Review of the 36 Arguments for the Existence of God # 35. THE ARGUMENT FROM THE INTELLIGIBILITY OF THE UNIVERSE (SPINOZA’S GOD)
13 views
Skip to first unread message
Pastor Jennifer v2
Feb 23, 2012, 9:11:23 PM2/23/12
to Evidence For God
35. THE ARGUMENT FROM THE INTELLIGIBILITY OF THE UNIVERSE (SPINOZA’S
GOD)
( from R Goldstein)
1. All facts must have explanations.
2. The fact that there is a universe at all – and that it is ‘this’
universe, with just ‘these’ laws of nature – has an explanation (from
1).
3. There must, in principle, be a Theory of Everything that explains
why just ‘this’ universe, with ‘these’ laws of nature, exists. (from
2. Note that this should not be interpreted as requiring that we have
the capacity to come up with a Theory of Everything; it may elude the
cognitive abilities we have. )
4. If the Theory of Everything explains everything, it explains why it
is the Theory of Everything.
5. The only way that the Theory of Everything could explain why it is
the Theory of Everything is if it is itself necessarily true (i.e.
true in all possible worlds).
6. The Theory of Everything is necessarily true (from 4 and 5).
7. The universe, understood in terms of the Theory of Everything,
exists necessarily and explains itself (from 6).
8. That which exists necessarily and explains itself is God (a
definition of “God”).
9. The universe is God (from 7 and 8).
10. God exists.
Whenever Einstein was asked whether he believed in God, he responded
that he believed in “Spinoza’s God”. This argument presents Spinoza’s
God. It is one of the most elegant and subtle arguments for God’s
existence, demonstrating where one ends up if one rigorously eschews
the Fallacy of Invoking One Mystery to Explain Another: one ends up
with the universe and nothing but the universe, which itself provides
all the answers one can pose about it. A major problem with the
argument, however, in addition to the flaws discussed below, is that
it is not at all clear that it is God whose existence is being proved.
Spinoza’s conclusion is that the universe that itself provides all the
answers about itself simply is God. Perhaps the conclusion should,
rather, be that the universe is different from what it appears to be –
no matter how arbitrary and chaotic it may appear, it is in fact
perfectly lawful and necessary, and therefore worthy of our awe. But
is its awe-inspiring lawfulness reason enough to regard it as God?
Spinoza’s God is sharply at variance with all other divine
conceptions.
The argument has only one substantive premise, its first one, which
though unprovable, is not unreasonable; it is in fact, the claim that
the universe itself is thoroughly reasonable. Though this first
premise can’t be proved, it is the guiding faith of many physicists
(including Einstein). It is the claim that everything must have an
explanation; even the laws of nature, in terms of which processes are
explained, must have an explanation. In other words, there has to be
an explanation for why it is these laws of nature rather than some
other, which is another way of asking for why it is this world rather
than some other.
FLAW:
The first premise cannot be proved. Our world could conceivably be one
in which randomness and contingency have free reign, no matter what
the intuitions of some scientists are. Maybe some things just are
(“stuff happens”), including the fundamental laws of nature.
Philosophers sometimes call this ‘just-is’-ness “contingency,” and
if the fundamental laws of nature are contingent, then, even if
everything that happens in the world is explainable by those laws, the
laws themselves couldn’t be explained. There is a sense in which this
argument recalls The Argument from the Improbable Self. Both demand
explanations for ‘just this’-ness, whether of ‘just this’ universe
or ‘just this’ me.
The Argument from the Intelligibility of the Universe fleshes out the
consequences of the powerful first premise, but some might regard the
argument as a reduction ad absurdum of that premise.
COMMENT:
Spinoza’s argument, if sound, invalidates all the other arguments, the
ones that try to establish the existence of a more traditional God –
that is, a God who stands distinct from the world described by the
laws of nature, as well as distinct from the world of human meaning,
purpose, and morality. Spinoza’s argument claims that any transcendent
God, standing outside of that for which he is invoked as explanation,
is invalidated by the first powerful premise, that all things are part
of the same explanatory fabric. The mere coherence of The Argument
from the Intelligibility of the Universe, therefore, is sufficient to
reveal the invalidity of the other theistic arguments. This is why
Spinoza, although he offered a proof of what he called “God” is often
regarded as the most effective of all atheists.
GOD)
( from R Goldstein)
1. All facts must have explanations.
2. The fact that there is a universe at all – and that it is ‘this’
universe, with just ‘these’ laws of nature – has an explanation (from
1).
3. There must, in principle, be a Theory of Everything that explains
why just ‘this’ universe, with ‘these’ laws of nature, exists. (from
2. Note that this should not be interpreted as requiring that we have
the capacity to come up with a Theory of Everything; it may elude the
cognitive abilities we have. )
4. If the Theory of Everything explains everything, it explains why it
is the Theory of Everything.
5. The only way that the Theory of Everything could explain why it is
the Theory of Everything is if it is itself necessarily true (i.e.
true in all possible worlds).
6. The Theory of Everything is necessarily true (from 4 and 5).
7. The universe, understood in terms of the Theory of Everything,
exists necessarily and explains itself (from 6).
8. That which exists necessarily and explains itself is God (a
definition of “God”).
9. The universe is God (from 7 and 8).
10. God exists.
Whenever Einstein was asked whether he believed in God, he responded
that he believed in “Spinoza’s God”. This argument presents Spinoza’s
God. It is one of the most elegant and subtle arguments for God’s
existence, demonstrating where one ends up if one rigorously eschews
the Fallacy of Invoking One Mystery to Explain Another: one ends up
with the universe and nothing but the universe, which itself provides
all the answers one can pose about it. A major problem with the
argument, however, in addition to the flaws discussed below, is that
it is not at all clear that it is God whose existence is being proved.
Spinoza’s conclusion is that the universe that itself provides all the
answers about itself simply is God. Perhaps the conclusion should,
rather, be that the universe is different from what it appears to be –
no matter how arbitrary and chaotic it may appear, it is in fact
perfectly lawful and necessary, and therefore worthy of our awe. But
is its awe-inspiring lawfulness reason enough to regard it as God?
Spinoza’s God is sharply at variance with all other divine
conceptions.
The argument has only one substantive premise, its first one, which
though unprovable, is not unreasonable; it is in fact, the claim that
the universe itself is thoroughly reasonable. Though this first
premise can’t be proved, it is the guiding faith of many physicists
(including Einstein). It is the claim that everything must have an
explanation; even the laws of nature, in terms of which processes are
explained, must have an explanation. In other words, there has to be
an explanation for why it is these laws of nature rather than some
other, which is another way of asking for why it is this world rather
than some other.
FLAW:
The first premise cannot be proved. Our world could conceivably be one
in which randomness and contingency have free reign, no matter what
the intuitions of some scientists are. Maybe some things just are
(“stuff happens”), including the fundamental laws of nature.
Philosophers sometimes call this ‘just-is’-ness “contingency,” and
if the fundamental laws of nature are contingent, then, even if
everything that happens in the world is explainable by those laws, the
laws themselves couldn’t be explained. There is a sense in which this
argument recalls The Argument from the Improbable Self. Both demand
explanations for ‘just this’-ness, whether of ‘just this’ universe
or ‘just this’ me.
The Argument from the Intelligibility of the Universe fleshes out the
consequences of the powerful first premise, but some might regard the
argument as a reduction ad absurdum of that premise.
COMMENT:
Spinoza’s argument, if sound, invalidates all the other arguments, the
ones that try to establish the existence of a more traditional God –
that is, a God who stands distinct from the world described by the
laws of nature, as well as distinct from the world of human meaning,
purpose, and morality. Spinoza’s argument claims that any transcendent
God, standing outside of that for which he is invoked as explanation,
is invalidated by the first powerful premise, that all things are part
of the same explanatory fabric. The mere coherence of The Argument
from the Intelligibility of the Universe, therefore, is sufficient to
reveal the invalidity of the other theistic arguments. This is why
Spinoza, although he offered a proof of what he called “God” is often
regarded as the most effective of all atheists.
Brock
Feb 25, 2012, 11:17:02 AM2/25/12
to Evidence For God
On Feb 23, 9:11 pm, Pastor Jennifer v2
* 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
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages