Existence of God
VI
�
�
�
XVII. Argument form Rational Substance
�[Argued Conditionally]
�
[This is the argument of a friend of mine named Garrett Soalt--unlike my argument it assumes that time is eternal and runs "before" the Big Bang, he defends it really well so I'm presenting it here. There will be a link to find a further expalination of it and to argue with him about it, please take it up with him]�
Here is Garrett's Board so you can go argue with him about it
�http://pub21.ezboard.com/bdeadphilosopherssociety
�
�
Garrett:The non arbitrary reason that life exist is that reality is non arbitrary, so every kind of ultimate substance exist. Primary properties of substance and the substance that has them are one, thus no two substances share a primary property in common. Consciousness has freewill since it entails self-identity and that and consciousness entail freewill, thus only consciousness has freewill. Consciousness by itself cannot cause othert hings outside itself, for the reason that there is no logical necessity of one particular state of consciousness entailing some other particular state in the world. Life at the simpless form is atl east a composite of a center of consciousness plus some laws of physics for it to cause some things in the world. Since every causal regress must beggin with such causation life at least as that is necessary in every past eternity.What do you think of that? Do you think any more people could follow that? The final version would have footnotes with links to the large version to support each premise, I suppose the important thing in the outline or summarized forms is for people to see the flow of the argument at a glance.�
_______________
�
�
How does your notion of God differ from mine? I'm leaning more in a processtheology direction these days anyway, and so that may not bother me,depnding on what it is. I'm still a Christian, but process is Christian, atleast in the liberal mode. Just present it in the best way that makes itclearest.
�
Oh it's quite a bit worse than process theology. Basically what I was dealing with was an ultimate explaination for the condition reality is in.And rather than a first cause in a strick historical event sence, what I sawwas a sum total of all existence the one an only reality all that we couldever hope for, containing every concievible kind of substence at thegreatest concievible quantities; a limitless infinite frontier with a time span of all eternity having no beginning and no end. And in that, an eternal process of first cause, that exist of logical necessity. The agentof this necessary creative process I call God. Perphaps you notice thateven with the same understanding of reality different people may disagree onwhat if any of it to call God; a pantheist could still go about callingreality as a whole God, for me I would think of God as being the ultimatereason for what things are like on the universal cosmic level, and to befair to the atheist, for this reason or source to be called God it must beliving as well as smarter than we are. And what I found by far fits thesestandards, God not only has greater inteligence than humanity but thegreatest concievible level of intelligence.-With a really interesting twist;as you may know intelligence is not knowing things but rather is the abilityto learn, think, invent ect. Some people have 100 IQ, some have 150 or 216ect. Some may think of God as having a couple trillion IQ, but actually ifstarting now you were to have God's intelligence, you would may only scoreon test at 100 IQ, but then in a month or a year might then score at 110 IQ,unlike other humans you would not only learn but keep getting better atlearning according to the time and effort you put into it.
�
Now about how this stuff is knowable, the 'first' step is using the chart ofall 8 theoretical sources for life and using process of elimination. Timehas a beginning or no beginning; It has no beginning since centers ofconsciousness have no beginning, and they have no beginning since they havefreewill and must decide all or part of each momentary state of existence,and it would be impossible for them to decide a first state of theirexistence.So now on the chart are only the four options inwhich time has no beginning:Life has no source, came from nothing, came from something living, came fromsomething nonliving.
�
Next, from the impossibility of infinite cause regress, and thebeginninglessness of time it follows that arbitrary necessities areimpossible.
�Also since no two kinds of substance can share a property in common and freewill is a property of consciousness, only consciousness has free will, onlyconsciousness can nondetermistically decide between different options.
�And since consciousness is nondeterministic, it by itself is not alive butin a sort of oblivion of randomly self-determined states of consciousness,and since none of these states logically entail some condition in the world,centers of consciousness cannot by themselfs cause anything in the world. Idefine life as consciousness plus atleast some laws of physics with which itcan cause some effect in the world.
�
And there are other kinds of substence since it is for example possible todirectly represent spatially extented forms in our minds yet if something isa contradiction then our minds cannot directly represent it, thus thesubstence spatial extention, is not a contradiction. If it did not exist,then it would be impossible since substance can't be made from nothing andcan't be made from some other kind of substance. If a thing that is not acontradiction were impossible then that would be an arbitrary necessity.Arbitrary necessities are impossible, therefore spatial extention exist of logical necessity, as well as all other substances that are notcontradictions.
Out of our list:
Life has no source, came from nothing, came from something living, came fromsomething nonliving.
�We can through out 'came from nothing', and it could not come from something nonliving since consciousness by itself is powerless, and nonconscioussubstance can't decide between options.
