The Search for God

Book III

Part 1

by

Louis Lopez

© 2021 by Louis Lopez

All rights reserved.  It is allowed to reproduce and distribute copies of this book PROVIDED (1) that it is copied exactly as found here without any alterations to the wording and (2) that no more than $20 be charged for each copy.

Table of Contents (Part 1)

Preface

Powerful Gods

Rules of Worship

Moral Rules

No Consensus

1 The Proper Path to the Truth

The Pressures Behind Beliefs

Questions and Reasons

The Investigational Approach

The Sway of Emotions

Religious Discussion

Loyalty, Faith, and Trust

The Scrutiny of Faith

No Faith

The Primacy of Reason

Intentions

The Plan

2 Minor Arguments

 Ontological Argument

The Common Consent Argument

A Common Innate Belief

A Sense of Duty

A Yearning for God

The Basis of Reason

Trustworthiness

Contra Common Consent

The Argument from Scripture

The Argument from Happiness

General Feeling of Happiness

The Argument from Consciousness

The Argument from Miracles

The Argument from Religious Experience

3 The Moral Argument

Moral Rules

Objective and Absolute Moral Rules

Mental Trait

An Erroneous Explanation

Justice

Justice and Happiness

4 The Cosmological Argument

Cause and Effect

Uncaused Events

Sequence in Time

First Cause

Necessary Being

Alternative First Causes

The Necessary Being Revisited

A Metaphysical God

A Cyclic Universe

Craig's Problem with Infinity

Infinite Confusion

The Actual Infinite is Infinite

Craig's Problem with the Past

Craig's Problem with the Future

Scientific Arguments

5 The Teleological Argument

Argument from Analogy

Intelligent Design

The Powers of God

The Development of the World

Before the Atoms

Atoms

The First Stars

Comment

Hypothetical Intelligent Designer

6 The Teleological Argument: Preanimal Earth

From a Huge Cloud

The Rendezvous with Theia

Hot Black Earth

The First Living Things

The First Continents

The Supercontinents

Snowball Events

Comment

7 The Teleological Argument: Animal Earth

An Arms Race

To the Land

Mass Extinctions

The Path to Humans

The Welfare of Animals

Pain

Fear of Predation

The Inimical Climate

The Dodo Bird

Australopithecus

Early Homo

Homo Erectus

Homo Sapiens

Farming

Dwellings

Medical Advances

Design of the Human Body

The Ear

Other Body Part Problems

Congenital Defects

General Disease

Greater Powers

Mental Maladies

Nutritional Ignorance

Sex Problems

Miscellaneous Aggravations

The Injustice of Death

Conclusion on Design

8 The Argument from Suffering (Evil)

The Meaning of Evil

Two Counterarguments of Apologists

The Suffering Before Free Will

Problems with Free Will

The Victims of Free Will

The Mass Victims

The Intervention of God

The Greater Good Defense

Actual Agonizing Experiences

Theoretical Teaching

A Better Design

The Quantity of Suffering

Compensation in an Afterlife

A Wonderful Life

9 Some Newer Proofs of Nonexistence

Argument from Absence (Deus Incognitus)

Argument from Absence from a Harsh World

Proof by Bad Representatives

Preface

This is the third book in the series The Meaning of the Universe, which is an attempt to present a comprehensive metaphysical system intended as a demonstration of the meaning of the existence of the universe including the significance of sentient beings.  It is hoped that the study of our world will shed light on the significance of the entire universe.  After all, it has long been assumed by scientists that the composition of the universe is the same as it is on the earth.  Likewise, there seems a good chance that the metaphysics that applies to our world would apply to the rest of the universe.

The first book in the series is The Predominance of the Physical World in which a brief study of the composition and nature of the world is made in order to show that the physicalist view is the correct one with everything being dependent on the physical world.  The second book Knowledge and Free Choice is a study of two crucial subjects in both philosophy and in the construction of a metaphysical system--epistemology and free will.  In that book, it is hopefully demonstrated that humans acquire knowledge through the senses and through reasoning about facts first obtained by the senses.  No specific facts are learned through purely mental processes such as innateness, intuition, or any other special human inborn connection with the truth.  It is also seen that the belief in free will, as it is commonly understood, is not well founded.  There are numerous situations which thwart free will no matter how much we may feel inside that we are exercising it.  There are various forms of psychological behavior that are a formidable impediment to making choices freely.

This third book will study an entity that almost every human has believed exists.  That strong belief continues to this day.  Hardly anyone will disagree that God is given great attention and respect by the vast majority of people.  This does not mean that there is uniform agreement among all on the nature of God.  Some religions like Hinduism hold that there are many gods with each god having different functions.  Religions can vary significantly on what God expects from humans and on what moral values he promulgates for them to follow.  There is even significant disagreement among different sects and denominations within the same religion on what God wants from humans.

Powerful Gods

In spite of these numerous varying beliefs, there is a strong consensus that God (or the gods collectively) wields great power.  HIs (and he is widely referred to as a male deity) control extends over all aspects of the entire world, but that is not all.  He allegedly exercises power over the entire universe, which we know is immensely more expansive than our tiny planet.  One reason he can wield so much power over the universe is that he supposedly created it and thus possesses a tremendous amount of knowledge about it.  Centuries ago when humans first started to speculate upon the attributes of God, it was sufficient to believe that he simply had immense power and knowledge.  Much later that was expanded to the claim that he was infinitely powerful and infinitely knowledgeable--omnipotent and omniscient.

The question arose to primitive humans (and continues to press today) as to how to deal with this overwhelmingly impressive being.  Humans could have chosen to simply take a "wait and see" attitude.  They could have merely proceeded to learn as much as they could about their world in order to thrive in it to the greatest extent possible and otherwise waited to see if a credible appearance was made by this creator and possible ruler of the universe.  He could then make clear what were his thoughts and intentions and what, if anything, he expected of humans.

The first part of that scenario was certainly undertaken by humans.  They had no choice but to become savvy about their surroundings in order to avoid harm and improve their conditions of living.  Some examples of early discoveries and innovations that helped humans are the wheel, agriculture, medicinal herbs, and the manipulation of metals for use as tools.  Luckily, humans have continued to seek to improve their lot through their own efforts, and as a result, have brought about much improvement in their lives since around 50,000 B.C.E.

The second choice--to adopt a "wait and see" approach--did not take place.  Very soon people started to tell stories of not just one superhuman being but many, who were supposed to exercise great control over natural and human events.  These stories were widespread throughout the world.  However, they were not the same stories.  They were often very different in different cultures and regions.  A common feature was the existence of groups of gods who were sometimes blood relatives of each other.  For instance in Norse religion, Odin was the father of the gods and was married to Frigga.  Thor was a son who was the god of thunder.  Monotheism did not first flourish until much later in Israel.

Rules of Worship

Given that these gods were so powerful, it eventually occurred to humans that it might be a good idea to win their good graces.  This became especially urgent after it was accepted that the gods maintained close and continuing control over conditions on earth, for example, everyday weather events.  They could provide pleasant and sunny days if they were feeling happy along with generous amounts of rain that brought copious food from plants and trees.  Or the gods could be angry or feel slighted by someone, divine or human, and take out their displeasure on everyone by causing floods, hurricanes, and other disasters.  Attributing human traits to the gods was necessary in order to adopt such a picture of them.  A body of lore and doctrine gradually grew around such an anthropomorphic view.  Rules arose concerning prayer, worship, ritual, conduct, and sacrifice.

Animals were burned because the odor of the burning flesh was allegedly pleasing to the gods.  After the flood in the Hebrew Bible (Tanakh), Noah made a sacrifice of each kind of animal and bird.(Genesis 8:20, Good News Bible, American Bible Society, 1976.)  God then smelled the aroma and declared, "I will never again curse the ground for man's sake . . ."(Genesis 8:21). Some cultures such as the Aztecs even sacrificed humans, including young children.  Some commentators on the Hebrew Bible have claimed that the account of Abraham being instructed by God to sacrifice his son Isaac and then being restrained from carrying it out by an angel(Genesis 22:1-18) may have been inserted to teach the Israelites to curtail what might have been an established practice of child sacrifice at the time.

Other aspects of worship and sacrifice have continued to expand to this day.  Directions and commentary relating to the understanding of God have come to fill millions of pages and fall mostly under the subject of religion.  Today the Hebrew Bible, the Christian Testament, and the Koran are widely known.  The Hindu and other religions have their scriptures.  Then there are the numerous writings bolstering the original ones.

Moral Rules

Yet, as mentioned before, there are widely varying conceptions about God and his expectations.  Some religions are monotheistic, some polytheistic, while Buddhism has not shown great interest in understanding God.  In fact, it has been called atheistic.  All significant religions promote a code of moral conduct, which can be extensive.  This lack of brevity is partly due to the countless situations in life that can require the making of moral decisions.  Many times the situations can be different enough from one another that they may call for different lines of action.  It takes some thought to decide what action to take.  A large number of rules and exceptions to the rules can develop based on these complications.

Human individuality produces another factor that explains the great variety of viewpoints with moral opinions being no exception.  Different people take different stances on the same moral issue.  This even in cases in which they otherwise are in agreement on other issues, moral as well as general.  There are other issues in religion with perhaps the most important of these involving opinions on the afterlife.  This subject leaves the door wide open for a variety of claims since no one who has died has returned to describe the experiences where they "live" now.

Religions usually hold beliefs that call for reward and punishment in an afterlife for moral acts in life on earth.  There are a variety of views on what occurs.  Reincarnation is an idea related to Hinduism and Buddhism.  Christianity holds a strong belief in a heaven and a hell, but the details are far from clear.  One would expect that in a subject of such profound importance that all the future would be well laid out.  Early Christians and modern Protestants held a simple belief in only the two places of heaven and hell.  However, the Roman Catholic and some Orthodox churches declared that there was an intermediate location that they named purgatory where people can be punished for their sins instead of having to go to hell.  After a period of time there, the dead can proceed to heaven.("Purgatory," Dictionary of Religion and Philosophy, Geddes McGregor (New York:  Paragon House, 1989).

Then there is the important and very practical desire to know just what God expects from us.  The teachings of religion provide a large number of varying directives and prohibitions that they claim are mandated by God.  The Hebrew Bible prohibits killing in a very short and simple sentence found in the Ten Commandments, "You shalt not kill."  The prohibition has been interpreted as applying only to intentional killing like murder or voluntary manslaughter.  Jews, Christians, and to some extent Muslims follow the Hebrew Bible.  It does not mention that it only applies to the killing of humans although this is the way it has long been understood.  Other animals have been fair game without question until recently.

An exception has been made for capital punishment.  Through the years, millions of religious people have believed--often strongly--that society is justified in ending the life of someone who has himself taken a life.  This may be understandable in a nomadic group in which it is very difficult to confine the murderer so as to protect others from also being killed later by the offender.  The safest avenue for preventing further killing by the same killer was simply to take his life.  This excuse is not available in a modern society in which elaborate buildings and extensive precautions can be employed to do a good job of confining individuals.  Still, many religious people continue to support capital punishment while others say it is wrong.

Then there is the killing that takes place in war, sometimes on a wide scale.  Is that always justified or only in specific instances?  Perhaps it is acceptable if one's city or country is being invaded and the attackers threaten to kill the inhabitants.  What about the situations in which the leaders of the country decide that it is desirable for its armed forces to invade another country or territory?

For instance, was the United States justified in entering the first World War when its shores were not under threat?  The main harm had been to its maritime trade.  What about the European states that were the original combatants?  Was the United States correct in invading Iraq in 2003 under the claim that it had weapons of mass destruction?  This in spite of it not being clear that Iraq had such weapons, what condition they were in, and whether its leaders had any plan to imminently use them.  Then there are the Islamic terrorists who not only kill on a wide scale for religious ends but openly do it in the name of Allah (God).  What about the responsibility of soldiers in war?  Can they avoid responsibility simply by claiming that they were ordered by their country to kill?   What if the war is clearly not justified?

All this is to show that even with respect to a prominent and widely accepted religious commandment--the prohibition against killing--there are questions  and varying answers on how it applies.  That calls for analysis and assessment of the subject to the farthest extent possible in hope of bringing a better understanding.

There are a myriad of questions and controversies spawned by religion.  Which of the following actions and practices are more pleasing to God:  praying for one minute once a day, praying for one hour once a day, praying for an hour three times a day, praying five times a day while facing Mecca, going to your place of worship several times a year, going to your place of worship without fail every week, being actively involved in your church, giving money to your church even if it means that your children go without necessities?  What about the denial of sexual interest?  What about abstaining from an abortion even though that means the eventual child will live in abject poverty and deprivation?

Does God punish any of the following:  never praying, never attending any place of worship, not believing that he exists, engaging in sexual intercourse before marriage, hating and cursing your father because he repeatedly raped you as a child, telling a minor lie to someone in order to avoid hurting their feelings, being a practicing homosexual?

The disputations over these kinds of questions seem endless.  The answers depend on what it is that God expects from humans and what moral code he has set for us.  How do we find out what that moral code is with a high degree of certainty?  How do we know when we have found it?  Does it come from God or from men?  Can it be a matter of faith?

The answer to the question of what God wants depends on what is the nature of God.  What he sends down as a code of human conduct would seem to flow from his beliefs, his goals, and ultimately his nature.  How can we know his nature?  How do we know we know?  Can we come to know his specific traits by faith?

Ultimately, the nature of God and whether we can ever find it out has to depend on the answer to the question of whether he even exists.  Obviously, if he does not exist, it is not much use to debate his nature and what he wants.  Most believers do not take much interest in trying to prove the existence of God because they are already convinced of it.  There have been some who have fashioned arguments to prove the existence of God.  They have been members of the clergy.  Thomas Aquinas, a Dominican friar in the mid-1200's, was the first to construct formal arguments.  Philosophers, including religious ones like Immanuel Kant, have exposed flaws in those arguments.

No Consensus

With all these competing ideas and mandates, how is one to decide which are correct?  Since one may have to spend not just a long time but all eternity in hell if one does not choose the correct path, it would seem advisable to seek and find the right method.  Investigating at least some of the important aspects of longstanding religious claims has to be crucial for constructing a metaphysical system.  The existence of a powerful God involved in the operations of the universe would certainly go very far in describing the correct metaphysical system that corresponds to the world.  Religions have been trying to promote such a system for many centuries.  Yet, it cannot be said that the different religions and their various sects have reached a consensus on the proper metaphysical system.  Therefore, the issue of a correct metaphysical system has to be inspected from the very root of the matter.

There is also the need to understand and to reach a conclusion on which theological concepts and claims are true.  This is what philosophy tries to do--to identify concepts and to clarify them.  It can confine itself to a specific subject.  In this book, it is the philosophy of religion.  It is the aim of this book to examine and try to understand some of these issues connected with God.  Hopefully a few new insights in the book can push our knowledge a little further.  In turn that may give some direction on how to guide our lives based on any new knowledge we gain.

1 The Proper Path to the Truth

The question of methodology needs to be considered before proceeding.  The basic methodological question is what should we consider in support of adopting our beliefs.  There are a number of ways people have taken to support their beliefs most of which have been followed for centuries.  It is important that our method or methods be accurate in reaching the truth.  Searching and finding the truth is important in any area of intellectual endeavor, but it would seem especially pressing with respect to the questions addressed in religion.

Surely, it is important to determine which deity to follow.  After all, the gods allegedly control all manner of events and entities on earth and allegedly throughout the entire universe, such as clouds, heat waves, lightning strikes, storms, earthquakes, volcanoes, sinkholes, hurricanes, diseases, and human behavior that brings about good or bad for the world.  Since gods can and do exercise such immense power, it would seem advisable to follow the one that is the most powerful while at the same time the most sympathetic to human needs.  To follow any god that is any less than the best would seem to be a misplaced loyalty.  In addition, it would be downright dangerous to follow an inferior or false god, if the proper one to be followed is a jealous God.  There are any number of different gods that can be chosen by humans.  However, most religions today do not believe there is such a choice.  To them their God (or set of gods) is the only one that exists.  To believe in any other deity is to hold an erroneous belief in an imaginary God.

The first question is whether God even exists.  If he does exist, how much interest does he take in the world and its inhabitants?  If he does take an interest, what does he expect from humans?  In the past, people have taken several approaches to answer these questions, but how reliable are those approaches?  Following the correct methods is very important.  If we employ unreliable methods, we may remain in harmful ignorance.

The Pressures Behind Beliefs

In order to find reliable methods for arriving at the soundest religious beliefs, it may be fruitful to examine the origins of these beliefs.  The most powerful influence on people's religious beliefs is their parents.  From an early age of a child, the parents take her/im to the place of worship of their choice.  The child soon understands that the church they attend and the beliefs taught there are correct.  This is concluded even in those cases in which the parents send the children without themselves accompanying the children.  The children rarely question whether that is the most appropriate religion to follow.  In adulthood it may be seen as a matter of disloyalty not to stay within the family religious tradition.

Other family members and the surroundings may be an influence.  This can be more determinative if the family has weak religious leanings or if their religious beliefs are not popular in the community.  The confidence of believers in the religious values of their families is further strengthened when those are the same values espoused by the community.  Social pressure and conformity are especially powerful on the young. 

With the today's reach of television and the internet, it is possible for a person to be influenced by a religious message that originates far away.  A dynamic preacher or a captivating presentation can have a strong impact especially if the viewer is vulnerable due to a personal tragedy or an emotional setback.  An example of this remote influence in the 2010's was the various young people who were moved to go fight in jihad in the Middle East for radical Islamic ideas.  They were supposedly exposed to many of these ideas on the internet.

Tradition is a form of social pressure that acts through time.  A tradition could have originally been put into practice because the society thought it necessary to adopt it.  The practice may have continued automatically.  The same pressure is continued in subsequent generations even after it no longer has any social benefit.  That is the power of tradition.  These tradition dynamics also apply to nonreligious situations.

Once a person joins a particular congregation, s/he may attend functions regularly and even become involved in its governance.  Personal ties with other members will likely develop.  This will then develop into a situation in which the newcomer will feel group pressure to remain attached apart from doctrinal considerations. 

Then there is the pressure that is naturally exerted by most religions, inherent in their very raison d'être.  This is involved in the teaching that God is fond of those who follow his wishes.  The implication is that this includes regular worship, which best takes place at a house of worship.

