Ten Atheistic Arguments by Dr. Ted Drange

Definitions of "God"

Before getting to the arguments, it is important to present the various definitions of "God" that they employ:

D1: God is the eternal, all-powerful, personal being who created and rules the universe. (Being eternal, God cannot come into or go out of existence. Being all-powerful, he can perform any action that is logically possible to perform. Being personal, he has some characteristics in common with humans, such as thinking, feeling emotions, and performing actions. The universe is understood to consist of all the space, time, matter, and energy that has ever existed.)

D2: God is the eternal, very powerful, personal being who rules the universe, loves humanity, and gave humanity its moral conscience.

D3: God is the eternal, very powerful, personal being who rules the universe, loves humanity, and strongly desires that that love be reciprocated.

D4: God is that being which is self-existent, that is, which contains the explanation for its own existence within itself.

D5: God is that being which is (objectively) perfect in every way. (The term "perfect" is here understood in an objective sense, as opposed to a subjective sense relative to individual values, so the term may be used in public reasoning.)

D6: God is the deity described in the Bible as interpreted by evangelical Christianity.

It will be indicated for each argument which of the above definitions of "God" it employs.


Arguments Against God's Existence


1. The Anti-creation Argument (D1, D6):


(a) If X creates Y, then X must exist temporally prior to Y.

(b) But nothing could possibly exist temporally prior to time itself (for that would involve existing at a time when there was no time, which is a contradiction).

(c) Thus, it is impossible for time to have been created.

(d) Time is an essential component of the universe.


(e) Therefore, it is impossible for the universe to have been created.


(f) It follows that God, as defined by D1 and D6, cannot exist.

Discussion: A similar argument might possibly be constructed with regard to the other components of the universe as well: space, matter, and energy. It is very hard to comprehend how a being could have created the universe without existing within space and without any involvement with matter or energy.

- The God of evangelical Christianity (defined by D6) is included here (and for argument #2, below) because of the first sentence in the Bible, which evangelicals take to refer to the entire universe.


2. The Transcendent-Personal Argument (D1, D6):


(a) In order for God to have created the universe, he must have been transcendent, that is, he must have existed outside space and time.

(b) But to be personal implies (among other things) being within space and time.


(c) Therefore, it is logically impossible for God, as defined by D1 or D6, to exist.

Discussion:


It might be suggested that God has a part that is outside space and time and another part that is inside space and time and that it is the latter part, not the former part, which is personal in nature. But the idea of a being which is partly personal and partly transcendent is incomprehensible. Furthermore, definition D1 implies that God, as a personal being, existed prior to the universe, and it is incomprehensible how a personal being could do so.

- Aside from conceptual considerations that have to do with the very concept of "being personal," there are empirical considerations relevant to premise (b). It might be argued that to be personal requires having thoughts and that science has very strongly confirmed that having thoughts is dependent on having a physical brain. For example, since brain damage has always been found to delete, or at least disrupt, thoughts, it can be extrapolated that there can be no thoughts at all in the total absence of a brain. Although the empirical support for premise (b) is very strong, that may not be a factor that would impress people who are not "scientifically oriented" to begin with.


3. The Incoherence-of-Omnipotence Argument (D1, D6):

(a) If God as defined by D1 or D6 were to exist, then he would be omnipotent (i.e., able to do anything that is logically possible).

(b) But the idea of such a being is incoherent.


(c) Hence, such a being cannot possibly exist.

Discussion: Definition D6 is included here because evangelical Christians maintain that the biblical description of God as "Almighty" is accurate. The issue of whether or not premise (b) is true is complicated. Some writers claim that the idea of omnipotence in itself is inconsistent. Also, some writers claim that being omnipotent is incompatible with possessing certain other properties. (For example, an omnipotent being could commit suicide, since to do so is logically possible, but an eternal being, by definition, could not. Hence, the idea of the deity defined by D1 or D6 is incoherent.) Whether or not the given claim is true is here left open. See comments on the concept of "incoherence" made in connection with argument #7, below. (For further material on arguments similar to #3, see Everitt, 2004, Martin, 1990, and Martin and Monnier, 2003, in the bibliography below.)

