I have been off and on thinking about the topic of atheism for awhile which is what initially attracted me to your book, "The Best Argument for God."
In the comments above, I make the argument that those who support atheism and use the basis for their beliefs arguments against a specific creator or a specific religion or religion in general are committing a logical fallacy, the non sequitur fallacy. So when time allows I look for other arguments for atheism anywhere I can. So far I have not found a coherent argument for atheism. Which leaves by logic, that there aren't any and by process of elimination that something caused existence. There is no reason to accept as serious anyone who espouses atheism but one can certainly be polite in saying there is no basis for supporting it.
One of the websites I visited was "Closer To Truth" and there was a recent interview with someone named Richard Swinburne who claimed to be an expert on the subject of religion. He was a disaster for his claims as he too was incoherent most of. the time. I almost felt it was a setup to have such a bad presentation by someone arguing against those who say there is no creator.
But in the process, the author of the site, Robert Leonard Kuhn, said he asked his best questions to support atheism. He should know since he has been studying it for over 20 years. Every single argument in support of a atheism by Kuhn is against a specific type of creator not in support of atheism as viable. In other words an intellectual such as Kuhn commits the non-sequitur fallacy numerous times. Here they are:
1. Top of the list problem is evil
2. God is hidden
3. God is a disembodied mind and we have never seen any instance of mind or Consciousness other than with embodied brains
4. Another argument for the non-existence of God is the violence in the universe
5. How about the wastefulness of the universe? All this activity, it seems so inefficient if human beings are the object of of this whole thing.
6. How about Steven weinberg's famous comment that the more the universe seems comprehensible the more it also seems pointless
7. How about the religious contradictions all the different religions in the world with hosts of different doctrines which fight with each other doesn't this show the non-existence of God?
8. What about religious wars when different religions fight with each other doesn't that show the absurdity of the existence of a god supposedly behind all of these
9. Scholars would say that every fundamental scripture of every major religion either has overt contradictions within them or flagrantly misstates some facts of the world or science or something so so doesn't that invalidate any Revelation from a God in any Scripture
10 . If one looks at church history and some of the things that they have espoused they seem a lot worse than stuff that's in the Bible
Well that's my atheistic list what do you think of the totality of it
Swinburne had no good answer for any of these overly irrelevant questions.
After seeing this, I am even more convinced that atheism has no good answer for the question "Why Does Anything Exist?" So treating it as a serious worldview seems at best specious. By the way Kuhn says multiple times that the question of existence is the one that has haunted him from childhood and the reason he created Closer To Truth. This site contains information on physics, biology, consciousness and meaning.
This is why I point out above that the argument for a Deism is an argument for a creator but one than is immune to any of Kuhn's questions. I personally do not support Deism but it immediately gets rid on any objection an atheist makes.
The next step after establishing a creator is to make an argument for the characteristics of this creator. You book does a good job of this.
Aside: If a site, especially a YouTube site, discusses atheism, the atheists are out in numbers and act very confidently for their position though I have never seen one justify their position. I also saw this a couple of years ago on a New York Times webpage about belief. One after another the atheists denounced those with faith in God but not one had an answer for anything. It is just all denouncing as stupid those who believe. And the problem is that those who believe do not provide any rational arguments for their beliefs that are easily understandable.
Thank you for answering my comment but I believe you just made my point!
You have not provided evidence that contradicts the idea that there is an entity that created the universe or other universes if there are any. (I know you do not believe there are any, but you should be aware of them if there are any.)
Deism is a form of theism in which, supposedly, this creator has no further interaction with this universe. It was quite popular at one time among intellectuals. Deists make no conclusions about this universe other than that this entity/creator created it, and the entity must have had lots of intellect and power.
But just what is this entity like? There is no immediate conclusion that its intellect or power has to be unlimited. You immediately assume contradictions, such as a rock too big to lift, which are meaningless in the presence of a mighty but limited creator. These are silly arguments and are not worthy of any consideration.