Questions and Reasons

These pressures are so strong that most people do not think to question the prevailing beliefs.  The opposite may take place.  People will defend their beliefs irrationally, fanatically, and even violently.  They will do this even when it should be clear that at least some of those beliefs are questionable and destructive of other people.  Examples are the practice of human sacrifice, the denial of civil rights to those who do not adopt the prevailing religion, and even the killing of nonconformists--sometimes through gruesome means like burning at the stake or beheading.

Yet there are any number of questions to be asked beginning with what is the basis for believing in any God or gods as well as what is the origin of particular beliefs.  What makes homosexuality a grave sin?  What is so harmful about taking God's name in vain?  Yet the latter is one of the Ten Commandments in the Hebrew Bible.  Another Commandment prohibits coveting.

What makes to covet so objectionable?  It may be desirous to discourage desiring in general because it can lead to frustration.  Yet, coveting of other's possessions is a very common and hard to control tendency.  It can happen unconsciously in a person's daydreams.  The daydreamer may not even covet the particular car that someone else owns but only one just like it.  Instead the dreamer may have every intention to buy the same model car rather than steal the one being fantasized about.  It would seem that the concern should be over dissuading the dreamer from putting his daydreams into action, i.e. stealing the car.  As long as there is no theft involved, coveting may actually contribute toward beneficial ends.  After coveting, the coveter may be more likely to become motivated to work to obtain the money to acquire the object of her/is desire.  Work can help avoid undue idleness and give people a sense of purpose and self-satisfaction.

Philosophy in the West itself began after early Greek intellectuals like Thales began to question the prevalent myths of their day that purported to explain the phenomena and events that were observed.  They began to doubt the accuracy of the prevalent explanations such as that the god Poseidon controlled weather events.  Naturally, it was wondered where these mythical explanations originated and what authenticated them as accurate.  This questioning did not influence the vast majority of people at the time.  They continued to live by the myths and the religious beliefs and rituals that were popular.

Alternative explanations based on actual observations began to be fashioned by these philosophers.  Their theories, such as that all being was based on water, were erroneous but were at least founded on observation and reason used to assess the observations.  It must have become increasingly clear to these philosophers that the myths could not be that reliable.  After all they were passed on by troubadours and other poets who were more interested in compensation for entertaining audiences than in ensuring that they were passing on accurate information.

The myth-reciting poets probably defended their stories by pointing out that they had not invented them but were only retelling what had been handed down by tradition.  This explanation would have satisfied most people since tradition was considered in most cultures as something to be completely trusted, even revered.  The philosophers, on the other hand, must have realized that tradition was not a practice that could be counted on.

The philosophers started to realize that careful observation of objects and processes in nature could provide reliable information.  With patience and thorough investigation, they found they could accurately ascertain the causes of natural events such as stomach aches and the rusting of iron.  This area of study was referred to as natural philosophy for several centuries and is now called science.  Philosophers also discovered that deep, careful thinking about facts could yield insights and a better understanding.  This area of philosophy came to be known as logic.  Today it is clear that the approach of reason has enabled tremendous advances in knowledge and understanding, even if it has taken centuries.

One reason for the slowness in scientific progress has been that nature does not yield its secrets readily.  Consequently, it has been necessary to enlist reason to help fashion the many instruments used to gather and analyze the data of the world from the weight scales to the telescope to the electric motor to the rocket and so on.

A second reason is that by nature humans are not very adept at the abstract reasoning that is involved in discovering many of the secrets of the universe.  In reality, it is only a small percentage of humans who excel at abstract reasoning as in mathematics.  We have to recognize that we owe a great debt to men like Isaac Newton, James Clerk Maxwell, Albert Einstein, and Kurt Godel.  This overall lesser ability in humans may well be the result of the way evolution has brought things about.  For most of the history of the world, the ability to reason about abstractions was not that important in the search for basic survival.

A third factor in the suppression of reasoning has likely been that the conclusions of reason have not always been well received.  What reason has to say is not always pleasant.  People have too often preferred to scoff at reason rather than accept facts that are unpleasant.  An example of this involves those situations in which a person is presented with evidence of having a serious disease that must be treated soon but chooses to ignore the warnings.  Too many times people prefer the immediate solace of hiding their heads in the sand to avoid dealing rationally with unpleasant facts.  A great number of people engage in this behavior repeatedly and consequently fall into making it a habit.  Once people stake a claim to a belief it is hard to get them to leave its embrace.

This can happen because the belief has been held for a long time and the person has simply become used to holding it and all that it implies.  An example could come from a woman who has always bought a Cadillac automobile for many years.  She believes it always has been the best car on the market.  A friend shows her copies of Consumer Reports magazine that show that a number of other brands have often been measured above Cadillac, including comparisons on safety features.

The Cadillac devotee finds this hard to believe and questions the reliability of the cited studies.  She points out that for many years people have considered Cadillac the top car on the market.  It is an expensive car.  She points out that her father has always owned Cadillacs.  Finally, she claims that, even if Cadillac is not as good as it has been touted, Americans should still be loyal to it because it is an American car.

There is an additional motivation for denying the ratings.  This is that if Cadillac is truly not as good as its reputation then the devoted owner has been wrong all these years.  She has been lazy in not engaging in more investigation.  Also she does not want to think she has been played for a fool by advertising for Cadillac.

Since people won't even evaluate their long-established social customs and religious beliefs, it makes it much less likely that they will modify or regret them.  Given this situation, people often do not adopt views that may be more beneficial not only to themselves but also to those around them.  An example can be the custom in which male children are circumcised.  This can be continued as a rigid custom even after it is shown that it is of doubtful benefit, while administering it is painful and likely traumatizing.  Circumcision of males has been a long-standing tradition in Judaism as a command from God.

An enduring tradition in many Muslim societies has been that women do not have the same rights as men.  For instance, they cannot hold high governmental or religious office.  In some places, they have not been permitted to drive motor vehicles or to receive an education.

The Investigational Approach

It has become clear to most people today that a number of traditions and customs that have been handed down may not deliver the benefit that they were supposed to provide.  Perhaps they were beneficial at one time but ceased to be of good use.  Or they may never have been helpful to anyone involved.  Or they may have only favored one group at the expense of another.   An example is the practice of slavery.

People today are more open to questioning tradition.  They are more willing to examine a particular situation, assess the alleged facts, and come to a sensible conclusion.  People are less willing than in the past to follow sheepishly along old lines of thought.  The greater willingness of people today to engage in thinking processes in order to correctly guide their actions can be seen in their assessments in buying items for themselves and their families.  This can range from small items at a "dollar" store to cars and homes.

Then there is the rational deliberation that regularly takes place in our various institutions, and no one expects it to be any different.  Many people, in the United States at least, are called upon to serve on juries in the regular operation of the legal system.  In a court trial by jury, no one expects any less than that the jury will engage in calm, attentive, careful deliberation in coming to its decision.  On rare occasions members of a jury do not proceed properly in reaching a verdict.  The law allows for the judge to declare there was jury misconduct and to nullify their verdict.

The medical field is another institution that is supposed to follow cautious procedure and thoughtful analysis based on facts that have been carefully gathered both in the present situation and historically.  You expect doctors and other medical practitioners to have studied for years before treating any patients.  It has become a widespread practice to vaccinate in order to prevent disease.  A few people openly refuse to vaccinate. 

In connection with medicine and nutrition, people discuss and rely upon scientific studies reported in the media.  There are occasions in which the experiments are not well designed or have some other flaw that makes them erroneous.  With this in mind, it has become the practice for other experimenters to try to replicate the published experiment one or more times to determine if the original results were accurate.

People rely on science in numerous ways including the use of technological instruments that in turn are designed using scientific principles.  An interesting area involves the understanding of the weather.  It has become universal to rely on the use of physical aids such as radar and computer modeling and on the understanding gained by many years of study in meteorology.  (The study of weather was labeled meteorology a long time ago but today has little to do with studying meteors.).  No longer do people try to control the weather through rain dances or prayers to the gods.

The rational approach of science is relied upon by almost everyone in modern society even if they don't realize it.  Someone who steadfastly and regularly refuses to accept the results of science is odd.  It is possible that such contrarians would be members of primitive groups.

The Sway of Emotions

While people today are more likely to use rational means for making common decisions as opposed to tradition and superstition, that does not mean that they are not at various times swayed by these and other nonrational considerations.  Emotion can play a part in making final decisions even after a rational evaluation of the facts points in a different direction.

Take the example of Michelle, a young woman who has a long commute to work, only receives a small salary, and has little money in the bank.  Michelle needs a car and has the present opportunity to buy a small, economical automobile for a low price, especially since she wants to save money to buy a house. 

At the same time, Michelle has fallen in love (become obsessed) with a big, new truck at a Ford dealer.  She has no need for a truck.  It would be much more expensive in price and gas.  She has studied all the relevant factors and agrees that it makes more sense to buy the car.  For years--for some unexplainable reason--she has wanted to own a truck, so she buys the truck.  Different emotions are involved in these nonrational decisions.  Here it seems to be unexplained obsession.

Fear is an emotion often involved in irrational behavior.  Alton starts to experience troublesome symptoms such as frequent stomach aches and occasional nausea.  This had never happened before.  It gets worse and he realizes it is time to go see a doctor.  Friends and family urge the same, yet he does not go, hoping the problem will just go away on its own.  For many people it seems to be part of a deep fear of even thinking of going to a doctor's office.  It is beneficial if a person is open to discussing fears with others.  The person may disagree with everyone else but at least there can be a discussion.

Religious Discussion

It is different when it comes to discussions about religious belief.  Here it is much less acceptable to engage in deep, rational discussion of these matters and even less appropriate to tell someone they are mistaken to believe one way or another.  There is the saying that people repeat:  religion and politics should not be discussed.  It seems to be more of a practice with regard to religious discussion than with political talk.

It is understandable to maintain that the religious beliefs of others should not be disparaged, but the prohibition often seems to go so far as to discourage even discussion.  It also excludes any questioning, criticism, or disapproval.  The rule is followed with regard to most religions, but there are exceptions such as for Satanism.  It is not surprising that an overwhelming majority of people would have numerous questions about any respect or worship of Satan.  It is clearly foreign to the conceptions of most people.

Then there are some sects within Christianity and Islam that encourage talk about religion.  However, these are not free and open-minded discussions with opposing viewpoints being accepted as possibly valid.  Instead, they are talks in which the nonbeliever or believer in a different religion or sect is considered to be in error and is told that the religion of the Christian or Muslim is the one true path.  They consider their own doctrines as sacrosanct and unassailable.

Members of Christian churches sometimes canvass neighborhoods to promote their denomination.  The sect of the Jehovah's Witnesses is well known for proselytizing in homes, buses, and whatever other places they can find.  Their mission is to promote their particular views both by word of mouth and tract.  They do not listen very well to disagreeing viewpoints.  If they listen at all, it is out of need to exhibit politeness and the appearance of agreeableness.

There is not much room for flexibility.  According to most Christians, all people around the world who do not accept that their leader Jesus came to save them will go to hell eternally.  The Muslims also believe in eternal hell as a place where people are sent after final judgment regarding their deeds in their earthly life.(John Esposito, What Everyone Needs to Know About Islam (New York:  Oxford University Press, 2002) 28-29.)  Islamic law allows for the execution of apostates.(Id. 137)

The general rule against serious discussion of religious belief serves the notion that the religious beliefs of each individual are not to be disturbed.  It is understandable that this attitude was adopted in Europe and the United States after centuries of religious violence.  This consisted in wars among Christians as well violence upon nonChristians especially Jews.  During that same time, Muslims conducted wars of conquest in some places and forced conversions upon some of the conquered people.  After Christians in Europe got tired of the violence and hatred, it was decided that it was better to follow a more tolerant path and with that to avoid any possibly contentious discussion regarding varying religious beliefs. Unfortunately, this can imply that these beliefs are to be treated as beyond question

The lack of meaningful discussion has not left much opportunity for believers to think deeply and carefully about the creeds they follow, at times with great fervor.  Sometimes that fervor even carries over into disdain and animosity toward those who believe differently.  This can happen even between members of the same sect when they happen to disagree over an issue or issues.  These disagreements are often what cause a group of members of a sect to break off from the main group and form a new sect.

Loyalty, Faith, and Trust

There is clearly an overall tendency to stay with the religion imparted to us in childhood.  The first five years seem to have an especially strong influence.  Then there is the matter of loyalty.  People are usually not aware of that.  If that is pointed out, they may readily be willing to agree, "It was my parents' religion, and it's good enough for me."

Other believers may become defensive after that is suggested.  They may protest and insist that they listened carefully to what was taught and then decided with their free minds that their religion taught the truth.  They would likely not take into account that in attending only one religious congregation they had only been taught the version of the truth as promoted by that particular religion.  They were not given the opportunity to fully consider, explore, and compare the teachings of other religions.

It is interesting that the word "loyalty" is similar to the word "faith."  Being faithful to a person or a group or idea can mean being loyal.  Examples are in the statements "he is faithful to the cause" and "he is faithful to the idea."  This is interesting because faith is probably the most common reason people give for believing in God or for following a religion.  It is commonplace to find that people do not offer any complicated reasoning process when asked why they believe in God or why they follow a particular religion.  They may begin giving a reason or two but rarely claim that they have carefully studied their religion for years, exploring all its different facets, weighing all the pros as well as the cons.

After having their reasons questioned, if not outright refuted, they resort to stating that they simply accept the belief "on faith."  Once they have made that declaration, they consider the discussion closed.  The profession of faith is supposed to make it clear that any contrary arguments will have little effect on changing their mind.  As an example, any claim that scholars have evidence against the long-held belief that Moses wrote the first five books of the Hebrew Bible7--the Torah--may not be considered.

At this point, it becomes clear that faith and loyalty are closely related not only in meaning but in feeling.  For a person to say they have faith in an idea or in a person includes the feeling of loyalty.  The latter is usually a very strong feeling in humans and some animals.  Conversely, to say that one no longer feels faith in something is to say that there is no longer a feeling of loyalty.  This is a serious change.  Is it any wonder people are reluctant to think they have lost faith in something?

To add a further wrinkle to the matter, faith is almost synonymous with trust.  Trust is more commonly used with regard to dependence on a person or group of persons, while faith is more often connected to attachment to an idea.  Of course, the two words are used in an interrelated fashion, especially in a religious context.  Persons have faith that God exists (impliedly in the form that they were taught) and further trust that God protects them.

Religious people base their beliefs on tradition and faith rather than on a complete analysis of facts.  It is not surprising that they often use these two words as substitutes for the word "religion."  You may hear statements like "Zoroastrianism was a widespread tradition" or "I belong to the Christian faith."  Then there is the denomination that calls itself Christian Science.  One may assume it does not emphasize faith, but it does.  Actually, its approach is antiscientific.  Religion and science take very different approaches in the adoption of knowledge and often work at cross-purposes.

The Scrutiny of Faith

It cannot be acceptable that faith not be thoroughly examined.  The immunity from investigation that has been granted to it has been going on for too long.  Everyone simply avoids having their beliefs questioned and instead retreats into their own cocoon of faith.  Each cocoon presents a different version of reality, sometimes vastly different.  For instance, radical Muslims hold onto a strong faith that God wants them to force all nonMuslims to convert to Islam and to execute those who refuse to do so.  While everyone refuses to leave their own protected area of faith, the truth may be sitting out there unsought and undiscovered.

While faith can mean (1) loyalty, (2) religion, and (3) trust, it can also mean belief.  This may be the most important meaning.  Faith is not simply a synonym for belief.  Faith is a special kind of belief.  Some dictionaries call it "unquestioned belief."(See, e.g., The American Heritage Dictionary (Boston:  Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2011.)  The faithful believer is not aware of possible alternatives or problems with their belief.  The believer takes it for granted that the belief is correct.  The believer often cannot offer any justification for holding the belief.  If one is offered, it may not be coherent.

No Faith

This book will not rely on faith.  To do so would just wind up repeating and bolstering time-worn doctrines without investigation.  Perhaps there would be some effort to elucidate and expand the concepts involved, but it would be off limits to consider making any serious changes.  It is definitely not the habit of religious leaders and their followers to sit around and discuss what major changes to make to their religious doctrines.  In fact, it is sometimes thought--at least unconsciously--that to engage in such questions runs the risk of being thought of as subversive, irreverent, or blasphemous.

Believers tend to engage in confirmation bias, a preference for information and discussion that serves to confirm what they already believe and for avoidance of anything that disagrees with their established prejudices.  This approach is not unusual.  We all have a tendency to think that way and are not even conscious of it.  We have to make an effort to to consider all objections to our position and to be prepared to admit that we may have been wrong.  This is not easy.

The Primacy of Reason

This book will employ reason to explore the issues related to belief in God.  The use of reason has to involve the gathering of facts and the attempt to categorize them into the true and the false, the significant and the minor.  There is the consequent judging of what are the appropriate conclusions to draw and the forging of a comprehensive picture from it all.

All this involves careful observation and close thinking.  It includes making every attempt to be objective.  While complete and absolute objectivity may not be attainable, it is possible to come close to it.  Every effort should be made in that direction.  Those who are comfortable in saying that objectivity is never possible are often those who want to allow their emotions to have control over their intellectual assessments.  They may not be conscious of this tendency.  The religious are squarely in this camp.  They allow their self-interested emotions--their wishful feelings--to guide their judgments.  Examples of self-interested beliefs are the thought that God is taking care of them and that their life will continue blissfully after death.

In the second book in this trilogy, Knowledge and Free Choice, it was stated that in making intellectual judgments people should try to combat their comfortable wishful feelings and their own self-interest.  Just asking for people to be aware of their biases and to try to compensate for them may have been enough.  In addition, i proposed a rule to try to compensate for self-serving bias.  I called it the AntiSelf-Serving Principle.  It says that whenever individuals want to accept a fact or to adopt a doctrine that favors their self-interest they should require double the evidence (double proof) that they would otherwise require.  This rule is hard to apply precisely, but if nothing else, it calls attention to the need to guard against believing in a proposition under the influence of our self-interest.

We have seen that reason is used, in fact is indispensable, in our common institutions.  All but the most irrational people would be upset and angry if this were not the case.  In their everyday lives, people agree that it is better to think through decisions even if they don't always follow that advice.  This is understandable.  Often times thinking things through is difficult, burdensome, even painful.  This is true of any hard mental effort.  People become impatient or the decision demands to be made sooner than advisable.  Nevertheless, people still agree that it is better to think matters through.

