A Pitiful Argument for the Existence of God

Tagged:  •    •    •    •  

Last Sunday I went to church. It’s not somthing I normally do, but I did it to spend time with my grandmother, a highly devout Southern Baptist.

I’ve never cared for organized religion; it works well for some people, but not for me. I’d rather celebrate the beauty found in this world than try to figure out how it came to exist. Though, like a good philosophy major would do, I couldn’t resist coming up with a counter to a really bad argument that the pastor gave during the sermon on Sunday.

During the sermon, the pastor asked his audience, "What if an atheist comes up to you and questions your belief in God?" He continued by telling his audience to "ask the atheist how much knowledge she knows out of all the knowledge there is to know in the entire universe." Eventually the atheist (if she were humble) would admit to knowing a minuscule amount of all there is to know. Let’s say, for the sake of argument, the atheist says that she knows about one one billionth of a percentage of all there is to know in the universe.

The next step in the argument, as the pastor explained, is to say, "You mean to say that out of all the knowledge there is to know in the entire universe, you yourself know so little? How can you be absolutely certain that there is no God when you know so little?"

Then the pastor’s audience on Sunday erupted in clapping and cheering.

All the while I kept thinking to myself: these pitiful fools! They take everything the pastor says as the truth even when his own argument is in fact self-defeating!

Ask yourself: how much knowledge does the pastor know out of all the knowledge there is to know in the entire universe?

You’d be correct if you said, "More or less the same amount of knowledge that the educated atheist knows." They both speak one language, know how to work a computer, know that the sun comes up every day, and so on and so forth. The Atheist probably knows more regarding his particular field of study than the pastor and vice versa, but in reality they probably know around the same amount of information as the other one does. So given the extent of what they know and all that there is to know in the universe, the pastor’s knowledge would be around one one billionth of a percentage.

So now the educated atheist responds to the pastor, "You mean to say that out of all the knowledge there is to know in the universe, you yourself know so little? How can you be absolutely certain that there is a God when you know so little?"

The main problem with the argument isn’t that the atheist can reverse it to make the pastor look as if he too cannot be certain of God’s existence, but rather the main problem is, in theory, a person can know barely anything and also can be certain that God exists.

Suppose God himself came down from heaven and proved to Jill, who hardly knows anything, that he exists. Jill would still know very little, but she would definitely know that God exists.

However, using the pastor’s argument, one would question Jill’s certainty of the existence of God because how could she be certain of his existence when she knows so little about the universe? In other words, it’s not how little or how much we know that matters. Rather, it is the close examination of the reasons we have for believing God’s existence that makes the belief so compelling.

I’m not trying to preach or anything. I don’t even know whether God exists and to be honest, I don’t even believe that the knowledge of his existence is what makes life meaningful in the first place. My point is, that pastors try to use these pathetic arguments to make non-believers believe in their religion when, in fact, upon further analysis, it makes them look quite silly.

I love responding to comments!

green underbelly's picture

That's why they call it faith, eh. Because they are unable to know everything?

Every organism's heartbeat holds a universe of beauty at http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/green-underbelly

Right, the pastor went down the wrong path by trying to argue a logic-based argument rather than a faith-based one.

funkichick's picture

You're right. Not one single person on this planet has a whole lot of knowledge about everything in the universe. You said that you didn't think life knowing that God exists and life without knowing that God exists aren't very different. But have you ever lived your life believing that God existed? I've lived both ways, and to me they're awfully different. I can't make you believe, in the same way that God can't make you believe. The previous commenter is right about faith being something you just have to trust without all the facts. It's different from science, but it's also kind of similar I suppose... When you think about it, we really don't know everything about science either. We just assume certain things are true (theories), and build on those. (The atom, per se.)

Yes, I've lived both ways. When I wrote this blog two years ago, I was an agnostic. However, I do believe in God now, but I'm still not fond of organized religion.

I do give a lot of credit to scientific theories. They never purport to be "proven", but I believe in them. Gravity is only a theory, but hell, it sure seems like it's a reliable one! Hahaha!

Thanks again for the comment!

warrior-poet's picture

I don't blame you for not being fond of organized religion, and I'm not going to say that there aren't fallacious arguments out there for God's existence. But I'm also going to say that faith is something you can't approach the way you approach a scientific argument. You can't lay down proofs that will convince anyone, unequivocally, that God exists if the listener's heart isn't open to it. Faith is not determined by logic, but that doesn't mean it's irrational.
I don't agree with the preacher, however, that that is an adequate response to an atheist's argument. However, the aetheist won't accept any response, however adequate, if he doesn't want to.

blackout's picture
Volunteer for the Progressive U Alumni Association
Quote:

Faith is not determined by logic, but that doesn't mean it's irrational.

The whole point of informal logic is to describe and refine the process of making rational arguments. If your arguments "for 'god's' existence" fall prey to basic logical fallacies, then your arguments are irrational. In my experience, ALL arguments "for 'god's' existence" (or at least ALL of the one's that I've encountered so far) fall prey to at least one logical fallacy (i.e. Begging the Question).

TTFN,
Blackout
---
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.

warrior-poet's picture

Okay. I'm not going to convince you, and you're not going to convince me. Thanks for the debate.

blackout's picture
Volunteer for the Progressive U Alumni Association

...that your opinion could be changed by a well presented, rational argument, then you are adding evidence to the assertion that your position is inherently irrational. A rational person is ALWAYS open to the possibility that he or she could be wrong. It would really be quite easy (in theory, at least) for you to convince me to change my mind. All you would have to do is to present an argument in support of your position that is both supported by actual, objective evidence and free from logical fallacies. Why does that simply challenge seem so out-of-reach to you?

TTFN,
Blackout

P.S. It isn't a "debate" unless you actually defend your position, and afford your opponent the opportunity to do the same.
---
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.

warrior-poet's picture

I felt like we had progressed further on keanan's blog on basically the same subject. It would be easier if we could just focus on one.
I feel a little guilty using people's blog comments as a forum for discussion but that seems to be the way this is going to turn out.
The problem with discussing this is that we have two different kinds of evidence. I really don't feel that any evidence I provide is going to convince you, but you're going to continue accusing me of logical fallacies just the same. This is going to be a little one-sided since you're not going to accept theological arguments because, well, you don't believe in God. The only kind of evidence you will accept is the kind that adheres to your standards of what constitutes evidence.
Basically, I'm saying that I can't prove God to you--I'm pretty inadequate on that front. I fully believe God can prove himself, but your heart has to be open, honestly.

blackout's picture
Volunteer for the Progressive U Alumni Association
Quote:

The problem with discussing this is that we have two different kinds of evidence.

I would suggest that having an opinion is not actually "evidence" in the normal sense of the word. If you can't show me your evidence, then your argument is weak.

Quote:

I really don't feel that any evidence I provide is going to convince you,

You won't know until you try.

Quote:

but you're going to continue accusing me of logical fallacies just the same.

I promise that I will only accuse you of using a logical fallacy if I detect that you are using one. If your arguments are typical of the pro-theist position, it is almost certain that you will, but I will refrain from pointing out any potential fallacy until you actually make one.

Quote:

This is going to be a little one-sided since you're not going to accept theological arguments because, well, you don't believe in God.

Factually incorrect. I may or may not accept your arguments, depending on whether or not they are both valid and sound. And for the record, I believe that there is no evidence of the alleged being you refer to as "god." That isn't exactly the same as saying that I "don't believe in 'god'."

Quote:

The only kind of evidence you will accept is the kind that adheres to your standards of what constitutes evidence.

The only standard that I insist upon is that the evidence you present be actual and objective. Don't make shit up, and don't try to convince of anything because you "feel" that it true. Show me something that does not require me to just "take your word for it."

Quote:

Basically, I'm saying that I can't prove God to you--I'm pretty inadequate on that front. I fully believe God can prove himself, but your heart has to be open, honestly.

Well, until "he" decides to step into the conversation, you're the one who made the claim, and who know seems unwilling to defend that claim in a rational fashion.

Typical.
Blackout

---
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.

warrior-poet's picture

This is from faithfacts.org and is worded a lot better (and with a lot more detail) than I could produce myself. You understand that I am not trying to convince you of anything, just giving commonly cited evidence that a Creator of some sort is a reasonable explanation for creation.

1. That the universe emerged from nothing. Little needs to be said about this notion. Nothing produces nothing. This premise is neither logical nor reasonable.
2. That the universe is eternal. There are three strong scientific reasons why the universe is not eternal: (a) the big bang theory, (b) the abundance of hydrogen, and (c) the irreversible decay of the universe.
a. The discovery by Edwin Hubble that the universe appears to be uniformly expanding in all directions leads to the conclusion that the universe had a beginning. The Big Bang theory is not merely a proposition that matter expanded from an infinitely small position. It is the proposition that the universe had an absolute beginning—that before this event not even space nor time even existed at all!
b.. Hydrogen is continually being converted into helium through the process of nuclear fusion. This process is irreversible, so the abundance of hydrogen in the cosmos belies the notion of an eternal universe.
c. The second law of thermodynamics says that while the total amount of energy remains constant (the first law), the availability of usable energy in the universe is constantly declining (the second law). Apart from the intervention of a supernatural agent (God), the stars would have burned out and the universe would have run down like a clock with no one to wind it back up. The logical conclusion is that it cannot be true that an infinite amount of time has passed because the universe would have reached a cold and lifeless state of absolute equilibrium.
3. That the universe was created by an eternal being. By process of elimination, the existence of an omnipotent God is the most reasonable conclusion for origin.

blackout's picture
Volunteer for the Progressive U Alumni Association

...is that it takes advantage of the average person's lack of specialized scientific experience. For example...

Quote:

That the universe emerged from nothing. Little needs to be said about this notion. Nothing produces nothing. This premise is neither logical nor reasonable.

In fact, science has theorized the existence of virtual particles for almost a century. Virtual particles literally appear "from nowhere," exist in space-time for a brief period, and then "wink" back out of existence. Their existence was first proved through experimentation in the 1940's. Thus, it cannot be rationally supported that it is impossible for something to be created from nothing. There are a number of related scientific concepts (such as the curved nature of space-time, the different but often confused concepts of boundlessness and infinity, and the fact that the rules of space-time do not necessarily apply to existence "outside" of space-time) of which your source would seem to be equally ignorant, and that would tend to challenge and dismiss the point.

Quote:

2. That the universe is eternal. There are three strong scientific reasons why the universe is not eternal: (a) the big bang theory, (b) the abundance of hydrogen, and (c) the irreversible decay of the universe.
a. The discovery by Edwin Hubble that the universe appears to be uniformly expanding in all directions leads to the conclusion that the universe had a beginning. The Big Bang theory is not merely a proposition that matter expanded from an infinitely small position. It is the proposition that the universe had an absolute beginning—that before this event not even space nor time even existed at all!

Here is a lecture the eminent Dr. Stenphen Hawking that should help to dispel your misconceptions on this point.

The Origin of the Universe
1 of 5: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nFjwXe-pXvM
2 of 5: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HSUsXYcQ5qA
3 of 5: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MzO5eSjgocA
4 of 5: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xhNX1wKFbB0
5 of 5: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O8Kp0rQ23PY

Hawking also has two excellent books which deal a bit more deeply (but not so deeply that a lay person can't follow) with this subject matter?\:

A Brief History of Time
The Universe in a Nutshell

The (very) short version is that in practical terms, the universe isn't eternal...or at least that isn't what the evidence suggests.

Quote:

b.. Hydrogen is continually being converted into helium through the process of nuclear fusion. This process is irreversible, so the abundance of hydrogen in the cosmos belies the notion of an eternal universe.

Except--and as I pointed out above--the evidence suggests that the universe isn't eternal.

Quote:

c. The second law of thermodynamics says that while the total amount of energy remains constant (the first law), the availability of usable energy in the universe is constantly declining (the second law). Apart from the intervention of a supernatural agent (God), the stars would have burned out and the universe would have run down like a clock with no one to wind it back up. The logical conclusion is that it cannot be true that an infinite amount of time has passed because the universe would have reached a cold and lifeless state of absolute equilibrium.

For one, you screwed up the Second Law. Actually, The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that, "The entropy of an isolated system not in equilibrium will tend to increase over time, approaching a maximum value at equilibrium." Part of the beauty of string theory and quantum mechanics is that they strongly suggest that the universe is NOT an isolated system. It is also takes a rather HUGE leap to get from "the stars would have burned out" (which isn't really consistent with our modern understanding of the universe, but still...) and the assumption that "the intervention of a supernatural agent (God)" is the only way to resolve the question. This position also expresses an ignorance of the curved nature of space-time in which it is possible for a bounded construct of space-time to contain an infinite amount of space and time.

Quote:

3. That the universe was created by an eternal being. By process of elimination, the existence of an omnipotent God is the most reasonable conclusion for origin.

And here come the logical fallacies. You are begging the question. Unless you can provide actual, objective evidence that this "god" fellow actually exists (and so far, you haven't), then it is circular reasoning to conclude that this supposed being is the source of reality. You are also engaging in the fallacy of a false dilemma. Why does it HAVE to be an omnipotent "god?" Why could there not be a sufficiently advanced mortal species from somewhere else in the universe? Why could it not have been a happy accident of a less than omnipotent being? Why could it not be (as the evidence actually suggests) that no intelligent force at all actively "created" the universe?

The bottom line is that sites like the one you are using are not good places to try to learn about what science actually has to say. The cosmological argument (which is the general name for the basic argument you attempted, here) is more than a century behind the times regarding what modern scientists actually suggest about the nature of the universe, and extremely dishonest in that its major proponents intentionally avoid discussing the findings of cutting edged (and now, even old hat) research that contradict the basic assertions of the argument.

TTFN,
Blackout
---
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.

warrior-poet's picture

I will admit that the site may have been out of date concerning current scientific evidence. I didn't know that the existence of virtual particles had been proved. In fact, I was sort of under the impression that most things in the quantum realm were still just theories--but, again, that could be another misconception.

"The cosmological argument (which is the general name for the basic argument you attempted, here) is more than a century behind the times regarding what modern scientists actually suggest about the nature of the universe, and extremely dishonest in that its major proponents intentionally avoid discussing the findings of cutting edged (and now, even old hat) research that contradict the basic assertions of the argument."

If the site is indeed outdated, I am not sure that their intention was being "dishonest". And I also think that since most of the "cutting-edge" theories are in more of their nascent stages, and therefore still could be disproved or modified dramatically as new evidence emerges.

Thank you for the links to the Stephen Hawking lecture--I plan to look at it later.

Other points of consideration:

The existence of absolute morality cannot be explained by creation by evolution, since many moral values really aren't essential or particularly helpful for survival and presumably did not emerge from the evolutionary process. If this process created us, why can't it account for that?

Another issue: evolution hinges on the idea of life evolving from the simple to the complex. However, if you've studied cell biology you probably know that a cell is actually very complex, and not only that but "irreducible complex" (Biochemist Michael Behe, not me), meaning that minus even one part, the cell couldn't function. So all of the components would have to have appeared simultaneously, otherwise the cell couldn't function.

This brings up the problem of the "intermediates"--for evolution to work, organisms developing part by part would have to survive each stage. But if the parts can't work unless they are all put together (like a mousetrap), how would the intermediate life forms between single-celled organisms and us have survived?

blackout's picture
Volunteer for the Progressive U Alumni Association

...that suggests that "morality" is an "absolute" construction. In fact, the evidence suggests that morality is a purely subjective, mental construct. As for explaining morality through evolution, it really isn't all that hard to do. At its most basic level, "morality" is nothing more that a series of social taboos that seek to benefit a community by controlling the actions of individuals within that community. Its simply a more complex expression of the herd instinct. Individuals alter their behavior in order to promote cooperation and to protect the community, thereby increasing their own chances of survival.

Here is a somewhat famous example of herd animals putting themselves at risk for another member of their community.

Here's a link to the clip, in case the video doesn't display properly.

Attacking a pride of lions to save a single calf is certainly not in the immediate best interests of the animals that put themselves in danger in order to save the calf. But, they do it anyway and by putting themselves at risk, these animals are protecting the future of their species. The basics of morality can be observed in this otherwise very primitive scene.

As for the idea of irreducible complexity, Michael Behe is not a respected scientist and the theories he espouses do not coincide with the evidence. Here's an interesting clip that illustrates that point, as well, through the reenactment of Mr. Behe's testimony from the trial of Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District...

Here's a link to the clip, in case the video doesn't display properly.

This clip "takes apart the mousetrap," quite literally. In fact, the mousetrap metaphor has actually become something of a joke among evolutionary biologists, but I'll let the video point out the punchline to you.

TTFN,
Blackout
---
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.

warrior-poet's picture

That clip makes a good point: the flagellum could be missing a part (or 20) and still serve a function, but a different one. However, for that idea to be valid those different functions at each stage of development would have to be sufficient for the survival of the organism until it evolved into its present form. That particular part would need to function with one protein, then two, then three, then four, etc.

For instance, the Bubonic plague bacterium with a similar functioning part (minus a few proteins) to the flagellum was used for a different purpose--injection. Presumably that means at some point a bacterium what would evolve into a flagellum could have used that part for injection as well. But I'm assuming the Bubonic plague bacterium has some other method for movement, since it doesn't have a flagellum. The bacterium would not, since its supposed to be a flagellate--so how would it move while it was using that part for injection?

Again, this may be an example of outdated information and an indication that I need to do more research.

blackout's picture
Volunteer for the Progressive U Alumni Association

...but when you dig into the literature, you will find that you DO find examples at those other stages, too. The fact is that the basic premise of "irreducible complexity" has been proved wrong, and the I.D. proponents know it. The I.D. movement is not a scientific movement. It is a religious movement. The Dover case illustrated this very clearly, with the discovery of the transitional form--or the "missing link" between creationism and intelligent design if you will--cdesign proponentsists.

TTFN,
Blackout
---
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.