Are the arguments for the belief in God based on logical fallacies?

Kaiden writes:

Here is a preliminary question: what do you consider to be the arguments for God's existence?

Based on the fallacies you have named, and the examples you have given, you do not have in mind arguments that any philosopher in the tradition of Natural Theology has defended, especially not any contemporary philosopher. I mention contemporary philosophers because I think it is charitable to give most of your attention to the contemporary arguments that are given for a claim. After all, Natural Theologians, perhaps unbeknownst to the masses, do have a practice of revising and developing arguments in tandem with philosophical and scientific advances and in response to certain objections. They aren't just blowing the dust off of thousand year old manuscripts from the Scholastics, for instance, and repeating the "same tired stuff" that has always been said.

Anyways, I don't presently have an Answer to the OP, I just wanted to comment that you may not be taking your own question seriously if you're messing with arguments that even every Natural Theologian would reject with little more than a glance and that do not represent the arguments they give.  

Michael Hurst writes:

Thanks for the response. You're right, I kept the title general, because there are many arguments used to justify the existence of God. I mentioned a couple, but there are others, such as Appeal to Popularity, and Appeal to Authority, not to mention Appeal to Emotions. I hadn't heard the argument as labeled "god of the gaps", but I looked it up and learned something. Thanks.

Shawn writes:

I found this article to be of interest: Why atheists are not as rational as some like to think theconversation.com/why-a. . .

Dr. Richard writes:
[To Shawn]

I read the article. In my opinion, the author does not understand what an atheist is, builds a strawman, and then attacks that strawman. An atheist says, "I do not believe in a god." Nothing more. If somebody then wants to posit a god exists, then that person bears the Burden of Proof. The article does not approach the subject in this way, but argues about science and other things that are not relevant. 

Shawn writes:
[To Dr. Richard]

With all due respect, Dr Lois Lee is a Research Fellow, Department of Religious Studies, University of Kent and specializes in the field of the study of atheism. To say she does not understand atheism seems to me to be a fantastic comment to make. 

Dr. Richard writes:
[To Shawn]

I believe you just committed the Fallacy of Appeal to Authority. Moving on, based upon what I read (her article), she does not understand what an atheist is. Even in her article, she misdefines it as she builds a strawman.

Jordan Pine writes:

Sir, you asked for "an intelligible definition of [G]od." You wrote that "no one has ever presented me with [such a definition]," which I thought was interesting since it seemed to contradict the intention of the post and the platform itself.

Is logic about subjective opinion and experience? Or objective reality beyond one's opinions and experience? If no one had ever presented me with a definition for atheism, would that mean atheism is poorly defined?

The adjective "intelligible" is likewise problematic. Intelligible to whom? You also used the word "sufficient." These are relative, subjective terms that would seem to put us beyond the realm of objectivity and reason. 

If a super-intelligent alien came down and tried to give me the cure for cancer, nothing it said would be intelligible to me. Would that mean it didn't have a cure for cancer? Likewise, there are likely many things you and I can't explain with sufficient specificity. How an iPhone works is likely one example. Does that mean iPhones don't exist?

It gets worse when we also add requirements such as "to be clearly understood by all participants in the discussion." Now we are accountable for the subjective experience of everyone from the brightest mind in the room to the dullest dullard.

But lets ignore that and get back to you. In order to take up your challenge (present me with a definition I find sufficient), wouldn't we need to get into your personal beliefs (priors) and perhaps your psychology? For instance, if your core, unchanging belief is that the existence of the universe can only be explained in materialistic (physical) terms, then no discussion of the metaphysical is going to seem sufficient to you -- no matter how well argued. Another example: If you decided to reject God at an early age because a religious figure in your life abused you in His name, and this caused you to reject Theism altogether, no defense of Theism would ever be persuasive to you.

Based on the above, I think it would be better for you to admit there are logical arguments for God. The reason you think them insufficient is because they are insufficient for persuading *you* that God exists.

Dr. Richard writes:

[To Jordan Pine]

You bring up several new issues, but I will limit my response to the core issue, which you frame as:  “Intelligible to whom?”

I thought I made that clear when I wrote: “By 'intelligible definition,' I mean to state or describe (with sufficient specificity to be clearly understood by all participants in the discussion), the properties (i.e., the attributes, qualities or features regarded as a fundamental, characteristic or inherent part) of the god under discussion, which properties are not internally contradictory, not in conflict with other properties or attributes ascribed to the god and which distinguishes the god from other gods or entities.”

I re-read what I wrote, and I do not understand what you mean by “intelligible to whom?” I don’t understand what you are saying because I thought I made that clear “to whom” when I said: “with sufficient specificity to be clearly understood by all participants in the discussion.” If you would explain to me where I am not clear, then, hopefully, I can clear it up.  

You are correct when you say: "The reason you think them insufficient is because they are insufficient for persuading *you* that God exists." I am not persuaded, therefore I am a non-believer, AKA atheist.

Jordan Pine writes:
[To Dr. Richard]

Sir, you were perfectly clear. I merely meant to point out that with all of your qualifiers, your criteria is too subjective. Who will judge whether the definition is sufficiently specific? Or whether it is clearly understood by all participants? You? The group in a vote?

More to the point: What if you or the group are obtuse? Why would that matter to the logical validity of the definition or the argument?

Even qualifiers such as "internally contradictory" and "not in conflict with other properties or attributes" seem open to this problem. Who will judge? 

Wouldn't a more appropriate conversation merely ask for a definition of God and then seek to examine its logical validity? For example, here is a serviceable definition of God:

God is the eternal being who created and preserves all things. God is both transcendent (wholly independent of, and removed from, the material universe) and immanent (involved in the world).

Is that definition not logically valid?

Dr. Richard writes:
[To Jordan Pine]

You include a lot of stuff here, and I won't reply to all of it. But here are my initial thoughts.

The participants must agree upon the definition of the words used in the discussion. All participants must agree to use the same definitions in the discussion. If the participants do not agree with the meaning (definition) of words, they can then use the word differently, and no reasonable discussion can follow.

You say: "Why would that matter to the logical validity of the definition or the argument?" We use words in an argument.  I think this may be the Fallacy of the Stolen concept. But, for now, let me say you cannot have a discussion (argument) without words, and each participant must use the same definition of those words.  Otherwise, the participants will talk past each other. 