Intentions

In treating the subjects in this book, it will be important to pursue fairness.  There are constraints of time.  Perhaps this book can provide a springboard to a more exhaustive treatment of the issues here by others.  However, to say that there could be a more extensive treatment is not to imply that the answers to significant questions will not be clear in this book.  They should be apparent at least to those who are able to think clearly on the issues and are not obstructed by prior deep prejudices.  Many of the answers given here are likely final and definitive.

I will try to fully explore and learn from this project and hope the reader will also.  I have been thinking about these issues since i was four years old.  That was when i asked my mother why God always remained invisible.  I was raised a Baptist.  My parents were regular church goers.  My father became a deacon in the church.  I often heard my parents at home discuss the teachings in the Bible, how they could sometimes be the source of puzzlement, and how different members of the congregation interpreted them differently.  My mother was especially critical of any hypocrisy she saw.  She was raised a Catholic.

At age seven, i professed faith in Jesus Christ as my savior.  This is the point at which a person definitely becomes a Christian and at which--for Protestants--becomes saved and destined to go to heaven.  From the ages of 16 to 18, i was at my most intense time as a Christian.  I studied the Bible closely, i participated in church activities, and even taught a class.  I tried to commit as little sin as possible.  Afterwards, i continued to observe and study all religion.  After all these years of examination, i could not help but develop my opinion on many relevant matters.

The Plan

The plan in this book is to examine the evidence for holding a belief in God.  There will be a review of some of the minor arguments for the existence of God.  The moral argument will then be covered.  This is usually classed as a minor argument but since morality is often associated with God it is dealt with separately here.  The two major arguments in favor of the existence of God will then be examined closely.  These are the cosmological and the teleological arguments.  The first one involves whatever event occurred to begin the series of causes that have brought about the universe that we know today.  The argument has also been called the argument from causation.  The teleological argument posits that the universe had to be designed by someone with a purpose in mind and that designer had to be God.

The very important argument from evil will then be presented.  It is an argument that has been presented to show that there is no God.  It points out that there is great evil or suffering in the world.  God allows it to exist even though he is supposed to be a caring God with complete power over the world.  Therefore it cannot be that he exists.

After discussion of the arguments, a look at the validity of Judaism and Christianity will be undertaken.  Then there will be a discussion of the best moral rule to follow.  That will be followed by an examination of some concepts related to belief in God such as faith.  Finally, there will be a consideration of the beliefs it makes the most sense to hold.

2 Minor Arguments

The arguments for the existence of God in this chapter have been considered minor by philosophers for some time now.  There is one argument demoted here to a minor argument that has traditionally been counted as a major one.  This is the ontological argument.  This demotion is long overdue.  It is difficult to see why it has been taken so seriously for so long.  It may well be that upon considering it you will agree.

In the discussion of these arguments and other related issues, reference will be made to two books that have become well known for dealing with these theistic issues.  They are Atheism:  a Philosophical Justification by Michael Martin(Michael Martin, Atheism:  a Philosophical Justification (Philadelphia:  Temple University Press, 1990) and The Existence of God, Second Edition by Richard Swinburne.(Richard Swinburne, The Existence of God, 2nd ed. (Oxford:  Oxford University Press, 2004).)  A number of years have passed since their publication, but not that much has been published since then to warrant any significant consideration.  There surely have been additional refinements to the points made in the books, but it is doubtful that the discussion could have been extended very far.

The Ontological Argument

The ontological argument was offered by Anselm, a Benedictine monk who lived in England (1033-1109).  Later, versions were written including those by Rene Descartes, Norman Malcolm, and Alvin Plantinga.  It is an a priori type argument.  A priori arguments do not depend for their validity on actual facts in the world.  Their validity depends on the correctness of their initial assumptions.  Two models for the a priori method are logic and mathematics.

In contrast, the a posteriori method relies on gathering information after it has been experienced in the universe (mainly in the world).  The ontological argument does not depend at all on experience.  It depends on the given definition of God.

Mathematics takes an a priori approach.  It does not establish its truths (in the form of theorems) through research in the world on how things are.  Mathematicians may get ideas from the physical world on what mathematical entities to consider.  Counting apples and walnuts led to the idea of numbers.  The different shapes of rocks and certain other objects gave the ideas of different geometrical figures.  However, mathematical symbols were only inventions of the human imagination.

Putting it another way, items like numbers and triangles are not found in nature.  They are abstractions constructed by the human mind.  There are no triangles in nature as such; however, there are natural formations that have made us construct and define triangles in our minds and on paper.  A stone in the shape of a triangle is still only a stone.  A human may see it and reflect on its shape of a triangle, but any other animal would not.  So the theorems of geometry are about idealized figures and not about objects in the world.  Once the mathematical entities are chosen, definitions and axioms (obvious truths) are set down.  From these, the theorems are established using only logical rules.

A good form of the ontological argument to study is one that is similar to the one proffered by Descartes.

(1) By definition, God is a being who is perfect.

(2) By definition, perfection in God includes his existence.

(3) By the preceding definitions, God exists.

Premise (1) has to be a definition rather than a fact.  First of all, we have no knowledge that God is perfect.  No one has met him and observed that he is perfect.  There have been mystics who have claimed to have met him.  That cannot be sufficient to count God as being perfect.  There have only been a very small number who even claimed to be mystics on a continuing basis.  There would have to be a large number of people who had observed him under credible circumstances for a very extended period of time, perhaps for all eternity.  It would be necessary to observe him for all that time to make sure he did not at some point commit a mistake.  Even one mistake would render him not perfect.

Numerous individuals would have to independently observe him.  Group observation would not be valid because it would provide the opportunity for some to inadvertently influence others in making their observations.  The observers would have to provide the description based on their own individual and separate observation, i.e. the views would have to be intersubjective.  Those who have thus far claimed to experience God through visions or inner feelings in a way that allowed them definitively to ascertain the exact nature of God have not provided great detail on his nature.  They have not referred to perfection.

This lack of credibility is corroborated by the fact that the early Christian theologians who started talking of God as perfect did not point to any witnesses to their claim.  They simply started referring to him as perfect.  Likewise Anselm and the other developers of the ontological argument did not cite experiential (empirical) observations to support the proposition.  They simply started out with it as a given.  The same can be said of the other attributes that have been credited to God.  A perfect God simply got defined at some point and continued to be assumed as a matter of tradition.

In Descartes' definition he referred to God as "supremely perfect." That appears intended to mean that he surpasses other perfect entities in state of perfection.  This is not clear.  Supposedly a being is either perfect or he is not.  That does not leave room for comparative states of perfection.  It is hard to comprehend how one item is more perfect than another perfect one.  Again "supremely perfect" has to be definitional.  It is not clear enough to be readily understood.  It is just taken as a given.

Premise (2) states that the perfection of God includes existence.  It cannot be true because it depends on premise (1) which has not been shown to be true.  We have no way of knowing that God is perfect.  There is no testimony from anyone who has known God well enough.  The best evidence would be from the appearance of God himself to the whole world to explain his perfection.

It has been said that the best response to premise (2) was supplied by Immanuel Kant.(Immanuel Kant, Critique of Pure Reason Norman Kemp Smith, trans. (London:  Macmillan, 1929) 205.)  He pointed out that existence is not a predicate (property).  It adds nothing to the value of an object to add that it exists.  In other words, an object that is conceived as perfect gains nothing in quality by coming into existence.  Kant's answer was considered to be the proper refutation of the ontological argument for many decades.  New versions of the argument later appeared after 1960.  Michael Martin produced refutations of those.(Martin, 79-95)

It would take too much time to delve more deeply into the debates over whether existence is a property or over any other relevant disagreements.  The only basis for accepting premise (2) is a purely hypothetical one.  There is no support for it in the world that anyone can point out.  The only reason it is offered as a premise is that certain Christian theologians said it was the case.  It is really a product of the human imagination.

Based on premises (1) and (2), the conclusion is supposed to follow that God exists.  Yet there is something amiss.  As pointed out, the premises are purely imaginary, not based on any reality.  Therefore, while the conclusion follows logically from the premises, it tells us nothing about what is the reality in the universe.  Like the premises on which it is based, the conclusion is purely hypothetical, purely imaginary.  It is a conclusion that would be true only if it turned out that the premises were in reality true.  That, however, has not been shown.

In an a priori argument, it is one thing to posit or assume that certain items exist.  As pointed out before, in geometry we assume points and planes.  Objects in the world may suggest the figures of points and planes but they themselves are not points and planes.  The initial imaginary entities in geometry are posited in order to logically build up a mathematical system.

The same reasoning has to apply with respect to God.  An a priori argument can be constructed on the assumption of a God and his attributes.  Simply on that basis, you can go on to make certain logically derivable conclusions.  It is another matter to claim that this shows that God is more than an assumption, i.e. that he exists in reality.  Theologians making the ontological argument try to make the unwarranted leap from assumption to reality.

It is not clear from the evidence found in the world whether God is perfect or close to perfect or merely much more powerful than humans.  This goes to show further that the statements about God's perfection are based on human imagination.

Anselm's version of the argument also reflects its imaginary nature.  It defines God as a "being that which nothing greater can be conceived."(Anselm, Proslogion, chapter 2, reprinted in The Ontological Argument, Alvin Plantinga, ed., (Garden City, N.Y.:  Doubleday, (1965) 3-4.)  From that definition, it is clear that it is a matter of conceiving.  The same goes for any discussion about what is conceived and what follows from that.  It is only a definition and consequently open to discussion about conceptions but nothing else.

This is what makes it an a priori argument.  It is based on mental concepts and their derivations.  The different versions of the ontological argument all work the same way.  They are about imaginary conceptions of God and not about any God based in reality.

The completely hypothetical nature of the ontological argument may be more apparent if it is put in the following form:

(1) If God is supremely perfect and

(2) If God's being supremely perfect includes his existence

(3) Then God exists.

This way of putting it makes it more clear that the assertions about God in (1) and (2) are not known.  The whole argument is based on the supposition that the premises are true, but that is far from being known to be the case.

There is another question to ask.  Why does God have to be perfect?  It is nice to think that we have nothing to fear because God is perfect.  This would imply that he must be perfectly moral, highly loving, highly compassionate, and extremely kind.  Nevertheless, there is no way to know that in reality he is perfect.  Perhaps he is only nearly perfect.  Maybe he makes a mistake about once every 1,000 years.  That should not be surprising given that it is clear that the world and its inhabitants are so imperfect.  It should not make that much difference if God is a little imperfect.  This could also mean that God is very powerful but not omnipotent, very knowledgeable, but not omniscient.

Martin reviewed various considerations regarding the argument.(Martin, 79-95)  Richard Swinburne declined to discuss the ontological argument citing that "the greatest theistic philosophers of religion have on the whole rejected ontological arguments and relied on a posteriori ones."(Swinburne, 9)

The ontological argument was an argument devised by monks and later theistic philosophers who had too much time on their hands.  Not only should the argument be relegated to minor status but it should simply be put to rest altogether.

The Common Consent Argument

The common consent of humanity (consensus gentium) has been used in support of different ideas including that of the existence of God.  It has more commonly been employed in popular discussions.  Philosophers have not judged it as having much merit in support of God.("Common Consent Arguments for the Existence of God," The Encyclopedia of Philosophy (New York:  Macmillan, 1967.)

The simplest form of the argument is that since the great majority of people believe in God, there must be a God. This is easily refuted.  There are a number of beliefs that all humans have held but that were ultimately found false.  In the year 5,000 B.C.E., it was undoubtedly believed by all that the earth was a flat plane.  Perhaps a few (sailors most likely) had observed that it appeared to be a plane with a slight downward curvature.  Another way of stating it is that it was like an outer slice of a large sphere.  Everyone would have also agreed that the earth did not spin; after all it was perfectly still.

A Common Innate Belief

Then there is the version of the argument that asserts that belief in God is innate; everyone is supposedly born with it.  Since this is so, it must be that God exists.  What would indicate that there was this innateness?  It would have to appear clearly in all children.  They would all have to state very early something like "I believe in God."  This would have to be one of the first sentences they uttered.  There could be no prior instruction or coaching of any kind.  Perhaps the first word spoken by them would be "God."  It would be uttered even before the word "mama."  The word would have to be the same word throughout the world.  It could not be in the language of the surrounding society of each child because that would show that it had only spoken it after hearing it from people nearby.

Needless to say, this has not been known to happen.  Infants do not give any indication that they know anything about God.  It is only after acquaintance with religious ideas and indoctrination in those ideas that children begin to talk about those same ideas.  Innatists may then claim that religious ideas do not show in infants but only later as they become older after their brains have had a chance to develop.  The proof that this cannot be the case is in the fact that children only repeat what they have heard.  There would have to be uniformity if the ideas were innate.  For instance, children in India would not talk about several gods while Jewish children referred only to one God.  The theological ideas would be exactly the same and would not vary with the particular religion taught to the children.

Theists who admit that innateness is not a sound basis sometimes resort to postulating that certain human instincts point to a universal belief in God.  Clearly, the basic, well-known instincts like hunger, thirst, and sex are not what they are thinking.  It is not clear which instincts are supposed to point to the belief.  The idea of duty is often mentioned.(Id. 148)  That humans often show a sense of duty is supposed to show that God exists.

A Sense of Duty

The sense of duty that some people show is commendable and can certainly be of benefit to others.  It is surely a character trait to be encouraged.  Theists may well claim that the trait (and other commendable ones like it) is more likely to occur in people who believe in God since they are more attuned to acting morally and to showing respect and concern toward others.  This may be true, but it does nothing to show that God actually exists.  It only claims that the belief that many people have in God, even if erroneous, motivates them to behave better.

Then there is the response that not all people show a sense of duty.  There are many people who will attest to the lack of a sense of obligation that they have observed in others.  Just one example--the numerous irresponsible drivers who have driven drunk and injured others.  What about the many irresponsible who say they believe in God?  There is a significant number of irresponsible people, and that makes it harder to make the case that a sense of duty is universal, and in turn, that it proves the existence of God.  It is hard to find other so-called human instincts that point to the existence of God.

Then there is the possibility that there are human instincts that are not desirable.  Is violence an instinct?  If it is, what does that say?  Humans have used irresponsible violence and caused tremendous damage to themselves, to other animals, and to the earth.  Might this be proof that God does not exist?  Even worse, could it indicate that God exists but is an evil God?  This is the Satanist position.  After all, he created humans and allows their continued existence with all their violence.

A Yearning for God

Another version of the argument from common consent depends on the claim that everyone feels a yearning for God.  It does not seem that the proponents of the claim have conducted any studies to confirm that.  One simple way that they could have done this is to conduct a survey of thousands of people from around the globe including areas where there is no strong belief in a God, particularly a personal God.  It is very likely that they would have found a significant number of people who had no strong feelings toward God.  These subjects may well have believed there was a God but have done so purely because they had been taught there was a God.  They may have thought there was a God that demanded to be worshipped and that he demanded lots of attention.  They could believe he was volatile, easily angered, and vindictive.  He was a God to be feared.  This is not a God for which most humans would feel a yearning.  It would be more one to be avoided as much as possible.

A related observation could be that even atheists have a yearning for God.  These atheists could have a very firm belief that no God exists and at the same time credibly declare that they wished there were a God.  This wish could be interpreted as a yearning for God.  The wish would be based on the observation that the world is an unrelentingly harsh place with many pains, pitfalls, and far-reaching disasters, and that it needs a powerful and concerned super being to remedy these problems.  Atheists could hold a yearning for a God that would perform wonderful remedial acts.  Yet they could insist that in reality there is no such God because it is seen that the harshness of the world continues day after day with no intervention by any powerful being.

There are plenty of people who do not harbor a deep yearning for God.  What can be meant by yearning is simply the wish for there to be some being that will greatly improve the world or "a hunger for something greater than we are."(Chad Walsh, quoted in id. 149.)  The wish does nothing toward showing that God actually exists. 

The Basis of Reason

An argument for universality of belief in God has been made on the basis of reason.  It goes like this.

(1) Humans possess the power of reason.

(2) Humans arrive at their belief in God through reason.

(3) Reason in humans is trustworthy.

(4) Therefore, God must exist.

Starting with premise (1), there is a problem.  There is a wide variation in humans with respect to reasoning power.  Reasoning can be taught, but humans receive different amounts of instruction on it.  Humans also fall into poor, error-producing habits even after being well taught.  Even after seeing the error of their ways, they can still persist in thinking in their own way in spite of the pitfalls involved.  Given all these considerations, it can be concluded that humans have a limited power of reason.

Premise (2) is problematical.  As discussed in chapter 1, people come by their religious preferences based on what they were taught by parents, other family members, their surroundings.  Once they go to the congregation to which they were directed by their family, the clergy there make sure they are properly indoctrinated in the beliefs of their religion and only those beliefs.  There will be no significant discussion of other teachings.  There will be no talk of allowing reason to find the best beliefs even if they are not the beliefs of their religion.  If anyone comes up with hard questions through the use of reason, there may be some effort to answer them also with the use of reason.  However, if this cannot be done, the ultimate instruction will be to rely on faith in the church's teaching.

Then there are the stories of adults who at first did not believe and then converted, sometimes becoming ardent and active believers.  These accounts do not tell of persons sitting down to gather a great amount of information on a religion or religions, analyzing it, discussing the details with other people of varying opinions, reasoning upon it all, and finally arriving at a well-thought out conclusion.  Instead, what is sometimes said to have occurred is some mystical experience, and those experiences are not based on reason.

There is the Christian example of Saul of Tarsus (the apostle Paul) who was blinded by a flash of light from the sky and then supposedly heard the voice of Jesus who asked him why he was persecuting him.(Acts 9: 3-5)  Saul was blind for three days. It was this experience that was supposed to have made Saul convert to Christianity.  Previously, Saul had been a devout Jew who had purportedly persecuted Christians.

There is no report in the Christian testament of Saul's having spent time sorting out the various events surrounding his shocking experience.  It sounds as if he could have been struck by lightning.  He did not seem to try to understand what happened when the lightning bolt hit him.  One rational conclusion could have been that the bolt had affected his brain causing a hallucination in which Jesus chastised him for persecuting and even killing Christians.  Saul could have even concluded the entire hallucination was connected to a guilty conscience over so aggressively persecuting Christians.

Neither is there any evidence of Saul weighing all the pros and cons on the status of Jesus before deciding to become a Christian.  He did not consider--through a rational process--whether (1) Jesus was the son of God (divine), (2) a simple human starting a new religion, (3) a steadfast Jew trying to reform his religion, or (4) a political rebel trying to expel the Romans from his homeland with aid of the Lord.

Another example also comes from Christian history.  In 312 Roman emperor Constantine was preparing for battle at the Milvian Bridge near Rome.  He saw a vision of a flaming cross with the phrase, "In hoc signo vinces (in this sign you conquer)."  He was victorious that day.  It is the tradition that based on this simple experience Constantine converted to Christianity.  Furthermore, he went on to make Christianity the official religion of the empire.

Again there is nothing mentioned in the tradition that there was any rational process as a part of the conversion.  Perhaps the hallucination was simply the result of stress before battle, or maybe it was caused by inebriation.  In those days, soldiers often got drunk to deal with the stress of battle.  Did Constantine question alternate possibilities?  Before making Christianity the official religion, did he, perhaps with the help of scholars, carefully and thoroughly examine all the available religions to decide which one was best for the empire?  This was a very fateful turn of events based on a simple vision.

There are countless other stories of conversions and religious actions taken because of a mystical vision or voice or other sudden experience.  The life of the observer changes dramatically in a manner of minutes.  The person assumes on the spot that the experience signifies that a particular course of action is supposed to be taken.  There is no report of any reasoning process to assess whether there may be an alternative interpretation to the experience and which is the most appropriate one.  In the case of Saul, he could have decided the vision was a matter of imagination but that it still meant that he should stop persecuting Christians, remain a faithful Jew, and preach religious tolerance to his fellow Jews.  It should be clear that reason is not the path by which either children or adults reach their religious beliefs including the one about the very existence of God.

Premise (3) in the argument alleges that human reason is trustworthy.  First of all, having just learned that humans do not arrive at religious belief through reason, the issue of whether it is trustworthy or not becomes irrelevant.  Human reason could be 100% reliable, but if belief in God is derived through indoctrination, peer pressure, mysticism, or emotion, then reason does not come into play.  It could be used by some believers to review their belief in God, but this is usually not done with an open mind toward possibly changing opinions.  Then there are the cases, although not many, in which believers resort to reason to examine their beliefs and wind up deciding that God does not exist, i.e. they become atheists.  That is not a sound endorsement for the use of reason in arriving at belief in God.

I could stop here, declare that premise (2) is false because people believe based on considerations other than reason, and demur from going on to consider how trustworthy is reason.  Much of what was stated in the discussion of premise (1) in connection with the actual use of reason by humans applies to premises (2) and (3).

Trustworthiness

Here are a few more words about trustworthiness.  While humans may in general be successful in the use of reason, they are far from perfect.  Even the most rational of people make mistakes.  Then there are the many instances in which a person is very smart at dealing with most situations but not with certain others.  These others may only be one or two.  A brilliant accountant may be very sharp in her/is profession and in handling other aspects of her/is life but a failure in choosing and harmonizing with a spouse.  S/he has been divorced three times.

There is the further observation that people are more adept at reasoning about common tasks and problems than they are about abstract matters like those involving higher mathematics, advanced physics, and metaphysics.  Thinking about the existence of God falls under metaphysics.  Only a small percentage of the total population could be said to excel at these endeavors.  It can be said that most religious believers do not spend a great amount of time trying to understand the more arcane aspects of their religion, such as God's immanence or transcendence or the transmigration of souls.

One of the difficulties in metaphysics is that many concepts involved are not amenable to investigation and substantiation.  An example is immortality.  Much can be claimed about it, but it is not possible to verify the claims. They are only based on speculation.  Given this lack of clarity and precision, it seems much more likely that those engaging in metaphysical thinking will fall into error.  Of course, this includes efforts to prove the existence of God.

The foregoing weaknesses in human reasoning make it clear that it is far from being trustworthy.  Yet, it would have to be universally trustworthy in order to be able to conclude that it can support universal belief in God.  Premise (3) is false and does not support the attempted conclusion that God exists on the basis of universal reasoning.

Contra Common Consent

There are two observations that also count against common consent by reason in addition to working well in refuting the common consent argument in general.  First, there is the point that if people around the globe allegedly all arrive at the belief that God exists, they should all accordingly also reach uniform religious beliefs.  Why don't all religious scriptures show that God consistently exhibits the same nature, issues the same commands, harbors the same expectations from humans, and metes out the same punishments?  It would only be one God, and he would fit the same description among all religions.  In fact there would only be one universal religion.  If there were more than one God, they would all be the same ones throughout all the religions.  For instance, if it were Hera and Zeus, they would be found in the pantheon of all religions and they would be exactly the same persons in every instance.

These are not the accounts that have been provided by people.  There has been a wide variety in the versions.  There have been numerous polytheistic religions each with pantheons clearly different from the others. There are fewer polytheistic sects in the world today than there were in the distant past.  This is probably due to the energetic world-wide proselytizing of the Christians and Muslims preaching the evils of polytheism.  Upon closer study, it becomes apparent that ideas about God and what he wants are culturally based.  The existence of God and his nature are dictated by what the culture teaches as well as the strength of the indoctrination in the culture.

Another strike against common consent is the significant number of people in the world who consider themselves atheist or agnostic.  Note again the millions of adherents to the Buddhist and the Jain religions which express little about God.  The number of people who can be counted as atheist or agnostic has risen moderately perhaps because of reduced social constraints that have made people less fearful of departing from religious convention.  The two groups have grown to comprise a combined percentage of the populations of almost 10%.  This is a significant amount.

It cannot be as easily dismissed as some theists have tried to do. They have opined that atheists/agnostics have in actuality been believers who have merely claimed unbelief due to feelings of rebellion and recalcitrance.  That explanation by theists works against their idea of universality, especially innateness.  If that high a percentage of people can wind up renouncing their belief in God, that would seemingly show that belief is not universal nor innate to begin.  If it were that widespread, it would not be that easily overridden by rebellious feelings.

The alleged rebels converted from a theistic religion to being nonbelievers. This probably happened in adulthood or at the earliest in the teen years.  It could have been the result of a sudden emotional experience but more likely was at least partly the product of reasoning about the various facts and alternatives.  This goes against the claim that reason leads everybody to believe in God.  Furthermore, there are a number of books that have been written using sound reasoning in support of atheism.(See e.g. Martin, id; J.C.A. Gaskin, ed., Varieties of Unbelief (New York:  Macmillan, 1989.)  Ultimately, there does not seem to be enough of a consensus among all the people of the world to support the common consent argument.

A subgroup of atheists/agnostics were not taught about God by their families.  Consequently, it cannot be said that their lack of belief was a matter of rebellion.  Their parents could have been nonbelievers who never showed any interest in God.  The children gradually adopted their parents' attitudes and became nonbelievers as they grew up.  It was a calm process and not a rebellious one.  There was no evidence of innateness.

Here is a side observation with respect to theists who are convinced that belief in God is universal.  Their feeling may be the result of never having contact with those who admit to not having any belief in God.  If they do have any contact with them, there is not much in the way of open discussion about the subject.  Thus the believers remain surrounded only by those who believe in God.

The Argument from Scripture

Another argument that has not been given importance by philosophers is the argument from scripture.  It is instead offered by religious enthusiasts eager to establish a strong foundation for their own religion.  Those believers can sometimes be downright fanatical.  An example is found in those contemporary Israelis who insist that the Hebrew Bible provides justification for complete Israeli control over all land in the possession of Israel.  Other, perhaps most, believers are less willing to base important beliefs on religious scripture including proof of the existence of God.  They have read enough in them to become aware that the scriptures exhibit vagueness, errors, and sometimes outright contradiction.

The question arises:  which religion's scripture is to be chosen for proving the existence of God?  Buddhist writings do not deal with the question.  Hindu scriptures propose more than one God.  Jews and Muslims believe strictly in one and only one God while Christian writings teach of a tripartite God.  How is it chosen which set of scriptures to believe?  The scriptures of the different religions are so different that it is very hard to fashion some sort of compromise among them.  That can't be the solution.

Look at Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.  All three have in common that they used as their first scripture the Judaic scriptures, i.e. the Hebrew Bible.  Yahweh is the God propounded there.  Call the combined adherents of these three religions, Yahwehists.  Yet there are definite differences among these three religions.  They certainly all disagree over the divinity of Jesus, the Christian icon.  There are a number of disclarities and inconsistencies.  Take the Hebrew Bible as the scripture to be used for proof of the existence of God. 

All three religions recognize and accept the early chronology and stories found in the Hebrew Bible including what is written in the first two books, Genesis and Exodus.  Yet scholars have questioned a number of details in the events recounted in the Hebrew Bible.  Just one claim that was believed for centuries that has long been discredited is that Moses wrote the Torah (Pentateuch in Greek), the first five books of the Bible.(For a review of how scholars have come to conclude how the books were written see, among other books, Richard Elliott Friedman, Who Wrote the Bible? (New York:  Summit Books, 1987).)

A book that challenges several well-entrenched beliefs found in Genesis and Exodus was written by a former president of the Biblical Archaeology Society, Gary Greenberg.  In The Bible Myth, he brought forth evidence that Moses, an Egyptian, was the chief priest of the pharaoh Akhenaton.(Gary Greenberg, The Bible Myth:  the African Origins of the Jewish People (Secaucus, N.J.:  Citadel Press, 1996).)  This pharaoh was a fanatical monotheist who worshipped the sun god and tried to prohibit the worship of other gods.  He also issued a proscription against graven images.(Id. 4)

After the death of Akhenaton, worship of the former gods was restored.  Several years later Moses staged a rebellion that failed.  The rebels who were mostly Egyptians were allowed to leave Egypt.  This was later labeled the Exodus.(Id. 7)  There are other historical claims that are questioned in the book.

When so many important claims are found wanting in the Hebrew Bible, the very important foundation for three different religions, one has to wonder how credible is it that it shows the existence of God.  It has been hard enough to sort through the archaeological and documentary sources to try to capture an accurate picture of Moses.  It shows that the portrait of him in the Bible may not be accurate or complete.  Why should the Bible then inspire any confidence in any belief that it proves the existence of God?  Note that the three Yahwehist religions are the three most adamant at believing and trying to convince people that their God is the only true God and that there are dire consequences for those who do not accept that God.

There is another very important consideration with respect to proof by scripture.  This is the matter of authentication.  How does one know that a copy of a scripture is genuine?  More importantly, how does one know that what it purports to say is true?

By way of example, look at the procedure in court trials.  There are rules of evidence that must be followed strictly.  If someone offers a written contract that shows that A promised to pay $10,000, it is not accepted as correct automatically.  There must be credible evidence that the contract or a copy of it is genuine.  If C was the lawyer who drew up the contract, s/he can be summoned as a witness to testify on what s/he knows about the document and possibly about the surrounding circumstances.  In addition, A can be asked to admit that the contract is genuine.

In the case of scriptures, they are usually 2,000 years old or much older.  For instance, the Mahabharata, the sacred book of the Hindus, was passed along by oral tradition until it was finally written down in the 1600's C.E.("Mahabharata," The Wordsworth Dictionary of Beliefs and Religions (Hertfordshire, England:  Wordsworth Reference, 1995.))

The early books of the Hebrew Bible were also passed orally for centuries and only collected and edited by priests in the 600's B.C.E.  In relation to the Christian testament, there is dispute on the identity of the gospel and letter writers. It is doubtful that any of them made a personal observation of Jesus whether by talking to him or hearing his sermons.  What they wrote was based on hearsay.  Sometimes it may have been compound hearsay, that is hearsay based on prior hearsay.  Even if we could employ a time machine to take us back to those times, in most cases we would not know who to summon as authors of the writings. 

The scripture writers would be in the place of C in the example given above.  Their testimony would be based on hearsay, which has long been considered unreliable even in ordinary, everyday conversation.  Yet this extensive hearsay from vague sources has long been considered by religious people as coming from God, even word for word.  One is supposed to accept this wholeheartedly, including the existence of God, without question.  On such a profoundly important issue, one should be able to extensively question the sources of religious claims, the writers.  This is especially true since different religions contain different religious claims.

In the prior example, the best source of information was A, the person who made the alleged promise.  S/he would be able to supply information about the authenticity of the document and on what it states.  S/he would be able to talk about her/is true intentions as well as all the surrounding facts.  S/he would be able to testify about all the surrounding circumstances.

In the situation of the scriptures, the person who stands in the place of A is none other than God.  No one has claimed that the sacred writings fell right out of the sky directly from God.  Instead, all believe that certain persons were inspired by God to write down what he wanted humans to know and believe.  The more avid followers believe that God told the writers directly what he wanted them to write down.  Otherwise, why would he want to leave the writers any leeway in what they were to say?

Who better than God to come and tell humanity the truth about the different scriptures and what, if anything, he told their writers?  There are so many questions that he could answer that people have been asking for millennia.  There is immediately the question of which religion possesses the true scriptures.  In the one true religion, are all of its scriptures correct?

Then there is the most important question that we are trying to solve in this section.  Do scriptures contain proof of the existence of God?  God could point out where in the writings that answer is contained.  However, at that point, the issue would be made moot with the actual appearance of God.  That would be the proof itself.  Of course, we know that God has not appeared.  There has been no authentication of any scriptures by any credible source.  Given the weakness of the scriptures, they cannot be counted as proving the existence of God.

Note that as in the case of common consent, there is the problem of the failure of uniformity or universality.  Why don't all the scriptures from around the world all point to the same god or gods with the same characteristics, the same history, and the same commandments?

The Argument from Happiness

Another popular but nonphilosophical argument is the one from happiness.  The argument is also known as the argument from reward.

People who believe in God are happier that those who do not.

Believers are happier as a result of their blessings from God.

Therefore, God exists. 

I don't know of any sound social studies that have shown this allegation to be sound.  If a study were to show that believers are less happy than nonbelievers or that the findings were inconclusive, then the argument would clearly fail.  On the other hand, if the study were to show that believers are happier, there would be two avenues of explanation.  Either they are truly being helped by God or they are not and their happiness is an illusion.

The first would be that God actively and directly sends blessings to those who believe in him.  He provides for their material welfare.  Through helping them with everyday living, he helps indirectly with their psychological well-being.  Whenever necessary, he also gives further psychological aid to his followers by assuaging their fears, providing courage instead, and otherwise lifting their spirits in many other ways.  This is certainly what many of the different scriptures teach.  God is there and will support you.  This is clearly a cause for happiness.

Many believers subscribe to these ideas.  They believe they have a personal relationship with God.  They may claim that God has always answered their prayers.  Yet upon closer scrutiny, someone looking at the surrounding facts objectively may find holes in their allegedly protected lives.

Here are three situations where prayers do not seem to have been answered so God may not offer protection.  One is a woman who is 75 and has been attending church for years and prays frequently, sometimes for hours at a time.  She leads an honest and righteous life.  Yet she can hardly walk due to spine and knee problems.  She had a major knee operation followed by six weeks of rehabilitation in a facility.  The surgery did not remedy the problem so the whole process had to be repeated.  The knee then showed improvement but has been far from functional.  She constantly suffers pain.  At the same time, her marriage went into a serious skid.  There was a separation that has lasted for years.  There have been many recriminations.  One son died prematurely at age 42, while the other son rapidly spends his monthly disability check because he is an incurable alcoholic.  He is 45 years old and lives with her.

A man has been a churchgoing Christian since childhood.  Like many people after they get older, he became more devout after age 50.  He claims that God answers all his prayers favorably.  He leads an honest and righteous life.  He and his wife argued incessantly for years until he moved out.  They have been separated for more than twenty years.  During most of that same time, he was also estranged from his son.  The son was later arrested and had to  spend several years in prison.  His daughter is often angry at him.  For several years she has refused to talk to him and has turned his grandchildren against having anything to do with him.  This man suffers from health problems including advanced diabetes.  Both the woman above and this man are highly overweight but claim they are unable to lose weight.

The third case involves a woman Helen who is such a devout Catholic that she attended mass in person for several years until the pandemic of 2020.  She was also very involved in her church.  She is judgmental.  She became estranged from her three sisters.  Her son went through a terrible divorce and his ex-wife did not let him or Helen see his son.  At 42 he had to spend time in the hospital due to a serious heart valve problem.  He could not work so he and his girlfriend had to move in with Helen.  They are alcoholic.  Helen had to throw them out because she could not put up with them.  At about that time, she became very distraught after her 40 year old daughter declared she was a lesbian. 

Helen and i once talked about how difficult it was to find a parking space when visiting a hospital.  She acknowledged it was a grave problem but pointed out that she could always quickly find a parking spot near the door.  She exclaimed, "Thank you, Jesus."  I wanted to ask her, "Why don't you tell Jesus to forget about the parking and instead cure you of your aggravating thyroid problem."  For more than twenty years, she has been suffering from hypothyroidism, which sometimes leaves her so debilitated that she can barely get up in the morning.  She used to be very energetic.  She has had cancer and coronary problems with stents put in on two different occasions.  If you think hard enough, you can probably think of examples like these of religious people you know where the conditions for happiness are missing.  There is no real foundation for their happiness.  It is all an illusion.

General Feeling of Happiness

A variant of the argument from happiness can still be proposed.  This is that if God does not provide happiness for believers in individual instances, he does it by inducing in them a general feeling of happiness.  The believer no longer has negative attitudes or feelings, no more angry outbursts or bouts of fear of different threats, actual or imagined.  Instead there is a positive, optimistic, patient, understanding attitude.  The person radiates with feelings of joy, love, kindness, and charity toward everyone.  Christians think of this as the entry of the Holy Spirit into the person.  Happiness is not the result of individual blessings received but of a change of spirit or personality in the person.

There have been a number of polls in which people have answered questions about how happy they feel.  Those who are very religious have self-reported to be significantly more happy than those who are not very religious or are not religious at all.(David G. Myers, The Pursuit of Happiness (New York:  Avon, 1992) 183-186.)  In one poll in the United States, a number of people said they were very happy.  31 percent of them said they were "somewhat" or "not very" religious, but 41 percent said they had a "strong" religious affiliation.(Id. 183)

There is something to note here.  Since those polls depend on the self-reporting answers of the persons interviewed, how free can those answers be from bias and the wishful thoughts of the interviewees?  This may be most applicable to those who consider themselves "very" religious.  When asked how happy they are, might they not unconsciously be influenced by the feeling that very religious people should be very happy?  This may account for the higher percentage of self-reported very religious people who state they are very happy.

