Truth Reconciled

For thousands of years, theists and atheists have argued over the existence of God. It has been one of the most controversial issues in the history of philosophy and science. Over the ages, many so-called proofs and disproofs have been put forward by both sides. But all of them have flaws; not one of them proves what it claims to prove. Most of these arguments are still widely in use today, and lacking significant improvements, most are still just as flawed as ever.

Rather than persuade others to their side, the believers who emphatically convey the old arguments for God, pretending they are indubitable, simply demonstrate their ignorance and convince the listeners that God exists only in the imaginations of gullible people. This is especially the case when fervent believers top off their arguments with a denial of proven scientific principles, thus ridding themselves inadvertently of all credibility.

Many atheists are guilty of the same offense, rejecting every evidence of God through willful ignorance and pushing incomplete and unconvincing arguments, believing erroneously that they are making valid points, and claiming that anyone who is not convinced is simply not intelligent enough. They refuse to acknowledge their own biases and will not accept the fact that the real reason their arguments fail to sway honest believers is because they are clearly fallacious or totally irrelevant.

It is worth the effort to familiarize oneself with some of the most common arguments in order to avoid deception. A good summary of both sides can be found in the writings of the philosopher David Hume. In the 1700s, Hume examined the known arguments for the existence of God and organized them into three categories: The argument from miracles, the argument from design, and the argument from first cause. He then went on to explain why he was skeptical of each, with reasonable arguments.

In many cases, I agree with Hume’s arguments, but he tends to get carried away and jumps to unprovable conclusions. The rest of this article presents these arguments, with rebuttals of any misguided points.

The argument from design

The argument from design is an argument from analogy. We see order in a building or a vehicle and determine that it was constructed by intelligent beings. So by analogy, when we see order in the universe we may attribute it to an intelligent designer whom we call God. But this analogy is weak. We know of no natural processes that could produce a building or a vehicle, but the rest of the universe (everything not made by humans) seems to have a natural explanation. We can explain the complexity of life with evolution. We can explain the order of the heavens with physics. Invoking the existence of God is not necessary to explain the order in the universe, and therefore the order in the universe does not provide strong evidence of God. One should note that our ability to explain natural phenomena does not serve as strong evidence against God either, as some atheists might claim. Our ability to explain the growth of a tree does not prove that it wasn’t planted and watched over by someone.

The argument from first cause

The argument from first cause, or the cosmological argument, is very old, possibly originating in ancient Greece, although credit for the Christian formulation must be given to the medieval theologian Thomas Aquinas. The idea is that every event in nature is caused by something before it. If we follow this chain of causes backward in time, we will either find a “First Cause” at the end of the chain, or the causes will continue forever in what we call an infinite regression. The believers claim that this infinite regression is “absurd,” and therefore, there must be a first cause, whose reason for existence lies in itself alone. They then claim that this first cause is God.

Both claims are arbitrary and unfounded. Why is an infinite regression considered absurd, while an infinite supreme being who causes himself is not? Who is to say that this first cause is an infinite supreme being anyway? Why can’t there be two or three independent first causes rather than one? There is no way we can derive the God we are familiar with from this argument without recurring to unfounded assumptions. Calling a concept “absurd” and rejecting it just because it is unfamiliar to you is never a good way to prove anything. Atheists should pay attention to this as well, since one of the most common and pathetic arguments against God is that he is absurd.

The argument from miracles

The argument from miracles was the first argument that Hume tried to shut down, but it is actually the only argument that makes sense. To see this, consider the president of the United States. Trying to prove the existence of the president from pure logic, such as in the first cause argument, is futile. He is not some abstract concept that will pop out of abstract axioms (although it is probably possible to derive that something similar to him is likely to come into existence); he is something that physically exists. His existence can be demonstrated by observing his influence on other existing things.

God also is not an abstract concept. If he really exists in the way people claim he exists, such that he can exert an influence on people and things, then he exists physically in a way that we should be able to observe. It follows that no argument from abstract axioms can prove his existence; it can at most prove that his existence is possible. The only way to prove the existence of a particular physical object is to deduce its existence from its effects on other physical objects. This is how every law and object in science was discovered.

Still, Hume has five criticisms for the argument from miracles. There is plenty of truth in Hume’s criticisms, but there are also plenty of points upon which we can disagree. I will now present and refute each one of his criticisms.

First: Hume claims that there is no miracle recorded in history that cannot be doubted. The witnesses to a miracle are too few, their sanity and good sense cannot be confirmed, and their honesty and good-intent cannot be confirmed.