- The divine attribute of omniscience gives rise to similar considerations, and there is an Incoherence-of-Omniscience Argument that could be raised. (For material on it, see the references above.) That argument, which is omitted here to save space, also has a premise (b) (worded as in argument #3), which introduces issues that are exceedingly complicated and controversial.

4. The Lack-of-evidence Argument (D1, D2, D3, D6):

(a) If God as defined by any of the four definitions in question were to exist, then he would have to be deeply involved in the affairs of humanity and there would be good objective evidence of his existence.

(b) But there is no good objective evidence for the existence of a deity thus defined.
(c) Therefore, God, as defined by D1, D2, D3, or D6, does not exist.

Discussion: The rationale behind premise (a) is that the sort of deity in question, a personal being who rules the universe or who loves humanity (and perhaps wants that love reciprocated), would need to become involved in the affairs of humans and thereby reveal his existence overtly. It might be claimed that God has achieved such involvement just by means of subjective religious experiences, without providing humanity with any good objective evidence of his existence. This assertion could be attacked on the ground that people who claim to have had such experiences are mistaken about the nature and cause of them. It might also be reasonably argued that religious experiences would be insufficient for the given divine purposes, and only good objective (publicly testable) evidence of some sort would do. Argument #4 is a versatile argument that can be widely used by atheists to attack God's existence, given many different definitions of "God."

Another argument similar to #4, sometimes put forward by scientifically oriented atheists, is the Argument from Metaphysical Naturalism, according to which all phenomena ever observed are best explained by appeal to natural causes (Carrier, 2005). Since that premise is a reason to accept naturalism, it provides an evidential argument against God's existence. However, the given premise is an extremely sweeping one and for that reason alone argument #4 would be preferable.

5. The Argument from Evil (D2, D3, D6):

(a) If there were to exist a very powerful, personal being who rules the universe and loves humanity, then there would not occur as much evil (i.e., suffering and premature death) as there does.

(b) But there does occur that much evil.

(c) Therefore, there does not exist such a being.

(d) Hence, God, as defined by D2, D3 or D6, does not exist.

Discussion: This formulation of the argument is a version of what is called "The Logical Argument from Evil." If the word "probably" were to be inserted into steps (a), (c), and (d), then it would be a version of what is called "The Evidential Argument from Evil." Similar considerations arise in connection with the different versions. According to the Free-will Defense, premise (a) is false because God wants people to have free will and that requires that they be able to create evil. The evil that actually occurs in our world is mankind's fault, not God's. Thus, God can still love humanity and be perfectly good despite all the evil that occurs. There are many objections to this defense. One of them is that much of the suffering and premature death that occurs in our world is due to natural causes rather than human choices, and the Free-will Defense would be totally irrelevant to that form of evil. (Drange, 1998.)

6. The Argument from Nonbelief (D3, D6):

(a) If there were to exist a very powerful, personal being who rules the universe, loves humanity, and who strongly desires that his love for humanity be reciprocated, then there would not exist as much nonbelief in the existence of such a being as there does.

(b) But there does exist that much nonbelief.

(c) Therefore, there does not exist such a being.

(d) Hence, God, as defined by D3 or D6, does not exist.

Discussion: As with the Argument from Evil, an "evidential" version of this argument could be constructed by inserting the word "probably" into steps (a), (c), and (d). Similar considerations arise for all the various versions. The argument is directed against the deity defined by D6, as well as the one defined by D3, because evangelical Christians take God to have all the properties mentioned in D3. (For a discussion of the Argument from Nonbelief framed on the basis of definition D6, see Drange, 1993.) Possibly the argument might also be directed against the deity defined by D2, and something like that is attempted in Schellenberg, 1993, though there it would not be quite so forceful.

The rationale behind premise (a) is that nonbelief in God is an impediment to loving him, so a deity as described by definition D3 or D6 would remove that impediment if he were to exist. Defenses similar to those in the case of the Argument from Evil could be raised, and similar objections to them could be presented. (Drange, 1998.)

7. Arguments from Incoherence (D4, D5, D6):

(a) In order for X to explain Y, not only must Y be derivable from X, but the derivation needs to be in some way illuminating.

(b) If X is derived from itself, then the derivation is in no way illuminating.

(c) Thus, it is impossible for anything to explain itself.

(d) God as defined by D4 is supposed to explain itself.

(e) It follows that the idea of "God" as defined by D4 is incoherent.

