Some of Many Arguments for G-d
Classic philosophical arguments for the existence of G-d.
And why they don't work.
Put together (with his comments) by Mike, Evil Teuf
He claims he has no last name … weird idea but he knows his classics.

Everything had a cause, and every cause is the effect of a previous cause. Something must have started it all. G-d is the first cause, the unmoved mover, the creator and sustainer of the universe.

Saying that the existence of the Universe proves the existence of G-d is a logical fallacy of the kind called begging the question, or more formally, petitio principii.<

This fallacy occurs when the premises are at least as questionable as the conclusion reached. Typically the premises of the argument implicitly assume the result, which the argument purports to prove, in a disguised form. For example:

"The Bible is the word of G-d. The word of G-d cannot be doubted, and the Bible states that the Bible is true. Therefore the Bible must be true."

There's no reason to suppose a G-d exists simply because the Universe does. Yes, the start of the Cosmos is a mystery. So what? Powered flight used to be a mystery - up until the Wright brothers decided Kitty Hawk would be a nice place for an airstrip. This is commonly called the G-d of the Gaps Syndrome: there is a mystery, which is so far unexplained by science. Priests everywhere rejoice, and proclaim that said mystery proves G-d. It's very strange how G-d keeps leaping from place to place every six months as scientists make new discoveries.

The world is characterized by such a degree of order and regularity it must have been designed for some purpose. A "divine craftsman", who created the world for a definite reason, bestowed the order and regularity in the world.

There are quite a few things wrong with this argument. David Hume criticized it on the following grounds:

1. It assumes too much.
   Inferring an effect - a cosmic design - from a cause - the beginning of the cosmos - is basically assuming what the argument wants to prove. Order and regularity do not imply design, supernatural or otherwise.

2. The universe is unique.
   On this basis, Hume argued that it cannot be inferred that there is anything like a designer behind it; where is the un-designed universe by which one can make comparisons?

3. Who designed the designer?
   If functional complexity requires a designer, then the designer also needs a designer, because the designer must be at least as complex as the thing it designed. How else could it have designed the Universe? Maybe there was a team of imperfect designers. A Universe designed by committee would explain a lot.

4. The universe shows just as much evidence of imperfection and disorder
   Seeking a cause of the order when such order only partially represents what the universe is like is asking for trouble. If an all-perfect, all-good designer made the universe, why is it so full of suffering for life forms? Even if one could infer a designer from the world, there is no reason to suppose that it is the Judeo-Christian or Islamic G-d. In fact, there are reasons to suppose it is not.

The perceived design in nature is not necessarily intelligent by definition. Life is the result of the mindless design and repetition of natural selection. Order in the cosmos comes from natural regularity.

The Universe is so hospitable to life, it must have been designed with life in mind.

This implies that life is somehow apart from the Universe, that it consists of some kind of special matter which only forms stable bonds in this Universe. Besides, are there any examples of Universes which were specifically designed with the intention of hostility to life?

Just as you would expect to find ashes and cinders in a fire but not in a pizza pie, you expect to find life which is adaptive and reflective of the environment it resides in. If it isn't adapted to its environment, it dies.

The Anthropic Principle is essentially saying that water is so easy to swim through that it was designed with swimming in mind. It's so circular you could roll it down a hill.

It is improbable that the complexity of life occurred by accident. If the probability of something happening is less than about 1015 it is considered to be impossible. The probability of life occurring 'by accident' is far less than this, therefore there must have been a Creator.

This argument ignores the size of the universe. There are hundreds of billions of galaxies, each with hundreds of billions of stars, any of which might have planets capable of supporting life. Even an impossibly improbable event is almost a certainty - and we already know of one planet that supports life.

This also falls into the same trap as the Design Argument and Anthropic Principle: there are no other Universes to compare it with. It is impossible to see how the probability of existence can be measured, with or without a deity, given the lack of comparative material. It could be said that the Universe in any form is impossible by this standard, given the innumerable possible permutations; its actual form is no more improbable than any of the other possibilities. It is only the fact that humans are around to look at it, combined with small-minded human centrism, that makes the Universe seem so special.

This argument also ignores an important fact: if something has a probability, no matter how small, it can happen. Impossibility comes when there is no degree of probability.

A single system, like the human eye, which is composed of several interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, and where the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning. An irreducibly complex system cannot be produced gradually by slight, successive modifications of a precursor system, since any precursor to an irreducibly complex system is by definition nonfunctional. This shows the hand of a Designer.

The best known proponent of this argument is Michael Behe. However, there are plenty of examples of things which are irreducibly complex, which have grown up over time. Ecosystems, cities, the modern economic system of the West, and so on.

An irreducibly complex system is either one which has been designed, or which is the result of an undirected process. Such systems are to be expected in evolutionary biology: the underlying processes are called co-adaptation and co-evolution, and have been well understood for a long time. Biological functions are not built iteration at a time in order to meet some static function. They evolve in layers, always in a state of change, and always ready to change to serve current needs. Irreducible complexity does not indicate design, and therefore the argument collapses into its own filth.

The mistake of this argument is to conclude that no Darwinian solution for irreducible complexity remains without a designer. This is an incorrect assumption, either based on a desire to hoodwink people, or a misunderstanding of the principles of evolutionary biology. An irreducibly complex system can be built by gradually adding parts that are initially just advantageous. These later become necessary because of further changes.

Later changes build on previous ones. Previous refinements or changes might become necessary. The evolution of air bladders that allowed fish to breathe oxygen from the air was essentially just an added advantage to start with. The addition of such organs would allow individuals or species to explore areas, which were less in competition, like dry land, which their rivals would have been unable to colonize. It would have provided a haven from predators, and easy food supply, and so on.

Evolution is arranged around this kind of process. Animals grew lungs. They are now essential; land-dwelling creatures cannot survive without them. This is an irreducibly complex system growing up from one, which was not, and it is thoroughly Darwinian. Changes are built on previous changes, and changes are built onto those changes, and further changes, and so on.

The claim that irreducible complexity indicates design is utterly without foundation, and shouldn't even enter into the argument. The biggest problem with the concept of irreducible complexity as an argument for the existence of a designer is that it is an argument by analogy, rather than facts or logic.

When it comes to explaining scientific matters to a public which usually has little knowledge or interest of the subject at hand, analogies are essential to getting the information across. We all can better understand something new if it is compared to something we already know and can visualize. Analogies can be used to explain science, but they should not be used in place of it, as do intelligent design advocates.

It's a lot easier on the brain of Joe Public to accept that G-d did it all, even if it has to be dressed up in fallacious arguments, bad logic and misrepresentations of the facts. Peddlers of the irreducible complexity theory are seductive to the public alright - but like all seducers, they lie and never say anything of substance.

The universe is governed by natural laws. Laws require a lawgiver.

This is essentially a misinterpretation of what a law actually is. It's pardonable - most people don't know. A law is a description of how things usually happen, which has been so well observed and documented that there is virtually no doubt that if Event X happens in Situation Y, Effect Z will be the result. For example, if you drop something, it will hit the floor. If it doesn't, you're either in space, or the law of gravity has spontaneously vanished, in which case you'll shortly be in space anyway. And you might suddenly stop existing as a coherent entity.

Natural laws are descriptions of behavior: they do not regulate anything. They're simply human perceptions of how the Universe normally reacts. The confusion probably arises because of the confusion between the laws which society uses to mandate or forbid specific behavior and physical laws. The reason they're called laws is because they are so universally applicable that they might as well mandate physical events. They do not, however, do so. Laws, like Theories, are subject to change if new evidence arises which may contradict them or alter our knowledge.

We all have a feeling of right and wrong, a conscience which puts us under a higher law. This universal moral urge points outside of humanity.

For this to be true, there would have to be a universal moral standard common to all human cultures. Needless to say, there isn't. Polygamy, human sacrifice, war, child mutilation (circumcision) and incest are all features of the Bible, as are drunkenness, theft, murder and rape. Yet, most of the time, G-d sits by and does nothing. He either doesn't care, or he approves. There's also good reason to believe that moral absolutes cannot exist, simply because life isn't that black and white. This also leads us onto a famous dilemma posited by Plato, called Euthyphro's Dilemma. It goes like this: How does G-d determine what is good? Usual answer: He knows because he is the source of all morality. But If G-d decides what is good based on a universal moral standard, why do we need to follow him to be moral? Good point. It then goes on to say And if what is good is simply what G-d subjectively believes to be good, there cannot be a moral absolute, because it is changeable at the whim of an unknowable entity. These are very valid points, and no theologian has ever been able to adequately answer them. If G-d decides what is good according to his own wishes, there are no moral absolutes; if what is good is decided is based upon a set of absolute standards independent of G-d, what need do we have of G-d as a moral exemplar? If it all comes down to G-d deciding what is good, the moral example of G-d is just as subjective and relative as anything created by humans; in either case, why bother with him as a moral exemplar at all?

Surely it is better to believe than to not, because if you believe and there is no G-d, you lose nothing; but if you do not believe, and there is a G-d, you will be damned. If you believe and there is a G-d, you will be rewarded.

On the face of it, this looks unassailable. However, dig deeper: what if you believe, and you find out after death that the Muslims were right? Or the Hindus? Or the Australian Aborigines? You'll end up being punished then, so you lose out. Surely Zeus will be more annoyed with a Christian than an Atheist? After all, Atheists deny all Gods equally, but a Christian denies the True G-d Zeus, and worships a false G-d. As Homer Simpson once put it, "What if we've chosen the wrong G-d, and every time we go to church, we make the real one madder and madder?"

And, if you look at it, you do lose out if there's no G-d. All those Sundays spent in Church when you could have been doing something else to make your life more enriched and enjoyable. You could have spent your life enjoying yourself rather than feeling guilty for being "sinful"; rejecting religion is not symptomatic of losing something, it's a sign of liberation. Thinkers of the world, unite! You have nothing to lose but your mental chains. What kind of loving G-d would eternally torment people who doubted his existence, when he himself is responsible for not leaving any evidence of his existence around?

Pascal's Wager is not actually an argument: it's an extension of Mafia tactics. It's intellectual extortion. "Believe or bad things might happen when you die," is a post-mortem threat in the same way as "Pay us or something bad might happen to your business," is a threat in reality. To use a threat in place of an argument means that you have no argument to begin with.

G-d is the being greater than which no being can be conceived. I can think of this being as existing as just a thought I have and as something in the physical/objective realm. Since existing as a thought is not as great as existing apart from my thoughts/in the objective realm, it must then necessarily exist in the objective realm, or else something greater than it can, but by definition it can't.

The flaw in this reasoning is to treat existence as an attribute which can or can not be applied to things in objective reality. If something exists, it exists. Things do not exist to greater or lesser extents based on their attributes. If it exists, it exists as much as anything else. Nothing can be great or perfect if it doesn't already exist. This is a case of a cart/horse mix-up.

The objection posed by the 18th century philosopher Immanuel Kant to the Ontological Argument is one of the most decisive in destroying it. Kant argued that the problem with the argument lay in its claim that existence is a predicate. A predicate term describes something done by a subject; so, in the sentence "John is eating" the predicate "is eating" describes something that the subject, John, is doing. Kant argued that existence cannot be a predicate because it does not add any new information to an understanding of the subject. To be told that John is bald, that he is eating, and that he is angry is to add three things to the stock of information about him. However, to be told that he exists does not genuinely communicate anything about him. Likewise with 'G-d'. To state simply that G-d's existence follows from thinking about him is to done nothing other than assert that G-d exists. Kant argued that nothing of philosophical consequence has been learnt. It is for this reason that many modern-day philosophers have held the ontological argument to be in error

The argument commits suicide: G-d can be conceived to have infinite mass or infinite non-existence or infinite potatoey-ness or whatever. And how, exactly, does existence in conceptual terms transfer over to reality? If I imagine a seven-foot green monster called Boomerang McCheese III, does it now exist? Certainly not.

Also: what if I said there was a perfect total lack of existence? Would the Universe instantly cease to exist? Let's try it. There is a perfect void greater than which no void can be conceived. I can think of this being as existing as just a thought I have and as something in the physical/objective realm. Since existing as a thought is not as great as existing apart from my thoughts/in the objective realm, it must then necessarily exist in the objective realm, or else something greater than it can, but by definition it can't. Has the Universe stopped existing? Again, of course not. Bertrand Russell said all ontological arguments are a case of bad grammar; he was right.

G-d has revealed himself to me. You don't have the spiritual understanding needed to understand, so you deny it. You're like a blind man denying the existence of colors.

This argument fails on many counts. Firstly, it fails to satisfactorily explain how one can differentiate between sense data caused by 'G-d' and sense data caused by a hallucination of 'G-d'. Secondly, an extraordinary amount of these revelations seem to occur in private places where no one else can experience them, and they leave no evidence. Thirdly, the sense used to determine the presence of 'G-d': what is it? And finally, the blindness analogy is based on a false premise: blind people do not deny that colors or the sense of sight exist. The blind and the sighted don't live in different worlds, and both can grasp the natural principles involved when they are explained. Light can be traced through a normal eye to the brain without any kind of special mental commitment involved. Frequencies can be explained and the spectrum can be experienced independently of vision. The existence of color need not be taken by faith - color can be definitively shown to exist. Until there is a method of testing spiritual insight or experiences, they must be doubted. The reality of the experience is not at issue: the supposed supernatural explanation, however, is.

I feel like G-d exists. How else can you explain the feeling of closeness and warmth I get whenever I think about G-d? I just know He exists - I can feel His Love.

In answer to the question, how about gas? Warm Fuzzies work for anything - they could work for the fairies at the bottom of your yard, for Shiva, for Santa Claus and anything else mythological. It's untestable nonsense, and shouldn't even be considered an argument; it wouldn't be here, but for the millions of Christians who insist on using it.

Millions of people believe in G-d. Do you think that you can possibly be right when so many people disagree with you?

Truth is not a democracy - votes do not count. Millions of people believe in your G-d, sure; what about the millions of Hindu believers? What about all the people who used to believe that the Earth was flat? Until relatively recently, the Catholic Church believed that the Sun orbited the Earth, rather than vice versa. What about them? What about the people who disagreed? Did the Earth orbit the Sun for non-Catholics, but the Sun orbit the Earth for the Catholics? By that logic, the Earth was at one point simultaneously flat, round, orbiting the Sun and having the Sun orbit around it. Do you really want to pursue this line of argument any further? If truth is defined by belief rather than facts, the Universe should be somewhere slightly under a third in accordance with Christian belief, about the same for Islamic beliefs, approximately 0.5% according to Jewish belief, about 12% belongs to Shiva, Brahma and Vishnu... Need I go on?