In the past, I've defended arguments for the existence of an incorruptible and eternal entity. While not all atheists are averse to accepting this conclusion, I have to wonder why so many (not all, and not necessarily most) atheists find the conclusion unacceptable. Is it because the conclusion is too God-like? Here's the Modal Third Way (MTW) once again. Why would any atheist find the argument so unpalatable?
1. Something cannot come from nothing. (Premise)
2. Something presently exists. (Premise)
3. Hence, there was never a past time at which nothing existed. (From 1 and 2)
4. Either everything that exists is destructible, or else there exists at least one indestructible entity. (Premise)
5. Possibly, there was a past time at which nothing destructible existed. (Premise)
6. Therefore, at least one indestructible entity N exists. (Implied by 3, 4 and 5)
Reductio ad absurdum:
7. Nothing indestructible exists. (Assumption)
8. If nothing indestructible exists, then there was possibly a past time at which nothing existed. (From 5 and 7)
9. (8) contradicts (3).
10. Therefore, (7) is false and at least one indestructible entity N exists. (Implied by 9)
Obviously, more argumentation is needed in order to show that N is God, but why do so many atheists have strong reservations about affirming the argument? Each of the argument's premises appears to be compellingly true.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
"Obviously, more argumentation is needed in order to show that N is God, but why do so many atheists have strong reservations about affirming the argument?"
ReplyDeleteThat's a rhetorical question, obviously.
It is somewhat rhetorical, but I would think I'd still accept the argument even if I hypothetically abandoned classical theism.
ReplyDeleteWell, yes (*). Even if we were to learn that the distinctive doctrines of Christianity were false, the fact remains that reason alone demonstrates to us that there is a Creator-God, who is a person, who is immaterial and transcendent of time and space (having created them).
ReplyDelete(*) With the proviso that there is not ant never was a religion called “classical theism”, nor one called “theism”.
Even aside from the fact that many these days use their “classical theism” as:
1) an excuse to disparage actual living Christians;
2) a means to evade the questions the few times ‘atheists’ actually do ask honestly-meant questions about God and our relationship to him,
referring to Judeo-Christianity as “theism” rhetorically puts it on a par with pagan religions: for all the pagan religions were/are also “theistic”. But, Judeo-Christianity had nothing in common with the paganisms -- there is no axis going from ‘animism’ to ‘polytheism’ to ‘henotheism’ to ‘monotheism’ to ‘atheism’.
Doug
ReplyDeleteThe reason why some atheists find this inpalatable is because it presented as an argument for God, or at least as one step in the direction of God, while in reality, all it shows is something utterly trivial.
If you present this argument just for what it is, then there won't be too many objections. The problem is that theists want this argument to entail much more than it really does.
Walter
Walter, I sympathize with that, but why object to "one step in the direction of God" so much? The moral argument, for example, requires that there be an objective moral law. A lot of atheists agree with that, but focus the debate on whether such a law requires God. Likewise, the debate should focus not on whether an indestructible entity exists (and many atheists reject this claim, so it's not trivial), but on whether this entity possesses divine attributes.
ReplyDeleteWalter,
ReplyDeleteWhat you're saying is that 'atheists' are intellectually dishonest. Well, shut my mouth! Whodda thunk!
Your claim that this argument is not really a step in proving that God is is false, but nevermind that for now: let's pretend that what you're asserting on that point is true.
So, here is what you're saying:
1) the argument shows something trivially true
1a) which is to say, the conclusion of the argument *is* true
2) 'atheists' don't find this argument to be "unpalatable" for any rational or logical reasons, such as it employing false premises or making invalid inferences
2a) which is to say, 'atheists' acknowledge the argument to be sound and valid
2b) which is to say, 'atheists' acknowledge the argument's conclusion to be true and properly argued
3) 'atheist' nevertheless reject the argument and its "trivially true" conclusion because "theists" want to use that conclusion as a premise in the next step of an argument showing that God is
3a) which is to say, you are claiming 'atheists' reject the argument not for any rationally valid reason, but because of one potential consequent use of the conclusion.
Also, you're not only saying that 'atheists' are intellectually dishonest, but that they are also either too ignorant or too stupid to point out "theist's" improper (according to you) use of this argument as a stepping-stone to arguing that God is.
Is this *really* what you want to assert?
Yes, Doug, I wholeheartedly agree. Lots of atheists , just as lots of theists, are intellectually dishonest. If they reeally want to get into a debate, they should just concentrate on the trivilality of te conclusion.
ReplyDeleteYou should also keep in mind that not every atheists would hold to premise 1. While I think that something coming from nothing and something being created out of nothijhng are equally nonsensical concepts, obviously not everybody agrees with that.
Walter
Just for the record, it was Illion who was talking about the intellectual honesty/dishonesty of atheists. I still maintain this isn't a trivial conclusion. Hypothetically, if I weren't a classical theist, I'd lean toward pantheism. There's a sense of awe and wonder at the idea of some indestructible entity existing. On top of that, studies have shown that there are medical benefits in prayer and meditation, so why wouldn't I continue to be a religious person who holds that God and Nature are identical?
ReplyDeleteWhile it's true that some atheists reject premise (1), I think that requires much much more faith than the MTW. Something coming from nothing is worse than magic, and I'm glad to hear you say you agree with me on that. Notice, though, the MTW doesn't appeal to creatio ex nihilo.
Yes, sorry. I hadn't noticed it was Ilion. But I agree with him.
DeleteAs for "awe and wonder", these are highly subjective concepts, so I have no problem with someone experiencing awe and wonder. As an atheist, I experience awe and wonder all the time. And I have nothing against meditation either. I think nature is awesome, and if that's enough to be called a pantheist, then I wouldn't mind being a pantheist. God can be nice as a symbol, or as an analogy. It's taking this analogy to be a transcendent entity that leads to unsurmountable problems.
Since we're speaking for the record, for the record Ilíon was pointing out the meaning of what Walter had said is that 'atheists' are intellectually dishonest, at least with resepect to an argument such as this ...
ReplyDelete... not that Ilíon would ever dispute that assessment as being a general rule about them.
"I still maintain this isn't a trivial conclusion."
ReplyDeleteFor the record, it was not I who claimed it was trivial.
Right, Ilion wasn't calling you dishonest, Walter. He was talking about the consequence of the words you chose to describe a number of atheists.
ReplyDeleteAlso for the record, I recognize that it was Walter who said the conclusion was trivial. Perhaps I should have started my reply to that with a new paragraph.
I was never under the impression that Ilion was calling me hishonest. I even agree with him to a large extent. The atheists who reject your version of the MTW do not realize this is not vene a small step towards proving God. I should add that I do not think there are too many atheists who will actually reject this version. Those who do will probably reject premise 1 anyway. And, even though to me 'something from nothing' sounds like worse than magic as well, I have no logical argument against it.
ReplyDeleteWalter
Walter, you might be interested in looking into some of the literature on pantheism. Note: I'm not suggesting that pantheism is superior to theism, but I do think you have some pantheistic tendencies. If you're interested, my recommendation is Paul Harrison's book, Elements of Pantheism. It's inexpensive, as well as a quick and easy read. You might end up calling yourself a pantheist, as opposed to an atheist, when all's said and done.
ReplyDeleteI'll even buy you a copy myself. I think you'd really enjoy it. I realize you may be uncomfortable leaving your address here. Do you have a P.O. Box? If you'd like, email it to me: dougbenscoter@hotmail.com. :)
ReplyDeleteAnon: "... And, even though to me 'something from nothing' sounds like worse than magic as well, I have no logical argument against it."
ReplyDeleteYou have no logical argument against 'something from nothing'?
It is its own self-refutation -- this is why when Hawkins (as just one example) claims that 'Science!' can and has shown that 'something' can come from 'nothing', the 'nothing' he has in mind isn't no-thing, but rather some-thing.
"... And, even though to me 'something from nothing' sounds like worse than magic as well ..."
The thing about magical-thinking is that it is anti-logical.
=========
I have to head back to the city where I work. I have no internet access there, except during lunch (or if I hang out an McDonald's of the evening), but I hope to comment further, later.
Hawking's claim is that the laws of nature would have eventually created the universe. Of course, as Ilion correctly observes, the laws of nature are something. There's been a lot of equivocation going on, especially in Lawrence Krauss's comments.
ReplyDeleteThe main argument in favor of "something cannot come from nothing" is that if there were literally nothing, then not even the potentiality would exist for something to come into being. Hence, nothing could ever come into existence.
ReplyDeleteWhile I agree that something from absolutely nothing does not make much sense to me, the argument that if there were literally nothing, then not even the potentiality for something to come into being would exist is actually questtion-begging. It comes down to :something cannot come from nothing because something cannot come from nothing.
DeleteFor your and everybody else's information: I am NOT a pantheist. And while I am interested in any philosophical subject of a certain level, I do not think I'll have time in the foreseeable future to read Harrison's book. If I want to read it, I will be able to find it myself, though. I don't think sending a book al the way to Belgium is such a good idea.
If you ever wish to e-mail me for whatever reason (except preaching) then you are welcome. My e-mail addressis w.vandenacker@skynet.be.
Walter
A. Something cannot come from nothing because there would be no potentiality for anything to come into being.
DeleteB. Something cannot come from nothing because something cannot come from nothing.
A and B are not identical statements. The charge of question-begging is without merit.
"For the record, it was not I who claimed it was trivial."
ReplyDeleteAt the same time, the very "modality" of this argument seems to me reason enough to at least tentatively agree with Walter that it isn't (or probably isn’t) a stepping-stone toward showing that God is.
Perhaps a better way to say that is that because this is a modal argument, I can’t think of any reason to fault an ‘atheist’ who rejects it on those grounds. What I was speaking about before, in explicating the meaning of what Walter had first said, is faulting an ‘atheist’ who rejects or denigrates it post-facto (so to speak) due to the use to which some “theist” may wish to put it.
To be quite blunt about it, I don’t trust “modal logic” to give us truth.
Notice, though, that this is an attempt to provide some common ground between theists and atheists. The truth is, many (not all) atheists reject the argument, even though it doesn't mention God, simply because the conclusion appears too God-like, which I admit is a subjective feeling among such atheists.
ReplyDeleteI see no reason to doubt modal logic. There's surely much value in examining a thing's modality (or nature of existence: impossibility, contingency, necessity). Either way, I find the traditional arguments just as compelling.
"A. Something cannot come from nothing because there would be no potentiality for anything to come into being."
ReplyDeleteMoreover, 'potentiality' can never, all by itself, become 'actuality'; there must be some 'actuality' in the first place if one hopes to get the subsequent 'actuality'.
Exactly, and I've had many discussions with Walter about the argument from motion.
ReplyDeleteSomething cannot come from pure actuality because there would be no potentiality for anything to come into being. The argument from motion suffers the exact same problem that "something coming form nothing" has. That's why, for consisitency's sake, I reject both notions.
DeleteWalter
The Unmoved Mover's pure actuality doesn't entail there is no external potentiality for anything to come into being.
DeleteMoreover, the argument from motion is not about creation, but about why things change.
DeleteIf there is external potentiality as well as an unmoved mover, it seems you have already two indestructible beings, including one you cannot account for.
ReplyDeleteMay I also remind you that, as a Catholic, you are required to have the unmoved mover create everything, including the potentialty for something to come into being. It seems to me that, in order to be a good Catholic as well as a beliver in an unmoved movre, you'll have to believe in something you yourself would describe as "worse than magic". Maybe you should consider becoming a pantheist after all.
