(6) Other approaches
Other approaches have attempted to understand God by endowing Him with certain characteristics: infinity; unity; simplicity; incorporeality; immutability; eternity; goodness; omniscience; and omnipotence. However, by assigning characteristics to God, humans limit God to the characteristics that we understand. A God thus limited is not a God.
(7) Problems with the above arguments
(a) The just-discussed arguments tend to anthropomorphize God or they are self-contradictory as will be discussed below.
Modern rationalist dogma requires that to know means to be able to prove. M ost modern philosophers would agree that the last four centuries of philosophical work have shown that ther are and can be no proofs which satisfy the rationalist criteria. From a rationalist philosophical standpoint that for God to exist, Humans must be able to sense God, and if this is not the case, the reality of God, as a mater of fact and existence, necessarily lies outside the province of logical demonstration.
(b) The Ontological Arguments are circular because they assume the very thing that they set out to prove and if the assumption is either not true or challengeable, then the conclusion is false or is challengeable[1]. The flaw in the Ontological argument seems to be that while it establishes that the concept of God involves the idea of God’s existence[2], it cannot take the further step of establishing that this concept of an external existent being is exemplified in reality.
A famous application of this argument is Descartes’s “I think therefore I am” argument. Descartes began his analysis by rejecting all reality as he understands it because it may be wrong and is subject to debate (he rejects history because the views of history change and hence history is unreliable; he rejects his senses because they often provide false signals; he rejects philosophy because philosophers differ) and tries to find something that is reliable. He found this in his “thinking” as he had to think about each item in order to reject it.
“I think therefore I am” (“cogito ergo sum”). Not only is this wrong because it does not pass the reality check (it should really be the other way around: “I am therefore I think”, and simply because one chooses to reject reality does not mean that reality does not exist, one can choose to reject the reality that the car bearing down on him in the street does not exist, but that certainly does not mean that the car does not exist, and you had better step aside or be hit by the non-real car. Reality exists whether we think or not, so the mere fact that we think does not prove reality)[3], it causes the second error: after Descartes establishes that since he thinks therefore he is, he uses this to prove that God exists by asserting that God must exist because he (Descartes, not God) can think of a being more perfect than himself; therefore, Descartes concludes, this idea was placed in him by a nature truly more perfect than he was…and…this nature was God[4]. Descartes’s arguments for the existence of God then proceed only from the contents of his own consciousness[5] – an idea of God, of a Perfect and Infinite Being who is separate from Descartes. In other words, Descartes carries this reasoning further by stating that God exists because Descartes can imagine Him, and all of Descartes’ clear and distinct ideas are absolutely true, because God put them there. While Descartes may have intended that this “image” be purely intellectual and rational comprehension of the “nature” of God as opposed to a concrete image, it still seems that this leads to the belief that God is whatever we very clearly and very distinctly imagine Him to be. This seems to be a self-centered view of God which means that we can fashion God after our own views. This also means that we can change God to fit our current needs. We can even imagine God to not be, so He won’t be under this theory. Thus, one of the main criticisms of this method is that humans are simply not capable of comprehending God and this criticism reflects in the just-mentioned conclusion regarding images of God.
Furthermore, our conception of things, including our conception of God, is totally dependent on our own perception of things. That is, we cannot know or be conscioius of, experiences of others in a true first hand manner. We cannot, like the protagonist in Kafka’s Metamorphasis, wake up to be an insect who has human thoughts. An insect will have insect thoughts. Thus, each entity will view God in his, hers, or its own consciousness. This raises the question of how can there be a universal God if every entity has its own view of God?
While some have tried to apply the Ontological argument[6], it continues to fail as a logical demonstration of the existence of God because, while the argument establishes that the concept of God involves the idea of God’s existence, it does not, and cannot, take the next step of establishing that the concept of an eternally existent being is exemplified in reality. Merely because we can think that an eternally existent being exists, does not, and cannot, per se, mean that such a being actually, in reality, exists.
