Philosophy of Religion

Chapter  4. Arguments for the Existence of God: Reason

Section  9.    Final Questions

On the question of the existence of God, there are many interesting and basic questions. this chapter began with this listing:

Is there a God?

Is there a supreme being, creator of the universe?

What is the explanation for the existence of the universe?

If there is no God where did the universes come from?

Why is the universe so orderly?

What proof is there that God exists?

What do the proofs tell us about God?

Do the proofs work?  Are they convincing to the non -believer?

Why doesn't everyone believe in God, if there are proofs?

If the proofs are not convincing then why do people go on believing in God?

After having surveyed the arguments available to us based upon reasoning to prove that there is a Supreme Being, a God, some of the questions have been answered and others remain.  If the arguments are not convincing to the non-believer what other arguments are there that could be offered and upon which many believers rest their faith?

The answer to that last question involves arguments based on experiences of the supernatural that are both direct and indirect.  This is the subject of the next chapter.

************************************************** 

Proof of the NON EXISTENCE of a DEITY

Is there an argument or proof that is logically compelling or reasonably compelling that there is no God or god or deity?

Consider this one:

Premise 1: There are many proofs for the existence of a deity.

Premise 2: Not one of the proofs is without a problem.

Premise 3: Not one of the proofs is SOUND: valid with true premises.

Premise 4: Not one of the proofs is compelling for a reasonable person to accept its conclusion.

Conclusion: There is no deity, god or God.

Is this a good argument?  Is it on a reasonable person must accept?

What are the problems with this argument? 

Consider these patterns:

It claims we know X is true because we cannot prove it is not true.

It claims we know X is false because we cannot prove it is true.

FALLACY: Appeal to Ignorance,: argument from the lack of a proof that P is false to the conclusion that P must be true or from a lack of proof that P is true to the conclusion that P must be false.  BUT 'That whereof we cannot speak, thereof we must remain silent', Ludwig Wittgenstein

So this proof or argument does not work.  It does not support the conclusion in a logically compelling manner.

***************************************************

If one accepts that the burden of proof is on the person making the positive claim that X does exist then that burden has not been met by any of the arguments developed over the centuries to provide a compelling and convincing case that there is a supernatural being with supernatural powers, etc...

If there is an appeal to science then can science be used to find a deity?

Has Science Found God? By Victor J. Stenger The following article is from Free Inquiry magazine, Volume 19, Number 1.

Can science be used to disprove that there is a deity?

Can Science Prove that God Does Not Exist?  by Theodore Schick, Jr. The following article is from Free Inquiry magazine, Volume 21, Number 1  

For those who arrive at beliefs based on reason and evidence many would argue that such humans can not conclude and hold the position that there is a supernatural being or deity.

So then and finally , just what good are the proofs?  Well, concerning these proofs it has been said that: 

  • Believers do not need them

  • Unbelievers will not heed them

The following Philosophers have offered these views.

Stephen Cahn has noted of the arguments or proofs for the existence of a deity:

  • they are irrelevant to believers and non-believers

  • morality can exist without a belief in or a proof of God’s existence

  • they are of use to philosophers

S.T. Davis  has made these points about the arguments:

    1. the proofs do not succeed

    2. Proofs are unpersuasive to skeptics

    3. Proofs are irrelevant to believers

    4. The "God" of the proofs is not the "God" of the faithful: it is a philosophical abstraction

    5. Proofs deny divine transcendence

Paul Tillich has observed that the "god" of the proofs is a being similar to other beings and conceived of within the experience of humans.   The "god" of the proofs is not the "Ground of Being"  

So then in the end just what good are the proofs? What is their value?

These arguments or proofs are philosophically and religiously valuable.   They have several benefits (purposes):

 

    Theists can make use of them and develop their rational faculties

 

    Belief in a deity is shown to be rational in as much as such a being is logically possible

 

    They help to confirm faith in a deity for those who already had a belief in a deity.

So in the end the proofs remain optional for theists!!!  Most believe or disbelieve not due to any rational exercise but due to experiences!!    It is not the rational or logical arguments that persuade people to believe.  Most do so because of experiences they have had that they believe support them in their faith or have led them to their faith in a deity or because of experiences when growing through which they learned of a certain way of viewing the world and their existence and place within the world.  They know of no other and do not want to seriously examine alternative views.  They have been brought up in a belief system that affords them an identity and a sense of belonging to a group and a sense of comfort in the face of uncertainty and adversity.  They believe because they believe and they believe because it provides them with a hope.

It is significant to note that most believers do not believe in any orthodox notions of a deity within their religious tradition but they depart form the tradition in both the conception of the supernatural and in many other ways while claiming to remain within the tradition. Many will claim to believe in a deity but will have quite different views  of what that deity has as characteristics.   Some will even claim that all conceptions of a single deity are true no matter how inconsistent or contradictory they may be and at the same time claim to be monotheists. The average religious believer appears less concerned with reason and logic than with a religious faith needed for hope. Average believers in a deity are not theologians nor educated in theology nor even in the richness of their own religious traditions.

If belief is to be based on logic and reasoning and evidence then there is little to compel people to accept the conclusion that there is a supernatural being of any type at all.  Using the Burden of Proof principle the only acceptable position with regard to a supernatural deity would be atheism.  If the concept of deity were to be altered to identify it with the existence and processes of the universe itself then that would be pantheism and as such not the conclusion being argued in all cases of the traditional arguments covered in this text.  Such a concept is in keeping with the use of the word "god" by naturalists such as Einstein.  It is not a deity of the western religions nor a personal deity nor a deity that is aware of humans or that cares about any events.  

What then is the basis for belief in supernatural beings and will such beliefs continue?  See further  Final Thoughts on Religion.

© Copyright Philip A. Pecorino 2001. All Rights reserved.

Web Surfer's Caveat: These are class notes, intended to comment on readings and amplify class discussion. They should be read as such. They are not intended for publication or general distribution.

Return to:                Table of Contents for the Online Textbook