The God Delusion - Chapter 3

[otseng]

Dawkins presents several arguments used to argue for God's existence:

- The Unmoved Mover
- The Uncaused Cause
- The Cosmological Argument
- The Argument from Degree
- The Argument from Design (Teleological Argument)
- The Ontological Argument
- The Argument from Beauty
- The Argument from Personal Experience
- The Argument from Scripture
- The Argument from Admired Religious Scientists
- Pascal's Wager
- Bayesian Arguments

Does Dawkins adequately refute the arguments for God's existence in this chapter?

I'll also repost McCulloch's questions:

• Does God provide a natural terminator to the infinite regresses?
• Is there any validity to Anselm's Ontological Argument?
• Is the Argument from Beauty valid?
• Is the Argument from Personal Experience valid? Is it being used or is this Dawkins' strawman?
• Is the Argument from Scripture valid? Is this another strawman?
• Does anyone use the Argument from Admired Religious Scientists?
• Let's not re-do Pascal's Wager
• Is there any validity to Bayesian Arguments promoted by people such as Stephen Unwin?
• Did Dawkins leave out or misrepresent any major argument for God's existence?

[QED]

QED, the premise is still true. Can you show som sort of detail that it isn't and remember I'm not talking about physics but ontology.

Final, I said an infinite regress in time.

Everything in our universe is in a constatnt state of flux and potentiality and needs a purely actual cause to explain it.

OK, I think this fairly represents your argument:

P1) Everything requires a cause.
P2) Causality cannot be infinitely regressive.

C1) Therefore a thing we would term an uncaused first cause must exist to terminate an infinite regression.
C2) This thing is taken to be the God of the Bible.

I think the most apparent problem is the one that I mentioned above: P1 is in direct contradiction with C1. Now if it should be argued that C1 is not a "thing" then because of C2, this would appear to imply that God does not exist. If God is a thing that does exist then P1 is clearly starting out on the wrong foot. It means that things can exist without cause.

This leads on to the second problem I can see with your argument. Experimental Quantum Physics has already shown that P1 is not true. Things are happening without cause in the quantum world all the time. At the Quantum level events are governed by the laws of probability rather than the laws of causality. But you didn't want to talk about physics so I'll raise another ontological objection:

If C1 is itself without a cause, it follows that it will always have existed. Therefore the effect of this cause (the universe) should always have existed as well. This is contradicted by copious evidence for a finite age to the universe. Even if this evidence was mistaken and the universe had indeed coexisted with its cause for all eternity, then it would then be in no actual need of a cause -- so by C2 we have the paradox that if God actually exists, he would be redundant.

Another objection is that C2 is a superfluous assumption. This assumption has God as a working label for the metastate for our universe. Apart from this metastate being the God of the Bible, it may be a plurality of other things. One alternative label in common usage is "Multiverse" which has a functional equivalence to God as a metastate (or cause) of our universe and is backed by a significant body of comprehensible theoretical physics -- unlike the God of the bible.

[otseng]

Sure but why did we stipulate the God hypothesis to start with? To explain how the universe was created, so if god also needs an explanation then we have solved nothing. Now we have a bigger problem trying to explain how a fantasy being came to be. We have no need for a god hypothesis.

We'll be covering that in the next chapter.

Actually, I have read The Blind Watchmaker. And it was an unimpressive book. And with how unimpressive The God Delusion is as well, it'll be a long time before I'll read another Dawkins book.

Well if you found that book unimpressive i wonder what impresses you. the bible perhaps?

I just got the book God - The Failed Hypothesis from the library. Browsing through it, it looks to be much better than The Blind Watchmaker or The God Delusion. This is more along the line of the types of books that would impress me.

[Cogitoergosum]

Sure but why did we stipulate the God hypothesis to start with? To explain how the universe was created, so if god also needs an explanation then we have solved nothing. Now we have a bigger problem trying to explain how a fantasy being came to be. We have no need for a god hypothesis.

We'll be covering that in the next chapter.

Actually, I have read The Blind Watchmaker. And it was an unimpressive book. And with how unimpressive The God Delusion is as well, it'll be a long time before I'll read another Dawkins book.

Well if you found that book unimpressive i wonder what impresses you. the bible perhaps?