(c) Cosmological Arguments
An error in logic associated with the Cosmological Arguments is that the first cause view assumes that there is a logical requirement for an infinite succession in a chain of events. No such logical requirement exists and hence the first cause cannot be unimpeachably linked to our present existence[7]. It might be that such an infinite succession of a chain of events concerns the world as we know it. That is, using the anthropic principle method’s suggested in the Hawking and Mlodinow book Grand Design, it is not possible for us to begin at our present state and reason back to a first cause. Beginning at the present is too restrictive and too self-centered.
A further problem faced by the first cause argument is that of trying to imagine the concept of time[8]. As will be discussed elsewhere, our concept of time has meaning only with regard to finite entities. Since our universe is finite, time has meaning in our universe. However, prior to the creation of our universe (however that occurred), there was no finite entity (as we know it), and hence our concept of time is meaningless in our context prior to the creation of our universe[9]. Furthermore, as discussed in the essay on Shabbat, there may be some form of time that existed prior to the creation of our universe. This form of time is a function of infinity, and hence is beyond our comprehension. A first cause, by definition, must be prior to, or at least concurrent with (but not after) the effect. Again, this requires us to try to imagine what happened before time which requires human beings, who are creatures enmeshed in time as we know it, to imagine something that is incoherent to us. Furthermore, as discussed elsewhere, our concept of time has meaning only with regard to finite entities, such as humans. As such, our concept of time may have no meaning prior to the creation of our universe, however, that is envisioned, by a first cause or by a self-generated Big Bang. However, merely because we cannot imagine something does not mean it did not exist. There may have been some form of time before our time and we are simply not capable of comprehending such a concept. See the essay on Shabbat for a further discussion of this concept.
It has been discovered that the gravitational pull of a black hole is so massive that not evenlight can escape (hence the name “Black Hole”). The gravitational pull is so great that it also distorts time and as one approaches the center of the Black Hole, time gets slower and slower and eventually stops. Time does not exist in a black hole. Since our universe began from a subatomic particle that contained all the energy and matter of our universe, that particle was infinitely more dense than any black hole we know today. Hence, prior to the creation of our universe, time did not exist. Thus, it might be said that time began with the creation of our universe at the moment of the Big Bang. There was no time before the Big Bang. As discussed above, time is meaningful only in the context of a finite entity. Until the Big Bang, there was no finite entity which we know as our universe. This concurs with the above discussion regarding time and finite entities.
(d) The Degrees of Perfection argument seems to break down because it assumes that we can measure perfection in an unbiased manner and that we have a standard for perfection that is outside of our personal knowledge so that we are not imposing our own definition of perfection on the standard which would be illogical.
(e) The Teleological argument assumes that human beings can objectively assess what has value and thus becomes circular since we are setting the standard by which the test is being judged. This flaw is seen in the degrees of perfection, order of nature and great watchmaker examples of the Teleological approach.
(i) The Order of Nature view assumes that nature as we know it is perfectly ordered and that our view of order is the correct view and is in compliance with a universal order.
(ii) The Great Watchmaker argument also assumes that we know what is intricate and complex and that our definitions of intricate and complex are correct and universal.
(iii) The problem with the Darwinian theory is that it only explains how more complex organisms develop from less complex organisms or how different organisms developed from other organisms, it says nothing about how the simplest organisms originated. The theory merely tells how some organisms developed from others.
This theory, like the others, fails when the initial state is reached. Then, the theories fail to explain how the initial state originated. Go back far enough, and the theories fail. The theories simply stop because they cannot make a logical connection between the origin of the initial organism and God; they simply assume that a Devine power placed the first organism there. In fact, these theories fail to prove that there is one, single, Devine power – there may be several such powers, each of which is associated with a particular organism (and thus lead back to polytheism). Still further, even if it is assumed that there is one single Devine power at work, none of the theories are able to say anything at all about whether this power is benign, wise, omniscient, all powerful, or the like. Therefore, even if we take the view that these theories prove the existence of God, they are of minimal value because they can tell us nothing about that God.
