An Argument for God Which Will Make You Feel Uneasy

So far in this series, I have touched upon the Ontological Argument and the Argument from Meaning as convincing reasons to believe in God's existence. After taking a break to discuss issues concerning love, I intend to carry on the theme of God's existence with another argument which is not widely known, yet is very powerful. It was constructed by the brilliant philosopher Spinoza in his masterpiece Ethics, where he lays out a whole system of reality and morality from a few basic axioms. Within this highly complex jungle of logical argumentation, he addresses the question whether God exists. He provides a number of different points for believing in God, but I have only selected the one I consider the strongest, as it is the most persuasive.

What is unique about this argument is that, like the Ontological Argument, it uses a priori reasoning to reach its conclusion. Thus, if the premises are true, the conclusion is 100% true. So if this argument is successful, it proves the existence of God beyond all doubt. So it is really key to see how it works, and whether it is flawed in its reasoning.

The argument is as follows:

1. Inability to exist is impotence. (Premise)

This is self-evident. If an object does not exist, it has no power to effect things and make an impression on reality, whereas an existing one does.
2. Ability to exist is power. (Premise)

Given the truth of the first premise, the second one naturally follows.

3. If only finite entities exist, then finite entities are more powerful than an infinite entity. (From 1 and 2)

This is logically certain given premises 1 and 2. For if only finite entities exist, then infinite entities do not exist. Now if an infinite being does not exist, it has no power. Thus, if a finite being exists (and thus has power) it must be more powerful than any non-existent infinite beings.
4. Finite entities are not more powerful than an infinite entity. (Premise)

This is true by definition. Infinity means limitless. Being a finite entity entails being limited. To be unlimited is to be more powerful than a limited being. So an infinite entity is more powerful than any finite entity.
5. Either an infinite entity exists or nothing at all exists. (From 3 and 4)

This follows logically from 3 and 4. For if only finite beings exist, then they are more powerful than infinite beings. But four correctly points out that this cannot be the case, as infinite beings are necessarily more powerful than finite beings. Thus, if any finite beings exist, then an infinite one must also, as it must be more powerful than an infinite being, which existence is a key part of.

6. Something exists. (Premise)

One may resort to doubting the existence of everything to refute this premise. However, even if you follow this method, there is one thing you cannot doubt. To doubt your own existence, you must be able to doubt. Thus, you must be a being who can produce thoughts of doubt. So you cannot doubt you exist, because to do that, you must exist to doubt your existence as a thinking being. Thus the phrase 'I think, therefore I am', stated by the genius Descartes, provides us with a proof that something, namely ourselves as thinking beings, exists.
7. Therefore, an infinite entity (God) exists. (From 5 and 6)

Given that we our finite beings, it follows that an infinite being must exist, given that by definition we are not more powerful than them, and ability to exist is power.

I have called this the uneasy proof for God's existence because at first sight it seems like there should be something wrong with this argument. If feels like there is a mistake in here somewhere. However, whilst most people think this way, they cannot identify what is actually wrong with the argument. And until someone does, it works as a proof for God's existence (as God is the only infinite entity, so it follows it is most likely to be Him who is the entity in this argument.)

Some people may try to refute this argument by claiming that existence is not power. But this just seems false. If I asked you whether a an existent Rhino or a non-existent Rhino had more power, you would say the existent one, on virtue of the fact it can make a difference to reality, whereas a non-existent one cannot.

Another criticism may be to deny that it makes sense to talk of non-existent entities. Is a thing an entity if it does not exist? An important question no doubt. However, I would argue in light of the idea of possible worlds and modal logic, entities need not exist to be entities. As long as there is a possible world in which they exist (by that I mean a possible state of affairs, not a planet or another universe or whatever) then they are an entity.

With these objections revoked, it seems to me that unless someone can show the logical structure of the argument to be false, it prevails as a proof for God's existence. Disagreeing with the conclusion is not a reason to doubt the argument. You need to specify which premise you disagree with, and then give a reason for that. Until the atheist, agnostic, or even theist does, this is a successful argument for the existence of God, for if the premises are true, the conclusion logically follows.

