God believers like to claim that the laws of Nature (or their regularity) can only be explained by a divine mind. But this makes no sense. What we call "regularity" is nothing more than the consequence of logic (in this case, identity and causality). The problem is that a god cannot create logic, for in order to do so, that god would need to exist in the first place; and existence can only make sense within a logical frame. Outside of logic, existence is... logically impossible, as both identity (existence is existence) and causality (therefore existence exists) are by-products of logic.
Let me explain: To exist, an object must be itself and not something else - a god must be a god and not something else, or, if you prefer, A must be A and A cannot be Not-A. These are the laws of identity. This means that in order for a god to be a god, it needs to exist within a logical frame, for in an illogical one, it would not follow that a god must be a god (or that A must be A), since this would be a logical conclusion. Even existence is subject to the laws of identity and causality, for without them, it would not follow that existence must exist.
Not only that, but in order for Y (say, a god) to create X, it must follow that the intent to create X will result in the creation of X, which means that the act of creating can only take place within a logical frame. Again, within an illogical frame, it does not follow that the intent to create X must lead to the creation of X. (Here I'm assuming that the creator cannot fail in its attempt to create whatever it is that it intends to create. For a fallible creator would not necessarily arrive at the desired outcome.) Therefore all acts of creation are required to take place within a logical frame.
In a nutshell: To exist requires identity, and to create requires causality. Since both these laws are logic-based, it follows that logic cannot logically be created, for the act of creating requires logic.
What all of this means is that logic is the ultimate axiom. It is irreducible. Logic is self-explanatory by necessity. To borrow from theological terminology, logic is a necessary "being" while gods, if they exist, can only be contingent - without logic, there is no identity or causality, and therefore no existence possible. And without existence, no god can exist.
November 04, 2008
November 03, 2008
Is the Concept of Necessary Being Logical?
Incapable of proving God's existence, theologians have devised an argument whose purpose is to define God into existence.
The argument goes something like this: a necessary being, by virtue of it being necessary, must exist in all possible worlds. Because God is a necessary being, he must exist in all possible worlds, and since our world is a possible world, then God must exist in our world.
Now the theologian stands proud, arms crossed, convinced that he has stumped his atheist opponent. Unfortunately for him, his opponent is me. ;-) (Wow! Did you see that ego?)
So I look the theologian in the eye and give him a big smile. Our theologian friend has forgotten one important thing: logic. Let me explain.
Ask yourself this: how many possible worlds are there? The answer: there's an infinite number of them. Indeed, you can posit a world with only one atom, a world with two atoms, one with three atoms, etc. By merely counting atoms, you arrive at an infinite number of worlds. (It is important to note here that by "world" I do not necessarily mean "universe" as in the time-space/matter-energy kind of universe we live in. It could be a non material world or whatever else. The only condition is that the world must obey the laws of logic, thus the term "possible.")
Now when faced with infinity, one can be certain of one thing: everything - and I do mean everything - will happen at least once. That means that there will be a world with one atom, a world with two atoms... and - tadaaaaaa! - a world with no atoms at all! (You know where I'm going with this, don't you?)
Similarly, if you have an infinite number of possible worlds, then at least one of them will be without a god! That is required by logic. It follows then that the concept of necessary being is flawed, as it is contradicted by logic. Just as a bachelor cannot be married, a being cannot be necessary.
Therefore, God's existence has not been demonstrated.
QED
The argument goes something like this: a necessary being, by virtue of it being necessary, must exist in all possible worlds. Because God is a necessary being, he must exist in all possible worlds, and since our world is a possible world, then God must exist in our world.
Now the theologian stands proud, arms crossed, convinced that he has stumped his atheist opponent. Unfortunately for him, his opponent is me. ;-) (Wow! Did you see that ego?)
So I look the theologian in the eye and give him a big smile. Our theologian friend has forgotten one important thing: logic. Let me explain.
Ask yourself this: how many possible worlds are there? The answer: there's an infinite number of them. Indeed, you can posit a world with only one atom, a world with two atoms, one with three atoms, etc. By merely counting atoms, you arrive at an infinite number of worlds. (It is important to note here that by "world" I do not necessarily mean "universe" as in the time-space/matter-energy kind of universe we live in. It could be a non material world or whatever else. The only condition is that the world must obey the laws of logic, thus the term "possible.")
