atheistic argument from perfection makes a stronger claim—it purports to demonstrate a logical inconsistency between God and our imperfect world.[10] I have reconstructed this deductive argument as follows:
(Q1) God is a perfect being that created the universe.
(Q2) If God exists, then the world is perfect before the creation of the universe.
(Q3) God would not make the world worse in virtue of his moral perfection.
(Q4) If God exists, then the world is perfect during and after the creation of the universe. (from Q2 and Q3)
(Q5) If God exists, then the world is perfect. (from Q2 and Q4)
(Q6) The world is imperfect.
(C) Therefore, God does not exist. (from Q5 and Q6)
Here I use "world" to represent the totality of everything, including God and any other precreation entities that might exist, and use "universe" to represent all of the contingent things that come into existence through God's creation. Like P1 from the arguments of the previous sections, Q1 is a conceptual truth about God. In fact, Q1 simply restates P1 and adds the clause "that created the universe." As such, Q1 is also a necessary truth. Q2 also appears to be a necessary truth. For suppose that God exists. Since he is, conceptually speaking, the eternally existing creator of the universe, it follows from our supposition that God existed eternally before the creation of the universe. Moreover, nothing else besides abstract, necessary entities will exist with God before the creation of the universe. But since God is a perfect being, and only he and abstract, necessary entities will exist before the creation of the universe, it seems that the world would be perfect in this state. So God's existence seems to entail the perfection of the world before the creation of the universe. Q3 is another necessary truth based on God's nature as a morally perfect being. Q4 follows from Q2 and Q3: if God exists and would not make the world worse, then the world during and after the creation of the universe must be as perfect as the world was before its creation. Q5 then follows from Q2 and Q4: if God's existence entails the perfection of the world before, during, and after the addition of the universe (which are the only possible states of a theistic world), then God's existence entails the perfection of the world without qualification. Q6 is the putative contingent fact that the world is imperfect. Q6 conjoined with Q5 entails that God does not exist via modus tollens.
The premise that requires defense from possible objections the most is probably Q2. A critic might contest Q2 by arguing that a world consisting of only God and abstract entities cannot be perfect because abstract entities are not themselves perfect, and a perfect world cannot have anything that is not perfect. However, this argument fails because a perfect world can contain things that, while not perfect themselves, are irrelevant to the world's perfection—or perhaps even enhance it. In fact, abstract entities like numbers or propositions, even if they are not themselves perfect[11], seem to fit into one of these two categories. To see why, compare a world with only God (world G) versus a world with God, numbers, and propositions (world G+). If it is true that perfect worlds consist of only perfect things, and that worlds with only perfect things are perfect, then G would be a perfect world while G+ must be an imperfect one—and so G would be better than G+. But why think that abstract entities make G+ imperfect and thus worse than G? They are not flaws or blemishes, so it is not clear why they would be (or how they could be) responsible for the imperfection of G+. Instead, it seems more reasonable to treat both worlds as perfect ones, which makes abstract entities irrelevant to worldly perfection. On the other hand, those with a fondness for numbers and propositions may argue that they actually make G+ better than G, so even though they are not themselves perfect things, numbers and propositions nonetheless enhance the world's perfection. Either way, abstract entities do not prevent a theistic, preuniverse world from being perfect.
Perhaps a more promising way to contest Q2 is to contend that even though God is a perfect being, this does not entail that the preuniverse world consisting of only God and abstract objects is a perfect world or state of affairs. The standard of perfection for worlds or states of affairs is not the same as that for individual beings, so the perfection of an individual being does not entail that of a world or state of affairs that contains it. Because God's existence does not guarantee a perfect preuniverse world, the objection goes, Q2 is a dubious premise that may very well be false.
In response to this objection, we could point out that God is often thought to be perfection itself—that is, perfection in an unqualified sense. And because the preuniverse world consists of only God and abstract objects, it would consist of perfection itself and nothing to subtract from that perfection. Thus, God's existence entails the perfection of the preuniverse world, and so Q2 is true. Of course, for the response to succeed God must be perfection in an unqualified sense and not just a perfect individual being. For if God is only a perfect individual being, the objection that God's existence does not entail the perfection of a theistic, preuniverse world still stands.
However, even if God is only a perfect individual being—and not perfection in an unqualified sense—it is still quite plausible that the preuniverse world consisting of only this perfect being and abstract objects is a perfect world. First of all, this world with only God and abstract objects contains complete metaphysical freedom, complete justice, absolute peace, great beauty (perhaps even unspeakable beauty), perfect rationality, maximal power and knowledge, perfect moral agency (which includes the virtuous character traits to the highest degree and the complete absence of negative traits), self-respect and self-trust, love (at least insofar as God is love and loves himself), and great pleasure and joy (perhaps even infinite joy). Moreover, this world does not contain any negative things like suffering, injustice, terrible individuals and horrific actions, conflict and war, frustration, or deception.
Now, given what this world both has and does not have, it certainly seems to be perfect. For what blemish or flaw does it contain? What does it have or lack that pushes it away from worldly perfection? Given that neither God nor abstract objects would be responsible for worldly flaws or blemishes, the world must lack something in order to be imperfect; yet the prospects of identifying what this lack could be do not look good. It certainly is not some imperfect thing like human beings in their current form, as the addition of such imperfect beings would render the world imperfect, for we are the source of many of the world's flaws and blemishes.
Might this lack be found in some other perfect thing(s) besides God? This suggestion does not seem to work. To see why, suppose that some other perfect entity P is added to the theistic, preuniverse world. Even if we suppose that this new world with God, P, and abstract objects is perfect, it is still unclear why the original world with only God and abstract objects would be imperfect. For what does P add to the world to boost it into perfection? Why wouldn't we say that even though these two worlds are different, both are nonetheless perfect? The fact that they are different seems to be no obstacle to the perfection of both. For example, two different people could nonetheless be perfect friends for someone, or two days with different contents could nonetheless be perfect for someone. A difference in content does not imply a difference in perfection.[12] Of course, the original world lacks the hypothesized perfect entity P while the new one does not, but this lack of something that is perfect in its own right does not entail worldly imperfection. For example, a friend may lack perfect facial symmetry, but this lack does not entail an imperfect friend. Or a day may lack a perfect trip to some nearby destination, but this lack does not entail an imperfect day. Therefore, the original world with only God and abstract objects can still be perfect, even though it lacks P.
Furthermore, adding another perfect entity, and another, and another ad infinitum would not do any better than simply adding P, for it would still be a mystery why the original world with only God and abstract objects was imperfect rather than simply different from other perfect worlds. Finally, this mystery would not be solved by simply asserting that there is no perfect possible world, just like there (supposedly) is no best possible world. That route not only fails to explain why the world with only God and abstract objects is imperfect, but merely assumes it to be the case. In fact, this assertion begs an even stronger question: it assumes that none of the possible worlds with only perfect entities and abstract objects would be perfect. So until shown otherwise, it is quite plausible that a theistic, preuniverse world consisting of only God and abstract objects is perfect.
One final way to argue for the imperfection of a theistic, preuniverse world is to note that while this world has many good things, it still has a rather limited or impoverished range of goods. For example, it lacks things like friendship, love and trust between different individuals, care, compassion, courage, learning, community, and religious goods like hope and faith. Since the presence of such goods makes a world better than it would be in their absence, the theistic, preuniverse world would be a better world if it had them, and thus is imperfect because it does not. Therefore, Q2 is false.
This argument is persuasive, as it is quite intuitive to think that the absence of such goods signals room for worldly improvement, and thus the imperfection of the theistic, preuniverse world. Nonetheless, I think that this intuitive assumption is probably false, or at least highly questionable. To support this I will consider each of the aforementioned goods in turn and try to show that their absence from the theistic, preuniverse world does not necessarily signal its imperfection, and thereby undermine Q2.
I will begin with compassion and courage. Because God is a supremely compassionate and courageous being, the absence of compassion and courage from a theistic, preuniverse world can only be an absence of compassionate and courageous responses to negative things that call for them. These are surely absent in such a world since there is no negativity to respond to. However, they are also absent in the negativity-free place called Heaven, yet their presence would certainly not make Heaven better—it is, after all, conceived of as a perfect place. On the contrary, the presence of these responses would actually make Heaven worse—thereby obliterating its heavenly status—by bringing with them the negativity that they require. Thus the presence of these responses does not necessarily result in worldly improvement, and may even have the opposite result. And this means that their absence from the theistic, preuniverse world does not necessarily signal its imperfection, and may even point towards its perfection. In fact, the presence of these responses makes a world better than it would be without them only when something negative that calls for them has already happened—they are not intrinsic goods that are sought for their own sake. Consequently, it is not better to have them and the negativity they require than to have neither. For example, we do not value compassionate responses so much that we seek to harm people just to produce such responses. We only value their presence over their absence once suffering has already occurred. Put another way, though it is better to have these responses over no responses once suffering has already occurred, it is ultimately better to have no suffering and no associated compassionate responses than to have both. Indeed, this is suggested by compassionate responses themselves: since they inherently aim to eliminate suffering, it is the absence of suffering—which entails the absence of the compassionate responses produced by such suffering—that is the ultimate or greatest value here.[13] So the absence of compassionate and courageous responses from the theistic, preuniverse world does not signal its imperfection. Instead, it points towards its perfection in virtue of its absence of both these responses and their required negativity.