Accept that the very religious are happier than everybody else.  This is not problematical.  It is very plausible that those who believe in a God and the many blessings that accrue from that should be happy and even very happy.  There are a number of blessings that are perceived to flow from faithful belief in God.(Id. 186-204)  The following subtopics under happiness delineate advantages for those who believe strongly in God.

Community.  Strongly religious people are very likely to be members of a house of worship.  This gives them the opportunity to belong to a group with common interests.  That by itself fosters a feeling of comfort and well-being.  Humans are social animals, as Aristotle pointed out, and need to have some contact with others.  It is well known that people thrive better and are more happy when they are part of a social group.

In a religious group, there are additional attractions.  The members are likely very cordial and caring toward other members.  Everyone is usually on their best behavior as is to be expected in a religious setting.  There is also the feeling that the congregation is involved in a very important and exalted undertaking--the collective praise and worship of God.  Then there are likely to be projects being carried out.  These projects may be for the betterment of the congregation or for some charitable purpose that aids people on the outside.  Working on such projects alongside other members can be very satisfying.

Altruism.  The charitable projects often carried out are not only beneficial to the recipients but also profit the benefactors psychologically.  A positive mental feeling comes from the assessment that the recipient is more likely to return the favor when the benefactor is later in need--like putting money in the bank for a rainy day.

However, there is more than that one practical benefit.  There is in itself a simple pleasure that is derived from helping others.  It appears to be biological.  People who have performed altruistic acts have pointed out feeling pleasure at helping.  Others have observed it and studied it.

Psychologist Bernard Rimland conducted a study of about 2,000 people.  It was estimated that 70 percent of those judged to be unselfish were also thought to be happy, while 95 percent of those perceived to be selfish were judged to be unhappy.(Id. 194)  That is a marked contrast.  It has been inferred that one factor that helps altruistic people be more happy is that they are less focused on themselves and their problems.  It also helps to see that other people have problems; you are not alone.  In fact, everyone has problems at one time or another, of one level of severity or another.

Help from God.  It was discussed above that believers with the possible exception of a few, expect that God will be there to help them in time of danger or need.  This has to give them a comfortable feeling of security, which in turn is an important component of happiness.  In addition, there has to be a great boost to the believer's self-esteem to realize that the owner of the universe himself is paying this attention and providing this aid.

Eternal Life of Happiness.  Most religious believers expect that they will continue to have another life after they pass from this earth.  Believers in reincarnation think that their next life may be very different from this one depending on what they did in this one.  They hope and believe there can be an improvement.  Christians and Muslims believe they can reach a heaven that lasts forever and is full of happiness.

This belief--and it is supposed to be a strong one--can provide great comfort and happiness in this life.  No matter how sorrowful and tragic life may be on this earth--both in general and for the particular individual--it will be remedied in heaven.  First, there will be great justice done on the Day of Judgment.  Then because heaven lasts eternally, the travails endured on this earth will gradually seem less important as the memory of them recedes with passing time.  The painful memories are also eclipsed by the ineffable joy to be felt in heaven.

This can be most consoling for those who have had an unsatisfactory life on earth for one reason or another.  It could be that they had to endure serious health problems for a long time perhaps from childhood.  They may have helped bring on their problems like by drinking too much alcohol, using drugs, or eating too much.  Whatever the root of the problem, it has to be a great relief that eventually there will be a time and place where they will be rid of their torturous burdens.  A further consolation is that they will never again have to face any new problems.

Furthermore, all misdeeds (sins) will be forgiven and each person will henceforward be free of her/is shortcomings.  This will mean that there will be a reconciliation with everyone on earth with whom they may have been in conflict.  This will be made easier because whatever character defects the person had that made it difficult for others to like her/im will be erased.  This will also prevent any further conflicts with others from ever arising again.

In addition, everyone else will have their shortcomings wiped away so this will inevitably provide for perfect relations among all.  Many other blessings and wonderful situations can be imagined taking place in perfect existence in heaven.  All this makes life on this earth--even in the most unfortunate situations--meaningful.  In the end regardless of the suffering on earth, the obstacles are overcome and a serene future can be enjoyed with all the greater intensity.  For all this to be true, it seems that God must exist.

There can be other consolations for those who are religious.  The four just reviewed may be the most important.  There is no doubt that they are likely to make a big contribution to the happiness of believers.  No doubt that to the faithful this is clear proof that God exists.  But is that so?

Community Revisited.  Need it be true that God needs to exist for the advantages found in community to be available?  The need and enjoyment of the feeling of community can take place in settings other than religious ones.  It can be observed in a number of organizations such as sports teams, secular charitable projects such as the Red Cross, social clubs, military groups, and in employment settings.  Members of those groups can form strong attachment and fondness for their group and its members.  This was probably often seen in primitive tribes.  Community is clearly not solely an occurrence found in religious groups but also in any number of secular groups where members can find a feeling of well-being and happiness without any connection to God.  It may even be a matter of evolutionary psychology.

Altruism Revisited.  Altruism is a practice that is often associated with religious organizations.  This is rightly so since they are often deeply involved in helping people, sometimes even serving others outside the organization.  Many religious people see charitable work as an integral part of religious involvement.  They believe that God commands altruism and are trying to comply with that commandment.  Upon closer examination, they would find that there are people who engage in charitable actions without thinking about God's commanding it.

Even theists may not give much thought to what God desires when they perform charitable acts.  They may have first become involved in performing charitable acts as children.  At that time, their motivation may have been to please God.  Their parents or their religious leaders may have encouraged them to go help people in need in the name of God.  They may have continued--even for a long time--to perform good deeds with God in mind.  At some point, they may have stopped being aware of the wishes of God and simply focused on the many needs of the people they were trying to serve.  This should not be surprising since the needs of people in distress are clearly great.  It becomes clear that apart from God's wishes there is a great need for charity.  So there is no need for God to exist in order to practice altruism.

Help from God Revisited.  In connection with the belief that there is help from God with problems, it has been seen that it is difficult to ascertain to what extent he does this.  Many theists will concede this.  It is not clear in what instances God answers pleas for help.  Some prayers are very worthy of receiving a positive response and yet are not answered.

For instance, a small child may make some very unselfish prayers that contain no entreaties for the child itself, nothing involving selfishness.  The prayers are for God to end a brutal war in which thousands of men, women, and children are being killed, are starving, are being injured sometimes permanently, and having their homes destroyed.  The war continues unabated with no apparent action from God.  On the other hand, another child prays for a CD with her/is favorite song on it and has it apparently granted.

There are cases in which no prayers are involved.  Yet blessings seem to be distributed to different people with no apparent pattern or order.  Strong believers may experience favorable events or feel happy in their lives, but then weak or questioning believers may well receive the same benefits as the strong ones.  At times nonbelievers are observed to enjoy the same or even greater blessings as strong adherents.  This is surprising since according to theistic teachings:  the greater the faith, the greater the benefit.

The truth is that many strong and faithful believers are seen to carry some of the greatest misfortune by way of poor health, financial disaster, and so on.  Serious illness and financial calamity are often seen hand-in-hand since the former is often the cause of the latter.  Religionists may point out that the large number of sick and distressed people seen at religious institutions is precisely because they go there in hope of receiving healing.  The answer to that is that if drawing closer to God and seeking his blessings were as fruitful as claimed then we should witness the faithful being restored to sound health and serene living on a regular basis. 

Eternal Life of Happiness Revisited.  Another belief in most religions is the fervent expectation that believers will eventually go to a place of eternal bliss--heaven or nirvana.  This has to be very comforting to all believers.  But is it true?  Can we know it is true?

Even the most ardent of heaven believers hesitate to get involved in describing details.  They usually don't go much further than i just did.  They stay with saying that everyone will be able to see their relatives and friends again, will be in close touch with God, and will live forever in a state of bliss.  They will not admit to anything more specific.

This is understandable.  There are no sources that describe what heaven is like.  The same can be said of hell.  This should be a consolation for those who worry about hell.  The major religious scriptures do not offer descriptions.  We know of no one who has passed on to either place and then been allowed to return to earth to report on what it was like.  Nor has anyone still living on earth been allowed to visit either place and then returned to the world to inform humanity of the true existence and nature of the legendary locations.  Nor have any angels or devils been sent to earth to give lectures on what the places are like.  They could bring photos and videos of what takes place there.  There is no record of God ever coming down to discuss either place.

By the way, why didn't God provide Moses with videos of the proceedings involving the two of them on Mount Sinai?  God could have opted to not have his visage shown on the videos, but Moses, the tablets containing the Ten Commandments, and everything else could have been recorded.

Although the idea of heaven is an important one in several religions, there is no evidence to support it.  That leaves it in the same position as the claim that God provides benefits to believers in their everyday lives.  The evidence is simply insufficient.  Actually, the evidence may be even weaker since it involves allegations of something that we do not know where to find in order to go observe.

The claims of believers with regard to both earthly benefits and eternal heavenly bliss appear to be products of human wishful feelings.  People wish that both were true but that does not make them true.  Believers who have a strong faith that they are true may understandably feel more happy than others.  However, the support for their veracity is weak, and they cannot be used to show that God exists.  Their happiness is just an illusion that they are being helped by a god.  With this, there are no sound arguments left standing for the proposition that believers are happier or are rewarded by a truly existent God.  They may feel better by believing in him but that does not show that God exists.

The Argument from Consciousness

The proponents of this argument have pointed out for a long time that consciousness appears to be very different from physical bodies.  They also bring into play the terms soul, mind, mental properties, mental events, and mental substance.  They claim that these mental properties are so different that they have to be completely separate from what is physical.

You may recognize this as the old idea of dualism:  the universe consists of physical substance and mental substance.  Allegedly, they two work together but are two different kinds of building blocks of what exists.  It is not hard to agree that mental events are very different from physical ones.  Visualizations in your mind of flowers, mountains, chocolate bars, and friends are very different from tree leaves fluttering and balls bouncing.

Book I Predominance of the Physical World was an extensive presentation, that in spite of this difference, there is a complete dependence of mental events on physical events.  The chapters in Part 2 on the philosophy of mind in particular point out that mental references are simply traditional linguistic usages that actually refer to physical ones.  More and more medical studies through brain imaging show mental actions are produced by physical ones, i.e. brain actions.  There is still much to be learned but it becomes more clear all the time that it is all in the physical brain.

This continuously puts into greater and greater doubt the allegation that the mental is independent.  It puts into doubt the theist allegations that science has not and cannot provide a substantial explanation of mental events as at bottom brain and nervous system events.  They are also presumptuous in claiming to know what science will uncover in the future.  If they insist on this, they are simply not keeping up with current neurological advances.  Nor should neurology have to present a complete and detailed picture.  It should be clear already that mental occurrences do not flutter someplace on their own.  They take place in the brain.

In theistic discussions consciousness and mental substance are actually substitutes for the soul.  In Book I there was copious evidence that there are no such things as independent souls or spirits or ghosts.  The chapter "Two More Skeptical Doubts" in Book II provides additional evidence against the existence of the soul.  The closest thing to a soul is the personality that is completely dependent on the body.

The argument from consciousness or the soul is the allegation that science cannot show that the soul is a product of the physical body.  This argument follows the same line used in other arguments for the existence of God that involve science.  Here is the form:

1.  Science cannot explain X.

2.  Science will never explain X.

3.  God has to be the only explanation for X.

Therefore, God exists.

These apologists for God usually do not have the evidence for positing premise 1.  Then they definitely have no foundation for supposing that premise 2 will turn out as they predict.  Furthermore they have no grounds for assuming that there could not be some alternate nonscientific explanation.  In premise 3 they make the unwarranted assumption that God explains X.  They take this as proof that he exists.

They cannot bring in God to explain X just because X is unexplained.  They have to make a coherent showing that God in fact produces X.  Of course, in doing that they would have to assume that he exists, which is what they are trying to prove.  They are assuming what was to be proved or arguing in a circle.  This is called petitio principii.

Swinburne claimed in his consciousness argument that God attached souls to bodies and had good reason to do so.  He based this on his Principle of Credulity, which he invented, that says that if it looks like there is good reason to believe in something then you should believe it.  Yet there are plenty of people who would not believe that God would create souls, so the principle cannot be correct.  Swinburne also liked to use his Principle of Simplicity to supposedly explain occurrences that he wanted to believe.  This principle said that one should always believe that the simplest explanation is the correct one.  The principle has failed many times including this one since the simplest explanation is for there to be no souls, only bodies with capable brains.

Swinburne in making particular arguments to prove God existed would also bring in attributes he claimed God  possessed.  Yet there was no foundation for alleging those attributes since he had yet to prove that God exists in the first place.  In doing so, he was assuming tacitly that God existed.  Again petitio principii.  Sometimes he assumed attributes based on other arguments for God that he had made.  He was not warranted in doing that since, by his own admission, no argument by itself that he presented proved the existence of God.  According to him, each one only added to the probability that God exists.(Swinburne 13, 328)

The Argument from Miracles

This argument takes the form just set out. 

1.  Science cannot explain miracles.

2.  Science will never explain miracles.

3.  God has to be the only explanation for miracles.

Therefore, God exists.

It could be that miracles occasionally happen but with no explanation.  They are random occurrences that deviate from natural laws.  David Hume was the first to point this out in his questioning of induction.  He correctly pointed out that there is no guarantee that all regular events, such as the rising of the sun, will always happen without fail.  This was discussed in the chapter "Two More Skeptical Doubts" in Book II Part 1.

The discussion on determinism in Book II Part 2 pointed out that random occurrences could very well happen from time to time.  Biologist Ernst Mayr declared that random events had to have happened in evolution.  It is hard to show that events could never happen without being caused by anything or anybody.  It may just happen and there will never be an explanation.  It may just be a brute fact.  So the jump in premise (3) to God as an explanation is incorrect.

Anyone wanting to assert that God wishes to perform miracles better show sound proof that he does.  They can't just place God in the vacuum of "no explanation" and offer him as the miracle worker.  If they could possibly demonstrate that a supernatural being was behind miracles, they would still have to show the nature of that being.  It could be a lesser god.  It could be someone other than Yahweh, the god of the Judaics, Christians, and Muslims or Vishnu, a god in Hinduism.  They could not just jump to the assertion that it was whichever god they wished it to be.  I will call the followers of Judaism, Judaics, as opposed to the more general term Jews, which can also include nontheists.

In Book II it was pointed out that theists should also account for negative miracles.  Unexplained events such as a bizarre accident or a particular case of cancer might happen.  Is God behind negative miracles?  There are other questions that Yahweh would have to answer on why he would want to perform miracles.  The miracles may well reflect that he had not constructed the world and its inhabitants correctly in the first place.  Why not?  If he had done it right the first time, miracles would not be necessary.

Then there is the question of why he is selective in favoring only some people with miracles.  Miracles are needed by someone everyday, sometimes desperately.  Why not perform them all the time as they are needed?  Why does he not intervene with a miracle to stop a severe hurricane?  Why did he not stop the destructiveness of the Nazis and the Communists?  What about stopping the pandemics of 1918 and 2020?

The Argument from Religious Experience

For millennia people have reported having experiences about gods.  These are taken by theists as proof that their god exists.  There is no doubt that people have these experiences.  The question is whether they are reliable.  Refer to Book II Part 1 Chapter 8, "Investigating Intuition."  These experiences are usually called mystical.  They can be direct as when a person sees a redwood tree in front of him and claims that he felt it was God at that moment.  Almost always emotion is involved and the person believes in the possibility of religious experiences.  One problem is that these experiences are subjective and happen to only one person.  How can others know that it was not just a hallucination of the believer?

It is usually not clear what the god desires by making the appearance to the person.  It seems that the god just wanted his presence felt.  A voice of the god may have been heard.  What about a voice that tells the believer to go step into freeway traffic or to kill people?  Could that be the devil?  It is a definite possibility that these experiences, both peaceful and destructive, could be entirely inside persons' brains and have no basis in any real appearance.

The god experienced is the one already followed by the person.  It seems that Yahweh would make sure to make most of his appearances to people who do not believe in him in order to prove to them that he is the true god.  That is not how it happens.  Jesus appears to Christians but not Jews or Hindus.  That seems to be evidence of a bias of the believer since s/he only wants an experience of the god s/he already believes in.  That shows that the experience was just imagined by the believer. 

It does not seem fair that the god only appears to a select few people.  It would seem that he would want to appear to everyone either individually or even better en masse.  There would be no reason to play favorites.  It has been claimed that the god is appearing to a particular person because he wants the person to spread the word that he exists.  Why just let one person know that and only occasionally?  Why not appear to everyone at once and often?  That would be a much more effective way of announcing his existence for everyone to know.  It should be clear that religious experiences are not reliable and prove nothing about a universal god.

With that, all of the minor arguments discussed fail.

3 The Moral Argument

There are several variants of the moral argument for the existence of God.  One would expect it to be a major one since moral conduct is so closely intertwined with belief in God and in what he expects from humans.  This is more true in the Yahwehist and Hindu religions.

In the Hebrew Bible, Yahweh handed down many specific laws.  He repeatedly made it clear that he would protect his people if they would obey his commands.  One would expect that a deity so intimately concerned with human morality could easily be proven to exist.

After all, in the judgment of theists, God is indispensable for morality.  He provides the moral rules that are the foundation of human living.  In the Hebrew Bible, the giving of the tablets with the Ten Commandments to Moses was a pivotal moment of utmost importance. It was not only of great significance to the Israelites but for millennia after that for half the world.

God is supposed to instill in humans the capacity to follow his rules or laws as they are often called.  He has done this by giving them the power to understand, to reason, and to apply the rules to their individual lives.  This application involves the power to carry out through successful action the decisions or determinations of the will.  After humans carry out their moral actions, God either metes out punishment for the wrongful ones or bestows rewards for the ones he approves.

Humans are faced with making moral decisions several times a day.  This may make them think of God often and thus to consider whether he approves of each action they take.  It has been said that this brings them closer to God even if they are not aware of it.  There are the highly religious persons who declare that they are in a personal relationship with God.

In addition to the rewards and punishments accorded in this world, there is the final reward or punishment that is to come in the next life.  This is of monumental importance.  For one thing, it presumably would undertake to review and administer justice for all the morally-related actions of each person while living on earth.  Would it involve assessing punishment once again for immoral acts that had already been punished on earth?  There has not been much discussion of that by theologians. 

Final judgment would involve a permanent fate, an eternal one to be exact.  Obviously, every person would want to have their moral life in as good order as possible.  This would certainly be a very strong incentive to know God and his wishes.  Before that, it would certainly be necessary to know if God exists.