Now when faced with infinity, one can be certain of one thing: everything - and I do mean everything - will happen at least once. That means that there will be a world with one atom, a world with two atoms... and - tadaaaaaa! - a world with no atoms at all! (You know where I'm going with this, don't you?)
Similarly, if you have an infinite number of possible worlds, then at least one of them will be without a god! That is required by logic. It follows then that the concept of necessary being is flawed, as it is contradicted by logic. Just as a bachelor cannot be married, a being cannot be necessary.
Therefore, God's existence has not been demonstrated.
QED
June 23, 2008
About God Existing Necessarily...
Theologians like to think that their god cannot not exist. So quite a while ago they did a cool thing - they defined their god into existence!
The argument goes something like this: if God did not exist, he (*) would be imperfect. But since he is perfect, he cannot not exist. If God cannot not exist, then he is a necessary being, and so he must exist necessarily. (You gotta love theologians!)
Now I could explain to you why it does not follow that perfection requires existence, something that took centuries for philosophers to realise (**) but that will be for another time. Instead, I will humour the theologians, accept their assumption that God must exist in order to be perfect, and show you how the argument shoots itself in the foot.
When someone tells me that God must exist because he is a necessary being, the question I ask them is "by virtue of what?" Why, by virtue of logic, of course! For it is logic that dictates that if God is a necessary being, then he must exist necessarily. Without logic, there would be no link between "God is a necessary being" and "therefore he must exist." In other words, it is logic that commands that God must exist necessarily.
Because the necessary existence of God is commanded by logic, it follows that logic must precede God, for without logic, it would not follow that a necessary being must exist necessarily.
Problem: But if logic precedes God, then God is not above all things - there is something that exists beyond God! And since the Judeo-Christian god is defined as being above all things (in the sense that he created everything) then by definition, the Judeo-Christian god cannot exist, for he could not have created that which is responsible for his own existence - logic!
So it seems that theologians of the Judeo-Christian kind cannot have their cake and eat it too: in order for God to exist necessarily, he must be preceded by logic, but if he is preceded by logic, then he is not above all things. And if he is not above all things, then he does not exist! QED
Ironically, it seems that by trying to define their god into existence, theologians have actually defined him out of it!
(*) Normally, I use the pronoun "it" when referring to a god. However, I thought it created confusion, so I opted for "he" instead.
(**) The reason why this took so long is that people often make the mistake of merely looking at the validity of an argument, that is whether the conclusion follows from the premise(s). But as I explained in a previous post (see here) the first thing one must do when looking at a theistic argument is to look for the premises. Here theologians were merely assuming that perfection required existence, but it does not follow.
The argument goes something like this: if God did not exist, he (*) would be imperfect. But since he is perfect, he cannot not exist. If God cannot not exist, then he is a necessary being, and so he must exist necessarily. (You gotta love theologians!)
Now I could explain to you why it does not follow that perfection requires existence, something that took centuries for philosophers to realise (**) but that will be for another time. Instead, I will humour the theologians, accept their assumption that God must exist in order to be perfect, and show you how the argument shoots itself in the foot.
When someone tells me that God must exist because he is a necessary being, the question I ask them is "by virtue of what?" Why, by virtue of logic, of course! For it is logic that dictates that if God is a necessary being, then he must exist necessarily. Without logic, there would be no link between "God is a necessary being" and "therefore he must exist." In other words, it is logic that commands that God must exist necessarily.
Because the necessary existence of God is commanded by logic, it follows that logic must precede God, for without logic, it would not follow that a necessary being must exist necessarily.
Problem: But if logic precedes God, then God is not above all things - there is something that exists beyond God! And since the Judeo-Christian god is defined as being above all things (in the sense that he created everything) then by definition, the Judeo-Christian god cannot exist, for he could not have created that which is responsible for his own existence - logic!
So it seems that theologians of the Judeo-Christian kind cannot have their cake and eat it too: in order for God to exist necessarily, he must be preceded by logic, but if he is preceded by logic, then he is not above all things. And if he is not above all things, then he does not exist! QED
Ironically, it seems that by trying to define their god into existence, theologians have actually defined him out of it!