The Darwinist explanation assumes that simply because some event can be viewed as so improbable, it must have been caused by some force outside normal probability theory. However, nearly any event will fit into this view if the event is viewed backwards. For example, if one looks backwards from meeting one’s own spouse, the probability that out of all the human beings that have ever lived on the earth and all the human beings that are currently living on the earth, that this single human being would be born in exactly the right moment, live in exactly the right place and have exactly the right experiences to coincide with you at precisely the right time to marry must be mind-bogglingly small. Looking backwards from the event of one’s marriage to one’s spouse would thus cause one to believe it was pre-planned. However, looking forward, the probability is not so mind boggling. Furthermore, since complex organisms are generally formed of simpler organisms, this theory should also apply to simple organisms as well. However, no matter how simple the organism, its structure and operation must be fitted to its needs or it will not survive. Therefore, Darwin’s Theory cannot be viewed as a complete explanation of teleological order in the world. However, we are still left to explain how a living organism came from a non-living element. Perhaps this conundrum cold be solved by first defining what is meant by “living organism” and “non-living element”; and then proceeding from there.
(iv) Intelligent Designer
One early form of the Intelligent design approach states that the various forms of life began abruptly through an intelligent agency with their distinctive features already intact[10]. This means that man began abruptly and formed as he is today[11]. However, even if this early form of the intelligent design argument is accepted, the existence of an intelligent designer does not, per se, imply that this intelligent designer is deserving of our worship and allegiance. There seem to be two great differences between religion and science: the existence of God and evolution, with evolution being embodied in the concept of intelligent design. The issue of intelligent design will not be discussed in detail here, but attention is directed to books such as The Religion and Science Debate, Why Does It Continue edited by Harold W. Attridge and published by Yale University Press of New Haven and London in 2009, and “Science Religion, are they Compatible?” edited by Paul Kurtz, and published by Prometheus Books of Amherst, NY in 2003.
However for the purposes of this essay, the argument between Intelligent Design as it now stands and Darwinism can be summarized as follows. It must be noted that this essay does not endorse either view. It merely presents both views for the reader’s consideration since both sides of an argument must be fully considered before reaching any conclusion.
Intelligent design (ID) is the proposition that “certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection. ID differs from Biblical Creationism which holds that the Bible is God’s word and is without error and that matter and all things were created, substantially as they now exist, by an omnipotent Creator, and not gradually evolved or developed; Biblical Creationism further holds that the true story of the creation of the universe is as it is recounted in the Bible, especially in the first chapter of Genesis. Biblical Creationism further holds that God created man and woman 100,000 years ago exactly as described in the Bible, and that God immediately creates out of nothing a new human soul for each individual born and God creates each entity, living and non-living, individually and endows each such living individual with its individual soul. ID is not Biblical Creationism. The assumptions on which Biblical Creationism is based are rejected by most Christian and Jewish denominations.
Intelligent Design suggests that the kind of order we see today in nature evolved, but a power, supernatural or other power, designed the system to evolve into the order we see today. Intelligent design supports the theory of evolution, it simply differs with Darwinists in that it seeks a first cause for the design that uses evolution to get to where we are today; whereas, Darwinists do not recognize a first cause and attribute the evolution to pure chance and natural selection. Some ID supporters even believe that the Standard Model used in Physics is so ordered and organized that it could not have been a random happening and had to have resulted from an intelligent designer at the beginning setting the process in motion so that the Standard Model will result from evolution[12]. This is the age-old argument in another suit of clothes. The argument surrounding the existence of God is discussed in the essay on God and concludes “Science assumes that the “something” which initiated our universe is totally neutral whereas religion assumes (hopes) that that “something” (aka “God”) is benevolent. No matter what it is called, both science and religion seek the same thing, both reach a point where imagination is useless and both religion and science move beyond that point using faith. Both are seeking “that which is unknown, unknowable and unimaginable”, they merely identify it differently.” The argument between ID and Darwinism is similar. Both ID and science acknowledge that something started the evolutionary process and that process continues today. Tracing both concepts back to the very beginning not just biological life on earth, but back far beyond that as that life had to begin from something (“First Cause”) leads to the bone of contention. Darwinists simply ignore that there might have been a “First Cause” and ID identifies this “First Cause” as an Intelligent Designer. Once one reaches the status of the “First Cause,” neither Darwinists nor ID can prove anything as it cannot be sensed and is beyond our ability to imagine (see the conclusions of the essay on God).