Even without considering God, there is a very important place for morality in human living.  It facilitates human interaction, it promotes conviviality, and is even helpful in the ultimate survival of the human race.  It will be good to keep all this in mind in examining the more important versions of the moral argument.  They all argue that there is some element that is needed for people to be moral and that only God supplies that element.  Therefore there has to be a God.  Here is the list of arguments identified by the element needed.

1. belief in God

2. fear of God

3. moral rules

4. innate moral belief

5. moral awareness

6. conscience

7. justice

8. balance of justice and happiness

I will combine these eight arguments into three groups with the arguments in each group being very much the same argument.  The arguments will be discussed together within their own group.

Moral Rules

The first three arguments can be included in a group called moral rules.  These arguments have to assume that God has issued moral rules.  If he did not, the moral argument for the existence of God would be dead in the water.  He has to hand down the rules that are to be followed.

Belief in God.  In its simplest form, argument (1) can be stated:  for people to be moral, they must believe in God.  It is necessary for all people to be moral.  It is therefore desirable that God exist.  Therefore, God exists.  

Let us accept without question that it is necessary for all people to be moral.  The problem with this argument is that there are those who do not believe in God but are moral.  You don't need to find a great number of nonbelievers who are moral in order to refute the contention.  There are thousands of nonbelievers just in the United States.  A recent survey reported that at least 7% of U.S. residents were atheistic or agnostic.  In some countries in northern Europe, those two categories comprise an even greater percentage of the population.  Then there are the many Buddhists who reside in the world.  Buddhism mostly does not teach about the existence of God.  All this amounts to millions of people on the planet who do not believe in God.  Then there are those who are not aware they are nonbelievers but in fact are.  Surely, there is a sizable number of nonbelievers who can be considered moral.  They may not be morally perfect but overall a significant percentage can readily be considered moral.  There are with little doubt few theists who can be counted as morally perfect.

There can be various reasons why nonbelievers may be moral.  They could have observed the moral concern and behavior of certain people--either atheists or theists--and admired it.  They may have decided to try to emulate such rectitude and yet never have adopted any belief in God.

There is still another group of believers that may help refute that a belief in God is needed for morality.  These are the people who sincerely declare that they believe in God but who otherwise do not give him much thought.  They don't express opinions about God one way or another, do not pray, do not know much about the doctrines of different religions, do not approve of the involvement of religious people in politics.

They never go to church and if anything sometimes express disapproval of organized religion.  They have stated that they believe in following the right moral rules but are not led in this by what God supposedly said.  Instead they believe they have developed their own sense of what is right and wrong.  This seems to have worked because everyone they know will attest that they lead a moral and respectable life.  They insist that they believe there is a God but also opine that he is a deep mystery that is too hard to fathom.  To them it is too difficult to figure out which moral rules were promulgated by God and which not.  This group has a weak belief so does not fear him and does not shape its morality because of him.

These people believe in a remote and passive God.  He does not have much to do with the world so these limited believers feel no need to know much about him.  Interacting with such a God is definitely out of the question.  This passive God is more of a figure head to limited believers.  Gods are supposed to exercise a significant amount of power in the world.  A God as passive as this limited God can hardly be considered a God in the normal sense. 

This limited God clearly does not issue or enforce moral rules.  He is not concerned with that.  If this is the case, there can be no moral argument for the existence of God based on this God because the argument depends on his taking an interest in the morality of humans.  These limited believers show that belief in God is not enough.  It has to be belief in a God with a concern for human morals.  Now a standard believer--comprising the vast majority of religious persons--may well consider that an attenuated believer is not actually a believer in any significant God.  There is much to be said for that view.  All this shows there is no need for God to issue moral rules in order for people to be moral.

Fear of God.  Argument (2) can be stated:  people must fear God in order to be moral.  It is necessary for all people to be moral.  It is therefore desirable that God exist.  Therefore, God exists.

It is obvious that a person has to believe in God in order to fear him.  The converse is not true.  You do not have to fear God in order to believe in him.  There are believers who have no fear of God while still believing in him and being very moral.  This would be those who believe that God has great love and shows great mercy toward humans.  They could believe that there is nothing to fear from such a God because he would never harm anyone.  He is always understanding and forgiving.

There is a problem for Yahwehists to believe in a lenient God.  It definitely goes against long-held, traditional doctrine.  God may have great love, but he clearly is not pleased when people do not follow his commandments, and he issued many.  Consequently, Yahwehist denominations preach fear of possible punishment from God.  It is clear that traditional religious people do throw in a component of fear of God into the need for morality.

Those religious people who are sincere in saying that they do not fear God are in the minority.  Note that they are not being rebellious or heretical.  Christians often advance the thought, "God is love."  It is not a recent fabrication that God loves humans and is forgiving of them.  At the same time, there are plenty of instances in the Yahwehist scriptures in which God is quick to anger and swift in his punishment for transgressions.  Some Christians claim that this God is found only in the Hebrew Bible and not the one revealed through Jesus.  They need to read between the lines at certain points of the Christian testament and should especially refer to the book of Revelation.  The problem for Christians is how to reconcile the punishing God with the loving God.  This is not easy.

Take this love-cherishing group of believers who obey God without harboring any fear of him.  Add this group to the small group of moral people discussed before who do not fear God because they do not even believe he exists.  Combine these two groups and you have all the people who do not have to feel a fear of God in order to be moral.  These two groups indicate that fear is not a necessary condition to being moral.  They demonstrate that the first premise that people must fear God in order to be moral is not true and the argument from fear fails.

Then there is an interesting group of people who fear God and may even be devout believers.  Yet they do not live moral lives.  Many of them are in prison.  They may have been religious even before the time they committed their crimes.  Those can involve illegal business dealings or illegal political actions or theft from an employer.  It can involve a noncriminal moral offense like spreading malicious lies about someone.  These believers show that fear of God offers no assurance that it will bring about proper conduct.  It shows that fear of God is not a sufficient condition for being moral.

An incidental point of interest is that there can still be fear of God without much relation to morality.  This could be found in the old religions.  There was no codification of moral rules as in Judaism.  The gods were not much concerned with the moral conduct of humans.  They did not show much concern with their own moral conduct if we can believe the legends written about them.  The gods could act capriciously and cruelly whenever they became angry.  That anger could be taken out on the earth and its inhabitants by way of natural calamities.  That was enough reason to fear the gods.

Moral Rules.  Argument (3) can be stated:  for people to be moral, they must have moral rules.  It is necessary for all people to be moral.  Moral rules can only come from God.  Therefore, God exists. 

Remember that we have accepted that it is necessary for all people to be moral.  There are a few people whose moral attitude may invalidate the first premise that says that people must have moral rules.  They maintain that they take no concern for moral rules although they feel they are very moral.  They say something like that they always strive to be loving, understanding, and compassionate to all animals (including people).  That is all anybody needs to know and do.  They do not need to think much about moral rules.  They don't realize that they have indirectly pronounced one widely-encompassing moral rule, which is something like "care for everybody."

It may well be beneficial for people to carry general feelings like love and compassion.  That seems to be a good starting point for moral awareness.  However, there are times when disputes arise as to what is a proper moral action to take.  A parent or teacher (including a religion teacher) may need to teach students what action to take in specific moral situations.  More will be needed than simply general appeals such as to be loving and to avoid greed.  It will be necessary to fashion the appropriate rule for the situation at hand.

This may not always be easy.  There may be slight variations of a rule that need to be applied in different situations.  Attention to clarification and employment of moral rules is not only necessary in a particular situation at hand but also for future reference.  It is a good idea to formulate moral rules to apply in similar future situations.  The task of interpreting and applying moral rules is not easy but specifically-delineated moral rules are needed at least some of the time.

At any rate, humans long ago started using moral rules.  Some societies have more elaborate rules than others, but they almost all have them.  Societies differ in some of their rules, but there are some that are widespread.  These can be called basic.

The serious source of contention with this argument (3) is the assertion that moral rules can only come from God.  People often claimed in early times that their moral rules and legal codes were commanded by God.  This came to be called the Divine Command Theory.  The Israelites around the time of Moses believed this.  The belief has continued to this day among Judaics (the followers of Judaism).  Belief in a God-created morality is widespread among religions.  "All sacred books contain instruction on proper or moral human behavior, rewards and penalties for disobedience to divine law . . ."(Charles Monroe, World Religions:  an Introduction (Amherst, New York:  Prometheus Books, 1995) 13.)

Early religious leaders may have sincerely believed that the rules and laws they were promulgating made so much sense and were so necessary that they had to come from God.  Or they could have acknowledged to themselves, and not to their followers, that God was not handing them the rules but that the rules were important enough to claim to their followers that they had been ordained by God.  They could believe that God was inspiring them to construct rules that would promote the well-being of the tribe.

There was another consideration.  How well would people comply with the rules?  They could be informed that the community leaders had carefully studied the need for a sound moral code.  They could be told that after long and careful consideration the leaders had devised a moral code that they thought was the best humans could design.  Their tribe or group would probably respect that and obey the new rules.  Yet there could be some who would disagree with some of the rules.  They might not comply.  Even if everyone presently complied with the new rules, it could turn out that later leaders would decide to establish new rules that would be undesirable.  This could open up the gate to squabbles over the proper rules to follow.

The present leaders could anticipate this and decide to claim that the code had been given to them by God.  It had to be correct and should not be questioned on pain of punishment for blasphemy.  Some of the rules could be direct the proper way to respect and worship God.  This would lend the rules greater credibility and respect.  All this would bring a greater compliance both then and in the future.

An example of this may is found in the well-known account of Moses receiving from God the tablets containing the Ten Commandments.  Moses did not simply unveil some tablets with the commandments engraved on them.  He could have then declared that he had written them under the inspiration of God.  Instead he claimed that God had delivered them to him personally on Mt. Sinai.  There were no witnesses of this meeting.

Incidentally, one notable occurrence that took place when Moses returned from the mountain was that he became angry at the Israelites for building a calf out of gold to worship, thus betraying God.  In his wrath, Moses threw down the tablets he was carrying and broke them.(Exodus 32:19)  It is hard to believe that if Moses had in reality met with God and received stone tablets that God had himself made (Exodus 32:16), that soon after that he threw them down and broke them.

Later chapters in Exodus set out in detail instructions from God on proper worship including the ordination of the Levite priests and their garments.  This provides an example of a group of leaders constructing moral rules and social laws and surreptitiously claiming for themselves the authority of God.  All this lends credence to the assessment by some Biblical scholars that the early books of the Hebrew Bible were written by Levite priests well after the time the alleged events were supposed to have taken place.

If moral rules come from God, it would seem that he would have delivered them directly to all humankind as opposed to merely a few individuals, who are referred to as prophets.  This would make their authenticity and their contents more reliable.  There would be no doubt or argument that they were correct, complete, and exactly what God wanted humans to follow.  It would also be expected that they would be universal and timeless.  In other words, they would apply equally to all cultures around the world, perhaps throughout the cosmos.  These rules would be valid in 50,000 B.C.E. as well as in 50,000 C.E. or 5 million C.E.  They would be in effect at any time there existed humanlike beings with enough mental capacity to understand and follow rules.

So where are God's rules to be found?  Are they on permanent and indestructible tablets for everyone to see?  Are they fully protected where no one can alter or destroy them?  Are they indelibly written in the sky or on the side of a mountain for all to see at any time?  Have these tablets been there unaltered since God placed them there thousands of years ago?  Has God or any of his angels ever come since then to reinstitute or restate them?

The answer to all of these questions is a clear "no."  For one thing, it would be easy to confirm the existence of the tablets.  God in his power would have no problem in leaving clear and plentiful evidence.  Nor is there evidence of any angels or other clearly superhuman, extraterrestrial representatives of God who have come to earth to leave a moral code.  No such code has been found nor has any claim been made that it ever existed.

Christians claim that Jesus was such a divine representative.  In fact, it is said by Christians that God and Jesus are one and the same.  NonChristians emphatically disagree with this.  (It is interesting that if this question were to be democratically decided by a vote around the world that Christians would be decisively outvoted.)  Furthermore, Jesus did not offer any new comprehensive moral code.  On the contrary, he stated that he supported the laws found in the Hebrew Bible.  "Do not think that I have come to do away with the Law of Moses . . . [N]ot the least point nor the smallest detail of the Law will be done away with . . . ."(Matthew 5:17, 18)

One would suppose that such an important and divinely-originated set of rules would be nothing less than perfect.  They would be comprehensive, covering all the areas of human behavior that needed to be covered.  The rules would be important ones that would make sense and be easy to follow.  There would be little confusion or controversy over them.

The code would not involve itself with trivial or nonethical matters.  For instance,  it would not tell people the material to use in making their clothes or when to wash themselves.  There could be instructions on these matters, but they would not be part of a moral code.  The rules would not discriminate against one group of humans in favor of others.  This occurred in the sacred writings of Hinduism and the Hebrew Bible.  The code could readily be found in one place that would be easy to access.

The only claims there are to a set of moral rules from God are the ones made by different religions regarding their representatives.  There are striking differences.  Why?  Did differences in the circumstances, such as geographic ones, in which each group found itself dictate that there had to be differences in the rules given?  This is not the case.  Serious rules like those prohibiting murder, theft, assault, etc. cannot vary across cultures.

In ancient times, human sacrifice was undertaken in various regions of the world.  It was usually done to appease or win the favor of the gods.  At times it was performed before engagement in war.("Human Sacrifice," Wikipedia 4/24/21.).  Clearly, it was considered a more effective sacrifice than the mere offering of animals.  The ultimate sacrifice had to be the offering of children to the gods.  The children could be willing participants.  This definitely showed devotion to the gods on the part of both parents and children.  The Aztecs in the Americas have become well known for having engaged in this practice.

To their credit, the major religions discouraged human sacrifice.  What are we to conclude from this about moral rules mandated by certain gods?  It seems that in different parts of the world the gods were impressed by, even demanded, this ritual killing.  Yet in other places through different religions, they did not expect such sacrifice.

The Hindu religion from India is the oldest of the major religions existing today.  It contains two features that are different from the other religions.  Hindus have (1) a special reverence for the cow and (2) a caste system.  These practices of the religion have been followed for centuries.  Other religions, such as Zoroastrianism and Jainism, have also venerated cattle.("Cattle in Religion and Mythology," Wikipedia 4/24/21.)  Special regard has been given the cow with the prohibition of its killing or mistreatment due to its production of milk and its gentle nature.  The Jain religion is unique in prohibiting the killing of all sentient beings.  It adheres strictly to the doctrine of ahimsa (nonviolence).  Jain adherents go so far as to wear cloths over their mouths so as to avoid breathing in insects and thus killing them.("Jainism," World Religions Geoffrey Parrinder, ed. (New York:  Facts on File Publications, 1971) 240.)

The Hebrew Bible clearly prohibits the eating of pork and shellfish.  Under this mandate, Muslims also refrain from eating pork.  These restrictions are not based on reverence for animals.  Christians do not recognize any dietary prohibitions from God.  All Yahwehists show no reverence for animals and are allowed to kill them.  The same is true of most other religions.

There is no reason why God should prescribe different rules on the treatment of animals to different people.  It appears to be more of a matter of humanly-created preference.  In India the attitudes toward the treatment of cattle have changed over time and the laws differ among the provinces.

The other set of rules in Hinduism that definitely set it apart are those related to the caste system found in India.  The system began when the Aryans brought a strict class system with them.  They were nomadic tribes who entered India from the northwest between 1500 B.C.E. and 1000 B.C.E.("Aryans," The Wordsworth Dictionary.)  The system was given sanction in the Rig Veda (10.90),("Caste," id.) one of the earliest Hindu scriptures.

The Hindu rules of morality can be called dharma.  There are many rules.  Four paths to the ultimate truth are to be followed.  They are important.  The first path is right conduct.  The second is that one should conform to artha, the duty to accept one's caste in life.(Morrow, 100)  The caste system has been an important part of Hindu religion.  "Caste is central to Hinduism and one could define a Hindu as being a person born into a particular caste."("Caste," The Wordsworth Dictionary.)  Caste determines a person's social status and occupation.  At the bottom of the pecking order are the Untouchables.  They are supposed to perform the most menial tasks in the society.  The name indicates how much they are to be avoided.  They do not enjoy much material prosperity.  Gandhi worked to gain the freedom of the Untouchables, which was done in the Indian Constitution of 1947.  In spite of this legal freedom, the use of the caste system continued.(Id.)

Islam is well known for allowing men to marry up to four women as long as they can provide for them and any of their children.  Judaism never condoned having more than one wife, but some of its most illustrious leaders were not monogamous.  King David had several wives and concubines.  King Solomon went so far as to have three hundred wives and 600 concubines.  The Judaic Lord never decried this polygamy.

Islam holds that there are five core duties owed to God called the five pillars.  One is the salat, prayers performed five times each day always while facing Mecca.  They are done in a prostrate position with the forehead touching the ground.  Another pillar is the observance of Ramadan for the period of a month involving a fast and abstinence from sexual intercourse each day from dawn to dusk.  The fifth pillar commands that every Muslim make a haj or pilgrimage to Mecca once in their lifetime.(Monroe, 218-219)  God instructed his prophet Mohammed to put these requirements in the Koran.  However, there is nothing like them in the requirements of the other religions.  They call for prayer but not in the specific form prescribed in the Koran.

Then there are the differences found among the denominations within the same religion.  Simply take the Christians.  There is a group of denominations that are very strict in following the Christian scriptures and certain traditions.  They are not very much open to changes in doctrines.  They are often referred to as fundamentalists.

They are fanatically opposed to abortion at any stage of a pregnancy, believing that a fetus at conception becomes a full-fledged human being.  They push for laws that would prohibit all abortion even by those women who may be devout Christians but who do not believe that human life begins at conception.  They go further.  They oppose the use of embryonic stem cells for medical treatments and research.  The embryos that are used for medical purposes are those that have been frozen but have been abandoned by the married couples who had wanted them to create a baby.  They do not approve of any form of euthanasia of humans even if a person gives her/is full and knowing consent and is in great pain without hope of overcoming it.

Within this fundamentalist group, the Catholic church opposes birth control unless it is done by natural means.  These methods are widely known to be ineffective.  The Mormons and the Baptists (like the Muslims) believe it immoral to drink alcohol.  The Baptists believe that dancing involving couples is a sin although they have not been strict in teaching that in recent years.