Now consider the goods of learning, care, community, friendship, and love and trust between different individuals. Their presence appears to make a world better than it would be without them only if the world contains beings that need or can benefit from such things. Similarly, the absence of food and clean water causes suffering or discontent for certain creatures, and so a world with food and clean water to benefit its creatures is better than one without such necessities. But since God has no need for (and would secure no benefit from) food and clean water, their presence would not improve the theistic, preuniverse world. And this means that their absence from this world does not signal its imperfection. I think the same is true for learning, care, community, friendship, and love and trust. When there are creatures that need or could benefit from learning and care, their presence certainly makes the world better than it would be without such goods. But since God is all-knowing, all-powerful, and completely independent and self-subsisting, he is not the kind of being that could need or benefit from the acquisition of knowledge or care. When there are beings that need or could benefit from friendship, community, and love and trust between each other, their presence certainly makes the world better than it would be without them. But again, God is a completely independent, self-subsisting, absolutely perfect being—that is, the ideal being. If God was in need of or could benefit from these goods, then he would not be perfect. He might be a very good being, but he would not be the ideal that is complete in every way and has no shortcomings or room for improvement. This is not to say that God cannot like or enjoy such goods; it only means that God would be just as fulfilled in their absence as in their presence. Thus, the presence of these goods would not improve the theistic, preuniverse world, and so their absence does not signal its imperfection.
Finally we come to the religious goods of hope and faith. I take hope to be something like desiring and thinking that things will turn out well. But hope requires the worrisome possibility that things will not turn out well, which is obviously a bad thing. So it is not clear why the presence of hope along with its cost makes a world better than it would be without them both. Again, consider Heaven: it is a perfect place and things will stay that way, so there is no worrisome possibility that things will not turn out well. Thus Heaven's denizens have no hopes.[14] However, the presence of hope would not make Heaven better; as an already perfect place it simply could not be better. So the presence of hope would not only fail to improve Heaven, but make it worse—for it would bring with it the worrisome possibility that things may not turn out well. Thus, the presence of hope does not necessarily result in worldly improvement, and may even have the opposite result. So the absence of hope from the theistic, preuniverse world does not necessarily signal its imperfection, and may even point towards its perfection. At best, hope is akin to compassionate and courageous responses, whose presence makes a world better only when there is something bad that calls for it (like the worrisome possibility that things may not turn out well in the case of hope). And hope only makes a world better when there are beings that need or can benefit from it. But since there is no worrisome possibility that things may not turn out well, and no beings that need or can benefit from hope in the theistic, preuniverse world, its presence would not improve this world. So again, the absence of hope does not signal the imperfection of such a world.
As for faith, I am not sure what it amounts to in this context. It cannot simply refer to belief in God's existence, for this is not absent from the theistic, preuniverse world—God certainly believes that he exists! In fact, belief in God has a 100% acceptance rate, and is absolutely certain and never waivers in such a world, so it is as high as it can possibly be, and thus cannot possibly be improved. Faith also cannot simply refer to the belief that God is in control, or that God is the kind of being that will always do the right thing, or always ensure that things will turn out for the best. For, once again, God believes these things about himself with certainty. So what religious good of faith is missing from the theistic, preuniverse world?
I can think of a few possibilities. Perhaps faith refers to a particular kind of belief (one not open to God himself) in God's existence and good character—namely, one held either: (a) with strong yet inconclusive evidence showing it to be probably true, but not certainly so; (b) with insufficient or no evidence to back it up as likely or plausibly true; or (c) with no supporting evidence and in the face of strong evidence to the contrary. However, it is hard to see how the presence of any of these options would improve the theistic, preuniverse world. Option (c) involves theistic belief that is patently irrational, a bad thing whose presence would obliterate the perfect rationality of the theistic, preuniverse world, thereby making it worse. Option (b) would also involve irrational theistic belief on the assumption that it is always irrational to believe something with insufficient or no evidence suggesting its truth. But let's assume that this criterion for rational belief is too strict, and so (b) involves theistic belief that is at least rationally permissible. Option (a) definitely involves rational theistic belief. But even if both (a) and (b) involve warranted theistic belief, adding either would not increase the perfect rationality of the theistic, preuniverse world. Moreover, neither option increases the rate (100% belief) and strength (absolute certainty) of warranted theistic belief in this world. So in either case there is no improvement in the theistic, preuniverse world, and so the absence of either does not signal the imperfection of that world. Furthermore, if everyone in Heaven is directly in God's presence and knows exactly where they are, then they have the same kind of belief in God's existence and good character that God himself has—wwhich is not the kind of belief involved in any of the three options above. Like hope, these kinds of theistic belief have no place in Heaven, and yet their absence does not signal the imperfection of Heaven. At best, it is better for humans on earth to have one of these kinds of theistic belief than to not have any theistic belief at all, an idea which is of course dubious on other grounds. But even if this is granted, the example of Heaven shows that the absence of such belief does not categorically signal worldly imperfection.
I can think of one more thing that might constitute the religious good of faith. For many people, faith is more than just belief in God—it involves religious activity like praying, worshipping, going to church, or even evangelizing. Since there is none of this in the theistic, preuniverse world, belief-plus-activity is a good candidate for the good of faith we are seeking. But again, why think that the presence of such faith would improve the theistic, preuniverse world? For starters, there is no evangelizing in Heaven since everyone is already in the presence of God and thus wholeheartedly believes in his existence and good character. Moreover, there is probably no praying in Heaven, as there is no need for: (a) the psychological benefit that it can provide for us here on earth; (b) attempts to communicate with God indirectly and from a distance; or (c) requesting that things go well, since that is guaranteed by being in Heaven. But again, if Heaven is a perfect place, then this means that the absence of these things does not signal its imperfection. As with the presence of hope, bringing evangelizing and prayer into Heaven would actually make Heaven worse, as evangelizing comes with the cost of nonbelief, while prayer comes with the cost of distance from God and the epistemic possibility that things will not go well (presupposed by requesting through prayer that things do go well). Thus, the absence of such things does not necessarily signal a world's imperfection, and may actually point towards its perfection. Moreover, and again at best, evangelizing makes a world better than it would be without it only when there is nonbelief that calls for evangelizing, or when there are beings that can benefit from acquiring theistic belief. And prayer makes a world better than it would be without it only when there are beings that can benefit from it. But since there is no nonbelief, and no beings that can benefit from acquiring theistic belief or from prayer in the theistic, preuniverse world, the absence of these goods does not signal its imperfection.
Assume for the sake of argument that going to church and worshipping God are aspects of Heaven, and so do not fall prey to the perfection of Heaven objection that I have pressed repeatedly. Even so, I do not think that they do the job for a reason that should be very familiar by now. Like some of the other goods I have considered, their presence seems at best to make a world better than it would be without them only when there are beings that can benefit from such things, and such beings are of course absent from the theistic, preuniverse world. Thus, the presence of these goods would not improve this world, and so their absence does not necessarily signal its imperfection.
Perhaps, one might object, God could benefit from being worshipped; in fact, in traditional religious texts he is portrayed as needing it so much that he threatens people with severe punishment for not doing so. However, this portrayal of God is extremely problematic in its own right—it attributes insecure, psychologically dependent, cruel, and unjust behavior to an independent, self-subsisting, infinitely good, absolutely perfect being that knows how excellent he is and thus must have the highest possible level of self-confidence and self-respect. While he might enjoy being worshipped, as he might enjoy friendship or love between him and another, he must be at least as happy and content in its absence as he would be in its presence, for he is the perfect, ideal being. The presence of worship still would not necessarily improve the theistic, preuniverse world, and so, again, the absence of the former does not necessarily signal the imperfection of the latter.
On the other hand, maybe churchgoing and God-worship are goods that have nothing to do with any kind of benefit to worshipping humans or the worshipped God. Perhaps these goods only concern giving God what he deserves—giving him his due—and thus their presence makes the world better than it would be without them, regardless of any benefit they may have for any party. In fact, the same line of reasoning could apply to other goods I have discussed, such as community, friendship, and love between different individuals. Their presence might make the world better than it would be without them, apart from any benefits they might confer.
However, this sort of categorical evaluative judgment is problematic because it completely ignores what background conditions contribute to our straightforward comparisons about which worlds are better than others. For example, a world where God is given his due by other creatures is clearly better than one where creatures do not give God his due. But we are able to make this comparison because both worlds contain the same background condition: the presence of other, non-God creatures (which may or may not give God his due, as they should). Without holding this background condition constant across the worlds we are comparing, we are dealing with a completely different comparison of worlds—comparing a world with other creatures giving God his due versus one without any non-God creatures at all and thus no due-giving. Because this does not compare a world with creatures giving God his due versus one where creatures fail to give God his due, we cannot assume that the presence of giving God his due makes the world better than it would be without this good. In other words, we cannot assume that giving God his due categorically makes a world better than it would be without due-giving. The same point applies to other goods that might be thought to categorically improve worlds—they probably make an improvement only in the presence of certain background conditions. At this point the onus is on the critic of Q2 to show why background conditions do not have an effect on whether the goods in question improve worlds.
This completes my attempt to thoroughly defend Q2 against a rather powerful counterargument. While I have not discussed every single good that is absent from the theistic, preuniverse world (which would be quite a tall order), I did discuss some very important goods, such as friendship and love between different individuals, and found that none of them necessarily signal the imperfection of such a world. Therefore, it is still quite plausible that the theistic, preuniverse world is a perfect world, and thus Q2 is plausibly true.
