BY ADDISON WIER
I recently came across a blog post on a secular website called “Fight the faith,” and it was apparently a submission from an atheist that claimed to have logically disproven God’s existence. The title of the article that contained that submission was called, “Science can’t disprove God. But logic can,” and I thought that a response to this article would be a good topic for my first post.
Let’s see what the article says:
“In regard to the enraged person whom called itself reason.
You said that science can’t prove nor disprove God. This is actually a true statement. But you disregard the fact that science doesn’t fight religion, it ignores it because science wouldn’t change even if God existed. I (the submitter) address this here.
We use reason to fight religion and we use logic to come to conclusions. These are the systems you should fight if you want to address the source of atheism and such. Of course you would come off as illogical and irrational, but that is your dilemma, not ours.
And now I shall explain why the very idea of God is logically flawed so that the entity cannot exist.
First of all, the classic paradox. If God is omnipotent he can create a rock which he cannot carry, but if he cannot carry it he isn’t omnipotent, neither is he omnipotent if he cannot create it. This doesn’t logically disprove his existence but rather that omnipotency is a paradox and a perfect being can’t be paradoxical, because a paradox is imperfect.”
First, let’s talk about that statement that says that science can’t prove or disprove God’s existence. In a way, he’s right. Science by itself can’t prove or disprove God’s existence. However, there are various philosophical arguments for God that use science that I think are pretty good. Whether they’re considered proof or not depends on the person’s definition. More on that later.
But now, let’s turn our attention to his first official argument against God’s existence, which is what he calls, “the classical paradox.” Basically, it asks whether God can create a rock so big, that even he can’t possibly move it. According to this person’s argument, God, as an omnipotent being, should be able to create a rock that he cannot move (or carry, as he put it). However, if he is omnipotent, then he should be able to both carry and create it, creating a paradox (and a perfect being cannot be paradoxical, as this article points out).
However, while this may appear intimidating at first, this argument actually does have an answer. The answer is this: God cannot do the logically impossible. He may be able to create the universe out of nothing, but he cannot do something like, say, draw a square circle. And since he cannot do the logically impossible, then the answer to the question, “can God create a rock so big, that even he could not possibly move it,” would be no, God cannot do such a thing, because in order to do that, he would have to create the rock bigger than space itself…which is impossible, because no matter how big the rock would get, space would just naturally form around it (this is the position that’s traditionally been held by theologians).
Now of course, this raises the objection that an omnipotent being should be able to do the logically impossible, and they’re absolutely right…which is why I conclude that God is greater than omnipotence, and is not confined by such a definition (since, if he were, paradoxes would come about, and that would be a flaw).
Alright, let’s look at the second argument:
“Secondly, the paradox of omnipresence. If God is a being he has a body. If he is everywhere, that body cannot exist because a body can only be in a finite place at a given time. It is possible to say that God moves so fast that he could be considered omnipresent, but that doesn’t make him omnipresent. It just means that he moves incredibly fast, and that is not the definition of omnipresence. Also, if he is omnipotent he has to be able to be omnipresent; but he cannot be omnipotent. And if he is perfect he cannot be based on a paradox.”
Now here, he states that if God is a being, then he has got to have a body. However, he provides absolutely no evidence for this conclusion…he just asserts it. To me, it seems perfectly conceivable that a being (or mind) can exist without a body. If he wants his argument to even go anywhere, he’s going to have to provide some sort of argument that demonstrates that consciousness can’t exist outside of the brain.
The second part of his argument (the argument that discusses omnipotence and omnipresence) I basically already refuted in my previous comment, so let’s take a look at his third argument:
“The third claim, which I have to thank my friend Marcus for clarifying, is that since he cannot be proven ever; he can’t exist.
If he can never be proven it means that he can never be observed in any way which makes divine intervention impossible because then we would be able to percieve him. If he cannot alter anything ever, it means that he can’t do anything, and if he cannot do anything then the whole idea of God is superflous and God himself is non-existent.”
“He cannot be proven ever?” Wow! That’s a pretty strong statement! First, I just want to point out that there are actually plenty of arguments for God that I think are pretty good that could serve as proof, depending on one’s definition. These include arguments such as the Kalam Cosmological argument and the argument from objective morality (if you want to go more in-depth with that, then I suggest taking a look at On Guard or Reasonable Faith, by William Lane Craig).
Second, there’s a number of reasons why God may not want to make his existence completely obvious to everyone at all times. One of them could be so that people, who don’t want to be close to God, can choose to ignore him without feeling pressured to do otherwise. That way, their choice of destiny truly is free (remember, God isn’t just interested in getting us to believe in him…even the devil believes that).
And besides, even if God hasn’t proven himself to everyone, how does one know that he will not do so in the future ever, such as during the Second Coming? Absence of evidence isn’t evidence of absence. In order for one to truly know such a thing, one would have to be able to do one of two things: see the future or disprove God’s existence (which, so far, the person giving the argument has been able to do neither).