Jake Bishop
March 23, 2001
This paper makes and supports the claim that
God does not exist
using the same reasoning process that Richard Swinburne uses to define
God and belief in God’s existence.
God (by Swinburne)
Anywhere that God is referred to in this text means the God spoken of by Richard Swinburne in his book, Is There a God? This is the God of the Judeo-Christian belief, a transcendent being to our reality, who possesses all perfections. God is everlasting, omnipotent, omniscient, perfectly free, bodiless, omnipresent, creator and sustainer of the universe, perfectly good, and a source of moral obligation. These are necessary or essential properties of God. (Swinburne, p. 18)
Scientific proof
Scientists, historians and detectives observe data and proceed thence to some theory about what best explains the occurrence of these data. For any theory to be recognized as a law of nature, it must satisfy these criteria:
1. it leads us to expect (with accuracy) many and varied events which we observe (and we do not observe any events whose non-occurrence it leads us to expect).
2. what is proposed is simple,
3. it fits well with our background knowledge,
4. we would not otherwise
expect to find these events (e.g. there is no rival law which leads us to expect
these events which satisfies criteria (1-3) as well as does our proposed law).
(p. 26)
soul (by Swinburne)
the immaterial essence, animating principle, or actuating cause of an individual life.
soul
A strong positive feeling
(as of intense sensitivity and emotional fervor).
exist
To have real being; to have being in a specified place or with respect to understood limitations or conditions; to continue to be.
infinity
the quality of being infinite; unlimited extent of time, space, or quantity (boundlessness).
an indefinitely great number or amount (an infinity of stars).
the limit of the value of a function or variable when it tends to become numerically larger than any pre-assigned finite number b : a part of a geometric magnitude that lies beyond any part whose distance from a given reference position is finite.
transcendent
exceeding usual limits, SURPASSING.
extending or lying beyond the limits of ordinary experience.
being beyond comprehension of the universe or material existence.
in Kantian philosophy : being beyond the limits of all possible experience and knowledge.
contingent
dependent on or conditioned by something else, not a self causing event, or
an object not able to exist without a sustaining force (the ice cube melted
outside of the cold of the freezer).
Summary of the Argument
In his book, Is There a God, philosopher and theologian Richard Swinburne argues based on selected evidence and observations of the origin, order and purpose of the universe that it is reasonable to believe in the existence of God. Swinburne further claims that his thesis satisfies scientific proof because it is relatively the simplest explanation for the existence of the universe, and therefore is more plausible than other theories.
This paper is a direct objection to Swinburne's thesis. A contrasting thesis may be presented using the same techniques of argument and evidence selection stating that it is unreasonable to believe in the existence of God. This paper makes and supports the claim that God does not exist; using the same reasoning process that Richard Swinburne uses to define God and belief in God’s existence.
Showing the weakness in Swinburne’s argument for the existence of God, and proposing alternative theories that do not include Swinburne’s God can refute the scientific proof of God’s existence as problematic and irrational.
The non-existence of God will be determined in three steps. First, the characteristics of God are problematic. The necessary traits that Swinburne attributes to God are not rational to believe for any being when studied closely. Second, God’s existence within the scope of knowledge of our reality is not rational or probable. Finally, the argument that God is the cause and sustaining force of the universe is not necessarily true. It will be shown that other theories exist that satisfy scientific proof equally well if not better than Swinburne’s theory of God.
Characteristics of God
The characteristics of God are problematic. The necessary traits that Swinburne attributes to God are not rational to believe for any being when studied closely.
If God lost any of his powers, he would cease to exist. (p. 19)
Based on the mathematical and scientific understanding of the concept of infinity, the concept of an everlasting existence and omnipotence are irrational.
God in our reality
God’s existence within the scope of knowledge of our reality is not rational or probable.
God’s nature contrasts science and the nature of our reality. It is irrational to believe that God exists in critical light of scientific natural law.
Necessity of God
Swinburne claims that the existence of God explains everything we observe, not just some narrow range of data; God satisfies scientific proof as the necessary cause of the universe; therefore it is reasonable to believe in the existence of God.
It can be shown that the existence of God is not certain nor necessary, and other theories of universal cause exist; therefore by scientific proof God is not necessary for the existence of the universe.
Cause and effect
One strong argument for the existence of God is the role he plays as a non-contingent cause of a contingent universe. This argument may be constructed in the following manner:
Every contingent event requires another event to cause it.
Everything in the universe is contingent therefore the Universe is contingent.
If the universe is contingent, something outside the realm of the universe is required to explain it. God is the necessary non-contingent cause of the universe.
Existence of the soul
We can observe existence of a soul that facilitates consciousness, yet non-theistic theories have no explanation for the creation of souls.