(f) Furthermore, perfection is relative, and so, the concept of "objectively perfect," as a concept employed in public reasoning, makes no sense.

(g) Hence, the idea of "God" as defined by D5 is also incoherent.

(h) In addition, the Bible contains descriptions of God that are incoherent (e.g., implying both that Jesus is God and that Jesus is God's son, that God is spirit or a spirit and that God is love).

(i) Evangelical Christians interpret those descriptions literally.

(j) Therefore, it might be argued that the idea of "God" as defined by D6 is also incoherent.

Discussion: Unlike the other arguments in this section, these arguments do not aim to prove God's nonexistence, but rather, the incoherence of God-talk when "God" is defined in certain ways. The point is not that theists who employ such God-talk are mistaken about the world, but that they are confused in their language.

The idea of "incoherence" is also sometimes applied to contradictions or other sorts of conceptual incompatibility. For example, arguments #2 & #3, above, could each be regarded as a kind of "argument from incoherence," for they appeal to conceptual incompatibilities between pairs of divine attributes. [This point might also be applicable to definition D5 if theists were to try to combine it with other definitions. For example, if a theist were to claim that God is both perfect (as given in D5) and the creator of the universe (as given in D1), then it might be argued that such a notion is incoherent, since a perfect being can have no wants, whereas a creator must have some wants. Or if a theist were to claim that God is perfect and also loves humanity (as given in D2 & D3), then it might be argued that such a notion is incoherent, since a perfect being can feel no disappointment, whereas a being who loves humanity must feel some disappointment.] However, this notion of "incoherence" is different from that appealed to in the Arguments from Incoherence, for if incompatible properties are ascribed, at least there is a conjunction of propositions there, even if it is a contradictory pair. In that case, it would still make sense to say that the sentence "God exists" expresses a (necessarily) false proposition. But with the sort of "incoherence" appealed to in the Arguments from Incoherence there is no proposition expressed at all, whether true or false. (For more on incompatible-properties arguments against God's existence, see Martin and Monnier, 2003.)

8. The Argument from Confusion (D6):

(a) If the deity described in the Bible as interpreted by evangelical Christianity were to exist, then there would not exist as much confusion and conflictedness among Christians as there does, particularly with regard to important doctrinal issues such as God's laws and the requirements for salvation.

(b) But there does exist that much. (Christians disagree widely among themselves on such issues, as shown, among other things, by the great number of different Christian denominations and sects that exist.)

(c) Therefore, that deity does not exist.

(d) Hence God as defined by D6 does not exist.

Discussion: The rationale behind premise (a) is that the God of evangelical Christianity is a deity who places great emphasis upon awareness of the truth, especially with regard to important doctrinal issues. It is expected, then, that if such a deity were to exist, he would place a high priority upon the elimination of confusion and conflictedness among his own followers with regard to important doctrinal issues. Because of the great abundance of Christian confusion of the relevant sort, this argument is a very forceful one.

9. The Argument from Biblical Defects (D6):

(a) If the deity described in the Bible as interpreted by evangelical Christianity were to exist, then the Bible itself would not have the defects that it has. That is, it would not contain textual errors, interpolations, contradictions, factual errors (including false prophecies), and ethical defects. Also, the canon would have been assembled with less political involvement and would not have original manuscripts or parts missing.

(b) But the Bible does contain those defects.

(c) Therefore, that deity, which is God as defined by D6, does not exist.

Discussion: Premise (a) is based on the point that evangelical Christians regard the Bible to be God's main form of revelation to humanity. So, given that their God exists, it would be expected that the Bible would possess features implied by the motivations which they ascribe to him. Premise (a) follows quite naturally. (For examples of the Bible's defects, see appendix D of Drange, 1998, and Mattill, 1995. For more on arguments #8 & #9, see Drange, "The Arguments from Confusion and Biblical Defects" in the forthcoming Martin and Monnier, 2006.)

10. The Argument from Human Insignificance (D6):

(a) If the deity described in the Bible as interpreted by evangelical Christianity were to exist, then it would be expected that humans occupy some significant place in the universe.

(b) But, both from the standpoint of space (the size of the universe in relation to the size of the earth) and from the standpoint of time (the length of time in which the universe has existed in relation to the length of time in which humans have existed), humans do not occupy any significant place in the universe.