Walter
Nothing I've said suggested that potentialities are indestructible. In fact, potentialities are just possibilities, and it's a category mistake to think of them as destructible or indestructible.
ReplyDeleteYes, as a good Catholic, I am required to believe that God created the universe. But, that's entirely off-topic. Thomas himself was willing to grant that the universe is eternal in the past. That didn't make him a "bad" Catholic. It simply meant that we can grant all kinds of atheistic suppositions and still come to the conclusion that God exists.
If it's a category mistake to think of potentailities as destrcutible or indestructible, then there is something serious wrong with your premise 4 "Either everything that exists is destructible, or else there exists at least one indestructible entity. (Premise)". If potentialities exist then they seem to fall under the category "everything that exists" in which case thye are either destructible or they belong to the set of indestructible entities.
ReplyDeleteOt maybe they do not really exist, in which case, they are nothing and it seems that premise 1 is wrong. Either way, it will take some serious mental gymnastics to save your argument.
As for "eternal in the past" that is not what we are talking about. We are talking about ubcaused things. If you claim that potentialities are uncaused, and that's what you position entails, you are denying one of the key doctrines of Catholicism. Not that I mind, requirements to think X or Y have no place in philosophy anyway.
Walter
Premise (4) is talking about actualities - namely, actually existing things that are destructible or indestructible.
ReplyDeleteHonestly, I would find your last comment funny if it weren't so sad. Don't you realize that Catholics are willing to grant atheistic suppositions in order to show that God still exists even on those suppositions? Come on, Walter, I expect you to take this methodology much more seriously.
Premise 4 does not say "actually existing things", so the category error is entirely yours.
ReplyDeleteAnd if potentialities do not exist, then 'nothing' can contain potentialities and your premise 1 fails. Just pick and choose.
And I realize that Catholics are willing to grant atheistic suppositions, but this is not a suppposition. It's something that follows from your position and it shows that God is not the cause of everything. So, this 'presupposition' fails.
And , I agree, a requirement to think in a certain way is indeed sad.
"Don't you realize that Catholics are willing to grant atheistic suppositions in order to show that God still exists even on those suppositions?"
ReplyDeleteCatholics aren't the only ones who will do that. For instance, this argument shows atheism is false by first assuming that it is true.
========
D.B. "Nothing I've said suggested that potentialities are indestructible. In fact, potentialities are just possibilities, and it's a category mistake to think of them as destructible or indestructible."
Walter:. "If it's a category mistake to think of potentailities as destrcutible or indestructible, then there is something serious wrong with your premise 4 ..."
D.B. "Premise (4) is talking about actualities - namely, actually existing things that are destructible or indestructible."
What D.B. is getting at in the first quote is that "potentialities" don't exist; anything that actually exists is not a "potentiality", but an "actuality". Thus, it is a category error to think of "potentialities" as either destructible or indestructible; the terms don't apply.
Walter, "everything that exists" entails actuality. In fact, actuality is synonymous with existence. How exactly would a potentiality's non-existence suggest that premise (1) is wrong?
ReplyDeleteSo we're talking about caused things. So what? You stated that pure actuality cannot cause anything, but you just left it at that. I'm inclined to reject any assertion that lacks argumentation. Finally, the third way says nothing at all about God's being pure actuality, so reject the latter doctrine if you wish. You'll still have to come to terms with the MTW, which at first it seemed you were fine with.
Ilion, you're absolutely right in saying it's not just Catholics who use this method. I only mention Catholics because Walter brought it up.
ReplyDeleteDoug and Ilion
ReplyDeleteYou simply cannot claim at one time that "nothing exists" means that not even potentialities exist and on the other hand claim that potentialities do not exist. If potentialities do not exist, then there is no logical argument against "nothing" entailing potentiality.