The rules on how people are to act with respect to God have significant differences.  The God of Judaism issued some unique commandments that are greatly concerned with paying great homage to him.  The first commandment clearly showed that God has no sympathy for humans paying any attention to other gods.  He is to be the exclusive God.  The worship of even inferior, subordinate gods is in no way pardoned.

In contrast, other religions allowed freedom of religion.  The Hindu supreme god Brahma tolerated the worship of numerous other gods recognized in Hinduism.  It has been said that there have been thousands of such gods.  It is not even clear that Brahma would not tolerate the simultaneous worship of gods of other religions such as Yahweh and Zeus.  The ancient Egyptians also worshipped a multitude of gods.  The Greeks and Romans generally did not demand that their subjects give up the gods they customarily worshipped.  What they did expect was that their subjects pay proper respect to and engage in some worshipful acts toward the Greek or Roman gods.

Yahweh was concerned that his name not be used for evil purposes.  It was important enough to write it down as the third commandment.  It is certainly understandable that he would not want his name involved in any immoral enterprises.  I have not heard any such commandment in the godly rules of any other religion.

The fourth commandment of Yahweh established the strict observation in which no one, not even animals, is to work on the seventh day of the week.  The law is so strict that in Numbers 15:32 a man was found gathering firewood on the Sabbath.  The Lord ordered that the man be stoned to death as punishment.  Today only the strictest Orthodox Jews still observe this rule against work on the Sabbath.  There is no comparable rule in any other religion.

The Hebrew Bible contains rules that have not been followed for a long time.  Here are some of them.  Exodus 21:28 states, "If a bull gores someone to death, it is to be stoned."  There is no excuse for the bull in the case he was provoked.  There is no provision for putting away the bull humanely.  If the future safety of the community were the concern, you would think that a gentle euthanasia would have been called for.

Stoning was the regular method of capital punishment ordered in the Bible.  Apparently, the bull had a serious moral responsibility for goring and had to suffer a punitive death.  Again we find animal moral responsibility at Leviticus 20: 15,16:  "If a man has sexual relations with an animal, he and the animal shall be put to death.  If a woman tries to have sexual relations with an animal, she and the animal shall be put to death.  They are responsible for their own death."  Here all the woman has to do is try and the animal becomes equally responsible with her. 

There are other laws handed down in the Hebrew Bible that are puzzling as to why God would be interested in pronouncing them.  It does not appear that they are included in the rules of other religions.  Exodus 23:19 states, "Do not cook a young sheep or goat in its mother's milk."  Leviticus 19:19:  "Do not wear clothes made of two kinds of material."  Leviticus 19:27:  "Do not cut the hair on the sides of your head or trim your beard."

At Exodus 21:1-11, Yahweh's approval of slavery is clear.  Unfortunately, this was cited as a justification for slave owning before it disappeared in the 1860's.  The Yahwehist rules as a whole show a lack of regard for women and enforce their low status at the time.  There are no rules covering sexual abuse against women.  The law on divorce was very different from what it is today.  The man had the right to obtain a divorce but apparently the wife did not.  If the husband found her lacking for some reason, all he had to do was to give her divorce papers and send her away.(See Deuteronomy 25.)

The record with respect to child abuse and neglect was no better.  There are no admonitions against it whether physical or sexual.  If anything, the path to physical abuse is facilitated by the encouragement of physical discipline.  It was not until 1900 that laws started to gradually appear in Western countries that protected children.  Even then the change was slow.  It was probably not until around the year 2000 that most of the parents in these societies came to the realization that corporal punishment is not very effective.  That is unfortunately a long time in human history for people to come to that insight.  The sacred scriptures were not very helpful in reaching this realization.  Then there are the many millions in the rest of the world who continue to mete out harsh physical punishment.  The laws of other religions were no better in protecting women, children, and animals.

There you have various examples showing the wide differences in moral rules from religion to religion and between different historical times.  The religions claim to have received their rules from their respective gods and that the rules are for the honor of God.  Yet any of the sets of moral rules have serious flaws in them.  A multiculturalist could say that it is not fair to judge these rules by the standards of today.  That multiculturalist would be wrong.

Today's standards, at least with respect to some of the more egregious ancient rules, are much to be preferred.  Some--though not all--of the standards of today have been adopted after centuries of thought, experience, and heightened moral sensitivity.  Today's standards are commendable and noncontroversial in no longer supporting practices like human sacrifice, the caste system, slavery, the execution of witches, and the stoning of men having sexual relations with each other.  In fact modern societies have not only not condoned those religious rules, they have gone beyond that by passing strict laws prohibiting such practices.  Many of the antislavery activists opposing slavery in the 1700's and 1800's were devout Christians including clergymen.

It is very hard to believe that just, sensitive, and loving gods would have come up with laws like those in the religious scriptures.  It seems much more likely that they were written by human religious leaders who approved of the common social practices of their day or desired to implement some of their own.  They decided that they should be codified under the guise of God-given moral rules.  Religion offers no credible set of moral rules coming from God.

The changes in religious moral rules across historical time--sometimes drastic changes--indicate that God does change his mind--if in fact he is behind them.  He once condoned slavery and turned his back on sexual abuse, child abuse, and, in some places, human sacrifice.  Today supposedly he does not approve of them.  From the start he should have known exactly what moral rules humans should follow for all time. 

The more recent promulgation of just laws by humans belies the premise in argument (3) that moral laws can only originate with God.  Human laws have been a vast improvement over old religious laws.  They have brought much kinder treatment of previously abused and neglected groups.  The premise that moral laws can only originate with God is wrong along with the moral argument it supports.

Objective and Absolute Moral Rules

Another moral rules argument maintains that there are objective and absolute moral rules and that the only explanation for those rules is that God exists.(Martin, 213)  More formally, the argument goes like this

1. There are objective and absolute moral rules.

2. Only God could formulate those rules.

3. It is then necessary that God exist.

4. Therefore, God exists.

First examine objective rules and later absolute ones.  The terms "objective" and "subjective" are hard to define.  Start with this definition:  a moral rule is "objective" if it is "independent of the person who uses [it], the time at which he uses it, and the place where he uses it."("Ethical Objectivism," The Encyclopedia of Philosophy.)

The first problem for the theists who believe in a personal God is produced by the phrase "independent of the person who uses it."  The Yahwehists, the ancient Greeks, and the Norse are examples of religious followers who believe in personal gods in the sense of gods who take the form of persons.  Another sense in which the phrase "personal god" is used is that in which a human claims that s/he maintains a close personal relationship with her/is own god.   In Hinduism, there are many personal gods, but it is not clear whether Brahma is personal or not.  The lawgiver among the gods in Hinduism was Manu who is considered a person.  He was a king on earth at one point.

If theists are to believe in a God who is a person to any degree--and most do--then they cannot claim that their God will issue objective moral rules.  By definition, objective moral rules are independent of the person who uses them, and in the case of God, issues them.  The objective moral rules have to stand on their own apart from any persons.  Any rules or laws that are claimed to be naturalistic are of this kind.  Rules issued by persons, even if these persons are gods, cannot count as objective.  Even if there is only one God, that God is still a person.  The moral rules are issued from his own personal perspective.

Whenever moral rules are issued by a person, they are subjective.  They are dependent on the person, the subject, who uses them.  With God there is still a dependence on his individual perspective no matter how transcendent or how independent he may be from the universe and the persons in it.  Also the rules are subjective because in some instances questions may be raised on whether they are correct.  Some other person may disagree that a rule is a proper one and propose a supposedly better one.  In connection with the rules that Yahweh issued, there are plenty with which to disagree.

Those who believe in ethically objective rules have a further serious problem.  Because rules are purportedly objective and cannot depend on any person or persons, they have to be set and rigid.  There can be no flexibility or debate as can happen when different persons have different opinions on such matters.  If God declares a specific rule, then that is what holds, and there can be no questioning.  Whatever rules God declares to be valid are the only ones that are acceptable.  There is no debate.  If God considers that slavery is morally acceptable--as Yahweh did--it is no use to disagree and argue against the rule.  It could be considered blasphemy to question.  A rule is moral simply because God declares it so and anyone disagreeing risks being considered an apostate.

This brings up the main issue in Plato's dialogue "Euthyphro."  There the word "piety" is used for the word "morality."  The issue put in different wording is whether a moral rule is correct simply because (1) the gods command it or because (2) it is moral on some other sound grounds.  Under (2), if the gods command it, it is because they desire to follow the correct rules.(The Philosophy of Plato, Irwin Edman, ed. (New York:  The Modern Library, 1956) 35.)

Under alternative (1), the gods can arbitrarily prescribe whatever moral rule they choose like the allowing of slavery and this what must be considered correct.  If they so choose, they can propound the most oppressive and heinous rules they desire.  After all, morality is what the gods designate.  The "objective" morality from God that theists espouse leads to this since it is the only morality that can be valid.  Objective morality does not necessarily lead to sound morality.

As further evidence against objective morality, there is plenty in religious scriptures to contradict that objective theistic morality exists.  The closer meaning of "objective" here is impartial, without prejudice in favor of anyone.  It is clear from these scriptures that God engages in "subjective" morality.  There is the subjectivity that is found when God favors one group of his subjects over another.

The caste system in Hinduism is clearly sanctioned by the gods and the Brahmins were given a definite preference over the other groups.  They comprised the top tier in society.  At the bottom of the heap were the Untouchables who suffered from numerous restrictions placed on them.  The Hindu gods supporting this system were obviously not objective in treating humans the same across the board.  This is putting it mildly.  There was no sound reason for discriminating in favor of the Brahmins.  The chief god in Hinduism is Brahma.  Is it a coincidence that his name is so similar to Brahmins, the upper class?  Yahweh openly favored the Israelites over other groups.

The gods of different religions can be found favoring one group over another.  It is no surprise that the favored group is the one that seems to have begun and carried on the tradition of the gods that look out for them.  So there are not many gods in the religions that can be found issuing objective moral rules.  Instead, the rules depend on their personal preferences.  It seems that the theists who talk of objective morality have preferred to engage in highly abstract speculation about it.  They have neglected to examine their own scriptures where they would have found examples of God being far from using objective morality.

The following may be a better definition for objective morality than the one given before:  a moral rule is "objective" if it is independent of personal preferences in favor of any (1) person, (2) time, or (3) place.  This definition ensures that there be fairness across the board without any special treatment for anyone.  This is perhaps closer to what the proponents of theistic objective morality have in mind.  The new definition still does not vindicate the gods of Hinduism and Yahwehism from their highly subjective treatment of their subjects.

An acceptable system of objective morality could probably be devised by humans  They could certainly do no worse than the morality found in scriptures.  After all, it is humans and not God that found slavery and the caste system to be morally unacceptable.  It is clear then that God is not needed to build a system of objective morality.  In any case, there is no showing that God has formulated such a system.  Consequently, the argument from objective morality fails.

Absolute Moral Rules.  The first problem to solve with respect to arguing from the existence of "absolute" moral rules is to find those absolute rules.  It is easy to talk about absolute rules in the abstract.  It is another matter to cite examples of such rules.  It is generally acknowledged that most moral values have exceptions.  These allow people to break the rules under certain circumstances.

Any form of theft from embezzlement to robbery is widely considered to be under moral prohibition.  Yet it is just as widely recognized that it is understandable for persons who are in dire straits, say on the edge of starvation, to steal in unusual circumstances to meet their needs.  The novel Les Miserables bears a well-known example in which it appears justified for a man to steal a loaf of bread.  Lying is seen as at least a minor moral infraction, yet there are numerous situations in which it is acceptable for people to tell "white" lies usually for the protection of the sensibilities of the recipient(s) of the lies.  Jeanne's friend could ask her, "Am i as ugly as they say i am"? and Jeanne could justifiably answer, "No."

Destruction of another's property may be morally excusable in an insurrection against cruel oppressors, say in a slave revolt.  Murder is often cited as the most objectionable of crimes, yet it has its exceptions.  Murder is intentional killing.  KIlling in self-defense and in defense of others are clearly intentional but excused due to the particular context in which they are performed.

Killing in war should be open to question in each particular situation.  What if the soldiers are part of an army invading another country for the simple sake of conquest?  The invasion was ordered by the general heading the invading country without any justification.  If the soldiers disagreed with the order to invade, should they be held responsible if they follow the order and kill rather than desert in order to avoid killing innocent people?  Then there are the cases in which wives or girl friends have killed their partners after suffering long-term physical abuse from them.  The abuse defense has been recognized in recent law, and battered women have sometimes prevailed in court when charged with murder.

It is very hard to find a moral rule that is absolute, that applies every time without exception.  There could never be any excuses that would allow this rule to be broken.  The only rule that seems to apply is the prohibition against forcible rape.  Some persons may have very strong feelings of lust, but that does not provide an excuse.  Most persons who possess a high libido do not rape.  In recent times even a husband can be charged with raping his wife. 

One would think that there would be many more absolute rules if God had fashioned them.  Yet, they were supposed to be the foundation of an argument for the existence of God.  On the other hand, remember that in religious scriptures there is no consideration of rape as either a moral or criminal offense.  That means that the Bible doesn't even contain that one absolute rule.

However, even in the case of rape, there is a possible exception.  It is so unusual that it will surely never occur.  Nevertheless, that is not an acceptable objection to its being examined.  In philosophical discussion, all possibilities have to be considered and explored in order to fully understand a problem and its solution.  This is especially true in the search for an absolute rule since any exception to it, no matter how outre, would negate its absoluteness.

The example is this.  For some reason the entire human population of the world has been wiped out with the exception of one man and one woman.  Both are 20 years of age, are in good health, and the woman appears to be able to bear children.  There are plenty of food-bearing plants and trees that would provide satisfactory nutrition.  There is adequate water, shelter, clothing, and many other supplies left over in stores and factories.  To him it is obvious the two of them should procreate and continue the existence of the human race.  It would not be easy to raise a family, but it is worth a try.

Her opinion is very much opposed.  She thinks it would be futile to raise a family.  It would not survive.  Even if it did, it would be too likely that descendants would fail to survive.  Besides, she did not see that there had been much value or joy in the prior existence of the human race.  There had simply been too much struggle and sorrow.  It was not worth it for the two of them to go through the tremendous effort they would have to go through.  They might as well enjoy the rest of their lives--and the final days of the human race--to the max and be satisfied with that.

He tries for months to discuss it with her and convince her that they have a duty to continue the human line.  She enjoys the discussions but remains unconvinced.  She does not refuse for prudish reasons.   She does not see value in bringing children to the world.  After all his effort, he gives up trying to convince her.  He thinks of a simple plan but is very reluctant to execute it.  It is not in his nature to go to extremes.  Eventually, he realizes it is the last resort.

So even in the case of rape, an absolute rule may fail.  There are no absolute rules, and the argument from absolute rules cannot stand.  Even if there were absolute rules, there would have to be evidence that the rules would not simply appear on a natural basis but would have to be designed by God.  It is hard to see how that evidence could be produced.

A common step in this argument from absolute morality is found in many similar arguments. It is that since (1) it is desirable that God exist, (2) therefore, God exists.  The flaw is glaringly obvious.  Desirability that something exist does not make it exist.

Mental Trait

The second group of arguments involves the next three elements in the list.  They are (4) innate moral belief, (5) moral awareness, and (6) conscience.  All three involve a mental ability or trait.  For that reason, i have called this group, arguments from a mental trait.  While the three arguments are similar because of their basis on a mental trait, they will be treated separately.

The common form of these three arguments is the following:

1. People have mental trait X.

2. This trait enables them to be moral.

3. The only explanation for that trait is that God implanted it there.

4. Therefore, God exists.

This argument has difficulties at every point.  It can be difficult to show that the relevant mental trait exists.  If the mental trait is present, it can be difficult to define the trait precisely and to establish that it is present to the same extent in every single person.  It can be hard to show that it is the only explanation for the trait.  There may be plausible alternate explanations or there may be a combination of explanations.

Then there is the need to establish that the explanation points unequivocally to God as its author.  There has to be great care that no assumptions about God enter the attempted proof.  This includes not only the assumption that God exists but also about any of his attributes.  For instance, his omnipotence cannot be assumed in order to support that he exists.  This would indirectly be assuming that he exists, which is what you are setting out to prove.  Omnipotence or any other attributes cannot be assumed until his existence is first proven.  Otherwise, the fallacy of petitio principii, or circular reasoning, is committed.  This erroneous reasoning assumes that God exists in order to prove that he exists.

Innate Moral Belief.  The claim that humans have innate moral belief has the problem of establishing that there are innate beliefs of any kind.  Innateness was mentioned above under the Common Consent Argument.  It was  dealt with it more extensively in Book II, Knowledge and Free Choice.  It seems that if humans were born with innate ideas then very young children would have the same ideas throughout the world.  They would have them even before they learned to speak.  Once they started learning a language, they would begin to utter the same truths without much need for prodding from adults.

This uniform knowledge would seem to be especially true with regard to moral ideas.  After all, children begin to meet up with moral dilemmas, even minor ones, at an early age.  Their knowledge would be tested at that point.  At that age, moral knowledge would certainly be more needed than any knowledge of mathematics or physics.

Yet, it appears that the moral ideas of small children vary widely at the same age.  Some of the children begin to show signs of understanding of proper moral behavior, while others are still completely obtuse about it.  The moral behavior of these children can have other possible explanations besides innateness.

The well-behaved kids may well have been thoroughly instructed in moral conduct to the extent they could be for their age.  Moral rules could have been set down.  Or morality may not have been expounded.  Instead reward and discipline may have been regularly practiced without extensive instruction.

In either case, moral behavior was not a matter of innateness.  It may have seemed that way to an observer predisposed to believe that innateness was involved.  However, a closer look would reveal that either education or conditioning were at work.  If innateness were the explanation, there would be no need for education or conditioning.  The job of parents and child daycare workers would be so much easier.  All children would be well behaved.  They would be equally well behaved since the innate moral belief would be spread equally.

Another strike against any innate moral belief is the fact that some children are disobedient, rebellious, and surly from a very early age.  Why do they not show innate moral belief?  The degree of disobedience varies from child to child.  Some continue their asocial behavior well into adulthood and maybe throughout their lives.  Some go on to be tomorrow's criminals.

The explanation for the variance among humans in their moral sensibility appears much more likely to be environmental and genetic.  Children who are surly are likely to live in a home where parents and siblings are not sensitive in the treatment of each other.  It has become clear that children who are treated violently at home tend to use violence toward their peers.  If they grow up and become parents, they are likely to be violent in the treatment of their children.  A tendency toward violence or acquisitiveness may also be influenced by genetic factors.