You then say: "Even qualifiers such as "internally contradictory" and "not in conflict with other properties or attributes" seem open to this problem. Who will judge?"  The participants are the ones to judge. If they cannot agree, no discussion can proceed. 

Most people understand a contradiction consists of a logical incompatibility or incongruity between two or more propositions. When the propositions, taken together, yield conclusions that exclude the other, they are a contradiction.  When this occurs in a single concept, the concept is internally contradictory. 

Aristotle's law of noncontradiction states that "It is impossible that the same thing can at the same time both belong and not belong to the same object and in the same respect."

You ask: "Wouldn't a more appropriate conversation merely ask for a definition of God and then seek to examine its logical validity?

That is what I did. I asked for a clear definition of the god in question, by which I meant one that is not internally contradictory.

Then you say: "God is the eternal being who created and preserves all things. God is both transcendent (wholly independent of, and removed from, the material universe) and immanent (involved in the world). And, you ask: Is that definition not logically valid? 

The answer is no. Your definition assumes a god's existence, and whether that god (or any other) exists is subject of the discussion. 
 
The whole issue with knowledge of god is epistemological. Even if one skips a definition, and we examine your statement, "God is the eternal being who created and preserves all things." The first question is: How do you know that?

The same question (How do you know that?) applies to each of the other propositions you included in that paragraph. 

 

 

Jordan Pine writes:

Sir, you wrote: "If the participants do not agree with the meaning (definition) of words, they can then use the word differently, and no reasonable discussion can follow."

I agree. We don't even seem to agree on what the definition of "definition" is!

You seem to be confused between a definition and an argument. A definition is a statement of the meaning of a word (e.g. "God" means an eternal being ...). An argument is a reason an idea is right or wrong (e.g. God exists because ...). You don't have to assume the existence of something to define it. For instance, I think we both agree that unicorns don't exist. But I can give you a definition of the word (a winged horse) despite that fact.

Part of the confusion may be my fault. I meant to separate this into two steps: 1) provide you with the clear definition you had requested, 2) examine the logical validity of the arguments represented within that definition. 

We haven't begun to touch on #2.

Dr. Richard writes:
[To Jordan Pine]

In what way do we disagree on what the word "definition" means? That was not previously mentioned.  I use it the way the Oxford English Dictionary or Meriam Webster would define it and assumed you did as well. I guess not. What do you mean when you use the word "definition?"

Jordan Pine writes:
[To Dr. Richard]

I explained what I meant. A definition does not mean one assumes the existence of the thing being defined. A definition is not an argument. 

Dr. Richard writes:
[To Jordan Pine]

True. This is supposed to be a forum to discuss logical errors, not the existence of gods. So, I gather you are saying your god created everything that exists. Am I correct? I need to know that before I can proceed.

Jordan Pine writes:
[To Dr. Richard]

Yes, but before we move on, allow me to remind you how we began.

You asked for "an intelligible definition of [G]od,” stating that "no one has ever presented me with [such a definition].”

After pointing out the problematic subjectivity of this approach, I responded to your challenge by stating that God means “the eternal being who created and preserves all things,” who is “both transcendent (wholly independent of, and removed from, the material universe) and immanent (involved in the world).”

Those sentences came from
Wikipedia’s entry for “God.” They are both “intelligible” (able to be understood) and represent a “definition” (a statement about the exact meaning of a word). Thus, I have met your challenge, which really had nothing to do with the arguments the definition encompasses or their logical validity. QED.

If you would now like to move on to the logical validity of the argument that God created everything, I’d be happy to do so.

 

Dr. Richard writes:
[To Jordan Pine]

meaningful conclusion.

You say: "God means the eternal being..."

Your first premise. How do you know god is eternal? Restated, by what means (your foundation and thought process) do you conclude "eternal?"

By "eternal," I mean: having infinite duration.

“Eternal.” Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary, Merriam-Webster, www.merriam-webster.com/d. . . Accessed 10 Oct. 2020.

The second premise in that phrase is "being?" How do you know god is a being? Restated, by what means (your foundation and thought process) do you come to the conclusion god is a "being?"

By "being" I mean: the quality or state of having existence. 

(“Being.” Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary, Merriam-Webster, www.merriam-webster.com/d. . . Accessed 10 Oct. 2020.

I would love to believe in a god, but so far I have been unconvinced. Perhaps you can show me the error in my thought process.

 

 

Jordan Pine writes:

[To Dr. Richard]

I thought we were focusing on logic, not epistemology?

The “how do you know?” question is always interesting to me. The answer is long and detailed, of course. It also seems unlikely to get us anywhere. Allow me to demonstrate.

How do we know the universe started in a so-called “Big Bang”? How do we know black holes exist? How do we know anything we think we know for which we don’t have immediate empirical evidence for (i.e. we can’t see, hear, touch, smell or taste it)?

But wait, it gets worse! How do we know the things we think we can see, touch, taste and so on are real? That we are not just brains floating in a vat? Characters in a simulation? See what I mean?

Dr. Richard writes:
[To Jordan Pine]

Actually, there are answers to the new questions you pose. But, going back to the topic at hand, if you cannot establish your premises, by what means do you verify your conclusion?

Jordan Pine writes:

[To Dr. Richard]

Yes, exactly! How can we verify any conclusion if we cannot agree upon, and thus establish, its premises? That's the deficiency of the "how do you know?" question. It's why I brought up those other questions -- to show you the extremes of its range. As with definitions, we need to agree upon the terms of discourse before we can even start down the road toward a conclusion.

In other words, to bring this back to our earlier conversation: What are you going to accept as sufficient? Is it really simple logical validity? That is, as long as the argument is logically valid, you will accept it?

If so, let's begin with the cosmological argument. This is the foundation of the argument that will help us answer your question about God's eternal nature.  Let's see how this goes.

Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its existence.
The universe began to exist.
Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence.

This argument is logically valid. Do you accept it?

Dr. Richard writes:
[To Jordan Pine]

I think you misunderstand what I am asking, so let me restate it: (1) upon what evidence do you base your conclusion, god existed eternally? And (2) upon what evidence do you base your conclusion god is a being?

