Other Objections To The Cosmological Argument From Contingency
Objections To The Teleological Argument
The Argument From Immaterialism
Objections To The Argument From Immaterialism
Objections To The Ontological Argument
The Self-Refuting Nature Of Scientific Naturalism
The Cosmological Argument
1 - Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
There are three good reasons to believe that this premise is true. They are as follows.
a. Something cannot come from nothing. (To deny premise one, you have to accept that the entire universe just popped into existence, uncaused, out of absolutely nothing.)
b. If something can come into being out of nothing, it becomes inexplicable why everything and anything does not pop into being out of nothing. (Why is it only universes that can pop into being uncaused out of nothing?)
c. Common experiences and scientific evidence confirm the truth of premise one. (Premise one is constantly verified and never falsified. It is hard to understand how anybody committed to modern science can reject premise one.)
2 - The universe began to exist.
This sums the most crucial question of philosophy. Why does anything at all exist rather than just nothing? Men are the only species throughout the cosmos, as far as we know, who ask this question, and it has been repeated since very dawn of our species.
The most eminent thinkers throughout the last few thousands of years have acknowledged that the universe could not have been eternal, because that would mean that the number of temporal passed events is infinite. But certainly, that does not make sense, and leads only to self contradictions.
For instance, what is infinity plus one? That is exactly the conundrum that an infinite series of temporal past events creates, for we are still causally active within the infinite series of events. We are still piling more events onto an already infinite series of events. Thus we are creating a greater infinity than what previously was. Alas, one infinite cannot be greater than another infinite.
The only possible answer that philosophers have conceived of is that the temporal universe is not infinite in the past, but rather, it had a finite beginning.
This position has been remarkably confirmed by modern cosmology with the discover of the Big Bang. Physicists now know that literal space and time had a finite beginning about 13.7 billion years ago. Atheist physicist Quinton Smith explains that in light of this, the most rational position for the atheist to accept is that the universe popped into existence uncaused out of nothing.
This tends to be very awkward for the atheist, for this position stands on stark contrast with the most successful scientific experience that we have had, namely, that out of nothing, nothing comes.
3- Therefore, the universe has a cause.
From this, all we need to do is unpack what it means to be a cause of the universe. Being the cause of literal space, and time, it must be beyond space, and time. It must be timeless, and spaceless. It must have unfathomable power and intelligence. Moreover, it must be personal, as it made the decision to bring the universe into existence, and decisions only come from minds.
In summary, I argue as follows.
1 - Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
2 - The universe began to exist.
3 - Therefore, the universe has a cause.
The Teleological Argument
1 - The complexity of the universe is due to either necessity, chance, or design.
2 - The complexity of the universe is not due to necessity or chance.
3 - Therefore, it is due to design.
Though the atheist must not only believe that the universe came into existence uncaused out of nothing. They must also believe that it did so with astonishing precision in a manner which permits life.
Today these are known as the 122 anthropic constants. If a single one of them were altered minutely, the earth would not support life. The probability that these constants came into existence by accident is so infinitesimally small that it is not a belief that can be faced rationally. Astrophysicists have tried to assess these odds, (Hugh Ross calculated that the possibility that they came into being on any planet is .000000000000000000000000000000004%) but no matter what they are, they are too small to maintain such a belief.
Further, and finally, contemporary physics has indicated that these constants and quantities are not unified, and not physical necessities; these constants exist independently of each other and the laws of nature. They are not due to physical necessity. The only explanation that remains that they are due to design.
The Argument From Immaterialism
1 - All immaterial elements are either abstract or founded in a personality.
2 - Some immaterial elements are not abstract.
3 - Therefore, some immaterial elements are founded in a personality.
There are truths throughout our world that science cannot prove, for the simple reason that science assumes them. I will begin by dissecting the truth that is truth itself.
Truth is immaterial in that it exists independently of whether anybody agrees with it or not. In demonstration of this I offer this scenario. If all human beings in the world died tomorrow, the truth would be that there are no living human beings, despite that we would not be there to agree with it. Consensus does not define or negate truth. In the words of Winston Churchill, "Truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it. Hate may deride it. But at the end of the day, there it is."
I submit that the nature of relative truth is self-refuting. For if you apply the statement "All truth is relative," to itself, the question that imposes itself is "Is that a relative truth?" If this statement is a relative truth, then obviously, it is not wholly true and therefore cannot be trusted. If it is not a relative truth, then it contradicts itself in that all truth must be relative. Truth must exists because we cannot even say that truth does not exist without contradicting ourselves.
Further, there are mathematical truths that exist independently of whether anybody agrees with them or not. Science does not prove them, but rather, it operates under the assumption that these immaterial truths exist. It is on this foundation that I claim that the scientist who tries to prove that materialism is true cannot justify his own method.
Rather than proving materialism, science only further confirms the existence of the immaterial, as it operates on the assumption of immaterial mathematical truths. In conclusion, if you agree that 2+2=4 independently of whether anybody agrees or not, then you cannot hide from the falsehood that is materialism.
Finally, I contend that morality is objective and is therefore an immaterial element pointing directly at the existence of God. I do understand why the atheist becomes frustrated upon this point. That is not to say that I think they have a good point, but rather that I think they become frustrated because it is so easy to walk into self-contradiction when contending that morality is subjective.
For instance, the atheist cannot claim that an action like torture or rape is more moral than another. The atheist cannot assess the moral difference between Hitler's ethics and modern American ethics, because there is no objective standard on which to judge them. On an atheistic view, it was simply a hiccup in the course of our evolution. Hitler's actions were not moral abominations; they were nothing more than a man acting in poor etiquette; in the words of William Lane Craig, like the man who belches at the dinner table.
Despite the belief that they are forced to submit to, atheism's adherents continue to speak the language of objective morality. I can appropriately sum this argument in this manner: if you agree that modern ethics are an objectively moral progression from Hitler's ethics, then you inescapably agree to the immaterial truth that is objective morality.
There are two folds of this argument that need to be acknowledged. The first, which I have outlined is that immaterial elements exist. I contend that this is explicitly in contrast with materialism, and therefore, one must be true, while the other must be false.
However I think as I have demonstrated, there are immaterial elements, because we cannot even say there are not without walking into contradiction. In light of this and since there is no logical contradiction of the proposition that materialism is false, it follows that materialism is in fact false.
In expansion of this, I believe that the three realities, namely truth, mathematics, and morality are best explained by theism and cannot be explained by atheism. I submit that on atheism, there is no reason for an abstract immaterial to impose itself upon us. There is no reason that we should be compelled to oblige truth or morality unless they are in themselves personal entities or grounded in a personal entity.
Consider the number four. It has no bearing on us at all, because it is merely an abstract immaterial. Consider another persons' immaterial thoughts. They are only imposed upon us when a personal decision is made to do so. To impose the immaterial on us is a personal action and thus requires a personality.
In critical expansion, I explain that it would be impossible for the immaterial to interact with the material unless the material had an immaterial essence. Atheist physicist Doctor William Stenger agrees on this point, as he indicated in his book God: The Failed Hypothesis. I think Doctor Stenger is right.
On this foundation I submit that the atheist must maintain that not only do human beings lack an immaterial essence, but they must also maintain that if there are objective immaterials such as truth or morality, we cannot grasp them, because as Doctor Stenger reminds us, the immaterial cannot interact with the material.
Therefore, the atheist must take opposition to the first fold of my argument - that any immaterial elements exist, thus rendering truth, on the view that they must assume, completely subjective and based on individual genetics. If atheism or materialism is true, they cannot even say that it is true because to say that it is true would be to affirm the existence of an objective, immaterial, personally grounded entity called truth.
I think there remain only two possible options for the atheist. They can either affirm their ability to grasp the immaterial by affirming their immaterial essence; traditionally referred to as the soul. But by doing so, they also affirm the existence of objective truth, and that entails an immaterial personality. The second option is that they could also deny that truth exists, to which the simple question that would be imposed is, "is that true?"
Either way, they walk into self-contradiction, and therefore, the statement "atheism is true" is self-refuting.
The Argument From Evolution
1 - If evolution occurred, it was guided by either natural forces or supernatural forces.
2 - Evolution could not have been guided by natural forces.
3 - Therefore, if evolution occurred, it was guided by supernatural forces.
If you attended or currently attend a public school, you are likely taught the theory of evolution. If your children attend a public school, they are taught the theory of evolution. It is on this foundation that people will say that science has defeated Christianity and God. They will say that God is inconsistent with the theory of evolution.
Unfortunately, this is a logical non-sequitur. God could create using macro-evolution. So the only possible approach to using evolution to debunk Christianity is in saying that it is somehow inconsistent with Genesis 1.
But that is simply not the case. Genesis 1 permits all manners of interpretation, and one is not necessarily committed to special creationism. Howard Vantille, a professor at a Christian school, writes, "Most of those in my acquaintance who are engaged in either scientific or biblical scholarship have concluded that the special creationist picture of the worlds' formation is not a necessary component of Christian belief."
Note well that this is not a retreat caused by modern science. Saint Augustine, in the 300's wrote that the creation days needn't be taken literally, nor need the creation be a few thousand years ago. He didn't even envisage special acts of creation. He said that the world could have been made by God with certain potencies that unfolded through the progress of time. This was annunciated 1,500 years before macro-evolution was popularized, and therefore it is a position that is consistent with being a Christian.
Any doubts that I might have about the theory of evolution are not biblical but scientific. Namely, what the scenario envisages is just so fantastically improbable. John Barrow and Frank Tipler, two physists from Oxford University, in their book The Anthropic Cosmological Principle, lay out ten steps necessary to the course of human evolution. Each of these steps are so improbable, that before they would have occurred, the sun would have ceased to be main-sequence star and incinerated the earth. So it seems to me that if evolution did occur, it would have had to have been a miracle, and is therefore evidence for the existence of God.
I would go as far to say as the Christian has an advantage over the atheist here. As Alvin Plantinga points out, for the atheist, evolution is the only game in town. So he is stuck with it; no matter how fantastic the odds or how poor the evidence, he has no choice. But the Christian can be open to follow the evidence where it leads, and therefore can be more objective.
The Ontological Argument
1 - It is possible that a maximally great being exists.
2- If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world.
3 - If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, it exists in every possible world.
4 - If a maximally great being exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world.
5 - If a maximally great being exists in the actual world, then a maximally great being exists.
6 - Therefore, a maximally great being exists.
7 - Therefore, God exists.
It might surprise you that premises 2 - 7 follow coherently. It is only premise 1 that allows some possible escape route.
To avoid the ontological argument, the atheist must maintain and demonstrate that it is impossible for God to exist. If and until they complete such a task, I am perfectly within my rational rights to believe in the existence of God on the basis of this argument.
The Historical Jesus
There are three basic facts accepted by the majority of New Testament scholars and historians.
A - On the Sunday morning following the crucifixion, Jesus tomb was found empty by a group of His women followers.
B - Many people, including enemies and skeptics has visions of Jesus on the third day after His death.
C - The original disciples believed that Jesus had risen from the dead despite being given every reason not to.
1 - If there is no plausible naturalistic explanation of these facts, then Jesus resurrection is the best explanation.
2 - The naturalistic explanations of these facts, (such as the disciples stole the body, or Jesus wasn't really dead) have been almost universally dismissed. There is no plausible naturalistic explanation of these established facts.
3 - Therefore, the explanation with the best explanatory power, and supersedes all others as more logically viable is that God rose Jesus from the dead.
4 - Therefore, the God that Jesus revealed exists.
5 - Therefore, God exists.
The Self-Refuting Nature Of Scientific Naturalism
1 - If scientific naturalism is not true, God exists.
2 - Scientific naturalism refutes itself.
3 - Therefore, scientific naturalism is not true.
4 - Therefore, God exists.
Natural epistemology cannot be justified by it's own method because it assumes that science and logic are the only reliable sources of inference. But that statement itself is not provable through science and logic, thus rendering natural epistemology to be self-refuting.
Objections To The Cosmological Argument With William Lane Craig
Do Youtube atheist and internet free-thinkers offer fallacious refutations against the Kalam Cosmological Argument? Do not let them get away with it. This article outlines why the most common, terrible refutations of this argument are patently logically invalid. For those of you unfamiliar with the Kalam Cosmological Argument, it is as follows.
1 - Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2 - The universe began to exist.
3 - Therefore, the universe had a cause.
Note - This is not my work. I only transcribed it. This is the work of Doctor William Lane Craig. Watch the video here. Objections So Bad I Couldn't Have Made Them Up
Bad Objection #1 - The KCA is question begging, for the truth of the first premise presupposes the truth of the conclusion. Therefore the argument is an example of reasoning in a circle.
Response: All the objector has done is describe the nature of a deductive argument. In a deductive argument, the conclusion is implicit in the premises waiting to be derived by the logical rules of inference. A classic illustration if a deductive argument is as follows.
1 All men are mortal
2 Socrates is a man.
3 Therefore, Socrates is a mortal.
This argument has the same logical form of the KSA. In fact this form even has a name - it is called Modus ponens. This is one of the most patently logically valid forms of arguments. Incredibly, however, I have seen arguments from Internet critics that this argument about Socrates being mortal is also question begging.
This raises the question of what it means for an argument to be question begging. Technically, an argument does not beg questions. People do. One is guilty of begging the question if one's only reason for believing the premise if one already believes the conclusion. For example, the following argument is one that is guilty of begging the question.
1 - Either God exists or the moon is made of green cheese.
2 - The moon is not made of green cheese.
3 - Therefore, God exists.
This argument is obviously not good, because the only reason for believing the first premise to be true is that you presupposed the conclusion was true. To put forward this argument is reasoning in a circle.
However neither the argument for Socrates mortality nor the KCA are like this. In both cases, reasons are given for believing the conclusion, both of which are independent of the conclusion. The objector has made the elementary mistake of confusing a deductive argument with a question begging argument.
Bad Objection #2 - The argument commits the fallacy of equivocation, the first premise "cause" means material cause, while in the conclusion it does not.
Response: This objection raises the question of what it means to commit the fallacy of equivocation. This fallacy is to use a word in the same context with two different meanings. For example, suppose somebody was to reason as follows.
1 - Socrates was Greek.
2 - Greek is a language.
3 - Therefore, Socrates is a language.
The conclusion results in equivocating of the word Greek; using it first to denote ethnicity and then a language. In formulating the KSA, I intended to speak of what Aristotle called efficient causes. Aristotle distinguished between efficient causes and material causes.
An efficient cause is what brings an effect into being, or what produces an effect. While a material cause is the stuff out of which the thing is made.
For example, Michael Angelo is the efficient cause of the Statue Of David. The material cause of David is the block of marble that Michael Angelo sculpted.
My claim was that whatever begins to exist has an efficient cause. Therefore, since the universe began to exist, it has an efficient cause. The charge of equivocation immediately disappears.
Bad Objection #3 - The first premise is based upon the fallacy of composition. It fallaciously infers that because everything in the universe has a cause, therefore, the whole universe has a cause.
Response: To understand this objection, we need to understand the fallacy of composition. This is the fallacy of reasoning that because every part of a thing has a certain property, therefore the whole thing has that same property. While wholes do sometimes possess the properties of it's parts; like a fence, whose pickets are green, is also green, this is not always the case. For example, every part of an elephant may be light in weight, but that does not imply that a whole elephant is light in weight.
I have never argued that because every part of the universe has a cause, therefore the whole universe has a cause. That would be manifestly fallacious. Rather the reasons that I submit that everything that begins to exist has a cause are these.
1 - Something cannot come from nothing. (To come that something can come into being out of nothing is worse than magic. When a magician pulls a rabbit out of his hat, at least you have the magician and the hat. But to deny premise one, you have to accept that the entire universe just appeared uncaused out of absolutely nothing.)
2 - If something can come into being out of nothing, it becomes inexplicable why everything and anything does not pop into being out of nothing. (Why is it only universes that can pop into being uncaused out of nothing?)
3 - Common experiences and scientific evidence confirm the truth of premise one. (Premise one is constantly verified and never falsified. It is hard to understand how anybody committed to modern science can reject premise one.)
Note well that the third reason is an appeal to inductive reasoning, not reasoning by composition. It is drawing an inductive inference about all the members of a class of things based on a sample of the class. Inductive reasoning applies all of science and is not to be confused with reasoning by composition, which is a fallacy. This objection is simply aimed at a strawman of the objectors own construction.
Bad Objection #4 - If the universe began to exist, then it must have come from nothing. This is quite plausible, since there are no constraints on nothing, and so nothing can do anything, including the production of universes.
Response: This objector seems to be hopelessly confused about the word 'nothing'. When it is rightly said that nothing preceded the universe, one does not mean that something preceded it, and that was nothing. We mean that it was not preceded by anything. Reifying negative terms has been the butt of jokes as old as Homer's story of the Cyclopes. Just imagine the following dialogue between two people discussing the second world war.
Man 1: Nothing stopped the German advance from sweeping across Belgium.
Man 2: Oh, good, I am glad that it was stopped.
Man 1: But it wasn't stopped!
Man 2: But you said, "Nothing stopped it."
Man 1: Well that's right. Nothing stopped it.
Man 2: Well that's what I said! It was stopped - and it was nothing that stopped it.
Man 1: No! I meant that it wasn't stopped by anything!
Man 2: Well why didn't you say so in the first place?!
The objector in thinking that nothing produced the universe is guilty of exactly the same mistake as Man 2. Nothing has no properties, no powers, it is not anything. To say that the universe was caused by nothing is to say that the universe not caused by anything.
Bad Objection #5: Nothing ever begins to exist. For the material which it is composed of precedes it. Therefore the universe did not begin to exist.
Response: This is my favorite bad objection, since the assertion that nothing begins to exists is so patently ridiculous. Did I exist before I was conceived? If so, where was I? What was I doing during the Jurassic period? Has the World Trade Center always existed? If so, why didn't the Native American Indians notice it?
This objection obviously confuses the thing with the matter that it is composed of. Just because the stuff of which something is made has always existed does not imply that the thing has always existed. Since writing this talk, it has occurred to me that the objector could have saved himself from the embarrassment of affirming that he has always existed by adopting what is called Mereological Nihilism.
This is the view that there are no composite objects. That is to say that everything that exists is merely just fundamental particles that are arranged in a various ways. So in fact there really are no chairs, tables, or horses, or people, or palm tress. There are just fundamental particles which are arranged chair-wise, table-wise, horse-wise, people-wise, etc.
In denying that he ever began to exist, the objector is not affirming that it has always existed. Rather, he is denying that he ever does exist. In this case the cure is really worse than the disease. The objector, to save himself from the embarrassment of affirming that he has always existed must deny that he exists at all.
If it is the case that he does not exist, it makes us wonder why we should bother responding to him at all, for if he does not exist, then he never offered this refutation.
But this is surely absurd.
Bad Objection #6: The argument equivocated 'begins to exist' in
1 - Everything that begins to exists from a previous material state.
2 - The universe began to exist from a non-material state.
Response: To defeat the accusation of equivocation, all we need to do is provide a univocal meaning for the phrase in both of it's occurrences, which is easy to do. By 'begins to exist' all I mean is that it came into being, and the universe came into being.
Bad Objection #7: The argument is logically self-contradictory. For it says that everything has a cause, yet concludes that there is a first uncaused cause.
Response: Premise number one states that everything that begins to exist has a cause. The uncaused first cause by definition did not begin to exist, but rather, it has simply always existed.
Bad Objection #8: The cause mentioned in the arguments conclusion is not differed from nothing. For timeless, changeless, spaceless, etc, are purely negative attributes which are also true of nothingness. Thus the argument might well be taken as prove that the universe came from nothing.
Response: The argument concludes to a cause of the universe; that is a positive affirmation. There is a cause of the universe. To say that the universe was caused by nothing, by contrast, is to affirm that it was not caused by anything, which is to say uncaused, and is the very opposite of the arguments conclusion.
Moreover, the argument also attributes incredible causal power to this entity that brought the universe into being. It is therefore wholly different from nothing. Nothing has no reality, no property, and no causal powers.
Bad Objection #9: Courtesy of Richard Dawkins: "Even if we allow the dubious luxury of arbitrarily conjuring up a terminator to an infinite regress and giving it a name, there is absolutely no reason to endow that terminator with properties normally ascribed to God: omnipotence, omniscience, goodness, creativity, to say nothing of listening to prayers, forgiving sins and reading thoughts."
Response: Apart from the opening dig, this is an amazingly concessionary statement. Dawkins does not deny that the argument successfully demonstrates the existence of an uncaused, changeless, timeless, spaceless, immaterial being of extraordinary power. He only complains that the argument does not also demonstrate that the being is omnipotent, omniscience, listens to prayers, etc. To this we can only respond that the argument does not aim to demonstrate these elements. It aims only to demonstrate that which Dawkins does not deny; that there exists an uncaused, changeless, timeless, spaceless, immaterial being of extraordinary power.
Other Objections To The Cosmological Argument
Flaw 1 can be crudely put: Who caused God? The Cosmological Argument
is a prime example of the Fallacy of Passing the Buck: invoking
God to solve some problem, but then leaving unanswered that very same
problem about God himself. The proponent of The Cosmological Argument
must admit a contradiction to either his first premise—and say that,
though God exists, he doesn’t have a cause—or else a contradiction
his third premise—and say that God is self-caused. Either way, the theist
is saying that his premises have at least one exception, but is not explaining
why God must be the unique exception, otherwise than asserting
his unique mystery (the Fallacy of Using One Mystery to Explain
Another). Once you admit of exceptions, you can ask why the universe itself,
which is also unique, can’t be the exception. The universe itself can
either exist without a cause, or else can be self-caused. Since the buck
has to stop somewhere, why not with the universe?
Flaw 2: The notion of “cause” is by no means clear, but our best definition
is a relation that holds between events that are connected by physical
laws. Knocking the vase off the table caused it to crash to the floor;
smoking three packs a day caused his lung cancer. To apply this concept
to the universe itself is to misuse the concept of cause, extending it into
a realm in which we have no idea how to use it. This line of reasoning,
based on the unjustified demands we make on the concept of cause, was
developed by David Hume.
Flaw 3 (Not From Random House): The fourth premise is flawed in that the cause of the universe does not require traits that only God could have. That is not demonstrable.
Response: The first two of the alleged flaws are actually addressed in my Daily Christian section, so I am just confused when people send them to me, since I already addressed them.
Flaw 1: Article Titled 'Who Designed The Designer?' Click Here.
Flaw 2: This is in my article titled "Bad Objections To The Kalam Cosmological Argument with Doctor William Lane Craig. My response to this is not horrendously long, so I will paste it here.
In formulating this argument, I intended to speak of what Aristotle called efficient causes. Aristotle distinguished between efficient causes and material causes.
An efficient cause is what brings an effect into being, or what produces an effect. While a material cause is the stuff out of which the thing is made. For example, Michael Angelo is the efficient cause of the Statue Of David. The material cause of David is the block of marble that Michael Angelo sculpted.
My claim was that whatever begins to exist has an efficient cause. Therefore, since the universe began to exist, it has an efficient cause. The charge of equivocation immediately disappears.
Flaw 3: I formulated this argument in this way for a specific reason. People object to the fourth premise, and usually concede that the first three are accurate, so long as they have that objection to the fourth premise. So all I really have to do is unpack what it means to be a cause of the universe, and this argument succeeds.
As the cause of the universe, it must have caused space and time, and thus must be beyond space and time. It must be both powerful and intelligent, because it caused the universe. Moreover, it must be personal, because it brought the universe into existence, and decisions only come from minds. Therefore, the cause of the universe must be a timeless, spaceless, intelligent, powerful, personal Creator of the universe.
Objections To The Teleological Argument
Flaw: Darwin showed how the process of replication could give rise to the
illusion of design without the foresight of an actual designer. Replicators
make copies of themselves, which make copies of themselves, and so on,
giving rise to an exponential number of descendants.
In any finite environment, the replicators must compete for the energy and materials necessary
for replication. Since no copying process is perfect, errors will
eventually crop up, and any error that causes a replicator to reproduce
more efficiently than its competitors will result in the predominance of
that line of replicators in the population.
After many generations, the dominant replicators will appear to have been designed for effective replication,
whereas all they have done is accumulate the copying errors
which in the past did lead to effective replication. The fallacy in the argument,
then, is that parts of a complex object serving a complex function do not,
in fact, require a designer.
Flaw 2: The universe has many planets, so there is a statistical certainty that the 122 anthropic constants will come into place in one of them.
Response:
Flaw 1: This argument is not that the appearance of design actually implies design. This argument is that design is more plausibly true than any of the other possibilities, which are chance and physical necessity. So this objection attacks a point that the argument does not raise.
Flaw 2: That there is a statistical certainty is an untrue statement; the amount of planets in the universe is a finite number. Further, to say that the large amount of planets raises the possibility of ours permitting life is manifestly fallacious. The life permitting possibility is independent of any other planet.
I think a metaphor will make this more clear. Imagine that I am rolling a dye, and my goal to roll a five. Even if I rolled twenty consecutive times prior to this particular roll, and never got a five, the probability that I will roll a five this time remains one in six. It is independent of other rolls.
Objections To The Argument From Immaterialism
This argument is actually my personal creation. So Random House obviously did not cover it. However, one fellow did critique it. I posted his notes and responded to them. It can be found by clicking HERE. The article is titled, "I HAVE CRITICS? :O"
Objections To The Ontological Argument
Flaw: It was Immanuel Kant who pinpointed the fallacy in The Ontological
Argument—it is to treat “existence” as a property, like “being fat”
or “having ten fingers.” The Ontological Argument relies on a bit of wordplay,
assuming that “existence” is just another property, but logically it is
completely different. If you really could treat “existence” as just part of the
definition of the concept of God, then you could just as easily build it into
the definition of any other concept. We could, with the wave of our verbal
magic wand, define a trunicorn as “a horse that (a) has a single horn
on its head, and (b) exists.” So, if you think about a trunicorn, you’re
thinking about something that must, by definition, exist; therefore, trunicorns
exist. This is clearly absurd: we could use this line of reasoning to
prove that any figment of our imagination exists.
Response: Obviously proposing the possibility of the existence of this horse does not imply that the horse actually exists. I do not think any serious apologist has ever placed that argument. Rather, the argument is that the possibility that a maximally great being exists entails that it does in fact exist. This argument is exclusive to the maximally great being.
Now, to this you might attempt to parodize the argument and say that a maximally great trunicorn could exist. I would examine this at full expansion.
1 - It is possible that a maximally great trunicorn exists.
2 - If it is possible that a maximally great trunicorn exists, then a maximally great trunicorn exists in some possible world.
3 - If a maximally great trunicorn exists in some possible world, it exists in every possible world.
4 - If a maximally great trunicorn exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world.
5 - If a maximally great trunicorn exists in the actual world, then a maximally great trunicorn exists.
6 - Therefore, a maximally great trunicorn exists.
Now in this parody, the argument is halted at the very first premise, for 'maximally great' and 'trunicorn' are logical contradiction, because a trunicorn would be a finite being. To this you might reply that the trunicorn is not finite, that it is actually maximally great in that it possesses all of the great making qualities. If that is indeed the case, then what you are calling a maximally trunicorn is really just God. You have removed everything that makes it trunicorn and given it everything that makes it God.