• Log In

The Partially Examined Life Philosophy Podcast

A Philosophy Podcast and Philosophy Blog

Subscribe on Android Spotify Google Podcasts audible patreon
  • Home
  • Podcast
    • PEL Network Episodes
    • Publicly Available PEL Episodes
    • Paywalled and Ad-Free Episodes
    • PEL Episodes by Topic
    • Nightcap
    • Philosophy vs. Improv
    • Pretty Much Pop
    • Nakedly Examined Music
    • (sub)Text
    • Phi Fic Podcast
    • Combat & Classics
    • Constellary Tales
  • Blog
  • About
    • PEL FAQ
    • Meet PEL
    • About Pretty Much Pop
    • Philosophy vs. Improv
    • Nakedly Examined Music
    • Meet Phi Fic
    • Listener Feedback
    • Links
  • Join
    • Become a Citizen
    • Join Our Mailing List
    • Log In
  • Donate
  • Store
    • Episodes
    • Swag
    • Everything Else
    • Cart
    • Checkout
    • My Account
  • Contact
  • Mailing List

Topic for #43: Arguments for the Existence of God

August 9, 2011 by Mark Linsenmayer 11 Comments

On many episodes we've mentioned in passing, or given some author's criticism of, the classic arguments for the existence of God:

-The ontological argument, whereby some quality of the idea of God itself is supposed to necessitate that such a being exists. The most famous versions are by Descartes and St. Anselm.

-The cosmological argument, which deduces from the fact that everything has a cause (or everything is contingent, or everything moves... there are several variations of this) that there must be a first cause, i.e. God. This argument dates at least back to Aristotle but was given its most famous formulations by Thomas Aquinas.

-The teleological argument, or argument from design, which says that since nature looks designed (i.e. uniformity, complicated structures that achieve impressive results), there must be a designer, i.e. God. This was given its most famous formulation in William Paley's metaphor about finding a watch on the beach: of course, we'd assume that had a designer.

We'd planned an episode on these arguments from the very beginning of the podcast, but merely reading the source materials linked above would take us about 10 minutes. Well, we found (recommended in both theist and atheist sources) a book that does a pretty exhaustive job analyzing these major arguments: J.L. Mackie'sThe Miracle of Theism: Arguments For and Against the Existence of God

Mackie (who worked at Oxford and died before this book was published) provides substantial chunks of Descartes, Hume, Aquinas, Leibniz, Kierkegaard, Pascal, James, and others, and systematically goes through all the possible points of weakness and the responses available to defend the arguments.

A key point of value in the book is bringing it up to the modern era: his chief opponent is Richard Swinburne (also at Oxford, and still publishing into the 2000's), who takes a very rationalist approach to religion, seeing his existence as a scientifically respectable theory that explains the world better than the alternatives. Mackie, too, has written in philosophy of science, and his critiques, e.g. of miracles show a lot of subtlety in that respect.

We read chapters 1-3, 5-6, 8, and 11. Buy the book

Note that we even had an actual theist in on this discussion: Robert from Cape Town, aka Kid Charlemagne.

-Mark Linsenmayer

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmailby feather

Filed Under: General Announcements Tagged With: atheism, Descartes, J.L. Mackie, natural theology, philosophy of religion, philosophy podcast, St. Anselm, Thomas Aquinas, William Paley

Comments

  1. Luke says

    August 15, 2011 at 3:56 am

    A much better book with more recent coverage of the arguments is Oppy, ‘Arguing About Gods.’

    Reply
  2. Seth Paskin says

    August 15, 2011 at 9:09 am

    Thanks for the suggestion Luke. After reading the book and recording the podcast, I’d be very surprised if Oppy is “much better”. Mackie is pretty damn good.

    Reply
  3. Krokben says

    September 5, 2011 at 8:31 pm

    Besides Mackie and Oppy, a demanding but rigoruos book that should be of interest is Jordan Howard Sobel’s “Logic and Theism”. It is the kind of book over which I imagine Plantinga has lost a lot of sleep.