�
Life having no source is meant in the ultimate sence, as in each livingindividual is either an eternal being that thus didn't come from anythingsince it was uncreated or was ultimately created by such a being or being.If all living individuals are eternal or all noneternal then there is noobvious case of arbitrary necessity, but if some are eternal while othersare not then it is obviously an arbitrary necessity since for any twocenters of consciousness with self-identities A, B. Options 1 and 2:... "1)Awas alive of necessity, but B is not, 2)B was alive of necessity, but A isnot" ...are equally concievible but if either were true it would be true ofnecessity and having an equally concievible alternative would thus be an arbitrary necessity.
�
So what we are left with is that either all individuals necessarily havelife, or that all had a time when they were not alive. If needed I could gointo more detail as to why the former option involves arbitrary necessity,here I sort of have another approach that's probably far easier to makesince of: Given moral awareness it only takes a finite time to make up onesmind and attain a will that's permanently fixed toward good or evil, if onehad moral awareness for a past eternity they would have always beenunchangeably evil or unchangeably good, thus in either case the charactercould not have been thier choice and so would be of arbitrary necessity. Orwe could wonder how we could go through an infinite amount of time withoutmoral awareness and then gain it. It would seem that any life form being asystem of different parts would have something about it that demands adecision to have determined it. Even if the hypothetical eternal life formis radically self-changing this would then be different from one that isstuck from eternity in some unchangeable form. In either case the uncreatedlife form could not have decided which of those options was its eternalcondition. So we'd end up with a cosmos inwhich some options were neverdetermined by a choice.
�
Now we're left with life from life, that is that all living individuals havea beginning exist because of previous life. Since we have a process offreewill choices determing the cosmos, there is no infinite regress of causeand effect here. It also is not an infinite regress of explainations sinceit's the only option since all the others are impossible as a pure matter oflogic; Time has no beginning, nothing comes from nothing, there can't beany living individual without a designer, life can't originate from nonlife.Rather than being a contingent, or luckily existant curiousity, theexistence of life is a necessity, there could not be anything in existenceif it were not for life, it is the source of all reality and so it is it'sown explaination because it's the only possible explaination. How's thisso? We know for example that spatial extention exist, and in existing ithas to be in one possible state of being(form) or another. But lacking freewill it cannot determine the form that it is in, since only consciousnesshas that ability, it's form and the condition of all other nonconscioussubstances must ultimately be decided by the indeterministic decision making of consciousness. And since only through life can consciousness effect the world and thus pull this off, life exist of necessity. And since at all times these substances already exist, this process of determination through life is eternal rather than a one time cosmogeny.Now the question is how complex the ultimate life form is. A non ultimate life form is a species of life that did not have to exist but wascreated at some time. By ultimate form I mean a species of life that existof necessity and determines reality on a cosmic scale.The simplest kind of life, where an oblivious center of consciousnessaffects the world but does not experience/'get affected by' the world cannotdetermine on a cosmic level since many conditions of the world would notcontradict the past eternity of states of consciousness the center ofconsciousness has undergone. It's just as though there were an eternal pairof dice in a sealed can that people have come and shaken up throughout thepast eternity; Any sides of the dice could be facing up withoutcontradicting a complete knowlege of all the can shaking that's been goingon. The dice sides represent the world, and the can shaking represents theconsciousness affecting the world without experiencing it. So ultimate lifemust be able to affect and experience the world. But if you recall mybattle with Randall, to be able to overcome that dice problem the ultimateform of life must be so creative as to mimick the creativity of Randall'sproposed chaos. They need the ability to in some finite time start withsome precondition and alter it into any other condition so that it would bejust as through the new condition they created was not dependant on theprecondition just as the 'chaotic force' is unhindered by preconditions.
�
Well I've got to wrap this up a bit. If you flip a quarter forever and bothsides have equal chance of facing up, heads and tails will happen equally many times, what would be impossible is for it to come up heads forever. Inthe same way once we get to see a needed minimum amount of order in theultimate life form, the question then is by chance what are the odds of suchorder? With the evolution of our physical bodies, those odds are finite andthus no problem for eternity. But this life we are talking about involvesstates of consciousness and how consciousness is linked with other substanceto make an orderly system. But there are more possible states of experiencethan members in the set of natural numbers. Just concidering vision chancesare virtually 100% that each speck of detail would be a totally differentcolor making a totally disorganized image of nothing. The number ofpossible colors is transinfinite since each can be thought of as compositesof primary color elements which are totally different from one another, andthere can't be a reason for there to be 7 of them instead 8(no magicaldifference in those numbers) and there couldn't be just a countibly infinitenumber of them since they are possible states of being and since there's noway for there to be an algorethym to find and number totally differentfundamental things and garantee that none are left out. Using this asanalogous to the probability for the chance creation of minimal order neededfor a life form that can determine the cosmos, the odds of such are lessthan infinitesimal. Now here's the kicker, I'm not making the invalidargument that it's impossible because the odds are too slim, rather I'msaying that just as the quarter cannot come up heads all the time, thoseodds means that the chance occurence of the needed order could not happenmore than a finite number of times in all eternity, yet life had to becreated throughout eternity, it's not that many steps from here to see that direct creation of life by earlier life is a necessity. And that's sosubtle, you might not immediately see the significants of what that means,if a living individual is smart enough to create another like itself inabilities to complete the cycle then how smart is this individual? Theyhave the intelligence to invent another as intelligent as they are. That isthe greatest concievible intelligence, it's the sort that keeps growingbeyond it's original parameters, thought thinking about and understandingitself and in accomplishing that being greater than the past level ofintelligence it came to understand. Furthermore as ones who determine thecosmos they write the laws of physics, this means immortality. But with immortality, supreme intelligence, and the power to decide how things arecomes the reason why God the ultimate form of life is of necessity morally perfect. A good person can trust another good person, but an evil personcan not only trust a good person to rebell against them, they can't eventrust other evil people because there are as many sides to evil as there areevil people. One could not be so intelligent and masochistic enough to give such powers to one they could not trust.
�
-Garrett
�
�
�
1)All primary properties of a substance reduce to and are that substance.
2)No two kinds of substance share a primary property in common. Line 1.
3)Nondeterminstic decision making is a property of consciousness.
4)Only Consciousness can make nondeterministic decisions. Lines 2&3
5)Nothing can come from nothing.
6)Substances cannot be made from other substances. Def. of substance.
7)All that exist is substance. Def. of substance.
9)Arbitrary necessities
are impossible.
8)Each kind of substance is impossible or necessary. Lines 5,6&7
9)Arbitrary necessities are impossible.
10)Nothing that is not a contradiction is impossible. Line 9
11)Every substance that is not a contradiction is necessary. Lines 8&10
12)If something is a contradiction then consciousness cannot directly
represent it.
13)If consciousness can directly represent something then it is not a
contradiction. Line 12.
�
14)Consciousness can directly represent the substance spatial extension.
15)The substance spatial extension is not a contradiction. Lines 13&14
16)Spatial extension exist of necessity. Lines 11&15
17)If something is logically contingent then it is actually contingent. Line
9
18)If something is actually contingent then it was determined by
nondeterministic decision(s).
19)States of spatial extension are logically contengent. 22)No state of
consciousness logically entails a state of spatial extension.
20)States of spatial extension were determined by nondeterministic
decision(s) Lines 19, 17&18
�
21)States of spatial extension must be determined by consciousness. Lines
20&4
22)No state of consciousness logically entails a state of spatial extension.
23)Causation is a primary property of another substance(I call it physics).
Line 22
24)Therefore consciousness does not have the property of causation and by
itself has only pure nondeterministic caos. Lines 23&2&3
25)Therefore the order of mind and memory and struggling with things in
experience we cannot wish away is more than just consciousness but is the
composite of consciousness and other nonconscious substance which restrain
its natural chaos. Line 24.
26)Life is a center of consciousness plus atleast the physics needed for it
to cause things in the world(ei. determine states of spatial extension).
Def. of life.
27)Life exist of necessity and necessarily determines the states of spatial
extension. Lines 21,24,26,16
28)This argument holds true for all nonconscious kinds of substance that
have more than one possible state of existence.
29)Life is the necessary determiner of the contingent states of all
nonconscious reality. Lines 27,28,7.
30)Each living being has a begginning or every center of consciousness has
always had life. Line 9
31)Ultimate life form is the form of life that is necessary for
determination of reality on a cosmic level. Def. of ultimate life form.
32)An ultimate life form must be able to experience the world and have the
intelligence to understand the effects it causes in it.
33)The probability of the chance formation of a being of this sophistocation
is transinfinitely small.
34)Reality infinite but transinfinite.
35)The probability of the chance formation of such beings occuring
infinitely many times is less the a 100%. Lines 33&34.
36)The chance of Reality's existence was 100%. Lines 16,7
37)If any living being has a beggining then the chance of formation of
beings of the ultimate life form variety occurring infinitely many times was
100% Lines 36,31,7,17-19
38) If any living being has a beggining then beings of the ultimate life
form variety did not form by chance infinitely many times. Lines 35, 37
39) Each living being had a beginning.
40) Infinitely many times ultimate life form variety beings formed by
intelligent means.-not by chance. Lines 38&39
41) An ultimate life form must have the intelligence to create life of equal
intelligence. Lines 31&40
42) Intelligence great enough to comprehend itself can transend itself to
acquire any concievible ability of intellect and thus is the greatest
intelligence concievible.