There is no expected interaction in deism, so arguments from evil are meaningless. Supposedly, the entity does not care about what happens. The argument from evil targets a specific type of creator.
If this deist wanted or expected change, the idea of natural selection would lead to states where certain variations deteriorate and do not survive. Change and some dilution of capacity are expected. So, we eliminated one of the reasons Aquinas said there may be no creator. (by the way, natural selection is a tautological idea - because if something persists, it is an example of natural selection)
The atheist cannot explain why anything exists. If he can, what are they? I have not seen any, but you have read much more, yet you present none. Why?
So, I firmly stand by my point, which is clear to me. The atheist struggles to explain the existence of anything. Introducing a creator as an explanation is straightforward. While many may refuse to accept such an entity, their refusal indicates their lack of seriousness and lack of coherent argument against a creator.
So, to sum up, I am willing to consider any explanation for atheism, but I have not seen any. A dislike of general or specific theist positions is not an argument.
Once atheism has been eliminated as a possibility, it is open season for investigating the characteristics of this creator. A lot of this goes on in your book, but it should be separated from whether there is a creator in the first place.
Thank you, Jerry, for the continued engagement. Here is my response to your points:
You wrote: “You have not provided evidence that contradicts the idea that there is an entity that created the universe or other universes if there are any. (I know you do not believe there are any, but you should be aware of them if there are any.)”
My task, of course, wasn’t to *support* the arguments for atheism, but rather just to *report* that there are arguments for atheism. Now, if you want to contend that there are no *good* or *convincing* arguments for atheism, that is another matter. Certainly, your original statement, “there is no argument for atheism,” could be interpreted that way. If that is what you meant, then fair enough. Either way, my (modest) aim was just to showcase the *types* of arguments atheists have raised against the existence of God, divided into two general categories.
You raise some other points worthy of comment.
First, it is true that a “mighty but limited” deistic creator, who is not perfectly good and not interested in continued interaction with the world, would obviously be immune to a large number of atheistic arguments aimed at the traditional understanding of God as the omni-attributed creator and sustainer of everything apart from Himself. But of course, nobody – or at least very few – people arguing for the existence of God have a limited, yet considerably powerful, deism in mind. To “escape” atheistic arguments by restricting the notion of God to the form of a (lower case) god is just to effectively concede the arguments, rather than refute them.
Moreover, the classical theist – and I’m confident the atheist as well – would find such a god to be categorically uniform with respect to all other contingent entities that require some further explanation or cause. It would not, to be sure, be the right sort of entity to satisfy the criterion of ontological independence for ultimate explanation, since one would have every right to know why it possesses just the precise limits that it does and not some other instead. To which no further answer could be given, presuming this entity is where the metaphysical buck stops. And notice: If the metaphysical buck did stop there -- where God, traditionally understood, did not exist -- well, that worldview would just be an (admittedly strange) form of atheism, wouldn't it?
Later, you write, “The atheist cannot explain why anything exists. If he can, what are they? I have not seen any, but you have read much more, yet you present none. Why?”
Again, my aim was not to delve into all details of the debate. Shameless as it sounds, I do that in my book. Of course, one major reason why I wrote the book was to create a central resource where I could substantially investigate matters requiring far more attention than can be devoted to a casual blog post. But here I’ll just report that atheists do not speak in unison on the matter.
Some atheists make appeals to necessity to explain why anything exists (for example, proposing that it is necessary that something or other exists, whatever that something happens to be, or that some initial physical state of reality exists necessarily; again, there are different proposals out there). Other atheists, while admitting there is no explanation (brute facts), contend that this isn’t a problem because theists are stuck with brute facts too, and the atheist just moves their point of bruteness up a bit and claims this is more parsimonious. Again, one will have to look at these proposals to see if they are, ultimately, satisfactory. (Once more, I take up what I consider the best naturalistic proposals in my book and offer my critique). Either way, while it is true that some atheists claim there is no explanation, ultimately, for why anything or even just the universe exists, other atheists definitely do try to give an explanation. Whether one finds such explanations inadequate does not negate the fact that explanations are attempted.
"But of course, nobody – or at least very few – people arguing for the existence of God have a limited, yet considerably powerful, deism in mind."
But they should at the start. I don't accept the deist explanation. It does however, help prevent any argument for atheism. (I have said I have not seen a coherent argument for atheism. Most of the arguments are against the specific creator that one proposes and arise when they immediately go to the characteristics of their preferred creator.)
Establishing that there must be a creator doesn't mean that one has to stop there but if done first, it eliminates the need to find the characteristics of any creator. The mind will immediately turn in this direction, so it will focus quickly on finding out what must be necessary for a creator. However, focusing only on the existence of a creator eliminates the atheist position and forces people to then concentrate on the nature of this creator.
"To "escape" atheistic arguments by restricting the notion of God to the form of a (lower case) god is just to effectively concede the arguments, rather than refute them."
I am trying to figure out how the above follows. I understand people immediately want to turn the small g in "god" into a capital G. That will come but not immediately. Establishing a creator doesn't eliminate expanding upon the nature of the creator. As I said turn the debate into the nature of the creator once a creator is established. The capital G will follow.
"If the metaphysical buck did stop there -- where God, traditionally understood, did not exist -- well, that worldview would just be an (admittedly strange) form of atheism, wouldn't it?"
I don't know how this statement is coherent. If you establish a creator, all the other analysis will come. It's as if you want to turn two propositions into one.
1 - there is a creator.
2 - this creator must have specific characteristics.
1A - there is a creator, and this creator must have specific characteristics.
The latter proposition opens the door to invalidating it by attacking the specific characteristics. In the first two propositions, each one is evaluated independently.
Dealing with "necessity" or "brute facts" is a cop-out from desperation. It begs the question of why something is necessary and when this necessity that could not exist anywhere forced something into existence. Brute facts are just as desperate.
I have been off and on thinking about the topic of atheism for awhile which is what initially attracted me to your book, "The Best Argument for God."
In the comments above, I make the argument that those who support atheism and use the basis for their beliefs arguments against a specific creator or a specific religion or religion in general are committing a logical fallacy, the non sequitur fallacy. So when time allows I look for other arguments for atheism anywhere I can. So far I have not found a coherent argument for atheism. Which leaves by logic, that there aren't any and by process of elimination that something caused existence. There is no reason to accept as serious anyone who espouses atheism but one can certainly be polite in saying there is no basis for supporting it.
One of the websites I visited was "Closer To Truth" and there was a recent interview with someone named Richard Swinburne who claimed to be an expert on the subject of religion. He was a disaster for his claims as he too was incoherent most of. the time. I almost felt it was a setup to have such a bad presentation by someone arguing against those who say there is no creator.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uYbibaV4AXU&t=2s
But in the process, the author of the site, Robert Leonard Kuhn, said he asked his best questions to support atheism. He should know since he has been studying it for over 20 years. Every single argument in support of a atheism by Kuhn is against a specific type of creator not in support of atheism as viable. In other words an intellectual such as Kuhn commits the non-sequitur fallacy numerous times. Here they are:
1. Top of the list problem is evil
2. God is hidden
3. God is a disembodied mind and we have never seen any instance of mind or Consciousness other than with embodied brains
4. Another argument for the non-existence of God is the violence in the universe
5. How about the wastefulness of the universe? All this activity, it seems so inefficient if human beings are the object of of this whole thing.
6. How about Steven weinberg's famous comment that the more the universe seems comprehensible the more it also seems pointless
7. How about the religious contradictions all the different religions in the world with hosts of different doctrines which fight with each other doesn't this show the non-existence of God?
8. What about religious wars when different religions fight with each other doesn't that show the absurdity of the existence of a god supposedly behind all of these
9. Scholars would say that every fundamental scripture of every major religion either has overt contradictions within them or flagrantly misstates some facts of the world or science or something so so doesn't that invalidate any Revelation from a God in any Scripture
10 . If one looks at church history and some of the things that they have espoused they seem a lot worse than stuff that's in the Bible
Well that's my atheistic list what do you think of the totality of it
Swinburne had no good answer for any of these overly irrelevant questions.
After seeing this, I am even more convinced that atheism has no good answer for the question "Why Does Anything Exist?" So treating it as a serious worldview seems at best specious. By the way Kuhn says multiple times that the question of existence is the one that has haunted him from childhood and the reason he created Closer To Truth. This site contains information on physics, biology, consciousness and meaning.
This is why I point out above that the argument for a Deism is an argument for a creator but one than is immune to any of Kuhn's questions. I personally do not support Deism but it immediately gets rid on any objection an atheist makes.
The next step after establishing a creator is to make an argument for the characteristics of this creator. You book does a good job of this.
Aside: If a site, especially a YouTube site, discusses atheism, the atheists are out in numbers and act very confidently for their position though I have never seen one justify their position. I also saw this a couple of years ago on a New York Times webpage about belief. One after another the atheists denounced those with faith in God but not one had an answer for anything. It is just all denouncing as stupid those who believe. And the problem is that those who believe do not provide any rational arguments for their beliefs that are easily understandable.
Thank you for answering my comment but I believe you just made my point!
You have not provided evidence that contradicts the idea that there is an entity that created the universe or other universes if there are any. (I know you do not believe there are any, but you should be aware of them if there are any.)
Deism is a form of theism in which, supposedly, this creator has no further interaction with this universe. It was quite popular at one time among intellectuals. Deists make no conclusions about this universe other than that this entity/creator created it, and the entity must have had lots of intellect and power.
But just what is this entity like? There is no immediate conclusion that its intellect or power has to be unlimited. You immediately assume contradictions, such as a rock too big to lift, which are meaningless in the presence of a mighty but limited creator. These are silly arguments and are not worthy of any consideration.
There is no expected interaction in deism, so arguments from evil are meaningless. Supposedly, the entity does not care about what happens. The argument from evil targets a specific type of creator.
If this deist wanted or expected change, the idea of natural selection would lead to states where certain variations deteriorate and do not survive. Change and some dilution of capacity are expected. So, we eliminated one of the reasons Aquinas said there may be no creator. (by the way, natural selection is a tautological idea - because if something persists, it is an example of natural selection)
The atheist cannot explain why anything exists. If he can, what are they? I have not seen any, but you have read much more, yet you present none. Why?
So, I firmly stand by my point, which is clear to me. The atheist struggles to explain the existence of anything. Introducing a creator as an explanation is straightforward. While many may refuse to accept such an entity, their refusal indicates their lack of seriousness and lack of coherent argument against a creator.
So, to sum up, I am willing to consider any explanation for atheism, but I have not seen any. A dislike of general or specific theist positions is not an argument.
Once atheism has been eliminated as a possibility, it is open season for investigating the characteristics of this creator. A lot of this goes on in your book, but it should be separated from whether there is a creator in the first place.
Thank you, Jerry, for the continued engagement. Here is my response to your points:
You wrote: “You have not provided evidence that contradicts the idea that there is an entity that created the universe or other universes if there are any. (I know you do not believe there are any, but you should be aware of them if there are any.)”
My task, of course, wasn’t to *support* the arguments for atheism, but rather just to *report* that there are arguments for atheism. Now, if you want to contend that there are no *good* or *convincing* arguments for atheism, that is another matter. Certainly, your original statement, “there is no argument for atheism,” could be interpreted that way. If that is what you meant, then fair enough. Either way, my (modest) aim was just to showcase the *types* of arguments atheists have raised against the existence of God, divided into two general categories.
You raise some other points worthy of comment.