(*) Normally, I use the pronoun "it" when referring to a god. However, I thought it created confusion, so I opted for "he" instead.
(**) The reason why this took so long is that people often make the mistake of merely looking at the validity of an argument, that is whether the conclusion follows from the premise(s). But as I explained in a previous post (see here) the first thing one must do when looking at a theistic argument is to look for the premises. Here theologians were merely assuming that perfection required existence, but it does not follow.
May 25, 2008
A Little Probability
Here's a cool trick to determine the likelihood of a god's existence.
There are two categories of objects - those that exist and those that do not. In turn, objects that exist can be grouped into two categories - those whose existence is proven (cars, trees, planets, etc.) and those whose existence is unproven (ghosts, gods, an intelligent George W. Bush, etc.).
Objects whose existence is unproven are infinite in number, as they include objects that cannot exist, such as square circles, married bachelors, planets with infinite radii, etc. However, objects that do exist are very small in number as they exclude objects that cannot exist, as well as objects whose existence is possible but which do not exist nonetheless.
Now what this means is that if an object has not yet been proven to exist, one would be better off assuming that said object belongs in the category of objects that do not exist, as this category is infinite in number.
Even if one assumed that there were a thousand quintillion objects in existence (good luck counting them!) that would still be a small number compared to infinity.
Here is an analogy. Imagine that you are in a room containing one thousand balls. Ten of these balls are red (1%) while the rest of them are blue (99%). Now suppose you were asked to walk blindfolded among the balls and then pick one up at random. Since you are blindfolded, you have no idea what colour the ball is that you picked up. Then you are asked to guess the colour of the ball you are holding in your hand. What is your best bet? Well, since virtually all of the balls are blue (99%) it is very likely that the ball you picked up is blue.
The same applies when you are trying to determine whether an object is existent or non-existent - since the category of non-existing objects is so much bigger (it is infinite) than the category of existing objects (which is finite) it is a lot more likely that the object you are thinking of belongs in the first category (non-existing objects).
For this reason, it is always wiser to assume that an object whose existence has not been demonstrated is non-existent. Until proven wrong, of course!
There are two categories of objects - those that exist and those that do not. In turn, objects that exist can be grouped into two categories - those whose existence is proven (cars, trees, planets, etc.) and those whose existence is unproven (ghosts, gods, an intelligent George W. Bush, etc.).
Objects whose existence is unproven are infinite in number, as they include objects that cannot exist, such as square circles, married bachelors, planets with infinite radii, etc. However, objects that do exist are very small in number as they exclude objects that cannot exist, as well as objects whose existence is possible but which do not exist nonetheless.
Now what this means is that if an object has not yet been proven to exist, one would be better off assuming that said object belongs in the category of objects that do not exist, as this category is infinite in number.
Even if one assumed that there were a thousand quintillion objects in existence (good luck counting them!) that would still be a small number compared to infinity.
Here is an analogy. Imagine that you are in a room containing one thousand balls. Ten of these balls are red (1%) while the rest of them are blue (99%). Now suppose you were asked to walk blindfolded among the balls and then pick one up at random. Since you are blindfolded, you have no idea what colour the ball is that you picked up. Then you are asked to guess the colour of the ball you are holding in your hand. What is your best bet? Well, since virtually all of the balls are blue (99%) it is very likely that the ball you picked up is blue.
The same applies when you are trying to determine whether an object is existent or non-existent - since the category of non-existing objects is so much bigger (it is infinite) than the category of existing objects (which is finite) it is a lot more likely that the object you are thinking of belongs in the first category (non-existing objects).
For this reason, it is always wiser to assume that an object whose existence has not been demonstrated is non-existent. Until proven wrong, of course!
May 04, 2008
Does the Universe Need a Cause?
The other day, I ran across some guy who was arguing that the Universe cannot account (even in theory) for its own existence. But as I pointed out to him, this (convenient) assumption is merely a logical consequence of the Theist's belief that the Universe is caused in the first place: if a god caused the Universe to exist, then the universe could not have been its own cause. QED. Or so the Theist believes.
When debating Theists, Atheists should always remember this: Theists and Atheists don't use the same premises. So as a general rule, all Atheists have to do is identify the premises, evaluate them, get rid of the bad ones, and voilà! Problem solved!
Theists like to claim that the Universe must have a cause since all effects have a cause. But here is the problem: how does the Theist figure that causality applies to the Universe? (Just because the balls in a box are red, it does not follow that the box must be red also.) He does so by first assuming there is something beyond the Universe. Then, and only then, can he apply causality to the Universe: there is something beyond the Universe from which causality was applied and which resulted in the "creation" of the Universe. But how does the Theist know there is something beyond the Universe? Because if the Universe has a cause then, by logic, the said cause must be external to the Universe. Therefore, there must be something beyond the Universe which caused the Universe to exist! We have now come full circle and plunged into the deep waters of fallacious theology...
Here, the Theist might reply that while he is indeed assuming that there is something beyond the Universe, I, on the other hand, am assuming that there is not, and therefore my position is no better than his. But there is something wrong with that reasoning: if an assumption is not warranted then, by logic, its rejection is! If the claim that there is an invisible elephant in my living room is not warranted, then the claim that there is no such elephant in my living room is, by default, warranted!
Now let's go back to the problem of the caused Universe. Look at it this way: what do we know about causality? Well, causality is observed (*). Fine. But why? Because events take place that are not simultaneous. These events are either material or energetic. That's it! That's all we know! We have never witnessed anything that wasn't energy or matter. Add to that the fact that we have not witnessed every single event that has taken place in the history of the Universe (that alone is sufficient to reject the universality of causality as an axiom).
Now since (causal) events require matter or energy, it follows that without matter or energy, there would be no causal events. If there are no causal events, then there is no causality.
In other words, I contend that causality is an emerging property of the Universe. If, as modern cosmology tends to support, the Big Bang is the origin of matter, energy and space-time, then by logic it follows that so is causality. For without space there can be no matter or energy, and without time, there can be no causal events since there would be no time available to elapse between an effect and its cause.
If the Theist accuses me of merely making assumptions, I will remind him that there is nothing wrong with making assumptions provided that the assumptions are grounded. One has to start somewhere and the best place to start is with what we know. Since we do not know that there is something beyond the Universe, it is unwarranted to assume that there is.
(*) According to Quantum mechanic, causality does not always apply. Although this supports my point, I will ignore it as a matter of clarity.
When debating Theists, Atheists should always remember this: Theists and Atheists don't use the same premises. So as a general rule, all Atheists have to do is identify the premises, evaluate them, get rid of the bad ones, and voilà! Problem solved!
Theists like to claim that the Universe must have a cause since all effects have a cause. But here is the problem: how does the Theist figure that causality applies to the Universe? (Just because the balls in a box are red, it does not follow that the box must be red also.) He does so by first assuming there is something beyond the Universe. Then, and only then, can he apply causality to the Universe: there is something beyond the Universe from which causality was applied and which resulted in the "creation" of the Universe. But how does the Theist know there is something beyond the Universe? Because if the Universe has a cause then, by logic, the said cause must be external to the Universe. Therefore, there must be something beyond the Universe which caused the Universe to exist! We have now come full circle and plunged into the deep waters of fallacious theology...
Here, the Theist might reply that while he is indeed assuming that there is something beyond the Universe, I, on the other hand, am assuming that there is not, and therefore my position is no better than his. But there is something wrong with that reasoning: if an assumption is not warranted then, by logic, its rejection is! If the claim that there is an invisible elephant in my living room is not warranted, then the claim that there is no such elephant in my living room is, by default, warranted!
Now let's go back to the problem of the caused Universe. Look at it this way: what do we know about causality? Well, causality is observed (*). Fine. But why? Because events take place that are not simultaneous. These events are either material or energetic. That's it! That's all we know! We have never witnessed anything that wasn't energy or matter. Add to that the fact that we have not witnessed every single event that has taken place in the history of the Universe (that alone is sufficient to reject the universality of causality as an axiom).
Now since (causal) events require matter or energy, it follows that without matter or energy, there would be no causal events. If there are no causal events, then there is no causality.