    Reply
  4. Matthew Clarke says

    September 7, 2011 at 5:15 am

    You might also like to read Alvin Plantinga’s “God and other minds”, if for no other reason than he is one of the most well-respected of (living) Christian analytic philosophers. The book is split into three sections:
    * The inadequacy of those traditional proofs for God’s existence
    * The inadequacy of several common proofs for the non-existence of God
    * An argument that the question of God’s existence is “in the same epistemological boat” as the question of whether other people have minds.

    –Matt.

    Reply
    • Mark Linsenmayer says

      September 7, 2011 at 9:46 am

      Thanks, yep, we bring up Plantinga on the ‘cast, and I did have the book in my possession, though I didn’t get to read much of it. I’ll try to get a good blog post or two on him to introduce him more fully, as he’s pretty interesting.

      Reply
  5. Alan says

    September 7, 2011 at 2:40 pm

    I think I have developed a novel proof of gods’ existence which also addresses the problem of evil.

    Most of the influential atheist thinkers will agree that there is a small but finite probability of a particular theology being true. I had not considered trying to calculate the probability until I came across the Drake Equation. When applying the same technique to a various faiths the steps are:

    1. Write down the claims.
    2. Assign probabilities to each claim.
    3. Multiple the probabilities all together.

    Much like the Drake equation, one ends up estimating the probabilities. Since the claims are highly improbably it is useful to compare them to the probability of winning the lottery. For example the Southern Baptist has a lottery quotient ~214 which means it is about as probable as winning 214 lottery jackpots in a row.

    I applied this technique to a number of religions and got essentially the same result. The Unitarian Universalism are a notable exception. Near as I can tell they believe that morning people need something to do on Sunday. Since I suspect that morning people don’t really exist and are just getting up early to annoy me, the UU probability is 50-50 at best.

    The final step in the proof is analogous term in the Drake Equation for the total number of stars in the universe. Consider all the possible theologies. Besides all the anthropomorphic, anamorphic pastamorphic incarnations, the possible configuration space consists of several continuous variables. Good-Evil, All knowing-Dumb as a brick, All powerful-Ineffectual, etc. These continuous variables mean that the configuration space contains an infinite number of points. Multiplying an small finite number (average probability) by an infinite number (total configuration space) gives infinity. So not only does this prove the existence of a god, it proves the existence of an infinite number of gods.

    I think the problem of evil provides one line of evidence supporting my theory. Given an infinite number of gods in an infinite universe, the next question is “what is the background density of gods?” Because good and evil have measurable consequences we can use it as a marker. The Good-Evil continuum is a free variable so one would expect fluctuations around a mean. If we assume a relative high background density of gods, we would expect the fluctuations to average out to mildly crappy. This is essentially what we see. Consider an entertainment industry analogy. There are really great shows and really crappy shows, but mostly we are stuck with reality TV.

    Alan

    Reply
    • Josh says

      May 10, 2017 at 9:38 am

      Alan – Have you applied this same equation to non-theistic conceptions of ultimate reality? What odds did you come up with? And how does one settle on accurate probabilities especially in dealing with past events and singularities (like the origins of the universe and emergence of life from non-life for example)?

      Reply
  6. K W says

    September 15, 2011 at 5:42 pm

    Alan,

    I’m going to take the cheap and easy way of trying to debunk your argument and give a reductio ad absurdum (I call it a cheap way of debunking an argument because it doesn’t show where and how the argument went wrong – just that it must have).
    I take it that if someone will agree that there is a small but finite probability of a particular god existing, they will also accept that there is some probability that I am the son of such a god (it might be way, way smaller than even the initial small chance, but still a finite possibility).
    If you then take basically the same (infinite) configuration space you mentioned but at each point it says there is such a god and I (K.W) am their son (which will still have the same number of points).
    So (taking your sums) I can show that I am the son of a god, if not many gods.