Just to recap the argument in premise form:

1. Inability to exist is impotence. (Premise)
2. Ability to exist is power. (Premise)
3. If only finite entities exist, then finite entities are more powerful than an infinite entity. (From 1 and 2)
4. Finite entities are not more powerful than an infinite entity. (Premise)
5. Either an infinite entity exists or nothing at all exists. (From 3 and 4)
6. Something exists. (Premise)
7. Therefore, an infinite (God) entity exists. (From 5 and 6)

I encourage you all to read Spinoza when you get the chance, he is a fantastic thinker, controversial, and his style of writing is really enjoyable.

Love: How do you know if someone likes you?

About a month ago, I declared to the world that I was in love. Indeed, the post which I did this in is still accessible on my blog. With time to reflect on my earlier ruminations and explorations of such an intriguing topic, I wanted to take a break from my series on the existence of God and once more delve into an emotion which characteristically defines who we are as individuals and helps us build ourselves an identity to live by. I hope to unpack what the idea that its difficult to know if someone likes you, and what one should do in such a situation.

The new hit single Call Me Maybe by Carly Rae Jepsen (which is actually quite catchy) tells the story of a young woman who falls for a dashing young fellow who seems to perform tasks around the house topless. She tries to impress him and get his attention, making a bit of a fool of herself in the process, but eventually getting her band to sing to him about how much she wants him. However, right at the end of the music video, we discover he is gay, when he gives his number to the male lead guitarist! This song captures beautifully the constant struggle and problem we all face in the area of love; namely, when you have a crush on someone, how do you tell if that person will fancy you back?

Despite a large number of websites, magazines and videos dedicating their time to providing answers to this question, it still seems an impossible task. The problem one faces is discerning whether the person in question is exhibiting the signs which indicate affection for you, or are you just perceiving that to be the case and in reality you have exaggerated their actions. For example, one of the 'signs' that a person likes you is that they look at you a lot, in either long stares or short, sharp glances. In one episode of the Inbetweeners, the lads are at a party and Simon thinks a girl likes him, as she keeps looking at him. However, we find out the only reason she was glancing at him was because he was staring at her, and she was quite uncomfortable about it! The point is, how do we know the image we have of a situation is a good representation of the reality of the scenario?

Whilst this question on the nature of knowledge and the warrant we have for beliefs is fascinating for a theoretician, what most people want to know is how one should practically respond to such a dilemma. After thinking about this for a while, I have come to the conclusion people have three choices they can make. They can either:

1) Suppress their emotions until the phase passes.
2) Sustain a gradual approach of flirting and signals in the hope that the individual in question also gives them off, so a mutual affection is generated and then acted upon.
3) Seizing the moment and directly asking the individual out, thus confessing your emotions for them.

Number one is a very conservative move, directed at reducing the possible harm that can be caused to oneself. It is good if you don't think you have very high chances with the person you like, or don't have very much courage. However, if the person does like you a lot as well, this approach crushes the wonderful opportunity you had of being in a relationship with a person you love a lot.

The second approach is quite balanced, which has an element of exposure to hurt but minimizes it due to the extended period of time it takes to follow through this plan. On the plus side, it can result in quite a lot of fun, courting and general banter, which could be an exhilarating ride of emotions, as so often seen in depictions of the 'chase'. However, even if you get really close to that person, it may not work out, as neither of you may make that bold step to make it into something more special, and as such it may backfire.

Finally, option three is the riskiest of all three, as outright rejection can occur. However, an absolute confirmation that the girl/boy you asked out likes you is great. It would be the beginning of something special. So this has the most to lose and the most to gain.

All three have their positives and negatives, as do all things in life. Honestly, I think everyone would like to pick three, but the courage one needs to do this is hard to come by. A bit of two and three together are the best plan. That way, you don't rush into anything, and you can test the waters to see if the person you like genuinely likes you back. Then, if you are sure you have something great and are really close with her/him, go to three and take it to the next level!

Sounds simple in theory, but in reality its a whole lot harder. But ultimately, if you follow your heart, commit to your emotions 100% and put your will behind it, you will either win the girl/guy of your dreams or be much the same as before. Weighing it up like a bet, there is nothing really to lose apart from pride, but all to gain in the form of a wonderful diffusion of love. So I encourage you to go out there, trust your perceptions and hope for the best.

Note: This is not a guide to picking up girls/guys, but a philosophical pondering into the nature of love and the risk of rejection.

Why Meaning Leads to Belief in God

God just won't go away. He's always in the news, being debated about, people trying to eradicate him from life via books and articles such as the God Delusion by Richard Dawkins. Whatever you think about God, discussion and thought about the idea He embodies is everywhere. In the last article, I tried to demonstrate that the view that God exists is true given the success of the Ontological Argument. In this post, I intend to look at the Argument from Meaning.

It is important to point out that from now on, unlike the Ontological Argument, the following ones only at best show the existence of God is highly probable, not logically proved. But bare in mind, everything outside of logic, mathematics and semantics is shown to be true in a similar way, even things like the natural sciences. So this should not provide a problem when it comes to the conclusion of my argument.

The argument goes something like this:

Human beings are meaning seeking animals. That is definitive of who we are. Take away meaning, you take away humanity. Almost every achievement in the arts, humanities, sciences, anything which has ever been done which is great, has been in response to a sense of meaning.

Now we need to think about the meaning of any system, as systems are what humans inhabit. I propose the following axiom:

1) The meaning of any system lies outside the system itself.

To demonstrate this truth, let me use the following example. Suppose a martian comes to Earth and decides to follow you around for the day. You go to the shops to buy some food, and you make a transaction for the products using a credit card. The martian asks to examine the card, which you let him have, and he studies the plastic. He then says 'so you lend them this card for a minuite and you get all that stuff, how does that work, is there some kind of magic involved? Now tell me, what property of the plastic that magics that stuff into your possession?' Now you could not explain to anyone the transaction taking place by explaining the properties of a credit card. You'd have to teach them a little bit about barter, exchange, money, and then the abstract value of money as credit, and the object that symbolises money. You would have to teach a great deal of human history of economics, cooperation and exchange to explain the meaning of this system of putting a card in a machine and gaining all these possessions. Thus, the meaning lies outside the system of events.

All systems, whether they be human insitutions, behaviour of organisms and laws of nature requires a theoretical ontology to be applied to it. The system itself is just a series of events or ideas, they are only ordered by an applied meaning from outside it. So take gravity. Newton's Laws were one application of meaning to the observable system the world worked under. Einstein's theories of relativity were another one. Neither can come from inside the system itself, because both explain the same thing in different ways. Rather, they are conceptions from the exterior of the system. Thus, this first premise seems to correspond fully to the way human investigation works.

The second premise is:

2) The universe is a system.

This also seems true. It is a system of laws, governing the motions of particles and matter. It seems self-evidently true.

The conclusion that follows then is:

3) The universe's meaning lies outside the universe.

This follows logically from the first two premises. Now we need a theory which provides some understanding of what the meaning of the universe is. It cannot be atheism or naturalism, for they posit no being outside the material universe, and as already shown, the universe's meaning must be outside the universe. Polytheistic religions such as Hinduism or Norse Mythology also offer no explanation, as the God's in their religions in some way are governed by the laws of nature and exist within the universe. Likewise, Pantheism also fails, as that suggests God is the universe, which means He cannot be its meaning, but as God  is all that there is, there is no meaning to the universe as a system. That leaves us only with the theistic religions of Judaism, Christianity and Islam, which provide a detailed account of the meaning of the universe, for God in their conceptions is clearly distinct from creation, He lies outside the system. So if this argument holds and is sound, which I think it is, the fourth premise should be:

4) The meaning of the universe is provided only by the God of the theistic religions.

Now the atheist may respond by denying the existence of meaning. But this is essentially to deny their humanity. So if an atheist is willing to be like an animal, without requirement for intellectual probing and a fulfilling life, then they can deny the existence of meaning. But this should sound uncomfortable to most people, as most humans embrace their humanity and respond to the meaning in life. That is why atheism fails, as it cannot offer us the bedrock foundations we need for meaning, which is essential in everything we do.

To summarise the argument:

1) The meaning of any system lies outside the system itself.
2) The universe is a system.
3) The universe's meaning lies outside the universe.
4) The meaning of the universe is provided only by the God of the theistic religions.

If you deny meaning, you deny you are a human. Thus, what this argument tries to demonstrate, is if you consider yourself human, you should believe in God.

The Ontological Argument for God's Existence

God's existence is a hugely significant question for a modern person to ask. If He does, then your life should be in obedience to Him, and if not you are the one in control. Another pertinent question to ask is, even if God exists, what is His nature. Another way of phrasing it would be as follows: which God exists? You wouldn't want to dedicate yourself to Islam, only to find out that Hinduism was true. It is of fundamental importance to the human condition that these questions be raised.

In the next month or so, I will be trying to offer reasons why I believe that the God of the theism, that is, an all powerful, all loving, all knowing being, exists, starting with perhaps my favourite piece of evidence, the Ontological Argument.

The first thing to point out is that this is an 'a priori' argument. That means it is based on reason alone, and simply requires the power of thought and logic to determine its success. If it is true, it is 100% certain and nobody can dispute its truth. If it is shown to be false, it is 100% certain that it is false. This means that, unlike the other arguments for God's existence which only suggest at best that God's existence is probable, if this argument succeeds, then the belief that God exists is logically certain.

This type of argument dates back to around 1000 years ago, and was created by the Archbishop of Canterbury St. Anselm. In that time, it has been modified, attacked, defeated, remade and developed. I intend to only offer what I consider the strongest variant of this argument, which was developed by Alvin Plantinga in the 1970s. It is called the Modal Variant because it uses the idea of 'possible worlds'. A possible world is a logically possible state of affairs. So there is a possible world X in which unicorns exist. There is another one Y where Ed Miliband is a tennis player. And there is a possible world Z where I get the girl of my dreams. Now the actual world is also a possible state of affairs, and thus it too is a possible world. But unlike other possible worlds which are just imaginary possibilities about how the world could have been, the actual world truly exists.

Now the argument runs as follows:

1) A maximally great being is one who is all powerful, all knowing, all loving, and has all other great making properties (that is, a property which has a maximum limit, such as knowledge).

2) It is possible that a maximally great being (God) exists.

3) If  it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then it must exist in some possible world.

4) If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world (because it is greater to exist in all logically possible worlds than just one, and as a maximally great being, it must exist to a maximum capacity in possible states of affairs.)

5) If a maximally great being exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world.

6) Therefore, if a maximally great being is even possible, it exists in the real world.

7) As a maximally great being is by definition the theistic God, God must exist if his existence is merely possible.

A lot of people think that there is a trick hidden in this argument, but actually it is just an argument based on old fashioned logic. It may be surprising for you to know that the logic of the argument is also sound, most critics do not dispute that. The real question is whether God's existence is possible. On the face of it, there seems no apparent contradiction in the concept of God. So prima facie, this argument is successful.

Thus, the burden of proof is on the sceptic to show that God's existence is not only highly improbable, but impossible. If this cannot be achieved, then by the mere possibility of God's existence he exists. So far, no one has convincingly showed that the concept of God is contradictory, and as there is evidence that the existence of God is probable by other arguments (such as the cause of the universe, the designer of the intrinsically improbable fine tuning, the founder of morality, the cause of religious experiences, miracles and the resurrection of Christ) it follows that this argument succeeds in proving the existence of God.

If you think that the existence of God is even possible, then I encourage you to also arrive at the same conclusion as this argument that you must also believe that God exists. Follow it through, and you shall see that if you accept that the existence of God might be true, no matter how improbable, then logic demands you should also believe that He exists not only in some other possible state of affairs, but the real world too.

The Problem of Evil Revisited

Recently, I published an article on how the logical problem of evil does not succeed in its aims. However, after some poor phrasing on my part and the challenges posed by an atheist on my Facebook wall, I have decided to offer a response to the fuller threat to theistic belief the Problem of Evil poses.

I take the problem of evil at its most powerful form to be as follows: Christianity claims both that God created the world and that he sustains it. Christianity claims that God knows all things and is capable of all feats. Christianity claims that God is perfectly good, and wants only the best for his Creation. If each of these claims is true, though, then it is difficult to see why God allows the evil in the world to persist. The evil in the world thus appears to be at least strong and perhaps even conclusive evidence that at least one of these central claims of Christianity is false.

Now some theologians, such as St Augustine, have tried to short circuit this argument by saying that evil really doesn't exist, its just a 'privation' of good. When you say something is cold, you are saying that that thing is absent of heat. Cold is not a thing in itself, but the privation of heat. Likewise, darkness is the privation of light. In the same way, evil is just the absence of good. However, I do not find this very convincing. Just look around in the world, and you will see events of such great moral and natural evil which defy such reasoning. Even if we accept that evil does not exist, suffering is a very real presence in our experience. Its all very well saying evil doesn't exist, but how do you justify this to the mother who lost her baby, or the 16 year old girl diagnosed with terminal cancer, or the young man hacked down by soldiers for defending his family?

It is with this in mind I open my response. Evil exists, no question about it. The question is, can belief in God still be probable with this in mind? The atheist believes that the problem of evil shows the answer to this question to be a no. The probability that God, an all loving being and all powerful being, is so low, that belief in God is unjustified. This is because we can conceive of the universe being in a much better situation, with less evil. But is that the case?

Well the first problem with this response is that the proponent of such an argument seems to believe that if God has morally sufficient reasons for permitting evil, then it should be obvious to us. There is literally no grounds for that assumption. The transcendent God is able to see the end of history, and is able to order history to fulfill his aims and purposes, through human free decisions. To see his ends come to fruition, God may well have to put up with evil along the way, which appear pointless to us in our limited frame of reference, but would be justified in God's wider frame of reference. In other words, due to our select few observations, it cannot be inferred that it is improbable God would have no morally justifiable reason for permitting evil.

This is not an appeal to mystery, but rather a recognition that humans have limited cognitive capacities. In other contexts this accepted widely: utilitarianism is heavily criticised because one could never estimate what would be the greatest good action for the greatest number of people, because there are so many possible contingencies that living by such a system is impossible for human minds. Due to our cognitive limitations, disastrous actions in the short term may be fantastic in the long term for the greatest number of people. Some short term boom may bring in untold misery (think of the economic collapse of 2008). Once we see that God has providence over the whole of history, it becomes apparent that we as limited observers are in no position to speculate on what the reasons are God may have for permitting the existence of evil with any confidence.

Secondly, if the Christian God exists, it would not be unexpected that evil also exists. This is because the ultimate goal of creation is not happiness, but knowledge of the divine. These two are often conflated, and quite dangerously so. If things were designed for human happiness by God, it is inconceivable why evil would exist, because that decreases happiness in this life. However, Christians affirm that ultimate fulfillment is found in God alone, and moral and natural evil may be instruments God uses to bring people into his kingdom. A view of history cannot be taken on this issue without baring this in mind, for events which seem utterly pointless in creating human happiness may have a purpose in giving a person greater knowledge of God. Moreover, God's purposes do not just concern this world, but the afterlife and eternal salvation. When God asks humans to bare suffering in this life, it is only with the prospect of heavenly joy and recompense in the eternal love he offers, and the longer we spend in heaven, the longer the previous suffering shrinks away compared to the overpowering love of Christ and the heavenly abode. If Christian theism is true, it is not so improbable that God and evil would both exist, and if you have read some of my earlier posts, you will see why I at least believe that Christianity is true. To summarise this point, the proponent of the problem of evil assumes that fulfillment comes from happiness, and not some other thing, such as knowledge of God, which we would expect on a Christian worldview at least.

Thirdly, probability arguments always rely on some background information. So we need to ask, what is the proponent of the problem of evil basing their probability on? What is it in respect too? The atheist says the existence of God is improbable. But in respect to what? To the evil in the world? Well, if that was the only aspect of reality, it would be hardly surprising that the existence of God is improbable. However, the background information one should use is not just the evil in creation but all the data the universe offers. I do not have room for it here, but I am convinced that arguments such as the Kalam Cosmological Argument, William Sorley's Moral Argument and William Alston's evaluation of religious experience all provide evidence from within the universe which even if we take the existence of evil, make the background probability of God's existence more probable than not. In any case, it would be premature to say the existence of God is improbable without assessing all the relevant evidence, not just evil.

To conclude, I believe the problem of evil is not in the end a problem for the Christian, for he can hold that both God and evil exist by assessing the argument and picking out its flaws: 1) it assumes we should know the reason why God would permit evil 2) It assumes the function of human life is to achieve happiness, not knowledge of God like in Christianity 3) It bases its probability on the background of evil alone, not all the available evidence. This would be my response to somebody proposing such an argument. Now I may have not done justice for the proponents, and if so, I would encourage supporters of it to offer a stronger case than for it. With that being the case, I still maintain that these points, which I have only briefly illustrated, demonstrate that the rational person can believe in God's existence being probable and evil existing.

Does Evil Disprove God?

Evil exists everywhere. Turn on the news and you will see people ravaged by horrific diseases, children sent to fight in wars and destruction effecting the most vulnerable. This is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the suffering within the world. And yet, some people believe in an all powerful and all loving being. Surely this is illogical thinking? If this were the case, why would he permit evil? Is he sick, or is he impotent?

This is referring to the logical Problem of Evil, which is used as an argument by atheists to render the classical concept of God illogical, drawing out a supposed logical contradiction. What I intend to offer in this article is a brief demonstration about why the existence of evil is compatible with the existence of God in a logical way, but I will not try to explain for sure why evil exists. I propose a more moderate aim for this article, in trying to show how God is a logically viable being with respect to this problem.

On a side note, whilst this argument remains highly popular with the laity today, the vast majority of philosophers have abandoned it due to the fact that it has been demonstrated as false in the 70s. So bare in mind that if you do not see why my defense works, the experts in the field came up with this and it generally accepted as true.

The Problem in its fullest and most powerful form is stated as such:

1) God is omnipotent.
2) God is omniscient.
3) God is wholly good.
4) Evil exists.
5) If God is omniscient and omnipotent, he can eliminate any evil state of affairs.
6) Thus, if God exists, there would be no evil.
7) However, evil exists.
8) Therefore, God cannot exist.

Now it is important to bare in mind that a logical contradiction is not merely a tricky situation or a problem that can be seen in two ways; if something is logically contradictory, it is 100% impossible, like a square circle. A square cannot be a circle, for by its very definition it is four sided, whereas a circle is one sided. In the same way, to say that the concept of God logically is contradictory is to say there is no possible doubt one could raise against such an objection which makes sense, and that there is no possible state of affairs where God could foreseeable exist with evil.

However, the argument provided does not with logical certainty prove that the concept of God is impossible provided evil exists. All a theist would need to believe is that God has a morally justified reason for permitting evil, which fits in with premises 1 to 6 in a consistent way, and this would show that you can consistently doubt the claim that the existence of evil shows the concept of God existing is logically impossible, and thus makes the concept of God logically possible.

What this morally justifiable reason could be is not certain, but indeed it does not need to be clarified, for we have already produced a defeater for the Problem of Evil in its logical sense. It could be the need for freedom, the production of spiritual growth or even something else our tiny, ignorant minds haven't grasped. Whatever it is, logically this problem is redundant, its power has been lost, for the premise that God exists and evil exists are compatible. That does not mean that it is true that God exists, all it means is it is logically possible. But if it is logically possible, there is no inherent contradiction. And if there is no contradiction, there is no more threat to a theists belief.

I hope I have convinced you that the existence of God is not found to be contradictory by the problem of evil. If you would like to explore the possible justifications God has for permitting evil, I would recommend reading the work of St. Augustine, St. Iranaeus and Alvin Plantinga. All three are highly significant in this field and would be good sources to start with.

Just to point out, this article is purely addressing the logical problem of evil, no other version of the problem.