(c) Hence, God, as defined by D6, probably does not exist.

Discussion: The idea behind the first premise here is that the Bible describes God as having a very special interest in humans. Since humans are so important, they should naturally occupy some significant place in space and time. To reject that idea is to reject the evangelical Christian outlook on the nature of reality. (A slightly different version of this argument is referred to as "The Argument from Scale" in Everitt, 2004.)

- There are many other arguments against God's existence. Some are inductive in form (Martin, 1990). Some make appeal to cosmological assumptions (Craig and Smith, 1993). I have here picked just those that I regard to be the main ones.

Summary

The various arguments can be matched up with the six definitions of "God" as follows:

DEFINITION
ARGUMENTS AGAINST GOD

D1
#1-4

D2
#4, #5 (+ possibly #6)

D3
#4-6

D4
#7

D5
#7

D6
#1-10

All theistic arguments for God's existence can be refuted by at least one objection, and all of the definitions of "God" considered here permit God's nonexistence to be established (or else God-talk to be shown incoherent) by at least one argument. Other definitions of "God" are used in ordinary language, but all of them permit God's nonexistence to be established by appeal to similar or analogous considerations. There is much more to be said about the various arguments. The bibliography below supplies some of that and also supplies further references.

Bibliography

Carrier, Richard. Sense & Goodness Without God: A Defense of Metaphysical Naturalism. Bloomington, IN: AuthorHouse, 2005.

Craig, William Lane and Walter Sinnott-Armstrong. God? A Debate Between a Christian and an Atheist. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 2004.

Craig, William Lane and Quentin Smith. Theism, Atheism, and Big Bang Cosmology. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 1993.

Drange, Theodore. "The Argument from Non-belief." Religious Studies 29, 1993.

Drange, Theodore. Nonbelief & Evil: Two Arguments for the Nonexistence of God. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books, 1998.

Drange, Theodore. "The Fine-tuning Argument Revisited." Philo vol. 3, no. 2, 2000.

Everitt, Nicholas. The Non-existence of God. London and New York: Routledge, 2004.

Le Poidevin, Robin. Arguing for Atheism: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Religion. London and New York: Routledge, 1996.

Martin, Michael. Atheism: A Philosophical Justification. Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1990.

Martin, Michael and Ricki Monnier, eds. The Impossibility of God. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books, 2003.

Martin, Michael and Ricki Monnier, eds. The Improbability of God. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books, 2005.

Mattill, A. J., Jr. The Seven Mighty Blows to Traditional Beliefs. Gordo, AL: The Flatwoods Free Press, 1995.

Schellenberg, J.L. Divine Hiddeness and Human Reason. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1993.

Sobel, Jordan Howard. Logic and Theism: Arguments For and Against Beliefs in God. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press, 2004.

Stenger, Victor J. Has Science Found God? Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books, 2003.

-- Ted Drange

---------------

Used by permission of Reggie at The Infidel Guy Show, who also has this posted.

15 comments:

J. Daniel Sawyer said...

Hi John -

Reggie had me on his show a while back to talk about Drange's list. The mp3 is here

Have a good one
-Dan Sawyer
www.jdsawyer.net
apologia-podcast.blogspot.com

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

Before getting to the arguments, it is important to present the various definitions of "God" that they employ:

D1: God is the eternal, all-powerful, personal being who created and rules the universe. (Being eternal, God cannot come into or go out of existence. Being all-powerful, he can perform any action that is logically possible to perform. Being personal, he has some characteristics in common with humans, such as thinking, feeling emotions, and performing actions. The universe is understood to consist of all the space, time, matter, and energy that has ever existed.)

D2: God is the eternal, very powerful, personal being who rules the universe, loves humanity, and gave humanity its moral conscience.

D3: God is the eternal, very powerful, personal being who rules the universe, loves humanity, and strongly desires that that love be reciprocated.

D4: God is that being which is self-existent, that is, which contains the explanation for its own existence within itself.

D5: God is that being which is (objectively) perfect in every way. (The term "perfect" is here understood in an objective sense, as opposed to a subjective sense relative to individual values, so the term may be used in public reasoning.)

D6: God is the deity described in the Bible as interpreted by evangelical Christianity.