Darwinists cite reams of scientific evidence of natural selection and chance being the drivers in evolution; ID accepts evolution and even accepts the concepts of chance and natural selection being the drivers of this evolution. The difference is that Darwinists stop the analysis with the conclusion that chance and natural selection are the sole drivers; whereas, ID claims that there is an overall design which uses chance and natural selection to evolve to where we are.
Since neither Darwinists nor ID can go back before the beginning, both will disagree and continue to disagree until they finally agree that they are trying to define the undefinable which must be taken on faith since it is beyond the ability of human beings to imagine the “thing” that started the evolutionary process.
The issue of intelligent design as it now stands versus evolution was the subject of the 2005 law suit, Tammy Kitzmiller, et al v. Dover Area School District, et al (400 F. Supp. 2d 707, Docket No. 4cv2688, 2005) where several arguments that proposed to support the concept of intelligent design over evolution were litigated. These arguments included: the fossil record shows a gap between lower organisms and humans (and hence evolution could not be present and an abrupt change indicative of an intelligent designer is supported); the human chromosome differs from that of apes (and thus humans could not have evolved from apes, and thus there was an abrupt change between apes and humans indicating an intelligent designer); and bacterial flagellum ((vertebrate blood clotting system and the gene-shuffling system of the human immune system) is so complex as to not be possible from evolution). The proponents of intelligent design recast the arguments associated with entities such as bacterial flagellum as being “irreducible complexity”, that is, complex biological systems are composed of multiple parts, and the removal of just one part would cause the system to cease functioning; and further that such complex systems could not have evolved a few parts at a time (as evolution would seem to require) because the intermediate stages would be missing key parts and they would not work, and hence would not survive. The bacterial flagellum was used as evidence in support of the intelligent design argument in the Dover case. The proponents of evolution showed that the fossil record, indeed, indicated a smooth transition between lower life forms and humans; that the apparent difference between chimpanzee chromosomes and human chromosomes was not a difference because a human chromosome actually fused two chromosomes together and thus chimpanzees and humans did, in fact, have the same number of chromosomes; and the basic parts of the bacterial flagellum had functions on their own without the entire entity being assembled and the argument of irreducible complexity was based on an erroneous assumption and this entity was, indeed, a product of evolution in spite of its apparent complexity.
However, even in view of this law suit, it can be observed that no argument that tries to show that facts in nature require a specific or certain explanation can establish the existence of a Deity absolutely unlimited in power, knowledge, etc and who is worthy of being worshiped. Such reasoning only results in establishing a cause, it does not prove a theistic explanation of adaptation.
However, it seems to be worthwhile to note that the world changes and any design that does not adapt and change to accommodate the changes occurring around it will, most likely, perish. Thus, an “intelligent design” of humans would seem to be one that permits humans to adapt, change and evolve as the world around them changes and evolves. Therefore, it would appear that human evolution is, itself, evidence of an “intelligent design as opposed to the creationist view that human beings as we presently know them appeared abruptly as created by God “in His image”[13].
(v) The Teleological Arguments appear to be pretentious, presumptious, solipsistic and grant humans way too much centrality.
(f) One might question
how an infinite divine being can create a finite physical world and still
remain infinite. This argument will be approached below.
[1] See, Philosophy of Religion volume 1, by James Hall, published by The Teaching Company of Chantilly, VA in 2003.
[2] There can be no valid connection between the thought of a being and the conclusion that there is in fact such a being. Merely because one can think of a being does not, per se, mean that that being actually exists.
[3] According to Ayn Rand’s Objectivism, reality exists independent of any perceiver’s consciousness. A reciever’s consciousness must acquire knowledge of reality by reason in accordance with logic. Thus, according to Objectivism, although reality is immutable and, in any given context, only one answer is true, the truth is not automatically available to a human consciousness and can be obtained only by a certain mental process which is required and there is no final authority in matters pertaining to human knowledge. The final word on reality is nature. Scientists seek reality, and engineers apply the reality to means and functions to make men’s lot easier. Objectivism is the opposite of Subjectism. For a discussion of Subjectism, see the discussion of postmodernism in the essay Good and Evil.
[4] The question must be asked: merely because one can envision someone better than himself means that God put the thought there?
[5] The concept of “consciousness is an important topic of scientific inquiry. It seems that there are two main theories of consciousness: the Global Neuronal Workspace (GNW) which postulates that when you are conscious of something, many different parts of your brain have access to that information; whereas, on the other hand, if you act unconsciously, that information is localized to the specific sensory motor involved (like typing). The other theory is the Integrated Information Theory (IIT) which postulates that each experience has certain essential properties which cannot be separated from other experiences without being lost. Science is striving to quantify consciousness so it can be studied using the scientific method. GNW allows a computer to be conscious; whereas, IIT does not.
[6] For example, Karl Barth theorizes that the ontological argument is not proof of God’s existence but is, in fact, an unfolding of the significance of God’s revelation of himself as One whom the believer is prohibited from thinking as less than the highest conceivable reality. This concept might even fit the concept in Exodus 3:14 where in response to Moses’s question of what is His name, God said, “Ehyeh-Asher-Ehyeh” which can be translated to mean “I will be what I will be” in other words, “My nature will become evident from My actions.”
[7] This statement is supported in Leszek Kolakowski’s book, “Religion” published by St. Augustine’s Press in 2001. From a statement having the form AxGy(y6x), a statement having the reversed order of quantifiers (GyAx(y6x)) may never be inferred. Thus, Kolakowski supports his statement that “There is nothing logically wrong with the concept of an infinitive succession in the chain of events; no logical rules compel us to admit a first cause, whatever this cause might be.”
[8] See the essay “Shabbat”.
[9]A corollary to this is that if God was the first cause, and He did create our universe, then it might be stated that God and time came into existence for us simultaneously. Thus, time and God might be considered as being a single entity and time as we know it could be a direct creation of God, even more so than the creations outlined in Genesis since time had already been created when Genesis 1 occurred and all of the entities created in Genesis required a multistep approach, whereas, time was created instantly and concurrently with the basic creation of the universe. As discussed in the essay on Shabbat, time is as close to God as we humans can get.
[10] Even Darwin’s Theory must begin with a simple, initial organism which has its structure fitted to the satisfaction of its needs. Where did this initial organism come from?
[11] As summarized in the book “The Religion and Science Debate” edited by Harold W. Attriridge and published by Yale University Press of New Haven & London in 2009:
The advocates of ”intelligent design” actually propose that the universe is not so intelligently designed as to make the evolution of life either possible or inevitable. Rather, they propose that creative, supernatural intervention into the universe was required to bring about the origin of life, the function design of biochemical systems and pathways, the origins of species, and every major innovation in life’s history on this planet.
[12] It is noted that the Standard Model of particle physics is a theory concerning the electromagnetic, weak, and strong nuclear interactions, which mediate the dynamics of the known subatomic particles. Because of its success in explaining a wide variety of experimental results, the Standard Model is sometimes regarded as a “theory of almost everything”. The Standard Model postulates that two classes of indivisible matter particles exist: quarks and leptons, with quarks of various kinds composing protons and neutrons; with the right mix of quarks and leptons making up an atom. The constituents of matter formed by the atoms are bound together by four forces: gravity; electromagnetism; strong nuclear forces and weak nuclear forces. Boson exchange controls the latter three forces, but all attempts to treat gravity in the microrealm have failed. The Standard Model has not successfully explained why we need four forces and not some other number or why there are two types of fundamental particles rather than one. Furthermore, the Standard Model views quarks and leptons as being indivisible particles rather than on further particles. If such further particles are discovered, extensive revision of this model will be required and entirely new phenomena may become possible. Currently, these further particles are called “preons.” See, also, “The Deepest Recesses of the Atom” by Abhay Deshpande and Rikutaro Yoshida, Scientific American, June 2019, volume 320, number 6, pages 32-39.
[13] With regard to humans abruptly appearing in a form with their distinctive features already in tact, one should speculate about the time period encompassed by the term “abruptly.” Perhaps “abruptly” has one meaning for humans and another for the intelligent designer. “Abruptly” for the intelligent designer may be eons to someone else. Thus, perhaps humans are still abruptly appearing as far as the intelligent designer is concerned, yet we are evolving as far as we are concerned. It seems that humans are again being solopsistic in their views of themselves. Who are we to define “abruptly” for the one designing the entire human race?