But a critic might yet contest Q5, or more specifically, the inference from Q2 and Q4 to Q5. This critic could argue that even though a theistic world is indeed perfect before, during, and right after the creation of the universe, this does not entail that the world will remain perfect after the creation of the universe. Any loss of perfection could not be attributable to God since he is morally perfect, but might result from some aspect of his contingently created universe (e.g., free human beings). However, it is probably false that a world could be absolutely perfect yet not remain so, for it is absurd to think that a world is truly perfect if it contains some feature that will (or even could) make it worse. Surely it would be a better world if it had no such features.[15] Thus, a perfect world before, during, and right after the creation of the universe does entail that the world will remain perfect. The objection fails to undermine Q5.
The final premise that a critic could contest is Q6, though most people probably would not contest it. For it seems obvious that the world in which we live is full of flaws and blemishes; there is a plethora of suffering, injustice, immoral actions and terrible individuals, conflict and war, and plenty of misperception and intentional deception. If the addition of our universe to the world brings so much imperfection, how can the postuniverse world be as perfect as the preuniverse one with only God and abstract objects? Isn't it absurd to think that worldly perfection can be preserved by adding the imperfection mentioned above? Not only does the addition of this universe render the world imperfect, but it pushes it very far away from the perfection of a theistic, preuniverse world.
Nonetheless, a critic may contest Q6. One way of doing so is an appeal to epistemic skepticism: the world appears to be imperfect, but it really is not. Put simply, its perfection is mysterious. However, in addition to being as implausible and ridiculous as the claim "Ryan Stringer is really (and mysteriously) a devout Christian," it is self-defeating: the supposedly false appearance of imperfection is a deceptive appearance, and such deception is a blemish or imperfection. Therefore, an appeal to mystery cannot undermine Q6.
Another option for the critic would be use of an analogical argument. For example, a perfect food dish or musical piece might be composed of some imperfect parts or features that do not taste or sound good when taken in isolation, yet form a perfect whole when combined in a certain way with other parts. The world might be the same way: some of its parts or features are imperfect (or bad) when taken in isolation, but they form a perfect whole when combined with others. But this clever line of reasoning does not work, for the analogy between things like worlds and musical pieces or food dishes is quite poor. For starters, entire worlds are very different from musical pieces and food dishes—worlds not only contain musical pieces and food dishes as components, but also have several other components that are very different from these things.[16] Moreover, while it is not entirely clear how worldly components form a world, it is certainly clear that they are not combined to form a world like musical parts or ingredients that are literally combined to form musical pieces or food dishes. However, it is the particular combination of the musical parts or ingredients that is crucial for the perfection of the whole. Thus the thought that worlds might be relevantly similar to musical pieces and food dishes is initially quite tenuous.
Furthermore, it is unclear just how a world with the imperfect features that I mentioned above could be perfect. But without a plausible explanation here, the analogy is merely a slightly more detailed appeal to mystery: our world with some imperfect parts might be perfect, just like perfect musical pieces or food dishes with some imperfect parts, but just how this works for worlds is mysterious. On the other hand, we can offer an explanation for how perfect musical pieces and food dishes can have imperfect parts[17]: when we hear the musical parts combined in a certain way, or eat the ingredients prepared in a certain way, they take on a unique sound or taste that is distinct from the sound or taste of the musical parts or ingredients individually. In the case of musical pieces, the distinct sound has to do with how the individual musical parts are played in relation to each other and when they are played, which results in sound waves that are different from those produced by the parts played in isolation. In the case of food dishes, the distinct taste has to do with the interplay of mixing certain ingredients with others at certain times or in certain ways, and chemically altering the ingredients with things like heating and stirring, which results in food that is different than the ingredients taken in isolation. The difference between the individual parts and the distinct whole in each case will then lead to different experiences of sound or taste, which in turn can admit of different (or opposing) evaluations.
Finally, there is a crucial disanalogy between the perfection of worlds and that of complex musical pieces or food dishes. On the one hand, musical pieces and food dishes are not mere collections of individual components, but are distinct wholes that result from the specific combining of these components. As such, their perfection is based on their unique sound or taste as a distinct whole—the sound or taste of their components taken individually does not factor into this evaluation. On the other hand, the perfection of worlds is not determined in this independent fashion, but is instead a direct function of its components taken individually, such that any negative component entails worldly imperfection, and perfection entails the absence of negative components.[18] As such, worlds are similar to the individual days we live through, or entire lifetimes, which are also rendered imperfect in virtue of negative components. Therefore, because the actual world quite obviously contains negative components like those mentioned above, and because these contribute to worldly imperfection, Q6 is true.
V. Conclusion
I have argued that Descartes' argument from perfection for the existence of God fails because its conclusion (a) does not seem to follow from the premises and (b) rests on a premise that is probably false. Thus theism is not supported by God's essence as a perfect being. On the other hand, I have defended arguments showing atheism to be supported, both inductively and deductively, from God's essence as a perfect being. Therefore, I conclude that God's essence as a perfect being points towards his nonexistence.[19]
CAUSATION AND THE LOGICAL IMPOSSIBILITY OF A DIVINE CAUSE* (1996)
Quentin Smith
Western Michigan University
1. Introduction
Some interesting light is thrown on the nature of causation, the origin of the universe, and arguments for atheism if we address the question: Is it logically possible that the universe has an originating divine cause?
I think that virtually all contemporary theists, agnostics and atheists believe this is logically possible. Indeed, the main philosophical tradition from Plato to the present has assumed that the sentence, "God is the originating cause of the universe", does not express a logical contradiction, even though many philosophers have argued that this sentence either is synthetic and meaningless (e.g., the logical positivists) or states a synthetic and a priori falsehood (e.g., Kant and Moore), or states a synthetic and a posteriori falsehood (e.g., contemporary defenders of the probabilistic argument from evil).
I believe the prevalence of this assumption is due to the fact that philosophers have not undertaken the requisite sort of metaphysical investigation into the nature of causation. This investigation is the purpose of this paper; specifically, I shall argue that the thesis that the universe has an originating divine cause is logically inconsistent with all extant definitions of causality and with a logical requirement upon these and all possible valid definitions or theories of causality. I will conclude that the cosmological and teleological arguments for a cause of the universe may have some force but that these arguments, traditionally understood as arguments for the existence of God, are in fact arguments for the nonexistence of God.
2. Causal Definitions and the Notion of an Originating Divine Cause
Something is a continuing cause of the universe if and only if it causes each state of the universe. Something is an originating cause of the universe if and only if it causes the earliest state of the universe. If time is continuous, "the earliest state" may refer to an instantaneous state or (if the universe's history is half-open in the earlier direction) to a temporally extended state of some given length.
If big bang cosmology is true, the universe began to exist about 15 billion years ago with the big bang. The big bang is the earliest state of the universe; "the big bang" may be taken to refer to a singularity that constitutes the first instantaneous state of the universe or (if one "cuts out" the singularity) to an explosion that constitutes the first half-open state of some brief length, e.g. the Planck length, 10-43second. In my discussion, I shall treat the big bang as a logically possible example of an earliest state of the universe.
Considerations of agent causality are not germane to our discussion; our topic is the cause of the universe's beginning to exist, not the cause of God's act of willing that the universe begin to exist. We are not examining the relation between God (the agent) and his act of willing (the effect), but the relation between his act of willing (an event) and the beginning of the universe (another event). Thus, definitions of agent causality are irrelevant to our arguments; we are interested only in definitions of event causality, where the cause and effect are both events.
HUME'S DEFINITION OF A CAUSE
The most famous and influential definition of a cause is Hume's definition; indeed, most contemporary definitions include conditions that are similar in some respect to at least one of the three conditions included in Hume's definition:
"Contiguity in time and place is therefore a requisite circumstance to the operation of all causes...Priority in time is...another requisite circumstance in every case....[A] third circumstance [is] that of constant conjunction betwixt the cause and the effect. Every object like the cause produces always some object like the effect. Beyond these three circumstances of contiguity, priority, and constant conjunction I can discover nothing in this cause."[1]
Hume's definition includes three conditions for being a cause: temporal priority, spatio-temporal contiguity, and a nomological relation ("every object like the cause produces always some object like the effect".)
(a) TEMPORAL PRIORITY
If time began to exist with the universe, the "temporal priority" condition of Hume's definition implies that the universe cannot be caused to begin to exist since there is no earlier time at which the cause could occur.
Even if there is time before the universe, the "temporal priority" condition rules out an originating divine cause if all divine acts are timeless.
However, the "temporal priority" condition only shows the universe cannot have an originating divine cause if time began to exist with the universe or if all divine acts are timeless. It is logically possible that time preceded the beginning of the universe, even if there are no known laws of physics according to which the physical variable t can take values earlier than the time at which space and mass-energy began to exist. Further, it is logically possible that God exists in time and that a pre-universe time is occupied by God's mental life, which includes his volitions. Thus, it is logically possible for a divine volition to meet the "temporal priority" condition of Hume's definition. The intractable problems begin with the other two conditions.
(b) SPATIO-TEMPORAL CONTIGUITY
Hume's and many other definitions of causality require that the causal event is spatially in contact with, or is spatially near to, the effect. God is said to be omnipresent, but this means she is conscious of and stands in a volitional relation to each physical particular. It does not mean that divine volitions, which are non-physical, touch or are in the spatial vicinity of the physical particulars that are the objects of these volitions.