I just got the book God - The Failed Hypothesis from the library. Browsing through it, it looks to be much better than The Blind Watchmaker or The God Delusion. This is more along the line of the types of books that would impress me.

Well i just might get that book and read it, though i have a couple other books i'm reading now.

[otseng]

Well i just might get that book and read it, though i have a couple other books i'm reading now.

I just completed my quick scan reading of the book. It's better than TGD. And it at least approaches it for the most part scientifically. But several of its arguments were lacking and even fallacious. However, it's definitely a stronger book than TGD. Perhaps we should debate this book sometime in the future?

[Greenbeard]

Everything in our universe is in a constatnt state of flux and potentiality and needs a purely actual cause to explain it.

Am I the only one that missed the point of this? Sorry, it's apparently clear over my head.

First of all, I thought god was not a part of the universe, creation of said universe being part of the discussion here. If god is unnatural, outside the universe, a first cause and all that, how does a description of 'everything in our universe' pertain to god? Secondly, do the physicists currently looking for the 'theory of everything' realize that you already have it?

Now, down to brass tacks. We'll need to define 'constant', and I guess also 'state', since we now know that time and space are merely contingent attributes of our relative 'locations.' But I don't even know enough about physics to ask the question correctly. Are there any physicists reading? With 'flux' and 'potentiality' you've completely lost me. Can you give me some references to flux, potentiality, and "purely actual cause" so that I can do some catch-up reading?

Thanks,
Matt

[Greenbeard]

Not to change the subject, but what is the intent of all these ‘proofs’ of god? I’m rereading the chapter, and the book, to see if Dawkins ever addresses the issue, but I think we should at any rate. It seems to me that before we assess the merits of any or all cases, the goals should be stated, so that we avoid a moving target and other logical fallacies. I’m assuming that non-believers are operating from the “I have no need of that hypothesis” stance, so the issue of god’s existence is pursued by believers who wish to…what, exactly? Can you help me to complete this list of possible outcomes? You believers - of god, of the ontological or any other argument for god - which of these do you think is supported? What alternatives did I miss?

• 1. prove god is possible;
  2. prove god is impossible;
  3. prove god exists;
  4. prove god does not exist;
  5. prove god is provable;
  6. prove god is improvable;
  7. ???

During my Christian inculcation, I was taught that to require proof is a failure of faith (I failed). I still read and hear that god is outside of nature, hence can’t be empirically demonstrated, logically deduced or semantically illustrated in any way. That we have faith is the demonstration of god. So where are we going with all of this? Isn’t it absurd to argue simultaneously:

• 1. that god can’t be proven or disproved by semantics or human logic;
  • a. and yet we have all of these a priori arguments for god;
  2. that god is unnatural;
  • a. but that god can be demonstrated by examining natural evidence;
    b. but that demonstration and description of god can use all the same concepts that pertain to our own natural universe –infinity, causation, termination, sufficient cause, yada yada yada;
  3. that god’s existence can be confirmed by faith alone, that only natural entities require evidence;
  • a. but it is only defenders of the god idea who keep looking either for explanation or evidence?
    b. shouldn’t the concept of god and the faith be enough?

So here are some more questions:

• 1. Are we to believe in god no matter what the evidence or lack thereof, depending completely on faith as the good books prescribe?
  • a. If so, of what use is either the search for evidence (a posteriori arguments) or the finding of an adequate explanation (a priori arguments)?:
    b. If not, if believers can actually conceive of abandoning the ‘god hypothesis,’ then a scientific use of evidence would require; a specific hypothesis, plus at least a null hypothesis but better yet a comprehensive list of alternatives, a logical empirical (either observational, interrogative, experimental, anything systematic!) methodology of data collection, descriptions of the tests to be used on the data, and what outcome will arbitrate between the alternative hypotheses. Otherwise we would end up with the selective observations, anecdotes, and cherry-picking arguments suffered by tomes like “Nature’s Destiny” (he really should have read through Sagan’s ‘baloney detection kit’ a few more times before publishing).
  2. Are we aiming at a particular god?
  • a. Biblical god
    b. Mayan god;
    c. _____________?
    d. If so, how did we choose?
  3. Does proof of god:
  • a. justify any particular religion?
    b. change anything that we currently claim as knowledge?;
    c. change the way we do science?;
    d. lead to any heuristic methodology (hint - it hasn't yet);
  4. If we prove there is a god who created the universe, how do we know he can read minds, or push planets, or whatever?;
  5. If we prove that god answers prayer, how do we know it’s the same god that causes everything?

