Here we Go Again On The Teleological Argument

After tweeting a comment about the philosophical shortcomings of the act of praying, something I 'might' be wrong about, a Christian apologist offered to debate me in DMs. (And, for the record, I am tweeting and messaging as The Stranded Alien @TheStrendedAli2 because 1-More and more I don't believe I am from this planet and 2-Making comments from the perspective of an alien who seeks to understand humans keeps me civil.) What follow are the screen shots of our messages and additional thoughts as to what was going through my head as I was replying. 

Props to the Millennial Christian as he stays civil throughout this, or perhaps it is a ploy to gain  my trust and convert me. At any rate, once we pass the civility test, he comes across as your garden variety apologist who hasn't been in the game very long, as you can see in the very beginning when he refuses to define 'god.' I understand his reluctance, though. 

Rookie mistake; nature itself can't be evidence of things that are created when all we know about things that are created are the things created by humans.

His initial statement is silly. He's implying that having never been told about a god or creator, he has looked at the entire universe and thought, "One [entity] did this" which is a preposterous extrapolation. And no, knowing how we got here does not define our purpose, if any purpose besides reproduction can be said to exist. Animals don't posit the beginning of the universe to know they need to eat and take shelter to survive and reproduce. Second, why should I respect another person's life if I don't know about our origins? I can think of some good reasons. At least he concedes that his god could have been created (it's turtles all the way down) but goofs on the Fine Tuning Argument, not realizing that the second we find life on another planet, the Fine Tuning Argument goes out the window. Also, the earth is never in the same place.

(oops, goofed on the screen captures there...) The story of the Fall in Christian mythology is so ridiculous it boggles the minds. I might also add that nowhere in Genesis does it say Adam and Eve were 'perfect,' another word lacking description. I mean, I'm not surprised that another Christian apologist hasn't read the Bible they've allegedly analyzed, but c'mon. He started with the Teleological Argument, was shown it was faulty - thank you, David Hume - and then had to resort to scripture which no one worth their salt does. After this, the Millennial Christian no longer engaged, perhaps to practice his conversion techniques some more. Kid's got a long way to go. 

I Don't Believe It

It is often asked of atheists, “What would it take to make you believe in God?” I think this is a fair question as atheists often have no compunction about asking exactly the opposite question. So I started thinking about all the common arguments for God’s existence and found that if one thinks about the various arguments even a little, they really make no sense. I just cannot accept any of the common arguments for the existence of a god and there doesn’t seem to be any argument for God that makes me say, “Well, maybe…” I’m not going to cover every argument for the sake of brevity, but give the basic argument and a quick response that gives the most superficial analysis, demonstrating the foolishness of the so-called proof.

Here are the most common arguments for the existence of God and why they fail in my view:

1.      “Because we had to come from somewhere (or) something had to create the universe.” The argument is circular; if everything has to have a cause, the first cause requires a cause as well. Even if there were a first cause, this says nothing about who or what the first cause is. For example, imagine a robot with the knowledge to build a robot exactly like itself. Should the built robot consider its builder a god? 

2.      “Because the universe appears as though it was designed (or) because the universe is fine-tuned for life.” First, assuming this is true, is says nothing about the designer or designers who again, must have been designed themselves. Two, the universe appears as ordered as it appears chaotic, but not designed. Arguments of design presuppose how any given person would design a universe from scratch. 

3.      “Because belief in God is intuitive.” No it is not. If someone grew up without anyone else around, it is unlikely they would have any conception of the supernatural unless they were seeking explanations for things they could not explain. Even if a belief in the supernatural is a proclivity hardwired into our genes, as it appears, particulars regarding belief are contingent upon a person’s immediate environment. 

4.      “Because morality has to come from somewhere.” Morality is driven by culture and is relative; there are no universal moral maxims that exist necessarily. Even if God did exist we couldn’t be sure such a being were moral since that being would either be able to say whatever they want as being moral (in which case God may be an evil dictator) or have a system outside of itself by which they recognize morality. 

5.      “Because miracles have happened.” There has never been an event shown to violate the known laws of the universe, which is the definition of a miracle. Self-appointed prophets have never been able to demonstrate they can perform a miracle. 

6.      “Because prophecies have come true.” These always just happen to be cases of interpretation. Notice that prophecies are never very specific, which helps them be ‘fulfilled.’ A prophecy is also not a prophecy when the future is written after an event has transpired. Of course, holy men are never that dishonest. 

7.      “Because people have reported visions of Heaven.” Delusions. Notice that visions of Heaven always reflect Heaven as it is imagined by the religion of the person claiming to have seen such a place. No one imagines seeing Heaven in a way that doesn’t include some information they have come across previously.

8.      “Because this life cannot be all there is.” Why not? Just because one has an unpleasant life is not reason to conclude there is a better life waiting for them after they are dead. It is also interesting that people who want to believe in Heaven due to the amount of suffering or evil they see in their Earthly life are often the same people willing to make others suffer when those others don’t adhere to the same beliefs. 

9.      “Because the Bible/Torah/Koran is historically accurate.” Even if some events in scriptures are accurate, this does not reflect an overall accuracy. Imagine a geology book before the discovery of plate tectonics; some of the information may be accurate but that doesn’t mean the book is accurate in its entirety. 

10.   “Because if you don’t believe and God does exist, you won’t like the consequences (aka Pascal’s Wager).” Accepting Pascal’s Wager has been shown to actually increase the likelihood that one may be wrong about God’s existence because the wager (as originally formulated) doesn’t account for other religions. Pascal’s Wager also works in the opposite direction, for if one finds out on their death bed that God does not exist, they have wasted their life believing in God. 