The simplest explanation is that the soul is a transcendent element possessed by beings that is created by God, and then “bound” to the being’s physical body.
If we can observe souls, and God is necessary to create souls, it is reasonable to believe in the existence of God.
Order and purpose
The universe shows order and purpose in the fine balance required in science and law to suite the existence of life. The most probable explanation is that God created the universe for the purpose of supporting human life.
"If God lost any of his powers, he would cease to exist, just as my desk would cease to exist if it ceased to occupy space."
"God’s own existence is the only thing whose existence God’s action does not explain. For that there is no explanation."
(Swinburne, p. 19)
Everlasting God
The paradox of infinite time is the hypothesis that if time is linear, and extends infinitely into the past, that it would take an infinite amount of time to reach any given point in time. By definition an actual infinite can never be exhausted. Time is either finite having a beginning (and end), or time is cyclical; time cannot be a linear infinite.
Swinburne defines God according to theism as an eternal, everlasting being that exists in a linear timeline with no beginning, existing at every point of present time progressing out from an infinite past.
If God is everlasting and existed in time before the world was created, the moment in time that the world was created after the infinity of the past could never be reached.
This fact faces Swinburne's thesis of an everlasting God with a dilemma. It is irrational to believe that God exists at each moment of unending time if he created the world. Either God exists at all points in time and time is finite, or time is infinite and God must have had a beginning. The latter directly challenges the nature of God, for if God has a beginning then God also would require a cause. As will be shown, the former will also pose the same problem when the nature of a finite timeline is considered in respect to God’s nature. One thing is for certain; if either of these possibilities is true, then God loses His eternal nature as defined by theism and Swinburne.
Omnipotent God
Infinity is only a mathematical concept, and is not evident anywhere in nature.
In science, infinity is a nonsensical answer, indicating either a computational error, or the formula or theory that generated the answer is insufficient to address the question properly.
(Brian Greene, pg. 417)
Infinite power is a concept only. It is not rational to believe a being possesses an infinite amount of power in reality. This goes beyond the concept of the being existing within our physical environment. Unless a transcendent reality to our own where infinites can exist in nature is rationally supported, it is irrational for a being to possess an infinite amount of any quality whatsoever.
God is Omnipresent
God by definition is a bodiless entity that exists in all space.
There is no scientific observation or law that supports the concept of a being that exists in every point in space.
God is Bodiless
But there is no reason to suppose that there are any universes other than our own.
(Swinburne, p. 67)
There is no observation or evidence in nature for a being that exists without substance. Swinburne himself makes the distinction above that there are no other observable realms in existence outside of this universe. In discounting one argument against God, he creates yet another. What probable reason do we have to believe that a being can exist that has no substance? If such a being existed, what observation or evidence do we have that such a being could cause events in a world where all events are caused by some substance? (Swinburne, p. 20)
It is very critical to understand the premise Swinburne is making here. He is attributing the cause of the physical universe to a being who's existence is not comprised of any event-causing substance. Even if such a being existed, he would have to be similar to Casper the Friendly Ghost, a silent unseen being unable to interact with the world around him.
Swinburne uses the existence of God to explain the cause of the universe.
God’s existence is not directly observable or testable by science, and God’s own existence is not explained outside of science.
Our certainty for the existence of the universe is proportional to the certainty of our observation that it exists.
If God is included in the set of supporting hypothesis for our theory of the universe, and there is limited certainty for the existence of God, then we limit the certainty for the theory of the universe if we include God as its cause.
There are scientifically based theories of the cause of the universe that are on a level of observable certainty higher than the certainty of God who is unobservable.
The combined theory that God is the cause of the universe is therefore limited in certainty relative to the certainty of the existence of the universe.
The hypothesis that God is the cause of the universe fails scientific proof when compared to these other hypothesis.
God is not necessary to explain the existence of the universe; in fact the theory that God created the universe is detrimental to its rational certainty.
Cause and effect
One strong argument for the existence of God is the role he plays as a non-contingent cause of a contingent universe. This argument may be constructed in the following manner:
Every contingent event requires another event to cause it.
Everything in the universe is contingent therefore the Universe is contingent.
If the universe is contingent, something outside the realm of the universe is required to explain it. God is the necessary non-contingent cause of the universe.
Within the scope of a linear timeline with an infinite expanse of time back into the past, and an indefinite expanse of time infinitely into the future, a universe comprised of linear contingent events would require an initial non-contingent event to cause them. The simplest explanation exists in God, a non-contingent being with the ability and purpose to motivate the creation of the universe.