It will be indicated for each argument which of the above definitions of "God" it employs.


these are all different versions of the same idea. You don't even consider the major views of modern liberal theologians; process theology and God as being itself. that would be much more important to deal with.

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

this is all way too long. I'll deal with the first two and maybe latter I'll do the others on my website.or blog.


1. The Anti-creation Argument (D1, D6):


(a) If X creates Y, then X must exist temporally prior to Y.

(b) But nothing could possibly exist temporally prior to time itself (for that would involve existing at a time when there was no time, which is a contradiction).

That is also a problem for atheists. just as debilitating for the atheists and the answer makes a really good God argument. It's one of the arguments I make for the existence of God.

Argument from temporal beginning


http://www.doxa.ws/meta_crock/Berkeley.html#temp

The world is a thought in the mind of God, God is not subject to physics. physics is an idea in God's mind. So the temporal problem is not applicable to God. read the argument.




(c) Thus, it is impossible for time to have been created.

(d) Time is an essential component of the universe.

Time is not created, its imagined. The world is not so much "made" as thought about.


(e) Therefore, it is impossible for the universe to have been created.


(f) It follows that God, as defined by D1 and D6, cannot exist.


but it also means the univ;erse could never have come to be because there is no change in a timeless void. beyond event horizon is a timeless. thus there can be no universe. there has to be a mind to circumvent the rules, so that becomes a god argument.

Discussion: A similar argument might possibly be constructed with regard to the other components of the universe as well: space, matter, and energy. It is very hard to comprehend how a being could have created the universe without existing within space and without any involvement with matter or energy.

that doesn't work as well. But the answer answer, what appears to be a solid universe of extension is just an idea in a mind.




2. The Transcendent-Personal Argument (D1, D6):


(a) In order for God to have created the universe, he must have been transcendent, that is, he must have existed outside space and time.

fallacious. time could run eternally, there can be another space time beyond our space time. God could just exist in any number of infinite parallel universes.

but the better answer is the universe is Enstine's beach ball and God is thinking about the ball. that's why there's a world. God doesn't need space or extension.


(b) But to be personal implies (among other things) being within space and time.

bzzZZZZzzzz assertion not in evidence. you have no way of knowing that.


(c) Therefore, it is logically impossible for God, as defined by D1 or D6, to exist.


straw man argument.

Discussion:


It might be suggested that God has a part that is outside space and time and another part that is inside space and time and that it is the latter part, not the former part, which is personal in nature. But the idea of a being which is partly personal and partly transcendent is incomprehensible. Furthermore, definition D1 implies that God, as a personal being, existed prior to the universe, and it is incomprehensible how a personal being could do so.


space and time is an illusion. it's just a thought in the mind of God,and the mind of God is all there is to reality. There need not be space and time on the scale at which God dwells because those things are just ideas God thinks about.

- Aside from conceptual considerations that have to do with the very concept of "being personal," there are empirical considerations relevant to premise (b). It might be argued that to be personal requires having thoughts and that science has very strongly confirmed that having thoughts is dependent on having a physical brain.


huge fallacy. huge major monster fallcy! sicnece has confirmed noting! it cant' be define consciousness much prove what it is. that is the bait ans switch the functionalists argue for it's a lie. tis' a huge lie.

what you are saying is no better than people in Marco Polo's time saying "there an't possible be any paice of land beyond Cathey (China) its' the edige of the world, and there can't possibly be people with slanted eyes in Cathe because Iv'e never seen such a person. so these Chinese you talk about are totally disproved by absolute scientific knowledge. We have examined every corner of the world from Spain to Turkey and we know these Chinese don't exist.



For example, since brain damage has always been found to delete, or at least disrupt, thoughts, it can be extrapolated that there can be no thoughts at all in the total absence of a brain. Although the empirical support for premise (b) is very strong, that may not be a factor that would impress people who are not "scientifically oriented" to begin with.

sorry extremely shallow and totally disproved by scientific data. That's the most ridiculous arugment I've ever heard.

now hear this: GOD IS NOT A BIOLGOCIAL ORGANISM. THAT EVIDENCE IS LIMITED ENTIRELY TO BIOLOGY. YOU HAVE NO CONCEPT OF GOD!

you don't even talk about process theology.

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

btw who is Drange?

Evan said...

