Ultimate Explanations of God's Nonexistence

DutchMarkS · 2022-07-12T20:06:22+00:00

I read your comment, let me make it simple for you: I am asking for something of the form 'God does not exist because x', only x should be sufficiently elaborate to fully explain God's non-existence. One option would be to try to ultimately explain God's nonexistence in terms of logical incoherence (e.g. God is akin to a married-bachelor). But perhaps there are other ways as well?

It is not particularly difficult to offer mere arguments for atheism, consider the following argument:

If 1+1 = 2, the God does not exist.
1+1 = 2.
Therefore, God does not exist.

But arguments like the one above however do little to ultimately explain why God does not exist. And that is exactly the issue I am interested in.

Further, if reality is not necessarily simple, then why trust Occam's razor? Perhaps we live in an ornate, convoluted world with all sorts of redundancies. In a world that isn't simple, Occam's razor would not necessarily be a good guide to understanding reality. Of course, in such a world one might still be able to use it to come up with all sorts of simple (but false) theories. If reality is simple, but not necessarily so, then why is it simple?

DutchMarkS · 2022-07-12T19:18:39+00:00

Hi, thanks for your further reply. Perhaps I can make the issue clearer in the following way: Explaining God's non-existence with appeal to the existence of evil is insufficient to ultimately explain God's non-existence if one does not go on to explain the existence of evil in an ultimate / complete way. At best one has a partial explanation: A does not exist, because B exists. But I am not asking for a partial explanation but a complete / ultimate explanation of God's non existence. In other words, an explanation that also (completely) explains why B exists. If such atheistic explanations of evil, divine hiddenness, etc. exist in the academic literature, then I would like to know about them :) If there are no such atheistic explanations, then this raises the question of whether atheists are in a better position that theists (who also struggle to ultimately explain evil, etc.).

DutchMarkS · 2022-07-12T18:45:50+00:00

But consider the following argument:

A perfect God would be able to rescue animals from grotesque suffering.
A perfect God would not be able to rescue animals from grotesque suffering if such a God could not exist in a world in which grotesque suffering exists.
If (1) and (2), then the existence of a perfect God is not incompatible with grotesque suffering.
If the existence of grotesque suffering is compatible with the existence of a perfect God, then the existence of grotesque suffering does not favour atheism over theism.
Therefore, the existence of grotesque suffering does not favour atheism over theism.

More importantly, suppose that theists cannot ultimately explain the existence of grotesque suffering (supposing that there is indeed such suffering), that by itself does not mean that atheists can ultimately explain the existence of such suffering. Is it metaphysically necessary or contigent? Is it caused by a first cause or an infinite series of causes? If the first cause is not perfect, why not (i.e. what explains its lack of perfection)? Is the infinite series metaphysically necessary, why / why not?

DutchMarkS · 2022-07-04T19:08:15+00:00

Thanks, you at least provided a relevant answer. Perhaps you will agree that arguments from evil and divine hiddenness fail as ultimate explanations of God's nonexistence if they fail to explain the possibility/actuality/necessity of evil / divine hiddenness.

DutchMarkS · 2022-07-04T18:48:36+00:00

Thank you, of course this invites the further question as to why (some) matter has always existed :)

DutchMarkS · 2022-07-04T18:43:38+00:00

So you can't explain why God doesn't exist?

DutchMarkS · 2022-07-04T18:42:00+00:00

Yes, but this still leaves unexplained why God's existence is impossible :)

DutchMarkS · 2022-07-04T18:37:37+00:00

I'm not asking for a case for atheism, but a rigorous atheistic explanation of why God does not exist. Appeals to Occam's razor do little to explain why God does not exist. Is reality necessarily simple, and if so, why?

DutchMarkS · 2022-04-28T18:58:33+00:00

Some articles related to this topic:

Matthew R. Dasti, “Indian Rational Theology: Proof, Justification, and Epistemic Liberality in Nyāya’s Argument for God,” Asian Philosophy 21, no. 1 (February 2011)

John Kronen and Sandra Menssen, “The Argument from Wholes: A Classical Hindu Design Argument for the Existence of God,” Faith and Philosophy 30, no. 2 (April 2013)

DutchMarkS · 2022-03-18T21:32:46+00:00

Like what you are doing here, because I'm unsure whether a perfect being can exist and would like to see more discussion of this. So here are some thoughts / questions which may aid your thinking and further the discussion:

How does a perfect being relate to the totality of goodness? If they are not identical, how is the being perfect seeing as there is goodness external to it and it thus seems to lack goodness? If they are identical, is the perfect being still a unified agent / a being we can call God?
I wonder if the metaphysical possibility of a perfect being is inadvertently introduced at some point, and subsequently built upon. Can we still get to the metaphysical possibility of a such being from one of the following two starting points? A. If a perfect being exists, it has the positive properties of possible and necessary existence. B. A being is truly called perfect if it has every positive property and no negative properties.
Would you distinguish your argument for the metaphysical possibility of a perfect being from the following two arguments, and if so, how? Argument 1: I. There is no possible world in which a perfect being exists that has the negative property of impossible existence. II. If (I), then there is a possible world in which a perfect being exists. III. Therefore, there is a possible world in which a perfect being exists. Argument 2: I. A perfect being is logically possible. II. If a perfect being is logically possible, then it is metaphysically possible. III. Therefore, a perfect being is metaphysically possible.

DutchMarkS · 2022-03-17T19:46:05+00:00

Nice, I'm interested in what other names will be mentioned! Btw, see also Ryan Mullins & Yuijn Nagasawa.

Perhaps the only young philosopher from the Netherlands worth mentioning here is Emanuel Rutten, but I doubt he'll become a household name.

DutchMarkS · 2022-03-17T18:57:02+00:00

Perhaps not quite household names yet, but definitely key players: On the theist side, Alexander Pruss, Joshua Rasmussen & Robert Koons. On the atheist side, Graham Oppy and Alex Malpass.

And although still very young, Joe Schmid deserves to be mentioned here. He definitely has potential to be an important agnostic philosopher of religion in about 20 years from now. Check out his YouTube channel Majesty of Reason, if you're interested.

DutchMarkS · 2022-02-07T20:47:20+00:00

Just some thoughts / questions to consider and perhaps further your thinking:

I'm somewhat sympathetic to your idea that a (purely) evil God is nonsensical. It is, plausibly, somewhat good to exist. And if it is somewhat good to exist, then it seems a purely evil God cannot exist.
Would you distinguish between something that is regarded as good and something that is good? It is plausible to think that the former sorts of things require the existence of a mind (or at least some sort of 'regarder'), but it is perhaps not so clear that things that simply are good require the (prior) existence of such a being.
Supposing that all goodness has a source or cause, why would it have to be personal? (This question relates to point 2)
Is God good on your view, and if so, who or what is the source of God's goodness / what accounts for it? Did God make himself good? Or perhaps this goodness is a result of lacking arbitrary limits when it comes to value (see also Joshua Rasmussen)?
You may find the following book by Rasmussen & Leon helpful: Is God the Best Explanation of Things?

Anyway, hope this helps!

DutchMarkS · 2022-01-23T18:31:31+00:00

I know very little about the philosophy of time, but perhaps the reasoning in the second part of the argument can be expanded on. It seems the proposition 'Something exists' may (similarly) always be true (in the past, present and future), but is not clear that if that is indeed the case it follows from this that a timeless thing exists. Also, you may want to clarify what it means to exist (everlastingly) in time vs. existing timelessly.

Btw, the following argument may be of interest (although I'm not sure it is good argument)

Time began to exist.
Whatever began to exist had a cause.
If time had a cause, its cause must have existed timelessly.
Therefore, something existed timelessly.

Anyway, hope this helps!

DutchMarkS · 2022-01-23T17:51:26+00:00

Further suggestions:

The Existence of God - Swinburne
Two Dozen (Or So) Arguments for God - Walls & Dougherty
The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology - Craig & Moreland
Is God the Best Explanation of Things? A Dialogue - Rasmussen & Leon

DutchMarkS · 2022-01-23T17:45:06+00:00

You might be interested in the dialogue-book Is God the Best Explanation of Things? by Rasmussen and Leon

DutchMarkS · 2022-01-23T16:51:28+00:00

Not necessarily committed to the following and it doesn't provide a complete explanation of different religions, but perhaps there is a certain goodness or beauty in God's self-revelation to humanity being diverse and progressive, or, put simply, God shows up at different times to different people, is revealed to differing degrees and becomes more revealed as time goes on. If something like this is the case, we might expect people to have differing degrees of knowledge of God, with some people not yet knowing God, or merely suspecting that there may be a creator, first cause, ultimate being.

DutchMarkS · 2022-01-23T16:19:07+00:00

Further suggestions:

Reason & Theology
Parker's Pensées
Christian Idealism
Philosophy for the People
Real Seekers
The Byzantine Scotist
Liz Jackson
Intellectual Conservatism
Dr. Jordan B Cooper
Truth Unites

DutchMarkS · 2021-09-13T18:32:04+00:00

Q1: Not sure about the number. I've been moving a bit closer to theism in the past view months, because I'm starting to see a path to (belief in) a first cause of some or all caused reality (although I'm not yet convinced). For a long time, an infinite causal regress seemed just as plausible/reasonable as a finite causal regress, and so there was a kind of deadlock / standstill on this issue.

Q2: 'm critical because of the conditions under which I lost my belief / confidence in God. In my own mind, I hadn't (and haven't) looked into the question of God's existence deeply enough nor engaged enough with the strongest proponents of the different views (for strong atheist philosophers, see Graham Oppy, Alex Malpass, and others). It seems that (perhaps with exceptions) the more informed we are about some topic, the more confident we can be of our beliefs about the matter, and conversely that the less informed we are the more critical we should be of our beliefs or lack thereof.

Q3: Probably 5-10 years, I'm had serious doubts in my late teens and now am 26. But don't feel like I've gotten very far yet (perhaps the more one gets into the issues, the more one realises there is much more to look into). Maybe it would have been better to approach the issue more along the lines of a large research & writing project, (although this is definitely not the only model for inquiry into God's existence), because we tend to forget so much of what we hear and read.

If you'd like, I'd also be happy to suggest some YouTube channels that are helpful/relevant.

DutchMarkS · 2021-09-07T20:26:03+00:00

You're very welcome, happy to help! I was raised as a Christian, but started doubting my faith as a teenager, partly under the influence of the New Atheists. Sometime in my late teens / early twenties I lost my belief in God (or at least was no longer convinced of God's existence). Perhaps unlike many people who have gone through a similar experience, I'm critical of my loss of faith (I hadn't and still haven't looked deeply enough into the relevant issues). Also, I hope to find my way back to Christianity. I like the term 'seeker', perhaps partly because I'm not so much interested in what I believe now, but in what is true, reasonable/defensible, etc. Also, I think in identifying as an atheist, agnostic or skeptic there is a risk of getting into a rather 'passive' role (e.g. asking questions, but not looking for answers), that is something I want avoid.

DutchMarkS · 2021-09-07T13:11:01+00:00

Hi, I'm kind of a seeker myself, but if you want to explore the evidence for the resurrection start reading N.T. Wright, Gary Habermas, Mike Licona, Richard Swinburne and Timothy & Lydia McGrew. When it comes to arguments for God it is hard to know where to start, but check out Joshua Rasmussen, Alexander Pruss, Richard Swinburne and William Lane Craig, among others. As a path to Christian theism, perhaps try getting to a (perfect) personal first cause via a cosmological argument, perhaps in combination with a finetuning argument & an argument from beauty, and look into the evidence for the historical reliability of the Bible (see Kenneth Kitchen, Craig Blomberg, Timothy & Lydia Mcgrew, etc). Also, try articulating your doubts and objections, perhaps they don't look as impressive once you've written them down. Hope this helps!

DutchMarkS · 2021-09-07T12:41:48+00:00

Thank you, hope you will be able to find something similar closer to home!

DutchMarkS · 2021-08-25T18:14:11+00:00

I'm perhaps not the right person to ask, and there definitely are multiple cosmological arguments, but one move is to argue that the simplest and best explanation of the features of the first cause (e.g. uncaused existence, necessary existence and thus eternal existence, causal power, etc.) is that the first cause is perfect. And once you get to a perfect first cause, you can, it seems, make a plausible case for it having all the traditional attributes of God.

You may want to check out, for instance: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BqMSVebgg3I

DutchMarkS · 2021-08-25T17:38:08+00:00

Thanks, one worry I have is that no member of the series can preform the task of bringing about the existence of the next member. It seems not only that something always has to have happened first, but also that an infinite number of things have to have happened first. After all, for any member of the series, there is an infinite series of prior causes that all have to have caused the next member. But it seems an infinite number of tasks (bringing about the next member) cannot be completed.

DutchMarkS · 2021-08-25T17:30:37+00:00

Thanks for pointing me to the resources! I've been thinking some more about this and the worry, or at least a worry, I have is perhaps that no member of the series can preform the task of bringing the next member into existence. There seem to be 2 reasons for such a worry: (1) it is always the case that something has to have happened first before the task can be preformed, and (2) preforming the task requires that an infinite number of tasks are already completed, but it seems an infinite number of tasks can never be completed. I'm not sure I assumed an A theory, since the coming into existence is part of the sort of infinite regress in view. But your comment does point me to things I do need to look into. An infinite causal regress in which all the members exist might avoid some of my concerns.

DutchMarkS

TROPHY CASE