43)An ultimate life form has the greatest concievible intelligence. Lines
41&42
44)Their determination of the laws of physics would be and intentional
writing of these laws. Lines 32&43.
45)Immortality would acheivable for them. Line 44
46)Any of them that is evil could only have come from another evil one.
47)If any of them are evil then there have been infinitely many of them that
were evil. Line 46
48)If infinitely many of them have been evil then reality would be
unknowable(think The Matrix).
49)If reality were unknowable then it could not be determined.
50)If reality could not be determined then reality would not exist. Line 9
51)All ultimate life form variety beings are good. Lines 36,50,49,48
�
In conclusion we're talking about a necessarily existing species of lifewhose individuals are good enough for reality to be knowable-and if that'snot moral perfection then over eternity each would certaintly approach oracheive it in a relatively short time. whose individuals have intelligencethat grows without end as they design, and create and explore the infinitepossibilities of the limitless frontier, having the power to make everylogically contigent reality possible, for after all they are the cosmic level source of all reality.
�Here are links for futher explaination
�http://www.insidetheweb.com/mbs.cgi/mb69809
�
�
http://www.insidetheweb.com/messageboard/mbs.cgi?acct=mb698091&MyNum=966828557&P=Yes&TL=934254291
�
People can go there for explaination of the nonderived premises, as well as find further explaination of 'substance' 'arbitrary necessities' 'modalities' and 'just what on earth is going on here'.
�
If you still want a bit on what substance is this here's an address to an introduction on it:
�
http://www.insidetheweb.com/messageboard/mbs.cgi?acct=mb698091&MyNum=937726694&P=Yes&TL=934254291
�
�
�
�
�
XVIII. Another Garrett Argument on Logical Necessity
��
�
�
I think that God exists out of logical necessity and so does not need a cause anymore that something had to cause the law of excluded middle to be true.
�
Each thing has two 'modalities', an actual modality and a logical modality. There are three of each kind of modality:
�
A)Actual modalities:
1)'actually necessary' in real world(could not have failed to exist)
2)'actually impossible' in real world(could not have existed)
3)'actually contingent'(not actually necessary and not actually
impossible)
�
B)Logical modalities:
1)'logically necessary'(the denial of its existence is a
contradiction)
2)'logically impossible'(the thing is a contradiction)
3)'logically contingent'(not a logical necessity and not a
contradiction)
�
Now if let L=Logically and A=Actually, N=Necessary, I=Impossible, C=Contingent and for example Logically Impossible=LI then these are all the theoretically possible combinations of the two kinds of modality that a thing might have:
�
1)LN-AN
2)LN-AI
3)LN-AC
�
4)LI-AN
5)LI-AI
6)LI-AC
�
7)LC-AN
8)LC-AI
9)LC-AC
�
Right up front we can eliminate four of these as obviously not occuring in the real world(for example, 6)LI-AC, couldn't be, since a contradiction is always false and so could not at the same time exist of necessity in the real world). An we are left with these:
�
1)LN-AN
5)LI-AI
7)LC-AN
8)LC-AI
9)LC-AC
�
I find it very intuitive that 7 and 8 are impossible. If either one of those were true so would the other since logically contingent things have mutually exclusive alternatives that are also logically contingent.
�
An arbitrary necessity is something that is logically contingent but actually necessary. I believe they are impossible. If they are impossible they must be impossible of logical necessity which would mean it would have to be a contradiction that something be logically contingent but actually necessary. In other words I believe that everythings actual modality is the same as its logical modality.
�
This means that all logically contingent things must be caused by pasted decisions. Only life can make such decisions that effect the world therefore the existence of life in the whole of reality here and there though all past eternity is a logical necessity. And God is the ultimate life form-cosmic level determiner of reality's infinite state of affairs.
�
�
�
�
�
�XIX. Arguement from Moral Judgement and Absract Values
�
[Note this argument differs from the previous moral argument (no. VIII) in that that argument is based upon the explainitory power of the God Hypothesis for human nature in relation to moral motions--whereas this argument argues from the nature of the values of morality themselves and the abilities of minds to judgement. So the the first argument deals with human nature and is really an argument from the way humans feel morally, this argument is based upon the ideas of morality and moral judgement themselves]�
�
A. Moral Values Require Absolute Truth or they are meaingless
�
1) Moral values are either absolute or relative.2) If Moral values are relative than they have no real binding force of decision beyond mere social contract or individual taste
3) Genetic determinists try to ground ethics in necessary values dervied from genetics such as the inherent need for cooperation.
