The
goal of this paper is to decide whether or not we can
logically assert that a god exists.
In doing this let me first clear up what I mean by
exists. If something exists that means it is part of
reality. Reality is that which is directly perceivable
through our natural senses, or indirectly ascertained
through the proper use of reason.
Reason is the faculty that perceives, identifies and
integrates the material provided by man's senses thereby
limiting the validity of a proposition by the tests of
verification (what evidence or repeatable observations
confirm it?) falsifiability (what, in theory would
disprove it, and have all such attempts failed?) and
logic (is it free of contradictions and non sequiturs?).
So, how do we prove something exists?
1) It must be properly defined.
2) It must be show to be directly perceivable through
the natural senses.
Or
3) It must be indirectly perceivable through the proper
use of reason. This means;
• It must have evidence which confirms it
• One must define what exactly would prove it does not
exist and be sure that all such attempts have not
failed;
• It must be free of contradictions and non sequiturs.
(i.e. it must correspond to the laws of logic.)
Note that the onus of proof is one he who asserts the
positive. No one is ever called upon to prove a
negative. That which has no evidence is arbitrary and
has no cognitive status.
Now, step by step we will decide if the concept 'god'
meets the above criteria. If it does, a god exists - if
it does not, no god exists.
1) Definition- Can we define God? Do we know what we are
talking about when we say "God exists"? Well, there is
no primary definition of God from which to work, and the
Christian conception is logically impossible, (as will
be shown later). But, for our purposes, we will accept
the basic Judeo-Christian traits which they say God
possess; omnipotence, omniscience, omnibenevolence, and
he is considered the creator of the universe.
Most overlook the importance of definition so I will
invoke this passage from George H. Smith's Atheism: The
Case Against God:
"Knowing what one is talking about is of inestimable
value in any dialogue, so the theist, before he sets out
to explain why we should believe in god, must first
explain what he means by the word "god." What is the
theist attempting to establish the existence of? What is
the nature of god? How are we to identify him (or it)?
At least some of the attributes of this supposed
creature must be known before anything can be considered
relevant to establishing his existence.
2) Is God directly perceivable through our natural
senses? - Being that God cannot be seen, smelt,
physically felt, tasted, or physically heard we come to
the conclusion that no god is perceivable through our
natural senses.
Some may claim to have physically heard or even to have
seen God but, being that these claims are not
repeatable, testable or provable in the least we must
discredit them until more evidence is available. Just as
you wouldn't believe in the tooth fairy just because I
said I had a physical experience with her so it too must
be in the case of God.
The guiding principle, here, can best be summed up by
Thomas Huxley: "Trust a witness in all matters in which
neither his self-interest, his passions, his prejudices,
nor the love of the marvelous is strongly concerned.
When they are involved, require corroborative evidence
in exact proportion to the contravention of probability
by the thing testified."
Another defense is when people say they have experienced
God by virtue of some special feeling or internal voice.
I in no way would deny this experience. It is probably
very powerful but emotions are automatic responses to
value judgments one has implanted in their subconscious;
as such they are not tools of cognition. Reason is man's
only means of knowledge. Another problem with personal
experience is that, unless directly experienced all
experiences are hearsay and cannot be referred to as
evidence.
3) Is God indirectly perceivable through the proper use
of reason? -
Is there evidence which confirms God's existence? -No.
Though it is true some things have not been explained
and that we do not understand everything, this is not
evidence that a supernatural being exists. It is a
complete non sequitur to argue that, "since we cannot
explain everything there exists a god who explains it."
That explains nothing. A lack of knowledge should merely
persuade a person to keep looking.
Is there a way to prove a god does not exist God? - No.
The God 'hypothesis' is not testable and therefore lies
outside the realm of science.
Is God free of contradictions and non sequiturs? No. Any
description of God fails the test of non-contradictory
identification (i.e. logic.) Nothing can be infinite. It
is what it is due to the law of identity. Nothing can be
all-powerful. There are a great number of other logical
inconsistencies examined in my paper, 'God: Examining
the Evidence.'
Conclusion: God is not perceivable through the use of
reason.
In recapping, does God meet the criteria something must
meet in order to say it exits? Is God:
1) Is the term 'God' properly defined? No.
2) Is God directly perceivable through our natural
senses? No.
3) Is God indirectly perceivable through the proper use
of reason? No.
Having reached our conclusion it is now apparent that as
of now, no one can logically assert that a god exists.
Don Watkins III is a
businessman, poet, college student, and profound
Objectivist. He is the author of a site titled The
Essence of Objectivism, which you can access at
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Oracle/9035/essence.html.
This TRA feature has been edited
in accordance with TRA’s
Statement of Policy.
Click here to return to TRA's Issue
V Index.
Learn about Mr. Stolyarov's novel,
Eden against the Colossus, here.
Read
Mr. Stolyarov's new comprehensive treatise,
A Rational Cosmology,
explicating such terms as the universe, matter, space, time,
sound, light, life, consciousness, and volition, at
http://www.geocities.com/rational_argumentator/rc.html.
]
|