Joe,

You're a panentheist. Wow. That's really a bizarre belief. Especially since it gives God the responsibility for every horrid thing that has ever happened since the beginning of time, but hey I can see how if you don't want to embarrass yourself in front of your family by saying you're an atheist it could make some modicum of sense.

Anonymous said...

I think my favorite argument out of this bunch is the one that I think is the easiest to argue.

The one from non-belief.

If god were real, only a mentally handicap wouldn't believe in it, and then they'd be pardoned out of mercy anyway.

Its as clear as blue summer sky.

Rotten Arsenal said...

hinman:
space and time is an illusion. it's just a thought in the mind of God,and the mind of God is all there is to reality. There need not be space and time on the scale at which God dwells because those things are just ideas God thinks about.

So, we're all just thoughts in the mind of god? God thinks about arguments for his own non-existence?

If the mind of god is all there is to reality, then the only reality is god's imagination meaning that his thoughts make everything happen... thus, all the bad that happens is directly his fault.

Evan said...

Yes, rotten. That's where panentheism leads you IMO ... to a monstrous God.

NAL said...

J.L. Hinman:
2) There is no causality or sequential order beyond time.
3) Therefore, no change beyond time is possible.
4) The putative state of affiars beyond time is one of timlessness.
5) Therefore, time should never have come to be.


Logically, you just proved that time is impossible. (The problem is the term: "beyond time" when time does not exist. The term: "beyond time" has no meaning.)

7) Only God would be capable of writting and circumventing the rules of time and eternity, therefore, God must exit.

Therefore, God can circumvent the rules of logic. Therefore, God is illogical. I agree.

Logismous Kathairountes said...

I just have a quick point to make about arguments 2, 3, and 7 (the ones dealing with the incoherence):

When somebody claims that certain Christian doctrines are incoherent, they're agreeing with us. We know that these things cannot be understood by the human mind. Under our understanding of logic, they simply don't make sense. I mean things like God being 3 and also 1, Jesus being God and man, transcendental and personal, absolute and particular. We think that someday, (in heaven) we will be allowed to understand them. (see 1 Corinthians 13:12)

We don't understand how people can justify the belief that things only exist in proportion to their understanding of them - such that if they can't possibly understand it, it can't possibly exist. We strongly suspect that they believe this because they think they're God and that they personally create the world by thinking it into existence, or something like that. Maybe they're solipsists.

Unknown said...

Logismous Kathairountes

"We don't understand how people can justify the belief that things only exist in proportion to their understanding of them - such that if they can't possibly understand it, it can't possibly exist."

On the flip side, we can't understand how people can justify their belief in a deity just because someone else thousands of years told them it's so.

Isn't it possible that the fact that we can't justify the understanding of them is because they don't exist?

Unknown said...

It is likely there are as many definitions of god as there are believers. When the believer is cornered on one particular definition, she simply jumps to another, sticks her tongue out, and says "Nanhya-Nanhya-Nanhya-Nanhya-Nanhya You can't catch me."

They do this to equivocate on the definition and because they have no way to distinguish between what they believe god to be and what they imagine as god.

On the issue of causality please read CAUSATION AND THE LOGICAL IMPOSSIBILITY OF A DIVINE CAUSE by Quentin Smith.

Regarding the issue of what caused the Big Bang, please read Big Bang Cosmology and Atheism-Why the Big Bang is No Help to Theists by Quentin Smith

To imagine that existence is the product of consciousness is the fallacy of asserting primacy of consciousness metaphysics. It is axiomatically obvious that existence actually exists. Reality is real. That which is perceived is not imaginary from any consciousness. The Primacy of Existence: A Validation by Dawson Bethrick

See also The Axioms and the Primacy of Existence by Dawson Bethrick

hinman wrote "but it also means the univ;erse could never have come to be because there is no change in a timeless void. beyond event horizon is a timeless. thus there can be no universe. there has to be a mind to circumvent the rules, so that becomes a god argument."

This is sheer nonsense. I'm surprised an educated person would think such silliness.

See Why Steven Hawking's Cosmology Precludes a Creator by Quentin Smith

hinman: "fallacious. time could run eternally, there can be another space time beyond our space time. God could just exist in any number of infinite parallel universes."

Time is what we measure on a clock to gauge occurrence of events. If there were no events, there would be no time. Hinman is reifying.

The Universe is the name we give to the set of all that exists. Existence is all that exists. There can not be anything outside of existence, for existence actually exists. Reality is real. Multiverse theories are mathematical abstractions lacking empirical evidence. However, if existence is a multiverse, then it has always existed and there most certainly are no invisible magic beings. Stop watching sci-fi tv shows. That garbage will rot your brain.

Drange "(b) But to be personal implies (among other things) being within space and time."

hinman "bzzZZZZzzzz assertion not in evidence. you have no way of knowing that."

It is axiomatically obvious that all known examples of personal beings are living entities that are physical, corporeal, instantiated organisms in space and have duration. To assert that a personal being or consciousness can exist without existence in space and time is to say existence can be nowhere and without duration. This is a heavy burden of proof.

Drange "(c) Therefore, it is logically impossible for God, as defined by D1 or D6, to exist."


hinman "straw man argument."

Pure BS. Drange has a valid conclusion.


hinman "space and time is an illusion. it's just a thought in the mind of God,and the mind of God is all there is to reality. There need not be space and time on the scale at which God dwells because those things are just ideas God thinks about."

If there is no actual reality, as would be the case if hinman's silly assertion were true, then there would be no logic, no morality, no uniformity of nature. See Michael Martin on TANG

hinman "huge fallacy. huge major monster fallcy! sicnece has confirmed noting! it cant' be define consciousness much prove what it is. that is the bait ans switch the functionalists argue for it's a lie. tis' a huge lie."

Consciousness is awareness of existence. No existence equals nothing to be aware of; in that case there could be no consciousness. Consciousness aware only of itself or nothing is a contradiction in terms. Contrary assertions are the fallacy of primacy of consciousness.

Drange "For example, since brain damage has always been found to delete, or at least disrupt, thoughts, it can be extrapolated that there can be no thoughts at all in the total absence of a brain. Although the empirical support for premise (b) is very strong, that may not be a factor that would impress people who are not "scientifically oriented" to begin with."

hinman "sorry extremely shallow and totally disproved by scientific data. That's the most ridiculous arugment I've ever heard."

And you know this how? Where are the references to peer reviewed study papers published in reputable scientific journals that show consciousness can exist without a physical brain or without existence? You seem to be a man who is desperately trying to convince himself of something while he knows in his deepest core the opposite is true.


hinman "GOD IS NOT A BIOLGOCIAL ORGANISM.

You right god is not a biological organism. Its a fantasy in your troubled mind.

hinman “YOU HAVE NO CONCEPT OF GOD!”Your right again. No one has a concept of god because no one can sense god or detect god by any means. Thus there can be no data from which concepts are formed. Hence no person, no mind, no thinking or reasoning member of any species can have a concept of god. After all, god is only make believe.

Logismous Kathairountes said...

Seriously, you guys seem to think that if you can prove that something can't be understood, that's equivalent to proving that it can't exist.

That equivalency only holds if you can understand everything that can exist, if nothing exists that you can't understand.

If my dog thought that, he would be wrong. If a 4-year-old thought that, he would be wrong. What makes you special?

What makes your mind the measure of what exists and what doesn't?

Evan said...

Seriously, you guys seem to think that if you can prove that something can't be understood, that's equivalent to proving that it can't exist.

I like the logic here.

If something can't be understood, that's the equivalent of saying the explanation put forward for its existence is unintelligible.

There are some creatures for whom most things are unintelligible.

Therefore all things that can be put forward with arguments for their existence may, in fact, exist even if the arguments are unintelligible.

Ride away on your unicorn with your leprechaun friend, sir.

Reverend Phillip Brown said...

Thanks Dr. Ted Drange.

I think your first attempt to disprove God is flawed in that it assumes the God must adhere to linear time parameters. Your premise contradicts itself.
Essentially you are saying that God is all powerful but not powerful to create before linear time so God must not exist. Why cannot our understanding of linear time not exists?

Your second argument also falls into the same logical fallacy. Yes it is true that God must have been transcendent. By why cannot God by simultaneously transcendent and immanent? He is all powerful?

Your third argument falls into the same trap as the first two.

Your fourth argument has been answered on my own blog,

christianityversusatheism.blogspot.com

Thanks for your blogs and I look forward to more discussion.

Phil.