ProofThatGodExists.org

Moving past that little bit of math the other day, we turn to philosophy, which is like math except much less precise, much less useful and a lot more open to discussions by laypeople in altered states of consciousness. Also a more common subject of my blogginations.

As you have no doubt cleverly deduced from the title, there is a website called proofthatgodexists.org, and it claims to have proof of God's existence. The even cleverer may suspect I disagree, and that an explanation of that disagreement will be in fact the main point of this post. You are entirely correct.

The format of the website is quite simple. At each stage, you are faced with a number of propositions, 4 at first and 2 at all other steps, and you have to choose one. If you choose the wrong one (as determined by the author), you are directed to a page explaining your foolishness and urging you to choose the right one. As you progressively accept the propositions deemed correct, you are guided to a final "proof" which takes these propositions as premises and God's existence as a conclusion.

It should be noted that I don't necessarily disagree with the premises. I may be hesitant on a few, but essentially all feel correct or close enough. It's just the final reasoning I object to. So while I say a thing or two about them, the really important part is just the proof. Skip to that if you want to.

Didn't skip? OK, then, we start at step 0, faced with 4 options regarding absolute truth. They are:

1) Absolute truth exists: This is the option deemed correct by the author, and mostly I agree. I wouldn't say I'm sure, but it certainly seems my best guess.

2) Absolute truth does not exist: This leads to a page titled "Absolute truth does not exist" with two options: Absolutely true and False. Both lead to the same place, a page with the title "This is not a glitch (think about it)", and shows the same 4 options that at the beginning. Of course, the author refuses to consider the possibility that the non-existence of absolute truth is relatively true.

3) I don't know if absolute truth exists: The page you get is exactly the same as if you had clicked the prior option, only with a correspondingly different title. Both options again lead to the "think about it" page. Again, the author's insistence on binary propositions leaves the obvious answers out.

4) I don't care if absolute truth exists: The followup is just a "thank you for visiting" page with an "exit" button that links to Disney. Is knowledge apathy highly correlated with being a Disney fan? Mysteries of life.

Like I said,I essentially agree here, so I moved forward to an introductory page which has some blahblahblah about how the existence of God should be obvious but anyway here's some proof and whatnot. Moving right along, we get to step 1, about logic: 

1) Laws of logic exist: While one might quibble about what "existing" means for a logical law, once again I essentially agree.

2) Laws of logic do not exist: The page claims that either you arrived at this conclusion using logic, or it was an arbitrary decision and you might choose otherwise next time. Once again, this is not strictly exhaustive, one might come to decisions using non-logical but time-invariant reasoning. People do not, in fact, use logic alone to come to most decisions, but it's not really a point worth arguing.

Onwards to step 2 (electric boogaloo), which deals with the subject of mathematics:

1) Laws of mathematics exist: This is actually equivalent to step one. Math is just logic, wherein you say that, given some axioms, something is necessarily true or necessarily false. Accepting logic is accepting math, and viceversa. So I again agreed.

2) Laws of mathematics do not exist: This point essentially says that you use math all the time, so you can't deny it and be consistent. I agree, though one might argue about the subtleties of using math vs declaring math to be law, etc.

Which leads us to step 3, which leaves the purely logical domain and enters the empirical one:

1) Laws of science exist: Agreed, with the usual provisions on what it means for a law to exist, etc. But, yes, I do believe laws of science are real and useful, otherwise I wouldn't be trying to become a scientist.

2) Laws of science don't exist: It redirects to a page with the same argument as above, except for science instead of math

And then step 4 which takes us to the complex field of ethics:

1) Absolute moral laws exist: This one is tricky. I'm a moral realist, i.e. I consider right and wrong to be objective concepts. Results of quirks of the evolution of humans as sapient social animals, ultimately, but nonetheless real. What I am not is a deontologist, i.e. someone who believes that morality is a set of rules that must be obeyed absolutely, which is what one usually thinks when talking about moral laws. But nonetheless there are laws concerning right and wrong, or at least one law, which says (roughly) "calculate the possible consequences of your actions, weigh them according to what you value, and do the best thing possible". So I agree or disagree depending on what exactly is meant. This is ultimately of little relevance to the final proof, though.

2) Absolute moral laws do not exist: This leads to a second set options, asking whether raping children for fun is absolutely wrong or not. I actually can conceive of situations where raping children for fun would, in fact, be the right thing to do. They are convoluted and ridiculously improbable, of course, but still. If you pick "not", the next page goes on about how moral subjectivism is bad and blah. I could respond to it (I used to be a moral subjectivist, and had seen similar arguments before), but it would get long and boring.

Steps 5, 6, and 7 are on the nature of all these laws previously mentioned. Step 5 deals specifically with their materialness :

1) Laws of logic, mathematics, science and absolute morality are immaterial: I prefer "abstract" to "immaterial", since the latter implies they are made of something, which just isn't so. But in any case, sure, they certainly aren't objects made of matter. They are things that hold true about things that are made of matter, (or about other abstract entities).

