Note from the editor:
I recently got this
nice little outline of arguments for the existence of God from a friend Lee
Tavares. I have much of this in different presentations on the
topic of the existence of God at the web site, but I found this outline to be
such a good little synopsis, I thought I would simply publish it as is.
Hopefully, this will be helpful to some.
John Oakes
TWELVE
INDEPENDENT SYLLOGISTIC ARGUMENTS FOR GOD.
#1) ARGUMENT FROM CAUSALITY.
Premise 1) Everything that begins to exist has a cause. True
Premise 2) The universe began to exist. Speculation. Quantum mechanics
reveals that whole universes can come in and out of existence, no God is
necessary.
Therefore, the universe has a cause. It does not follow.
#2) ARGUMENT FROM COMPLEXITY.
Premise 1) The more complex something is, the more likely it is
a product of design. Perhaps regarding human activity. However, it is an argument from
ignorance to apply it to nature, as we use nature to compare human creations.
Evolution and cosmology explain reality without the need for a God.
Premise 2) Biological complexity is more complex than all
man-made designs. Perhaps, but so what?
Therefore, biological complexity is a product of design. It does not follow.
#3) ARGUMENT FROM FINETUNING.
Premise 1) Finetuning is either due to chance, necessity or
design. True
Premise 2) Finetuning is not due to chance or necessity. Both cosmology and evolution have revealed
that apparent finetuning can be random.
Therefore, finetuning is due to design. It does not follow.
#4) ARGUMENT FROM THE LAWS OF NATURE.
Premise 1) Laws require a lawgiver. The laws of physics/nature can simply
be embedded into our uncreated universe.
Premise 2) The universe is governed by laws. True
Therefore, the laws of nature require a lawgiver. It does not follow.
#5) ARGUMENT FROM THE RELIABILITY OF OUR COGNITIVE FACULTIES.
Premise 1) Our cognitive faculties can only be reliable if they
were actually designed. Our cognitive faculties are wonderful, but are flawed and can be
unreliable. Thus, the need for objective analysis of reality through science.
Premise 2) Our cognitive faculties are reliable. No, see above.
Therefore, our cognitive faculties were designed. It does not follow.
#6) ARGUMENT FROM LOGIC.
Premise 1) Objective logic cannot be based on our subjective
minds, a non-static universe or immaterial abstractions outside of a mind. Logic and mathematics are languages
to express realities in our natural universe. There is nothing to support the
claim that these tools must come from an “outside” mind.
Premise 2) Objective logic exists. True
Therefore, objective logic is not based on our subjective minds,
a non-static universe or immaterial abstractions outside of a mind. It does not follow.
#7) ARGUMENT FROM FREE WILL.
Premise 1) Free will cannot be the result of mere chemical
reactions. Unsupported claim and it assumes that we have free will.
Premise 2) We have free will. Evidence strongly points to the conclusion that we don’t have free will
Premise 3) Our free will began at some point. See above.
Premise 4) There cannot be an infinite regression of volitional
causal agents to account for our free will. See above.
Therefore, there is a self-existent volitional being who
accounts for our free will. It does not follow.
#8) ARGUMENT FROM MATHEMATICS.
Premise 1) Evidence for design within mathematics would point to
a teleological source of mathematics. See Argument from Logic rebuttal.
Premise 2) There is evidence for design within mathematics. There is evidence for order. Design
from an “outside” intelligence is an Argument from Ignorance.
Therefore, there is a teleological source of mathematics. Does not follow.
#9) ARGUMENT FROM MORALITY.
Premise 1) If objective moral values exist, then God exists. No evidence for objective moral values.
Morality is the product of evolution and socialization. Most humans have subjective
moral values of well-being that allow human societies to develop objective
measures of behavior consistent with such. No “outside” God necessary.
Premise 2) Objective moral values exist. Unsupported assertion.
Therefore, God exists. It does not follow.
#10) ARGUMENT FROM CONTINGENCY.
Premise 1) The universe has an explanation of its own existence
(either by the necessity of its own nature or by an external cause). True
Premise 2) The universe cannot be explained by the necessity of
its own nature. Sure, it can. As stated above, recent science reveals that all of
our natural reality could very well be uncaused and eternal. The hypothesis is at
least as plausible as “Goddidit.”
Therefore, the universe can only be explained by an external
cause. No
#11) ARGUMENT FROM THE HISTORICAL EVIDENCE FOR THE RESURRECTION.
Premise 1) The resurrection would be evidence for God. Not necessarily. There are many
instances of people reviving from being “dead” and these can be explained
through natural processes.
Premise 2) The resurrection occurred. Sorry, big fail. The extraordinary
claim is made from a book whose provenance is unknown by authors who are
unknown and the story circulated for decades before it was written down. The
oldest copies of these stories that we have are several centuries after the
supposed life of Jesus. The story is inconsistent, incoherent, and improbable.
It is not dramatically different than other stories of creation and a
supernatural God. You can choose to accept all of this, I will not.
Therefore, the resurrection is evidence for God. It does not follow.
#12) ARGUMENT FROM BIBLICAL FOREKNOWLEDGE.
Premise 1) Biblical foreknowledge would be evidence for God. Perhaps, IF all other explanations
for such were ruled out. They haven’t been ruled out. For example, the authors
of the NT has access to the prophecies of the OT and were steeped in the expectation of a coming “Savior” (from an “Original Sin” that has thoroughly
been debunked by science).
Premise 2) The bible contains foreknowledge. No, it contains general claims of
such that, under close examination, fail to meet the burden of acceptance.
Therefore, biblical foreknowledge is evidence for God. Does not follow.
- - - - - - -
***If you disagree
with this post, how do you justify or verify that your beliefs are true?
What is your view regarding the value of evidence?***
- - - - - - -
No comments:
Post a Comment