Definition of God: First cause, prime mover, objective source of human purpose (final cause) and resulting morality, source of free will; omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent inasmuch as principles of logic allow. I am not talking in particular about any specifically defined religious interpretation of god, such as the christian or islamic god.
Definition: Intellectual dishonesty occurs when (1)one deliberately mischaracterizes their position or view in order to avoid having to logically defend their actual views; and/or (2) when someone is arguing, or making statements against a position while remaining willfully ignorant about that position, and/or (3) when someone categorically and/or pejoratively dismisses all existent and/or potential evidence in favor of a conclusion they claim to be neutral about, whether they are familiar with that evidence or not.
The argument against weak atheism:
Weak, or negative atheism is the lack of any belief that a god exists, and the lack of belief that god probably exists, and is not the positive belief that gods do not exist.
The following is a brief summary of the evidence for a general finding that a god of some kind exists, even if variantly interpreted or culturally contextualized (one can generally look up these arguments and evidences using google or bing):
1) Anecdotal evidence for the apparently intelligently ordered anomalous, miraculous (defying expected natural processes and probabilities) events attributed to god, such as signs or answers to prayers to god, or the ability to manifest or positively affirm such events through free will intention;
2) Testimonial evidence (first-hand accounts) of experience of such phenomena
3) The various Cosmological Arguments for the existence of god
4) The Strong Anthropic (or Fine Tuning) argument
5) The empirical, scientific evidence assembled in the strong anthropic argument in #4;
6) The Moral Arguments for the existence of god.
7) Empirical and testimonial evidence of phenomena closely correlated to the existence of a god of some sort, such as the survival of consciousness after death, and the existence of an afterlife realm, and the apparent agreement of afterlife entities that a god and human purpose exist; the evidence for interactions with correlated entities such as angels and demons (which seem to act to influence our free will towards or away from our human purpose), etc.
While the various arguments listed (all of which, to some degree, begin with empirical evidence) have been subject to counter-arguments and rebuttals of varying strengths and weaknesses, one must not lose sight that while there is much evidence (as listed above) in favor of the existence of god; there is zero evidence (to my knowledge) or rational argument (to my knowledge) that no such god (as defined above) exists.
[Note: One may argue that the Christian god doesn’t exist because of certain contradictions contained in the expressed nature and actions of that entity (or of the Islamic god); and there are such arguments – but this thread is not about such gods, so please adhere to the stated premise.]
The rebuttals to these argument are simply attempting to show weaknesses or alternatives to the arguments themselves so that such arguments cannot be taken as convincing (that god exists); such counter-arguments do not make the case that god (as described above) in fact does not exist.
Also, the testimony of religious adherents of various specific gods can be counted as evidence of the god premised in this argument in the manner that various various cultures can vary widely in their description of certain phenomena or experiences, and come up with widely variant “explanations”; what is interesting as evidence here, though, is the widespread crediting of similar kinds of phenomena and experience to a “god” of some sort (which might be the case of blind or ignorant people touching different parts of an elephant and thus describing “what the elephant is” in various ways). Such testimonial evidence can be counted in favor of the premise here, but cannot be held against it where it varies, because it is not testimony that such a god doesn’t exist.
If a “weak atheist” claims to “lack of belief” because there is “no” evidence for god, they are necessarily being intellectually dishonest, because they certainly aren’t privy to all potential or available evidence. They cannot claim to not know of the evidence for god after having perused the above evidence.
If the “weak atheist” is not aware of any compelling evidence, then any categorical claim they make about the available evidence they are not privy to – that it is not credible or convincing – is again intellectually dishonest because they are making a categorical claim about something they have no knowledge of.
If we have a weak atheist who is aware of the existence of the above evidence and agrees that there might be more evidence they are not privy to; and who does not categorically assert problems with the evidence they have not yet seen; and who does not categorically dismiss the available evidence as “non-evidence” (such as: hypocritically accepting testimonial evidence as evidence when it supports what they already believe, but dismissing it when it supports the existence of god) but rather states that the available evidence they have seen is not compelling towards a conclusion that god exists; then one must ask the following:
In the face of such huge amounts of evidence – thousands of years of testimony and anecdotal stories; many sound arguments based on empirical evidence and apparently necessary logical premises and inferences; and the complete lack of any attempt to make a sound argument that god (as described above) in fact does not exist – one must ask: how can any intellectually honest person come to any conclusion other than that god probably exists, even if god is poorly and diversely defined, and even if the experience of god is open to interpretation and misunderstanding?
As an analogy: even if one has never personally experienced “love”; in the face of thousands of years of testimony and anecdotal stories that love exists, and empirical evidence supporting that certain physical states correspond to assertions of experiences of love, would it be intellectually honest to “lack belief” that love exists, or would it be intellectually honest to hold the view that even though one doesn’t experience love (or using the same argument, color, joy, dreams, etc.), that love probably exists – even if people are widely disparate in their explanation, description, or presentation of what love is?
That I am aware of, there is zero evidence, no argument, and no anecdotal or testimonial evidence that god does not exist (because lack of experience of a thing isn’t evidence the thing doesn’t exist), and there is a vast array of logical, anecdotal, testimonial and empirical evidence that god does exist.
Even if one doesn’t find that evidence compelling for for a final conclusion that god exists, it is at least, if one is intellectually honest, compelling to the point that when one weighs the balance of the evidence for and against, that one must admit that it is more probable that god exists that that god does not exist, which cannot be said to be an atheistic point of view at all.
The argument against strong atheism:
Strong atheism is defined as the assertion that no god or gods exist whatsoever.
First, it is obvious that strong atheism cannot be logically supported, simply because it is impossible to prove (not in the absolute sense, but in the “sufficient evidence” sense). There may be evidence that certain gods, or kinds of gods, do not exist; but there is certainly no evidence or argument (that I’m aware of, anyway) that no significant, meaningful god or gods whatsoever exist.
Instead, strong atheists usually attempt to shift the burden onto theist by essentially asking the theists to prove the atheist position wrong. However, that is not the theists’ burden.
Strong atheism is a sweeping, categorical, negative assertion that something does not exist at all, anywhere. However unlikely one fineds it, it might be true that a god of some sort exists, so the strong atheist position would be excluding a potentially true explanation from consideration unnecessarily.
What is the useful point of a metaphysical position that excludes a potentially true explanation from consideration? What does strong atheism bring to the table of debate other than the potential for intractable error and denial of potential truth for the sake of a sweeping, unsupportable, universally negative assertion?
Conclusion: atheism of any sort is an untenable position for any intellectually honest, rational, and informed person. The belief that god does not exist, or that it isn’t more likely that god exists than not, can only be a valid position based on ignorance of the available evidence and argument for god, or a pseudoskeptical, a priori dismissal of all of the evidence for god based on ideological bias.
(Reposted here from a post I previously made under another name, in another forum, with a few minor edits and additions.)
What? And violate the requirements of Creationist Honesty? Never happen!
I can understand this assumption, however is it not reasonable for an apatheist to be intellectual interested in the challenge of engaging such discussions? In either case, such a position still makes your conclusion above reflect a false dichotomy.
William writes: “…how can any intellectually honest person come to any conclusion other than that god probably exists, even if god is poorly and diversely defined….”
If you don’t have a rigorous definition for the concept you identify with the word “god” you literally don’t know what you’re talking about.
Toronto,
I think your use of the word “god” is misleading. What you mean is WJM’s god rather than just some universal god. There are no universal gods, there are only personal illusions.
It’s entirely possible that other gods HAVE beginnings and causes, depending on the culture that invented them.
As I see it, William recognizes that no two believers worship exactly the same god. So he wants to be specific enough for his god to qualify, and general enough so that other peoples’ gods can fit under the same umbrella.
Once you start thinking gods are “real”, there is no longer any requirement to be logical or consistent. Only to prosletyze.
Worse, without a clear and unambiguous definition of the concept *god*, the conclusion that *god* exists is literally meaningless!
And since there is no evidence of any gods, coming up with an unambiguous definition that satisfies everyone is a tall order. Everyone can Make Shit Up, but nobody can get everyone else to agree.
The relevant question is, is any form of theism rationally justifiable, except as a comfortable illusion?
Anything that had/ has a beginning requires a cause.
Any atheist that is also an IDist is rationally justifiable.
No, it doesn’t. As I said, in order to qualify for being intellectually dishonest, one must know about the available evidence. Otherwise, one is merely ignorant of the evidence.
If an apatheist doesn’t know about the evidence, they have no reason to claim “there is no evidence” or to make any assertions about the quality thereof. IOW, a true apatheist wouldn’t claim “there is no evidence” or claim that the existing evidence is insufficient for a finding of “more likely” for theism; they would just say “I don’t care” about it.
“I don’t care if there is a god or not” is not an atheistic position. It’s an apatheistic position. I am not making an argument that “apatheism” is not rationally justifiable.
Because the clear evidence is that the universe had a beginning, and all things with a beginning had a cause.
But that means you yourself are intellectually dishonest.
You have presented evidence that indicates your god exists.
Your god is the “prime mover” you claim, but did not himself require a cause.
If I accept your evidence that “something”, (your god), did not require a cause, it is intellectually dishonest of you to claim that “everything that exists” requires a cause.
It is your position, that something as powerful and complex as “your god” did NOT require a cause, but something less complex and powerful like us, DO require a cause.
It is not rational for you to claim less complexity requires cause, while more complexity requires none at all.
No, the evidence suggests that physical “characteristics” of “what we call” the universe had a beginning.
You have no way of telling what existed along with “your god” before the “Big Bang”.
You still have a logical problem with the existence of god that has nothing to do with the “Big Bang”, and that is that something as complex as “your god” could exist without a cause, leading to the valid conclusion that, “some things can exist without a cause”.
William, of course there’s positive evidence for atheism. For example, the theory that life is a prerequisite for the existence of intelligent beings has never been falsified.
If you want to claim evidence for your god, a good initial step would be to present a reasonable falsification of that. That doesn’t have to mean evidence related directly to the existence of the god of your choice. The establishment of the existence of any non-biological intelligent being beyond reasonable doubt would do fine. One little fairy or mermaid is perfectly adequate.
After all, you regard all the millions of human anecdotes related to supernatural beings as being actual evidence for their existence. Given the quantity of anecdotes, and the sheer number of descriptions of non-biological beings in them, shouldn’t we be able to establish the existence of just one with ease?
If not, all we have is overwhelming evidence of human inventiveness and the capacity of our species for self-deception.
Good thing I never claimed that “everything that exists” requires a cause.
Well, let’s be honest (a big change from WJM, I know). The reason his god requires no cause, is because the conditions necessary to cause his god would then require a cause, and he’d be stuck in an infinite regress. So he weasels out of it (with stunning dishonesty) simply by ASSERTING that his god is causeless. POOF, problem solved.
Which, come to think of it, is how he solves every other problem where his wishes and reality don’t coincide.
The existence of such entities has been established to literally billions of people.
You know something William? This response you gave me is an example of – at least imho – a well-thought out rebuttal. I sit corrected and withdraw my claim of false dichotomy based on an apatheistic position.
Just curious, but how about an agnostic position?
WJM: “For the weak atheist, one only needs to consider the preponderance of the evidence (as listed). Since there appears to be no evidence gathered and/or used to support any “no gods exist” argument or claim for strong atheism, then it is obvious that the preponderance of the evidence tilts the balance to the theistic side. No evidence on one side, and tons of evidence on the other. Even if one holds the evidence for god (as described in the O.P.) as being very unreliable, thin, and slight, it is still more evidence than exists for any claim that “no gods exist”.”
Ah. You seem to be back-pedaling on the categorical claims now, and instead trying to pile your personal choice of what counts as evidence on a scale.
By the way, you are sadly mistaken in your claim that there is no evidence / logical argumentation in favor of the position that the god you describe does not exist. Atheistic philosophy has accumulated quite the collection of arguments and evidence for atheism (as opposed to counter-arguments to theism), and most atheistic philosophers would claim that the scale tilts in exactly the opposite direction than what you describe. Most of them don’t go around defaming people who disagree with them as intellectually dishonest, though…
Good, we’re in agreement then, that not everything that exists, requires “your god” as a reason for its existence.
The reason one must necessarily postulate a causeless cause (whether it is “god” or not) is to avoid infinite regress. The reason one holds the causeless cause to have intention (self-generated will as cause for other things) is to provide necessary explanation of how a causeless cause “does” things. Will, or intent, is the only available option, since a causeless cause cannot be “caused” by law or chance to do anything.
In conjunction with the fine-tuning argument, it becomes a reasonable position that the causeless cause deliberately generated this particular universe for a purpose.
So, it’s not just an assertion that god is a causeless cause, but a series of necessary propositions and inferences, some based in logic, others based in the empirical evidence of a fine-tuned universe.
The most efficient explanation is god as causeless cause and deliberate fine-tuner of the universe.
Well, you could point me towards these positive arguments that no god or gods exist.
William — completely lacking in honesty and integrity — continues to misrepresent the argument.
The argument, which I have stated and repeated, is not denying that everything that exists must have a cause.
My argument deals with those things that begin to exist.
It is asserted that god does not have a beginning or does not begin to exist.
If you assert that god exists and has no beginning, then it is not necessary for things that exist to have a beginning.
The most efficient explanation for the failures in my life is that the devil was at fault.
This means that there is nothing about myself that needs fixing since none of my bad experiences were my fault, which means I don’t have to do anything but pray harder.
As far as fine-tuning, that is the worst argument the creationists have ever come up with.
As an experiment, dig a hole in your backyard, but don’t take any measurements before you fill it with water.
Without fine-tuning the water, does it fit the hole?
And the non-existence of those same entities has also been established to literally billions of people.
I can agree with that, but postulating a causeless cause is insane. Quite literally insane. It is asserting that black is white in those instances for which it is convenient for my argument.
Depends on what you mean by agnostic. If by agnostic you mean that you’re not convinced by the evidence, I’ve already said that is a perfectly reasonable position.
By “causeless” I mean that the thing was not caused, even though it causes other things to happen. It is not the same as claiming that something is both all black and all white at the same time.
It’s really no different than pointing out that an electric fan is a windless wind-producer; although it produces wind, it is not powered by wind.
Although god produces effects, it itself is not an effect.
Uhh…William? I think you missed the memo on logic and definitions. You do realize that a “cause” by definition is an underlying explanation for something else occurring – some action taking place. A cause does not need intention to result in some outcome. A wave in the ocean can be caused by the moon orbiting the Earth, an earthquake, or wind or a variety of other incidents, none of which have to have some intention of making a wave. Why does this supposed “first cause” have to have intention then? Why can’t a causeless cause just be?
Given the above, the whole “fine-tuning” argument becomes a begged question (not that it isn’t anyway), so that doesn’t strike me as very intellectually honest.
In fact, your entire “series of propositions” requires a lot of fallacious thinking to prop it up. It doesn’t strike me as particularly intellectually honest to conclude god is “the most efficient explanation” given the weakness of the series of propositions.
It might be more understandable to say that all effects have causes and that God is not an effect.
Robin,
In all of those cases you listed, the cause is also an effect. The problem with the first cause, or the unmoved mover, is that it is not also an effect, which makes problematical any explanation for why this effect, and not that. One cannot say “random”, nor “by law”. Self-generating cause is what we call “intent”, even though materialists deny it is a self-generating cause.
Well, I was thinking more along the lines of someone who believes that the existence of god as anyone in particular defines it unknowable. It isn’t a question of not being convinced by the evidence, but rather noting that there isn’t any evidence one way or the other and that the type of thing you claim is evidence is really not.
So?
That’s your unsupported claim. I asked for just one. Give me an example of one non-biological intelligent being whose existence has been established beyond all reasonable doubt.
Say William? Another thought struck me: does a causeless cause have an end or is infinite? In other words, a since “cause” is an explanation of the initiation of some event, does a causeless cause continue to manifest the event ad infinitum or does it have a distinct duration and then end? If the later, can it be measured?
I recommend for starters:
Smith, Q. 1996. Causation and the Logical Impossibility of a Divine Cause. Philosophical Topics 21: 169-191.
It concerns the god you describe. Further all the various Cosmological Arguments for the non-existence of a god (such as you describe it).
No, that really doesn’t help much. See, the moment you reify this “god” thing, it becomes of thing of boundaries and parameters. Those boundaries and parameters exist as by-products of the cause of this “god’s” existence, just like a wave has boundaries and parameters that are by-products of way in which that wave was formed and that can be used to determine the cause of the wave. Unless you are postulating a “god” that has no boundaries or parameters whatsoever, but then we get into the whole question of how such a concept can even be called an “entity”, nevermind meet the basic conditions of logic.
WJM’s dismissal of Atheism does not well represent the field of Philosophy, as demonstrated in this broad discussion on the merits and problems with Ontological Arguments (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy).
Furthermore, WJM’s dismissal of the intellectual and rational abilities of Atheists does not well represent Christianity:
William, that doesn’t change the point that there’s no inherent reason (at least you’ve not provided one) that a causeless cause or first cause needs intent. Indeed, since you are postulating a causeless cause, there is absolutely no reason that the inherent property of this cause is the effect that is the universe. Bingo…done. No intent necessary. Heck, the universe could just as easily be the emergent property of time under immense pressure of a singularity – another type of causeless cause without intention. Anyway, the point is you still have not provided a valid reason why this causeless cause must have intent.
So it’s time to do a little arithmetic.
(Existence established) – (non-existence established) = 0.
Do you have anything else?
This is something I also need clarification on.
If A can exist, but had no beginning, then why can’t B, which also exists, require a beginning?
Do you understand the question?
WJM:
I don’t know of a single confirmed case. Would you care to support that claim?
Why would we need to avoid infinite regress?
The idea of a discrete causal chain is naively simplistic. Every event has many – perhaps infinitely many – contributing causes, and many consequences.
It’s the only available option to your limited imagination, yes, that I concede.
What is the question that is being asked that this is an “explanation” of?
The universe (what’s universal) cannot be caused by anything. (The existence of everything cannot be explained by a thing).
Time is a thing. The universe exists for all time. There cannot be a time when it wasn’t.
As for fine tuning, in a naturalistic view any world has to be fine tuned to fit all its contents. The intelligent design movement actually implies that this world is not fine tuned for life, and that it requires external supernatural intervention in order to come into existence.
WJM: “The reason one must necessarily postulate a causeless cause (whether it is “god” or not) is to avoid infinite regress”
Why is causeless cause better than ‘infinite regress’? They BOTH require infinite time.
Toronto,
The article God and Other Necessary Beings explains the rationale for God as a causeless cause and the Universe as a contingent cause. However it must be noted that;
In other words, you can’t prove a metaphysical assertion. It’s a matter of faith (a Priori Justification and Knowledge)
WJM: “the testimony of religious adherents of various specific gods can be counted as evidence of the god premised in this argument in the manner that various various cultures can vary widely in their description of certain phenomena or experiences, and come up with widely variant “explanations”; what is interesting as evidence here, though, is the widespread crediting of similar kinds of phenomena and experience to a “god” of some sort. Such testimonial evidence can be counted in favor of the premise here, but cannot be held against it where it varies, because it is not testimony that such a god doesn’t exist.”
That is of course not true in all the cases where the different descriptions / explanations contradict each other, i.e. are mutually exclusive. Which is the case for a vast majority of testimony of religious adherents of various specific gods. If you are looking for a *smallest common denominator god* that any testimony for any god could be counted in favor for, your definition of a god in the OP ain’t it. There are plenty of gods described by humans that contradict some, various, or all of the traits your god possesses. As far as I can tell, the smallest common denominator is probably nothing but *it exists*. Which, of course, makes it a useless concept.
Would one of those things that does not require a cause be god? Would it be the only such thing?
So your claim more accurately stated is: everything that exists requires a cause, except god?
Is that right…
So you point out that you never claimed that everything that existed required a cause because you also claim that god does not require a cause. Yet you must of known the intent behind the original statement you were responding to.
Yet you responded to it as you did.
And I suppose someone ought to point out that people have invented a very large number of gods. WJM is an atheist with respect to all but one of those gods. Those irrational atheists he attacks accept only ONE fewer god than he does. He need only take that one final tiny step, and sanity will be his!