1. Defining God
First, in asking: Does God exist? It would be good to get some clarity about which God we are talking about.
I
shall assume we are talking about a God that is omniscient, omnipotent, and
perfectly good:
Prof
William Lane Craig defines God as a 'maximally great being' - which he says requires
that God be morally perfect.
Prof
Richard Swinburne similarly characterises God as 'a person who is omnipotent, omniscient, and perfectly good'.
It suffices to establish atheism, then (given these guys' characterisations/definitions of theism), that I show beyond reasonable doubt that there's no being that is omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good.
If God is not good, then there is, obviously, no
problem of evil. Yet almost all monotheists treat the problem of evil as a
significant problem. So it's clear most monotheists require that God be good.
They are not positing a morally neutral god, say. Indeed they would be very much opposed to characterising their God in
such terms.
Suppose at the end of the debate it's suggested that I have not shown God does not exist because I
have not refuted every variety of god
hypothesis - I haven't ruled out Zeus, or Odin, or the Manachean gods. Nor have
I ruled out an all-powerful but morally indifferent God, or a morally perfect
but less than omnipotent God.
In response to that,
I'll point out: for pretty much everyone
in the room, the existence of these other
gods is simply not issue. Those in this room who who say they believe in God
and indeed worship God do not believe in the existence of an
omnipotent but morally indifferent being. They, like me, are atheists when it
comes to a God like that.
So let's keep the
focus on their God. If I can succeed
in establishing beyond reasonable doubt that their God - an omnipotent, omniscient, perfectly good god; a god actually
worthy of our worship - does not
exist, I'll rightly consider that a win.
2. Beware the dodgy 'cumulative case'
Secondly, I want to make a simple logical point sometimes overlooked in these
debates. Often, those arguing for the existence of God offer a number of
arguments. For example, they may offer first a cosmological argument
for there being a first cause and necessary being, second a teleological
argument for there being a designing intelligence, third an argument for this
being being a person, fourth an argument for this being being morally perfect,
and so on.
But
now notice that all but one of these arguments could be sound and yet still the case for their God might more or less entirely collapse. Let's suppose they do have a sound cosmological argument
for a first cause, a necessary being. Let's suppose they do have a good argument for there being a designing intelligence.
Still,
it will suffice to refute their case for their God if I can show that they have
no good case for supposing that this necessary being, designing intelligence,
and so on, is also perfectly good. For if I can show that, then there still remain all sorts of gods on the table of which
theirs is just one candidate. They've given us no reason yet to prefer their
candidate over any of these various other candidate gods, such as morally
indifferent God, say, or an evil God. But then their case fails.
3. 'But still, we are now pretty close to showing God exists'
Finally, if I can establish beyond reasonable doubt that whether
or not there's an omnipotent, omniscient being, a designing intelligence, and
so on, there's ample evidence to establish this being is not perfectly good -
and thus ample evidence this being is not your
God - the God you worship - it won't do to say,
'But look - at least we have
established there is a necessary
being, a first cause, a cosmic person, and a designing intelligence. So you
have to admit we are nearly there
when it comes to establishing the existence of our God. Indeed, our
cosmological and fine-tuning and other arguments for God can be set against your argument against the
existence of our God, leaving us, as it were, all square. While you have, we
admit, a good argument against the existence of our God, we have several good arguments for! So you see,
the arguments cancel out. This debate has ended in a draw!'
The truth is you will have got nowhere near establishing the existence of your God.
The situation is akin to claiming that because the police have shown that the murderer lives in this village, so they're close to showing that Bert, who lives in the village, is guilty. Actually, they're clearly nowhere near showing that.
And
if there's good evidence Bert didn't do it (he's got a good alibi,
let's suppose) - well then the police case against him is demolished!
The truth is you will have got nowhere near establishing the existence of your God.
The situation is akin to claiming that because the police have shown that the murderer lives in this village, so they're close to showing that Bert, who lives in the village, is guilty. Actually, they're clearly nowhere near showing that.
Comments
If I have understood this correctly it seems that this God lies (hah!)
"outside the natural" &
appears not to be on the internet?
I'd prefer to remain connected after I die.
Oh, "you are in God's house for eternity".
Ah well, what's a few years waiting for everyone to join me, phew
Can desires be controlled? One can by an act of will choose not to follow one's desire, but one has no control over what one desires?
Does God have any choice in what He desires?
Can desires be controlled? One can by an act of will choose not to follow one's desire, but one has no control over what one desires?
Does God have any choice in what He desires?
