The Atheist Reformation: Arguments 1-4
In the interest of maintaining intellectual honesty, I will post the entirety of each of the arguments exactly as written on Peter Kreeft's website, www.peterkreeft.com. Obviously, all credit goes to Mr. Kreeft for his compilation of these arguments and I claim none of the quoted content as my own. The reason for this, as previously stated, is the maintenance of intellectual honesty as well as not being able to be accused for taking any of these arguments out of their original context. It seems that this is the best way to go forward for any analysis or debunk, so consider this a prior notification of the continuing format of this blog as well, at least when dealing with debunks and research based topics.
As further introduction to explain the formatting, my debunk will follow immediately after stating each of Mr. Kreeft's published arguments. This will make for easy reading as well as help illustrate the methodology of each debunk.
Without further ado, here we go!
THE ARGUMENT FROM CHANGE
"The material world we know is a world of change. This young woman came to be 5'2", but she was not always that height. The great oak tree before us grew from the tiniest acorn. Now when something comes to be in a certain state, such as mature size, that state cannot bring itself into being. For until it comes to be, it does not exist, and if it does not yet exist, it cannot cause anything.
As for the thing that changes, although it can be what it will become, it is not yet what it will become. It actually exists right now in this state (an acorn); it will actually exist in that state (large oak tree). But it is not actually in that state now. It only has the potentiality for that state.
Now a question: To explain the change, can we consider the changing thing alone, or must other things also be involved? Obviously, other things must be involved. Nothing can give itself what it does not have, and the changing thing cannot have now, already, what it will come to have then. The result of change cannot actually exist before the change. The changing thing begins with only the potential to change, but it needs to be acted on by other things outside if that potential is to be made actual. Otherwise it cannot change.
Nothing changes itself. Apparently self-moving things, like animal bodies, are moved by desire or will - something other than mere molecules. And when the animal or human dies, the molecules remain, but the body no longer moves because the desire or will is no longer present to move it.
Now a further question: Are the other things outside the changing thing also changing? Are its movers also moving? If so, all of them stand in need right now of being acted on by other things, or else they cannot change. No matter how many things there are in the series, each one needs something outside itself to actualize its potentiality for change.
The universe is the sum total of all these moving things, however many there are. The whole universe is in the process of change. But we have already seen that change in any being requires an outside force to actualize it. Therefore, there is some force outside (in addition to) the universe, some real being transcendent to the universe. This is one of the things meant by "God."
Briefly, if there is nothing outside the material universe, then there is nothing that can cause the universe to change. But it does change. Therefore there must be something in addition to the material universe. But the universe is the sum total of all matter, space and time. These three things depend on each other. Therefore this being outside the universe is outside matter, space and time. It is not a changing thing; it is the unchanging Source of change."
REBUTTAL
This is a fairly simple one to rebut, despite it being rather verbose. It uses diminishing language when referring to certain things, such as "mere molecules," as if to detract from molecules being very close to the most basic components of matter. In fact, a molecule is only one step removed from the most basic and readily recognizable component of matter, the atom, seeing as a molecule is a collection of atoms to form a chemical compound. One is left to assume, based on the author's context, that "desire" and "will" are meant to be the consciousness of the being in question, so that is what I will refer to for the remainder. Currently, there exists no conflict in science about consciousness arising as a product of biological evolution, though theists are often quick to disagree. This argument is severely flawed, in that its premise dictates that for anything to "change," it must be acted upon by something outside of itself. This is incorrect, as any living thing with motility would be able to act on the world around it to change itself. However, in the interest of this possibly being an error in transcription, I won't discuss it further.
The final two paragraphs are where the logical leaps start to occur. "Logical leaps" is a term readers should get used to, as it will be a recurring theme, unfortunately. We know that, for every premise and example given by the author, it is always one that is naturalistic. This makes his assertion that something immaterial and independent of the universe a Non Sequitur, since it does not logically follow, based on his evidence provided. Everything acted upon or acted upon by was natural, and for the purposes of this discussion, material, asserting that something immaterial must somehow now be involved is baseless and without evidence. Long story short, no evidence exists supporting that something immaterial exists or can exist, much less have an effect on the material, therefore the default position must be adopted that such an immaterial thing/entity does not and cannot exist until proven otherwise.
THE ARGUMENT FROM EFFICIENT CAUSALITY
"We notice that some things cause other things to be (to begin to be, to continue to be, or both). For example, a man playing the piano is causing the music that we hear. If he stops, so does the music.
Now ask yourself: Are all things caused to exist by other things right now? Suppose they are. That is, suppose there is no Uncaused Being, no God. Then nothing could exist right now. For remember, on the no-God hypothesis, all things need a present cause outside of themselves in order to exist. So right now, all things, including all those things which are causing things to be, need a cause. They can give being only so long as they are given being. Everything that exists, therefore, on this hypothesis, stands in need of being caused to exist.
But caused by what? Beyond everything that is, there can only be nothing. But that is absurd: all of reality dependent - but dependent on nothing! The hypothesis that all being is caused, that there is no Uncaused Being, is absurd. So there must be something uncaused, something on which all things that need an efficient cause of being are dependent.
Existence is like a gift from cause to effect. If there is no one who has the gift, the gift cannot be passed down the chain of receivers, however long or short the chain may be. If everyone has to borrow a certain book, but no one actually has it, then no one will ever get it. If there is no God who has existence by his own eternal nature, then the gift of existence cannot be passed down the chain of creatures and we can never get it. But we do get it; we exist. Therefore there must exist a God: an Uncaused Being who does not have to receive existence like us - and like every other link in the chain of receivers.
Question 1: Why do we need an uncaused cause? Why could there not simple be an endless series of things mutually keeping each other in being?
Reply: This is an attractive hypothesis. Think of a single drunk. He could probably not stand up alone. But a group of drunks, all of them mutually supporting each other, might stand. They might even make their way along the street. But notice: Given so many drunks, and given the steady ground beneath them, we can understand how their stumblings might cancel each other out, and how the group of them could remain (relatively) upright. We could not understand their remaining upright if the ground did not support them - if, for example, they were all suspended several feet above it. And of course, if there were no actual drunks, there would be nothing to understand.
This brings us to our argument. Things have got to exist in order to be mutually dependent; they cannot depend upon each other for their entire being, for then they would have to be, simultaneously, cause and effect of each other. A causes B, B causes C, and C causes A. That is absurd. The argument is trying to show why a world of caused causes can be given - or can be there - at all. And it simply points out: If this thing can exist only because something else is giving it existence, then there must exist something whose being is not a gift. Otherwise everything would need at the same time to be given being, but nothing (in addition to "everything") could exist to give it. And that means nothing would actually be.
Question 2: Why not have an endless series of caused causes stretching backward into the past? Then everything would be made actual and would actually be - even though their causes might no longer exist.
Reply: First, if the Kalam Argument (argument 6) is right, there could not exist an endless series of causes stretching backward into the past. But suppose that such a series could exist. The argument is not concerned about the past, and would work whether the past is finite or infinite. It is concerned with what exists right now.
Even as you read this, you are dependent on other things; you could not, right now, exist without them. Suppose there are seven such things. If these seven things did not exist, neither would you. Now suppose that all seven of them depend for their existence right now on still other things. Without these, the seven you now depend on would not exist - and neither would you. Imagine that the entire universe consists of you and the seven sustaining you. If there is nothing besides that universe of changing, dependent things, then the universe - and you as part of it - could not be. For everything that is would right now need to be given being but there would be nothing capable of giving it. And yet you are and it is. So there must in that case exist something besides the universe of dependent things - something not dependent as they are.
And if it must exist in that case, it must exist in this one. In our world there are surely more than seven things that need, right now, to be given being. But that need is not diminished by there being more than seven. As we imagine more and more of them - even an infinite number, if that were possible - we are simply expanding the set of beings that stand in need. And this need - for being, for existence - cannot be met from within the imagined set. But obviously it has been met, since contingent beings exist. Therefore there is a source of being on which our material universe right now depends."
REBUTTAL
Disregarding the extreme verbosity of this argument as well, as it is rather meander-y with its wording and reiterates the same points repeatedly with no substantial change or alteration in explanation, it's even easier to refute than Argument 1.
It uses a form of argumentation called "Reductio ad Absurdum," which means to logically follow an opponent's premise to an absurd extreme. In most circumstances, this is actually a legitimate debate tactic, though in this particular sense, it is being used fallaciously. The how is this: Immediately after offering the initial assertion, the author follows up with a thought experiment, which is actually a commission of the Straw Man Fallacy, whereby the author is creating a rebuttal against himself, solely for the purpose of him taking it down to make his initial assertion appear stronger, despite having offered no evidence to support the claim. After the Straw Man is introduced, the author then soundly defeats it with the "Reductio ad Absurdum" tactic.
The author then goes on to create an analogy, to liken existence to a "gift." This is an attempt to force intent upon something which we have no evidence for or facts concordant with such a hypothesis. A logical leap (there's that term again) also occurs in the baseless assertion for the necessity of an "Uncaused Being," This becomes almost immediately recognizable as a re-packaging of Argument 1, just with slightly altered language to try and circumvent the paradox of something immaterial affecting the material. However, while the author of Argument 2 may consider his assertion to be logical progression, we must continue it further. Since everything offered in the argument is based on the assumption that all things exist because of some external cause, what evidence (refer to the definition to the term given in the primer to this series) can the author provide that such an "Uncaused Being" exists or even can exist? The answer to that question is none.
Again the default position of non-belief must be assumed because of the lack of evidence, rendering Argument 2 invalid.
THE ARGUMENT FROM TIME AND CONTINGENCY
1. We notice around us things that come into being and go out of being. A tree, for example, grows from a tiny shoot, flowers brilliantly, then withers and dies.
2. Whatever comes into being or goes out of being does not have to be; nonbeing is a real possibility.
3. Suppose that nothing has to be; that is, that nonbeing is a real possibility for everything.
4. Then right now nothing would exist.
FOR
5. If the universe began to exist, then all being must trace its origin to some past moment before which there existed - literally - nothing at all.
BUT
6. From nothing nothing comes.
SO
7. The universe could not have begun.
8. But suppose the universe never began. Then, for the infinitely long duration of cosmic history, all being had the built-in possibility not to be.
BUT
9. If in an infinite time that possibility was never realized, then it could not have been a real possibility at all.
SO
10. There must be something which has to exist, which cannot not exist. This sort of being is called necessary.
11. Either this necessity belongs to the thing in itself or it is derived from another. If derived from another there must ultimately exist a being whose necessity is not derived, that is, an absolutely necessary being.
12. This absolutely necessary being is God.
Question 1: Even though you may never in fact step outside your house all day, it was possible for you to do so. Why is it impossible that the universe still happens to exist, even though it was possible for it to go out of existence?
Reply: The two cases are not really parallel. To step outside your house on a given day is something that you may or may not choose to do. But if nonbeing is a real possibility for you, then you are the kind of being that cannot last forever. In other words, the possibility of nonbeing must be built-in, "programmed," part of your very constitution, a necessary property. And if all being is like that, then how could anything still exist after the passage of an infinite time? For an infinite time is every bit as long as forever. So being must have what it takes to last forever, that is, to stay in existence for an infinite time. Therefore there must exist within the realm of being something that does not tend to go out of existence. And this sort of being, as Aquinas says, is called "necessary."
REBUTTAL
This argument falls apart within the first three statements of it. They're collectively a violation of the fundamental laws of physics, in particular the Law of Conservation of Mass, which states that matter can neither be created nor destroyed, only change its state or phase. Based on how the terms "being" and "nonbeing" are used, it speaks to matter entering and exiting existence. The argument continues this with statements 5 and 6, in reference to "nothing."
I encourage any reader interested to explore the work of physicist Dr. Lawrence Krauss, who is currently studying the concepts of what came before our universe, before the Big Bang, which is the best current explanation for how the universe got its start. In his studies he is attempting to understand and explain the concept of "nothing" in such a way as we could understand it. Because as we understand it right now, even when we look at or encounter what we think is "nothing," there is still "something" there, as the "nothing" supposedly observed is within our universe. Very complicated stuff, but very intriguing as well.
Finally, the rest of the statements stem from these gaping holes in the logic and thus are rendered invalid. This includes the Straw Man argument offered by the author to himself to defeat after statement 12.
THE ARGUMENT FROM DEGREES OF PERFECTION
"We notice around us things that vary in certain ways. A shade of color, for example, can be lighter or darker than another, a freshly baked apple pie is hotter than one taken out of the oven hours before; the life of a person who gives and receives love is better than the life of one who does not.
So we arrange some things in terms of more and less. And when we do, we naturally think of them on a scale approaching most and least. For example, we think of the lighter as approaching the brightness of pure white, and the darker as approaching the opacity of pitch black. This means that we think of them at various "distances" from the extremes, and as possessing, in degrees of "more" or "less," what the extremes possess in full measure.
Sometimes it is the literal distance from an extreme that makes all the difference between "more" and "less." For example, things are more or less hot when they are more or less distant from a source of heat. The source communicates to those things the quality of heat they possess in greater or lesser measure. This means that the degree of heat they possess is caused by a source outside of them.
Now when we think of the goodness of things, part of what we mean relates to what they are simply as beings. We believe, for example, that a relatively stable and permanent way of being is better than one that is fleeting and precarious. Why? Because we apprehend at a deep (but not always conscious) level that being is the source and condition of all value; finally and ultimately, being is better than nonbeing. And so we recognize the inherent superiority of all those ways of being that expand possibilities, free us from the constricting confines of matter, and allow us to share in, enrich and be enriched by, the being of other things. In other words, we all recognize that intelligent being is better than unintelligent being; that a being able to give and receive love is better than one that cannot; that our way of being is better, richer and fuller than that of a stone, a flower, an earthworm, an ant, or even a baby seal.
But if these degrees of perfection pertain to being and being is caused in finite creatures, then there must exist a "best," a source and real standard of all the perfections that we recognize belong to us as beings.
This absolutely perfect being - the "Being of all beings," "the Perfection of all perfections" - is God.
Question 1: The argument assumes a real "better." But aren't all our judgments of comparative value merely subjective?
Reply: The very asking of this question answers it. For the questioner would not have asked it unless he or she thought it really better to do so than not, and really better to find the true answer than not. You can speak subjectivism but you cannot live it."
REBUTTAL
There is no such thing as "degrees of perfection." Something is either perfect or not perfect, and since we have no example of what "perfect" is, outside of an entirely subjective definition, we therefore have no evidence of "perfection" existing, let alone varying "degrees" of it.
What the author does is conflate the concept of perfection with various items having a greater or lesser quantity of something in a spectrum ranging from most to least, as expressed in his argument. To address some of the examples given: the colors possess a quantity of pigment on a spectrum of most to least, thus resulting in the qualitative property of lighter or darker, the pies possess a quantity of heat temperature on a spectrum of most to least hot, and the same for "[...] things [...] more or less hot [...]."
Also, heat is not communicated from a source to an object or thing. It has no agency with which to possess the ability to do so. Heat is transferred from a hotter object to a cooler object until a temperature equilibrium is reached between the two, which then continue to cool until they reach a temperature equilibrium with the environment they are stored in.
Everything expressed outside of these is, quite honestly, in the language of "woo," overly flowery and emotional linguistic expression designed to get an emotional response out of the person reading or otherwise experiencing it, rather than absorb, analyze, and consider logically.
The self-offered question and subsequent reply is therefore invalid, as it makes the assumption that the assertion of "degrees of perfection" has logical merit with which to defend itself, which it clearly does not.
I hope everyone enjoyed the first installment of rebuttals to these Twenty Arguments for the Existence of God! I look forward to reading any comments or discussions these might spark. Stay cool, be excellent to each other, and I will see you tomorrow with Arguments 5-8!