"Evolutionary processes certainly cause the existence of animal and human bodies in virtue of the laws of nature discovered by the physical sciences (sustained, I claim, by God). But there is more to humans than their bodies. Humans (and higher animals) are conscious beings…” “… But consciousness, I shall be arguing, cannot be the property of a mere body, a material object. It must be a property of something else I shall give the traditional name of soul."
(Swinburne, pg. 69)
Consciousness is a property independent of physical substance.
(Swinburne, p. 69)
God alone has the necessary power to create souls and link them to physical bodies.
(Swinburne, p. 90)
Consciousness is dependent on soul, which is dependent on God, therefore if we observe the phenomena of consciousness, it is very probable to believe that God must exist.
(Swinburne, p. 93)
We can observe existence of a soul that facilitates consciousness, yet non-theistic theories have no explanation for the creation of souls.
The simplest explanation is that the soul is a transcendent element possessed by beings that is created by God, and then “bound” to the being’s physical body.
If we can observe souls, and God is necessary to create souls, it is reasonable to believe in the existence of God.
The universe shows order, and it is not reasonable to believe that this order came about randomly by chance. Science and law appear to be perfectly crafted in function and form to suit the existence of life. How could such a universe exist, in all of its complexity and order, without some sort of intelligent creator behind it?
So a reasonable answer is that the universe was created with a purpose, and a purpose requires a being to purport it. Only a being with the necessary attributes of God could be capable of devising this purpose. That being is God.
The theory that the universe was crafted by chance alone does not sufficiently explain the existence of the order and complexity of the universe we exist in. Neither do any related theories explain how the perfect environment for the birth of life was crafted out of the chaos of a universe designed by chance. Even if such theories could explain how such an event could happen by chance, it cannot explain why such events did happen, sufficient to satisfy scientific proof in comparison to the theory of God.
The universe shows order and purpose in a fine balance required to suite the existence of life through study of science and natural law. The most probable explanation for these phenomena is that God created the universe for the purpose of supporting human life.
Non-contingent Universe
Anything that happens, happens.
Anything, in happening, that causes something else to happen, causes something else to happen.
Anything that, in happening, causes itself to happen again, happens again.
It doesn't necessarily do it in chronological order, though.
(Douglas Adams, pg. 1-7)
How is it possible to claim that the universe has no outside cause if it is composed entirely of contingent events? Obviously if all events in the universe have a cause, there must have been some force to push over the proverbial domino at the beginning of the universe. The mistake Swinburne makes is in the way he discounts alternative views of time and existence for the view that best suits his thesis.
Is it possible for a universe that is comprised of contingent elements or events exist without an external, non-contingent God to create it? The answer lies in the definition of time and events, and the logical way that contingent events can be co-dependent. In theoretical physics there are several alternative theories to Swinburne that may shed light on the argument of a non-contingent universe.
The proof that a non-contingent universe may exist goes something like this:
· Let set A contain all real contingent events. For an instance of event type A to occur, it requires some other event to cause it.
· Let set B be a subset of A that contains all contingent events that cause at least one instance of any event A.
· If a progression of events Q occurs where all the necessary events in Q are of the subset type B, and the cause of all events from the set Q is some other event B from Q, then progression Q is non-contingent.
While this may be hard to swallow, the logic holds true. It is logically possible for a non-contingent universe to exist that is comprised entirely of contingent events. The question may be asked, how does a progression Q occur in nature?
For example, there are two theories that offer support for a non-contingent Q-type universe.
There is a variation of the Big Bang theory, developed from previous work done in theoretical physics by Albert Einstein that deals with space and time being inseparably linked. The theory starts with the concept that within linear time there is a series of universes that are born through the Big Bang and undergo universal cooling and contraction back to the starting point in an ongoing process (the Big Boom). The theory adds that if the existence of space repeats, that time also would undergo repetition. While time would progress in a linear direction between Big Bang and Big Boom, between instances the time line would be crumpled up like a sheet of paper at the Big Boom, and then reopened to start again at the beginning with the next Big Bang. This set of events, expansion of the timeline, linear progression of time, compression of time, would satisfy the criteria for a Q-type set of events. In this way time is linear internally, and recycled between instances of a universe.
Cyclical time is another theory that may satisfy the requirements for a Q-type universe. In cyclical time, the universe is comprised of a repeating timeline that contains a constant set of events which repeat as a progression along the diameter of the cycle moves from contingent event to contingent event. While this theory challenges the way we view time and the tenses, it does have significant scientific support, from physicists such as Steven Hawking, and in reference to concepts developed in relativity and space-time by Albert Einstein.