This reversed epistemology could resolve some philosophical problems. Firstly, there is the problem of the "The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics", outlined in the famous paper with that title, by R. W. Hamming:
https://www.dartmouth.edu/~matc/MathDrama/reading/Hamming.html
Why is mathematics so successful in explaining the world? Why do the laws of thought and the laws of physics seem so congruent?
The second problem is a related one, namely that scientific discoveries often occur as a result of 'inspiration', when the mind grasps the hidden principles that explain observed phenomena. How the mind does this is a mystery, but it is less of a mystery if we assume the knowledge was there all along (at least of basic principles).
The third problem has to do with ethics. Traditionally, we tend to assume that 'the right thing to do' has a very different sense in 'moral' as opposed to 'non-moral' contexts (e.g. deciding to have an abortion vs deciding whether to change a spark plug, respectively). One reason for this assumption is that claiming ignorance of the right thing to do seems somehow illegitimate in a 'moral' context, as if no such 'moral' ignorance is possible (apart from the usual exceptions of lunacy, infancy, etc). Yet, philosophers have struggled to clarify the distinction between 'moral' and 'non-moral' contexts. Perhaps because they wrongly assume that knowledge of 'moral' principles has to be explained in terms of 'non-moral' knowledge, which begins with a tabula rasa? How can we be blamed for not knowing what we don't know? But on the reversed model, the impossibility of ignorance applies to all knowledge (at least of basic ontological principles). The category of 'moral' knowledge would then be an arbitrary one, shaped by motives of self-deception.
" ... but it is less of a mystery if we assume the knowledge was there all along".
Really? And how did you come up with all the words, and the ideas that they carry, to post here? You had the knowledge these ideas all along? You are exceptional!
I did limit my hypothesis (and it is just that) to "basic ontological principles". Words differ from one language to another, but language itself has a universal structure. Some of that structure appears to be hard-wired into our brains:
http://www.medicaldaily.com/noam-chomskys-theory-universal-grammar-right-its-hardwired-our-brains-364236
It would be difficult to explain the scientific progress we've made in the last 200 years without positing either a highly improbable series of accidents, or a structural congruence between mind and world that bore fruit when science was allowed free reign since the Enlightenment. After all, there is no reason why we should be so successful, when no other species has even come close. The one big difference between us and them is language, and I'll bet the visible structure of language is just the tip of the iceberg, and there's a lot more structure that's buried in our subconscious mind. Structure that connects us to the external world via, as it were, a 'backdoor'. This shared structure would then be the source of the 'hunches' and 'inspirations' behind the remarkable success of science. If so, then science isn't merely a matter of dragging a net through data in the hopes of catching something. Many scientists will tell you that 'hunches' and 'inspirations' play a big part in scientific discovery. Here are just a few examples:
https://www.famousscientists.org/7-great-examples-of-scientific-discoveries-made-in-dreams/
https://actu.epfl.ch/news/new-evidence-for-innate-knowledge-5/
Quote: "These clusters contain an estimated fifty neurons, on average. The scientists look at them as essential building blocks, which contain in themselves a kind of fundamental, innate knowledge – for example, representations of certain simple workings of the physical world. Acquired knowledge, such as memory, would involve combining these elementary building blocks at a higher level of the system. “This could explain why we all share similar perceptions of physical reality, while our memories reflect our individual experience”, explains Markram."
This is an area where philosophers can play a useful role in helping the scientists disambiguate and explain the significance of the data vis-a-vis concepts like 'knowledge', 'innate', etc
The full article is here: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3069183/
A shorter research report: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3099270/
Initial composition of boundless space from the point of view of element:
1.It is suffucient to declare existence of two elements, SIMPLE and COMPLEX, possesing closed systemic appearance in order to imagine different (homogenous) and completed one.
2.It is sufficient to declare existence of Lord and Almighty in other element, possesing non-closed systematic appearance in order to imagine it as different and incomplete as heterogenous (in other words: various type).
It is not difficult to presume that simple and complex compression is happened in possible minimal widening from permanent widening level, first, inclination to descending, from material component of God from non-material component of Divine Spirit/separation happened as maximum possible diversity (1H) on essence of God on minimum possible numeric homogeneity regarding with blockage of start of non-material components, permanently widening, inclined to their increase of essence/God widens minimal possible homogeneity as maximum possible numeric diversity (2H) to His essence on the basis of 1H material components. Closing process starts only from time, known to God, starting from completion of 2 H opening process. Closing process reopens according to initial opening level of Divine Spirit 1H-1H process of God to 2H process and conversion possibilities of 2H process to 1 H process!