Some responses are provided below against atheistic arguments that attempt to prove God does not exist. The arguments are taken from a pdf document that summarises arguments found in Michael Martin's book entitled The Impossibility of God. Michael Martin and Ricki Monnier, the editors of The Impossibility of God, have the following introductory point: “Standard definitions of God include:
God is the perfect being.
God is the being most worthy of worship.
God is the adequate object of religious attitudes.
God is that than which nothing greater can be conceived” (p. 17).
FIRST DISPROOF: NON-VIRTUOUS GOD (WALTON/CARNEADES): Here is the second disproof, based on an argument from Carneades, an ancient philosopher but written up by Douglas Walton:
1. God is (by definition) a being than which no greater being can be thought.
Response – The above definition of God is not correct. God is pure act, or being. Whereby God’s nature is being. In God there is no diversity between the divine essence and the divine being.
2. Greatness includes greatness of virtue.
3. Therefore, God is a being than which no being could be more virtuous.
Response – Line 3 anthropomorphises God by reducing the divine perfection down to that of virtue. A virtue is a habit that resides in a power. A virtue is thereby a habit that resides inside an accident of a creature. As God does not have any accidents, and therefore no powers (for powers are accidental to nature), then God does not have any virtues. God does, however, have attributes such as omnipresence, omniscience and so on. Line 3 is false.
4. But virtue involves overcoming pains and danger.
Response – Line 4 is false. Virtue is a habit I a power, such as the virtue of justice in the will, or faith in the intellect. Virtue is not defined according to overcoming pain and danger.
5. Indeed, a being can only be properly said to be virtuous if it can suffer pain or be destroyed.
Response – Line 5 is false and based upon the false understanding of line 4.
6. A God that can suffer pain or is destructible, is not one than which no greater being can be thought.
Response – Line 6 is false, for God can suffer when united to the human nature of man as occurred at the crucifixion of Jesus on the cross.
7. For you can think of a greater being, that is, one that is non-suffering and indestructible.
Response – Line 7 is irrelevant, for line 7 is based upon the falsity of lines 5 and 6.
8. Therefore, God does not exist (p. 38).
Response – Line 8 is a false conclusion based upon the falsity of lines 5, 6 and 7.
SECOND DISPROOF: THE MORAL AUTONOMY ARGUMENT (RACHELS): Here is the third argument, from James Rachels:
1. If any being is God, he must be a fitting object of worship.
Response – True. God is to be worshipped.
2. No being could possibly be a fitting object of worship, since worship requires the abandonment of one’s role as an autonomous moral agent.
Response – Men is obligated to worship God according to the categorical imperative determined by the Eternal law. Man has a nature which is rational animal. Man, as rational is free to act or not to act. The categorical imperative is an extrinsic bond of the free. The extrinsic categorical imperative does not intrinsically compel man as a free agent to act against his nature as free.
The eternal law is the ultimate measure of man’s free act. If a man acts against the eternal law, he acts against his nature and thereby sins. The claimed nature of man’s freedom as autonomous is false. For autonomy denies the truth of the eternal law as the ultimate measure of all acts of all creatures.
Line 2 is false by affirming a false understanding of man’s freedom as autonomous, when in fact man’s freedom is determined by the nature of the will and the appetized good, and not from the categorical imperative applied to man, rather than correctly to the eternal law.
3. Therefore, there cannot be any being who is God (p. 54).
Response – A false conclusion, based upon the falsity of line 2.
THIRD DISPROOF: THE PERFECTION V. CREATION ARGUMENT (DRANGE): Theodore M. Drange gives ten disproofs for the existence of God, based on “playing off one another” the different attributes typically given of God (i.e., perfect, immutable, transcendent, nonphysical, omniscient, omnipresent, personal, free, all-loving, all-just, all-merciful, and the creator of the universe, etc. [p. 185]), as follows:
1. If God exists, then he is perfect.
Response – True.
2. If God exists, then he is the creator of the universe.
Response – True.
3. A perfect being can have no needs or wants.
Response – False. God can want to share His own goodness with creatures and still remain God.
4. If any being created the universe, then he must have had some need or want.
Response – Line 4 is false in part. God can created freely from His own choice. God’s freedom is not measured by any needs, for God is not in need of anything. God can create according to His free choice as a want.
5. Therefore, it is impossible for a perfect being to be the creator of the universe (from 3 and 4).
Response – False, for line 5 does not follow from the false statement of lines 3 and 4.
6. Hence, it is impossible for God to exist (from 1, 2, and 5) (p. 186).
Response – False as shown above.
FOURTH DISPROOF: THE IMMUTABILITY V CREATION ARGUMENT (DRANGE): Again, from Drange:
1. If God exists, then he is immutable.
Response – True.
2. If God exists, then he is the creator of the universe.
Response – False as a non sequitur. If God exists, then He may be the creator of the universe if the universe was created.
3. An immutable being cannot at one time have an intention and then at a later time not have that intention.
Response – False , based upon the false notion of time. God is eternal, which is outside time. God’s eternity is a single moment whereby everything in God occurs simultaneously. God’s time is not sequential time as inferred in point 4 below.
4. For any being to create anything, prior to the creation he must have had the intention to create it, but at a later time, after the creation, no longer have the intention to create it.
Response – False according to a denial of eternity of God. All acts of God are only one. The divine will to create and then cease creating is one act within God. To reduce all acts to several acts is to reduce God’s acts down to that of a creature.
5. Thus, it is impossible for an immutable being to have created anything (from 3 and 4).
Response – Line 5 is false, based upon the falsity of lines 3 and 4.
6. Therefore, it is impossible for God to exist (from 1, 2, and 5) (pp. 187-188).
Response – Line 6 is false, as shown above.
FIFTH DISPROOF: THE IMMUTABILITY V. OMNISCIENCE ARGUMENT (DRANGE): Again, from Drange:
1. If God exists, then he is immutable.
Response – True. God does not change.
2. If God exists, then he is omniscient.
Response – True. God is all knowing.
3. An immutable being cannot know different things at different times.
Response – True. There is no change in God’s knowledge.
4. To be omniscient, a being would need to know propositions, about the past and future.
Response – True. God knows all propositions.
5. But what is past and what is future keep changing.
Response – God knows both the past and the future, for God is outside time. God’s knowledge is not dependent upon what occurs or may occur in sequential time. God’s transcendence accounts for Gods knowledge outside sequential time.
6. Thus, in order to know propositions about the past and future, a being would need to know different things at different times (from 5).
Response – Line 6 is only true if God is only immanent and only existed inside sequential time. But God is both immanent and transcendent, inside and outside sequential time.
7. It follows that, to be omniscient, a being would need to know different things at different times (from 4 and 6).
Response – False through ignoring the knowledge had according to outside sequential time and God’s transcendence.
8. Hence, it is impossible for an immutable being to be omniscient (from 3 and 7).
Response – False based upon the falsity of lines 5, 6 and 7.
9. Therefore, it is impossible for God to exist (from 1, 2, and 8) (p. 189).
Response – False as shown above.
SIXTH DISPROOF: THE IMMUTABLE V. ALL-LOVING ARGUMENT (DRANGE): Again, from Drange:
1. If God exists, then he is immutable.
Response – True.
2. If God exists, then he is all-loving.
Response – True. For God wills good to all things including Himself.
3. An immutable being cannot be affected by events.
Response – True. God’s immutability does not change with the change in other things.
4. To be all-loving, it must be possible for a being to be affected by events.
Response – False. God’s will is perfect, therefore God’s will intends good to all in accord with the eternal law. God’s will as good does not change by events, for the eternal law does not change.
5. Hence, it is impossible for an immutable being to be all-loving (from 3 and 4).
Response – False from line 4.
6. Therefore, it is impossible for God to exist (from 1, 2, and 5) (p. 190).
Response – False from lines 4 and 5.
JM