Rebuttal: A science-denier could say the same thing about every scientific experiment in history. The results are never 100% certain; there is always room for doubt. The witnesses to an experiment are few, their sanity and good sense cannot be confirmed, and their honesty and good-intent cannot be confirmed. Anything can be doubted, but it is probably unwise to doubt things that are probably true. The laws of physics are probably true, and many miracles are probably true.

Perhaps a misunderstanding of the definition of a miracle is what causes the doubting here. People often think of a miracle as an event which defies the laws of nature, in which case, the very definition of a miracle makes it hard to believe, given our strong confidence in the laws we have discovered and tested again and again. But this definition is wrong. A miracle is simply an event in which God’s influence is manifest. I don’t know of any miraculous event whose explanation requires one to doubt the laws of physics.

Here’s a very simple example from my own life. In my early teens I lost a certain object that was valuable to me. I spent hours searching for it and could not find it. Finally, I knelt in a private place and said a prayer asking God to show me where it was. Immediately I thought to reach into the pocket of a pair of pants that was lying next to me, and there it was! It was a miracle, because it was very apparent that I had communicated with God. It did not defy the laws of physics, but it was an experience that is very difficult to explain without assuming the existence of a being who heard and answered my prayer. There have been many miracles in my life before and since, but this was the first that I really recognized.

To summarize my rebuttal, there are miracles which are probably true, witnessed in recent times by many honest, good, and knowledgeable people, that are well recorded and very difficult to doubt. Thus Hume’s criticism is based on a false assumption. Perhaps he would have conceded this if he had been born a century or two later.

Second: Hume claims that false miracles, or natural occurrences or deceits that people claim are miraculous, are so common that they demonstrate the natural tendency of humans to believe in extraordinary things that are simply not true.

Rebuttal: Basically, Hume is saying that people believe in things that are not true. I agree with him on this. However, I claim that people also believe things that are true, and I think Hume would agree with me. So, what is the point of this second criticism? It seems that Hume is trying to imply that since some miracles are false, all miracles are false. This is clearly a fallacious generalization. The existence of false miracles does not diminish in any way the evidence provided for the true well-recorded miracles, just as fake scientific discoveries do not diminish well-established science.

Third: Stories of miracles mostly come from what Hume calls “ignorant and barbarous peoples.” They only exist among the educated when they are inherited from ignorant ancestors.

Rebuttal: Miracles have been witnessed by educated people in modern times whom I would not consider ignorant nor barbarous. I myself have witnessed miracles and have heard many stories of miracles first-hand from eye-witnesses whom I consider trustworthy, intelligent, and well-educated. What does Hume mean by “ignorant and barbarous?” It seems from his argument that I am included in the ignorant category because I have experienced miracles in my own life that were not inherited from my ancestors.

This criticism from Hume is biased; he is clearly applying the terms “ignorant” and “barbarous” to anyone who disagrees with him, no matter how thoughtful and educated they are. He is simply refusing to examine any evidence that does not support his opinion. Although, again, if he were born in a later century, there would have been more evidence for him to examine.

Fourth: There are miracles in many opposing religions. These miracles, opposite in nature, should cancel each other out and give no evidence for God.

Rebuttal: What Hume is saying is that if God exists, then he would only try to help the people who have a correct understanding of his nature. This is a very weak argument. There is no reason to assume that God would reserve miracles for just one religion.

Fifth: The records of miracles in ancient times should not be placed on equal footing with records of nonmiraculous events in ancient times.

Rebuttal: Hume’s argument—that ancient miraculous events should not be believed while ancient nonmiraculous events should—is very biased. If we must doubt the records of miracles, then we must doubt the records of everything else as well. If parts of a record were invented, then the entire record is not to be trusted.

Conclusion

By now, the reader must see what I mean when I say that all the arguments are flawed. I hope that now you won’t fall for any of them, whether or not they support your current persuasion. I want to fight ignorance and lies on both sides of the debate. It is not the truth that divides us, but the lies. Truth is always consistent with itself, while lies are not. Religious truth and scientific truth are two aspects of the same self-consistent entity; they can’t possibly disagree with one another. The purpose of these debates should not be to “convince” people through fallacious arguments and intentional deception but to eliminate all such arguments and converge on the truth.

There is no way to derive the existence of the God we know from pure abstract logic, and therefore, any argument in favor of his existence must rely on evidence gathered from the world we live in. The best evidence consists of recorded interactions between people and deity that are difficult to explain in any other way. In a future article, we will examine some of that evidence.