4) If the only thing that makes something moral is it's value toward inhancing cooporation, and if a Nazi society fostered cooperation, a Nazi society would be moral
5) If we cannot except an effecient society as moral on the grounds that in addition to efficiency it also did immoral things than the grounds for those other things as immoral must be provided.
6) Such such grounds cannot be provided in genetics and culture than there must be other grounds for morality than just genetics and culture.
1) Possible Worlds Examples
�a) Nazism Triumphs�Let's assume a possible universe in which the Nazis won World War II. They have exterminated all Jews, communists, liberals and some other groups they don't like. But of course they haven't exterminated the vast majority of groups they feel supirior too becasue they want someone to do the jobs they don't want themselves. That means that even thugh Millions have died unjustly, only a relatively small percentage of the total human population has been exterminated.
*Becasue there was total world power by one remgieme there was no nuclear arms race thus the world did not sit on the brink of nuclear distruction*Becasue millions have been culled the population explosion is down
* Becasue there was no communism and no USSR with nueclear weapons there is no possibility of nuclear terrorism.
* No Israel means no Arab/Israli conflict and thus no Arab terrorism
* Since the Nazis had some socialistic style programs everyone is taken care of and everyone is fed, housed, clothed, given medical care, jobs, and fulfilling work and artistic outlets for culture and recreation
* Becasue the world population wasn't threatened in this culling, not chance of mass exteinctions on the part of humanity other than the Jews of course.
�
Thus, society has achieved the greatest good for the greatest number. Now let's assume in fact that this Nazism was discovered by the ancient Greeks and came into existence and world domination with Alexander the Great. That means that the extermination of the Jews was a long long time ago. Everyone has been taught for 2000 or more years that the Ayrians are the master race, that the greatest good for the greatest number means getting rid of pesky minority groups such as the Jews, and that everyone should work for the greater good. Now once and awhile some group of other is exterminated but by and large everyone is provided with a decent life, assuming they aren't exterminated. At no time is the population of humanity over all in danger, and in fact it is kept balance so everything is good.
�
�
�b) Brains and Happiness�
�Let's imagine another possible world in which a select group of "servants" are in charge of putting the brain of everyone not in the servant group in a speicial receptical which keeps it alive and schocks the pleasure centers periodically so that it feels the greatest pleasure that it has ever felt. At one point this "servant group" was responsible for kidnapping and de-braining everyone on earth, but many years latter they have accomplished their task such that no one on earth not in the servant class is living in his/her body, but all are either brains or special breeders who give birth to new brains which are removed form the infants they are born into and raised in these speical chanmbers never to know hardship or toil but always to be given the greatest pleasure humans can feel through the brain schocks.
Since behavior is all deterministic thorugh genetics and no one is truely free anyway, and since the greatest good for the greatest number is the only ehtical value that cam be proven to have any meaning, is this not a moral society?
C) Captin Kirk's Dilemma�
Let's assume a possible world , not the earth, in which an alien speicies has evolved to become dominate on its planet, let us call it "Hitleria." On Hitleria there is total injustice. A tyrant rules by force, everyone is taught to obey. Members of the ruling families can do anything they want to anyone they want and no one can object. Anyone who has gained a higher position in this society through whatever means possible and moved up to the top of the beurocracy has the authority to toture kill or maime in whatever way they choose anyone of a lower caste. The only rules which are observed are that they cannot do anything to harm the ability of the speicies to propogate itself and they must provide a basic level of economic security for the middle classes. Slavery exists, with auction blocks and the whole bit, but two classes of slaves. Class A are in total subjection, they can be killed at will wtih no fear of reprisals. And Blass B, the larger group, has basic rights but are still property. Can we say "this is an immoral Society?" And do we use the enterprise to change it? Do we violate the prime directive?
�
�
�
2) Are either of these examples immoral?
�
�
If morality is relative and subjective with no ultimate truth value, if the only provable moral value is the greatest good for the greastest numbert. than both of these socieities should be morally fine examles. Somehow I doubt that very many people will agree that they are, but why not? Both exhibit the greatest good for the greatest number and both assume a culural bias in their favor. IN the Nazi example everyone would be taught from firth that the Ayrians are supiroir and everyone would be taught to base morality upon that notion. So if the thing that makes something good is the group than why would these not be just societies? The only possible objections one could level against them would be that the acts themselves are intrinscially evil, but for that to be the case there must be a possibility of intrinsic evil to exist, and thus there must also be an intrinsic good.
�In the case of example C, the planet Hitleria, these are a forigen speicies, they are not even human. Is there system unjust? How could it be called unjust when that would be impossing huamn values upon another species?
