Classic Arguments for God

Given below are the most common arguments in favour of a god. When talking about this, it should be assumed that I am referring to the god of the Abramic religions: Judaism, Christianity and Islam. The arguments can be applied for any religion - these are simply the most common religions within the Western world. The arguments - and counter-arguments - apply as well as for Wicca, Hinduism and so on. For simplicity's sake, however, I'm referring the god/s of the big three.

The arguments are grouped on a family basis.

First Cause, or Prime Mover, or Cosmological Argument - Who started the Universe?
- The Kalam Argument - revised version incorporating Islamic theology which attempts to smooth over the flaws of the First Cause Argument. But does it succeed?
- The Argument from Contingency - A favourite of Thomas Aquinas; can there be an infinite chain of events? Can these events be without purpose?

Argument from Design,or Intelligent Design, or the Teleological Argument, or The Cosmic Watchmaker - is the universe designed?
- The Anthropic Principle - A close relative of the Argument from Design; how is it that the universe is so hospitable to life?
- The Argument from Improbability - Is life really so unlikely that it needs a god to exist?
- Irreducible Complexity - Is life too complex to have functioned as less complicated forms?
- Physical Laws - Can there be laws without a law-giver?

Moral Principles - Do our moral compasses point due God?

Pascal's Wager, or the Safe Bet - Why risk Hell?

The Ontological Argument, or Perfect Being Argument - If we can imagine perfection, surely it exists?

Personal Revelations - Did God just whisper in my ear?
- Warm Fuzzies, or "I can feel God's presence!" - Can feelings be a valid form of argument?
- Numbers, or How can millions be wrong? - A more democratic approach to the facts; do you think you know better than millions of others?

The Cosmological or First Cause Argument

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

This has been a very popular argument with religious philosophers throughout the ages; it seems to be enjoying an upsurge in popularity in recent years, as people who don't understand the Big Bang or logical principles struggle to find something else. It's a quick and easy argument which appeals to many who don't bother to think it through. It seems to solve the mystery of the what caused the Big Bang and prove a God. Two arguments for the price of one.

Unfortunately, this argument shoots itself in the foot. It is internally flawed and internally inconsistent.

What caused God? What many people suggest that it is reasonable to believe in God because it solves a mystery: that of who, or what, caused the universe to come into being. However, it just replaces one mystery with another.

The usual counter to this is that God is somehow exempt from the 'rule' that everything has a cause; I believe the normal format is God is extratemporal, and thus exists at all times simultaneously, so he doesn't require a cause. This is where Ockham's Razor comes into play: Do not multiply entities unnecessarily. That is, don't try solving mysteries by adding mystical ingredients which just cause other mysteries. We already have a mystery: the cause of the Big Bang. If you introduce a God, you're just tipping in a bucket of soap into already murky water; sure, it says on the packet that it cleans away dirt, but how clear will the water be afterwards? You've probably also just killed all the fish, too.

Saying that the existence of the Universe proves the existence of God 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 God. The word of God 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 God 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 God of the Gaps Syndrome: there is a mystery which is so far unexplained by science. Priests everywhere rejoice, and proclaim that said mystery proves God. It's very strange how God keeps leaping from place to place every six months as scientists make new discoveries.

The argument that God is extratemporal is quite innovative, but it suffers a few major flaws. One is that actions require temporality: if you want to do something, you need time to do it in. The Big Bang theory posits that the Universe began with a singularity: a point of infinite mass and zero volume. Everything, ever, was crammed into it, literally: all time and all space were in it.

Now, this screws the idea of a time up a lot. Time would not exist outside the singularity, and because the singularity contained all matter and space, there was no time. Supposing you could stand on top of the singularity before it went bang, you could wait forever, and nothing would happen: events require time to happen.

The time from the universe being a singularity to the big bang would thus be infinite.

Therefore, since the big bang has happened, the singularity must have existed for an infinite time before that.

Therefore, the universe is eternal and uncaused, and we don't need to cut anyone with Ockham's Razor.