First, it is true that a “mighty but limited” deistic creator, who is not perfectly good and not interested in continued interaction with the world, would obviously be immune to a large number of atheistic arguments aimed at the traditional understanding of God as the omni-attributed creator and sustainer of everything apart from Himself. But of course, nobody – or at least very few – people arguing for the existence of God have a limited, yet considerably powerful, deism in mind. To “escape” atheistic arguments by restricting the notion of God to the form of a (lower case) god is just to effectively concede the arguments, rather than refute them.
Moreover, the classical theist – and I’m confident the atheist as well – would find such a god to be categorically uniform with respect to all other contingent entities that require some further explanation or cause. It would not, to be sure, be the right sort of entity to satisfy the criterion of ontological independence for ultimate explanation, since one would have every right to know why it possesses just the precise limits that it does and not some other instead. To which no further answer could be given, presuming this entity is where the metaphysical buck stops. And notice: If the metaphysical buck did stop there -- where God, traditionally understood, did not exist -- well, that worldview would just be an (admittedly strange) form of atheism, wouldn't it?
Later, you write, “The atheist cannot explain why anything exists. If he can, what are they? I have not seen any, but you have read much more, yet you present none. Why?”
Again, my aim was not to delve into all details of the debate. Shameless as it sounds, I do that in my book. Of course, one major reason why I wrote the book was to create a central resource where I could substantially investigate matters requiring far more attention than can be devoted to a casual blog post. But here I’ll just report that atheists do not speak in unison on the matter.
Some atheists make appeals to necessity to explain why anything exists (for example, proposing that it is necessary that something or other exists, whatever that something happens to be, or that some initial physical state of reality exists necessarily; again, there are different proposals out there). Other atheists, while admitting there is no explanation (brute facts), contend that this isn’t a problem because theists are stuck with brute facts too, and the atheist just moves their point of bruteness up a bit and claims this is more parsimonious. Again, one will have to look at these proposals to see if they are, ultimately, satisfactory. (Once more, I take up what I consider the best naturalistic proposals in my book and offer my critique). Either way, while it is true that some atheists claim there is no explanation, ultimately, for why anything or even just the universe exists, other atheists definitely do try to give an explanation. Whether one finds such explanations inadequate does not negate the fact that explanations are attempted.
Here is my assessment of the discussion:
"But of course, nobody – or at least very few – people arguing for the existence of God have a limited, yet considerably powerful, deism in mind."
But they should at the start. I don't accept the deist explanation. It does however, help prevent any argument for atheism. (I have said I have not seen a coherent argument for atheism. Most of the arguments are against the specific creator that one proposes and arise when they immediately go to the characteristics of their preferred creator.)
Establishing that there must be a creator doesn't mean that one has to stop there but if done first, it eliminates the need to find the characteristics of any creator. The mind will immediately turn in this direction, so it will focus quickly on finding out what must be necessary for a creator. However, focusing only on the existence of a creator eliminates the atheist position and forces people to then concentrate on the nature of this creator.
"To "escape" atheistic arguments by restricting the notion of God to the form of a (lower case) god is just to effectively concede the arguments, rather than refute them."
I am trying to figure out how the above follows. I understand people immediately want to turn the small g in "god" into a capital G. That will come but not immediately. Establishing a creator doesn't eliminate expanding upon the nature of the creator. As I said turn the debate into the nature of the creator once a creator is established. The capital G will follow.
"If the metaphysical buck did stop there -- where God, traditionally understood, did not exist -- well, that worldview would just be an (admittedly strange) form of atheism, wouldn't it?"
I don't know how this statement is coherent. If you establish a creator, all the other analysis will come. It's as if you want to turn two propositions into one.
1 - there is a creator.
2 - this creator must have specific characteristics.
1A - there is a creator, and this creator must have specific characteristics.
The latter proposition opens the door to invalidating it by attacking the specific characteristics. In the first two propositions, each one is evaluated independently.
Dealing with "necessity" or "brute facts" is a cop-out from desperation. It begs the question of why something is necessary and when this necessity that could not exist anywhere forced something into existence. Brute facts are just as desperate.