�
�B. The Deniel of harm
��Not many people will be able to deny the obvious injustice in all three examples. But while most will try to rationalize a realitivist ethic as sufficient to condemn the example, some will simpley argue "fine it coudl really be that way. That doesn't prove the existence of God, it just means life is tough and we are lucky to have a good social contract. We will call the first approach the ratinoalizing approach, and no 2 the Nihilistic appraoch
�
1) The Rationalizing approach
�
�This appraoch would probably be to try and argue that through cooperation these socieities would flurish all the more, or that the tyrannical nature of them would eventually break down thus demonstrating that natural evolution is the ultimate arbitor in restoring a moral balance. The argument runs something like this:
�
Morality is the natural result of realizing that cooperation is better than not cooperating. This is all that is needed to produce a moral socieity. The natural ramifications of Tryanny would eventually cause it's breakdown thus proving that those who cooproate adapt to change and survive and those who don't dont' survive. Thus there is nothing intrensically moral about morality it is just practical matter of survvile and cooperation.
�
Answer: This in fact cannot be demonstrated. In fact human history itself argues against it. We have gone on with bloodshed century after century, epoch after epoch, as we grow more sophisticated econically and technolgiocally and more democratic we also grow better able to destroy the world. We have not secured morality or the peace or saftey of life for the vast majority of the speicies. Moroever, The important point is that in each example it is stipulated that the brutal socieities have achieved an equalibrium such that they do not fall to greater desires for democracy. After all, Nazism is efficient and can provide good living conditions for the majority of its people although at the expense of others. But what does that matter if the society itself agrees to it? And the brians in the box can't do anything to rebell. The aliens are not human and thus this is their natural balance. This is the same dilemma Captin Kirk Faced on every episode of Star Treck. Weather or not we should acutally vilate the prime directive is another matter, however, can we say that it is an immoral society?
�[I have discovered from arguing this on the Net already that sketpics (who usually think like utilitarians) cannot admit that the Nazi scoeities could be called moral, but neither can they agree that there must be some higher value involved than could be derived from nature. They always try to argue that merely nature alone, though the need for cooporation, provides all we need for morality, but they miss the point entirely. If morality is derived only from genes and culture than a Nazi socieity could be moral. To get around this they always try to show that Nazi socieity would be inefficeint but of course the Nazis were very efficient and if you were in the right group you could have a very good life in a Nazi world (as long as you said and did the right things). At this point they always introduce Happiness or invididual desires as a means around this point. But those are intresnic values not given in mere genetic inheritence. Thus they always have to bring in values which are good in themselves in order to justify the immorality of Nazism.]
�
2) The Nihilistic approach
�
�This is the approach of those who would say sure we can call it immoral by our standards but we do not live in these possible worlds, so all we can say is what we feel by our standards. There is no ultimate turth so we must simpley leave them alone. This does not prove God exists because it may simpley be that the world is a harsh palce.
�
Answer: But that's just giving into facism is it not? If we have to say "this is not good by our standards but we have no right to imposse our standards such that we cannot even say it is unjust, period, than What meaning do our standards have at all? Of course the true Nihilist would disavow any standards, moral motions, or answers of any kind. But that is an untennable solution for most people, other wise the genetic determinist must agree that the Nazi society is moral and no one cares because "being moral" is of no importance.
�
�
�C. The Basis of Absolute Morality
�1)For moral standards to mean anything they must be applicable accross the board
2) Very few people will be able to admit that these examles cannot be called unjust because logically if they are not unjust than the term has no meaning. this is so because these are very extreme examples. If the most extreme examples of injustice cannot be condimened than what meaning do standards have?
3) In each case the socieities exhnibited in the possible worlds met the criteria for a relativistic notion of morality and yet they prove that this is not good enough. the answer must be that there is an intrinsic truth content to the notions of Good and evil, since to withhold this judgement is to make the concepts of justice and injustic, good and evil, right and wrong, meaningless.
�
�4) Since these examples do meet the criteria for a realitvistic morality genetically based ect. and yet are still intrinsically unjust and wrong, it must be that the nature of right and wong must be decided on some other basis than merely cultural acceptence and prgamatic social ends. The greatest good for the greatest number is not a fit standard for moral content.
�
�D. The Link to God
�1) Since these examples indicate that there must be intrinsic good and evil, right and wrong, the intrinsic nature of right and wrong must be found in some higher standard that govens these things.
2) Moral judgement Judgement requires a mind. This is so becasue morality must be understood through a judgement of the mind. This is why we have ehtical thinking in the first place.
3) Since the moral law is not merely socially relative but must be intrinsic, and yet is not found in nature or in any naturally abstract principle, it must be the product of a mind. Of course it cannot be the product of any huamn mind or it would be relative.