In other words, I contend that causality is an emerging property of the Universe. If, as modern cosmology tends to support, the Big Bang is the origin of matter, energy and space-time, then by logic it follows that so is causality. For without space there can be no matter or energy, and without time, there can be no causal events since there would be no time available to elapse between an effect and its cause.
If the Theist accuses me of merely making assumptions, I will remind him that there is nothing wrong with making assumptions provided that the assumptions are grounded. One has to start somewhere and the best place to start is with what we know. Since we do not know that there is something beyond the Universe, it is unwarranted to assume that there is.
(*) According to Quantum mechanic, causality does not always apply. Although this supports my point, I will ignore it as a matter of clarity.
April 12, 2008
The Virus of Religion
Have you ever thought of comparing religion to a virus? Think about it.
Like a virus, religion is caught by proximity - that is, if you live in a Muslim environment, you'll catch the Islam virus; if you live in a Christian environment, you'll catch the Christianity virus. That is why religions are distributed geographically;
Just like you can recover from a viral infection, you can recover from religion - everyday, Atheists become infected by religion and everyday, religionists recover from religion and become Atheists;
Like a virus, religion has a negative effect on a person's body: once infected, their brain starts working badly. It is as if they suddenly lose the ability to reason properly. Circular reasoning, question begging and non sequitur become second nature. Conversely, when a religionist recovers from his illness, he starts reasoning properly all of a sudden, his brain now free to function as it was intended to;
And just like there is a vaccine against viruses, there is a vaccine against religion: the absence of religious proximity - raise a child in a completely religion-free environment, and you'll have an Atheist.
And trust me, god believers know that!
Like a virus, religion is caught by proximity - that is, if you live in a Muslim environment, you'll catch the Islam virus; if you live in a Christian environment, you'll catch the Christianity virus. That is why religions are distributed geographically;
Just like you can recover from a viral infection, you can recover from religion - everyday, Atheists become infected by religion and everyday, religionists recover from religion and become Atheists;
Like a virus, religion has a negative effect on a person's body: once infected, their brain starts working badly. It is as if they suddenly lose the ability to reason properly. Circular reasoning, question begging and non sequitur become second nature. Conversely, when a religionist recovers from his illness, he starts reasoning properly all of a sudden, his brain now free to function as it was intended to;
And just like there is a vaccine against viruses, there is a vaccine against religion: the absence of religious proximity - raise a child in a completely religion-free environment, and you'll have an Atheist.
And trust me, god believers know that!
April 01, 2008
Why Christians Cannot Be Moral
According to many Christians, although Atheists can be moral, they cannot rest their morality on anything objective. In other words, if there is no supreme law-giver, then morality is relative.
Although it is easy for an Atheist to prove that wrong (part of our behaviour is genetic and therefore subject to Natural Selection) it is often more interesting to turn the table on the Christian: I contend that the Christian's morality code rests on a pile of subjective interpretations!
The problem stems from the fact that Christian morality comes from the Bible (*). But the Bible is not a DVD operating manual: it needs to be interpreted. Take the 5th commandment, for instance. It reads as "Thou shalt not kill." What? You don't agree? Maybe you read the commandment as "Thou shalt not murder" then? Bingo! You've won your first cigar!
But what is murder? Normally, murder is defined as the deliberate and unlawful killing of a human being. It is first and foremost a legal term. You do not murder a fly. If you accidentally run over a kid with your car and kill him, it is not murder.
Now what if tomorrow your government changed the law so that the deliberate killing of homosexuals becomes legal. Then by definition, if you killed your gay neighbour, that wouldn't be murder, would it? Here, we encounter one of the problems inherent to biblical morality - it changes with the law. Where's the objectivity in that?
But maybe, if you're a Christian, you'll try to get out of this predicament by redefining the word "murder." Same problem: you are subjectively writing your own definitions to make the commandment fit what you already believe to be (im)moral. Same problem if you choose among a pre-existing set of definitions.
Let's consider death penalty. If you read the aforementioned commandment as "Thou shalt not kill," then death penalty is immoral. But if you read it as "Thou shalt not murder," then it depends: how do you define murder? If you define it as "the deliberate and unlawful killing of a human being," then death penalty is not immoral, since it is state-sanctioned, and therefore lawful (provided the execution is done by the state and in accordance with the law). But then, as I remarked above, morality becomes subject to the law, so that what is (im)moral today may not be (im)moral tomorrow. This is subjective morality.
If you define murder as "the deliberate and unnecessary killing of a human being (**)" then death penalty is immoral since it is unnecessary. However it can become necessary under certain conditions, for instance in the absence of a means to protect society from a vicious member, in which case it would be moral! And it doesn't end there - a few weeks ago I was listening to a debate where a Christian made the claim (unhesitantly!) that death penalty had nothing to do with morality! If this does not convince you that Christian morality is subjective, I honestly don't know what will...
The second problem has to do with what is called the Euthyphro dilemma: is something moral because the gods say so, or rather is there some kind of objective morality, in which case the gods are merely passing the information along to us?
If it is the former, then morality is subject to the whims of the gods, and then your morality is in deep trouble: what if tomorrow your god asks you to kill your atheist neighbour? Would that be good or bad? And if it is the latter, then belief in a god is irrelevant and unnecessary since morality does not depend on them.
(*) Actually this is not completely true - see my post http://inimicusdei.blogspot.com/2007/11/i-love-that-dawkins-guy.html
(**) Why unnecessary? To allow for self-defence - if someone's got to die, it might as well be the aggressor! ;-)
Although it is easy for an Atheist to prove that wrong (part of our behaviour is genetic and therefore subject to Natural Selection) it is often more interesting to turn the table on the Christian: I contend that the Christian's morality code rests on a pile of subjective interpretations!
The problem stems from the fact that Christian morality comes from the Bible (*). But the Bible is not a DVD operating manual: it needs to be interpreted. Take the 5th commandment, for instance. It reads as "Thou shalt not kill." What? You don't agree? Maybe you read the commandment as "Thou shalt not murder" then? Bingo! You've won your first cigar!
But what is murder? Normally, murder is defined as the deliberate and unlawful killing of a human being. It is first and foremost a legal term. You do not murder a fly. If you accidentally run over a kid with your car and kill him, it is not murder.
Now what if tomorrow your government changed the law so that the deliberate killing of homosexuals becomes legal. Then by definition, if you killed your gay neighbour, that wouldn't be murder, would it? Here, we encounter one of the problems inherent to biblical morality - it changes with the law. Where's the objectivity in that?
But maybe, if you're a Christian, you'll try to get out of this predicament by redefining the word "murder." Same problem: you are subjectively writing your own definitions to make the commandment fit what you already believe to be (im)moral. Same problem if you choose among a pre-existing set of definitions.
Let's consider death penalty. If you read the aforementioned commandment as "Thou shalt not kill," then death penalty is immoral. But if you read it as "Thou shalt not murder," then it depends: how do you define murder? If you define it as "the deliberate and unlawful killing of a human being," then death penalty is not immoral, since it is state-sanctioned, and therefore lawful (provided the execution is done by the state and in accordance with the law). But then, as I remarked above, morality becomes subject to the law, so that what is (im)moral today may not be (im)moral tomorrow. This is subjective morality.
If you define murder as "the deliberate and unnecessary killing of a human being (**)" then death penalty is immoral since it is unnecessary. However it can become necessary under certain conditions, for instance in the absence of a means to protect society from a vicious member, in which case it would be moral! And it doesn't end there - a few weeks ago I was listening to a debate where a Christian made the claim (unhesitantly!) that death penalty had nothing to do with morality! If this does not convince you that Christian morality is subjective, I honestly don't know what will...
The second problem has to do with what is called the Euthyphro dilemma: is something moral because the gods say so, or rather is there some kind of objective morality, in which case the gods are merely passing the information along to us?
If it is the former, then morality is subject to the whims of the gods, and then your morality is in deep trouble: what if tomorrow your god asks you to kill your atheist neighbour? Would that be good or bad? And if it is the latter, then belief in a god is irrelevant and unnecessary since morality does not depend on them.
(*) Actually this is not completely true - see my post http://inimicusdei.blogspot.com/2007/11/i-love-that-dawkins-guy.html
(**) Why unnecessary? To allow for self-defence - if someone's got to die, it might as well be the aggressor! ;-)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