11.   “Because God is a perfect being.” (Often attributed to Thomas Aquinas) It is argued that God must exist since existence is entailed in the definition of a perfect being, which God is. But this is like saying the perfect woman exists simply because in order for her to be perfect, she must exist by virtue of what is included in the definition of a ‘perfect woman.’ Nonsense. If you think otherwise, please produce a perfect flying unicorn. 

12.   “Because I have experienced God (or God’s presence).” Problem with anecdotal evidence is that it makes everyone’s experience of God equally valid. If one says that they have experienced the Christian god’s presence, their claim to the truth about God is no more valid than someone who says they have experienced the presence of Allah or even the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Personal visions do not equal universal truths. 

13.   “Because there is good and evil.” This is a really dumb argument as even if we did have acts that were intrinsically good or evil, this says nothing about the origin of good and evil and nothing that prevents intrinsically good or evil acts from being rooted in our evolution. Moreover, if you consider some acts to be more or less good or more or less evil than others, how was it ever determined that anything was ever intrinsically good or evil in the first place?

14.   “Because human beings are special.” In what way? Because we build things by destroying other things? Because of our seemingly advanced communication skills that nonetheless breakdown when resources are at stake? Because we can imagine a god in our own likeness? Because we are conscious beings who cannot explain how they came to be this way (not yet anyway)? None of these questions points to human beings being any more special than any other animal in their own way. 

15.   Finally, here’s one I haven’t heard in a long time, probably because it is so dumb; the Argument from Aesthetic Perfection, “There is the music of Johann Sebastian Bach. Therefore there must be a God. (You either see this one or you don't.)” I don’t see it, probably because there is nothing there.

As it stands, there appears to be no argument that can make me even consider the existence of a god because even if we did find some powerful being with vast knowledge and incredible powers, we couldn’t be sure the being wasn’t just a really smart alien with a really intimate knowledge of physics. Theists would do well to simply try to avoid using reason to argue for the existence of a god since no reason (so far) stands up to scrutiny. I have a lot more respect for people who say they believe in God simply because they want to, not because they claim to have proof. They don’t. And if that person then tells me there is nothing I could say to make them not believe in God, I’d call it even and we should all grab a drink together and chill the fuck out.

Gambling on the Teleological Argument

Theists often propose the teleological argument for God’s existence; that is, given the apparent complexity of the universe and the emergence of life therein, the universe must have been designed by some rational agent. What the theist is saying – in no uncertain terms – is that they believe all of the life, in all the world, in all the universe, is too incredible to be the byproduct of chance. In short, it is believed by theists that the degree of complexity the universe exhibits is so mind-boggling, it must be the result of some kind of superior intelligence that had the intension to construct it. 

            There are many well-known objections to the teleological argument. Richard Dawkins argues in his book The God Delusion that use of the argument applies to the existence of God as well; God’s existence becomes even more unlikely than the universe’s existence. Thus, the question, “Who made God?” is raised. In Atheism: The Case Against God, George H. Smith argues that evidence of design are those things not found in nature. Another objection argues that even if the universe were designed, such a fact tells us nothing about the designer other than that they are capable of designing and building a universe. It is this objection that I’d like to focus and expand upon.

            This particular flaw in the theist’s reasoning, the conclusion of the existence of their god based upon the appearance of complexity of the universe, is quite peculiar. It certainly does not tell us anything about who designed and built the universe if it was in fact designed and built. But an even greater peculiarity is in the conclusion of a single designer.

            What do we know about things that are designed? More often than not, we know that the greater the complexity of something, a skyscraper for instance, the greater likelihood there is of there being multiple designers; a designer of the overall structure and a designer or designers of the parts that constitute the exterior and interior of the building. It is almost never the case that a designer designs both the overall structure of a building and all of it parts. What is even less likely is that a designer designs both the overall structure of a building and all of it parts and builds the building all by themselves. In fact, I don’t believe there is a skyscraper in the world that has been designed and built all the way from the parts up by single, solitary individual. If, as a theist would naturally argue, that the universe is more complex than a skyscraper, the probability that multiple designers and an equally important construction crew were involved in creating the universe just increased significantly.

            Probability works against the theist in other ways as well. Let’s apply the idea of probability to the chances that any given theist adheres to the one true religion.

            Let’s look at the numbers: There are at least 21 distinct major religions, to say nothing of the number of denominations within those divisions. For example, there are at least 10 different denominations of, say, Christianity. Protestantism is a denomination of Christianity with at least 10 strains within its own division. If there are at least two denominations within each of the other twenty divisions of religion, we’re looking at least 59 religions. Conventional wisdom contends that they can’t all be true. So, what are the odds that any given theist belongs to the one true religion? 59-to-1! Even if we only stick to the major divisions of religion, the probability of someone worshipping the one true god or gods is still 21-to-1. That, I believe, is typically referred to as a long-shot.

            Ultimately, believing in a God-constructed universe comes down to confirmation bias; one has to believe in God first in order to make the numbers work in favor of the teleological argument. Even if the numbers did work, it tells us nothing in particular about which specific god created everything. As before, you have to believe in a particular god first in order to specify who the improbable Creator is. Now we must ask ourselves, what are the chances of any given theist actually giving the teleological argument any thought? Slim to none, given their degree of faith.