Argument from Contingency (Rand's Robot)

[Veritas]

I was wondering if you all would help me with my argument here.

Claim: If we exist than God cannot exist.

1. God is a perfect being

2. A perfect being needs nothing external to himself for complete happiness

3. We exist

4. We are something that is not God

5. Either we exist and God doesn't or God exist and we don't

6. We exist therefore God does not

I thought of this while thinking about the robot in VOS. When I posted this to the theist he said

"It would work, except for the statement, “A perfect being needs nothing external to himself for complete happiness.” First, a perfect being might need companionship and love (like you). Happiness is not necessarily the product of perfection. Otherwise, only perfect people would be happy. (And I am happy and imperfect.) Second, a perfect being might want to create something in His image who could experience His happiness and love (like your decision to have a son). If God is perfect, then He is not selfish; which means He would want to share His love with others. And He would need to create other beings for that."

What do you make of my argument, and the response?

Thanks

[softwareNerd]

What do you make of my argument, and the response?

Your argument can be summarized as follows: God could not exist, because he would have no reason to create Man.

The theist replied, giving a reason. Within the framework of the argument, I think that was a fair response. Truthfully, there could be an infinite number of responses. For instance: God created man because he wanted something to observe, for entertainment. Wanting entertainment does not conflict with being perfect.

Rather than proving that God does not exist, your argument proves that God cannot be "perfect", but only in the sense you mean it: i.e. of not wanting to do anything in particular, of having no motivation to do anything. The theist replied, saying that God does have values/wants/motivation (even if they aren't needs), and that fits with his concept of "perfect".

[KendallJ]

I think you lost at #1. The minute you start positing the non-existence of God based upon some characteristic of God, then you're in trouble. In effect you are left debating hte nature of God, and you're both speculating (without evidence). But since you started it, you give credence to the methodology which is false.

How about:

1. The infinitely anything (omnipotent, omniscient, etc) cannot exist.

2. God is supposed to infinite.

3. He cannot be.

Non-infinity is a property of all entities in reality (because infinity is anti-identity)

Epistemologically, your argument is very rationalistic. That is you start with something and then through a chain of reasoning, which may or may not be tied to reality at any point, you end up with a conclusion, which while true is based upon faulty reasoning. To test this take every point you make and see if that point can be tied to reality or not. In your case, your argument rests on 2 for which you have NO flippin' evidence.

[Veritas]

I think you lost at #1. The minute you start positing the non-existence of God based upon some characteristic of God, then you're in trouble. In effect you are left debating hte nature of God, and you're both speculating (without evidence). But since you started it, you give credence to the methodology which is false.How about:1. The infinitely anything (omnipotent, omniscient, etc) cannot exist.2. God is supposed to infinite.3. He cannot be.Non-infinity is a property of all entities in reality (because infinity is anti-identity)Epistemologically, your argument is very rationalistic. That is you start with something and then through a chain of reasoning, which may or may not be tied to reality at any point, you end up with a conclusion, which while true is based upon faulty reasoning. To test this take every point you make and see if that point can be tied to reality or not. In your case, your argument rests on 2 for which you have NO flippin' evidence.

Can you expound on infinty being and anti identity? I am not sure I understand.Thanks

Edited October 17, 2007 by Veritas

[KendallJ]

Can you expound on infinty being and anti identity? I am not sure I understand.Thanks

I'll let Rand do it, from ITOE Q&A section

Prof. D: Here are some concepts that present a difficulty with respect to leaving out differing specific measurements and abstracting a common feature. What measurements of what particulars do we leave out and what common features do we retain in the case of the following three concepts: (1) "God"; (2)"infinity"; (3)"nothing"?

AR: What measurements do we omit?

Prof. D: Yes. And what common features of particulars are retained in order to get the concept "God"—

AR: I would have to refer you to a brief passage about invalid concepts [page 49]. This is precisely one, if not the essential one, of the epistemological objections to the concept "God." It is not a concept. At best, one could say it is a concept in the sense in which a dramatist uses concepts to create a character. It is an isolation of actual characteristics of man combined with the projection of impossible, irrational characteristics which do not arise from reality—such as omnipotence and omniscience.

Besides, God isn't even supposed to be a concept: he is sui generis, so that nothing relevant to man or the rest of nature is supposed, by the proponents of that viewpoint, to apply to God. A concept has to involve two or more similar concretes, and there is nothing like God. He is supposed to be unique. Therefore, by their own terms of setting up the problem, they have taken God out of the conceptual realm. And quite properly, because he is out of reality.

