I would never call myself a philosopher but I do enjoy studying logic. While I was looking into some philosophical arguments concerning the existence of God, I came across a video that made the remarkable claim, “How to prove God doesn't exist, in 3 minutes or less!” Needless to say, it piqued my interest. To even say, “there is no God” commits the logical fallacy of a “universal negative” but here is a person who claims to PROVE God doesn't exist. In the description of his video, the maker, Dhorpatan, says, “I have come to the realization, that this may be one of the greatest, if not THE greatest argument for the non-existence of not just the Judeo-Christian God, or Creator Gods, but ALL Gods!!” That's fairly optimistic. Of course, I believe he fails miserably to live up to his claim.
I've included the video below. As usual, I recommend you watch it so you can follow along with what I'm going to say. It's only 2:58 long so at least Dhorpatan did indeed keep his argument under 3 minutes. He sets up his argument around the question, “Is God infinite?” This is a yes or no question and Dhorpatan gives his supposed “proof” to either answer. I believe that God is infinite so I really shouldn't bother with his argument against a finite god but I do anyway for the purpose of illustration, .
If a Christian claims that God is finite, Dhorpatan actually gives three sub-points. The first two may have a certain validity but in his third sub-point he says, “If you say your god is finite, then your God is disproved because it can't be called a God. Gods are by definition, supernatural, but finitude [sic] is of the natural world. So, saying your God is finite, means it can't even be called a God ” There are a couple of problems with this. First, Dhorpatan commits the logical fallacy of non sequitur. Non sequitur means, “it doesn't follow.” An example of a non sequitur would be, “birds have feathers so therefore dogs don't exist.” Dhorpatan is trying to claim that “finite” is a defining quality of “natural” thus anything finite is necessarily natural. How can he make that connection? I don't believe in ghosts but, if they were real, most people would agree that are “super natural.” So then, are ghosts “infinite”? There's nothing about being supernatural that requires a thing to be infinite yet Dhorpatan claims just that.
Second, Dhorpatan commits a sort of “No True Scotsman” fallacy when he suggests that gods must be infinite. It's an argument over definition. He is defining “god” as meaning infinite so that he can disqualify any god that is not infinite. Again, Zeus is not real yet, if he were, he would be considered a god. However, Dhorpatan disqualifies Zeus on the grounds that Zeus is not infinite.
I must say again, though, that I believe God is infinite so I'm not really concerned about Dhorpatan's arguments against a finite god. I merely address them to demonstrate his shaky logical footing. We'll turn now to Dhorpatan's arguments against the infinite God.
Dhorpatan's main argument rests solely on the philosophical assumption that an actual infinity cannot exist in the universe. His logic seems valid but even valid arguments aren't necessarily true. Consider this logical argument:
Premise 1: All men have mustaches
Premise 2: John is a man
Conclusion: Therefore, John has a mustache
This is a valid argument but it suffers from a flawed premise – namely that not all men have mustaches. Likewise, Dhorpatan's argument, even if valid, is not necessarily true. It is contingent on the truth of his premise – that is, can an actual infinity exist? This is a much debated subject but Dhorpatan seems to KNOW one can't. If an actual infinity can exist, then his entire argument is undone. I, on the other hand, believe in an infinite God and so I believe an actual infinity can and does exist.
Being finite creatures ourselves, it's difficult for us to conceptualize an actual infinity. We understand a potential infinity reasonably well (as in infinite numbers), but an actual infinity is a little too much for us. However, our inability to grasp an actual infinity is not evidence against one. It is an argument from ignorance where one says that since we don't understand how there can be an actual infinity, there can't be an actual infinity. However, I will use some of Dhorpatan's point to show why there must be an infinite God!
Consider Dhorpatan's arguments against a finite god. Dhorpatan says in the video that, “If they [Christians] say, 'no, that God is not infinite,' then He is not beginningless and will require a cause... Further, He could not be the First Cause Creator, since a non-infinite god is limited and would, thus, not be sufficient to halt infinite regress.” Could not these same points be asked about the universe? Is the universe infinite? If not, then it would require a cause as Dhorpatan so readily admits. Then what is the cause of the universe? And what caused that cause? And that cause? Without a First Cause, then beginning of the universe suffers from infinite regress. And as Dhorpatan also admits, an infinite God is necessary to halt an infinite regress.
If the universe is not created, the alternative is an infinitely old universe. That would make the universe itself an actual infinity. But according to Dhorpatan, an actual infinity cannot exist. So therefore the universe either began via an infinite chain of finite causes or else it doesn't exist! Talk about irony!
I don't want to leave Dhorpatan squirming, though. The universe cannot be infinitely old. If it were, it would mean that we would have had to cross an infinite amount of time to reach this point; but it is logically impossible to cross an infinite amount of time so the universe cannot be infinitely old.