Sorry, I’m just blithering, but it seems that if we don’t define our target before clutching at particular defenses of particular arguments, results will be elusive, ambiguous (or worse) and insipid.

Matt

[FinalEnigma]

Can you help me to complete this list of possible outcomes? You believers - of god, of the ontological or any other argument for god - which of these do you think is supported? What alternatives did I miss?

• 1. prove god is possible;
  2. prove god is impossible;
  3. prove god exists;
  4. prove god does not exist;
  5. prove god is provable;
  6. prove god is improvable;
  7. ???

Well, you missed 2 important ones.
7. God is probable;
8. God is improbable;
These are important becuase they are exactly what dawkins is talking about. He doesnt set out to prove God's non-existence; he sets out to prove that God is very improbable; which is actually a reasonable goal to set, unlike trying to prove that God does not exist.

Isn’t it absurd to argue simultaneously:

• 1. that god can’t be proven or disproved by semantics or human logic;
  • a. and yet we have all of these a priori arguments for god;
  2. that god is unnatural;
  • a. but that god can be demonstrated by examining natural evidence;
    b. but that demonstration and description of god can use all the same concepts that pertain to our own natural universe –infinity, causation, termination, sufficient cause, yada yada yada;
  3. that god’s existence can be confirmed by faith alone, that only natural entities require evidence;
  • a. but it is only defenders of the god idea who keep looking either for explanation or evidence?
    b. shouldn’t the concept of god and the faith be enough?

good point. Although pertaining to 3a I would ask who else would hypothetically be looking for evidence of God than people who are trying to defend the idea of him.

[otseng]

Not to change the subject, but what is the intent of all these ‘proofs’ of god?

These proofs are all primarily philosophical proofs. What is the intent of them? I guess so that philosophers can have something to philosophize about.

[Greenbeard]

[quote="FinalEnigma"]
Well, you missed 2 important ones.
7. God is probable;
8. God is improbable;
These are important becuase they are exactly what dawkins is talking about. He doesnt set out to prove God's non-existence; he sets out to prove that God is very improbable; which is actually a reasonable goal to set, unlike trying to prove that God does not exist.
[quote]

Well, duh! I must be getting old. Thanks for that, though! I really am trying to figure out why faith-based statements try to garner evidential support.
Matt

[McCulloch]

I haven't seen many professionals use any of these to argue for God's existence.

Google "does god exist".
First page of results

1. Does God Exist? .org
   Argues from Design and First Cause.
2. Is there a God?
   Six Points
   1. Design
   2. Design
   3. Design
   4. Argument from Popularity
   5. Argument from Personal Experience
   6. Argument from Revelation
3. Existence of God
   1. The Ontological Argument
   2. The First Cause Argument
   3. Design
   4. The Moral Argument
   5. Lord, Liar, Or Lunatic?
   6. The Meaning of Life
4. Does God Exist Scientifically?
   Mainly Design
5. Does God Exist? - The Question
   1. The Cosmological argument
   2. The Teleological Argument
   3. The Moral Argument
   4. Design
   5. Jesus' Resurrection
6. Answers in Genesis
   1. Argument from the Bible.
   2. Design
   3. Teleological Argument
7. Does God exist? Is there evidence for the existence of God?
   1. argumentum ad populum
   2. the argument from belief
   3. ontological argument.
   4. teleological argument
   5. cosmological argument
   6. moral argument
8. Atheist Foundation
9. Does God Exist?: The Debate Between Theists & Atheists at Amazon
10. THE CRAIG-WASHINGTON DEBATE: DOES GOD EXIST? 1995
    1. The Argument from Abstract Objects
    2. The Cosmological Argument
    3. The Teleological Argument
    4. The Moral Argument
    5. The Resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth
    6. The Experience of God

It seems as if professional apologists for God still get mileage out of these tired old arguments.