The same applies to the concept "infinity," taken metaphysically. The concept of "infinity" has a very definite purpose in mathematical calculation, and there it is a concept of method. But that isn't what is meant by the term "infinity" as such. "Infinity" in the metaphysical sense, as something existing in reality, is another invalid concept. The concept "infinity," in that sense, means something without identity, something not limited by anything, not definable. <ioe2_149> Therefore, the measurements omitted here are all measurements and all reality. Now, what was the third one?

[Steve D'Ippolito]

Can you expound on infinty being and anti identity? I am not sure I understand.Thanks

A back door way of doing this that might make it clear to those of less than philosophical bent (and those who are but aren't Objectivists), is that ascribing "omni-" powers to God leads to a contradiction. Omnipotence means God can do anything. Okay, so--and this is a classic example--can God make a rock so heavy that God cannot lift it? If he can, then he's not omnipotent if he can't lift it, if he cannot, you are limiting his creative power.

This is one that theologians laugh off. They have to. If they don't, their heads will explode.

[DavidOdden]

Can you expound on infinty being and anti identity?

Something which exists has a specific identity, which means it has such-and-such properties, not more and not less. The notion of the "infinite" denies that, saying that the thing does not have a specific property, for example does not have a specific size, mass or specific position.

Your argument misses important assumptions. A trivial one is that we exist because god created us; a non-trivial one is that a perfect being may act only if there is an external need for him to act.

[Veritas]

A back door way of doing this that might make it clear to those of less than philosophical bent (and those who are but aren't Objectivists), is that ascribing "omni-" powers to God leads to a contradiction. Omnipotence means God can do anything. Okay, so--and this is a classic example--can God make a rock so heavy that God cannot lift it? If he can, then he's not omnipotent if he can't lift it, if he cannot, you are limiting his creative power.

This is one that theologians laugh off. They have to. If they don't, their heads will explode.

They would say that this is meaningless because it is not logically possible. I said that to someone and they replied that illogical statements have no meaning. It would be like suggesting that God make a square cirlce. They say that God acts according to his nature which is "logical". God making a rock so big that he cannot move it they say would be like saying that God could be so powerful that he could cause himself to not exist. God can do only those things that pertain to his nature, which they say is logical.

What do you think?

[KendallJ]

They would say that this is meaningless because it is not logically possible. I said that to someone and they replied that illogical statements have no meaning. It would be like suggesting that God make a square cirlce. They say that God acts according to his nature which is "logical". God making a rock so big that he cannot move it they say would be like saying that God could be so powerful that he could cause himself to not exist. God can do only those things that pertain to his nature, which they say is logical.

What do you think?

God's nature? which is what? that he is omniscient. See that is a stolen concept. Infinite is not a nature. The rock example illustates that. God can't keep infinity as a nature if the rock can't be. They are right that it is completely illogical to claim an entity with the infinite, but notice how they simply shrug that off when it comes to God.

[Veritas]

God's nature? which is what? that he is omniscient. See that is a stolen concept. Infinite is not a nature. The rock example illustates that. God can't keep infinity as a nature if the rock can't be. They are right that it is completely illogical to claim an entity with the infinite, but notice how they simply shrug that off when it comes to God.

Ok, I see what you are saying. Nature implies identity. God cannot have identity and be infinte at the same time. The stolen concept is identity.

Is that correct?

[KendallJ]

Ok, I see what you are saying. Nature implies identity. God cannot have identity and be infinte at the same time. The stolen concept is identity.

Is that correct?

Exactly!

I have found that the key in argumentation about God is that this is so axiomatic that any arguments that rely on long chains of syllogisms inherently concede that point. That is you allow an opponent to get away with implying identity to God, and then you're lost. The case against something that refutes axioms is not a long chain of logic. It is almost pre-logic. So your argument had better knock the opponent back on his knees quickly and not conceed syllogisms.

This has the effect of exposing the irrationality of God as quickly as possible, and those who like to hide behind a Thomist veil of reason are quickly having to simply assert God on faith and little else. Someone can still claim faith, but that is all you ever want to let them get to. Keep reason and rationality on your side since this is fundamentally where it belongs.

[Steve D'Ippolito]

Someone can still claim faith, but that is all you ever want to let them get to. Keep reason and rationality on your side since this is fundamentally where it belongs.

I pretty much consider any such discussion finished once I push them to this point. Once they are forced to concede that they are relying on faith no rational discussion is possible because no meaningful argument can be made.

I get bonus points if I can box them into admitting they are being subjective in spite of how absolutist their religion is--I can sometimes manage that if they are "ecumenical" enough to prattle about how one faith works for them but another might work for someone else.