Nonverbal learning disorder (NVLD or NLD) is a proposed neurodevelopmental disorder characterized by core deficits in nonverbal skills, especially visual-spatial processing. People with this condition have normal or advanced verbal intelligence and significantly lower nonverbal intelligence. A review of papers found that proposed diagnostic criteria were inconsistent. Proposed additional diagnostic criteria include intact verbal
intelligence, and deficits in the following: visuoconstruction
abilities, speech prosody, fine motor coordination, mathematical reasoning, visuospatial memory, and social skills. NVLD is not recognised by the DSM-5 and is not clinically distinct from learning disorders.
Using an analog clock to tell time is difficult for people with symptoms of NVLD.
Considered to be neurologically based, nonverbal learning disorder is characterized by:
impairments in visuospatial processing
discrepancy between average to superior verbal abilities and impaired nonverbal abilities, such as:
visuoconstruction
fine motor coordination
mathematical reasoning
visuospatial memory
socioemotional skills
People with NVLD may have trouble understanding charts, reading maps, assembling jigsaw puzzles, and using an analog clock
to tell time. Motor coordination deficits are common in people with
NVLD, especially children, and it may take a child with NVLD longer than
usual to learn how to tie shoelaces or to ride a bicycle.
At the beginning of their school careers, children with symptoms of NVLD struggle with tasks that require eye–hand coordination, such as coloring and using scissors, but often excel at memorizing
verbal content, spelling, and reading once the shapes of the letters
are learned. A child with NVLD's average or superior verbal skills can
be misattributed to attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, defiant
behavior, inattention, or lack of effort. Early researchers of NVLD, Johnson and Myklebust, characterize how the
children appear in a classroom: "An example is the child who fails to
learn the meaning of the actions of others [...] We categorize this
child as having a deficiency in social perception, meaning that he has
an inability which precludes acquiring the significance of basic
nonverbal aspects of daily living, though his verbal level of
intelligence falls within or above the average."
In the adolescent years, when schoolwork becomes more abstract and the executive demands for time management,
organization, and social interactions increase, students with NVLD
begin to struggle. They focus on separate details and struggle to
summarize information or to integrate ideas into a coherent whole, and
they struggle to apply knowledge to other situations, to infer implicit
information, to make predictions, and to organize information logically.
As adults, tasks such as driving a car or navigating to an
unfamiliar location may be difficult. Difficulty with keeping track of
responsibilities or managing social interactions may affect job performance.
Research suggests that there is an association with an imbalance of neural activity in the right hemisphere of the brain connected to the white matter.
Diagnosis
Assorted
diagnoses have been discussed as sharing symptoms with NVLD. In some
cases, especially the form of autism previously called Asperger syndrome,
the overlap can be significant; a major clinical difference is that
NVLD criteria do not mention the presence or absence of either
repetitive behaviors or narrow subject-matter interests, which is part of the diagnostic criteria for autism. These overlapping conditions include, among others:
There is diagnostic overlap between nonverbal learning disorder and
autism, and some clinicians and researchers consider them to be the same
condition. Some claim that some diagnoses of ADHD would be more appropriately classified as NVLD.
History
While various nonverbal learning difficulties were recognized since early studies in child neurology, there is ongoing debate as to whether (or the extent to which) existing
conceptions of NVLD provide a valid diagnostic framework.
As presented in 1967, "nonverbal disabilities" (p. 44) or
"disorders of nonverbal learning" was a category encompassing
non-linguistic learning problems. "Nonverbal learning disabilities" were further discussed by Myklebust
in 1975 as representing a subtype of learning "disability" with a range
of presentations involving "mainly visual cognitive processing," social
imperception, a gap between higher verbal ability and lower nonverbal
processing, as well as difficulty with handwriting. Later neuropsychologist Byron Rourke sought to develop consistent criteria with a theory and model of brain
functioning that would establish NVLD as a distinct syndrome (1989).
Questions remain about how best to frame the perceptual, cognitive and motor issues associated with NVLD.
In the social sciences, unintended consequences (sometimes unanticipated consequences or unforeseen consequences, more colloquially called knock-on effects)
are outcomes of a purposeful action that are not intended or foreseen.
The term was popularized in the 20th century by American sociologistRobert K. Merton.
Unintended consequences can be grouped into three types:
Unexpected benefit: A positive unexpected benefit (also referred to as luck, serendipity, or a windfall).
Unexpected drawback: An unexpected detriment occurring in addition to the desired effect of the policy (e.g., while irrigation schemes provide people with water for agriculture, they can increase waterborne diseases that have devastating health effects, such as schistosomiasis).
Perverse result: A perverse effect contrary to what was originally intended (when an intended solution makes a problem worse).
History
John Locke
The idea of unintended consequences dates back at least to John Locke who discussed the unintended consequences of interest rateregulation in his letter to Sir John Somers, Member of Parliament.
"The individual undertaker (entrepreneur), seeking the most efficient allocation of resources, contributes to overall economic efficiency;
the merchant's reaction to price signals helps to ensure that the
allocation of resources accurately reflects the structure of consumer
preferences; and the drive to better our condition contributes to economic growth."
Marx and Engels
Influenced by 19th century positivism and Charles Darwin's evolution,
for both Friedrich Engels and Karl Marx, the idea of uncertainty and
chance in social dynamics (and thus unintended consequences beyond
results of perfectly defined laws) was only apparent, (if not rejected)
since social actions were directed and produced by deliberate human
intention.
While discerning between the forces that generate changes in
nature and those that generate changes in history in his discussion of Ludwig Feuerbach, Friedrich Engels touched on the idea of (apparent) unintended consequences:
In nature [...] there are
only blind, unconscious agencies acting upon one another, [...] In the
history of society, on the contrary, the actors are all endowed with
consciousness, are men acting with deliberation or passion, working
towards definite goals; nothing happens without a conscious purpose,
without an intended aim. [...] For here, also, on the whole, in spite of
the consciously desired aims of all individuals, accident apparently
reigns on the surface. That which is willed happens but rarely; in the
majority of instances the numerous desired ends cross and conflict with
one another, or these ends themselves are from the outset incapable of
realization, or the means of attaining them are insufficient. Thus the
conflicts of innumerable individual wills and individual actions in the
domain of history produce a state of affairs entirely analogous to [...]
the realm of unconscious nature. The ends of the actions are intended,
but the results which actually follow from these actions are not
intended; or when they do seem to correspond to the end intended, they
ultimately have consequences quite other than those intended. Historical
events thus appear on the whole to be likewise governed by chance. But
where on the surface accident holds sway, there actually it is always
governed by inner, hidden laws, and it is only a matter of discovering
these laws.
For his part, for Karl Marx
what can be understood as unintended consequences are actually
consequences that should be expected but are obtained unconsciously.
These consequences (that no one consciously sought) would be (in the
same way as it is for Engels)
product of conflicts that confront actions from countless individuals.
The deviation between the original intended goal and the product derived
from conflicts would be a marxist equivalent to «unintended
consequences.
This social conflicts would happen as a result of a competitive
society, and also lead society to sabotage itself and prevent historical
progress. Thus, historical progress (in Marxist terms) should eliminate these conflicts and make unintended consequences predictable.
Austrian School
Unintended consequences are a common topic of study and commentary for the Austrian school of economics given its emphasis on methodological individualism. This is to such an extent that unexpected consequences can be considered as a distinctive part of Austrian tenets.
Carl Menger
In "Principles of Economics", Austrian school founder Carl Menger
(1840 - 1921) noted that the relationships that occur in the economy
are so intricate that a change in the condition of a single good can have ramifications beyond that good. Menger wrote:
If it is established that
the existence of human needs capable of satisfaction is a prerequisite
of goods-character [...] This principle is valid whether the goods can
be placed in direct causal connection with the satisfaction of
human needs, or derive their goods-character from a more or less
indirect causal connection with the satisfaction of human needs. [...] Thus quinine would cease to be a good if the diseases it serves to cure
should disappear, since the only need with the satisfaction of which it
is causally connected would no longer exist. But the disappearance of
the usefulness of quinine would have the further consequence that a
large part of the corresponding goods of higher order would also be
deprived of their goods-character. The inhabitants of quinine-producing
countries, who currently earn their livings by cutting and peeling cinchona
trees, would suddenly find that not only their stocks of cinchona bark,
but also, in consequence, their cinchona trees, the tools and
appliances applicable only to the production of quinine, and above all
the specialized labor services, by means of which they previously earned
their livings, would at once lose their goods-character, since all
these things would, under the changed circumstances, no longer have any
causal relationship with the satisfaction of human needs.
— Principles of Economics (Grundsätze der Volkswirtschaftslehre), 1871.
Friedrich Hayek and Catallactics
Economist and philosopher Friedrich Hayek
(1899 – 1992) is another key figure in the Austrian School of Economics
who is notable for his comments on unintended consequences.
In "The Use of Knowledge in Society" (1945) Hayek argues that a centrally planned economy cannot reach the level of efficiency of the free market
economy because the necessary (and pertinent) information for
decision-making is not concentrated but dispersed among a vast number of
agents. Then, for Hayek, the price system in the free market allows the members
of a society to anonymously coordinate for the most efficient use of
resources, for example, in a situation of scarcity of a raw material,
the price increase would coordinate the actions of an uncountable amount
of individuals "in the right direction".
The development of this system of interactions would allow the progress of society, and individuals would carry it out without knowing all its
implications, given the dispersion (or lack of concentration) of
information.
The implication of this is that the social order (which derives from social progress, which in turn derives from the economy), would be result of a spontaneous cooperation and also an unintended consequence, being born from a process of which no individual or group had all the
information available or could know all possible outcomes.
In the Austrian school, this process of social adjustment that generates a social order in an unintendedly way is known as catallactics.
For Hayek and the Austrian School, the number of individuals
involved in the process of creating a social order defines the type of
unintended consequence:
If the process involves interactions and decision making of as
many individuals (members of a society) as possible (thus gathering the
greatest amount of knowledge dispersed among them), this process of
"catallaxy" will lead to unexpected benefits (a social order and
progress)
On the other hand, attempts by individuals or limited groups (who
lack all the necessary information) to achieve a new or better order,
will end in unexpected drawbacks.
Robert K. Merton
Sociologist Robert K. Merton popularised this concept in the twentieth century.
In "The Unanticipated Consequences of Purposive Social Action"
(1936), Merton tried to apply a systematic analysis to the problem of
unintended consequences of deliberate acts intended to cause social change. He emphasized that his term purposive action,
"[was exclusively] concerned with 'conduct' as distinct from
'behavior.' That is, with action that involves motives and consequently a
choice between various alternatives". Merton's usage included deviations from what Max Weber defined as rational social action: instrumentally rational and value rational. Merton also stated that "no blanket statement categorically affirming or denying the practical feasibility of all social planning is warranted."
Everyday usage
More recently, the law of unintended consequences has come to be used as an adage or idiomatic warning that an intervention in a complex system tends to create unanticipated and often undesirable outcomes.
Akin to Murphy's law, it is commonly used as a wry or humorous warning against the hubristic
belief that humans can fully control the world around them, not to
presuppose a belief in predestination or a lack or a disbelief in that
of free will.
Causes
Possible causes of unintended consequences include the world's inherent complexity (parts of a system responding to changes in the environment), perverse incentives, human stupidity, self-deception, failure to account for human nature, or other cognitive or emotional
biases. As a sub-component of complexity (in the scientific sense), the
chaotic nature of the universe—and especially its quality of having
small, apparently insignificant changes with far-reaching effects (e.g.,
the butterfly effect)—applies.
In 1936, Robert K. Merton listed five possible causes of unanticipated consequences:
Ignorance, making it impossible to anticipate everything, thereby leading to incomplete analysis.
Errors in analysis of the problem or following habits that worked in the past but may not apply to the current situation.
Basic values which may require or prohibit certain actions even if
the long-term result might be unfavourable (these long-term consequences
may eventually cause changes in basic values).
Self-defeating prophecy,
or, the fear of some consequence which drives people to find solutions
before the problem occurs, thus the non-occurrence of the problem is not
anticipated.
In addition to Merton's causes, psychologist Stuart Vyse has noted that groupthink, described by Irving Janis, has been blamed for some decisions that result in unintended consequences.
Types
Unexpected benefits
The creation of "no-man's lands" during the Cold War, in places such as the border between Eastern and Western Europe, and the Korean Demilitarized Zone, has led to large natural habitats.
The sinking of ships in shallow waters during wartime has created many artificial coral reefs, which can be scientifically valuable and have become an attraction for recreational divers. This led to the deliberate sinking of retired ships for the purpose of replacing coral reefs lost to global warming and other factors.
In medicine, most drugs have unintended consequences ('side effects') associated with their use. However, some are beneficial. For instance, aspirin, a pain reliever, is also an anticoagulant that can help prevent heart attacks and reduce the severity and damage from thrombotic strokes. Beneficial side effects have also lead to off-label use –prescription or use of a drug for an unlicensed purpose. Famously, the drug Viagra was developed to lower blood pressure, with its use for treating erectile dysfunction being discovered as a side effect in clinical trials.
The implementation of a profanity filter by AOL in 1996 had the unintended consequence of blocking residents of Scunthorpe, North Lincolnshire, England, from creating accounts because of a false positive. The accidental censorship of innocent language, known as the Scunthorpe problem, has been repeated and widely documented.
In 1990, the Australian state of Victoria made safety helmets
mandatory for all bicycle riders. While there was a reduction in the
number of head injuries, there was also an unintended reduction in the
number of juvenile cyclists—fewer cyclists obviously leads to fewer
injuries, all else being equal. The risk of death and serious injury per cyclist seems to have increased, possibly because of risk compensation. Research by Vulcan et al. found that the reduction in juvenile cyclists
was because the youths considered wearing a bicycle helmet
unfashionable. A health-benefit model developed at Macquarie University
in Sydney suggests that, while helmet use reduces "the risk of head or
brain injury by approximately two-thirds or more", the decrease in
exercise caused by reduced cycling as a result of helmet laws is
counterproductive in terms of net health.
Prohibition in the 1920s United States,
originally enacted to suppress the alcohol trade, drove many small-time
alcohol suppliers out of business and consolidated the hold of
large-scale organized crime
over the illegal alcohol industry. Since alcohol was still popular,
criminal organisations producing alcohol were well-funded and hence also
increased their other activities. Similarly, the War on Drugs, intended to suppress the illegal drug trade, instead increased the power and profitability of drug cartels who became the primary source of the products.
In CIAjargon, "blowback" describes the unintended, undesirable consequences of covert operations, such as the funding of the Afghan Mujahideen and the destabilization of Afghanistan contributing to the rise of the Taliban and Al-Qaeda.
The introduction of exotic
animals and plants for food, for decorative purposes, or to control
unwanted species often leads to more harm than good done by the
introduced species.
The introduction of rabbits in Australia and New Zealand for food was followed by an explosive growth in the rabbit population; rabbits have become a major feralpest in these countries.
Cane toads, introduced into Australia to control canefield pests, were unsuccessful and have become a major pest in their own right.
Kudzu, introduced to the US as an ornamental plant in 1876 and later used to prevent erosion in earthworks, has become a major
problem in the Southeastern United States. Kudzu has displaced native
plants and has effectively taken over significant portions of land.
The protection of the steel industry in the United States reduced
production of steel in the United States, increased costs to users, and
increased unemployment in associated industries.
In 2003, Barbra Streisand unsuccessfully sued Kenneth Adelman and Pictopia.com for posting a photograph of her home online. Before the lawsuit had been filed, only 6 people had downloaded the file, two of them Streisand's attorneys. The lawsuit drew attention to the image, resulting in 420,000 people visiting the site. The Streisand Effect
was named after this incident, describing when an attempt to censor or
remove a certain piece of information instead draws attention to the
material being suppressed, resulting in the material instead becoming
widely known, reported on, and distributed.
Passenger-side airbags
in motorcars were intended as a safety feature, but led to an increase
in child fatalities in the mid-1990s because small children were being
hit by airbags that deployed automatically during collisions. The
supposed solution to this problem, moving the child seat to the back of
the vehicle, led to an increase in the number of children forgotten in
unattended vehicles, some of whom died under extreme temperature
conditions.
Risk compensation, or the Peltzman effect,
occurs after implementation of safety measures intended to reduce
injury or death (e.g. bike helmets, seatbelts, etc.). People may feel
safer than they really are and take additional risks which they would
not have taken without the safety measures in place. This may result in
no change, or even an increase, in morbidity or mortality, rather than a
decrease as intended.
According to an anecdote, the British government, concerned about the number of venomous cobra snakes in Delhi,
offered a bounty for every dead cobra. This was a successful strategy
as large numbers of snakes were killed for the reward. Eventually,
enterprising people began breeding cobras for the income. When the
government became aware of this, they scrapped the reward program,
causing the cobra breeders to set the now-worthless snakes free. As a
result, the wild cobra population further increased. The apparent
solution for the problem made the situation even worse, becoming known
as the Cobra effect.
Theobald Mathew's temperance campaign in 19th-century Ireland resulted in thousands of people vowing never to drink alcohol again. This led to the consumption of diethyl ether,
a much more dangerous intoxicant owing to its high flammability—by
those seeking to become intoxicated without breaking the letter of their
pledge.
It was thought that adding south-facing conservatories
to British houses would reduce energy consumption by providing extra
insulation and warmth from the sun. However, people tended to use the
conservatories as living areas, installing heating and ultimately
increasing overall energy consumption.
A reward for lost nets
found along the Normandy coast was offered by the French government
between 1980 and 1981. This resulted in people vandalizing nets to
collect the reward.
Beginning in the 1940s and continuing into the 1960s, the
Canadian federal government gave Quebec $2.75 per day per psychiatric
patient for their cost of care, but only $1.25 a day per orphan. The
perverse result is that the orphan children were diagnosed as mentally
ill so Quebec could receive the larger amount of money. This psychiatric
misdiagnosis affected up to 20,000 people, and the children are known
as the Duplessis Orphans in reference to the Premier of Quebec who oversaw the scheme, Maurice Duplessis.
There have been attempts to curb the consumption of sugary
beverages by imposing a tax on them. However, a study found that the
reduced consumption was only temporary. Also, there was an increase in
the consumption of beer among households.
The New Jersey Childproof Handgun Law, which was intended to protect children from accidental discharge of firearms by forcing all future firearms sold in New Jersey to contain "smart" safety features,
has delayed, if not stopped entirely, the introduction of such firearms
to New Jersey markets. The wording of the law caused significant public
backlash, fuelled by gun rights lobbyists, and several shop owners offering such guns received death threats and stopped stocking them. In 2014, 12 years after the law was passed, it was suggested the law be
repealed if gun rights lobbyists agree not to resist the introduction
of "smart" firearms.
Drug prohibition can lead drug traffickers to prefer stronger, more dangerous substances, that can be more easily smuggled and distributed than other, less concentrated substances.
Televised drug prevention advertisements may lead to increased drug use.
Increasing usage of search engines, also including recent image search features, has contributed in the ease of which media is consumed. Some abnormalities in usage may have shifted preferences for pornographic film actors, as the producers began using common search queries or tags to label the actors in new roles.
The passage of the Stop Enabling Sex Traffickers Act
has led to a reported increase in risky behaviors by sex workers as a
result of quashing their ability to seek and screen clients online,
forcing them back onto the streets or into the dark web. The ads posted were previously an avenue for advocates to reach out to those wanting to escape the trade.
The use of precision guided munitions meant to reduce the rate of civilian casualties
encouraged armies to narrow their safety margins, and increase the use
of deadly force in densely populated areas. This in turn increased the
danger to uninvolved civilians, who in the past would have been out of
the line of fire because of armies' aversion of using higher-risk
weaponry in densely populated areas. The perceived ability to operate precision weaponry from afar (where in
the past heavy munitions or troop deployment would have been needed)
also led to the expansion of the list of potential targets. As put by Michael Walzer:
"Drones not only make it possible for us to get at our enemies, they
may also lead us to broaden the list of enemies, to include
presumptively hostile individuals and militant organizations simply
because we can get at them—even if they aren't actually involved in
attacks against us." This idea is also echoed by Grégoire Chamayou:
"In a situation of moral hazard, military action is very likely to be
deemed 'necessary' simply because it is possible, and possible at a
lower cost."
According to Lynn White, the invention of the horse stirrup enabled new patterns of warfare that eventually led to the development of feudalism (see Stirrup Thesis).
Perverse consequences of environmental intervention
Because of the complexity of ecosystems,
deliberate changes to an ecosystem or other environmental interventions
will often have (usually negative) unintended consequences. Sometimes,
these effects cause permanent irreversible changes. Examples include:
Chinese poster encouraging children to attack sparrows.
During the Four Pests campaign,
Maoist China ordered the killing of sparrows, as well as rats, flies,
and mosquitoes. The campaign was successful in reducing the sparrow
population; however, in their absence, locust populations previously
kept in check by sparrow predation grew out of control and came to
infest crops. Rice yields were substantially decreased; the campaign was
one of the causes of the Great Chinese Famine.
During the Great Plague of London
a killing of dogs and cats was ordered. If left untouched, they would
have made a significant reduction in the rat population that carried the
fleas which transmitted the disease.
The installation of smokestacks to decrease pollution in local areas, resulting in spread of pollution at a higher altitude, and acid rain on an international scale.
After about 1900, public demand led the US government to fight forest fires
in the American West, and set aside land as national forests and parks
to protect them from fires. This policy led to fewer fires, but also led
to growth conditions such that, when fires did occur, they were much
larger and more damaging. Modern research suggests that this policy was
misguided, and that a certain level of wildfires is a natural and
important part of forest ecology.
In philosophy, and more specifically in the philosophy of religion, atheism refers to the proposition that God does not exist. Some religions, such as Jainism, reject the possibility of a creator deity. Philosophers who have provided arguments against the existence of God include David Hume, Ludwig Feuerbach, and Bertrand Russell.
Positions on the existence of God can be divided along numerous axes, producing a variety of orthogonal classifications. Theism and atheism are positions of belief or lack of it, while gnosticism and agnosticism are positions of knowledge or the lack of it. Ignosticism concerns belief about God's conceptual coherence. Apatheism concerns belief about the practical importance of whether God exists.
Strong theist. 100% probability that God exists. In the words of Carl G. Jung: "I do not believe, I know."
De factotheist.
Very high probability but short of 100%. "I don't know for certain, but
I strongly believe in God and live my life on the assumption that he is
there."
Leaning towards theism. Higher than 50% but not very high. "I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God."
Completely impartial. Exactly 50%. "God's existence and nonexistence are exactly equiprobable."
Leaning towards atheism. Lower than 50% but not very low. "I do not know whether God exists but I'm inclined to be skeptical."
De facto atheist. Very low probability, but short of zero. "I
don't know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live
my life on the assumption that he is not there."
Strong atheist. "I know there is no God, with the same conviction as Jung knows there is one."
The Catholic Church, following the teachings of Paul the Apostle (e.g., Romans 1:20), Thomas Aquinas, and the First Vatican Council, affirms that God's existence "can be known with certainty from the created world by the natural light of human reason".
Traditional religious definition of God
In classical theism,
God is characterized as the metaphysically ultimate being (the first,
timeless, absolutely simple and sovereign being, who is devoid of any anthropomorphic qualities), in distinction to other conceptions such as theistic personalism, open theism, and process theism. Classical theists do not believe that God can be completely defined. They believe it would contradict the transcendent nature of God for mere humans to define him. Robert Barron explains by analogy that it seems impossible for a two-dimensional object to conceive of three-dimensional humans.
In modern Western societies, the concepts of God typically entail a monotheistic, supreme, ultimate, and personal being, as found in the Christian, Islamic and Jewish traditions. In monotheistic religions outside the Abrahamic traditions,
the existence of God is discussed in similar terms. In these
traditions, God is also identified as the author (either directly or by
inspiration) of certain texts, or that certain texts describe specific
historical events caused by the God in question or communications from
God (whether in direct speech or via dreams or omens). Some traditions
also believe that God is the entity which is currently answering prayers
for intervention or information or opinions.
Ibn Rushd, a 12th-century Islamic scholar
Many Islamic scholars have used philosophical and rational arguments to prove the existence of God. For example, Ibn Rushd,
a 12th-century Islamic scholar, philosopher, and physician, states
there are only two arguments worthy of adherence, both of which are
found in what he calls the "Precious Book" (The Qur'an). Rushd cites
"providence" and "invention" in using the Qur'an's parables to claim the
existence of God. Rushd argues that the Earth's weather patterns are
conditioned to support human life; thus, if the planet is so
finely-tuned to maintain life, then it suggests a fine tuner—God. The
Sun and the Moon are not just random objects floating in the Milky Way,
rather they serve us day and night, and the way nature works and how
life is formed, humankind benefits from it. Rushd essentially comes to a
conclusion that there has to be a higher being who has made everything
perfectly to serve the needs of human beings.
Moses ben Maimon, widely known as Maimonides,
was a Jewish scholar who tried to logically prove the existence of God.
Maimonides offered proofs for the existence of God, but he did not
begin with defining God first, like many others do. Rather, he used the
description of the earth and the universe to prove the existence of God.
He talked about the Heavenly bodies and how they are committed to
eternal motion. Maimonides argued that because every physical object is
finite, it can only contain a finite amount of power. If everything in
the universe, which includes all the planets and the stars, is finite,
then there has to be an infinite power to push forth the motion of
everything in the universe. Narrowing down to an infinite being, the
only thing that can explain the motion is an infinite being (meaning
God) which is neither a body nor a force in the body. Maimonides
believed that this argument gives us a ground to believe that God is,
not an idea of what God is. He believed that God cannot be understood or
be compared.
Non-personal definitions of God
In pantheism,
God and the universe are considered to be the same thing. In this view,
the natural sciences are essentially studying the nature of God. This
definition of God creates the philosophical problem that a universe with
God and one without God are the same, other than the words used to
describe it.
Deism and panentheism
assert that there is a God distinct from, or which extends beyond
(either in time or in space or in some other way) the universe. These
positions deny that God intervenes in the operation of the universe,
including communicating with humans personally. The notion that God
never intervenes or communicates with the universe, or may have evolved
into the universe (as in pandeism), makes it difficult, if not by definition impossible, to distinguish between a universe with God and one without.
The Ethics of Baruch Spinoza gave two demonstrations of the existence of God. The God of Spinoza is uncaused by any external force and has no free will, it is not personal and not anthropomorphic.
Debate about how theism should be argued
In
Christian faith, theologian and philosopher Thomas Aquinas made a
distinction between: (a) preambles of faith and (b) articles of faith. The preambles include alleged truths contained in revelation which are
nevertheless demonstrable by reason, e.g., the immortality of the soul,
the existence of God. The articles of faith, on the other hand, contain
truths that cannot be proven or reached by reason alone and presuppose
the truths of the preambles, e.g., in Christianity, the Holy Trinity, is not demonstrable and presupposes the existence of God.
The argument that the existence of God can be known to all, even
prior to exposure to any divine revelation, predates Christianity. Paul the Apostle
made this argument when he said that pagans were without excuse because
"since the creation of the world God's invisible nature, namely, his
eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that
have been made". In this, Paul alludes to the proofs for a creator, later enunciated by Thomas Aquinas and others, that had also been explored by the Greek philosophers.
Another apologetical school of thought, including Dutch and American Reformed thinkers (such as Abraham Kuyper, Benjamin Warfield, and Herman Dooyeweerd), emerged in the late 1920s. This school was instituted by Cornelius Van Til, and came to be popularly called presuppositional apologetics
(though Van Til felt "transcendental" would be a more accurate title).
The main distinction between this approach and the more classical evidentialist
approach is that the presuppositionalist denies any common ground
between the believer and the non-believer, except that which the
non-believer denies, namely, the assumption of the truth of the theistic
worldview. In other words, presuppositionalists do not believe that the
existence of God can be proven by appeal to raw, uninterpreted, or
"brute" facts, which have the same (theoretical) meaning to people with
fundamentally different worldviews, because they deny that such a
condition is even possible. They claim that the only possible proof for
the existence of God is that the very same belief is the necessary
condition to the intelligibility of all other human experience and
action. They attempt to prove the existence of God by means of appeal to
the transcendental
necessity of the belief—indirectly (by appeal to the unavowed
presuppositions of the non-believer's worldview) rather than directly
(by appeal to some form of common factuality). In practice, this school
uses what have come to be known as transcendental arguments.
These arguments claim to demonstrate that all human experience and
action (even the condition of unbelief, itself) is a proof for the
existence of God, because God's existence is the necessary condition of
their intelligibility.
Protestant Christians note that the Christian faith teaches "salvation is by faith", and that faith is reliance upon the faithfulness of God. The most extreme example of this position is called fideism,
which holds that faith is simply the will to believe, and argues that
if God's existence were rationally demonstrable, faith in its existence
would become superfluous. Søren Kierkegaard
argued that objective knowledge, such as 1+1=2, is unimportant to
existence. If God could rationally be proven, his existence would be
unimportant to humans. It is because God cannot rationally be proven that his existence is important to us. In The Justification of Knowledge, the Calvinist theologian Robert L. Reymond
argues that believers should not attempt to prove the existence of God.
Since he believes all such proofs are fundamentally unsound, believers
should not place their confidence in them, much less resort to them in
discussions with non-believers; rather, they should accept the content
of revelation by faith. Reymond's position is similar to that of his
mentor Gordon Clark,
which holds that all worldviews are based on certain unprovable first
premises (or, axioms), and therefore are ultimately unprovable. The
Christian theist therefore must simply choose to start with Christianity
rather than anything else, by a "leap of faith". This position is also sometimes called presuppositional apologetics, but should not be confused with the Van Tillian variety.
In the philosophy of religion, atheism is standardly defined as the metaphysical claim that God does not exist. In 1972, Antony Flew
proposed defining atheism as the psychological state of lacking any
belief in God. However, Flew's definition is usually rejected, due to
the need for a name for the direct opposite proposition to theism, the metaphysical claim that God does exist.
Positive atheism (also called "strong atheism" and "hard atheism") is a proposed form of atheism that asserts that no deities exist. The strong atheist explicitly asserts the non-existence of gods.
Negative atheism
Negative
atheism (also called "weak atheism" and "soft atheism") is a proposed
form of atheism other than positive, wherein a person does not believe
in the existence of any deities, but does not explicitly assert there to
be none.
Agnosticism is the view that the truth value
of certain claims—especially claims about the existence of any deity,
but also other religious and metaphysical claims—is unknown or
unknowable. Agnosticism does not define one's belief or disbelief in gods; agnostics may still identify themselves as theists or atheists.
Strong agnosticism
Strong agnosticism is the belief that it is impossible for humans to know whether or not any deities exist.
Agnostic theism is the philosophical
view that encompasses both theism and agnosticism. An agnostic theist
believes in the existence of a god or God, but regards the basis of this
proposition as unknown or inherently unknowable. Agnostic theists may also insist on ignorance regarding the properties of the gods they believe in.
Agnostic atheism is a philosophical position that encompasses both
atheism and agnosticism. Agnostic atheists are atheistic because they do
not hold a belief in the existence of any deity and agnostic because they claim that the existence of a deity is either unknowable in principle or currently unknown in fact.
If a man have failed to find any
good reason for believing that there is a God, it is perfectly natural
and rational that he should not believe that there is a God; and if so,
he is an atheist, although he assume no superhuman knowledge, but merely
the ordinary human power of judging of evidence. If he go farther, and,
after an investigation into the nature and reach of human knowledge,
ending in the conclusion that the existence of God is incapable of
proof, cease to believe in it on the ground that he cannot know it to be
true, he is an agnostic and also an atheist, an agnostic-atheist—an
atheist because an agnostic."
An apatheist is someone who is not interested in accepting or denying
any claims that gods exist or do not exist. An apatheist lives as if
there are no gods and explains natural phenomena
without reference to any deities. The existence of gods is not
rejected, but may be designated unnecessary or useless; gods neither
provide purpose to life, nor influence everyday life, according to this view.
The ignostic (or igtheist) usually concludes that the question of
God's existence or nonexistence is usually not worth discussing because
concepts like "God" are usually not sufficiently or clearly defined.
Ignosticism or igtheism is the theological position that every other
theological position (including agnosticism
and atheism) assumes too much about the concept of God and many other
theological concepts. It can be defined as encompassing two related
views about the existence of God. The view that a coherent definition of
God must be presented before the question of the existence of God can
be meaningfully discussed. Furthermore, if that definition is unfalsifiable, the ignostic takes the theological noncognitivist position that the question of the existence of God (per that definition) is meaningless. In this case, the concept of God is not considered meaningless; the
term "God" is considered meaningless. The second view is synonymous with
theological noncognitivism, and skips the step of first asking "What is
meant by 'God'?" before proclaiming the original question "Does God
exist?" as meaningless.
Some philosophers have seen ignosticism as a variation of agnosticism or atheism, while others have considered it to be distinct. An ignostic maintains that he cannot even say whether he is a theist or an atheist until a sufficient definition of theism is put forth.
One problem posed by the question of the existence of God is that traditional beliefs usually ascribe to God various supernatural powers. Supernatural beings may be able to conceal and reveal themselves for their own purposes, as for example in the tale of Baucis and Philemon.
In addition, according to concepts of God, God is not part of the
natural order, but the ultimate creator of nature and of the scientific
laws. Thus in Aristotelian philosophy,
God is viewed as part of the explanatory structure needed to support
scientific conclusions and any powers God possesses are—strictly
speaking—of the natural order that is derived from God's place as
originator of nature (see also Monadology).
In Karl Popper's philosophy of science,
belief in a supernatural God is outside the natural domain of
scientific investigation because all scientific hypotheses must be
falsifiable in the natural world. The non-overlapping magisteria view proposed by Stephen Jay Gould also holds that the existence (or otherwise) of God is irrelevant to and beyond the domain of science.
Scientists follow the scientific method, within which theories must be verifiable by physical experiment.
The majority of prominent conceptions of God explicitly or effectively
posit a being whose existence is not testable either by proof or
disproof. Therefore, the question of God's existence may lie outside the purview of modern science by definition. The Catholic Church maintains that knowledge of the existence of God is the "natural light of human reason". Fideists maintain that belief in God's existence may not be amenable to demonstration or refutation, but rests on faith alone.
Logical positivists such as Rudolf Carnap and A. J. Ayer
viewed any talk of gods as literal nonsense. For the logical
positivists and adherents of similar schools of thought, statements
about religious or other transcendent experiences can not have a truth value,
and are deemed to be without meaning, because such statements do not
have any clear verification criteria. As the Christian biologist Scott
C. Todd put it "Even if all the data pointed to an intelligent designer,
such a hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not
naturalistic." This argument limits the domain of science to the empirically
observable and limits the domain of God to the empirically unprovable.
Nature of relevant proofs and arguments
John Polkinghorne suggests that the nearest analogy to the existence of God in physics is the ideas of quantum mechanics which are seemingly paradoxical but make sense of a great deal of disparate data.
Alvin Plantinga compares the question of the existence of God to the question of the existence of other minds, claiming both are notoriously impossible to "prove" against a determined skeptic.
One approach, suggested by writers such as Stephen D. Unwin, is to treat (particular versions of) theism and naturalism as though they were two hypotheses in the Bayesian
sense, to list certain data (or alleged data), about the world, and to
suggest that the likelihoods of these data are significantly higher
under one hypothesis than the other. Most of the arguments for, or against, the existence of God can be seen
as pointing to particular aspects of the universe in this way. In
almost all cases it is not seriously suggested by proponents of the
arguments that they are irrefutable, merely that they make one worldview
seem significantly more likely than the other. However, since an
assessment of the weight of evidence depends on the prior probability that is assigned to each worldview, arguments that a theist finds convincing may seem thin to an atheist and vice versa.
Philosophers, such as Wittgenstein, take a view that is considered anti-realist and oppose philosophical arguments related to God's existence. For instance, Charles Taylor
contends that the real is whatever will not go away. If we cannot
reduce talk about God to anything else, or replace it, or prove it
false, then perhaps God is as real as anything else.
In George Berkeley's A Treatise Concerning the Principles of Human Knowledge
of 1710, he argued that a "naked thought" cannot exist, and that a
perception is a thought; therefore only minds can be proven to exist,
since all else is merely an idea conveyed by a perception. From this
Berkeley argued that the universe is based upon observation and is
non-objective. However, he noted that the universe includes "ideas" not
perceptible to humankind, and that there must, therefore, exist an
omniscient superobserver, which perceives such things. Berkeley
considered this proof of the existence of the Christian god.
Outside of Western thought
Existence in absolute truth is central to Vedanta
epistemology. Traditional sense perception based approaches were put
into question as possibly misleading due to preconceived or superimposed
ideas. But though all object-cognition can be doubted, the existence of
the doubter remains a fact even in nastika traditions of mayavada schools following Adi Shankara. The five eternal principles to be discussed under ontology, beginning with God or Isvara, the Ultimate Reality cannot be established by the means of logic alone, and often require superior proof.
In VaisnavismVishnu, or his intimate ontological form of Krishna, is equated to the personal absolute God of the Western traditions. Aspects of Krishna as svayam bhagavan in original Absolute Truth, sat chit ananda, are understood originating from three essential attributes of Krishna's form, i.e., "eternal existence" or sat, related to the brahman aspect; "knowledge" or chit, to the paramatman; and "bliss" or ananda in Sanskrit, to bhagavan.
In article 3, question 2, first part of his Summa Theologica, Thomas Aquinas developed his five arguments for God's existence. These arguments are grounded in an Aristotelian ontology and make use of the infinite regression argument. Aquinas did not intend to fully prove the existence of God as he is
orthodoxly conceived (with all of his traditional attributes), but
proposed his Five Ways as a first stage, which he built upon later in
his work. Aquinas' Five Ways argued from the unmoved mover, first cause, necessary being, argument from degree, and the argument from final cause.
The unmoved mover argument: things in the world are in motion,
something can only be caused to move by a mover, therefore everything in
the world must be moved by an unmoved mover.
The first cause argument: things in the world have a cause, and
nothing is the cause of itself, so everything in the world must have a
first cause or an uncaused cause.
The necessary being argument: things in the world are contingent,
and contingent beings cannot exist without a cause, so everything in the
world must be caused by a necessary being.
The degree argument: there are degrees of goodness and perfection
among things, and something of a maximum degree must be the cause of
things of a lower degree, so there must be a supremely good and perfect
cause for all good things.
The final cause argument: things in the world act for an end or
purpose, but only an intelligent being can direct itself towards a
purpose, so there must be an intelligent being that directs things
towards their purpose.
The cosmological argument is an a posteriori argument for a cause or reason for the cosmos.
One type of cosmological, or "first cause" argument, typically called the Kalam cosmological argument,
asserts that since everything that begins to exist has a cause, and the
universe began to exist, the universe must have had a cause which was
itself not caused. This ultimate first cause is identified with God.
Christian apologist William Lane Craig gives a version of this argument in the following form:
The ontological argument has been formulated by philosophers including St. Anselm and René Descartes. The argument proposes that God's existence is self-evident. The logic, depending on the formulation, reads roughly as follows:
Whatever is contained in a clear and distinct idea of a thing must be
predicated of that thing; but a clear and distinct idea of an absolutely
perfect Being contains the idea of actual existence; therefore since we
have the idea of an absolutely perfect Being such a Being must really
exist.
Thomas Aquinas criticized the argument for proposing a definition of
God which, if God is transcendent, should be impossible for humans. Immanuel Kant criticized the proof from a logical standpoint: he stated
that the term "God" really signifies two different terms: both idea of
God, and God. Kant concluded that the proof is equivocation, based on
the ambiguity of the word God. Kant also challenged the argument's assumption that existence is a
predicate (of perfection) because it does not add anything to the
essence of a being. If existence is not a predicate, then it is not necessarily true that the greatest possible being exists. A common rebuttal to Kant's critique is that, although "existence" does
add something to both the concept and the reality of God, the concept
would be vastly different if its referent is an unreal Being. Another response to Kant is attributed to Alvin Plantinga, who says
that even if one were to grant that existence is not a real predicate, necessary existence, which is the correct formulation of an understanding of God, is a real predicate.
Gödel's ontological proof
Gödel's ontological proof is a formal argument by the mathematician Kurt Gödel (1906–1978) for the existence of God. The argument is in a line of development that goes back to Anselm of Canterbury (1033–1109). St. Anselm's ontological argument,
in its most succinct form, is as follows: "God, by definition, is that
for which no greater can be conceived. God exists in the understanding.
If God exists in the understanding, we could imagine Him to be greater
by existing in reality. Therefore, God must exist." A more elaborate version was given by Gottfried Leibniz (1646–1716); this is the version that Gödel studied and attempted to clarify with his ontological argument.
The argument uses modal logic, which deals with statements about what is necessarily true or possibly
true. From the axioms that a property can only be positive if
not-having-it is not positive, and that properties implied by a positive
property must all also be themselves positive, it concludes that (since
positive properties do not involve contradiction)
for any positive property, there is possibly a being that instantiates
it. It defines God as the being instantiating all positive properties.
After defining what it means for a property to be "the essence" of
something (the one property that necessarily implies all its other
properties), it concludes that God's instantiation of all positive
properties must be the essence of God. After defining a property of
"necessary existence" and taking it as an axiom that it is positive, the
argument concludes that, since God must have this property, God must
exist necessarily.
The proof uses modal logic, which distinguishes between necessary truths and contingent truths. In the most common semantics for modal logic, many "possible worlds" are considered. A truth is necessary
if it is true in all possible worlds. By contrast, if a statement
happens to be true in our world, but is false in another world, then it
is a contingent truth. A statement that is true in some world (not necessarily our own) is called a possible truth.
Furthermore, the proof uses higher-order (modal) logic because the definition of God employs an explicit quantification over properties.
First, Gödel axiomatizes the notion of a "positive property": for each property φ, either φ or its negation ¬φ must be positive, but not both (axiom 2). If a positive property φ implies a property ψ in each possible world, then ψ is positive, too (axiom 1). Gödel then argues that each positive property is "possibly
exemplified", i.e. applies at least to some object in some world
(theorem 1). Defining an object to be Godlike if it has all positive
properties (definition 1), and requiring that property to be positive itself (axiom 3), Gödel shows that in some possible world a Godlike object exists (theorem 2), called "God" in the following. Gödel proceeds to prove that a Godlike object exists in every possible world.
Meinongian argument
The Meinongian argument is a type of ontological argument or an "a priori argument" that seeks to prove the existence of God. This is through an assertion that there is "a distinction between different categories of existence." The premise of the ontological argument is based on Alexius Meinong's works. Some scholars also associate it with St. Anselm's ontological argument.
Trademark argument
The trademark argument is an a prioriargument for the existence of God developed by the French philosopher and mathematician René Descartes.
The name derives from the fact that the idea of God existing in each
person "is the trademark, hallmark or stamp of their divine creator".
In the Meditations Descartes provides two arguments for the existence of God. In Meditation V he presents a version of the ontological argument
which attempts to deduce the existence of God from the nature of God;
in Meditation III he presents an argument for the existence of God from
one of the effects of God's activity. Descartes cannot start with the
existence of the world or with some feature of the world for, at this
stage of his argument, he has not established that the world exists.
Instead, he starts with the fact that he has an idea of God and
concludes "that the mere fact that I exist and have within me an idea of
a most perfect being, that is, God, provides a very clear proof that
God indeed exists." He says, "it is no surprise that God, in creating
me, should have placed this idea in me to be, as it were, the mark of
the craftsman stamped on his work."
Plantinga's free-will defense begins by noting a distinction between moral evil and physical evil (Plantinga's defense primarily references moral evil), then asserting that Mackie's argument failed to establish an explicit
logical contradiction between God and the existence of moral evil. In
other words, Plantinga shows that (1–4) are not on their own
contradictory, and that any contradiction must originate from an
atheologian's implicit unstated assumptions, assumptions representing premises not stated in the argument itself. With an explicit contradiction ruled out, an atheologian must add premises to the argument for it to succeed. Nonetheless, if Plantinga had offered no further argument, then an
atheologian's intuitive impressions that a contradiction must exist
would have remained unanswered. Plantinga sought to resolve this by
offering two further points.
First, Plantinga, using modal logic,
pointed out that omnipotence is the power to do all things logically
possible, and thus God could not be expected to do things that are
logically impossible. God could not, for example, create square circles, act contrary to his
nature, or, more relevantly, create beings with free will that would
never choose evil. Taking this latter point further, Plantinga argued that the moral value
of human free will is a credible offsetting justification that God
could have as a morally justified reason for permitting the existence of
evil. Plantinga did not claim to have shown that the conclusion of the
logical problem is wrong, nor did he assert that God's reason for
allowing evil is, in fact, to preserve free will. Instead, his argument
sought only to show that the logical problem of evil was invalid.
Plantinga's defense has received strong support among academic
philosophers, with many agreeing that it defeated the logical problem of
evil. Contemporary atheologians have presented arguments claiming to have found the additional premises needed to create an explicitly contradictory theistic set by adding to the propositions 1–4.
Proof of the Truthful
Avicenna, the proponent of the argument, depicted on a 1999 Tajikistani banknote
The Proof of the Truthful (Arabic: برهان الصديقين, romanized: burhān al-ṣiddīqīn, also translated Demonstration of the Truthful or Proof of the Veracious, among others) is a formal argument for proving the existence of God introduced by the Islamic philosopherAvicenna (also known as Ibn Sina, 980–1037). Avicenna argued that there must be a "necessary existent" (Arabic: واجب الوجود, romanized: wājib al-wujūd), an entity that cannot not exist. The argument says that the entire set of contingent things
must have a cause that is not contingent because otherwise it would be
included in the set. Furthermore, through a series of arguments, he
derived that the necessary existent must have attributes that he
identified with God in Islam, including unity, simplicity, immateriality, intellect, power, generosity, and goodness.
Historian of philosophyPeter Adamson
called the argument one of the most influential medieval arguments for
God's existence, and Avicenna's biggest contribution to the history of
philosophy. It was enthusiastically received and repeated (sometimes with
modification) by later philosophers, including generations of Muslim
philosophers, Western Christian philosophers such as Thomas Aquinas and Duns Scotus, and Jewish philosophers such as Maimonides.
Critics of the argument include Averroes, who objected to its methodology, Al-Ghazali,
who disagreed with its characterization of God, and modern critics who
state that its piecemeal derivation of God's attributes allows people to
accept parts of the argument but still reject God's existence. There is
no consensus among modern scholars on the classification of the
argument; some say that it is ontological while others say it is cosmological.
Empirical arguments
Argument from beauty
The argument from beauty
(also the aesthetic argument) is an argument for the existence of a
realm of immaterial ideas or, most commonly, for the existence of God,
that roughly states that the evident beauty in nature, art and music and
even in more abstract areas like the elegance of the laws of physics or the elegant laws of mathematics is evidence of a creator deity who has arranged these things to be beautiful (aesthetically pleasing, or "good") and not ugly.
Plato
argued there is a transcendent plane of abstract ideas, or universals,
which are more perfect than real-world examples of those ideas. Later
philosophers connected this plane to the idea of goodness, beauty, and
then the Christian God.
Various observers have also argued that the experience of beauty is
evidence of the existence of a universal God. Depending on the observer,
this might include artificially beautiful things like music or art,
natural beauty like landscapes or astronomical bodies, or the elegance
of abstract ideas like the laws of mathematics or physics.
Argument from consciousness
The argument from consciousness is an argument for the existence of God that claims characteristics of human consciousness (such as qualia)
cannot be explained by the physical mechanisms of the human body and
brain, therefore asserting that there must be non-physical aspects to
human consciousness. This is held as indirect evidence of God, given
that notions about souls and the afterlife in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam would be consistent with such a claim.
The best-known defender of the argument from consciousness is J. P. Moreland.
Argument from design
The teleological argument (from τέλος, telos, 'end, aim, goal') also known as physico-theological argument, argument from design, or intelligent design argument, is a rational
argument for the existence of God or, more generally, that complex
functionality in the natural world, which looks designed, is evidence of
an intelligent creator.The earliest recorded versions of this argument are associated with Socrates in ancient Greece, although it has been argued that he was taking up an older argument. Later, Plato and Aristotle developed complex approaches to the proposal that the cosmos has an intelligent cause, but it was the Stoics
during the Roman era who, under their influence, "developed the battery
of creationist arguments broadly known under the label 'The Argument
from Design'".
Since the Roman era, various versions of the teleological argument have been associated with the Abrahamic religions. In the Middle Ages, Islamic theologians such as Al-Ghazali used the argument, although it was rejected as unnecessary by Quranic literalists, and as unconvincing by many Islamic philosophers. Later, the teleological argument was accepted by Saint Thomas Aquinas, and included as the fifth of his "Five Ways" of proving the existence of God. In early modern England, clergymen such as William Turner and John Ray were well-known proponents. In the early 18th century, William Derham published his Physico-Theology, which gave his "demonstration of the being and attributes of God from his works of creation". Later, William Paley, in his 1802 Natural Theology or Evidences of the Existence and Attributes of the Deity published a prominent presentation of the design argument with his version of the watchmaker analogy and the first use of the phrase "argument from design".
From its beginning, there have been numerous criticisms of the
different versions of the teleological argument. Some have been written
as responses to criticisms of non-teleological natural science which are
associated with it. Especially important were the general logical
arguments presented by David Hume in his Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, published in 1779, and the explanation of biological complexity given in Charles Darwin's Origin of Species, published in 1859. Since the 1960s, Paley's arguments have been influential in the development of a creation science movement which used phrases such as "design by an intelligent designer", and after 1987 this was rebranded as "intelligent design", promoted by the intelligent design movement which refers to an intelligent designer. Both movements have used the teleological argument to argue against the modern scientific understanding of evolution, and to claim that supernatural explanations should be given equal validity in the public school science curriculum.
Starting already in classical Greece, two approaches to the
teleological argument developed, distinguished by their understanding of
whether the natural order was literally created or not. The
non-creationist approach starts most clearly with Aristotle, although
many thinkers, such as the Neoplatonists,
believed it was already intended by Plato. This approach is not
creationist in a simple sense, because while it agrees that a cosmic
intelligence is responsible for the natural order, it rejects the
proposal that this requires a "creator" to physically make and maintain
this order. The Neoplatonists did not find the teleological argument
convincing, and in this they were followed by medieval philosophers such
as Al-Farabi and Avicenna. Later, Averroes and Thomas Aquinas considered the argument acceptable, but not necessarily the best argument.
While the concept of an intelligence behind the natural order is
ancient, a rational argument that concludes that we can know that the
natural world has a designer, or a creating intelligence which has
human-like purposes, appears to have begun with classical philosophy. Religious thinkers in Judaism, Hinduism, Confucianism, Islam and Christianity also developed versions of the teleological argument. Later, variants on the argument from design were produced in Western philosophy and by Christian fundamentalism.
Contemporary defenders of the teleological argument are mainly Christians, for example Richard Swinburne and John Lennox.
Human subjects in scientific studies have reported that psychedelic drugs such as LSD, mescaline, psilocybin mushrooms, and DMT provide perceptions of a transcendent reality, including encounters with God. Since prehistory, cultures around the world have used entheogens for the purpose of enabling mystical experiences. In The Doors of Perception, English philosopher and writer Aldous Huxley
recounts his mystical experiences while he was under the influence of
mescaline, arguing that the human brain normally filters reality, and
that such drugs remove this filter, exposing humans to a broader
spectrum of conscious awareness which he calls the "Mind at Large".
Argument from sensus divinitatis
The argument from sensus divinitatis
(Latin for 'sense of divinity') posits that humans are born with an
innate sense, or cognitive mechanism, that grants them awareness of
God's presence. Alvin Plantinga
argues that if beliefs formed by sensory experience can be considered
properly basic, requiring no external justification, then beliefs in
theism formed by a sensus divinitatis can be considered properly basic as well, and thus require no external justification. Research in the cognitive science of religion suggests that the human brain has a natural and evolutionary predisposition towards theistic beliefs, which Kelly James Clark argues is empirical evidence for the presence of a sensus divinitatis.
Rational warrant
Philosopher Stephen Toulmin is notable for his work in the history of ideas that features the (rational) warrant: a statement that connects the premises to a conclusion.
Joseph Hinman applied Toulmin's approach in his argument for the existence of God, particularly in his book The Trace of God: A Rational Warrant for Belief. Instead of attempting to prove the existence of God, Hinman argues you
can "demonstrate the rationally-warranted nature of belief".
Hinman uses a wide range of studies, including ones by Robert
Wuthnow, Andrew Greeley, Mathes and Kathleen Nobel to establish that
mystical experiences are life-transformative in a way that is
significant, positive and lasting. He draws on additional work to add several additional major points to
his argument. First, the people who have these experiences not only do
not exhibit traditional signs of mental illness but, often, are in
better mental and physical health than the general population due to the
experience. Second, the experiences work. In other words, they provide a framework for navigating life that is useful and effective. All of the evidence of the positive effects of the experience upon people's lives he, adapting a term from Derrida, terms "the trace of God": the footprints left behind that point to the impact.
Finally, he discusses how both religious experience and belief in God is, and has always been, normative among humans: people do not need to prove the existence of God. If there is no need
to prove, Hinman argues, and the Trace of God (for instance, the impact
of mystical experiences on them), belief in God is rationally warranted.
Inductive arguments
Some have put forward arguments for the existence of God based on inductive reasoning.
For example, one class of philosophers asserts that the proofs for the
existence of God present a fairly large probability though not absolute
certainty. A number of obscure points, they say, always remain; an act
of faith is required to dismiss these difficulties. This view is
maintained, among others, by the Scottish statesman Arthur Balfour in his book The Foundations of Belief (1895). The opinions set forth in this work were adopted in France by Ferdinand Brunetière, the editor of the Revue des deux Mondes.
Many orthodox Protestants express themselves in the same manner, as,
for instance, Dr. E. Dennert, President of the Kepler Society, in his
work Ist Gott tot?
Metaphysical arguments
Argument from degree
The argument from degrees, also known as the degrees of perfection argument or the henological argument, is an argument for the existence of God first proposed by mediaeval Roman Catholic theologian Thomas Aquinas as one of the five ways to philosophically argue in favour of God's existence in his Summa Theologica. It is based on ontological and theological notions of perfection. Contemporary Thomist scholars are often in disagreement on the metaphysical justification for this proof. According to Edward Feser, the metaphysics involved in the argument has more to do with Aristotle than Plato;
hence, while the argument presupposes realism about universals and
abstract objects, it would be more accurate to say Aquinas is thinking
of Aristotelian realism and not Platonic realism per se. The argument
has received several criticisms, including the subjective notion of some qualities such as goodness, perfection or beauty; or the alleged non sequitur
assertion that something should necessarily have all properties to the
maximum possible degree given a set of entities with those properties.
Argument from desire
The argument from desire is an argument for the existence of the immortality of the soul. The best-known defender of the argument is the Christian writer C. S. Lewis.
Briefly and roughly, the argument states that humans' natural desire
for eternal happiness must be capable of satisfaction, because all
natural desires are capable of satisfaction. Versions of the argument
have been offered since the Middle Ages, and the argument continues to
have defenders today, such as Peter Kreeft and Francis Collins.
C. S. Lewis, in Mere Christianity
and elsewhere, posed that all natural desires have a natural object.
One thirsts, and there exists water to quench this thirst; One hungers,
and there exists food to satisfy this hunger. He then argued that the
human desire for perfect justice, perfect peace, perfect happiness, and
other intangibles strongly implies the existence of such things, though
they seem unobtainable on earth. He further posed that the unquenchable
desires of this life strongly imply that we are intended for a different
life, necessarily governed by a God who can provide the desired
intangibles.
Argument from love
The argument from love is an argument for the existence of God that suggests the depth, complexity, and universality of love point to a transcendent source or purpose.
Argument from mathematics
The argument from mathematics is presented by American philosopher William Lane Craig. In the philosophy of mathematics,
the ontological status of mathematical entities, such as numbers, sets,
and functions is debated. Within this philosophical context, two
primary positions emerge: mathematical realism and mathematical anti-realism.
Realists argue that mathematical objects exist independently of human
thought as abstract, non-causal entities. In contrast, anti-realists
deny the independent existence of these mathematical objects. A pivotal
issue in this debate is the phenomenon that physicist Eugene Wigner
termed "the unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics." This refers to
the ability of mathematics to describe and predict phenomena in the
natural world, exemplified by theoretical physicist Peter Higgs'
use of mathematical equations to predict the existence of a fundamental
particle, which was verified experimentally decades later.
Craig posits that this effectiveness presents a significant
philosophical question about the applicability of mathematics,
regardless of one's stance on the existence of mathematical entities. He
argues that theism provides a more compelling framework for
understanding this phenomenon than metaphysical naturalism.
Under realism, non-theistic perspectives might view the alignment of
mathematical abstractions with physical reality as a mere coincidence.
However, a theistic realist might argue that this alignment is
intentional, as a Supreme Being created the world based on these
abstract mathematical structures.
On the other hand, anti-realists, particularly those of a naturalistic
persuasion, see mathematical relationships as reflections of real-world
interactions, without necessitating abstract entities. Yet, Craig
challenges this view by questioning why the physical world inherently
exhibits such complex mathematical patterns without an intentional
design. In contrast, the theistic anti-realist has a straightforward
explanation: the world reflects a complex mathematical structure because
it was created by God following an abstract model. Thus, Craig
concludes that theism offers a superior explanation for why mathematics
applies so effectively to understanding and predicting the physical
world.
Argument from morality
The argument from morality is an argument for the existence of God. Arguments from morality tend to be based on moral normativity or moral order. Arguments from moral normativity observe some aspect of morality and argue that God
is the best or only explanation for this, concluding that God must
exist. Arguments from moral order are based on the asserted need for
moral order to exist in the universe. They claim that, for this moral
order to exist, God must exist to support it. The argument from morality
is noteworthy in that one cannot evaluate the soundness of the argument
without attending to almost every important philosophical issue in meta-ethics.
German philosopher Immanuel Kant devised an argument from morality based on practical reason. Kant argued that the goal of humanity is to achieve perfect happiness and virtue (the summum bonum) and believed that an afterlife
must be assumed to exist in order for this to be possible, and that God
must be assumed to exist to provide this. Rather than aiming to prove
the existence of God, however, Kant was simply attempting to demonstrate
that all moral thought requires the assumption that God exists, and
therefore that we are entitled to make such an assumption only as a
regulative principle rather than a constitutive principle (meaning that
such a principle can guide our actions, but it does not provide
knowledge). In his book Mere Christianity, C. S. Lewis
argued that "conscience reveals to us a moral law whose source cannot
be found in the natural world, thus pointing to a supernatural
Lawgiver." Lewis argued that accepting the validity of human reason as a given
must include accepting the validity of practical reason, which could not
be valid without reference to a higher cosmic moral order which could
not exist without a God to create and/or establish it. A related
argument is from conscience; John Henry Newman argued that the conscience
supports the claim that objective moral truths exist because it drives
people to act morally even when it is not in their own interest. Newman
argued that, because the conscience suggests the existence of objective
moral truths, God must exist to give authority to these truths.
The argument from religious experience holds that the best explanation for religious experiences
is that they are actual perceptions of God's presence. Philosopher
Robert Sloan Lee notes that this argument possesses an "unexpected
resilience" despite seemingly being able to be easily defeated by simple
objections, such as pointing out the existence of hallucinations. Philosopher William J. Abraham
states "We do not generally believe that because some reports of
ordinary natural objects sometimes involve illusion, hallucination, and
the like, then all reports do so". He continues, "If we insist that they apply only to religious
experience, then we face the embarrassing fact that we apply standards
in the religious sphere which we do not apply elsewhere".
Arguments from witnesses' testimony
Arguments
from testimony rely on the testimony or experience of witnesses,
possibly embodying the propositions of a specific revealed religion.
Swinburne argues that it is a principle of rationality that one should
accept testimony unless there are strong reasons for not doing so.
The witness argument gives credibility to personal witnesses, contemporary and throughout the ages. A variation of this is the argument from miracles (also referred to as "the priest stories") which relies on testimony of supernatural events to establish the existence of God.
The majority argument argues that the theism of people throughout most of recorded history and in many different places provides prima facie demonstration of God's existence.
Islam asserts that the revelation of its holy book, the Qur'an, and its unique literary attributes, vindicate its divine authorship, and thus the existence of God.
Christianity and Judaism assert that God intervened in key specific moments in history, especially at the Exodus and the giving of the Ten Commandments
in front of all the tribes of Israel, positing an argument from
empirical evidence stemming from sheer number of witnesses, thus
demonstrating his existence.
The sincere seeker's argument, espoused by Muslim Sufis of the
Tasawwuf tradition, posits that every individual who follows a formulaic
path towards guidance, arrives at the same destination of conviction in
the existence of God and specifically in the monotheistic tenets and
laws of Islam. This apparent natural law for guidance and belief could
only be consistent if the formula and supplication were being answered
by the same Divine entity being addressed, as claimed in Islamic
revelations. This was formally organized by Imam Abu Hamid Al-Ghazali in such notable works as "Deliverance from Error" and "The Alchemy of Happiness", in Arabic "Kimiya-yi sa'ādat".
The path includes following the golden rule of no harm to others and
treating others with compassion, silence or minimal speech, seclusion,
daily fasting or minimalist diet of water and basic nourishment, honest
wages, and daily supplication towards "the Creator of the Universe" for
guidance.
The Argument from a proper basis argues that belief in God is "properly basic"; that it is similar to statements like "I see a chair" or "I feel pain". Such beliefs are non-falsifiable and, thus, neither provable nor
disprovable; they concern perceptual beliefs or indisputable mental
states.
In Germany, the School of Friedrich Heinrich Jacobi taught that human reason is able to perceive the suprasensible. Jacobi distinguished three faculties: sense, reason,
and understanding. Just as sense has immediate perception of the
material so has reason immediate perception of the immaterial, while the
understanding brings these perceptions to a person's consciousness and
unites them to one another. God's existence, then, cannot be proven (Jacobi, like Immanuel Kant,
rejected the absolute value of the principle of causality), it must be
felt by the mind.
The same theory was advocated in Germany by Friedrich Schleiermacher,
who assumed an inner religious sense by means of which people feel
religious truths. According to Schleiermacher, religion consists solely
in this inner perception, and dogmatic doctrines are inessential.
Hindu arguments
The school of Vedanta argues that one of the proofs of the existence of God is the law of karma. In a commentary to Brahma Sutras (III, 2, 38, and 41), Adi Sankara
argues that the original karmic actions themselves cannot bring about
the proper results at some future time; neither can super sensuous,
non-intelligent qualities like adrsta
by themselves mediate the appropriate, justly deserved pleasure and
pain. The fruits, according to him must be administered through the
action of a conscious agent, namely, a supreme being (Ishvara). The Nyaya school make similar arguments.
Other arguments
The evolutionary argument against naturalism,
which argues that naturalistic evolution is incapable of providing
humans with the cognitive apparatus necessary for their knowledge to
have positive epistemic status.
An argument from belief in God being properly basic as presented by Alvin Plantinga.
Argument from Personal Identity.
Argument from the "divine attributes of scientific law".
Arguments against the existence of God
The arguments below aim to show that God does not exist—by showing a creator is unnecessary or contradictory, at odds with known scientific or historical facts, or that there is insufficient proof that God exists.
Logical arguments
The following arguments deduce, mostly through self-contradiction, the non-existence of God as "the Creator".
No scientific evidence of God's existence has been found. Therefore, according to scientific skeptic or scientist worldviews, one should not believe in God; more philosophically, whether or not God exists is unknown, or even,
God does not exist (depending on how strongly such worldviews are held;
or, depending on how strongly one believes that there is no scientific
evidence of God's existence).
Dawkins' Ultimate Boeing 747 gambit analogizes the above. Some theists argue that evolution
and abiogenesis are akin to a hurricane assembling a Boeing 747—that
the universe (or life) is too complex, cannot be made by non-living
matter alone and would have to be designed by someone, who theists call
God. Dawkin's counter-argument is that such a God would himself be
complex—the "Ultimate" Boeing 747—and therefore require a designer.
Theological noncognitivism
is the argument that religious language – specifically, words such as
"God" – are not cognitively meaningful and that irreducible definitions
of God are circular.
The analogy of Russell's teapot argues that the burden of proof for the existence of God lies with the theist rather than the atheist; it can be considered an extension of Occam's Razor.
Arguments from incompatible divine properties
Some arguments focus on the existence of specific conceptions of God as being omniscient, omnipotent, and morally perfect.
The Omnipotence Paradox
The Omnipotence Paradox is a philosophical problem that
challenges the idea of an all-powerful God. The paradox argues that if
God is truly omnipotent, then he should be able to do anything,
including things that are logically impossible. However, if God cannot
do something that is logically impossible, then he is not truly
omnipotent. This paradox has been debated by philosophers for centuries
and continues to be a topic of discussion in modern times.
The basic form of the Omnipotence Paradox can be presented as
follows: Can God create a stone so heavy that he cannot lift it? If God
can create such a stone, then he is not omnipotent because he cannot
lift it. If God cannot create such a stone, then he is also not
omnipotent because there is something he cannot do.
One of the earliest recorded discussions of the Omnipotence
Paradox can be found in the writings of the ancient Greek philosopher Epicurus. In his work "Letter to Menoeceus,"
Epicurus argues that if God is truly omnipotent, then he should be able
to prevent evil from existing in the world. However, since evil does
exist, either God is not omnipotent or he is not benevolent.
Another version of the omnipotence paradox involves God's ability
to change the past. If God is truly omnipotent, then he should be able
to change events that have already occurred. But if he can change the
past, then he would be altering his own actions and decisions, which
would mean that he was not truly free to act in the first place.
Another early discussion of the Omnipotence Paradox can be found
in the writings of the medieval philosopher St. Thomas Aquinas. Aquinas
argued that God's omnipotence was limited by his own nature and by
logical laws. He believed that God could not perform actions that were
logically contradictory, such as creating a square circle or making
2+2=5.
One of the most famous versions of this paradox is the question:
"Can God create a being more powerful than himself?" This question
implies a contradiction because if God is truly omnipotent, then he
should be able to create anything, including a being more powerful than
himself. However, if such a being exists, then God would no longer be
omnipotent.
The omniscience paradox
The omniscience paradox challenges the idea that God can know
everything that will happen in the future. If God knows everything that
will happen in advance, then it seems that human beings do not have free
will. After all, if God already knows what we will do in every
situation, then it seems that we cannot choose to do anything
differently.
Another version of the omniscience paradox involves God's
knowledge of his own future actions. If God knows what he will do in
advance, then it seems that he does not have the freedom to choose
otherwise. But if he does not know what he will do, then he is not truly
omniscient.
A more recent version of the omniscience paradox is the "paradox
of the stone tablet." This argument goes as follows: suppose that God
writes down everything that will happen in the future on a stone tablet.
If God is truly omniscient, then he already knows what is written on
the tablet. But if what is written on the tablet is true, then it seems
that human beings do not have free will.
The contradiction of omniscience and omnipotence
The contradiction of omniscience and omnipotence has been a topic
of philosophical debate for centuries. The concept of omniscience
refers to the idea that God knows everything, while omnipotence refers
to the idea that God is all-powerful. The contradiction arises when one
considers whether an all-knowing God can also be all-powerful. If God
knows everything, then he must know what he will do in the future, and
if he knows what he will do in the future, then he cannot change his
mind and do something else. This would mean that God is not all-powerful
because he is limited by his knowledge of the future. On the other
hand, if God is all-powerful, then he should be able to change his mind
and do something else, but if he does this, then he cannot be
all-knowing because he did not know what he was going to do in the first
place.
The problem of evil
The problem of evil against God is one of the most challenging
philosophical and theological issues. It seeks to reconcile the
existence of an all-powerful, all-knowing, and benevolent God with the
presence of evil and suffering in the world. This problem has been
debated for centuries by philosophers, theologians, and scholars from
different religious traditions.
The problem of evil can be formulated in different ways. One
common formulation is the logical problem of evil, which argues that the
existence of evil is logically incompatible with the existence of an
all-powerful, all-knowing, and perfectly good God. This argument goes as
follows:
1. Suppose God is defined by the properties of being all-powerful, all-knowing, and perfectly good.
2. If God is all-powerful, then he can prevent evil from occurring.
3. If God is all-knowing, then he knows where evil exists and knows how to eliminate evil.
4. If God is perfectly good, then he would want to prevent evil from occurring.
5. Evil exists.
6. Therefore, God does not exist.
This argument challenges the traditional concept of God as an
omnipotent and omnibenevolent being who created the world and governs it
with love and care. If such a God exists, why does he allow evil to
happen? The existence of natural disasters, diseases, wars, crimes, and
other forms of suffering seems to contradict the idea of a loving and
compassionate God.
Another formulation of the problem of evil is the evidential
problem of evil, which argues that while the existence of evil may not
logically disprove the existence of God, it provides strong evidence
against his existence. This argument acknowledges that it is possible
for an all-powerful and all-good God to have reasons for allowing evil
to occur that are beyond our understanding. However, it contends that
the sheer amount and intensity of evil in the world make it highly
unlikely that such reasons exist.
The problem of evil has been a central concern in the philosophy of religion since ancient times. In his dialogue "The Euthyphro," Plato
raises the question of whether the gods love what is good because it is
good, or whether it is good because the gods love it. This question
raises the issue of whether morality is independent of God or dependent
on him. If morality is independent of God, then God may not be necessary
for moral values and duties to exist. If morality is dependent on God,
then it raises the problem of whether God's commands are arbitrary or
whether there is a reason behind them.
The problem of divine immutability
The problem of divine immutability is a philosophical and
theological issue that has been debated for centuries. At the heart of
the problem is the question of whether or not God can change. This
question has far-reaching implications for how we understand the nature
of God, the relationship between God and creation, and the problem of
evil.
One of the main arguments for divine immutability is based on the
idea that God is perfect and complete in all respects. According to
this view, if God were to change in any way, it would imply that there
was something lacking or imperfect in God's nature. This would be
inconsistent with the idea of a perfect and complete being.
Another argument for divine immutability is based on the idea
that God exists outside of time. According to this view, God's nature is
eternal and unchanging, and therefore cannot be affected by anything
that happens within time. This means that God cannot change in response
to events in the world, since these events are themselves temporal and
subject to change.
However, there are also a number of arguments against divine
immutability. One of these is based on the idea that if God cannot
change, then it would be impossible for God to interact with the world
in any meaningful way. According to this view, if God's nature is fixed
and unchanging, then there can be no real relationship between God and
creation.
Another argument against divine immutability is based on the
problem of evil. If God cannot change, then it would seem that God must
have always known about and allowed for the existence of evil in the
world. This raises questions about how we can reconcile a perfectly good
and loving God with a world that contains so much suffering and
injustice.
This is one of the most difficult challenges to the existence of God.
The basic argument is that if God is all-powerful, all-knowing, and
perfectly good, then why would he create a place of eternal punishment
like hell? This question has been debated by philosophers and
theologians for centuries.
The problem of hell can be traced to ancient times. The concept
of an afterlife was common in many cultures, but the idea of eternal
punishment was not. The ancient Greeks believed in a realm called Hades
where the dead went, but it was not a place of punishment. The ancient
Egyptians believed in a judgment after death that determined whether a
person would go to a good or bad afterlife, but again, it was not
eternal punishment. It was not until the rise of Christianity that the
concept of eternal punishment in hell became widespread.
The Christian concept of hell is based on the teachings of Jesus Christ and the Bible. According to Christian theology, hell is a place of eternal punishment
for those who have rejected God and lived sinful lives. It is often
described as a place of fire and torment where there is weeping and
gnashing of teeth. The idea of eternal punishment in hell has been
controversial throughout Christian history.
One argument against the existence of God based on the problem of
hell is that it seems incompatible with God's perfect goodness. If God
is perfectly good, then why would he create a place like hell where
people suffer for eternity? This argument has been made by many
philosophers throughout history.
Transcendental Argument for the Non-existence of God (TANG)
The Transcendental Argument for the Non-Existence of God (TANG)
is a philosophical argument that attempts to demonstrate the
non-existence of God by showing that the concept of God is logically
incompatible with certain necessary conditions for rationality. The
argument is based on the idea that if certain necessary conditions for
rationality are true, then the existence of God is impossible. The
proponents of TANG argue that it is a powerful argument against theism,
and it has been the subject of much debate in philosophical circles.
The basic structure of TANG can be summarized as follows:
1. If rationality exists, then certain necessary conditions for rationality must be true.
2. The existence of God is logically incompatible with these necessary conditions for rationality.
3. Therefore, if these necessary conditions for rationality are true, then the existence of God is impossible.
The proponents of TANG argue that there are three necessary conditions for rationality:
1. The laws of logic are valid.
2. Our cognitive faculties are reliable.
3. There is an objective moral standard.
According to TANG, if these three necessary conditions are true, then the existence of God is impossible.
Firstly, proponents of TANG argue that the laws of logic are
valid and necessary for rationality. They contend that if the laws of
logic were not valid, then we could not reason or make sense of
anything. Therefore, they argue that it is necessary for rationality
that the laws of logic be valid and universally applicable.
Secondly, proponents of TANG argue that our cognitive faculties
must be reliable in order for us to reason rationally. They contend that
if our cognitive faculties were not reliable, then we could not trust
our own reasoning processes and would have no basis for knowledge or
belief. Therefore, they argue that it is necessary for rationality that
our cognitive faculties be reliable.
Finally, proponents of TANG argue that there must be an objective
moral standard in order for us to reason rationally. They contend that
if there were no objective moral standard, then we could not make moral
judgments or reason about ethical issues. Therefore, they argue that it
is necessary for rationality that there be an objective moral standard.
Proponents of TANG argue that the existence of God is logically
incompatible with these necessary conditions for rationality. They
contend that if God exists, then the laws of logic are contingent on his
will and could be different from what they are. They also argue that if
God exists, then our cognitive faculties are contingent on his will and
could be unreliable. Finally, they argue that if God exists, then
morality is contingent on his will and there is no objective moral
standard.
Therefore, proponents of TANG conclude that if these necessary
conditions for rationality are true, then the existence of God is
impossible. They argue that the concept of God is logically incompatible
with these necessary conditions and therefore cannot exist.
Atheist-Existential Argument
The atheist-existential
argument posits that human existence is characterized by absurdity,
meaninglessness, and despair. According to this argument, humans are
finite beings living in an infinite universe, and their existence is
devoid of any inherent purpose or meaning. Proponents of this argument
contend that if God existed, He would have provided humanity with a
clear purpose and meaning for existence. However, since no such purpose
or meaning exists, it follows that God does not exist.
Jean-Paul Sartre was one of the most prominent proponents of the atheist-existential argument. In his book Existentialism is a Humanism,
Sartre argues that human existence is absurd because there is no
inherent purpose or meaning to life. He contends that humans are free to
create their own meaning and purpose but are ultimately responsible for
their choices and actions. Sartre asserts that if God existed, He would
have provided humanity with a clear purpose and meaning for existence.
However, since no such purpose or meaning exists, it follows that God
does not exist.
Similarly, Friedrich Nietzsche argues in his book Thus Spoke Zarathustra
that human existence is meaningless because there is no inherent
purpose or meaning to life. Nietzsche contends that humans must create
their own values and meanings, and that the concept of God is a human
invention that serves as a crutch for those who cannot accept the
absurdity of existence. Nietzsche asserts that the death of God is a
necessary step in human evolution, as it allows humanity to embrace its
freedom and create its own values and meanings.
Albert Camus also presents a similar argument in his book The Myth of Sisyphus.
Camus argues that human existence is absurd because there is no
inherent purpose or meaning to life. He contends that humans must create
their own meaning in the face of this absurdity, and that the concept
of God is a distraction from this task. Camus asserts that the only way
to confront the absurdity of existence is through rebellion, which
involves embracing life despite its lack of inherent meaning.
Martin Heidegger also presents an existentialist argument for the non-existence of God in his book Being and Time.
Heidegger contends that human existence is characterized by anxiety and
dread because humans are aware of their mortality and the ultimate
futility of their actions. He argues that if God existed, He would have
provided humanity with a clear purpose and meaning for existence, thus
alleviating this anxiety. However, since no such purpose or meaning
exists, it follows that God does not exist.
The "no reason" argument
The "no reason" argument tries to show that an omnipotent and
omniscient being would not have any reason to act in any way,
specifically by creating the universe, because it would have no needs,
wants, or desires since these very concepts are subjectively human.
Since the universe exists, there is a contradiction, and therefore, an
omnipotent god cannot exist. This argument is expounded upon by Scott Adams in the book God's Debris, which puts forward a form of Pandeism as its fundamental theological model. A similar argument is put forward in Ludwig von Mises's
"Human Action". He referred to it as the "praxeological argument" and
claimed that a perfect being would have long ago satisfied all its wants
and desires and would no longer be able to take action in the present
without proving that it had been unable to achieve its wants
faster—showing it imperfect.
The argument is based on the idea that if something exists, there
must be a reason or explanation for its existence. Therefore, if God
exists, there must be a reason or explanation for his existence.
However, proponents of the "no reason" argument argue that there is no
reason or explanation for God's existence, and therefore he does not
exist.
One of the main proponents of the "no reason" argument is J. L. Mackie. In his book The Miracle of Theism: Arguments For and Against the Existence of God,
Mackie argues that the concept of an uncaused cause, which is often
used to explain God's existence, is flawed. He argues that if everything
must have a cause or explanation for its existence, then God must also
have a cause or explanation for his existence. However, since God is
often described as an uncaused cause, this creates a contradiction in
the concept of God.
Another proponent of the "no reason" argument is Bertrand Russell. In his book Why I Am Not a Christian,
Russell argues that the concept of God as an uncaused cause is
illogical. He argues that if everything must have a cause or explanation
for its existence, then God must also have a cause or explanation for
his existence. However, since God is often described as an uncaused
cause, this creates a contradiction in the concept of God.
Furthermore, proponents of the "no reason" argument argue that
the burden of proof lies with those who claim that God exists. They
argue that since there is no evidence or reason to believe in God's
existence, it is more reasonable to assume that he does not exist.
In addition to these arguments, proponents of the "no reason"
argument also point to the problem of evil as evidence against God's
existence. They argue that if God is all-powerful, all-knowing, and
all-good, then he would not allow evil to exist in the world for any
reason. He would have no specific reason for doing so. However, since
evil does exist and is allowed to, this creates a contradiction in the
concept of God.
Empirical arguments
The following empirical arguments rely on observations or experimentation to yield their conclusions.
Argument from naturalism
The argument from naturalism is a philosophical argument that
asserts that the natural world is all there is and that supernatural
explanations are unnecessary. This argument is based on the premise that
the universe operates according to natural laws and that these laws can
be discovered through scientific inquiry. The argument from naturalism
has been a topic of debate among philosophers for centuries, with
proponents and opponents presenting various arguments and
counterarguments.
The argument from naturalism can be traced to ancient Greek philosophy, where philosophers such as Democritus
and Epicurus argued that the universe was composed of atoms and void,
with no need for supernatural explanations. However, it was not until
the Enlightenment period in the 18th century that naturalism became a
dominant philosophical position. During this time, philosophers such as
David Hume and Immanuel Kant argued that knowledge could only be derived
from empirical observation and rational analysis, without recourse to
supernatural explanations.
One of the key premises of the argument from naturalism is that
the natural world is all there is. According to this view, there are no
supernatural entities or forces that exist beyond the physical realm.
This premise is based on the assumption that everything in the universe
operates according to natural laws, which can be discovered through
scientific inquiry. As philosopher Paul Kurtz states, "the naturalistic outlook holds that nature is a self-contained system of physical causes and effects"
Another important premise of the argument from naturalism is that
supernatural explanations are unnecessary. According to this view, any
phenomenon in the universe can be explained through natural causes and
processes, without invoking supernatural entities or forces. This
premise is based on the assumption that naturalistic explanations are
sufficient to account for all observed phenomena. As philosopher William L. Rowe
states, "Naturalism holds that there is no need to postulate any
supernatural entities or forces in order to explain the world".
Proponents of the argument from naturalism argue that
naturalistic explanations are more parsimonious than supernatural
explanations. This means that naturalistic explanations are simpler and
require fewer assumptions than supernatural explanations. For example,
if a person observes a tree falling, a naturalistic explanation would be
that the tree fell due to gravity, whereas a supernatural explanation
would be that a deity caused the tree to fall. The naturalistic
explanation is simpler and requires fewer assumptions than the
supernatural explanation.
Opponents of the argument from naturalism argue that there are
phenomena in the universe that cannot be explained through naturalistic
causes and processes. These phenomena are often referred to as
"supernatural" or "paranormal" and include things like miracles, psychic abilities, and near-death experiences. According to opponents of naturalism, these phenomena require supernatural explanations.
However, proponents of the argument from naturalism counter that
there is no empirical evidence to support supernatural explanations for
these phenomena. They argue that many supposed supernatural phenomena
can be explained through naturalistic causes and processes. For example,
near-death experiences can be explained through changes in brain
chemistry and oxygen deprivation, rather than as evidence of an
afterlife.
The Argument from Evolution
The Argument from Evolution against God's existence is a
philosophical argument that attempts to prove the non-existence of God
by using the theory of evolution. The argument is based on the idea that
the theory of evolution provides a natural explanation for the
diversity of life on Earth, and therefore, there is no need to invoke a
divine creator.
The theory of evolution was first proposed by Charles Darwin in his book On the Origin of Species
in 1859. According to the theory, all living organisms have evolved
over time from a common ancestor through a process of natural selection.
Natural selection is the process by which certain traits become more or
less common in a population over time depending on their usefulness for
survival and reproduction. Over millions of years, this process has led
to the vast diversity of life we see on Earth today.
One of the key arguments against God's existence based on
evolution is known as the argument from imperfection. This argument
suggests that if God were responsible for creating all life on Earth,
then why would he create imperfect organisms? For example, why would he
create animals with vestigial organs that serve no purpose or cause
suffering?
Another argument against God's existence based on evolution is
known as the argument from bad design. This argument suggests that if
God were responsible for creating all life on Earth, then why would he
create organisms with such poor design features? For example, why would
he create animals with eyes that are poorly designed or prone to
disease?
The Euthyphro dilemma
The Euthyphro dilemma is a philosophical problem that raises
questions about the relationship between morality and God's existence.
The dilemma was first presented by the ancient Greek philosopher Plato
in his dialogue "Euthyphro." The dilemma asks whether something is
morally good because God commands it, or whether God commands it because
it is morally good. This dilemma has been used as an argument against
the existence of God, as it seems to suggest that either God is not
necessary for morality or that God's commands are arbitrary and not
based on any objective standard of morality.
The first horn of the dilemma suggests that something is morally
good because God commands it. This view is known as divine command
theory, which states that moral truths are grounded in God's will or
commands. According to this view, God's commands determine what is right
and wrong, and morality is dependent on God's existence. If God did not
exist, then there would be no objective basis for morality.
The second horn of the dilemma suggests that God commands
something because it is morally good. This view implies that there is an
objective standard of morality that exists independently of God's will.
In other words, God recognizes what is morally good and commands us to
follow it. This view is known as moral realism, which holds that moral
truths exist independently of human opinion or belief.
Critics of the divine command theory argue that it leads to a
problematic conclusion: if something is morally good simply because God
commands it, then anything could be considered morally good if God
commanded it. For example, if God commanded us to kill innocent people,
then killing innocent people would be considered morally good according
to divine command theory. This seems to suggest that morality is
arbitrary and dependent on God's whims rather than being grounded in any
objective standard.
On the other hand, critics of moral realism argue that it raises
questions about the nature of morality itself. If there is an objective
standard of morality that exists independently of God's will, then what
is the source of this standard? Is it a natural law, or is it something
else entirely? Furthermore, if there is an objective standard of
morality, then why do different cultures and societies have different
moral codes? This seems to suggest that morality is not as objective as
moral realists claim.
The problem of anthropic argument
The anthropic argument
is a philosophical and theological concept that argues that the
universe and its physical laws are finely tuned to allow for the
existence of life and, therefore, must have been designed by an
intelligent creator. Proponents of this argument claim that the odds of
the universe existing as it does by chance are so astronomically low
that it is more reasonable to believe in a creator than not. However,
opponents of the anthropic argument argue that it is flawed and does not
necessarily prove the existence of God.
One of the main criticisms of the anthropic argument is that it suffers from the fallacy of selection bias.
This is because proponents only consider the universe as it exists
today, without taking into account all the other possible ways it could
have existed. For example, if the physical laws were different, life as
we know it may not have been possible, but that does not mean that some
other form of life could not have existed under those conditions.
Therefore, opponents argue that just because our universe allows for
life does not necessarily mean that it was designed to do so.
Another criticism of the anthropic argument is that it assumes
that life is inherently valuable and important. Opponents argue that
this is a subjective value judgment and cannot be used as evidence for
the existence of God. Additionally, opponents point out that there are
many aspects of the universe that are not conducive to life, such as black holes or supernovae, which could be seen as evidence against a benevolent creator.
Furthermore, opponents argue that the anthropic argument is based on a flawed understanding of probability.
They claim that just because something is unlikely does not mean it is
impossible, and therefore, low probabilities cannot be used as evidence
for design. Additionally, opponents argue that probability calculations
can only be made if all possible outcomes are known, which is impossible
in the case of the universe.
Opponents of the anthropic argument also point out that there are
alternative explanations for the fine-tuning of the universe. Some
scientists propose the multiverse theory,
which suggests that our universe is just one of many possible
universes, each with its own set of physical laws. In this scenario, it
is not surprising that we find ourselves in a universe that allows for
life because we could not exist in any other type of universe. Other
scientists suggest that the physical constants of the universe are not
actually fixed but can vary over time, which could explain why our
universe appears to be finely tuned for life.
Argument from the problem of miracles
The problem of miracles is rooted in the concept of natural law,
which assumes that the universe operates according to predictable and
consistent laws. According to this view, any event that violates natural
law, such as a miracle, cannot occur. Therefore, if a miracle is
claimed to have occurred, it must be either a misunderstanding or a
deliberate deception.
One of the most prominent advocates of the problem of miracles was the Scottish philosopher David Hume. In his essay "Of Miracles,"
Hume argued that it is always more reasonable to believe that someone
is mistaken or lying than to accept that a miracle has occurred. He
claimed that there is no amount of testimony or evidence that can prove a
miracle beyond doubt because it always contradicts natural law. Hume's
argument was based on his empiricist philosophy, which held that all
knowledge comes from sensory experience and that claims about
supernatural events are not supported by such experience.
The argument from the problem of religious experience
This argument suggests that religious experiences are subjective
and cannot be verified or falsified, making them unreliable as evidence
for the existence of God.
The argument from the problem of religious experience against God's existence can be formulated as follows:
1. Religious experiences are subjective and cannot be verified or falsified.
2. If religious experiences cannot be verified or falsified, then they are unreliable as evidence for the existence of God.
3. Therefore, religious experiences are unreliable as evidence for the existence of God.
Premise 1 is based on the fact that religious experiences are
personal and subjective. They are often described in terms of feelings,
emotions, and sensations that are difficult to describe or measure
objectively. For example, a person may claim to have had a mystical
experience in which they felt a deep sense of unity with all things.
However, this experience cannot be objectively measured or verified by
others. It is purely subjective and exists only in the mind of the
individual who had it.
Premise 2 follows logically from premise 1. If religious
experiences cannot be verified or falsified, then they cannot be used as
evidence to support any particular belief about God's existence or
nature. This is because there is no way to distinguish between genuine
religious experiences and mere hallucinations or delusions. Without
objective criteria for verifying or falsifying religious experiences,
they remain purely subjective and cannot be used as evidence in any
rational debate about the existence of God.
Premise 3 is the conclusion that follows logically from premises 1
and 2. If religious experiences are unreliable as evidence for the
existence of God, then they cannot be used to support any argument for
the existence of God. This means that any argument that relies on
religious experiences as evidence for God's existence is inherently
flawed and cannot be taken seriously by those who demand objective
evidence for their beliefs.
Argument from inconsistent revelations
The argument from inconsistent revelations is an argument that aims to
show that one cannot choose one religion over another since their
revelations are inconsistent with each other and that any two religions
cannot both be true. The argument appears, among other places, in Voltaire's Candide and Philosophical Dictionary. It is also manifested in Denis Diderot's statement in response to Pascal's wager that, whatever proofs are offered for the existence of God in Christianity or any other religion, "an Imam can reason the same way". Also in response to Pascal's wager, J. L. Mackie
said "the church within which alone salvation is to be found is not
necessarily the Church of Rome, but perhaps that of the Anabaptists or
the Mormons or the Muslim Sunnis or the worshippers of Kali or of Odin".
Argument from parsimony
The argument from parsimony (using Occam's razor) contends that since natural (non-supernatural) theories adequately explain the development of religion and belief in gods, the actual existence of such supernatural agents is superfluous and may
be dismissed unless otherwise proven to be required to explain the
phenomenon.
Argument from historical induction
The argument from "historical induction" concludes that since most theistic religions throughout history (e.g. ancient Egyptian religion, ancient Greek religion)
and their gods ultimately come to be regarded as untrue or incorrect,
all theistic religions, including contemporary ones, are therefore most
likely untrue/incorrect by induction. H. L. Mencken wrote a short piece about the topic entitled "Memorial Service" in 1922. It is implied as part of Stephen F. Roberts' popular quotation:
I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in
one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the
other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.
Argument from nonbelief
An argument from nonbelief is a philosophical argument for the nonexistence of God
that asserts an inconsistency between God's existence and a world that
fails to recognize such an entity. It is similar to the classic argument from evil
in affirming an inconsistency between the world that exists and the
world that would exist if God had certain desires combined with the
power to see them through.
There are two key varieties of the argument. The argument from
reasonable nonbelief (or the argument from divine hiddenness) was first
elaborated in J. L. Schellenberg's 1993 book Divine Hiddenness and Human Reason.
This argument says that if God existed (and was perfectly good and
loving) every reasonable person would have been brought to believe in
God; however, there are reasonable nonbelievers; therefore, this God
does not exist.
Theodore Drange
subsequently developed the argument from nonbelief, based on the mere
existence of nonbelief in God. Drange considers the distinction between
reasonable (by which Schellenberg means inculpable) and unreasonable
(culpable) nonbelief to be irrelevant and confusing. Nevertheless, the
overwhelming majority of academic discussion is concerned with
Schellenberg's formulation.
Arguments from the poor design of the universe
The problem of evil contests the existence of a god who is both omnipotent and omnibenevolent by arguing that such a god should not permit the existence of evil or suffering. The theist responses are called theodicies. Similarly, the argument from poor design
contends that an all-powerful, benevolent creator god would not have
created lifeforms, including humans, which seem to exhibit poor design.
Richard Carrier
has argued that the universe itself seems to be very ill-designed for
life, because the vast majority of the space in the universe is utterly
hostile to it. This is arguably unexpected on the hypothesis that the
universe was designed by a god, especially a personal god. Carrier contends that such a god could have easily created a geocentric universeex nihilo in the recent past,
in which most of the volume of the universe is inhabitable by humans
and other lifeforms—precisely the kind of universe that most humans
believed in until the rise of modern science. While a personal god might have created the kind of universe we observe, Carrier contends that this is not the kind of universe we would most likely
expect to see if such a god existed. He finally argues that, unlike
theism, our observations about the nature of the universe are strongly
expected on the hypothesis of atheism, since the universe would have to
be vast, very old, and almost completely devoid of life if life were to
have arisen by sheer chance.
Similar to the subjective
arguments for the existence of God, subjective arguments against God's
existence mainly rely on the testimony or experience of witnesses, or
the propositions of a revealed religion in general.
The witness argument gives credibility to personal witnesses,
contemporary and from the past, who disbelieve or strongly doubt the
existence of God.
The conflicted religions argument notes that many religions give
differing accounts as to what God is and what God wants; since all the
contradictory accounts cannot be correct, many if not all religions must
be incorrect.
The disappointment argument claims that if, when asked for, there is
no visible help from God, there is no reason to believe that there is a
God.
Hindu arguments
Atheistic Hindu doctrines cite various arguments for rejecting a creator God or Ishvara. The Samkhyapravachana Sutra of the Samkhya
school states that there is no philosophical place for a creator God in
this system. It is also argued in this text that the existence of
Ishvara (God) cannot be proved and hence cannot be admitted to exist. Classical Samkhya argues against the existence of God on metaphysical
grounds. For instance, it argues that an unchanging God cannot be the
source of an ever-changing world. It says God is a necessary
metaphysical assumption demanded by circumstances. The Sutras of Samkhya endeavor to prove that the idea of God is inconceivable and self-contradictory, and some commentaries speak plainly on this subject. The Sankhya- tattva-kaumudi,
commenting on Karika 57, argues that a perfect God can have no need to
create a world, and if God's motive is kindness, Samkhya questions
whether it is reasonable to call into existence beings who while
non-existent had no suffering. Samkhya postulates that a benevolent
deity ought to create only happy creatures, not an imperfect world like
the real world.
According to Sinha, the following arguments were given by Samkhya
philosophers against the idea of an eternal, self-caused, creator God:
If the existence of karma
is assumed, the proposition of God as a moral governor of the universe
is unnecessary. For, if God enforces the consequences of actions then he
can do so without karma. If however, he is assumed to be within the law
of karma, then karma itself would be the giver of consequences and
there would be no need of a God.
Even if karma is denied, God still cannot be the enforcer of
consequences. Because the motives of an enforcer God would be either
egoistic or altruistic. Now, God's motives cannot be assumed to be
altruistic because an altruistic God would not create a world so full of
suffering. If his motives are assumed to be egoistic, then God must be
thought to have desire, as agency or authority cannot be established in
the absence of desire. However, assuming that God has desire would
contradict God's eternal freedom which necessitates no compulsion in
actions. Moreover, desire, according to Samkhya, is an attribute of
prakṛti and cannot be thought to grow in God.
Despite arguments to the contrary, if God is still assumed to
contain unfulfilled desires, this would cause him to suffer pain and
other similar human experiences. Such a worldly God would be no better
than Samkhya's notion of higher self.
Furthermore, there is no proof of the existence of God. He is not
the object of perception, there exists no general proposition that can
prove him by inference.
Therefore, Samkhya maintained that the various cosmological, ontological and teleological arguments could not prove God.
Proponents of the school of Mimamsa, which is based on rituals and orthopraxy,
decided that the evidence allegedly proving the existence of God is
insufficient. They argue that there is no need to postulate a maker for
the world, just as there is no need for an author to compose the Vedas
or a god to validate the rituals. Mimamsa argues that the gods named in the Vedas have no existence apart from the mantras that speak their names. In that regard, the power of the mantras is what is seen as the power of gods.
Europeans polled who "believe in a god", according to Eurobarometer in 2005North Americans polled about religious identity 2010–2012
Several authors have offered psychological or sociological explanations for belief in the existence of deities.
Psychologists
observe that the majority of humans often ask existential questions
such as "why we are here" and whether life has purpose. Some
psychologists have posited that religious beliefs may recruit cognitive mechanisms in order to satisfy these questions. William James emphasized the inner religious struggle between melancholy and happiness, and pointed to trance as a cognitive mechanism. Sigmund Freud
stressed fear and pain, the need for a powerful parental figure, the
obsessional nature of ritual, and the hypnotic state a community can
induce as contributing factors to the psychology of religion.
Pascal Boyer's Religion Explained (2002), based in part on his anthropological field work, treats belief in God as the result of the brain's tendency towards agency detection.
Boyer suggests that, because of evolutionary pressures, humans err on
the side of attributing agency where there is not any. In Boyer's view,
belief in supernatural entities spreads and becomes culturally fixed
because of their memorability. The concept of "minimally
counterintuitive" beings that differ from the ordinary in a small number
of ways (such as being invisible, able to fly, or having access to
strategic and otherwise secret information) leave a lasting impression
that spreads through word-of-mouth.
Scott Atran's In Gods We Trust: The Evolutionary Landscape of Religion (2002) makes a similar argument and adds examination of the socially coordinating aspects of shared belief. In Minds and Gods: The Cognitive Foundations of Religion,
Todd Tremlin follows Boyer in arguing that universal human cognitive
process naturally produces the concept of the supernatural. Tremlin
contends that an agency detection device (ADD) and a theory of mind
module (ToMM) lead humans to suspect an agent behind every event.
Natural events for which there is no obvious agent may be attributed to
God (cf. Act of God).
.png)
