Hi cincPhil,
For my own sake, I am going to begin by restating your argument:
1. If God does not exist, then objective moral values and duties do not exist.
2. Objective moral values and duties exist.
3. Therefore, God exists.

Let me start by saying that there are a lot of responses to your post and I tried to skim through as many of them as I could. Nevertheless, I apologize if I am saying something that has already been said, but I wanted to weigh in on this argument as I have just cultivated my own view on this subject.

With that being said, I take issue with this argument, especially the second premise. Upon recent personal contemplation and one response in particular that you had to someone who commented on this post, it seems to me that objective morals and values do not exist. Rather, I believe they are a human construct that does not necessarily warrant the existence of God. They have evolved through centuries of societal conditioning that has been a product of religion, yet still does not prove the legitimacy of God or Christianity. The particular response that you provided to one comment that was made on this post was about animalistic nature. You claimed, rightfully so, that when a lion kills a zebra or a whale forcibly copulates with another whale, neither of these is considered objectively morally wrong as they would be by humans who would deem them as murder and rape respectively. Therefore, it seems that, if human society and religion had not developed as it has today, we would’ve retained our animalistic nature and so-called “objective moral values/duties” would be nonexistent.

Another counterexample that I would offer against the existence of objective moral values/duties is the idea that murdering one’s slave was not considered illegal or even moral wrong in early America. Traditionally, greater society considers not killing another human being the most significant and uncontested objective moral value/duty. However, as evidenced by American history, this view has evolved over time into what it is now, indicating that objective moral values and duties are constructs of human society and organized religion.

Hi gnat,

I see you have explicitly laid out your theist friend’s argument as follows:

1. God created the material world.
2. If you believe in the material world, then you believe in God.
3. You believe in the material world.
4. So, you believe in God (MP 1, 2)

I think you may have misinterpreted your theist friend’s argument. A modus ponens of 1 and 2 doesn’t warrant the conclusion you have provided. A modus ponens of 2 and 3 warrants this conclusion without necessitating the claim stated in premise 1. Rather, your argument would simply take this form:
1. If you believe in the material world, then you believe in God.
2. You believe in the material world.
3. So, you believe in God (MP 2, 3)

While this argument is valid, it doesn’t seem sound. The issue I have with this argument is mainly with premise 2 and I think you would agree with me. In your expression of disagreement with this argument, you cite premise 1 from your theist friend’s original argument as the most problematic for this argument when in fact I think you meant to object to premise 2, especially with this new form of the argument. You said that people can think that the world was created by another entity which would be an objection to premise 2. However, what I would like to say in objection to this premise is that people can believe in the material world and the validity of existence while also not believing in God or any other divine creator. There are many atheists who believer in the material world, yet don’t believe in God. There also many people who believe that the big bang was the creation of the material world and also believe in the reality of existence. Therefore, it seems that one does not need to believe in any kind of creator in order to believe in the material world we live in. Not everyone thinks the universe was created by a divine entity and thus, an intelligent creator becomes unnecessary.

Hi Walter Pound,

If I am understanding your question correctly, the argument you are having trouble with takes this form:

1. God is changeless.
2. God is timeless.
3. If God creates the world the physical world along with time, then God experiences a change.
4. Therefore, God is not changeless.

You are right to be questioning this argument as it obviously yields a strong contradiction. When we were looking at arguments for the existence of God in one of my philosophy courses, I also had a hard time understanding how God could remain changeless if he existed outside of time, then created both time and the physical world, and then began existing within time. This seems absolutely bonkers to think about, but the way it was explained to me clarified it all very much and I hope it can do the same for you.

The objectionable premise in the argument you presented is premise 1 that says that God is changeless. This is the most fundamental premise for the argument and directly contradicts the conclusion yielded from the argument we are working with. This is because this premise is false. There is the common understanding among Christians that God is unchanging but there is biblical evidence that refutes this idea. Take for example the many instances in the Bible in which God changes his mind about a certain issue or task at hand. Think about the disparities between the New and Old Testament that are both supposed to the word of God. These many contradictions should be enough to illustrate that God does have the capacity to change.

This makes it totally plausible that God experienced a change when he created time and physical space. He existed unchanged, suspended in the infinity that existed before time, and the first change that occurred in the world as we know it was a change within him when he decided to create the physical world in time. It is incorrect to believe that God does not have the capacity for change, especially because he is all powerful and change is form of power.

Hi alicontali,

If I am understanding it correctly, your argument takes this form:
1. There is a Theory of Everything (ToE).
2. This world is the ToE’s model.
3. If we have free will, then the ToE is not able to calculate what we will be doing.
4. What we do is true in our universe but not provable from the ToE.
5. The existence of true but not provable statements in the ToE means that the ToE is incomplete.
6. Incompleteness of a consistent theory automatically implies the existence of more than one model.
7. Therefore, if free will exists, then alternative worlds (that we may call heaven and hell) also necessarily exist.

Although I think this argument is valid, I find the conclusion and its implications hard to agree with. I think that if free will exists, it doesn’t mean that heaven and hell are the alternative models. The alternative models to this world could be anything. They could be exact replicas of this world with one small detail that doesn’t match up. I don’t think it is safe to assume from the fact that we have been given free will that the other models are just where we go after we die.

Basically, I don’t think this argument warrants the conclusion that heaven and hell exist. I definitely believe that the ToE being incomplete warrants other models of this world, but I would say something more along the lines of the multi-universe hypothesis. I would conclude that God has made other models, but they are not heaven and hell. I think they are more so just other universes like ours with slight variations.

I think your argument is a really good way to prove the multiple universes hypothesis which in turn helps to prove God’s existence. If you are not familiar with it, check it out and see if what I am saying makes sense. Although heaven and hell may be the other models, I think it’s more likely that some other worlds less specifically characterized are the other models.

If I am understanding your argument correctly, I think it takes this form.

1. No one likes someone who strives for omnipotence.
2. No one likes someone who strives for omniscience.
3. No one likes someone who strives for omnibenevolence.
4. God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent.
5. Therefore, no one should like God.

I find this argument quite unconvincing for a number of reasons. The reason I laid out your argument in this way is because of the evidence you provided to make the claims of premises 1-3. You said that no likes a dictator because that is someone who is wishing omnipotence. When it comes to omniscience, you cited the common example of people disliking others who strive to have encyclopedic knowledge. Finally, for omnibenevolence, you said that no one likes someone who is excessively sentimental.

One important distinction I would like to make regarding your argument is that none of the people striving for these characteristics of omniscience, omnipotence, and omnibenevolence have actually achieved it. God, on the other hand, is actually omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent. For this reason, the inference from premises 1-3 and premise 4 is objectionable. God is not striving for these characteristics because he has already achieved them.

In looking at the examples you cited of people who strive for these characteristics, I see a common theme that also makes your argument objectionable to me. In each of the scenarios you mentioned, the people who are striving for these qualities are performing visible actions that illustrate their strides. They are publicly displaying efforts to be omnipotent, omniscient, or omnibenevolent. God is more mysterious about his powers and He knows that He has already achieved them so he need not present any grandeur displays that He holds them.

The biggest objection to be made here is that, since God already has omnipotence, omniscience, and omnibenevolence, he cannot be equated with those who strive for it and are not liked.

Hi princessofdarkness,

According to the responses you received on this post, it seems you erred in laying out your argument and the new form of your argument that has been accepted is as follows:
1. If something is weak and helpless, Jesus told people to be kind and compassionate to it.
2. Animals are beings that are weak and helpless.
3. Therefore, Jesus told people to be kind and compassionate to animals.

I take issue with this argument and both of its premises. In Christianity, it is widely accepted that Jesus is synonymous with God. In the Old Testament, there are many occasions on which God instructs different biblical figures and their families on the proper performance of sacrifices, which were often performed using animals. If animals are considered weak and helpless as Premise 2 suggests, then it is not accurate to claim that Jesus told people to be compassionate towards them because there are various instances where God, who is synonymous with Jesus, told His followers to perform violent sacrifices involving animals.

Premise 2 is also false because there are many instances in which animals demonstrate that they are neither weak nor helpless. To begin, we can look at the more obvious examples of animals attacking human beings and humans being helpless to stop it. Shark attacks are an example that society has a lot of exposure to, with it being the subject of many different media in pop culture. In addition, the definition of helpless is “being unable to defend oneself or to act without help”. With this definition in mind, it is easy to see how animals do not fit within it because they are constantly defending themselves against predators and going great lengths to secure food and a safe habitat for themselves as well as their families.

It is because of these objections that I take issue with the idea that Jesus was telling his followers to be compassionate to animals. If you do not agree with the fact that animals are not weak and helpless as a proper objection to your argument then the history of animal sacrifice in Christianity that was propagated by God, who is one with Jesus, should make sense as a reason why your argument is incorrect.

Hi Maureen,

If I am correct, I think your argument takes this form:

1. If a god is not known to exist prior to the development of the religion it is recognized in conjunction with, then it does not exist.
2. The Christian God was not known to exist prior to the development of Christianity.
3. Therefore, the Christian God does not exist other than as a result of the development of Christianity.

I take issue with this argument, specifically Premise 2. As a part of your explanation of your argument, you claimed that a god only necessarily comes to fruition because of the development of a religion surrounding it and that, because there is no way to know if people believed in God before the development of the Christian religion, then no one can make the argument that God exists and has always existed.

One counter-example I would pose to Premise 2 is the argument for fine-tuning. If you are not familiar with this argument, it affirms the existence of God on the evidence that the basic structure of the universe is balanced in such a precarious way that the most plausible explanation for its existence is an intelligent creator. This argument uses the parameters of physics and the initial distribution of matter and energy that is so specifically fine-tuned to support life that it would be highly improbable that it happened that way by chance.

Even though people who lived before the development of Christianity did not yet have the tools to know the parameters of physics and the scientific background surrounding the origin of the universe, this information regarding the fine-tuning of the cosmos was the same. It cannot be claimed that no one knew of the existence of God prior to Christianity because the universe in its precarious state still existed and someone may have taken this to mean it had been created by some intelligent being. You conceded that since we cannot know if anyone knew of God before the development of Christianity, then we cannot claim God exists other than as a result of the development of the religion. However, we also cannot deny that someone knew of God before the development of Christianity and the various arguments for God’s existence, including the fine-tuning argument, could provide a rationale that those who did believe in God before Christianity could’ve followed. These arguments make it seem more likely to me that people did know of God before the development of Christianity.

Hi Bridget,

I understand that you have explicitly laid out your argument for not assigning a gender to God as such:

1. If God is made in the image of man, then God is not female.
2. If God is not female, then God contributes to patriarchal roles in our society.
3. If God is made in the image of man, then God contributes to patriarchal roles in our society.

I take issue with this argument and both of its premises. The issue I have with Premise 1 of your argument has to do with the wording and the fact that it does not match up with the portion of text you used from Genesis as support. The portion of text you cited from Genesis states:

“So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.” (1:27)

The thing I would like to stress about this excerpt from Genesis is that it does not state that God was created in MAN’s image as you claimed in Premise 1, but rather that God created men AND women in his OWN image. With this consideration in mind, your first premise does not make sense. Although I understand that it is off-putting that the pronouns “he” and “his” are used in describing God’s actions in the Bible, this is less a reflection of God having an actual gender and more so a reflection of the writers of the Bible attempting ease of convention in describing God’s actions. Since the Bible states the opposite of your first premise, I reject it as holding any weight in your argument.

The issue I have with Premise 2 of your argument is that if God is not female, which we will assume despite my disproval of your first premise for sake of my objection to this one, God could still go against patriarchal roles in our society. In fact, God does go against patriarchal roles in our society as evidenced by the various influential women in the Bible and the fact that the first thing declared “not good” in the world is the absence of woman in Genesis 2:18.

It is for these reasons that I have a problem with your argument. I agree with you that God should be considered a genderless being, but I don’t think that is what this argument accomplishes. I think you would be better off proving that claim another way.