God's act of willing that the big bang occurs is not spatio-temporally contiguous with the big bang since this act of willing does not have spatial coordinates. c and e are spatio-temporally contiguous only if the spatial coordinates x, y, z that locate c on a manifold either are identical with the spatial coordinates x', y' ,z' of e, or locate c in the neighborhood of e.
(c) NOMOLOGICAL RELATEDNESS
The third feature of Hume's definition, the nomological condition ("every object like the cause produces always some object like the effect"), is also common to many definitions of causality. Hume's definition belongs to the line of reductive definitions that define causes in terms of laws of nature and a set of non-causal relations (such as temporal priority and spatio-temporal contiguity) between two particulars c and e.[2] According to these definitions, c is a cause of e only if there is a law of nature L that enables a statement that e occurs to be deduced from the premises that c occurs and that the law L obtains. For example, Carl Hempel writes[3]: "a 'cause' must be allowed to be a more or less complex set of circumstances or events, which might be described by a set of statements C1, C2, . . . Ck. ....Thus the causal explanation implicitly claims that there are general laws- -let us say, L1, L2, . . . Lk--in virtue of which the occurrence of the causal antecedents mentioned in C1, C2, . . . Ck is a sufficient condition for the occurrence of the explanadum event." A probabilistic law L may be permitted as well, in which case "to be deduced from" would be replaced by "to be inductively supported by".
However, the nomological condition for being a cause is logically inconsistent with a divine cause of the big bang, since God by definition is a supernatural being and his or her actions are not governed by laws of nature. Furthermore, the fact that God's willing is omnipotent makes "the big bang occurs" deducible from "God wills that the big bang occur" alone, without the need of any supplementary nomological premise, thus vitiating the condition that a nomological premise is a logically necessary condition for the derivation of the conclusion that the effect exists from premises one of which is that the causal event occurs.
At this point, we have already ruled out virtually every extant definition of causality, since most every definition includes either the spatio-temporal contiguity condition or the nomological condition. We are left with non-contiguity and singularist definitions of causality.
A non-contiguity definition does not mention spatio-temporal contiguity and does not require the cause to be both temporally and spatially contiguous with the effect; variants of non-contiguity definitions may allow for timeless divine acts and/or temporal divine acts that are not spatially nearby or in contact with the effect. A singularist definition allows an event to cause an effect in a single case, without the cause and effect needing to instantiate some law. However, the extant formulations that are singularist and/or noncontiguity definitions are few and far between and prove problematic for a defender of the logical possibility of an originating divine cause.
DUCASSE'S SINGULARIST DEFINITION OF A CAUSE
The most famous singularist definition of a cause is J. C. Ducasse's. Ducasse's conception "defines the cause of a particular event in terms of but a single occurrence of it, and thus in no way involves the supposition that it, or one like it, ever has occurred before or ever will again. The supposition of recurrence is thus wholly irrelevant to the meaning of cause; that supposition is relevant only to the meaning of law."[4] Since the nomological condition is explicitly rejected, it seems this definition applies to God's willing that the big bang occurs.
However, further inspection of Ducasse's definition shows it does not apply, since his definition requires spatio-temporal contiguity. Ducasse claims the cause c is a sufficient condition of the effect e and that c is sufficient for e if (i) c is a change that occurred during a time and throughout a space terminating at an instant i at a surface s of an object; (ii) the change e occurred during a time and through a space beginning at the instant i at the surface s; (iii) no change other than c occurred during the time and through the space of c, and (iv) no change other than e occurred during the time and through the space of e.[5] Thus, Ducasse's account meets the singularist criterion, but not the non-contiguity criterion. (Although Ducasse calls his account a "definition" of a cause, it is only a partial definition, since he begins his definition with "if", not "if and only if".)
THE TRANSFERENCE DEFINITION OF CAUSE
Another possible candidate for a singularist and non-contiguity definition is based on the transference definition of causation, offered by Hector-Neri Castaneda, Galen Strawson, David Fair, Jerrold Aronson and others.[6] Castaneda states that "the heart of production, or causation, seems, thus, to be transfer or transmission".[7] In the actual world, what is transferred is energy (according to Castaneda), but he uses the word "causity" as a generic term for whatever may be transferred. Can God's volition transfer causity to the big bang?
Castaneda's full theory implies a definition that includes the nomological condition: c is a cause of e if and only if (i) there is a transfer of causity from an object O1 to an object O2 in a circumstance x, with the event c being O1's transmission of causity and the event e being O2's acquisition of causity; (ii) every event of the same category as c that is in a circumstance of the same category as x is conjoined with an event of the same category as e.
Condition (ii) is intended as a nomological condition and thus rules out supernatural causes. But may we isolate (i), "the heart of causation", and successfully argue that a singularist, non-contiguity, and transference condition is satisfied by a divine volition? It appears not, since there is a problem with causity. The causity cannot be identical with energy (Castaneda's claim about the actual identity of causity), since there is no energy in God (God being nonphysical). Indeed, the causity cannot be anything physical, since God is nonphysical. Nor can the causity be anything nonphysical, since the big bang is wholly physical. Thus, there appears to be no viable candidate for the causity transferred.
COUNTERFACTUAL DEFINITIONS OF CAUSATION
David Lewis's definition imports counterfactual conditions into the definition and seems to lend itself to a non-contiguity and singularist conception. According to Lewis, c causes e if and only if (i) c and e are events and both occur and it is the case that either (ii) if c had not occurred, e would not have occurred, or (iii) there is a causal chain linking c and e and each link d in the chain is such that if d had not occurred then e would not have occurred. Since there is no causal chain between a divine volition and the big bang, condition (iii) is inapplicable and we may concentrate on (i) and (ii).
Are the divine volition and the big bang both events? According to J. Kim,[8] an event is a substance exemplifying an n-adic property at a time. Even if there no pre-universe time, this need not rule out the applicability of Kim's definition to God's volition, since we may construe God's volition as simultaneous with the big bang. We may also follow Brian Leftow[9] and allow that the logical position occupied by "at the time t" may be occupied by "at eternity" or "timelessly". Alternately, we could follow Davidson[10] and take an event as a particular that is not further definable and allow that the divine volition is an event even if timeless. This route, or, following Wolterstorff and others[11], taking an event as something's exemplification of an n-adic property (without a time specification), would allow us to consider the divine volition as an event that is either timeless, simultaneous with, or earlier than the big bang. (In these various definitions, "event" and "state" may be taken to be synonyms.)
However, Lewis's counterfactual definition is not instantiated by a divine willing of the big bang. Let c be the divine willing of the big bang and let e be the big bang. If e had not occurred, then c would not have occurred. But this implies the false proposition that e is the cause of c, since c is counterfactually dependent on e. In this case (to use Lewis's words about a problem he generally notes), "we have a spurious reverse causal dependence of c on e, contradicting our supposition that e did not cause c"[12].
Lewis solves this problem by denying the counterfactual "if e had not occurred, c would not have occurred." Lewis holds that it is instead true that "c would have occurred just as it did but would have failed to cause e"[13]. But this entails that Lewis's definition cannot be instantiated by God's willing the big bang, since if c had occurred (if God had willed the big bang) then it necessarily causes e (the big bang); God is omnipotent and his willing is necessarily effective.
In summary, the above considerations suggest that there are no extant definitions of causality that are satisfied by God's willing the big bang to occur; I believe a survey of further extant definitions would show that most of them include at least one of the above-mentioned conditions (contiguity, a nomological condition, etc.) that are violated by the divine volition. The ones that do not include one of the above-mentioned conditions include some other condition that is violated by the divine volition; for example, J. Mackie's definition of an INUS condition implies a cause c is neither necessary nor sufficient for its effect e but is instead an insufficient and non-redundant part of an unnecessary but sufficient condition for e.[14] God's willing the big bang, however, is sufficient for the occurrence of the big bang and thus violates the condition "is neither necessary nor sufficient for its effect".
3. Causes and Logically Sufficient Conditions
It may be responded at this juncture that the failure of God's creation of the big bang to satisfy any of the extant definitions of causality does not imply that God's volitional act is not a cause of the big bang. It may be that the correct definition of causality has not yet been discovered, and that God's willing the big bang satisfies this correct, undiscovered definition. My argument that God cannot be a cause of the universe is at best a "weak inductive argument" based on the definitions that have been formulated by the present point in time.
Further, the preceding considerations suggest a certain definition of causality that is satisfied by the originating divine volition, regardless of whether or not this definition has been defended by anybody. This definition reads: c is a cause of e if and only if c is a sufficient condition of e and c is earlier than e. This definition includes Hume's "temporal priority" condition, but is both singularist and noncontiguous. (A definition is contiguous only if it includes both spatial and temporal contiguity.) This definition cannot be satisfied by an originating divine volition if all divine volitions are timeless or if there is no time before the beginning of the universe. But it is logically possible that there is time before the big bang and that a temporal deity performs a volition that both occurs before the big bang and is a sufficient condition of the big bang's occurrence.
It may also be said that we need not rely on the assumption that the divine volition must satisfy a definition of a cause in order to be a cause. It is arguable that causation is a simple relation, a conceptual primitive, and thus that there is no definition that could capture its nature.[15]
These three responses to my discussion in section #2 are perhaps not unreasonable; indeed, at least the first response (about section #2 presenting an "inductive argument" based only on extant definitions) contains some truth.
However, all three responses are unavailing in face of the following crucial fact: there is an entailment relation between "c is a cause of e" and "c is not a logically sufficient condition of e". It is the case that:
(1) For any two particular events or states x and y, if x is a logically sufficient condition of y, then x is not a cause of y.