    (I wish I were…)

    Reply

Trackbacks

  1. What Is Nothing? | The Partially Examined Life | A Philosophy Podcast and Blog says:
    September 3, 2011 at 1:35 am

    […] about 2:40: there is no nothing, because it’s all God. Craig distinguishes (as we do on our episode #43, which is still being mixed prior to editing; #42 will be out w/in the next week, for sure) between […]

    Reply
  2. My Appearance on the Partially Examined Life | Outside of Eden says:
    December 19, 2014 at 1:48 am

    […] The full episode can be listened to here. […]

    Reply
  3. Partially Examined Life Ep. 43: The Existence of God | The Partially Examined Life Philosophy Podcast | A Philosophy Podcast and Blog says:
    October 30, 2015 at 4:45 pm

    […] Are the ontological, cosmological, and teleological (argument from design) arguments for God's existence any good? Mackie, a very sharp analytic philosopher well hooked into recent advances in philosophy of science, says no. He's chiefly responding to his Oxford colleague, Richard Swinburne, who takes a very rationalist approach to God, taking the concept of God to be wholly simple and intelligible and providing a superior scientific explanation for, e.g. the beginning of the universe than the brute fact of an ultimately uncaused physical universe. Read more about the topic. […]

    Reply

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

PEL Live Show 2023

Brothers K Live Show

Citizenship has its Benefits

Become a PEL Citizen
Become a PEL Citizen, and get access to all paywalled episodes, early and ad-free, including exclusive Part 2's for episodes starting September 2020; our after-show Nightcap, where the guys respond to listener email and chat more causally; a community of fellow learners, and more.

Rate and Review

Nightcap

Listen to Nightcap
On Nightcap, listen to the guys respond to listener email and chat more casually about their lives, the making of the show, current events and politics, and anything else that happens to come up.

Subscribe to Email Updates

Select list(s):

Check your inbox or spam folder to confirm your subscription.

Support PEL

Buy stuff through Amazon and send a few shekels our way at no extra cost to you.

Tweets by PartiallyExLife

Recent Comments

  • Bibliophile on Pretty Much Pop #143: Pinocchio the Unfilmable (Yet Frequently Filmed)
  • Mark Linsenmayer on Ep. 302: Erasmus Praises Foolishness (Part Two)
  • Mark Linsenmayer on Ep. 308: Moore’s Proof of Mind-Independent Reality (Part Two for Supporters)
  • Mark Linsenmayer on Ep. 201: Marcus Aurelius’s Stoicism with Ryan Holiday (Citizen Edition)
  • MartinK on Ep. 201: Marcus Aurelius’s Stoicism with Ryan Holiday (Citizen Edition)

About The Partially Examined Life

The Partially Examined Life is a philosophy podcast by some guys who were at one point set on doing philosophy for a living but then thought better of it. Each episode, we pick a text and chat about it with some balance between insight and flippancy. You don’t have to know any philosophy, or even to have read the text we’re talking about to (mostly) follow and (hopefully) enjoy the discussion

Become a PEL Citizen!

As a PEL Citizen, you’ll have access to a private social community of philosophers, thinkers, and other partial examiners where you can join or initiate discussion groups dedicated to particular readings, participate in lively forums, arrange online meet-ups for impromptu seminars, and more. PEL Citizens also have free access to podcast transcripts, guided readings, episode guides, PEL music, and other citizen-exclusive material. Click here to join.

Blog Post Categories

  • (sub)Text
  • Aftershow
  • Announcements
  • Audiobook
  • Book Excerpts
  • Citizen Content
  • Citizen Document
  • Citizen News
  • Close Reading
  • Combat and Classics
  • Constellary Tales
  • Exclude from Newsletter
  • Featured Ad-Free
  • Featured Article
  • General Announcements
  • Interview
  • Letter to the Editor
  • Misc. Philosophical Musings
  • Nakedly Examined Music Podcast
  • Nakedly Self-Examined Music
  • NEM Bonus
  • Not School Recording
  • Not School Report
  • Other (i.e. Lesser) Podcasts
  • PEL Music
  • PEL Nightcap
  • PEL's Notes
  • Personal Philosophies
  • Phi Fic Podcast
  • Philosophy vs. Improv
  • Podcast Episode (Citizen)
  • Podcast Episodes
  • Pretty Much Pop
  • Reviewage
  • Song Self-Exam
  • Supporter Exclusive
  • Things to Watch
  • Vintage Episode (Citizen)
  • Web Detritus

Follow:

Twitter | Facebook | Google+ | Apple Podcasts

Copyright © 2009 - 2023 · The Partially Examined Life, LLC. All rights reserved. Privacy Policy · Terms of Use · Copyright Policy

Copyright © 2023 · Magazine Pro Theme on Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in