Swinburne's thesis therefore is not necessary in its choice of supporting scientific theories on space and time, neither is it more simple than competing theories in the scope of actual supporting scientific evidence. In fact, by including God in his thesis, he is adding a variable that cannot in itself be explained. To repeat a quote from his book, "God's own existence is the only thing whose existence God’s action does not explain. For that there is no explanation." (Swinburne, p. 19). If there is no explanation for God, how can he succeed in providing a sound thesis?
Swinburne's thesis again fails to satisfy the rule of scientific proof. It is possible for a non-contingent universe to exist without God as a motivating external force.
Swinburne’s unwillingness to ascribe emotions and thought to the function of the human brain forces him yet again to abandon the rationale of science and nature, and adopt the hypothesis that there is some element of our existence beyond the physical substance of our bodies. While science cannot directly prove or disprove the existence of souls, science does offer an explanation for its characteristics.
Swinburne suggests that because we do not currently possess the knowledge to fully explain through science how the electro-chemical workings of the brain attains the characteristics of consciousness, that a soul (lacking any form of scientific explanation whatsoever) is created by God and linked to our physical bodies, giving us the higher intelligence we possess in nature. Swinburne does not attribute a soul to simpler animals, such as the invertebrates, because the function of their behavior is explained by our science and therefore does not require the presence of a soul.
This observation is quite convenient and beneficial to the point of view from which the observation was made, being a human being. In medieval Europe , myths and superstition often attributed magical or divine attributes to the more delicate theories science eventually explained as very natural functions of our world.
It is much more probable to believe that our thoughts, emotions and consciousness are attributes of a very complex and intricately developed brain. Medical science shows many examples of how chemical imbalances in the brain affect thought processes. Lobotomy, the process of cutting away a portion of the brain attributed to conscious reasoning, has for the most part been abandoned as a practice in modern medicine due to the gross disabling affect it appears to have on the patient’s thought capacity.
Swinburne would most likely prefer our first definition of soul (from Merriam-Webster), the immaterial essence, animating principle, or actuating cause of an individual life. An ironic interpretation from the view of science of his belief in a soul would probably associate with our second definition definition of soul, or a strong positive feeling.
Even if Swinburne was correct in his hypothesis of a soul, it does not support his claim for the existence of God, failing to provide any foundation of evidence to build on. In fact, if the belief of a soul is added to the theory of God, it weakens Swinburne's argument, yet another element to his thesis that is unsupported by science, nature or reason.
Relative Perception of Necessary Order
Aurthur C. Clarke wrote the epic science fiction epic 2001, a Space Odyssey about the possibility of humans coming in contact with life from other worlds. Clarke paints mankind as an ignorant race with very subjective views of the universe around them. When man finally makes first contact with extraterrestrial life on another planet, they are shocked by the vast differences between the races. Even the building blocks of life on earth, carbon and oxygen, are not only foreign but poisonous threats to our distant neighbors.
From the vain perception of man, the vast universe and the many laws that shape it may appear as custom-tailored stitches in the fabric of the world created to foster our existence.
Swinburne looks at his own fragile helpless existence in relation to the vastness and grandeur of the universe, and reasons that there must be some force that determined the nature of the universe.
Does this necessarily have to be true? No, in fact it is a much more reasonable conclusion from science and Darwinist theory that the nature of life is very directly determined by the reality of the universe. If the universe were different, or if the environment of our planet were different, we would be suited to it and not vice versa.
Richard Swinburne argues that it is reasonable to believe in the existence of God as a necessary cause for the existence of the universe. After carefully examining the evidence and observations of science and nature, it is unreasonable to believe in the existence of God if using the same reasoning process that Richard Swinburne uses to try to define God and belief in God’s existence.
The characteristics of omnipotence and omnipresence of God are not compatible with the laws of nature and science. As Swinburne was quoted earlier, “If God lost any of his powers, he would cease to exist, just as my desk would cease to exist if it ceased to occupy space.”
The combined theory of God and the created universe are not true based on the scientific proof Swinburne provides. It does not predict any observable phenomena, it requires many complexities of argument to explain its many unobservable elements, it often contradicts our background knowledge about the nature of the universe through science, and its level of certainty is relatively unreasonable to believe in comparison to other competing theories.
Based on the evidence to the contrary of God’s existence, it is evident that God’s existence is neither necessary nor rational to explain the existence of the universe. In Swinburne’s attempt to show the necessity of God’s existence, he has laid the foundation for the belief that God does not necessarily or in any reasonable probability exist.
1. Richard Swinburne, Is there a God?
2. Brian Greene, The Elegant Universe
First Vintage Books, 1999
3. Douglas Adams, Mostly Harmless
Serious Productions, 1992
4. Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary
Merriam-Webster, Inc, 2001