As for your claim that I am asserting things: I argued for this, using your own logic. You claimed that if there is no potentiality for something then somethin cannot come into existence. Since pure actuality cannot by definition have any potentiality, it follows that a purely actual thing cannot cause anything to exist. So you need uncause potentialities for thta. But if you admit uncuased potentilaities are possible, then your MTW dioes not lead to a non-destuctible being (unless a potentiality is such a being).
that's why what the MTW actually porves is getting more and more trivila by the minute. So, no need for me to reject it, since the gap between the outcome of the MTW and "God" is getting unsurmountable. The MTW is starting to be a very powerful argument for atheism. So, keep up the hood ork, Doug.
Walter
Walter, there are only potentialities if there is at least one actuality. It's much more nuanced than you're currently treating it. Again, you're overlooking what I said about their being potentialities external to pure actuality, so you're really only reiterating the same objection you made earlier without engaging with my response. Finally, you're speaking of "uncaused potentialities" as if they're actualities, which is a mistake. It only makes sense to speak of potentialities if there is some actuality capable of actualizing it.
ReplyDeleteWalter, let's go ahead and wrap up these discussions. We could go on and on, but I have a book to finish and I'm sure you're busy, as well. I think we do have at the very least some common ground, as was indicated in my post on the argument from order:
ReplyDelete1. Whatever exhibits regularity is not the result of chance alone. (Premise)
2. The laws of nature exhibit regularity. (Premise)
3. Therefore, the laws of nature are not the result of chance alone.
You appear to agree with this argument, with the only caveat being that you assign the result to a combination of necessity and chance, as opposed to design. I'm willing to leave the discussion there for now. Be well.
By the way, you can have the last word on each of these posts.
ReplyDeleteOK
ReplyDeleteYes I assign the result to a combination of necessity and chance, and as a result I have a complete, atheistic explanantion for everything. No desginer can add anything to it, so, a designer is redundant.
As a final word: I argued for why the pptentialities are necessrilty uncaused, and since you din't reply to that argument, it stil stands. As for the distinction between potentialioty and actuality, you know I do not make that distinction. It is based on the misunderstandings of a,cient philosophers who did ,oy jabe access to modern day scinece. I have no problem with you not agreeing to my arguments, but just ignoring them and then claim I was just asserting things is a tactic that you seem to employ a bit too often. So, I hope that in the future, you will treat my arguments a bit more nuanced instead of building starwmen .
I'm willing to give you the last word, but I'd wish you choose to end the discussion on a positive note, instead of making unsubstantiated accusations against me. A simple, "nice talk, Doug," would do just fine. Let everyone decide for themselves.
ReplyDeleteI was just expressing what I feel, Doug. I just do not like my arguments to be misrepresented as reiterations and assertions, especially when a big deal of my argument is simply being ignored.
ReplyDeleteBut, that aside, it was a nice talk.
Waler: "Yes I assign the result to a combination of necessity and chance, .."
ReplyDeleteThere is no such thing as a chance (or random) cause. To speak of an effect being the 'result' of a chance (or random) 'cause' is to speak of an 'effect' that has no cause (and thus the event isn't an effect of anything).
So, when you assert that everything is "the result to a combination of necessity and chance", what you assert is that everything is the result of a combination of physical/mechanical necessity and "it just happened, without cause".
But, nothing happens without cause. There never has been, and never will be, any empirical evidence of anything happening without cause. Reason tells us that nothing happens without cause; for, if things were to happen without cause, the would would be irrational, and we could not rationally comprehend it. Even those atheists/materialists who assert that things happen without cause do not really believe that, as witness how they behave in navigating the world.
So, what you are really asserting is that every event in the world, all the past events and all potential future events, is the physical/mechanical necessary result of the of the initial conditions of "the universe".
That assertion has logical consequences/entailments.
Ilion
ReplyDeleteNo, I am not asserting that every event in the wolrd is the physical mechnanical result of the initial conditions of the universe.
Some things may be necssary and other things may be uncaused or may have a probabilistic cause. There is no logical argument against cause C having some probabilitic result. If you equate every cause with a sufficient cause, then libertarian free will is actually impossible.
Walter