Review of the 36 Arguments for the Existence of God # 36. THE ARGUMENT FRO THE ABUNDANCE OF ARGUMENTS
6 views
Skip to first unread message
Pastor Jennifer v2
Feb 23, 2012, 9:12:01 PM2/23/12
to Evidence For God
36. THE ARGUMENT FRO THE ABUNDANCE OF ARGUMENTS
( from R Goldstein)
1. The more arguments there are for a proposition, the more confidence
we should have in it, even if every argument is imperfect. (Science
itself proceeds by accumulating evidence, each piece by itself being
inconclusive.)
2. There is not just one argument for the existence of God, but many-
thirty five (with additional variations) so far, in this list alone.
3. The arguments, though not flawless, are persuasive enough that they
have convinced billions of people, and for millennia have been taken
seriously by history’s greatest minds.
4. The probability that each one is true must be significantly greater
than zero (from 3.)
5. For God not to exist, every one of the arguments for his existence
must be false, which is extremely unlikely (from 4.) Imagine, for the
sake of argument, that each argument has an average probability of
only .2 of being true, which means that it has a probability of .8 of
being false. Then the probability that all thirty-five are false is .
004, an extremely low probability.
6. It is extremely probable that God exists (from 5.)
FLAW 1:
Premise 3 is vulnerable to the same criticisms as The Argument from
the Consensus of Humanity. The flaws that accompany each argument may
be extremely damaging, even fatal, notwithstanding the fact that they
have been taken seriously by many people throughout history. In other
words, the average probability of any of the arguments being true may
be far less then .2, in which case the probability that all of them
are false could be high.
FLAW 2:
This argument treats all other arguments as being on an equal footing,
distributing equal probabilities to them all, and regarding all of
them too, with the commendation of being taken seriously by history’s
greatest minds. Many of the arguments on this last have been
completely demolished by such minds as David Hume and Baruch Spinoza:
their probability is zero.
COMMENT:
The Argument from the Abundance of Arguments may be the most
psychologically important of the thirty six. Few people rest their
belief in God on a single decisive logical argument. Instead, people
are swept away by the sheer number of reasons that make God’s
existence seem plausible – holding out an explanation as to why the
universe went to the bother of existing, and why it is this particular
universe, with its sublime improbabilities, including us humans; and
even more particularly, explaining the existence of each one of us who
know ourselves as unique conscious individuals, who make free and
moral choices that grant meaning and purpose to our lives; and, even
more personally, giving hope that desperate prayers may not go unheard
and unanswered, and that the terrors of death can be subdued in
immortality. Religions, too, do not justify themselves with a single
logical argument, but minister to all of these spiritual needs and
provide a space in our lives where the largest questions with which we
grapple all come together, which is a space that can become among the
most expansive and loving of which we are capable, or the most
constricted and hating of which we are capable – in other words, a
space as contradictory as human nature itself.
( from R Goldstein)
1. The more arguments there are for a proposition, the more confidence
we should have in it, even if every argument is imperfect. (Science
itself proceeds by accumulating evidence, each piece by itself being
inconclusive.)
2. There is not just one argument for the existence of God, but many-
thirty five (with additional variations) so far, in this list alone.
3. The arguments, though not flawless, are persuasive enough that they
have convinced billions of people, and for millennia have been taken
seriously by history’s greatest minds.
4. The probability that each one is true must be significantly greater
than zero (from 3.)
5. For God not to exist, every one of the arguments for his existence
must be false, which is extremely unlikely (from 4.) Imagine, for the
sake of argument, that each argument has an average probability of
only .2 of being true, which means that it has a probability of .8 of
being false. Then the probability that all thirty-five are false is .
004, an extremely low probability.
6. It is extremely probable that God exists (from 5.)
FLAW 1:
Premise 3 is vulnerable to the same criticisms as The Argument from
the Consensus of Humanity. The flaws that accompany each argument may
be extremely damaging, even fatal, notwithstanding the fact that they
have been taken seriously by many people throughout history. In other
words, the average probability of any of the arguments being true may
be far less then .2, in which case the probability that all of them
are false could be high.
FLAW 2:
This argument treats all other arguments as being on an equal footing,
distributing equal probabilities to them all, and regarding all of
them too, with the commendation of being taken seriously by history’s
greatest minds. Many of the arguments on this last have been
completely demolished by such minds as David Hume and Baruch Spinoza:
their probability is zero.
