Logic and Reason
Applying our minds to establish a foundation.
A Powerful Tool
Although the terms 'logic' and 'reason' are often used interchangeably, there is an important difference. Logic is the process through which truth may be deduced from existing knowns. Reason is the faculty of the human mind that employs logic. Putting the tool of logic to work for ourselves, and reasoning about the world around us, can give us a fuller, more accurate view of our life and any potential purpose thereof.
Below, several paths of logic dealing with the nature of our existence are reasoned through. Each, either through affirmation or negation, exposes a small sliver of truth. Combined, these rational arguments constitute an invaluable piece of life's puzzle.
Ever the useful resource, site Wikipedia has put together an extensive series on the subject of God. Here is a response in the form of a miniseries that focuses on the existence of God, in particular. Staying true to the organization and style of the original pages, it will expound and discuss the various arguments and counterarguments related to the topic at hand. The menu links to the corresponding section on this page, while each article title links to the corresponding Wikipedia page.
Of course, reason can and should be applied throughout our continual search for truth, and it is invariably invoked throughout this site's many subjects. However, those arguments from 'pure reason,' as well as those focusing primarily on, or relying heavily upon, logic, set themselves apart.
747 Gambit
(or Ultimate Boeing 747 Gambit)
This is a counterargument, formulated by Richard Dawkins. It opposes the "junkyard tornado" argument, which claims that abiogenesis is very unlikely, and therefore God is the more probable originator. The original argument compares abiogenesis to a tornado somehow assembling a Boeing 747 from junkyard scraps. The 747 Gambit responds by asserting that assuming God is the originator poses the same problem; where did God come from? If there is no explanation for the origin of God, then the "junkyard tornado" argument is self-defeating, in fact only pushing off the question of origin. Ultimately, the 747 Gambit concedes that abiogenesis is unlikely, but asserts that the explanation behind the origin of God is far more improbable. However, as outlined and proved in "Origins", God exists without origin, and the need for an explanation of God's origin is nullified. Therein the 747 Gambit collaspses.
Interestingly enough, as Dawkins attempts to outline the concept of his 747 Gambit, he accidentally argues for the necessity of God. In point 3 of his outline, he states ". . . the designer hypothesis immediately raises the larger problem of who designed the designer." His intention was to point out that if God designed the Universe, then there must have been something that designed Him. However, we know from the "Origins" cosmological proof that God did not need to be designed. The overlooked significance of Dawkins' statement, though, is when it is applied to our time-governed universe, where it still holds true. To clarify the quotation, Dawkins states that the existence of a designer necessitates the existence of an antecedent designer (i.e. something that designed the designer). So, to borrow his example from point 2, the designer of watches must have had a designer himself. By claiming that a designer must have been designed, he claims humans (who are designers) must have been intelligently designed.
Arguments Against the Existence of God
Arguments for the Existence of God
Beauty - Christological - Consciousness - Cosmological (kalām - contingency) - Degree - Desire - Experience - Fine-tuned universe - Love - Miracles - Morality - Ontological - Pascal's Wager - Proper basis - Reason - Teleological (natural law - watchmaker) - Transcendental
Arguments against the Existence of God
747 gambit - Atheist's Wager - Evil - Free will - Hell - Inconsistent revelations - Nonbelief - Noncognitivism - Occam's razor - Omnipotence paradox - Poor design - Russell's teapot
Arguments For the Existence of God
The argument from beauty had two main parts in its early beginnings. One, first posed by Plato, claims that if we can imagine a perfect version of the world around us, or at least certain aspects of it, then such a perfect version must exist. This original idea was later expanded by other thinkers (e.g. Plotinus) to argue for a non-physical 'One' that embodied that perfection. [A fuller description of these two positions can be found here.] No counterargument for this specific formulation was listed on the Wikipedia page, but one can still be concieved of easily enough:
One example Plato used was that of a circle. In reality, circles are no more than regular polygons with so many sides that our eyes cannot percieve them, giving the illusion of a curve. So, it is not from some higher realm that the idea of perfection comes, but from a misconception. We seem to see a perfect circle in reality, but the idea of a perfect circle comes from no more than a neurobiological phenomenon as we percieve a polygon's mage.
So it seems that Plato's argument from beauty is refuted, or remains weak at best. However, we must still consider the expanded formulation. Another, broadened counterargument:
The sensation of beauty is simply a reaction of the mind to certain stimuli. If we were to assume that this 'One', or God, did exist, it would make sense that we would feel closer to Him by using the artistic talents which he gave to us for that very reason. However, while they may possibly describe a facet of human experience, neither the Platonic nor the Plotininian formulations of the argument from beauty get any closer to confirming the existence of God.
So, those two positions are dismissable, as far as our particular search for evidence is concerned. Things get interesting, though, when we take a look at the modern spins on the argument.
Richard Swinburne takes a new angle on beauty, stating that to our a priori, or definite, knowledge, there is no reason why the world should be beautiful or ugly. He elaborates his argument into less-than-absolute terms to stay consistent with the nature of God in relation with our own, but the basic premise is as follows. If there was a God, then he would be inclined to make a beautiful world. If there was not a God, then there would be equal chance that the world was beautiful or that it was ugly. Since the world is beautiful, we have reason to believe that God created it. The presence of beauty and the beautiful state of the world fully supports the conclusion that God created the world, but only only partially supports the conclusion that the world was generated at random, since a randomly generated world could be either beautiful or ugly. Therefore, if beauty were the only criterion, as well as the summation of our knowledge, the reasonable choice would be to conclude that God exists.
Origins Cosmological Proof
An Explication of the "Unmoved Mover" Argument by St. Thomas Aquinas
Think for a minute about nothingness. Absolute, utter nothingness. There is no color, no volume, no time.
Nothing. Nothing can come from nothingness, and so, if there ever was nothingness, it would remain nothingness forever. But this is not a universal view. Stephen Hawking is known for his work on a theory that claims that nothingness is unstable, and therefore gives rise to something. While his mathematics and theory are undoubtedly very complex and well thought-out, his scientific eloquence is overshadowed by his failure to account for (or deliberate ignorance of) the most basic property of all: nothingness has no characteristics, and therefore cannot be unstable in the first place. Hawking and other physicists, even while violating that fundamental truth, attempt to justify their theory, pointing to certain particles, which appear and disappear according to a set probability. However, these particles do not go to and from nothingness, as they claim. They appear and disappear on the fabric of space-time. These particles are not spontaneously arising from nothing; they are being produced by a function of the existing universe. So, on a second level, they are incorrect in their conjecture.
So, it is obvious that nothingness cannot turn into something, and the most modern scientific attempts to contradict this truth are proven false. Therefore, we know that there had to have been something that gave rise to our universe.
Now, if C is our universe, and B is that something that gave rise to our universe, then it would be logical to ask what gave rise to B. We can call this A. However, you could continually ask what gave rise to A, and so on. You see, assuming that there was an antecedent something does not answer the question of origin; it only pushes the problem back one iteration. So we begin to see that this explanation is actually a fallacy.
Another way to look at it is this:
The universe exists.
It could not have come from nothing.
Therefore, something existed before the universe.
But, in actuality, that is working backward. The universe is the last step; everything else happened first.
So, this is how it is really organized:
Another something exists.
(because) [A]
Another something must have come before something.
(because) [B]
Something exists.
(because) [C]
Something must have come before the universe.
(because) [D]
The universe exists.
We are taking the reasoning from the end of the proof (something, therefore something) and applying it at the beginning, using D as proof of A, and then A as proof of B, and then B as proof of C, and finally C as proof of D. That is to say, we are trying to take the consequent and justify the antecedent with it. Luckily enough, through later research, I stumbled upon a page outlining infinite regress—precisely the term for this hard-to-explain phenomenon.
At any rate, it makes complete sense that the something that must have given rise to our universe couldn’t have come from nothingness, either. However, since that something existed, but didn’t come from something else (and couldn’t have come from nothing) we are forced to conclude that it didn’t have an origin. In other words, that something didn’t “come from” at all. It never had a beginning. At first, this seems impossible—the initial impulse is to assert that some previous logic leading up to this point was faulty. However, when you really think about it, it makes sense. You see, the entirety of our existence as humans is governed by time. We think of everything from a temporal perspective. Everything in our world has beginnings and ends. Everything that exists in our world now had a beginning in the past and has an end in the future. However, time is just an element of our universe. Outside of our universe, the time we have as part of our experience is not a factor. A good way to picture it is to look around you right now. Freeze this moment in time, just as it is. There are no beginnings or endings. You exist, the ground beneath you exists, the air around you exists. What is not there, (e.g. that dodo bird) simply does not exist. Since there is no time, there will be no endings to the things that exist and there will be no beginnings of things that do not exist. Likewise, for that something that gave rise to our universe, there is no beginning. Only existence. And we know, since we are here, that it did indeed exist. Furthermore, since there are no endings outside of time, it still does.
Some might argue that if something before our universe could be said to simply have existed, and never have “come from,” then what is to say that the Universe itself hasn’t simply existed forever? Furthermore, why does it have to be God that existed forever? What if it was actually something else that created Him? The thing is, we know from this proof that somewhere along the line, there was something that simply existed, without origin. Secondly, we know it wasn’t our universe because of its very nature; it is temporal and finite. Assuming that our past extends on back forever is setting up an infinite regress of its own, and assuming the future to carry on forever is doing the same in that direction. So, we can conclusively know that either something that gave rise to our universe or an antecedent of that something has existed without origin. We can further narrow the possibilities by applying Occam's razor, a logical tool in which one selects, from a group of hypotheses, the hypothesis with the least number of assumptions. In this case, then, we would assume there to be only one uncaused something that gave rise to our universe, rather than several additional somethings in between the uncaused something and our universe. Logically, then, we can conclude that there was one, uncaused something that gave rise to our universe. Why would that be God? Because the description of God in the Bible precisely parallels what we have determined about the something that caused the Universe. For example, the Bible states that God had no origin, that God created the Universe, and that God is eternal.
In short, since nothing can come from nothing, and since our universe is finite, there must have been an eternal something that started it all. Additionally, the Bible's description of God parallels this conclusion, strongly suggesting that God was the eternal something that gave rise to our universe.
Argument from Equality
If we are the products of evolution, the notion of people being equal must be thrown out. For, if we are indeed evolved from inorganic chemicals, and, subsequently, other types of organisms, then we are only as equal as our physical traits, relative to others'; in the same way that we consider ourselves superior to animals, which is, according to evolutionary theory, nothing more than the manifestation of more developed and complex traits, we must consider some people superior to others, according to their complexity and development. If one is smarter or stronger than another, then they are indeed, by evolutionary definition, superior.
The only characteristic common to all people is life itself, but if life is simply a physical phenomenon, then it is as any other physical trait. According to the biological definition of life (used in the evolutionist worldview), even animals, which are inferior to humans, are alive. So, from an evolutionary perspective, we can conclude that life is not a criterion for equality.
So we see that the concept of human equality is a purely religious notion. Only if human life was a supernatural characteristic could we conclude that all people, who differ physically, are equal.
Posited Reason Fallacy
If you argue that the human species is the result of random combinations of chemical processes, then how can you be sure that your brain is making logical sense? One might counter that, under careful inspection, their conclusions do indeed make sense, but you cannot be certain that the apparent sensibility of oneself is truly sensibility; the tool with which you attempt to determine a statement's validity is itself the object under scrutiny. In other words, the logic you employ is not valid just because it makes sense to your brain—your brain could be flawed, and it is not necessarily properly interpreting reality and logic.
On the other hand, in presenting an argument for the existence of mankind in which we were created by a God, it necessarily follows that this God gave us a mind capable of reasoning, for the purposes of successfully existing in the world it created, and ultimately, for coming to know the God. Since arguing for a God necessarily entails the validity of the logic with which the argument is made, one can continue on to make subsequent points.
So, since logic, which is requisite for any argument, is not a postulate in arguments for a purely physical origin (such as evolution), such arguments are baseless.
Furthermore, to assume logic as a postulate for any argument is to borrow from the argument for an intelligent creator agent. Therefore, any argument using logic (that is, all of them) must posit an intelligent creator agent in order to validate the logic which it employs.