Necessary nonexistence and ontology

Was discussing philosophy/theology earlier and was reminded of this little proof by Douglass Gasking:

1.) The creation of the universe (everything) is the most marvelous achievement imaginable.
2.) The merit of an achievement is the product of (a) its intrinsic quality, and (b) the ability of its creator.
3.) The greater the disability (or handicap) of the creator, the more impressive the achievement.
4.) The most formidable handicap for a creator would be non-existence.
5.) Therefore if we suppose that the universe is the product of an existent creator we can conceive a greater product — namely, one who created everything while not existing.
6.) Therefore, God does not exist.

Further, if everything that exists is defined by limitations (descriptions of what something is, are to the necessary exclusion of everything it is not), how can something with no limitations be said to exist?

Discussion is welcome. 🙂

Read Full Post »

Good God, God is good?

One of the most common reactions I receive when someone devoutly religious discovers that I’m an atheist is a lament along these lines: “… and you seemed like a pretty nice guy”.  The implication of course, is that all that is good is godly and the ungodly have no incentive to be good.  Atheists do not have a heavenly reward for good behavior and a hell to punish evil behavior.

We can observe this belief further in the fact that seven state constitutions still include religious tests that would effectively prevent atheists from holding public office, or being jurors/witnesses, though these have not generally been enforced since the early nineteenth century and in 1961 the US Supreme Court found such theist requirements to violate the First Amendment.

There is a pervasive opinion that morality is established by God, and without belief in God one has no grounds or incentive for moral behavior except that coerced by law.  This view holds that morality transcends the natural world.  That what is good is good regardless of human perspective.

Is something good because God said it, or did God say it because it is good?  If we take any action of God to be good, then good is arbitrary and not absolute.  Any command given by God must be considered good, even when the commands are contradictory – an illogical proposition.  God could command you to kill your family and it would necessarily be good – just as the Bible says God commanded Abraham to sacrifice his son Isaac. This arbitrary goodness of God lends an unfortunate credibility to those who excuse their immoral actions with “God told me to do it.”  How can believers deny such a claim?  What is morality if morality can be anything?  C.S. Lewis, commenting on this problem stated:

If good is to be defined as what God commands, then the goodness of God himself is emptied of meaning and the commands of an omnipotent fiend would have the same claim on us as those the the ‘righteous Lord’.

If on the other hand what God says is said because it is absolutely good, then morality can be said to transcend God just as theists often claim it transcends nature, and God is not the source of morality.  So there we have it.  A view that morality transcends nature must hold it to be entirely arbitrary and thus not absolute (and a tautology for Godly command without reason of moral authority) or absolute but transcending God.  Not really the greatest grounds on which to attack the morality of Atheists.

I’ll provide my view of the natural origin of morality in a future blog.

Read Full Post »