�
E. The Logic of the Argument
�
1) Moral Values must be intrinstic or they are meaningless2) To be intrinsic they must be the product of mind since only mind can render judgement
3) They cannot be the product of mere human mind since that would make them realitve
4) Therefore there must be a transcendent mind which holds all moral judgement in its omnicient grasp
�
�
_________________
�
�XX. the Eligance of the God Hypothesis
�
�A. The Principle of Parcemony
�
��This scientific principle is derived from Occam's Razor, but it is not Occam's Razor.The Razor is always misquoted. The popular notion is that it says "take the simpelist solution." Actually it doesn't. Occam never said that. He said do not multiply entities beyond necessity. But it is, nevertheless understood that the simplest and most eleigant solution is to be prefurrred.
�
B. God is the simpelist Solution
�
�
Atheists often think that God is the more complicated solution. ON discusson boards they will often argue that the BB is much simpler than God becasue it comes from a singularity. So they are confussing size with simplicity. Apparently they think that an infintessimally small thing is siple and an infinte thing is complex. But this is not at all true, which one can see with proper reflection. God is actually much simpler. The singulaity has to be expalined itself, it offers no real expalination but ivintes a cause for itself. And if it did contan matter and energy, which many sketpics seem to think but the real scientific theory doesn't say that, it would be even more complex becase that would require an explanation as to how infinitely dense matter got in there in the first place.�
�
1) The concept of God is eligant
�
�
God is sipmler by far, espeicially Tllich's notion of God as the ground of being or the Thomistic concept of a God whose existence is his essence. This is the most eleigant solution in the world. God is on a par with Being itself and his essence is to be. That is elegant becasue it means just this: Being has to be, and what being does is merely eixst, thus if God's existence (the fact that he is) is his essence (the thing that he is) than it means that Being itself is merely doing what it is supposse to do, merely being and through its own being allowing the beings to come into existence.
�
�
�
�
2) Theism is arguably a simpler hypothesis- in terms of origin
�
As Duns Scotus put it, there is an infinite distance between being and non-being, and theism posits the origin of being by being, whereas atheism posits the origin of being from non-being.
�
Edmund Whitaker, a British physicist, wrote a book entitled The Beginning and End of the World, in which he said, "There is no ground for supposing that matter and energy existed before and was suddenly galvanized into action. For what could distinguish that moment from all other moments in eternity?" Whitaker concluded, "It is simpler to postulate creation ex nihilo--Divine will constituting Nature from nothingness." [cited in Jastrow, R. 1978. God and the Astronomers. New York, W.W. Norton, p. 111-12.]
�
Physicist Barry Parker agrees: "We do, of course, have an alternative. We could say that there was no creation, and that the universe has always been here. But this is even more difficult to accept than creation."[Barry Parker, Creation--The Story of the Origin and Evolution of the Universe (New York & London: Plenum Press, 1988) p. 202.]
�
�
�
C. Through this one simple notion all problems are solved
�
1) The problem of existence�
In terms of the ultimate question of origin this is solved in the God hypothesis in the logic of the final cause. The assumption of an infinite regress of causes is ultimately illogical and the chain of cause and effect must stop some place.
��
�
2) The human problematic
�
�
All world religions seek to define a human problematic, the human condition, the centeral dilemma at the core of being human. They all define it in different terms but they all do recognize that there is one. Some think of it as sin, some as imbalance, some as being alienated from nature and the universe, but all have some notion of a problematic.
�
Athesits approach the notion of God and what God wants as though merely dealing witht a big bully in the sky. God is just another guy and he has his opinion and we have ours. It doesn't matter that he' s more powerful, most bullies usually are, but that doesn't make him right. This view is so silly, shallow, and short sighted and yet it will be the basis of most responses given. They often say things like "how does having a first principle help you? " or "so what if God thinks this?" IT is not merely a matter of God' s "opinion" if God exists God is a priori the dterminate of all truth and justice and all meaning and judgement simpley by virtue of the fact that God not only created all that is, but that even potential existence must originate in the will of God. That means God makes things true! That being the case, all the problems involved in the human probelmatic are bound up in God.
a) Problem of meaning�
Without God all meaning is merely relative and subjective. Any meaning that can be had on those terms is pretend meaning. With the concept of God meaning is wirtten into the fabric of the universe because it stemms form being itself. Meaning is just a matter of interpriation, but God interprits from the ultimate univresal persective. He knows all and sees from every vantage point. Since God is eternal, true meaning is that which registers on the eternal scale of values. God's scale of values is absolute, so if God assigns meaning it is universally true and valid for all eternity. Thus, the deaths of unknown martyrs are always already more meaningfull and better known where it counts than the most famous events in history, even if no one on earth knows about them. This is far more "meaningful" than what you or I can think or pretned about our lives.