I'd love to talk philosophy all day but let's wrap this up. Dhorpatan goes to great lengths to weave a logical web but can't quite tie down all the loose ends. Instead, he hoists himself on his own petard. The very arguments he uses against God, could be used to argue that the universe doesn't exist. It's far more reasonable to believe in the First Cause. He's the God of the Bible. We call Him, Lord!
One problem with Dhorpatan's argument, it seems to me, is that he doesn't define "infinite" as it would apply to a Person. God is generally thought of as infinitely powerful, but not necessarily infinite in spatial extent, for example, since a spirit doesn't have a physical location or extent (this is why "God is Spirit" is an answer to the Samaritan woman's question of whether God lives in the Jerusalem temple or the one on Mt. Gerazim).
ReplyDeleteAnother is that he seems to assume that the universe is finite in spatial extent, so that it can't hold an infinite amount of something. Not all physicists agree, and at least this has not been proved. In any case, the universe would seem to "hold," in some sense, an infinity of real numbers (and even an infinity of prime numbers), whether or not it has room for an infinity of "stuff."
One interpretation of the cosmology of Stephen Hawking is that there is only a finite amount of time: there is no "before the Big Bang." Thus, a finitely old universe might have nothing existing before it, and no time for anything to exist in. But can Dhorpatan demonstrate that this cannot be true for a First Cause: that as far as we can tell with mathematical models, an uncaused universe can exist, but an uncaused Personal First Cause cannot?
He also seems to be equivocating on the definition of "universe;" at times limiting it to the space-time continuum that science can study, or at least speculate about with a few facts to go by (I refer to hypothetical regions of the universe too far away for light from them to ever reach us in an expanding universe): it seems obvious that God cannot exist outside of God, but it's much less obvious that God cannot exist outside of those regions of reality that we can study.
At this point, I find myself agreeing with Darwin: humans are probably as ill-equipped to debate theology as a dog is to discuss Newtonian physics.
Side note: as I noted above, a universe could be finitely old yet uncaused, if time extended only finitely into the past and the universe filled up all of it. On the other hand, a number line can hold an infinite number of integers, but you don't have to count up from negative infinity to get to, say, three. Most physicists say that our perception of time is somewhat illusory, with the implication that from a proper (if humanly unattainable) perspective, all moments exist simultaneously. So it's not obvious that spacetime could not extend infinitely into the past, whether it extends infinitely in space or not.
Steven J,
ReplyDeleteYou said, “One problem with Dhorpatan's argument, it seems to me, is that he doesn't define "infinite" as it would apply to a Person. God is generally thought of as infinitely powerful, but not necessarily infinite in spatial extent.”
There are several problems with Dhorpatan's argument so it's hard to narrow them down. He attempts to address the spiritual aspect of God but I think his argument is weak. The Bible does affirm that God is omnipresent, thus He is everywhere in the universe. He is also transcendent from the universe and so is simultaneously present “everywhere” outside the universe as well.
You said, “Another is that he seems to assume that the universe is finite in spatial extent, so that it can't hold an infinite amount of something. Not all physicists agree, and at least this has not been proved. In any case, the universe would seem to "hold," in some sense, an infinity of real numbers (and even an infinity of prime numbers), whether or not it has room for an infinity of "stuff."”
There is a technical meaning to the term “actual infinity” which would not include numbers. Numbers would be considered a “potential infinity.” If the universe is finite, it would be hard to imagine how an actual infinity could exist in it. Dhorpatan refuses to concede the seemingly obvious possibility that an infinite Being is not confined to the universe.
You said, “Side note: as I noted above, a universe could be finitely old yet uncaused, if time extended only finitely into the past and the universe filled up all of it. On the other hand, a number line can hold an infinite number of integers, but you don't have to count up from negative infinity to get to, say, three. Most physicists say that our perception of time is somewhat illusory, with the implication that from a proper (if humanly unattainable) perspective, all moments exist simultaneously. So it's not obvious that spacetime could not extend infinitely into the past, whether it extends infinitely in space or not.”
The Big Bang does not address the origin of matter. Many subscribers to the Big Bang prefer not to think about it. Ultimately speaking, matter is either eternal or finite. Neither option has a satisfactory scientific explanation – at least not one that is testable via observation or experimentation. To explain the creation without a Creator, one must invoke a lot of “what if” philosophy. It's the faith-like side of science.
I'm sorry I greatly abbreviated your points. I've been especially pressed for time lately and Blogger only let's me post comments less than 4,300 characters or so anyway so I've whittled it down a little.
Thanks for visiting.
God bless!!
RKBentley