COMMENT:
The Argument from the Abundance of Arguments may be the most
psychologically important of the thirty six. Few people rest their
belief in God on a single decisive logical argument. Instead, people
are swept away by the sheer number of reasons that make God’s
existence seem plausible – holding out an explanation as to why the
universe went to the bother of existing, and why it is this particular
universe, with its sublime improbabilities, including us humans; and
even more particularly, explaining the existence of each one of us who
know ourselves as unique conscious individuals, who make free and
moral choices that grant meaning and purpose to our lives; and, even
more personally, giving hope that desperate prayers may not go unheard
and unanswered, and that the terrors of death can be subdued in
immortality. Religions, too, do not justify themselves with a single
logical argument, but minister to all of these spiritual needs and
provide a space in our lives where the largest questions with which we
grapple all come together, which is a space that can become among the
most expansive and loving of which we are capable, or the most
constricted and hating of which we are capable – in other words, a
space as contradictory as human nature itself.
Joe
Feb 24, 2012, 1:33:57 PM2/24/12
to Evidence For God
I look forward to reading your stuff, Jen. May I call you Jen? Or do
you prefer Jennifer?
That is a beautiful name, it has always been one of my favorites.
On Feb 23, 9:12 pm, Pastor Jennifer v2
you prefer Jennifer?
That is a beautiful name, it has always been one of my favorites.
On Feb 23, 9:12 pm, Pastor Jennifer v2
Brock
Feb 25, 2012, 11:17:45 AM2/25/12
to Evidence For God
> 36. THE ARGUMENT FRO THE ABUNDANCE OF ARGUMENTS
> ( from R Goldstein)
> 1. The more arguments there are for a proposition, the more confidence
> we should have in it, even if every argument is imperfect. (Science
> itself proceeds by accumulating evidence, each piece by itself being
> inconclusive.)
> 2. There is not just one argument for the existence of God, but many-
> thirty five (with additional variations) so far, in this list alone.
> 3. The arguments, though not flawless, are persuasive enough that they
> have convinced billions of people, and for millennia have been taken
> seriously by history’s greatest minds.
> 4. The probability that each one is true must be significantly greater
> than zero (from 3.)
> 5. For God not to exist, every one of the arguments for his existence
> must be false, which is extremely unlikely (from 4.) Imagine, for the
> sake of argument, that each argument has an average probability of
> only .2 of being true, which means that it has a probability of .8 of
> being false. Then the probability that all thirty-five are false is .
> 004, an extremely low probability.
> 6. It is extremely probable that God exists (from 5.)
Again, the same limitations apply to this treatment:
> ( from R Goldstein)
> 1. The more arguments there are for a proposition, the more confidence
> we should have in it, even if every argument is imperfect. (Science
> itself proceeds by accumulating evidence, each piece by itself being
> inconclusive.)
> 2. There is not just one argument for the existence of God, but many-
> thirty five (with additional variations) so far, in this list alone.
> 3. The arguments, though not flawless, are persuasive enough that they
> have convinced billions of people, and for millennia have been taken
> seriously by history’s greatest minds.
> 4. The probability that each one is true must be significantly greater
> than zero (from 3.)
> 5. For God not to exist, every one of the arguments for his existence
> must be false, which is extremely unlikely (from 4.) Imagine, for the
> sake of argument, that each argument has an average probability of
> only .2 of being true, which means that it has a probability of .8 of
> being false. Then the probability that all thirty-five are false is .
> 004, an extremely low probability.
> 6. It is extremely probable that God exists (from 5.)
* there is no one "THE ARGUMENT ...", rather it refers to a general
category of arguments, thus to defeat one specific example is not
adequate to dismiss the category
* the argument, to the degree it is a paraphrase, doesn't adequately
represent (either intentionally or accidentally) the argument as put
forward by a proponent, and faces the danger of being simply a straw-
man
Regards,
Brock
Musycks
Feb 26, 2012, 2:05:40 AM2/26/12
to evidence...@googlegroups.com
The venerable pastor strikes back!
pretty weighty list madame, and much to chew on, and I shall work my way through.... so merci beaucoup.
Just when I thought our little group had been rendered moribund by zealots and obsessives. the difference between our deluded obsessives and those of us that are merely very interested in the topic is enough to stifle real dialogue.
I see we have our own godless convention now in Melbourne? atheists from all over the world coming to hear Dawkins, Harris et al,
I think I would have liked to have heard that old reprobate Hitchens in the flesh, but alas the devil took him too soon.
Good luck with wading through the responses from Brock and Joe.
take care,MR
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages