The Atheist Reformation: Arguments 7&8

Welcome back once again, readers! Today we are continuing our exploration and refutation of the 20 Arguments for the Existence of God, and we're almost halfway through now! Without further ado, Arguments 7 and 8 for the Existence of God:

THE ARGUMENT FROM CONTINGENCY

"The basic form of this argument is simple.

1. If something exists, there must exist what it takes for that thing to exist.

2. The universe - the collection of beings in space and time - exists.

3. Therefore, there must exist what it takes for the universe to exist.

4. What it takes for the universe to exist cannot exist within the universe or be bounded by space and time.

5. Therefore, what it takes for the universe to exist must transcend both space and time.

Suppose you deny the first premise. Then is X exists, there need not exist what it takes for X to exist. But "what it takes for X to exist" means the immediate condition(s) for X's existence. You mean that X exists only if Y. Without Y, there can be no X. So the denial of premise 1 amounts to this: X exists; X can only exist if Y exists; and Y does not exist. This is absurd. So there must exist what it takes for the universe to exist. But what does it take?

We spoke of the universe as "the collection of beings in space and time." Consider one such being: yourself. You exist, and you are, in part at least, material. This means that you are a finite, limited and changing being, you know that right now, as you read this book, you are dependent for your existence on beings outside you. Not your parents or grandparents. They may no longer be alive, but you exist now. And right now you depend on many things in order to exist - for example, on the air you breathe. To be dependent in this way is to be contingent. You exist if something else right now exists.

But not everything can be like this. For then everything would need to be given being, but there would be nothing capable of giving it. There would not exist what it takes for anything to exist. So there must be something that does not exist conditionally; something which does not exist only if something else exists; something which exists in itself. What it takes for this thing to exist could only be this thing itself. Unlike changing material reality, there would be no distance, so to speak, between what this thing is and that it is. Obviously the collection of beings changing in space and time cannot be such a thing. Therefore, what it takes for the universe to exist cannot be identical with the universe itself or with a part of the universe.

REBUTTAL

The simplest explanation I can offer is this. It lacks evidence supporting the claim. Given premise 5, if such a "thing" were to exist such that it was transcendent of both space and time within this universe, it must still be able to interact with said universe in some shape way or form. If it could not interact with it, then it could not have created it. However, to interact with anything in this universe, all evidence indicates that for anything to do such a thing must possess some property or material of this universe, which would mean it had to somehow exist within it to interact with it. However, given premise 4, this would not be possible, as said "thing" cannot exist within this universe. Thus it could not interact with it, etc, etc. This is called an "Infinite Regression Paradox," or a self-refuting argument.

THE ARGUMENT FROM THE WORLD AS AN INTERACTING WHOLE

"Norris Clarke, who taught metaphysics and philosophy of religion for many years at Fordham, has circulated privately an intriguing version of the design argument. We present it here, slightly abridged and revised; for your reflection.

Starting point. This world is given to us as a dynamic, ordered system of many active component elements. Their natures (natural properties) are ordered to interact with each other in stable, reciprocal relationships which we call physical laws. For example, every hydrogen atom in our universe is ordered to combine with every oxygen atom in the proportion of 2:1 (which implies that every oxygen atom is reciprocally ordered to combine with every hydrogen atom in the proportion of 1:2). So it is with the chemical valences of all the basic elements. So too all particles with mass are ordered to move toward each other according to the fixed proportions of the law of gravity.

In such an interconnected, interlocking, dynamic system, the active nature of each component is defined by its relation with others, and so presupposes the others for its own intelligibility and ability to act. Contemporary science reveals to us that our world-system is not merely an aggregate of many separate, unrelated laws, but rather a tightly interlocking whole, where relationship to the whole structures and determines the parts. The parts can no longer be understood apart from the whole, its influence permeates them all.

Argument. In any such system as the above (like our world) no component part or active element can be self-sufficient or self-explanatory. For any part presupposes all the other parts - the whole system already in place - to match its own relational properties. It can't act unless the others are there to interact reciprocally with it. Any one part could be self-sufficient only if it were the cause of the whole rest of the system - which is impossible, since no part can act except in collaboration with the others.

Nor can the system as a whole explain its own existence, since it is made up of the component parts and is not a separate being, on its own, independent of them. So neither the parts nor the whole are self-sufficient; neither can explain the actual existence of this dynamically interactive system.

Three Conclusions

1. Since the parts make sense only within the whole, and neither the whole or the parts can explain their own existence, then such a system as our world requires a unifying efficient cause to posit it in existence as a unified whole.

2. Any such cause must be an intelligent cause, one that brings the system into being according to a unifying idea. For the unity of the whole - and of each one of the overarching, cosmic-wide, physical laws uniting elements under themselves - is what determines and correlates the parts. Hence it must be somehow actually present as an effective organizing factor. But the unity, the wholeness, of the whole transcends any one part, and therefore cannot be contained in any one part. To be actually present all at once as a whole this unity can only be the unity of an organizing unifying idea. For only an idea can hold together many different elements at once without destroying or fusing their distinctness. That is almost the definition of an idea. Since the actual parts are spread out over space and time, the only way they can be together at once as an intelligible unity is within an idea. Hence the system of the world as a whole must live within the unity of an idea.

Now a real idea cannot actually exist and be effectively operative save in a real mind, which has the creative power to bring such a system into real existence. Hence the sufficient reason for our ordered world-system must ultimately be a creative ordering Mind. A cosmic-wide order requires a cosmic-wide Orderer, which can only be a Mind.

3. Such an ordering Mind must be independent of the system itself, that is, transcendent; not dependent on the system for its own existence and operation. For if it were dependent on - or part of - the system, it would have to presuppose the latter as already existing in order to operate, and would thus have to both precede and follow itself. But this is absurd. Hence it must exist and be able to operate prior to and independent of the system.

Thus our material universe necessarily requires, as the sufficient reason for its actual existence as an operating whole, a Transcendent Creative Mind.

REBUTTAL

This argument makes the same fundamental errors as the Design Argument already refuted earlier in this article. However, it makes another fundamental mistake as well, especially when talking about hydrogen and oxygen. They use the term "ordered" to make their point, which assigns agency to these elements and assumes their capability to follow a given "order," as if spoken to them in some way. To quote the author with his own phrase he uses repeatedly, "This is absurd." These are elements that interact with each other in a variety of ways, and not just a 2:1 ratio of hydrogen to oxygen or the reciprocal, such as H2O2, or hydrogen peroxide. These elements do not have brains or consciousness, thus do not have any agency of their own, thus cannot follow an order given by some "Transcendental Creative Mind." Again, the issue still comes with for such a thing to exist and have given our universe its existence, it must have interacted with it at some point. To be able to interact with the universe, it must have some property or be made of some material within the universe, etc. etc.

Well, I hope everybody enjoys this article! Stay cool and be excellent to each other!