��
�
b) The moral problem�
Consult the moral problem, argument no. 8 two pages back. The explainitory value of the argument shows why we have moral motions and why we are not able to live up to them. With God this problem is exaplained as well but with materialism it must either be ignored or reduced to something else.Now atheists have this habit of reducing God's will to mere whim. Thus they argue that God's will in terms of ethical mandates is nothing more than argbitrary. But that is foolish. If God exists than his will is paramount, it is the defining factor, not in an arbitrary way, but because God is synonimous with the good. The good is based upon God's character. This is a logical necessity based upon the fact that God is the ground of being. Thus, it is not a mere whim that creates the good, but the openess of being which creates the essence of all rational ethical choices, the will for the good of the other, giving opening up to, in short, love. This forms the essence of all valuations and makes moral that which is merely factual, or immoral that which is merely factual.
��
4) Epistemologial problems
�
God gives us epistemologicaly assumptions which cover a wide range of topics and offers certainty as to the ultimate form of knowledge.
��
�
5) Ultiamte Concerns
�
Hunaties ultiamte concerns which are meaning and death are wrapped up in the nature of God's existence. God gives meaning and satisfies ultimate concerns thorugh transformation.
�
�D.The Atheist Hypothesis is comparitvely contradictory
�
�Yes, there is no "atheist hypothesis" per se, other than that God doesn't exist. But that is juts the point. To simpley posit no God and life as the result of dead matter and random chance alone leaves on in a confussed state of disaray, with no central over arching theme that ties together all the provblems of humanity. Themeism solves them all, espeicially does Christianity solve them all in one fell swoop. With atheism or materialism most of these probelms are disconnected and require seperate solutions. With God they are all resolved in the one simple answer of God's existence. This makes belief in God the simplest and most eligant solution because it resolves all of our most imporant questions at once. That offers a strong indication in a probablistic assumption that God is the nature of the case.
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
XXI. The commumlative case
A. The Principle of A Cummulateive CaseThe principle of a cummulative case was discussed by Basil Mitchel in The Justification of Religious Belief. The Danger of such a case is that it might be seen as the 10 leaky bucketts fallacy if one is not careful. All the arguments put to gether prove God even if no one of them does, this will be compared to saying all of the bucketts hold water when taken together even if no one of them does alone. But the difference is that in this argument is differnt in that I'm not saying that taken all together all of these fallacious arguments stack up to a good one. First, I dont' think any of them are fallacious, I think any one of the arguments presented above proves the case, nevertheless, it should be pointed out that each of the arguments provides a special service to the whole which must be viewed in context. When take in this way one will see that there is even less room for the sketpic to deny the existence of God.
�
�
B. Ontologlcial and Cosmological arguments
�
�1) taken together
The Ontologcial argument in conjunction with the Cosmological arguement works to prove that arbitrary necessities are impossible, the infinite regress is impossible, therefore, the etenral cause of the universe is also necessary cause. when atheists argue that God must have a cause, this argument helps to show why that is not the case. Becasue God is not contingent. God is not dependent upon anything else, everthing in nature, in the natural chain of cause and effect is contingent. God is necessary and thus doesn't need a cause.
2) Cosmological argument�
�Shows that the cause of the universe must be external to the universe, external to space/time, and must be eternal. It
�
C. Trancendental Signifyer and Being has to be
�
Demonstrates that being itself has certain qualities we associate with God and that there has to be an organizing principle which gives meaning to the universe.
�
�
D. Arguments that demonstrates God's Consciousness
�
�
This organizing principle, this necessary being is proven to be conscious by the following arguments.
�
1) The Anthropic argumentThe God of the Anthropic Argument would have to have a concept of creation, it would have to be able to set the values of all the constants at exactly the right levels. I heistate to speak of "planing" or of "design" but certainly an awareness of what it is doing.
�
2) The argument form the Sublime�
Demonstrates a God of good aesthetic tastes, a God who kows good art works and has a good sense of color schemes. Seriously demonstrates a God who has a senseibility.
�
3) The Consciiousness and Moral, value arguments�
All demonstrate that God is possessed of consciouseness. Since consciouess is probably a basic force of nature the basic structure of it is in the universe and thus there is a transcendnet will and mind. That indicates given all that has been said already that God is conscious, personal.
4) Values and Existential arguments�
These demonstrate that God holds values, that God's nature is that of justice and love, but the existential argument Also shows this as well as Marcell argues from relationships with other other minds. Now we are basically in the ball park of the "Christian God" becasue we have a conscious being with a moral agenda for the universe.
�
E. Conclusion: God is proven QED
�At each stage of argument these ideas, each one of them, fills in a needed requirement and put together they demonstrate the supremely existential God of the Chrstian tradition. God is revealed int he nature of logic, is the final cause necessary for the origin of the universe, and has will and volition, understands and loves.
�
�
�
