20+ Questions for Theists

The question “Why is there something rather than nothing” presupposes “nothing” as being the normal state of affairs. Why believe that? Why can’t we flip the question on its head? In other words, why can’t it be the case that the normal state of affairs is for things to actually exist and nothingness itself would be weird.

When it is said, “things… actually exist” in what manner do they exist? Do they exist contingently or necessarily? By “things” I take it the writers refer to “physical” things (whatever that means), in which case, I’d argue against such a position. The “physical” is grounded in empiricism. Empiricism is not too difficult to refute. Simply it is self-refuting. Empiricism understands knowledge as exclusively from sense experience. However if, indeed, knowledge was as empiricism makes it out to be, then the truth of empiricism, itself, should be known from sense experience. But empiricism cannot be known by assuming empiricism. Therefore empiricists do well to abandon empiricism. Once it is, we are left with knowledge either by rationalism or dogmatism. Rationalism is unsuccessful as the history of philosophy can testify. Thus we are left with dogmatism.    

However, I would agree that it is utter nonsense to state there is any possible world, or state of affairs in which nothing could exist, since God is a necessary being; He exists in all possible worlds and states of affairs. This author understands this world as the only possible world in which God would create given His eternal purposes. 

 Given that the universe has a finite age, why did the universe begin with time rather than in time?

It is plain God eternally created time. It did have a definite contingent, but not temporal, beginning.  

 Why is so much of our universe intelligible without any appeal to supernatural agency? Why does the history of science contains numerous examples of naturalistic explanations replacing supernatural ones and no examples of supernatural explanations replacing naturalistic ones?

Science has not proven or discovered anything. It only produces operations, experiments, and procedures, to tell us a story about the world. But the story itself is not the world. Nor does this story in fact accurately represent the world.

Science itself is a fallacious enterprise. Even Thomas Kuhn brought this fact out to the scientific community. There are many things that can be said. Science has a compulsion to wrongly make generalizations from only a few dozen examples. Wrongly it does pick and choose what data should be considered relevant. Moreover, it confirms its theories by interpreting facts in terms of its theories.      

 Why is the physical universe so unimaginably large?

Simply because God wanted it to be as such.

If you believe that visual beauty is evidence of God, why isn’t the universe saturated with auditory, tactile, or other non-visual types of sensory beauty?

What is meant by sensory beauty? If the writers mean sensations, then I’d ask them to define precisely what are sensations. The main point here, however, is beauty comes from God to fulfill the purposes He has decreed.    

Why would God use biological evolution as a method for creation?

Evolution is the same as science it consistently denigrates logic. Oddly, this is, perhaps, the only time it successfully uses logic.

Why is the human mind dependent on the physical brain?

Everything is mind-dependent including the claim that the mind is dependent on the “physical” brain. Much like a musician uses an instrument to play music. It makes us physical. But we are not merely physical we are also spiritual. Five reasons can be given for this. First, our brains are affected by our thoughts. Second, if we think of a physical object, say, like a toaster, and a neurosurgeon opens up our brains, there would be no object in it.  Third, our brains change but our minds do not. Forth, the only people that have access to their own thoughts are themselves. People have to ask what others are thinking. There is no way to know what a person is thinking without asking her. Fifth, we can think “about” things. We can think about what we want. So if the mind is merely the brain then there is no freedom. Actions, thoughts, and beliefs (including the belief that the mind is the brain) are a byproduct of chemical processes in the brain.     

How do souls interact with physical matter? Do you have any answer that is not tantamount to “I don’t know?” (HT: Keith Parsons)

What is physical or matter? God controls and sustains all things, including minds.

 If you believe humans have free will, why would humans have free will if God exists? Why are we able to exercise free will in some situations but not others?

Humans do not have free will. God determines all things including humans.

Why are pain and pleasure so connected to the biological goals of survival and reproduction, but morally random?

This question is put in the irrational language of science. Pain and pleasure are irrelevant to the moral, unless, of course, the writer wishes to beg the question. Connections are made? Are these connections logical, conceptual, or causal? Were these connections observed?  How so? Randomness is nonsense without its relationship to order. One cannot have one without the other. 

Why is there nonculpable (reasonable) nonbelief in God? Why are there former believers, i.e., people who, from the perspective of theism, were on the right path when they lost belief? Why are there so many people who gave their lives to God only to discover there is no God? Why are there lifelong seekers? Why are there converts to nontheistic religions and especially nonresistant believers who arrive as a result of honest inquiry at nontheistic experiences and beliefs? Why are there isolated nontheists, i.e., people who have never so much as had the idea of God?

 Why are there such striking geographic differences in the incidence of theistic belief? Why does
theistic belief vary dramatically with cultural and national boundaries? For example, why does a population of millions of non-theists persist in Thailand but not in Saudi Arabia? And why has the global incidence of theistic belief varied dramatically over time, i.e., during the existence of the human species?

It pleased God that He might justly save some and damn others for His glory. He might give faith to some and unbelief to others. This is just since God’s law is the standard of right and wrong. In no way is God bound by His own laws He issues to man.

Why does the the relatively new discipline of cognitive science of religion support the claim that we have a Hyperactive Agency Detection Device (HADD), which causes human beings to naturally form beliefs about invisible agents? Considering HADD’s poor track record of producing true beliefs about invisible agents in general, why should we trust it when it produces a belief about one invisible agent, the God of theism.

This is fallacious. It begs the question, makes a hasty generalization, and fails to discredit the belief in question on the grounds of its origin. 

Why does God allow such confusion or disagreement among people, including theists, about what is morally good or bad and morally right or wrong?

It pleased God that He might justly save some and damn others for His glory. He might give faith to some and unbelief to others. This is just since God’s law is the standard of right and wrong. In no way is God bound by His own laws He issues to man.

Why should we believe that, of the innumerable deities worshipped by human beings over the ages, yours is the one that really exists?  Why believe in Yahweh rather than Zeus, Odin, Marduk, Ishtar, Osiris, Quetzalcoatl, Madame Pele, Ahura-Mazda, etc., etc., etc.? (HT: Keith Parsons)

There are no good reasons for me to believe in Zeus, Odin, Marduk, Ishtar, Osiris, Quetzalcoatl, Madame Pele, or Ahura-Mazda. All of these leave man in skepticism (like empiricism and naturalism). Furthermore, to ask such a question is to falsely make a hasty generalization. 

Atheism Irrationalism?

I am going to respond (in normal font) to comments (in orange) from James T. Stillwell III (a.k.a. Open Air Atheist) found here. 

I’m a former reformed Baptist, apologist, street evangelist/open air preacher. I am also a long time student of biblical theology and koine Greek. You are welcome to see my 3part video series “for god so loved the world?” And my 2 part series “self educated” to see some of my translational work and exegetical. If you are looking for a more accurate translation of a given etc, people have been known to contact me on Skype. I am now a philosopher and am quite busy, but will attempt to respond.

 You are simply incorrect if you think I’m a naturalist/materialist. (My position is double aspect theory) Minds are value judgement machines and project qualia/value/oughts/ etc onto the is. I think what you mean to ask is, how do I account for objective meaning, morality, and purpose. But this is like asking how do you account for square circles, since value judgments are intrinsically subjective (mind dependent).

Why do you believe in a double aspect theory?  What do you mean by mind? It is not quite clear. Consciousness? Perhaps you mean intellect, will, and emotions? But if we take mind in this sense, a mind cannot be a value-projecting machine, since a machine does not possess either: an intellect, will, or emotions. Yet let us lay that point aside for now; if man is value-projecting, as you and Feurabach say (see my post here), does it follow then that values are merely subjective? This doesn’t follow logically, quite the contrary, it is a classic textbook case of the genetic fallacy. Merely showing the possible origin of values does not in the slightest degree invalidate them as actually objective. If what you say is true that human minds are value judgment machines that project value, then why believe it? As far as I can tell, all you are telling me, is your subjective value judgment that human minds are merely value judgment machines that project value. But this value judgment is not objectively true according to you, so there is no sense in believing it. Perhaps you wish, simply, to make an ontological claim that humans are value projecting machines. In which case, you must justify such a claim. Certainly there is a subjective component to values, but let us not loose sight of the fact that there is also a normative element to values. Define what you mean by ‘is;’ this is logically prior to any discussion we can have about values. How did you learn the word ‘is’? 

No one disputes circles and squares are distinct. Your main point is misplaced. If the concept of objective moral values is logically contradictory, as you claim, then a conceptual analysis is due on your part to demonstrate it. But what you level against objective moral values is no simple task. You must show logically there is no possible world in which objective moral values can exist. But as I see it, by the use of possible world semantics, a conceptual analysis of ‘objective moral values’ would show the concept is logically coherent. Unless of course you can prove otherwise.   

How do you get from it is a fact (is) that a being I call god exists, therefore you ought or ought not do X? You don’t, because its not logically possible. It would be like arguing an all powerful creator being named Hitler exists, therefore we ought share his hatred of the Jews. Therefore we ought share his likes, dislikes, purpose, and goals. You could say if you don’t want him to hurt you then you ought do x. But no objective if clause=no objective ought clause.It would be contingent on want

Logically prior to answering your question, you must define and explain how you know the words “is” and “ought” in a non-circular way. 

The first issue here that you’ve brought up is concerning ontology. What are you claiming god is? Are you claiming god is a function without a performer? You must tell me what god is, not just what god is not (non-material for example) or your claim is incoherent (non-conceptual).

You list coherence as an axiom for truth. I wholeheartedly agree. By your questions you are trying to show the concept of God fails to be coherent. But logically prior to answering your question (using your criterion for truth), you must tell me what coherence is, not just what coherence is not (e.g. incoherence) or your claim is incoherent (non-conceptual). If you cannot clearly define coherence by the criteria you have set then your objection fails. 

 You need to explain what you mean by exist. If you are claiming god is the creator, (a performance not a performer) then I refute your claim since A cannot cause -B to become B, since -B is nothing to become anything

First, the terms ‘performance’ and ‘performer’ are ambiguously assigned to God. Please clearly define the relationship between these terms to God. Second, the (1) and (2) premises of your argument must be defended.

(1) God (who is consistently all-powerful) cannot cause the universe (something) to begin to exist from nothing.

(2) Since nothing cannot become something from something, namely God.  

 My teleos is what I decide it is, just like if a mind named god existed he would decide his teleos. I am an I-Theist. Also, you seem to be assuming honesty and consistency as an objective value. Who says I ought be consistent? Consistency is valuable according to who? Show me how god = objective teleos/value.

If what you say is true, how can you ever know it is true? Is it because you say so? How does your view not reduce to skepticism, or worse, irrationalism?  Logically prior to answering your question, you must define and explain how you know the words “is” and “ought” in a non-circular way.  Is it your judgement that honesty and consistency are not objective values? If you say yes, then objective values exist. If you say no, then honesty and consistency are objective moral values. If you say they are subjective moral values, then it is a true objective moral fact that they are subjective moral values. 

How does your worldview (net work of assumptions not tested by natural science, in terms of which all experiences are interpreted) =objective morality, teleos, value, qualia etc? What are you claiming god is? (I’m not asking about supposed character, deeds or performances nor what he isn’t. I want a positive ontological claim. Are you claiming god is a mind without brain? If so explain how that isn’t reification or even conceptual? Can you draw me a pic? Does god have shape and form?

“If there were no sense of sight, there would be no sense of hearing. If there were nothing hard, there would be nothing soft. If there were no animals, there would be no plants. The reason is each of these terms expresses a distinction from its opposites. Sight is a form of non-hearing. Were they the same, we might have the term sensation, but we would not have two terms of different meaning. The terms ‘plant’ and ‘animal’ would not apply to different objects, if there were no different objects.  There might be “living beings,” but no plants and animals. Similarly, there would be no living beings, if there were not no-living beings.”

Gordon Clark. Modern Philosophy, volume 5 (Trinity, Unicoi, 2008)p.175.

Logically prior to answering your question, you must define and explain how you know the words “is” and “ought” in a non-circular way. Reification? Define what is a concrete object non-circularly. If you cannot do so, then your charge of reification cannot hold water.  You list coherence, picture (sensation?), shape and form as axioms for truth. By your questions you are trying to show the concept of God fails to be coherent (and empirical?). But logically prior to answering your questions (using your criteria for truth), you must tell me what coherence, sensation, shape and form are, not just what coherence, sensation, shape and form are not, or your claim is incoherent (non-conceptual). If you cannot clearly define coherence, sensation, shape and form no-circularly by the criteria you have set then your objection fails. 

 You have failed to show how God = objective moral values and duties because you have failed to bridge the is/ought gap. You claimed my world-view cannot account for objective morality, but my worldview doesn’t claim OM exist. It’s a myth and contradictory proposition like square circles. My worldview holds might is right, and is based on master morality which stems from the will to power.

What is a proposition? Please define it. How did you learn propositions? How can a machine have a worldview, master, will or power?  

Double aspect theory has nothing to do with dualism, because double aspect theory does not posit a duel ousia or ontos but rather only one substance. Again, DAT is a monist position. Biblical theology is pure infantile dualism. If dualism were true, DAT could not be.

If monism is true, all is one, and thus there is no separations in substance. But there are separations in substance. Therefore, monism is false. 

I’m asking you to define your usage of the word reality? Define your usage of the word personal? I’m asking you to define your key terms. If you should decline to answer my questions in this and other previous comments, I will terminate our discussion. So, here’s my argument: if you want to continue this discussion, then you “ought” define your terms in a non-circular manner. Please look up the fallacy of definition.

Logically prior to answering your question, you must define and explain how you know the word “ought” in a non-circular way. If you cannot do this, then your objection fails.

Actually your position does rest on mere opinion and brute assertions. Anyone, (who isn’t slavish and herd like) can look at our exchange and come to their own conclusion.

If what you say is true, how can a machine come to a conclusion? If we are herd like, why is one person’s subjective perspective any better than another?  

I’m not claiming it can be bridged in a way as to produce an object ought/value. My claim is might is right. Please see my video series “whose will to power is morality?” And my video “might is right” to understand what I mean by that.

So is your view arbitrary? If not, then how do you know it is true?

No DAT has nothing to due with “spirit” it has to do with qualia, will, desire, and physiology.

When did you give me a non-circular definition of reality? Please give me coherent definitions of the other terms I asked you to define. We cannot move on until you do. (Example) its like when I ask people to define what they mean by “freewill”. They just throw around terms they don’t understand. They are very vague and often incoherent ideas, which they use these such terms to refer to without giving much thought. Like objective morality? Or objective value.

You list coherence as an axiom for truth. I wholeheartedly agree. By your questions you are trying to show the concept of God fails to be coherent. But logically prior to answering your question (using your criterion for truth), you must tell me what coherence is, not just what coherence is not (e.g. incoherence) or your claim is incoherent (non-conceptual). If you cannot clearly define coherence, by the criteria you have set, then your objection fails. 

It isn’t possible to coherently speak of a “before” the Big Bang, if indeed Big Bang cosmology is correct.

How do you know this? What do you mean by correct? If you mean temporally ‘before’ then yes I agree, but if one means logically ‘before’ then you are wrong.

I told you to look up “fallacies of definition”. Furthermore, you keep talking about a “prime cause” which is a performance not a performer. It is not intelligible to speak of a cause, since there was no platform for causation before the Big Bang.

How do you know this?

If the universe can come from nothing as you claim, then we don’t need god. “Short hand for causer” No! When normal logical rational people speak of a cause we mean existent X shapes or reshape already existent Y into the form of a mental concept. The way you use the terms cause, creator, causer, god, spirit etc is incoherent and utterly meaningless drivel! You are aimlessly ambiguous.

First, the terms ‘performance’ and ‘performer’ are ambiguously related to God. Please clearly define the relationship between these terms to God. Second, the (1) and (2) premises of your argument must be defended.

(1) God (who is consistently all-powerful) cannot cause the universe (something) to begin to exist from nothing.

(2) Since no thing cannot become some thing from some thing, namely God.

You list coherence as an axiom for truth. I wholeheartedly agree. By your questions you are trying to show the concept of God fails to be coherent. But logically prior to answering your question (using your criterion for truth), you must tell me what coherence is, not just what coherence is not (e.g. incoherence) or your claim is incoherent (non-conceptual). If you cannot clearly define coherence by the criteria you have set then your objection fails.