If you're feeling confused about physics right now, you'd better get unconfused fast. There will be a test later.

God cannot be an uncaused cause, because a cause, even if uncaused, assumes temporality and therefore must exist inside the universe and not outside, which is where God de facto lives/exists.

Subsection: The Kalam Argument

Everything that begins to exist has a cause. The universe began to exist. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

Looks pretty tidy, huh? This argument intertwines Islamic theology and the cosmological argument. In Kalamitous¹ thought, infinity exists only conceptually: infinity does not exist as a real object. If time and events are infinite, we could have arrived at the present. Ignoring the fact that the present doesn't exist either, being only past or future, we have reached the present; therefore, the series of events has a beginning.

Let's have a look at it.

Things that begin to exist
Does this actually mean anything? At all? The answer is, as you probably guessed, no. You cannot differentiate between objects which exist and those which don't. Things exist, or they don't. Existence is not a qualitative concept: you have it or you don't. The argument implies that things can be divided into existent things and non-existent things.). In order for this to work, things which haven't begun to exist cannot be an empty group, but more important, it has to have more than one item in it to avoid being just another way of saying God. If God is the only thing which did not begin to exist, things which began to exist is just another way for God to hide behind the curtain in Oz. This make the premise everything that begins to exist has a cause the same as saying everything except God is caused. This puts us right back into the frame of the normal cosmological argument by begging the question.

A subset of this would be that if the only thing that didn't begin to exist is God, the second premise is shrunk down to the universe is not God, which again assumes what the argument is trying to prove. Put that way, it becomes

Everything except God has a cause. The universe is not God. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

This is logical, if not very useful. It is equivalent to

All limousines are no more than thirty feet long. My house is thirty-eight feet long. Thus my house is not a limousine.

This is all very useful as a specimen of beginner's logic, but it's not actually telling us very much. I don't need to compare lengths to know that my house is not a limousine.

William Lane Craig, the Christian philosopher who is a proponent of Kalam, argues that under Kalam, a creator is inevitable by saying

We know that this first event must have been caused. The question is: How can a first event come to exist if the cause of that event exists changelessly and eternally? Why isn't the effect as co-eternal as the cause?

It seems that there is only one way out of this dilemma, and that is to infer that the cause of the universe is a personal agent who chooses to create a universe in time. Philosophers call this type of causation 'agent causation,' and because the agent is free, he can initiate new effects by freely bringing about conditions which were not previously present.²

This dependent upon our knowing that the first event was a caused one. However, if God is the only thing allowed to be existent without being caused, the argument begs the question again. Basically, in order to avoid miring the argument in logical fallacies from the first step, anyone using it has to provide examples of things which are not God, which have also not begun to exist yet exist. Because we don't encounter things which haven't begun to exist on a daily basis - or ever, for that matter - we can't make guesses about them. If something has a beginning, it exists temporally, and vice versa; something cannot exist without a temporal locus or starting point inside the natural universe, because time is an integral part of the Universe. Nothing within the Universe can exist without time, because temporality is what defines the Universe as existent.

The next rabbit out of the hat is usually God is outside the universe (see part of the parent Cosmological Argument), which is just nonsensical: if the Universe is the totality of what exists, you can't have anything outside of it, or it wouldn't be the totality of existence. Well done, the rabbit just suffocated inside your magical Fallacy Hat.

However, for the purposes of the discussion, let's say that there is an Outside to the Universe. If the arguer wants to avoid turning the argument into mass of fallacies analogous to a double helping of spaghetti with extra Bad Logic sauce, he has to admit that his argument is a false one unless he allows other things besides God to not have been caused.

This is where it gets really funny.

The existence of a personal creator as described by Craig presupposes personality, which presupposes complexity. Even Deism presupposes personality, of a sort³.

Now, let's bring out Ockham's Razor again, and see if we can't give Craig's argument an opportunity to get rid of that beard. As a reminder, it essentially says, don't make things any more complex than they need to be.

For the argument to remain logical and not simply a big old sack full of assertions, impersonal objects have to be admitted into the group of things which are existent without a beginning. If they are not eliminated in some way - and the argument doesn't hold together if they are - the possibility that the Universe had a naturalistic beginning must be admitted into the equation.

Whoops, Ockham's Razor just slipped! Kalam has had its throat cut.

If a natural explanation is not eliminated, it is the correct one until proven otherwise. I don't see any proof of extra-Universal entities which never began coming any time soon.

Whew. Kalam is nearly as riddled with bad grammar as the Ontological Argument.

Subsection: The Argument from Contingency

Contingent things exist.
Each contingent thing has a time at which it fails to exist (contingent things are not omnipresent).
So, if everything were contingent, there would be a time at which nothing exists (call this an empty time).
That empty time would have been in the past.
If the world were empty at one time, it would be empty forever after (a conservation principle).
So, if everything were contingent, nothing would exist now.
But clearly, the world is not empty (premise 1).
So there exists a being who is not contingent.
Hence, God exists.

(This paraphrased as Aquinas was a long-winded boor)

A quick clarification here: contingent objects are those which are true only under certain conditions or under existing conditions, and therefore not universally true or valid, for those of you who don't spend their free time reading into philosophy.

Aquinas. Blech.

Things do not cease to exist when they die or are destroyed. If I smash a glass on the floor, the material elements of the glass still exist. They don't make up a glass anymore, and the shape of a glass is no longer one of its attributes. It's still the same stuff, though.

Contingency also denies determinism, of which more in a few sentences' time. The argument basically states that the universe can only intelligible if there was a founding intellect.

Determinism is belief that everything, including every human act, is caused by something or other and that there is no real free will. This is not necessarily a supernatural viewpoint: there is biological determinism, for example, or naturalist determinism.

This argument assumes that all objects are contingent, that is, that they exist only as a result of a series of past events that did not need to have happened. Some event or entity, however, created the universe, and that event or entity could not have been contingent, since its existence is based on no past events.

The argument presupposes that events are contingent and not deterministic. It further presumes that the creator is a purposeful entity, rather than a non-purposeful impersonal event. Neither presumption is obviously true, and the argument fails for much the same reason that First Cause fails: It assumes without evidence that the creation was initiated by a sentient being, and that this being does not itself labour under the terms of the argument.

If there is a being without previous events which caused it, how did it come to exist? It couldn't exist temporally, as determined by the ruthless murder of Kalam.

The Argument from Contingency is thrown on the scrapheap because it is internally consistent and relies solely on assumptions to make its argument.

The Argument from Design

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

Another modern favourite, especially among Theists who would like to believe in special creation, but are honest enough to admit to themselves that it really doesn't have a leg to stand on (it may have evolved without legs, perhaps from some sea-dwelling argument).

Anyway... There are quite a few things wrong with this argument. David Hume⁴ criticised it on the following grounds:

i. 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.

ii.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 undesigned universe by which one can make comparisons?

iii. 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.

iv. 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 Judaeo-Christian or Islamic god. 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.

Subsection: The Anthropic Principle

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

Right... Please excuse me while I laugh...

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 the dregs of a shot glass (a possible origin for this argument?), 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.

Subsection: The Improbability Argument

It is improbable that the complexity of life occurred by accident. If the probability of something happening is less than about 1e-15 (or 0.000000000000001) 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 humanocentrism, 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.

Subsection: Irreducible Complexity

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 charlatan... sorry, proponent of this argument is Michael Behe.

The above quote is a modification of the definition given in one of his books⁵. 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 colonise. 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 visualise. Analogies can be used to explain science, but they should not be used in place of it, as do intelligent design advocates. An example of this, as put forth by Michael Behe:

A mousetrap is "irreducibly complex" - it requires all of its parts to work properly.
A mousetrap is a product of design.
The bacterial flagellum is "irreducibly complex" - it requires all of its parts to work properly.
Therefore the flagellum is like a mouse trap.
Therefore the flagellum is a product of design.

There's no excuse for this. This is simply an attempt by stealth to hoodwink a gullible public into believing in Creationism. It is quite interesting that Michael Behe has become a big figure in anti-evolutionary circles. He is something of a spokesman for the Creationism movement. He admits to being Christian, yet when questioned on who he thinks this 'Designer' is, he refuses to answer. He seems more than willing to speak at fundamentalist-sponsored events, however, and has had articles published in right-wing magazines. Apparently Behe is trying to have his cake and eat it.

The general public won't know the limitations of his argument, or be aware of his misrepresentations of the facts, and therefore will be easily seduced by his arguments. It's a lot easier on the brain of Joe Public to accept that God 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.

Subsection: Physical Laws

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 behaviour: 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 behaviour 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.

Moral Principles

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, God 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 Dilemma⁶. It goes like this

How does God determine what is good?

Usual answer: He knows because he is the source of all morality. But

If God 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 God 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 God 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 God, what need do we have of God as a moral exemplar?

If it all comes down to God deciding what is good, the moral example of God is just as subjective and relative as anything created by humans; in either case, why bother with him as a moral exemplar at all?

Pascal's Wager, or the Safe Bet

Surely it is better to believe than to not, because if you believe and there is no God, you lose nothing; but if you do not believe, and there is a God, you will be damned. If you believe
and there is a God, 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 God Zeus, and worships a false god! As Homer Simpson once put it,

What if we've chosen the wrong god, 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 God. 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 God 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.

The Ontological Argument

God 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. See also the Kalam Argument above.

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 'God'. To state simply that God's existence follows from thinking about him is to done nothing other than assert that God 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: God 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? No, for all of you reading this on acid.

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? Well, looks like it actually has. You didn't notice because you were trying to understand the above example.

Just kidding. I'd give you fair warning of the Apocalypse.

Probably.

Bertrand Russell said all ontological arguments are a case of bad grammar; he was right.

Personal Revelations

God 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 colours!

This argument fails on many counts. Firstly, it fails to satisfactorily explain how one can differentiate between sense data caused by 'God' and sense data caused by a hallucination of 'God'. 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 'God': what is it? And finally, the blindness analogy is based on a false premise: blind people do not deny that colours 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 colour need not be taken by faith - colour 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.

Subsection: Warm Fuzzies

I feel like God exists. How else can you explain the feeling of closeness and warmth I get whenever I think about God? 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.

Subsection: Numbers, or How can millions be wrong?

Millions of people believe in God. 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 god, 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?

If we're talking numbers, a Muslim has about the same chance of being right as a Christian, and slightly more than a Hindu. And guess what! Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world! Better start having kids, so you can make reality what you want it to be when you've brainwashed them!

¹This could well not be the correct adjective for Kalam-related stuff. Kalamitous as an adjective was inspired by the title of Dan Barker's article Cosmological Kalamity. Dan Barker is a former evangelical minister who now works as the PR Director of the Freedom From Religion Foundation and has participated in many formal debates with Theists.

² W. L. Craig, Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth And Apologetics

³ A belief in God allegedly based on reason rather than revelation, and involving the view that God has set the universe in motion but does not interfere with how it runs. Deism was especially
influential in the 17th and 18th centuries, when science started kicking great big holes in religious arguments.

⁴ Hume, David (1711-1776), Scottish historian and philosopher, a prominent influence on scepticism and empiricism.

⁵ Michael Behe, Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution

⁶ Plato, Euthyphro. A Socratic dialogue about the concept of piety.

By Mike, Evil Teuf.

First published on The Atheism File

Republished with permission of the author.

Atheism \| Politics \| Memes \| Mind \| Matters \| Interact \| Feedback \| Email \| Links \| Search \| Forum \| Home
© 1999 - 2010 by Martin Willett.	mwillett.org: Debate Unlimited