You also present a syllogism, which I previously dealt with and will not repeat, unless you so request. You will find it above in this thread.

Your syllogism is in error because it assumes facts not in evidence, to wit: "the universe began to exist."  

Kaiden writes:

[To Dr. Richard]

            Jordan states that he does not intend to give a definition that assumes the existence of God. If it seems that his definition makes this assumption because of words like “being”, then he would probably be happy to modify his language. Perhaps, Jordan would be happy to phrase his position in the following way. “God” is the word for something that has the following description: eternal, transcendent, immanent, creator and preserver of all things. (Of course, I think that Jordan wants to say that God is to be understood as the creator and preserver of all things that are not God.) It might very well be false that there is something in the actual world that has that description.

            The questions of “how does Jordan know that God is eternal? How did he reach this conclusion?” are questions that miss the point. Jordan is not saying that he’s pretty sure God is eternal, etc., as if he came across some knowledge or drew an inference about God. Jordan is saying that when he uses the word “God”, he just means something that is eternal, transcendent, immanent, creator and preserver of all things. He doesn't have to provide evidence for what he means! He has stipulated his concept of God, for the sake of discussion, in accordance with step 1 of your procedure. He then seeks to engage with you on whether or not there is something in the actual world answering to that description. If I am mistaken about Jordan, let him correct me.

            

 

Dr. Richard writes:
[To Kaiden]

I did not look at it that way. Good explanation. And I can see I may well have misunderstood Jordan. We may well be talking past each other. Thank you for taking the time to bring this up.

Jordan Pine writes:
[To Dr. Richard]

Well, yes, Kaiden has explained the earlier confusion well. However, it seems I misunderstood you . I now see where you were going with your request. You were not asking for an intelligible definition in the literal sense, but an intelligible definition in the sense of one that was also logically intelligible; i.e. included logically valid arguments about God in its definition.

Do I have that right?

Kaiden writes:

[To Dr. Richard]

"Thank you for taking the time to bring this up".

You're very welcome for whatever help I might be able to offer to this important discussion. I appreciate your thought-provoking Answer to Michael and your probing responses to Jordan. And yes, it seems you never did move the goal post. You have been taking Jordan's definitions as they come and arguing that they do not pass the very same criterion of intelligibility that you have been working with since the beginning.

Now, anyone who knows me knows that I take a relatively long time to post anything. This discussion is exciting but fast-paced for me. I will try to contribute more when I can.

Jordan Pine writes:
[To Dr. Richard]

I understand your questions, sir. However, in order to answer them, we have to go back to the first premise I shared in the form of the syllogism known as the cosmological argument. If we can't agree on the logical validity of that syllogism, we will not be able to continue to the premises required to answer the questions you asked.

Let's clarify your position. Are you saying the cosmological argument is not valid because there is no evidence "the universe began to exist"? In other words, are you rejecting the scientific consensus that the universe has a beginning?

If so, it is going to be difficult to have a productive conversation from this point forward.

P.S. As a point of order, I suggest we do not refer back to previous things written or link to articles (especially long ones) others have written. Let's reason together in our own words and re-examine what we may have thought and written before.

Dr. Richard writes:
[To Jordan Pine]

First, my apology regarding your definition of God. I misunderstood you to be presenting an argument as to the truth or falsity of the existence of a god as distinct from your definition. 

You defined the god in question (there are almost 5,000 gods known so far that humans worshiped) as: God means “the eternal being who created and preserves all things,” who is “both transcendent (wholly independent of, and removed from, the material universe) and immanent (involved in the world).”

You present this in response to my saying no one had ever presented me with an intelligible definition. Unfortunately, my statement still holds true.

I’ll examine the eternal being part in a minute and start with who is “both transcendent (wholly independent of, and removed from, the material universe) and immanent (involved in the world).”

Definition of transcendent

1a : exceeding usual limits : surpassing
b : extending or lying beyond the limits of ordinary experience
c in Kantian philosophy : being beyond the limits of all possible experience and knowledge
2 : being beyond comprehension
 [“Transcendent.” Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary, Merriam-Webster, www.merriam-webster.com/d. . . Accessed 11 Oct. 2020.]

Making the “transcendent” part of the definition, you have made the definition “beyond the limits of all possible experience and knowledge” and “being beyond comprehension.” Restated: unintelligible. 

When you say it is “immanent” you introduce a contradiction, which additionally makes the definition of God unintelligible. 

Definition of immanent

1 : indwelling, inherent beauty is not something imposed but something immanent— Anthony Burgess
2 : being within the limits of possible experience or knowledge — compare transcendent
[“Immanent.” Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary, Merriam-Webster, www.merriam-webster.com/d. . . Accessed 11 Oct. 2020.]

You have said the definition of God is both “beyond comprehension” and “within the limits of possible experience or knowledge.” This is an internal contradiction.  If a definition contains an internal contradiction, on its face, it is necessarily unintelligible.

Your syllogism

Let me go back, now, to that eternal being that creates all things and your syllogism:

P1: Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its existence.
P2: The universe began to exist.
Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence.

Then you ask: “This argument is logically valid. Do you accept it?”

My answer is yes and no. I accept it is procedurally logically valid, and I deny it is correct. The error is in the premises. Always check your premises. Incorrect premises can, and often do, lead to erroneous conclusions.

Your syllogism is precisely why the definition of the word “universe” is critical. I’ll use Sagan’s definition (restated somewhat) and say when I use the word universe I mean the totality of everything that exists, has existed, and ever will exist. The Universe includes all matter, energy, black holes, dark matter, and dark energy; all galaxies, stars, and planets.

Your syllogism presents a version of the well-known First Cause Argument: since everything in the universe requires a cause, must not the universe itself have a cause, which is God? 

There are two fallacies in this argument. 

The first fallacy assumes that if the universe required a causal explanation, presupposing a god would provide it. 

To hypothesize a god as the creator of the universe is only to push the problem back one step: Who, then, created the god in question? Was there an earlier god who created that god? This is an infinite regress, and we remain in the same dilemma we intended to solve when hypothesizing a god as the creator of all things. 

Yet, if one argues that no one created god, that god does not require a cause, that god has existed eternally, then on what grounds can one deny the universe has existed forever?

Restated: once one grasps the concept of something that always existed, one has overthrown the need for a god to explain all that exists, and we can understand the universe has existed eternally. 

The second fallacy is a more fundamental cognitive error. It is the assumption the universe (all that exists) as a whole requires a causal explanation.

I’ll use Sagan’s definition of the universe for purposes here. When I use the word “universe,” I mean the totality of everything that exists, has existed, and ever will exist. The universe includes all matter, energy, black holes, dark matter, and dark energy; all galaxies, stars, planets, and intergalactic space contents.

The universe is the total of all that exists. We can explain the emergence of new entities in terms of the actions of entities that already exist. You have that in your syllogism. 

Within the universe, all actions presuppose the existence of entities. The emergences of new entities presuppose the existence of entities that caused their emergence. All casualty presupposes the existence of something that acts as a cause. It is this truism that can lead to the First Cause error.

Let me explain. To demand a cause for all of existence is to demand a contradiction. If the cause exists, it is part of existence. If it does not exist, it cannot be a cause. 

Nothing cannot be the cause of something. Nothing is not a different kind of something. Nothing is nothing. Nothing does not exist. Causality presupposes existence. Existence does not presuppose causality. There can be no cause outside of existence, before or after it. Yes, the forms of existence may change and evolve. But the fact of existence — not god — is the irreducible primary at the base of all casual change. 

Jordan Pine writes:

[To Dr. Richard]

Sir, I think you have been right to prune our conversational wanderings, including red herrings and rabbit trails. As a result, I will ignore the “5,000 gods claim” and also the discussions of whether God is transcendent and immanent – for now. Perhaps we will be able to return to these questions later.

For now, I’d like to focus on what you had been focusing on previously. Let’s restate and reduce the definition of God, for now, to the following:   God is defined as the eternal being.

You challenged the terms “eternal” and “being,” which I will address shortly. We still haven’t got past the cosmological argument, however. (Incidentally, I am fine with also calling it the “first cause” argument, although calling it the “first cause error ” is to beg the question since we are currently litigating whether that argument is in error.)

Let’s start with where we agree. You accept that the cosmological argument is logical, meaning it is “procedurally logically valid.” Now, recall your initial challenge:

In logic, as in law, the proponent of a proposition must present (1) an intelligible definition of the god and then (2) bear the burden to adduce evidence to support its existence. No one has ever presented me with (1), so we never got to (2). 

We have now established, through much back-and-forth to clear up misunderstandings, that by #1 you meant no one has ever presented you with a definition of God that includes arguments that are logically valid. As I have explained, I am attempting to build toward that definition and meet the challenge of #1.

Please keep this in mind as we go forward. You said that you “deny” the cosmological argument is “correct.” That is not unexpected given your confessed priors (you identified as an atheist). However, I am not attempting to convince you the argument is correct. I am merely trying to show it is logically valid. Whether you consider logically valid statements correct is another matter since we haven't defined what you mean by "correct." I suspect you mean persuasive, but I don't want to put words in your mouth. The difference will become clear as I address your two challenges to the cosmological argument.

The first is presupposing “that if the universe required a causal explanation … a god would provide it.” You call this a fallacy I have committed. No, sir, you are committing the fallacy. First, your reasoning is circular because the debate at hand is over the very definition of the word you are using (god). Second, you are committing the strawman fallacy by misrepresenting the cosmological argument. It does not argue who or what it is that caused the universe to exist. It merely argues that there must be such a cause. That is all. If you still accept that argument as logically valid, we can build from there toward the attributes of that first cause, namely that it is an eternal being.

Your second challenge is regarding the “assumption the universe (all that exists) as a whole requires a causal explanation.” You call this a “fundamental cognitive error.”

Here I could simply cite your acceptance of the logical validity of the cosmological argument again and be done with this challenge. Assuming we agree that logic is the very definition of fundamental cognition, and under the law of noncontradiction you cited earlier, something cannot both be logically valid and in error at the same time.

In trying to understand how you arrived at the perception that a logically valid syllogism is in fundamental error, I discovered ... a fundamental error. You wrote:

If the cause exists, it is part of existence. If it does not exist, it cannot be a cause. 

Here you confuse the term “exists” with the term “existence.” If you changed that word to “universe,” you’d immediately see the error. Let’s try it:

If the cause exists, it is part of the universe. If it does not exist as part of the universe, it cannot be a cause.

No, the logically valid cosmological argument leads us to the opposite conclusion: the cause must be outside of the universe in order to have caused it.

An earlier error may be this phrase you used: "the universe (all that exists)" It's the phrase in parenthesis that may be causing you trouble. Perhaps add the modifier "materially" or "physically" before the word "exists" to avoid confusion about what the cosmological argument is claiming.

That said, I am glad that you wrote: “Nothing cannot be the cause of something.” Let’s hold onto that. We’re going to need it in a moment.

Dr. Richard writes:

[To Jordan Pine]

I think we may still be miscommunicating. I did not mean no one has ever presented me with a definition of God that includes logically valid arguments. I said, and mean, no one has presented me with an intelligible definition of God. 

You said, inter alia, God is “both transcendent (wholly independent of, and removed from, the material universe) and immanent (involved in the world).”

I said my statement still holds. I explained my reasoning, which was that your definition contains an internal contradiction. A definition that contains an internal contradiction is not intelligible. 
 
You then reduced the definition, removing the internal contradiction and said:  God is defined as the eternal being. 

My position is the universe (existence) is eternal. My question is, unless you claim God is existence (sort of a pantheism), how does saying God is the eternal being make the definition of God intelligible?

Jordan Pine writes:

[To Dr. Richard]

Sir, you are moving the goalposts again.

Per Merriam-Webster, "intelligible" means "capable of being understood or comprehended." I provided this sort of definition from the outset. Since you have been debating the finer points of my definition, it is clear you understood/comprehended it. First goalpost crossed.

Then, it seemed you wanted a definition that went further and contained logically valid arguments. I was well on my way to providing those, too, as you now seem to admit. Second goalpost crossed.

Now, you are setting a new goalpost, asking to redefine "intelligible" as a statement that does not contain "an internal contradiction." I think perhaps you mean to say "coherent," since one definition of that word is "internally consistent." Of course, coherence is exactly what I have been striving to provide, beginning with the most basic valid syllogism, the cosmological argument.

And yet, you are still rejecting this argument by rejecting its second premise, that "the universe began to exist." Your alternate premise is that the universe did not begin to exist. You claim it is eternal. As I mentioned earlier, this goes against the scientific consensus on this question. Almost all scientists who are experts in the matter now agree that the universe had a beginning, what some refer to as the "Big Bang."

Thus, we have arrived at the key reason you cannot accept the common definitions for God. One of your core premises is unsupported and unscientific.

If you correct this error, you will find coherence in the first and most basic definition of God: God is the eternal being that caused the universe to exist.

When/if you get there, we can keep building.

Dr. Richard writes:
[To Jordan Pine]

You say: “Now, you are setting a new goalpost, asking to redefine "intelligible" as a statement that does not contain "an internal contradiction.” I have not moved a goalpost. When you removed the internal contradiction from your definition, I thought you agreed an internal contradiction is unintelligible. 

An internal contradiction is also incoherent. By whatever name you want to call it, an internal contradiction violates the Law of Contradiction. To have an internal contradiction in a definition makes a definition unintelligible. If a definition containing an internal contradiction does not make the definition unintelligible, then there ain’t no such thing as unintelligible.

Let me explain what I mean. The Law of Contradiction and the Law of Excluded Middle are specifically epistemological restatements of the Law of Identity. One might call them corollaries. They are epistemological rules to guide man's thinking. I will discuss only one of these.

The Law of Contradiction states that nothing can be A and non-A at the same time and in the same respect (perhaps you prefer the word simultaneously). 

Thus, if the Law of Identity states a chair is a chair, then the Law of Contradiction states that nothing can be a chair and not a chair at the same time and in the same respect. It cannot be brown and not brown at the same time and in the same respect. Contradictions cannot exist.

No attribute can be present and absent, at the same time and in the same respect. Likewise, no effort can succeed and fail to succeed, no action can be good and not good, no man can be alive and dead.

The Law of Contradiction teaches us, to use an old example, that if all men are mortal, and Socrates is a man, it is rational to infer that Socrates is mortal and irrational to conclude that he is not. It teaches us that if a theory conflicts with the facts of reality, we must reject the theory. A theory, to be valid, must integrate all and clash with none of the relevant evidence. If an investigation leads to the formulation of two mutually exclusive hypotheses, at least one of these hypotheses is wrong — because no proposition can be both true and false. At its core, logic is the art of non-contradictory identification.

To have an internal contradiction in a definition makes a definition unintelligible. Same game, same goalpost. If you see an error in this explanation, I am open to it.

Jordan Pine writes:

[To Dr. Richard]

Sir, there was no internal contradiction in my definition. You are claiming there was, but we have not gotten to the part of the conversation where we discuss what you think is contradictory. I appreciate your recap of the Law of Contradiction (by which I think you mean the Law of Noncontradiction), but it is not yet relevant to our conversation.

More to the point, I didn't reduce my definition in order to resolve a contradiction. I reduced my definition to see if we could agree on some basic attributes of God before proceeding to the other attributes in my definition. We still aren't there yet.

I notice in all of your explaining, you still haven't addressed the crucial point I have raised. Your reasoning is based on a false premise, namely that the universe is eternal. Science has demonstrated otherwise. What is your response to this challenge?

For similar reasons (non-relevance), I'm going to put aside the argument over the definition of the word "unintelligible." I've made my case that it doesn't mean what you are claiming it means. But this is just semantics. If you want to call an argument "unintelligible" instead of "incoherent," that's fine with me. I understand what you are arguing. You are arguing there's a contradiction in my original definition of God. Got it. As I suggested above, we can address that claim later.

For now, let's focus on the false premise that is causing you to reject even my reduced definition of God. Why is it that you believe, against the scientific evidence, that the universe did not begin to exist? How do you know that?

Dr. Richard writes:
[To Jordan Pine]

I am now confused. You say: “there was no internal contradiction in my definition. You are claiming there was, but we have not gotten to the part of the conversation where we discuss what you think is contradictory.”

I pointed out what I see as a contradiction. I’ll do it again, and, hopefully, you can show me why you do not see it as a contradiction.

Transcendent Definition of transcendent

1a : exceeding usual limits : surpassing
b : extending or lying beyond the limits of ordinary experience
c in Kantian philosophy : being beyond the limits of all possible experience and knowledge
2 : being beyond comprehension
 [“Transcendent.” Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary, Merriam-Webster, www.merriam-webster.com/d. . . Accessed 11 Oct. 2020.]

Making the “transcendent” part of the definition, you have made the definition “beyond the limits of all possible experience and knowledge” and “being beyond comprehension.” Restated: unintelligible. 

Then, when you say God is “immanent,” you introduce a contradiction, which additionally makes the definition of God unintelligible. 

Definition of immanent
1 : indwelling, inherent beauty is not something imposed but something immanent— Anthony Burgess
2 : being within the limits of possible experience or knowledge — compare transcendent
[“Immanent.” Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary, Merriam-Webster, www.merriam-webster.com/d. . . Accessed 11 Oct. 2020.]

You have said the definition of God is both “beyond comprehension” and “within the limits of possible experience or knowledge.” 

To say God is beyond comprehension and God is also within the limits of knowledge looks to me like a contradiction. 

If a definition contains an internal contradiction, on its face, it is necessarily unintelligible.

I do not see how you can reconcile these two propositions (transcendent and immanent), but I look forward to an explanation. 

You also said: "I notice in all of your explaining, you still haven't addressed the crucial point I have raised. Your reasoning is based on a false premise, namely that the universe is eternal. Science has demonstrated otherwise. What is your response to this challenge?" 

I did respond to this, and I can do it again. But we really need to clear up the internal contradiction first.

Jordan Pine writes:

[To Dr. Richard]

OK, let's address your issue so we can then go backward and address all of the questions and challenges I have raised.

You are cherry-picking definitions of the words "transcendent" and "immanent" in order to create a contradiction to criticize. In other words, you have created a strawman to attack, which is a logical fallacy.

My definition of God -- which incidentally comes from the Wikipedia entry for "God" -- provides definitions for the terms it is using.  As a reminder, here it is again:

God is the eternal being who created and preserves all things. God is both transcendent (wholly independent of, and removed from, the material universe) and immanent (involved in the world).

Notice those defining phrases in parentheses?

• Transcendent - wholly independent from the material universe
• Immanent - involved in the world

These sub-definitions render this definition of God intelligible, coherent, non-contradictory or whatever other adjective you would like to use that means the same thing.

Now, allow me to steel-man your argument. The one sub-definition also says transcendent means "removed from." How can something be both removed from and involved in something at the same time? I think the question answers itself, but my guess is that if you are confused you are misunderstanding the phrase. That is why I focused on "independent of."

The definition is merely stating that God is involved in the world and the universe while also being independent from it. God made the universe. The universe did not make God, and He does not require the universe to exist. He exists regardless. He is outside of the universe as its cause. That is the point.

If you prefer, to avoid confusion, we can use better elements of the Merriam-Webster definitions you provided.

• God is transcendent, meaning "extending or lying beyond the limits of ordinary experience."
• God is immanent, meaning "within the limits of possible experience."

The key words are highlighted. God is extraordinary (beyond ordinary) or, if you prefer, supernatural (beyond the natural). But it is also possible to know Him. That is the argument, and it is not contradictory.

Now that we have cleared that up, may we return to my reduced definition of God?

God is the eternal being that caused the universe to exist.

All parts of this definition are logically valid and supported by science.

Eternal: Having infinite duration

• Finite duration requires time.
• Time did not exist before the universe came into existence.
• Therefore, finite duration would not apply to the cause of the universe's existence.

Thus, the cause of the universe's existence is 'not finite'; i.e. infinite.

Being: The quality or state of having existence

• In order to be a cause, something must have existence.
  Or, as you put it, "nothing cannot be the cause of something"
• The universe has a cause.
• Therefore, whatever caused the universe must have existence.

Caused the universe to exist: See the cosmological argument

Thus, ' God is the eternal being that caused the universe to exist ' is intelligible, coherent and logically valid. 

If you disagree, on what basis do you reject that statement? 

Dr. Richard writes:
[To Jordan Pine]

"God is the eternal being that caused the universe to exist" tells me what God did. It does not tell me what God is.

You say what God is when you say: "God is both transcendent (wholly independent of, and removed from, the material universe) and immanent (involved in the world)." But, again, "wholly independent of and removed from the material universe" is in contradiction to "involved in the world." Either God is removed from the material universe or he is not. He cannot be both . Therein lies the problem.

Until we can resolve this contradiction, we need not address other propositions and premises that I see as errors. 

 

 

Jordan Pine writes:
[To Dr. Richard]

Sir, I already addressed this in my last comment. You are playing a semantic game and, I believe, no longer debating in good faith.

Thank you for the exchange.

Dr. Richard writes:
[To Jordan Pine]

I think we use words differently, and that is why precise definitions are necessary for a precise thinking process. I was not playing games. In fact, I was using your definitions in an effort to learn if an intelligible definition of God did exist.

Jordan Pine writes:
[To Dr. Richard]

Sir, I gave you two sets of non-contradictory definitions to clarify your understanding of the terms being used. To recap:

• Transcendent - wholly independent from the material universe
• Immanent - involved in the world

These sub-definitions render this definition of God intelligible, coherent, non-contradictory or whatever other adjective you would like to use that means the same thing.

And then:

If you prefer, to avoid confusion, we can use better elements of the Merriam-Webster definitions you provided.

• God is transcendent, meaning "extending or lying beyond the limits of ordinary experience."
• God is immanent, meaning "within the limits of possible experience."

I even anticipated your issue with these definitions and addressed them:

The one sub-definition also says transcendent means " removed from ." How can something be both removed from and involved in something at the same time? I think the question answers itself, but my guess is that if you are confused you are misunderstanding the phrase. That is why I focused on "independent of."

The definition is merely stating that God is involved in the world and the universe while also being independent from it. God made the universe. The universe did not make God, and He does not require the universe to exist. He exists regardless. He is outside of the universe as its cause. That is the point.

Yet when you replied, it seems you ignored all of this and insisted on focusing on the one phrase ( removed from ) that I excluded to avoid confusion -- and then even later explained in order to be 100% clear.

You wrote:

Either God is removed from the material universe or he is not. He cannot be both .

That is why I have concluded you are not debating in good faith. You seemed to have ignored all of my clarifications in order to maintain the belief that “transcendent” and “immanent” are contradictory when they are not.

Dr. Richard writes:
[To Jordan Pine]

I do not view this forum as one for debate, but rather one for discussion. I have not ignored your "clarifications" but have dealt with appropriate ones and explained why others were premature. The logical process has a hierarchical structure. One must follow if the goal is to ascertain the truth. I sought, and always seek, to remain within that structure.  I have been accused of cherry-picking definitions. But that is not correct. Many words have more than one meaning. For example, the word "fast" can mean an object is moving quickly, or a person is not eating,  or an object is secured somehow. The meaning (definition) that fits the context is the one I use in any particular discussion. 

By the way, I do not think you are debating in bad faith. Instead, it appears to me it is an issue of cognitive dissonance.

 

skips777 writes:
[To Dr. Richard]

If I may.....

God cannot be both "removed" and "involved"....umm yes God can. I think you are distorting what "removed from" means or simply unable to accept or comprehend its meaning.

I am walking by a swimming pool. I am "removed from the pool", i.e.. Independent of it. I then choose to put my arm in the water to make waves. I then am "involved". When I decide to no longer be "Involved" I remove my arm becoming once again independent. This is how these definitions are being used. Nowhere do the definitions say that God is constantly or at every moment "both" at the same time. You straw man the definitions by implying they mean "constantly", both at all time, etc.. You imagined or created a contradiction where one does not exist.

Dr. Richard writes:
[To skips777]

The missing part is "at the same time and in the same respect." Correctly stated, you are walking by a swimming pool. You are "removed from the pool." At a different time, "then I choose to put my arm in the water," and your then "involved." Later, you withdraw your arm, and you are not "involved." 

What the Law of Non-Contradiction (this law has several names) says is you cannot have your arm in the water and not in the water at the same time. 

Jordan Pine writes:
[To skips777]

Nicely put. If we reduce "transcendent" and "immanent" to these simplified concepts, which I would state as "independent of" and also "involved in," this very platform we are using would be a good example.

We are all independent of this platform. Yet we are all presently involved in it.

Likewise, if we entered a video game after this chat, we would be both involved in the world of that game and also independent of it.

These are imperfect analogies, but they should make it clear these terms are not contradictory if correctly understood.

Dr. Richard writes:
[To Jordan Pine]

I respectfully disagree.

Jordan Pine writes:

[To Dr. Richard]

Fair enough. I did not, of course, expect your agreement (for the reasons I outlined early on). My goal was more modest. I simply set out to meet the terms of your first challenge and present an intelligible definition of God.

I'll rephrase that definition one more time to eliminate any lingering confusion, and reduce it slightly to only what I have supported with logically valid deductive reasoning.

God is the eternal being that caused the universe to exist. God extends beyond the limits of ordinary experience. While independent from the world and the universe, God is involved in the world and the universe.

Christians such as myself would tend to use other words. For instance, we might say "God is the eternal Creator of all things." But this is a pretty serviceable definition for non-believers wishing to eliminate all religious trappings.

Now that your first challenge has been met, perhaps someday your conversations with Theists will progress to your second challenge, namely exploring the evidence (beyond deductive reasoning) that supports God's existence.

Thanks again for the exchange.

Dr. Richard writes:
[To Jordan Pine]

Borrowing from George Smith, let me explain my position. Knowing what one is talking about is of inestimable value in any dialogue. Before setting out to explain anything about God, the theist must first define what he means by the word “god.” With no description or definition to work from, we cannot know what we are talking about.”

For example, consider the following dialogue:

Mr. Jones: “An unie exists.”

Mr. White: “Prove it.”

Mr. Jones: “It has rained for three consecutive days—that is my proof.”

If this exchange is less than satisfactory, Mr. White is to blame rests because his demand for proof is premature. Mr. Jones has not specified what an “unie” is. Until and unless he does so, “unie” is nothing but a meaningless sound, and Mr. Jones is uttering nonsense. Without a definition of an “unie,” any alleged evidence for its existence is unintelligible.

Defining the concept of god is not an optional chore to be undertaken at a theist’s convenience. It is a necessary prerequisite for intelligibility.

I'll one more item: the discussion participants must agree as to the words used in critical parts of the discussion. If they don't, they cannot communicate because each will use a critical word with a different meaning. 

In an intellectual discussion, the precision of definitions is paramount. 

I don't think you were able to reconcile the internal contradiction in your definition. Defining the concept of god is not an optional chore. It is a necessary prerequisite for intelligibility. To say "God is the creator of all things," says what he/she/it does but not what it is. To say, for example, "Joe is the creator of a table," does not tell us anything about Joe. It tells us he made a table. 

Jordan Pine writes:

[To Dr. Richard]

Sir, God is well defined. There is literally an entire volume of books (aka the Bible) dedicated to defining who He is. Pretending that the Bible doesn't exist and that God somehow remains undefined is intellectually dishonest.

Just because we reduced the definition of God for the purposes of this discussion doesn't mean the reduced definition is all there is. Write that one out as a syllogism, and you will quickly see it is logically invalid and another strawman argument.

I think you know this, so again I must conclude you are debating in bad faith.

Similarly, it does not follow that if the statement 'God is the Creator of all things' "says what [God] does but not what it is" that therefore this reduced definition contains an internal contradiction. That is another logical fallacy, i.e. a non sequitur.

Finally, you ignored the parts of my definition that do say what God is, namely that He is an eternal being that is transcendent and immanent.

account no longer exists writes:
[To Jordan Pine]

JP wrote: "Eternal: Having infinite duration" ... "Time did not exist before the universe came into existence."

I read this as a step in clarifying/restating underlying assumptions by Dr_R...

But, if instead this is a correction, then what happens to the event sequence linking cause to effect (e.g., idea_conception -> assess_implementation_options -> select_option -> implemention_act)? Will effect ever precede cause with a transcendent, eternal being?

What if our concept of finite and infinite relationship with time is in error? Human (contingent) beings use a finite measurement standard, because the nature of the contingent is to have (at least) a beginning (origin). And also, in human beings, a physical end-point...

An eternal being is not interested in the finite standard, because it is meaningless where there is no origin. But, that doesn't eliminate time as an independent characteristic of both contingency and eternity .

An eternal being can choose to mark time with respect to outcome (reference), which would be more meaningful. This reference permits interval disinterest between concept and outcome (and even between outcomes). An accumulation of outcomes is useful when tracking goal accomplishment.

Kaiden writes:

[To Dr. Richard]

             To stay somewhat relevant to the topic of fallacies, let me address your formulation of what you say is the “well-known” First Cause argument. As an ironic contrast to that description of the argument, the formulation that you constructed has betrayed the fact that this line of argument is not well known, after all.

             Borrowing from Carl Sagan, you use the word “universe” to capture the totality of all that exists. Thus, when your rendition of the First Cause argument states that everything within the universe has a cause, it seems to mean that each thing that exists has a cause of its existence. And since each thing that exists has a cause of its existence, there is a cause of the totality of existence, which is God.

             Your formulation does not do justice to any First Cause argument that I have encountered. Why do you think that your formulation accurately represents what theistic philosophers defend? Indeed, the formulation that you give comes with two huge ironies.  

             First of all, First Cause arguments are arguments against the claim that everything that exists has a cause. For if First Cause arguments are sound, there would be something that could not even in principle have a cause (a first cause, hence the name of the argument). Imagine taking an argument for x and paraphrasing the argument in such a way that the one and only premise of the argument states that there is no x . That would be a ridiculously uncharitable formulation of the argument for x . Yet critics commonly settle for formulating First Cause arguments in a like manner: there is an uncaused cause because, as one premise will state, everything has a cause. 

             The second irony is that your formulation does not even seem like an argument that a philosopher who believes God exists would defend. One of the core commitments of monotheism is that there is an uncaused reality—God. So why on earth would a monotheistic philosopher develop an argument for his belief with a key premise that states it is false that there is something that has no cause (everything that exists has a cause)?

             Your formulation is a straw man of First Cause arguments, indeed a very ironic one, so the objections you raise against your formulation fail to show that the real First Cause arguments traditionally defended by theist philosophers are fallacious.

Dr. Richard writes:

Do I understand you want to quibble about whether the First Cause Argument is well known?  I pass. 

Kaiden writes:

[To Dr. Richard]

“Do I understand you want to quibble about whether the First Cause Argument is well known?”

No, you didn’t understand what I wanted and have ignored 99 percent of my post while you were at it. That was an observation about the irony of your description. You report that the argument is well known, but you messed it up badly. An irony, that’s all. I had nothing else to say about that.

The purpose of my post---the goal I wanted to accomplish---was neatly summarized at the end: to show that your formulation is a straw man of First Cause arguments, so the objections you raise against your formulation fail to show that the real First Cause arguments traditionally defended by theist philosophers are fallacious.

Dr. Richard writes:
[To Kaiden]

From your tone, I find you in search of debate rather that in search of logical process. Therefore, I withdraw and will not engage further. The subject is serious, and demands a cognitive process --- not emotion.

Kaiden writes:

[To Dr. Richard]

There is no debate, really. I am informing you that your formulation is a straw man. If the subject of First Cause arguments is serious and demands cognitive process, as you agree, then you should criticize them after doing research on the arguments and accurately analyzing them. 

account no longer exists writes:

Dr_R wrote: "The God Issue" ... "

In logic, as in law, the proponent of a proposition must present (1) an intelligible definition of the god and then (2) bear the burden to adduce evidence to support its existence. No one has ever presented me with (1), so we never got to (2). 

By 'intelligible definition', I mean to state or describe (with sufficient specificity to be clearly understood by all participants in the discussion), the properties (i.e., the attributes, qualities or features regarded as a fundamental, characteristic or inherent part) of the god under discussion, which properties are not internally contradictory, not in conflict with other properties or attributes ascribed to the god and which distinguishes the god from other gods or entities."

How could the proponent for an eternal being (infinite properties), who may control revelation of these to human (contingent) beings, ever satisfy this 'intelligible definition'?

Inability to exhaustively articulate (or to satisfy the nebulous 'sufficiency' clarity threshold) the properties /attributes does not negate an existence of an eternal being... It just means that you would either assess the issue unresolvable or inappropriate to logic method discussion.

Is this correct?

Dr. Richard writes:
[To Tom_M]

I'm not sure what you are asking is correct.

If it my definition, borrowed from Sagan, then yes.

If you are asking "How could the proponent for an eternal being (infinite properties), who may control revelation of these to human (contingent) beings, ever satisfy this 'intelligible definition'?" My response is: that is a problem for the proponent to solve, including the fact whatever it is has infinite properties. My job would then be to analyze the definition and either agree or disagree.

If you are asking if the following is correct: "It just means that you would either assess the issue unresolvable or inappropriate to logic method discussion." Then you have injected "unresolvable or inappropriate to logic" and I have to ask upon what basis do you claim it unresolvable or inappropriate? 

Kaiden writes:

[To ]

This commenter named "Kaiden" who was doing some posting on December 4th seems like me without a profile picture. I just noticed this commenter today as I revisited this thread, and maybe he has comments in other threads on this website. I want to make clear that this "Kaiden without a profile picture" is not me. Based on Dr. Richard's reply to this commenter, it appears to be a commenter who previously went under "Tom_M". Strange that Tom switched to the same name that I have.

Michael Hurst writes:

It is not a logical argument to require that it be proven that something does NOT exist. Asking someone to prove a negative is its own kind of fallacy. 

And we know why there are stars in the sky. Because we know there are stars in the sky - we can see the evidence that they exist. Science then makes hypotheses and tests them, and comes to conclusions.

skips777 writes:
[To Michael Hurst]

" Asking someone to prove a negative is its own kind of fallacy.".....which fallacy?

Using the rule of double negation you can prove a negative, logically.

" a real, actual law
of logic is a negative, namely the law of non-contradiction.
This law states that that a proposition cannot be both true
and not true. Nothing is both true and false. Furthermore,
you can prove this law. It can be formally derived from the
empty set using provably valid rules of inference.  One of the laws of logic is a provable
negative."

http://departments.bloomu.edu/philosophy/pages/content/hales/articles/proveanegative.html

 

Dr. Richard writes:
[To skips777]

I think, but I am not sure, that you (and the article you cite) are describing the "dis-proof" of a positive rather than the "proof of a negative." 

skips777 writes:
[To Dr. Richard]

Nope. You CAN prove a negative. You obviously don't like being wrong else you would read it. It isn't "an article". It is a peer reviewed paper written by a logician.

Dr. Richard writes:
[To skips777]

It is an article, peer reviewed or not, it is an article. And it is demonstrably wrong. This is not the time and place to discuss that because this thread is on a different topic. 

account no longer exists writes:
[To Dr. Richard]

And then, how is this latter line of discussion to be disassociated from the primary thread into its own thread, and retain continuity of original reference?

Dr. Richard writes:
[To Tom_M]

Sorry, I'm often a bit thick-headed, but I don't understand the question.

account no longer exists writes:

[To Dr. Richard]

Dr_R wrote: "[To skips777] It is an article, peer reviewed or not, it is an article. And it is demonstrably wrong. This is not the time and place to discuss that because this thread is on a different topic ."  ( emphases added by Tom_M )

I apologize for lacking clarity - my co-workers/supervisor have observed that when I provide information I'm either crystal-clear or thick-as-mud... I'm new to this website/forum, and was intrigued by the discussion... I saw your response to ,skips777> about an article's validity for citation within the discussion.

Your highlighted statement (above) prompted me to raise my question. If one needed to establish a new thread (to continue the 'inappropriate' discussion), then how would one ensure linkage back to the original thread - to maintain context?

It appeared to me that if linkage was unavailable, then further discussion loses contextual support and may 'appear' to favor one side over the other.

account no longer exists writes:
[To skips777]

The "disproof of a positive" is routine in hypothesis testing, between Ho and Ha complements...

But, the "proof of a negative" is a non-starter - (e.g., requiring the innocent defendant prove that he didn't commit the crime). This is why burden is on the Prosecutor.