For example, a body's being in motion is a logically sufficient condition of the body occupying space, but the body's being in motion is not the cause of the body's occupation of space. However, God's willing that the big bang occurs is a logically sufficient condition of the big bang, for the propositions expressed by "God wills that the big bang occur" and "the big bang does not occur" are logically incompatible. The reason for this is that God is omnipotent and thus his willing is always successful (of logical necessity); if an omnipotent being wills x and x does not occur, then x is not omnipotent, which is a contradiction. (God can do everything that is logically possible; God cannot create a stone that is too heavy for him to lift, but creating such a stone is not a logical possibility. God would never will something to occur if the occurrence of that something were logically impossible--God is omniscient and omnibenevolent and would not knowingly engage in any futile effort.)
The variables in proposition (1) range over particular events or states; they do not range over particular events taken together with laws of nature or universal generalizations under which the particulars are subsumed. As we have seen, the nomological definitions of deterministic causation imply that a particular event c, in conjunction with a law of nature, logically necessitate the event e that is the effect. The sun's shining on a stone, in conjunction with the law that whatever is shined upon is warmed, logically necessitates that the stone is warmed. Proposition (1), however, implies only that the sun's shining on the stone does not logically necessitate the stone's being warmed. The sun's shining on the stone is a non-logically sufficient condition of the stone's being warm (it is nomologically sufficient, in that it is logically sufficient for the stone's being warm only if it is conjoined with some law of nature).
Two objections may be made to my argument that divine volitions are logically sufficient conditions and therefore are not causes.
(Obj. 1) It may be objected that every cause can be described in a way that logically implies the occurrence of its effect, and therefore that divine volitions are not dissimilar to causes. For example, the cause, the explosion that burned down the house, logically necessitates its effect, the burning down of the house, since it is a logical contradiction to assert that "there is an explosion that burned down the house and yet there is no event of the house burning down".
But this objection is fallacious since "the explosion that burned down the house" does not refer merely to the cause but also to the effect. A definite description that refers merely to the causal event can be satisfied consistently with the non-occurrence of the effect; for example, the definite description, "the explosion that occurred in the house", can be satisfied consistently with the non-satisfaction of "the burning down of the house".
The fallaciousness of this objection can be explained more precisely in terms of referentially transparent and referentially opaque contexts. The definite description, "the explosion that resulted in the burning down of the house", is a referentially transparent context; this implies that "the burning down of the house" occupies a position that is open to substitution and quantification in "the explosion that resulted in the burning down of the house. A description of the form "the explosion that resulted in the F" permits co-referring expressions to be substituted for "the F" and if a description of this form is satisfied, it follows that there is an F. Since the description of the effect, "the F", occurs in a referentially transparent context, "the explosion that resulted in the F" refers to both the cause and the effect.
By contrast, the definite description, "the divine willing that the big bang occurs", is a referentially opaque context and refers merely to the divine volition. This description is referentially opaque since it a propositional attitude construction, and positions within attitude constructions are not open to substitution and quantification.[16] Specifically, a definite description of the form, "the willing by x that the F occurs", does not permit substitutions of co-referring expressions for "the F", and "the F" is not open to quantification. This implies that if a description of the form, "the willing by x that the F occurs", is satisfied, it does not follow that there is an F. Since the description of the effect, "the F", occurs in an opaque context, "the willing by x that the F occurs" refers only to the cause.
Given this distinction, we may say that a definite description D of a cause also refers to the effect if and only if D includes a term for the effect that is open to substitution and quantification. A definite description D' of a cause does not refer to the effect if and only if D' either does not contain a term for the effect or contains a term for the effect in an opaque context.
This enables us to state our principle (1) about causes and logically sufficient conditions in semantic terms: the satisfaction of a definite description D of a cause logically implies the existence of the effect if and only if D includes a term for the effect in a referentially transparent context. Since the satisfaction of the definite description, "the divine willing that the big bang occurs", logically implies that the big bang occurs, despite the fact that "the big bang" does not occur in a referentially transparent context, it follows that this description does not refer to a cause.
The reason that the satisfaction of the description, "the divine willing that the big bang occurs", implies there is a big bang is not due to the logical form of the description (the form is opaque), but is due to the content of the description. This content is distinctive in that it makes the relevant conditionals about the divine volition and the big bang logical truths. The expression, "an omnipotent being", means in part a being whose acts of will necessarily actualize what is willed, Thus, the sentence "if an omnipotent being wills that the big bang is actualized, then the big bang is actualized" expresses the same proposition as the sentence, "if an omnipotent being, whose acts of will necessarily actualize what is willed, wills that the big bang is actualized, then the big bang is actualized", which is a truth of logic.
Principle (1) about causes and logically sufficient conditions implies that no causal conditional is a logical theorem, where a causal conditional has the form "if c occurs, then e occurs" and substitutions for "c" are expressions that refer to the cause and do not include a term for the effect in a referentially transparent context.
These restatements of principle (1) in semantic and logical terms suffice to refute the first objection to my argument that the divine volition is not a cause, the objection that "for each cause c and effect e, there is some description of c that logically implies the existence of e".
(Obj. 2) The first objection to my argument about causes and logically sufficient conditions was that divine volitions are not unique since every cause can be described in a way that logically implies the effect. A second objection is that there is some description of God's willing the big bang that does not logically imply that the big bang occurs, and therefore (for this different reason) divine volitions are not dissimilar to causes. The description, "the willing that has for its aim the actualization of the big bang", can be used as a definite description of the relevant divine volition and yet "there occurs the willing that has for its aim the actualization of the big bang, but the big bang is not actualized" is not a logical contradiction. It follows (the objection goes) that God's willing need not be regarded as a logically sufficient condition of the big bang. The objector may argue that the existence of such descriptions implies that whether or not a divine volition logically necessitates the existence of its volitional object is not a fact about the divine volition itself, but is relative to how the volition is described.
But this objection is invalid, since the existence of a description of the divine volition that does not logically imply that the big bang occurs is consistent with the divine volition necessarily possessing the relational property of being conjoined with the occurrence of the big bang. This consistency is an instance of the more general principle that "something that necessarily possesses a certain property F can be described by a definite description D that does not include F among its descriptive conditions, and D will not imply that whatever satisfies D necessarily possesses F". For example, the number nine necessarily possesses oddness and is described by "the number of planets", but since "the number of planets" does not include oddness among its descriptive conditions, it does not imply that whatever satisfies this description necessarily possesses oddness.
These responses to the two objections (Obj. 1) and (Obj. 2) help to justify my claim that the proposition,
(1) For any two particular events or states x and y, if x is a logically sufficient condition of y, then x is not a cause of y, is both true and precludes divine volitions from being causes.
SOSA'S THEORY OF CAUSATION
Does every philosopher accept that a particular event c that causes a particular event e cannot logically necessitate e? Ernest Sosa has suggested a theory of causality that might appear to be inconsistent with this thesis. Sosa distinguishes several types of causation, nomological causation, material causation, consequentialist causation, and inclusive causation. Of interest to us is Sosa's definition of consequentialist causation, since this definition is instantiated by God's willing the big bang. In cases of consequentialist causation, "the cause does entail the result or consequence"[17].
Sosa list several examples of consequentialist causation: (i) an apple's being red causes the apple to be colored; (ii) Tom's being in the room causes the general fact that there is someone in the room; (iii) Peter, Paul and Mary are tall and the only people in the room, and this causes the general fact that everyone in the room is tall; (iv) an apple's being sweet, juicy, etc., causes the apple to have the value of goodness.
Sosa acknowledges that he has no analysis or definition of consequentialist causation, but says it involves a consequence deriving necessarily from a cause "that is somehow more basic"[18].
The immediate rejoinder to Sosa's theory is that his cases of consequentialist causation are not cases of causation but cases of logical derivation, or, more exactly, cases where the instantiation of one property F logically necessitates the instantiation of a second property G, or whether the obtaining of one fact p logically necessitates the obtaining of a second fact q. When Sosa says this does "seem to be a genuine form of causation"[19], he seems to be mistaken. Indeed, the man or woman in the street, contemporary philosophers and scientists would all emphatically and correctly assert that these are not genuine cases of causation. But in fairness to Sosa, he acknowledges this very point, and makes some plausible observations in this connection:
"It might be objected that much of the foregoing is a mere terminological maneuver, that it simply takes what philosophers have long called causation, relabels it 'nomological causation', and goes on to classify it with certain wholly other relations that philosophers have not heretofore called causal relations. And it might perhaps be that the word 'cause' and its cognates have been so closely and so persistently associated with nomological causation by philosophers that they must be surrendered. But even then the basic point would remain, for nomological causation is a relation between a source and a consequence or result, and so is material causation (e.g. generation), so is consequentialist causation (e.g. the apple is chromatically colored as a result of being red) and so is inclusive causation. . . These are all source-consequence relations or result-yielding relations."[20]
Thus, we can agree with Sosa inasmuch as causation can be classified with other result-yielding relations, such as the logical necessitation of a property F by another property G, as one type of result-yielding relation, but at the same time distinguish causation from these other noncausal resultyielding relations.
4. Analogical and Literal Descriptions
I suggest that the foregoing considerations give us good reason to believe that there is no actual or possible correct theory or definition of causality that is instantiated by God's willing the big bang.
How might the defender of divine causality answer these arguments? One answer might be to grant that God's willing is not a "cause" of the universe's beginning, but instead is the "creator" or "producer" of the universe's beginning. But this change in terminology does not solve the problem; "c creates e" and "c produces e" each imply "c causes e", so the problem is not avoided. If we wish to stipulate that "c creates e" does not imply "c causes e", then we deprive the word "creates" of any apparent intelligibility. If "creates" no longer means what it normally means, then we are hard put to say what it means.
A similar problem affects an alternative solution, namely, that we say that God "wills" the universe to begin to exist, but does not "cause" it to begin to exist. I provisionally used the terminology of "God's willing" and "divine volition" in the preceding sections, but this usage calls for reevaluation. "x wills e and e occurs because of x's willing" logically implies "x's willing causes e". If God's act of willing is not an act of causation, it is difficult to say what the word "willing" means when applied to God. It does not mean what it means in such sentences as "John moved his broken limb by a sheer act of will".
Perhaps we can say that the words "willing" and "cause" are used in an analogical or metaphorical sense when applied to God. This means that God has some features that are analogous to the features we normally mean by "willing" and "cause", and also some features that are different. The analogy for "willing" would be this: If a human wills something, this willing is a mental event that has for its aim bringing another event into existence. Likewise, we may say of God that he or she experiences a mental event and that this mental event has for its aim bringing another event into existence. This is the analogy. There is also a difference, in that God's willing is a logically sufficient condition for the existence of the event that is willed, whereas a human's willing is not logically sufficient for the event that is willed.
However, this resort to the "analogical" use of words threatens to break down the intelligibility of our talk about God's willing. The explanation of the analogical meaning of these words is in terms of other words that also have an analogical meaning. We said that God's willing is a mental event that "has for its aim bringing another event into existence". However, the literal meaning of the phrase about aiming for a goal implies that "it is logically possible that this goal is not achieved". When we say that Alice has the aim of writing a book, we mean, in part, that it is logically possible that she not succeed in achieving her aim. Given the literal meaning of "aims", a statement of the form "x aims to realize F and F is realized" is neither a logical nor an analytic truth. Consequently, the explanation of the analogical meaning of "divine willing" in terms of "aiming to do something" cannot involve a literal use of "aiming to do something". But if "aiming" is used analogically, then our problem of explaining what we mean by our words reappears. This problem does not appear to have a solution; we are embarked on a regress of explaining analogically used words in terms of other analogically used words, with no way to end this regress by an explanation that involves words in their normal and literal use. This regress is vicious; in order to understand phrase #1, we need to understand phrase #2, but in order to understand phrase #2, we need to understand phrase #3, and so on. This suggests we cannot attach any definite meaning to the assertion that God causes, wills or aims to bring the universe into existence.
A LITERAL FORMULATION OF THE DIVINE RELATION TO THE BIG BANG
But this is not to say that we cannot intelligibly talk about God and her relation to the big bang. It appears that we can say at least that there is some n-adic property F exemplified by God, such that by virtue of exemplifying this property, God stands in relation to the big bang of being a logically sufficient condition of the big bang. Perhaps we can even be more precise and say F is some mental property, where "mental" is understood in terms of intentionality (in the tradition of Brentano, Husserl, Chisholm and Searle). Further, we can say this intentional act experienced by God has a certain property as its intentional object, the property, being the big bang. The property being the big bang will thereby have a second order property, viz., being the intentional object of the divine intentional act A, such that being an intentional object of A is a logically sufficient condition of being exemplified. Talk of "intentional act" may be literal here, since these are technical terms in the philosophical literature and "act" here has a different meaning than "act" in "Jane's acted quickly to remedy the situation" or "the last act of the play was a disappointment".
If it is objected that "intentional act" does not have a univocal meaning between "humans perform (embodied, non-omniscient and non-omnipotent) intentional acts" and "God performs (disembodied, omniscient and omnipotent) intentional acts", then we can resort to a more general level of talk. We can say that there is a certain relation R in which God stands to the property being the big bang, such that by virtue of God standing in R to being the big bang, it is logically necessary that being the big bang is exemplified.
In summary, we are safe in saying that God does not cause the big bang, but Rs the big bang, where "God Rs the big bang" means that God stands in a certain relation R to being the big bang, such that by virtue of standing in this relation to this property, it is logically necessary that this property is exemplified. (For ease of expression, I will sometimes talk loosely in the following sections of God standing in R to the big bang, but such talk should be strictly analyzed in the way I analyzed "God Rs the big bang".)
5. Objections to the Arguments that God Cannot be a Cause
FIRST OBJECTION
It may be objected that the divine relation R cannot merely be that of being a logically sufficient condition of the big bang. God's standing in this logical relation to the big bang is not similar to the sun's being orange standing in relation to the sun's being colored as a logically sufficient condition. The sun's exemplification of being orange does not in any sense bring about or produce the sun's exemplification of being colored. But God's exemplification of R does bring about the big bang.
But this objection is overtly question-begging. I have already argued that God's standing in relation to the big bang does not satisfy any extant definition of causation (section 2) and does not satisfy a logically necessary condition of being a cause (section 3). Thus, to introduce synonyms of "causes", such as "brings about" or "produces", etc., is simply to beg the question at issue.
It may be countered by the objector that there is an important disanalogy between the case of the relevant divine event and the case of other logically sufficient conditions, viz., that God's standing in relation to the big bang is an event, a concrete particular, and the big bang is another concrete particular, whereas the other logical relations are among abstract objects.
This countering argument is inaccurate. According to one conception of events or states, an event or state is the exemplification of a property by something. God's exemplification of the polyadic property R is a state, and so is Jane's exemplification of running and her exemplification of being alive. The concrete state of Jane's exemplification of running is a logically sufficient condition of the concrete state of Jane's exemplification of being alive. Thus, there are two concrete states standing in the relation of one being the logically sufficient condition of the other. This situation is similar in this respect to God standing to the big bang in the relevant relation.
Nonetheless, the intuition may persist that there is an important ingredient in God's relation to the big bang of logically necessitating the big bang that is not present in the sun's orangeness logically necessitating the sun's being colored, or Jane's running necessitating her being alive, an ingredient that is metaphorically captured by causal language ("produces", "brings about", etc.). The objector may simply state that it is intuitively obvious that there is this difference between the two cases, even if this difference cannot be adequately expressed in words.
But this amounts to retreating to an ineffability theory. We now have the theory: "God does not literally cause the big bang, but in some metaphorical sense causes the big bang, even though it is impossible to specify literally the analogy between causation and God's relation to the big bang that justifies the metaphor." The ineffability theory is that God's R-ing the big bang is a relation with two properties; one property of God's R-ing the big bang is that the R-ing is a logically sufficient condition of the big bang, and the second property is an indescribable property, which we may call an Xproperty, such that the X-property is a property of God's R-ing that makes the R-ing analogous in a relevant respect to a causal relation.
However, the ineffability theory fails for three reasons.
(i) If the X-property makes the R-ing analogous to a causal relation, then the X-property is some property shared in common by the causal relation and the R relation. Since the X-property belongs to the causal relation, and we can literally describe the causal relation, we should be able to literally specify the causal relation's X-property and say that it is this property that the R relation has in common with the causal relation. But the ineffability theory fails to do this.
(ii) The ineffability theory has no justification for asserting there is this X-property. The ineffability theory mentions no datum that the postulation of the X-property is used to explain, and it introduces no premises from which the presence of the X-property is deduced. The only apparent justification might be that one has had a mystical experience and directly "beheld" God R-ing the big bang and "beheld" the X-property of this R-ing, but that in reporting this intuition, one realized there are no adequate and literally used words that could describe this X-property. However, if the theory that God metaphorically causes the universe amounts to nothing more than dark sayings about what is "beheld" in an ineffable mystical experience, then this not a theory based on natural reason but is a flight into mysticism and the deliverances of "supernatural reason". It would hold no interest for a philosopher intent on constructing a world-view based on natural reason.
(iii) The best explanation of the origins of the "intuition" that God metaphorically causes the big bang, and is not merely a logically sufficient condition of the big bang, does not imply this intuition is true. The origin of this "intuition" is the long and pervasive tradition (in philosophy, religion and "ordinary language") of using causal words, "causes", "creates", "wills", etc., to describe God's relation to the beginning of the universe. The psychological associations produced by the adoption of this linguistic tradition gives rise to the "intuition" that there must be an X-property of God's relation to the big bang that grounds the metaphorical usage of "causes".
There are differences between (for example) the orange/color relation and the R relation of God to the big bang, but none are causal-like. Orange is a kind of color, but God's relation to the big bang is not a kind of big bang. Further, the orangeness is a monadic property of the same thing of which being colored is a property, but the R property is polyadic and interconnects different objects. Thirdly, being orange and being colored are both physical properties, whereas the divine relation is a mental property and being the big bang is a physical property.
We can also specify formal features of the R relation: it is asymmetric, transitive and irreflexive, but many non-causal relations also possess these formal features.
SECOND OBJECTION
The theist, agnostic or atheist who believes it is logically intelligible to say that God is an originating cause of the universe may take the bull by the horns and arrogantly assert that God's being a logically sufficient condition of the big bang is a counterexample to the extant definitions of causation discussed in section 2, and shows these definitions are wrong, and is also a valid counterexample to my principle (1) that states causes are not logically sufficient conditions. The objector proclaims: "All actual and possible contiguity or nomological definitions of causation are false. The correct definition is a non-contiguity and singularist definition that allows that some causal relations are logical relations."
The problem with this "arrogant objection" is that there is no apparent justification for the belief that there is a correct definition of causation that is non-contiguous, singularist and permits logical relations apart from God's alleged acts of causation. But these are precisely the events whose causal nature is in dispute. To assume, in face of the arguments I have given, that these acts are casual relations is a question-begging response. In order to demonstrate that the relevant divine relation is a causal relation, we must have a logically independent reason to believe there is some correct definition of causation that the divine relation R satisfies. But there is no such reason. Consider the argument:
(2) There is a sufficient reason J to believe that there is a correct definition of causation that is singularist, non-contiguous and permits logical relations.
Therefore,
(3) The divine relation R is a causal relation.
If the offered reason J is (3), then the argument that the divine relation R is a causal relation is question-begging.
It may be objected that the defender of the "there cannot be a divine cause" thesis is in a similar question-begging situation and thus that there is a "stand off". It may be said that the defender begs the question by assuming that (3) is false or cannot play the role of reason J.
This objection fails since the defender of the "there cannot be a divine cause" thesis has a non-question-begging argument for the falsity of (3). The argument is that all cases of causation that are not in dispute are inconsistent with the hypothesis that there is a correct definition of the sort mentioned in (2). Both parties to the dispute agree that physical events cause other physical events, and that the mental events of intelligent organisms cause other events (assuming an appropriate philosophy of mind), and this agreement is the common ground between the opponent and defender of the "there cannot be a divine cause" thesis. But these common grounds are inconsistent with the positive thesis, viz., that "there can be a divine cause", if only for the reason that it is a logically necessary property of the agreed upon cases of causation that the causal event is not a logically sufficient condition of the effect. Since these causal events are necessarily not logically sufficient conditions, a definition of a cause that encompassed both these causal events and God's relation to the big bang would include the contradiction "is not a logically sufficient condition and is a logically sufficient condition". The agreed upon cases may also include nomological and contiguity conditions, and consequently there may be further contradictions, e.g., "instantiates some law of nature and does not instantiate any law of nature" and "is spatially contiguous with the effect and is not spatially contiguous with the effect".
THIRD OBJECTION
It may be argued that a disjunctive definition can solve the problem . Suppose we have this disjunctive definition of causation: c is a cause of e if and only if c is either a logically sufficient condition of e, or c is not a logically sufficient condition of e and instead satisfies (say) the Humean conditions.
One problem with this disjunctive definition is that it classifies the sun's being orange as a cause of the sun's being colored. So it does not work for this reason, as well as for the other reasons mentioned in my discussion of Sosa's account of causation.
Even if we add a temporal priority condition, this disjunctive definition will not work. We may say: c is a cause of e if and only if EITHER c is both a logically sufficient condition of e and temporally prior to e OR c is not a logically sufficient condition of e and satisfies (say) the Humean conditions. However, the first disjunct is satisfied by many items that are not causes. John's being a living organism (or John's being embodied in a mortal body at time t) is both temporally prior to and is a logically sufficient condition of John's being dead, but John's being a living organism (or John's being embodied in a mortal body at time t) is not the cause of his death. His death is caused, say, by a car hitting him as he crosses the street. The concept expressed by "is a living organism" analytically includes the concept expressed by "is mortal" and the relevant logical truths (e.g., "if x is an organism that dies, then x dies") can be obtained by substituting synonyms for synonyms.
Suppose we become even more specific and say instead: c is a cause of e if and only if EITHER c is God's standing in the R relation to e OR c is not a logically sufficient condition of e and satisfies (say) the Humean conditions. But this attempt to produce a satisfactory definition fails for two interrelated reasons:
(i) A logically necessary condition of a correct definition of a purely qualitative universal, be it a monadic property or a relation (such as causation or intentionality) is that it not include a disjunct that mentions one particular case that does not meet the general conditions described in the other disjunct. A purely qualitative universal does not include any particulars as constituents. An example of an impurely qualitative universal is being taller than Mount Everest. Definitions of purely qualitative universals mention general conditions and do not include mentions of a particular case, such as the particular case of God standing in an R relation to something.
(ii) If this logical condition of correct definitions of purely qualitative universals (viz., the condition of not mentioning a particular case in a disjunct) were allowed to be violated, then the procedure of testing definitions by the counterexampling method (the standard method of testing the correctness of definitions) is no longer usable. Any counterexample to a definition could be made consistent with the definition by adding to the definition a disjunct that mentions the counterexample. To save the definition "x is a planet if and only if x is a large body that orbits a star and contains no life", we can expand it to "x is a planet if and only if EITHER x is a large body that orbits a star and contains no life OR x is the Earth". The distinction between correct definitions and ad hoc definitions would collapse.
FOURTH OBJECTION
A final argument is that philosophers from Plato to Plantinga have described God's relevant mental state as a cause of the universe, and therefore that this is an acceptable notion. There is both an established philosophical usage for calling God's relation to the universe a "causal relation" and a long and venerable tradition that held it to be coherent to describe a divine mental state as a cause.
This argument, which is in effect an "appeal to authority", is unsuccessful, since if this argument were admissable, it could be used to reject any new theory that is inconsistent with traditionally held theories. This "appeal to authority" at best motivates us to examine seriously the notion that God's mental states are causes, in deference to the fact that virtually all philosophers and laypersons have accepted this notion as logically unproblematic.
Perhaps to respond fully to this objection we also need an explanation of why this mistaken tradition has prevailed for so long and among so many philosophers. I think the main reason is that an investigation of the logical connection between what is expressed by "the universe's beginning to exist is the result of a divine act" and what is expressed by "the natural event e is the causal result of the natural event e" has not been systematically undertaken. (The main exception is the different but illuminating discussions of this connection in the recent writings of Adolf Grunbaum[21].) Most philosophers have tacitly presupposed that the thesis that "divine causation is logically possible" is unproblematic, but once this thesis is examined, the presupposition is seen to be false.
6. Conclusion: Cosmological and Teleological Arguments for God's Nonexistence
The argument of this paper might seem at first glance to tell us more about the nature of causation and the nature of God than about atheism versus theism. "A divine state cannot cause the universe to begin to exist" does not entail that God does not exist or that the big bang is not a logical result of a divine state. It merely entails that we cannot describe a divine state as the originating cause of the universe.
Nonetheless, there are important and perhaps decisive implications for the debate between theism and atheism, namely, that arguments from the necessary truth, a priori truth or empirical truth of some causal principle cannot be a relevant premise from which to deduce or induce that the big bang is the logical consequence of God standing in the relation R to the property being the big bang. Consider the following argument:
(4) Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
(5) The universe begins to exist.
Therefore,
(6) The universe has a cause.
This argument fails to support the theses that God exists or that there is a divine cause of the universe. Indeed, this argument entails that the universe's existence is the result of something other than a divine state, namely, a cause. Nor can any inductive argument based on the fact that every observed event has a cause be used to support the thesis that the big bang is the result of a divine state, since this inductive argument instead supports the thesis that the big bang is the effect of some cause.
In fact, all the various cosmological and teleological arguments for the existence of God are really arguments for God's nonexistence. These arguments are arguments for the thesis that the universe has a cause and if the universe has a cause, God does not exist. This can be demonstrated as follows:
The traditional definition of God is: x is God if and only if x is omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent and is the cause of any universe that exists. We have seen that what is traditionally expressed by "God is the cause of the universe", if it is logically coherent, should be expressed instead by "God Rs the universe". Thus the correct definition of God reads: x is God if and only if x is omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent and Rs any universe that exists. It follows from this definition that it is an essential property of God that he Rs any universe that exists. Since this property is essential to God, there is no possible world in which it is true both that God exists and that there is a universe to which God does not have an R relation.
Our discussion of Sosa's theory of causation suggested that the causal relation and the divine R relation are two different types of result-yielding relations, to borrow Sosa's phrase. If the universe is the result of a causal result-yielding relation, it is not the result of a R-type result-yielding relation, and if the universe is the result of a divine act of R-ing, it is not the result of a cause. If there is a possible world in which some universe is the result of a cause, it follows that God does not exist in that possible world.
This shows how a cosmological argument for God's nonexistence may be explicitly constructed. The premises and inferences are mentioned in the following argument:
(4) Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
(5) The universe begins to exist.
Therefore,
(6) The universe has a cause.
(7) If the universe is the result of a cause, it is not the result of God standing to the universe in an R relation.
(8) It is an essential property of God that he Rs any universe that exists.
Therefore [from #7 and #8],
(9) There is no possible world in which it is true both that God exists and that there is a universe which is the result of a cause.
Therefore [from #6 and #9],
(10) God does not exist.
If big bang cosmology is true (and thus #5 is true), it seems that the premise with the weakest or lowest epistemic status is the first premise, "Whatever begins to exist has a cause". But William Lane Craig says about this premise: "the first premiss is so intuitively obvious, especially when applied to the universe, that probably no one in his right mind really believes it to be false."[22] If Craig is right and my argument sound, it follows that probably no one in his right mind who believes the universe has a beginning really believes that God exists.
The same considerations apply to the teleological argument, one version of which reads:
(11) Artifacts are caused to exist by some intelligent being(s) with some purpose in mind.
(12) The universe resembles an artifact.
Therefore, it is probable that:
(13) The universe is caused to exist by some intelligent being(s) with some purpose in mind.
If this is an adequate argument from analogy, then it is probably true that the result-yielding relation that is involved in the explanation of why the universe exists is a causal relation in which some intelligent being(s) stand(s) to the universe. It follows (given propositions #7 and #9) that God probably does not exist.
Since the cosmological and teleological arguments have standardly been thought to be the strongest arguments for God's existence, and since they support atheism rather than theism, it seems now that the case for theism is very weak indeed. It is hard to imagine how one could ever inductively or deductively establish, or find self-evident, that the big bang is the logical consequence of something standing in an R relation to being the big bang. Perhaps there are some fairly plausible arguments that the big bang has a cause, but there are no extant or plausible arguments that the big bang has a logically sufficient condition in an acausal mental state. This suggests that belief in the existence of God is considerably less reasonable than even the most cautious natural theologians have standardly supposed.
The tally following your posts so far on this thread is a good indicatorName each event in chronological order then
But just see ... you don't
You still continue to waste your time
All you have exhibited is your ability to copy/paste
:shrug:
Last edited:
I'll be a good sport and show some " theist" friendly agruements. Arguments for the Existence of God
Philosophers have tried to provide rational proofs of God's existence that go beyond dogmatic assertion or appeal to ancient scripture. The major proofs, with their corresponding objections, are as follows:
1. Ontological:
It is possible to imagine a perfect being. Such a being could not be perfect unless its essence included existence. Therefore a perfect being must exist.
Objection: You cannot define or imagine a thing into existence.
2. Causal:
Everything must have a cause. It is impossible to continue backwards to infinity with causes, therefore there must have been a first cause which was not conditioned by any other cause. That cause must be God.
Objections: If you allow one thing to exist without cause, you contradict your own premise. And if you do, there is no reason why the universe should not be the one thing that exists or originates without cause.
3. Design:
Animals, plants and planets show clear signs of being designed for specific ends, therefore there must have been a designer.
Objection: The principles of self-organization and evolution provide complete explanations for apparent design.
3a. Modern design argument:
the Anthropic Cosmological Principle. This is the strongest card in the theist hand. The laws of the universe seem to have been framed in such a way that stars and planets will form and life can emerge. Many constants of nature appear to be very finely tuned for this, and the odds against this happening by chance are astronomical.
Objections: The odds against all possible universes are equally astronomical, yet one of them must be the actual universe. Moreover, if there are very many universes, then some of these will contain the possibility of life. Even if valid, the anthropic cosmological principle guarantees only that stars and planets and life will emerge - not intelligent life. In its weak form, the anthropic cosmological principle merely states that if we are here to observe the universe, it follows that the universe must have properties that permit intelligent life to emerge.
4. Experiential:
A very large number of people claim to have personal religious experiences of God.
Objections: We cannot assume that everything imagined in mental experiences (which include dreams, hallucinations etc) actually exists. Such experiences cannot be repeated, tested or publicly verified. Mystical and other personal experiences can be explained by other causes.
5. Pragmatic:
Human societies require ethics to survive. Ethics are more effectively enforced if people fear God and Hell and hope for Heaven (cf. the origin of ethical systems).
Objections: The usefulness of a belief does not prove its truth. In any case, many societies have thrived without these beliefs, while crime has thrived in theistic societies believing in heaven and hell.
General objection against all the rational proofs for God:
Each of the above arguments is independent of the others and cannot logically be used to reinforce the others.
The cause argument - even if it were valid - would prove only a first cause. It would tell us nothing about the nature of that cause, nor whether the cause was mental or physical. It would not prove that the first cause was the personal, judging, forgiving God of Judaism, Christianity, or Islam. It would not prove the existence of a designer or of a perfect being. Equally, the design argument would prove only a designer, the ontological argument would prove only the existence of a perfect being, and so on. None of these arguments individually can prove that the cause, designer or perfect being were one and the same - they could be three different beings.
Philosophers have tried to provide rational proofs of God's existence that go beyond dogmatic assertion or appeal to ancient scripture. The major proofs, with their corresponding objections, are as follows:
1. Ontological:
It is possible to imagine a perfect being. Such a being could not be perfect unless its essence included existence. Therefore a perfect being must exist.
Objection: You cannot define or imagine a thing into existence.
2. Causal:
Everything must have a cause. It is impossible to continue backwards to infinity with causes, therefore there must have been a first cause which was not conditioned by any other cause. That cause must be God.
Objections: If you allow one thing to exist without cause, you contradict your own premise. And if you do, there is no reason why the universe should not be the one thing that exists or originates without cause.
3. Design:
Animals, plants and planets show clear signs of being designed for specific ends, therefore there must have been a designer.
Objection: The principles of self-organization and evolution provide complete explanations for apparent design.
3a. Modern design argument:
the Anthropic Cosmological Principle. This is the strongest card in the theist hand. The laws of the universe seem to have been framed in such a way that stars and planets will form and life can emerge. Many constants of nature appear to be very finely tuned for this, and the odds against this happening by chance are astronomical.
Objections: The odds against all possible universes are equally astronomical, yet one of them must be the actual universe. Moreover, if there are very many universes, then some of these will contain the possibility of life. Even if valid, the anthropic cosmological principle guarantees only that stars and planets and life will emerge - not intelligent life. In its weak form, the anthropic cosmological principle merely states that if we are here to observe the universe, it follows that the universe must have properties that permit intelligent life to emerge.
4. Experiential:
A very large number of people claim to have personal religious experiences of God.
Objections: We cannot assume that everything imagined in mental experiences (which include dreams, hallucinations etc) actually exists. Such experiences cannot be repeated, tested or publicly verified. Mystical and other personal experiences can be explained by other causes.
5. Pragmatic:
Human societies require ethics to survive. Ethics are more effectively enforced if people fear God and Hell and hope for Heaven (cf. the origin of ethical systems).
Objections: The usefulness of a belief does not prove its truth. In any case, many societies have thrived without these beliefs, while crime has thrived in theistic societies believing in heaven and hell.
General objection against all the rational proofs for God:
Each of the above arguments is independent of the others and cannot logically be used to reinforce the others.
The cause argument - even if it were valid - would prove only a first cause. It would tell us nothing about the nature of that cause, nor whether the cause was mental or physical. It would not prove that the first cause was the personal, judging, forgiving God of Judaism, Christianity, or Islam. It would not prove the existence of a designer or of a perfect being. Equally, the design argument would prove only a designer, the ontological argument would prove only the existence of a perfect being, and so on. None of these arguments individually can prove that the cause, designer or perfect being were one and the same - they could be three different beings.
lightgigantic
Yes, many others, all getting the same results, over and over again, tested independently by other scientists. Sort of like two people in a windowless room asking the question "Is it raining outside?". The scientist goes to the door and opens it and looks. He could also ask several people walking by if they are getting rained on(they all say no). The theist sits at the table and has faith it is raining(maybe his personal god told him so, or he constructs a metaphysical argument about how god provides the rain, we need the rain, so it is raining outside). So who actually has gained any form of knowledge?
Grumpy
Yes, many others, all getting the same results, over and over again, tested independently by other scientists. Sort of like two people in a windowless room asking the question "Is it raining outside?". The scientist goes to the door and opens it and looks. He could also ask several people walking by if they are getting rained on(they all say no). The theist sits at the table and has faith it is raining(maybe his personal god told him so, or he constructs a metaphysical argument about how god provides the rain, we need the rain, so it is raining outside). So who actually has gained any form of knowledge?
Grumpy
by chronological order i ment from my first post right down to the last.
Differ which are bull, good or neutral, make a graph, with percentages of course and then show them. I do find your humor entertaining though.
The arguements above may be arguements but are they valid in anyway?
Differ which are bull, good or neutral, make a graph, with percentages of course and then show them. I do find your humor entertaining though.
The arguements above may be arguements but are they valid in anyway?
thankyou for agreeing with melightgigantic
Yes,
Grumpy
The better question would be..." why waste my time and energy refuteing an agurement that has already be disbanned by others in history." We are both on the interenet why not use it? granted i have wasted my time arguing with my polar opposite with absolutly no results..but then again this little saying always pops into my mind " Don't get mad, sad or depressed about the people you hate...they are all going to die eventually
"the last three have been pretty pointless
Happy to oblige
If you can't even reiterate them (or even compose a sentence that is not a tautology "the arguments above may be arguments" (wtf???) or even spell "argument" correctly or recognize the different usages of "anyway" or "any way") you are probably better off not wasting your time by neglecting your highschool studies.
:shrug:
Bye.....
Then you're also wasting your time replying to what i say, Buenos Noches! Amigo!
Speak to your career councilor(Laughs) Any schools that i can major in for Tautology?
lightgigantic
your argument , yes, I do agree with that.
Grumpy
Even though I appreciate your flattery there is no need to repeatedly affirm your agreement
Pleasantries exchanged between parties is a healthy ingredient to maintain a chatty atmosphere, however I think in terms of progressing dialogue it would be more productive to promote discussion by responding to issues raised rather than constantly repeatedly how remarkable it is that you agree with the points I raise.
Last edited:
lightgigantic
That your argument was idiotic, yes, I do agree with that.
One of these things are not like the other. Wonder who altered another poster's words to mean something he did not mean? Typical dishonesty, lies and underhanded tactics we've come to expect from you. Racist, liar, lowlife, is there no level too low that you won't aspire to it?
Grumpy
That your argument was idiotic, yes, I do agree with that.
One of these things are not like the other. Wonder who altered another poster's words to mean something he did not mean? Typical dishonesty, lies and underhanded tactics we've come to expect from you. Racist, liar, lowlife, is there no level too low that you won't aspire to it?
Grumpy