2) Laws of logic, mathematics, science and morality are material: Leads to a page asking you to say where in nature you can actually find them and blah.

Step 6 deals with universality:

1) Laws of (etc.) are universal: I don't really consider something to be a law (in the sense used here, not the legal one) unless it is, in fact, universal. A law which only works in some circumstances is not a law, just a special case of a greater, actual law. So yeah, sure.

2) Laws of (etc.) are individual: Once again our friend ignores a vast number of possibilities. There are a number of different scales between universal and individual. But anyway, leads to a page using the same "you assume X to live your daily life so you can't deny it".

Step 7 is highly similar to its direct predecessor, but this time it's about change:

1) Laws of etc. are unchanging: Again, if laws change over time they are just special cases of laws that dictate their behaviour at each time.

2) Laws of etc. are changing: Leads to the typical argument.

And finally, we arrive at step 8, the part that is the purported proof rather than just the building up the premises.

The argument begins as follows, and I quote:

To reach this page you had to acknowledge that immaterial, universal, unchanging laws of logic, mathematics, science, and absolute morality exist. Universal, immaterial, unchanging laws are necessary for rational thinking to be possible. Universal, immaterial, unchanging laws cannot be accounted for if the universe was random or only material in nature.

A random universe can very well be lawfully random. The Copenhagen interpretation comes to mind. And I don't see why a purely material universe can't have statements about it that are true yet not material themselves, I mean that's what most materialists mean by material universe, myself included. So this "cannot be accounted for" thing is just glaringly lacking in justification. When you consider the long essays over ultimately inconsequential things, this is quite annoying (I say ultimately inconsequential, because you don't really need to agree to all the laws put forth, it's enough to agree with one set of them for the purposes of the argument)

It continues to say:

The Bible teaches us that there are 2 types of people in this world, those who profess the truth of God's existence and those who suppress the truth of God's existence. The options of 'seeking' God, or not believing in God are unavailable. The Bible never attempts to prove the existence of God as it declares that the existence of God is so obvious that we are without excuse for not believing in Him.

Because obviously, someone who doesn't already believe God exists gives half a shit about whether the Bible allows us not to believe, or whether it considers God to be evident. I mean, the Revelation of Ungod teaches us that gods don't exist, but I don't expect that to sway the author of this piece.

Anyway, that is followed by some corresponding Bible verses (Romans 1:18-21, if you're interested), and then the remark:

The God of Christianity is the necessary starting point to make sense of universal, abstract, invariant laws by the impossibility of the contrary. These laws are necessary to prove ANYTHING. Therefore...

Whoa, mate. How the fuck d'you figure that? Even accepting your premise that a material universe isn't enough, why does the starting point need be a god, let alone your god? This claims to be a logical proof, so what possible chain of reasoning based on the premises so far results in "The God of Christianity", a complex proposition not mentioned once in any premise? Someone doesn't understand what "logical proof" is, methinks. New elements don't just jump out of thin air.

The final statement of the proof is "The Proof that God exists is that without Him you couldn't prove anything." It gets its own page and all. And while I could argue the finer points of whether you actually can prove anything at all, that's not really where the proof fails. At each step there were subtle points that can be argued to death, but it's useless to get bogged down on that when there's that giant gaping hole in the argument.


So putting aside my hesitation at some of the premises and whatnot, my refutation of this "proof" is short and simple: There's no reason given why a material universe doesn't account for universal law, and there's even less reason to assume the only thing that does is one particular God. Anything else would be nitpicking.


It's disappointing. With all the build-up and extensive arguing for each mostly obvious premise, the final steps of the proof, the most vital and the most controversial, are stated outright with no reasoning behind them.

Definitions

[Versión en castellano]

Yesterday, this article (Spanish) caught my eye. In case you can't or won't read it, it talks about superstition in Argentina: causes, common superstitions, etc. And statistics, which is the relevant part. According to a poll on 1007 people, 45% of the population believe in good luck charms or unlucky events of some sort. Sure, the number is a bit high for my tastes, but what's interesting is not that, it's that only 1 in 10 described themselves as superstitious. Allow me to say it: What the fuck? You believe you can influence luck by walking under a ladder or breaking a mirror, you are superstitious. I don't give a shit if you don't like the connotations, that's the definition of the word.

I'm wondering if this comes from cognitive dissonance or general stupidity. Cognitive dissonance, for those unfamiliar with the term, is the tension you feel when you have conflicting beliefs, in this case, "superstition is stupid", "I'm not stupid", and "I'm superstitious". We are naturally inclined to reduce cognitive dissonance by eliminating or altering the conflicting beliefs, and the way of doing so is not always smart or rational. The rational approach would be to stop being superstitious. The somewhat less rational approach is to believe superstition is not stupid. The irrational and dishonest (to oneself) approach, which seems to be the predominant in this case, is to redefine superstitious. By general stupidity, in this case, I mean people not being aware of the actual definition of superstition. Odds are it's a combination of both.

Now, this brought to mind a related matter. Specifically, Christians who deny they are religious. From my own point of view, religion is no more than glorified superstition, so they are pretty much a subset of those discussed previously. Some might disagree with this assessment. It's irrelevant anyway.

During my travels on the interwebs, I've come across many who held that Christianity, or at least their own brand of it, is not a religion, but "a personal relationship with Jesus". Their catchphrase is something along the lines of

RELIGION is mans attempt to reach God. CHRISTIANITY is Gods attempt to reach man.

To which I say, bullshit. You don't get to redefine words just because you don't like them being applied to you. Just to make sure, let's go check the dictionary.
From Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary:

1 a: the state of a religious This one doesn't help the debate, since being religious is what we are trying to determine.

b (1): the service and worship of God or the supernatural Do you go to church? Do you pray? Then you are religious, according to this definition

(2): commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance See the previous comment

2: a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices Also useless for the debate, see first comment.

3archaic : scrupulous conformity : conscientiousness Well, I'll give them this one. Believing in Jesus does not imply conscientiousness

4: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith Whoopsy, back to losing again. Christians tend to believe in the divinity of Jesus, with ardor and faith no less.

So the score is, 2 inconclusive, 3 for "Christians are religious", and 1 against. And it's the one noted as archaic. I think I win.

So what was the point of all this? To note that people have a tendency to ignore clearly defined terms when they don't like them. Well, tough shit. You recoil when you see a black cat, you are superstitious, and you waste your time in idiotic rituals believing you can influence luck. Either quit it, prove it works, or at least be honest with yourself and call it by it's name. You believe a guy who died 2000 years ago is God and he can determine what happens when you die, fine by me. But don't expect it be considered empirical reality or a personal relationship.

Omnipotence

[Versión en castellano]

I'm sure you've all heard this before:

Can God create a rock so heavy that even He cannot lift? If He can't, then He isn't omnipotent, because his powers of creation are limited. But if He can, then He isn't omnipotent either, because his power to move any object is limited. Therefore, omnipotence cannot exist

This is of course a paraphrasing, I don't know who came up with it originally and I didn't check any sources, but I assume you get the idea.

Now, someone such as myself who believes in a non-omnipotent God would be glad to use this argument as support, right? Well, not really. You see, there are many ways to solve the paradox of omnipotence, in a more or less satisfactory way. These are the ones I know. There are probably others, much better than these, but I don't know them. The first two are what I call the "He's omnipotent anyway" approaches. They are the least satisfactory.

1) The "Shut up" Approach.
This has many variations, such as "Who are we, limited humans, to question God?" or "You just need to have faith". It basically consists of ignoring the issue and asking the questioner not to think about it. It's not really a solution for the paradox, but it is absurdly common, so I consider it deserves being mentioned.

2) The Illogical Approach
This one consists of saying "Yes, God can create it, but He can also lift it." How, you may be wondering? "Because the laws of logic don't apply to God." The problem with this approach is that it touches on a really big issue: Is logic universal, and what proves logic is necessarily true? I won't go there right now. This approach is highly debatable, and accepting it creates a whole bunch of problems that we are better off without. It's not really the way to go, in my opinion.

The following 2 approaches are based on what I like to call "functional omnipotence". That is to say, an extent and amount of power that is not true omnipotence but behaves in the same way in most relevant cases.

3) God The Writer
Simply, imagine God as the author of a book. He determines everything that happens in the story, and he can do whatever he wants with it, right?. Isn't He, at least from the point of view of the characters in the story, omnipotent? And yet, He really isn't. In His own universe, His powers are limited. This solves the paradox by putting God and his omnipotence in different realms. He can create rocks as big as He likes, but asking Him to lift them is nonsensical because the rock doesn't really exist for Him. Essentially, God is omnipotent in our world, but not in His.

4) Absolute vs. Relative
The basis of this is to say that God can do anything, as long as He can describe it in absolute terms. For example, he can create a rock as big as he likes, as long as he specifies how large it is. He can create a rock that weighs 20g or 400kg or 10^10000000 tons, if he wants to, but he cannot create a rock that's only described as "heavier than I can lift". Simlarly, he can create a lifting force as big as he likes, that can be similar to the attraction of a small magnet or the gravity of a black hole, but he can't define it as "greater than the weight of the heaviest rock I can create"

I'm sure there are flaws with these approaches, but I'm also sure there are better ones around, that rely on similar principles or something completely different. I'll keep looking.

Edit: I'd include the most obvious one, "God can do anything, as long as that doesn't contradict the laws of logic", if not for the fact I can't shake the feeling there's something fallacious about it. I'd put this one along with the last two, as it is in fact limited omnipotence.