Proponents of innate moral belief may insist that all babies are born with the same moral belief that is always good, but that these are perverted by environmental factors such as poor health, deficient nutrition, a bad upbringing, and an unwholesome community environment.  If that is the case, then what is the use of moral belief being innate if it can be so easily diverted.  It would seem that the belief would be strong enough and so well set that it would not bend in the presence of unfavorable outside influences.  Even if there were immoral outside pressures like cruel or unethical parents, the person's innate moral compass would remain constant.  God would not design people any other way.

Another problem with innate moral belief is based on the serious variances in the moral systems found around the world.  We don't have to look far for examples here.  Examples were seen above in the examination of moral rules.  Some cultures tried to appease God through human sacrifice while most did not.  Some condoned the practice of slavery.  Other perspectives on morality changed very slowly such as those related to sexual abuse and child abuse.

If humans were infused at birth with innate moral belief, there would not have been the condoning through the ages of so many reprehensible practices.  Even in contemporary times, torture and heinous forms of murder have been promoted in the name of God and righteousness by Islamic sects while at the same time receiving the most robust condemnation from the rest of the world.  No less than yesterday, as i write this, radical Islamic terrorists attacked several locations in Paris.  At last count, they killed 129 and wounded about 300 people and considered they were doing this in the service of God.

There is little if any evidence for the existence of innate moral belief so premise (1) that people have innate moral belief is incorrect.  The argument fails there and so the further steps need not be reviewed.

Moral Awareness.  The next argument along the line of mental traits is the one from moral awareness.  It was set forth by Richard Swinburne.(Swinburne, 215-218)  The argument is essentially the argument from conscience using a different label.  Several points against this argument will be reserved until they are made against the argument from conscience.

Swinburne stated that animals can be altruistic, at least toward members of their own species.  It was interesting that he conceded that this behavior could have been the product of evolution.  Swinburne pointed out that the behavior of nonhuman animals might appear to be moral, but the animals are not aware that it is moral.  If they act altruistically, they only do it as an act of cooperation and aid to a creature of their own species.(Id. 216)  As it turns out, humans mostly act altruistically toward the human species with a few selfish exceptions for dogs, cats, and cows.  The first two are usually their pets.  It is only in the last two hundred years that humans began to show a wider concern for nonhuman animals.

Swinburne pointed out that to be considered a moral being one who has to be aware of moral choices.  That leads to showing benevolence even in the cases where it is against the benefactor's self-interest.  Evolution in nonhumans has not led them to this point.(Id. 216)  He is probably correct in this as far as we can tell.  However, altruism is a close step to morality, even if it does not involve self-awareness.

Human moral awareness can probably also be explained by evolution.  Swinburne tacitly assumed that it cannot because according to him God inserted moral awareness in humans.  Swinburne was mistaken.  There is every reason to believe that a step in human evolution was the development of language with which humans could discuss and reason about being moral.  Swinburne reached his conclusions through speculation and unsupported assumptions of animal physiology and genetic capability.

Swinburne made an interesting observation, "God will give some creatures moral beliefs as features essential to their being humanly free agents."(Id. 217)  The "some creatures" are humanity.  On what basis could he claim that God implants moral beliefs in anyone?  How did he know?  More importantly, his statement assumed that God exists.  Yet, the entire exercise in which he was involved was to prove that God exists.  It provides an embarrassing instance of circular reasoning.

Swinburne's assertion that humans possess moral awareness has to face questions.  First, how deep and how widespread is this moral awareness?  We have already observed the variability in human conduct.  It varies from person to person, culture to culture, epoch to epoch.  You would expect the awareness to produce very similar results but that is not true at all.  Young children do not have great moral awareness.  It helps greatly if they receive guidance on morality.  Observation and experience in life are also great teachers.

Young males between 15 and 25 appear to be the least morally-concerned group.  Many violent lawbreakers and terrorists come from this age group.  Moral awareness improves with age and experience.  A 20-year-old man can be cruel and engage in burglaries, assaults, and other mayhem.  He could then be sent to prison.  There he could have much time to reflect upon how to live a proper life.  Hormonal changes can be a factor in improving the behavior of persons as they grow older.  He could return to society a very different man.  He could continue to grow wiser and more morally aware.

Swinburne claimed, "God has significant reason to bring about conscious beings with moral awareness."(Id. 218)  In order to explore this "significant reason" of God, Swinburne had to assume certain attributes of God.  This assumed the very existence of God, which was what he was on his way to prove--again, circular reasoning.

Putting that aside, if God did impart moral awareness in humans, he did so very unevenly.  Some people have a bright moral awareness while in others it is dim.  For some it brightens up with time and good luck.  For others it remains as dim as in the beginning.  They may not have the moral intelligence.  As in the claim of innateness, why not give everyone the same power of awareness?

Then there are cases in which there is ample moral awareness so that the morally right paths can be readily chosen.  Yet the persons often fail to carry their choices through.  Those are the cases of weakness of the will, or saying it another way, low will power.  It is not enough to say that someone has moral awareness.  There are two important components in the final execution of a correct choice.  This applies to nonmoral choices, too.  First, the right choice has to be made with the help of moral awareness.  Second, that choice has to be implemented.  There has to be strength or courage to do that.  Moral awareness is not enough.

I am not aware of any version of the moral argument that is based on will power.  Perhaps no one has offered one because we are all aware that will power is elusive.  Each one of us very likely remembers occasions in which our will power faltered.  This more commonly happens in situations that involve eating.  Additionally, each one of us surely knows at least one individual who is chronically challenged in will power and has a hard time controlling her/is behavior.  Out of this group are those who have trouble overcoming one or more vices.  They comprise a significant number of people.  In most cases, they make their lives miserable as well as those of people around them.  As much as they may try to overcome their vices, many of these individuals simply do not succeed.  It would seem that if God provided sufficient moral awareness to everyone that he would have also parceled out enough will power so that the awareness could be better put into effect.

Even if Swinburne were correct that evolution cannot explain moral awareness, that does not have to lead to the conclusion that God must instill it in humans.  There are very acceptable psychological explanations.  It is more complicated than simple theistic explanations, but it conforms better to the reality actually found in the world.  It better explains the variability among persons.

To begin, at childbirth babies possess different genetic dispositions.  Genes will have an influence over all kinds of characteristics. They will affect physical appearance and strength as well as mental abilities and tendencies.  With respect to morality, traits such as intelligence, patience, calmness, perceptiveness, reflectiveness, kindness, and sympathy are important.  Next is the influence of parents, siblings, friends, and teachers.  Neighborhood and community also count.  Then there are the personal experiences through which a person lives from day one and through adulthood.

There is more detail on the factors that develop moral awareness, but it should be clear that the factors can go in all different directions for different people.  That also applies to the personal characteristics that are more likely to impinge on moral awareness.  One would expect much greater moral awareness if it had been put there by God.  That is far from apparent so it is too difficult to accept that God places it in people.  If he does, he does a poor job of it.  Moral awareness has to have a nontheistic explanation.  The moral awareness argument fails at premise (3) that claims that the only explanation for moral awareness is that God implanted it there. 

Conscience.  The argument from conscience posits that since everyone has a conscience, it had to be placed there by God.  Therefore, God exists.  The argument is very similar to the foregoing argument from moral awareness.  After all, conscience is moral awareness with the added sting of guilt.  Conscience is supposed to guide everyone in understanding and following what is right.  It usually thought that of as being innate.  One proponent of the argument was John Henry Newman.(Martin 214)

The assumption is that everyone is given a conscience at birth that enables them to be morally upright.  The hidden assumption behind that is that everyone is given a sound, moral conscience that is like that of everyone else.  Everyone is then equally moral at birth because everyone is given a conscience.  So then what is it that happens after children grow older and eventually become adults?  As in the case of supposed innateness, there are wide variations in moral conduct.

Conscience presses different people to perform very different actions.  In some people, conscience brings a feeling of guilt over small infractions.  One of them may feel deep guilt over forgetting a friend's birthday.  Another one may feel serious guilt over cutting short a telephone call with someone else even though it was justified.  On the other end of the moral spectrum, some feel no compunction over doing harm--even serious harm--to a sentient being.  Afterwards, there is no reflection or regret.  These are the sociopaths.  Most of us fall somewhere between these two ends.

If conscience is implanted in us at birth, it does not seem to be very effective.  It takes very different directions in different people.  It is too weak to hold people in a narrow moral line.  It apparently gets too readily perverted from its proper function.  Perhaps this is done by genetic influences as well as environmental ones.  Then again, it just may be that these last two factors explain everything.

As in the case of supposed innateness, there is also the counterexample of the different moral laws in different religions and at different eras.  How could the conscience of some allow them to practice slavery, while many others took strict measures to abolish it?  In the United States both sides were clearly Christian.  How could the consciences of so many people for so long ignore the problem of physical abuse against women and children?

In the form of the argument from a mental trait, the first step requires a mental trait, and there is no doubt that conscience can be counted as a mental trait.  However, it cannot rightfully satisfy step 2, which says that the trait enables people to be moral.  Conscience readily helps some people to be moral, but for many others it appears to fail.  An individual prone to commit immoral acts may have grown up observing parents engaging in foul acts without compunction.  These mentors may have even rationalized their actions and passed them off as being good.  The individual may have then developed a faulty conscience.

What the conscience advises in certain situations may be influenced by the environmental factors affecting the individual.  If that is the case, why not just drop the concept of conscience and say that the person is simply prodded by environmental factors.  Conscience may just be an outdated construct.  At any rate, it is too unreliable from person to person and from time to time to claim that it enables people to be moral.

Surely then it cannot be maintained that step 3 applies--it cannot be that God implanted conscience into individuals.  A just and caring God would have implanted a uniformly reliable and caring conscience into all people.  Everyone appears to have a conscience although there is a great variation in quality.  However, the premise that conscience ensures that people be moral fails because there are too many people for whom it is no help.

The development of conscience in some sentient beings has to be the product of other causes.  Evolution may well have gradually given a survival advantage to those animals who possessed a conscience by offering some guide to acting altruistically and thus promoting the survival of family and other members of their group.  In any case, even if the causes of conscience are not evident, that does not warrant the conclusion that God must have created it.  It may be that in the future more will be discovered about the physical world or the human brain that will shed light on the foundation of conscience.  It will be a naturalistic explanation, not a suppositional theistic conclusion.

This illuminates the fundamental errors in the arguments from mental traits for the existence of God using steps 3 and 4.  This type of error has been reviewed before but is worth going over again.  

3. The only explanation for phenomenon X is that God implemented it.

4. Therefore, God exists.

An Erroneous Explanation

Step 3 expresses the type of conclusion that is always premature.  People may have formed opinions about a phenomenon for centuries but without foundation.  In addition, actual, well-tested facts may be known about the phenomenon.  It could seem that all that there is to know about it has already been uncovered.  Yet further investigation could bring out more.  It is premature to claim that God created the phenomenon.

Scientific history demonstrates surprises to the received wisdom at any given period of time.  It came as a surprise in the 1700's when it became apparent that much disease was caused by invisible microbes within the body.  It was also hard to believe that abundant light could be produced by electric current running through metal wires and ending inside glass bulbs.  Thus the present state of knowledge of an object or phenomenon is not necessarily the end of the story.  It is arrogant and short-sighted to assume that this is so.  There is much in nature that we do not know.  We must wait patiently to see what the future opens up.

Besides even if an explanation is never found, that does not call for the inference that God created the phenomenon.  The cause may just have to remain unknown, or there is the small possibility that it was the result of random occurrence.  Beyond that, if you are going to try to posit God as a cause, you need to go beyond just trying to accomplish that by a simple process of elimination.  More positive evidence is needed such as clear and convincing testimony of several highly reliable witnesses who directly observed God's creative actions.  These witnesses could be genuine, certified angels.

If there is no direct evidence, if there is only a questionable assertion that God created a phenomenon, there can be no further inference that God exists.  In furnishing the claim in step 3, the existence of God is merely assumed.  To then proceed to step 4 from there is to assume what is supposed to be proved--circular reasoning.  The argument from conscience proof fails at both of those steps.

Justice

The argument from justice recognizes that in this world the virtuous are not always rewarded for their good deeds and that the wicked are not always punished for their misdeeds.  Consequently, the only way this can be remedied is in an afterlife.

1. There is no full justice in this life for moral conduct.

2. An afterlife is needed that provides full rewards and punishments for moral conduct.

3. It is necessary that God exist to provide that afterlife.

4. Therefore, God exists.

The argument from justice is customarily presented separately from the moral argument.  Since it is involved with morality, it will be presented here as a variant of the moral argument.  It is simple to follow.

Hardly anyone would argue with premise (1).  Young children often believe that if they are good God will reward them and that if they misbehave there will be swift punishment from above.  If they believe it invariably, it is because they were taught it was true. The idea behind Santa Claus is a variation of this.  By the time children get older and very likely by the time they reach adulthood, they have had enough personal experiences and have heard enough accounts about other people--perhaps in news stories--to realize that evildoers sometimes prosper while kind and humble people suffer great hardships and wrongs.  At times the suffering of the good people is caused directly by the evil ones.

An example of this can be found once again in the institution mentioned before--slavery.  Another objectionable practice from the past is serfdom.  Cruel and powerful masters could mistreat their serfs without fear of punishment from any quarter.  For centuries many dictators living in great riches and splendor, have inflicted great agony, harm, and death on their subjects.  In some cases they were able to do this for many years.  More recently this has continued to occur in North Korea and Cuba.  In Syria the dictator Bashir al-Assad continued to stay in power while hundreds of thousands of citizens were killed or fled the country in fear for their lives.

It is clear then that if there is to be adequate justice through reward and punishment that at least part of it has to be accomplished someplace where all humans will be gathered in a life after death.  This is premise (2).  The first problem with this premise is that there is hardly any evidence to support the reality of a life after death, much less a final judgment after death.

Then there is no clear idea of what is involved in that afterlife.  What is it like in day-to-day living in heaven and hell?  Even the clergy demur on providing any specific description of either location.  It would certainly help if those who have passed on to either place would return to provide an enlightening report.  What if heaven is just more of the same, the same kind of life as here on earth with the same problems?

Furthermore, there are significantly different beliefs among the religions with regard to the process of assessing rewards and punishments.  There are those religions such as Hinduism that follow reincarnation.  In this scheme, individuals can continue to pass through countless reincarnations before being released to a final state.  In some cases this reincarnation could be never-ending.  Also it appears that God or gods are not involved in the details of specific reincarnations.  The process seems designed to be natural and self-administering.

Judaism avoids specific pronouncements on the characteristics of final judgment, heaven, and hell.  Christianity and Islam are more specific.  They definitely teach about final judgment and its possible consequences.  There is such a diversity of opinion that it brings into serious question the idea of an afterlife and its nature.

Another important point is that an afterlife does not cohere at all well with what is observed in the nature of objects and living things in the universe.  It is clear that stars (suns) in the universe invariably go through a predictable active cycle and eventually cease movement (die?).  On this earth, there is no doubt that all plants and other living things also pass through a life cycle and eventually die.  Premise (2) is significantly weakened by the many doubts regarding an afterlife.

Certainly God (or gods) is needed to go against this established pattern and create an afterlife.  It would then be necessary to gather every person who ever lived on earth (and any on other planets) for a final judgment.  Astronomers have not observed any place in the universe where there are locations of heaven or hell or a tribunal for final judgment.  God would have to create these locations because they do not seem to grow from any natural process.  In addition, God and his assistants would need to maintain the records of everyone's moral actions in order to pass proper judgment on them.  Apart from the weaknesses in the assumption of an afterlife, step (2) is correct in asserting that God would be needed.  At least it would have to be very powerful beings.

Premise (3) is not problematic either.  It is not controversial to say that it would be good to see the justice that could not be found in this world meted out at some later time.  The ones who would disagree would be those who could stand to receive hard punishment--the wicked.  Those who had only committed occasional misdeeds such as shoplifting or insulting others would not receive great punishment and so would have little to fear.  Even an atheist would approve with a final judgment involving superior powerful beings or some process by which total justice could be done.

The biggest problem in the argument is in step (4) that simply states that God exists based on the desirability that he exist.  There is no rule--logical or otherwise--that says that because it is desirable that something exist that the item must exist.  It is desirable that a $100 bill appear in front of you in the next minute, but you know full well that does not mean it will happen.  So just because it is our profound wish that there be a God that brings ultimate justice (and other favorable conditions), it does not mean that God exists.  The basic argument from justice fails.  It is simply a product of wishful feelings.

Justice and Happiness

There was a variant of the justice argument put forward by Immanuel Kant.(Immanuel Kant, "God and Immortality as Postulates of Practical Reason," Classical and Contemporary Readings in the Philosophy of Religion, 2d ed., John Hick, ed. (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.:  Prentice Hall, 1970) 152.)  He argued that it is everyone's duty to attain the highest good (summum bonum), which includes happiness as the appropriate reward of virtue.  It is desirable to realize this highest good, but Kant conceded that that is not possible to realize it without "a supreme cause of nature"(Id.) that can bring about harmony between happiness and virtue.  The "supreme cause" is God or an equivalent and the harmony is the reward of happiness to those who are virtuous.  Kant then claimed that God is a postulate of practical reason.

As in the standard version of the justice argument, there is an unjustifiable leap from the desirability of a God who can supply a reward to the claim that God exists.  To his credit, Kant declared that his account was not a valid argument for the existence of God.(Swinburne 212, 4)  Nevertheless, others have still appropriated it as a proper argument.  It fails because the preceding argument from justice fails.

All of the moral arguments fail.  Some don't even get to first base in that they fail to show even the existence of the element that is claimed to be in the first step of the argument.  For instance, it was not shown that there was universal belief in God or anything close to an innate moral belief in all humans.  Even if all the earlier steps (premises) in the arguments can be successfully hurdled, there is a final fatal error in all these arguments.  This is the jump from the observation that it is desirable that God exist to the assertion that he does in fact exist.

Hopefully, this analysis of the common forms of the argument will help all to see fallacies in the moral argument.  One would expect the moral argument to have offered great support for the existence of God given the close association between morality and God.  From a logical view, the variants are all very weak.  This is probably the reason it has not been counted as a major argument.

4 The Cosmological Argument

One of the major arguments in favor of the existence of God is traditionally called the cosmological argument.  A number of well-known philosophers such as Plato, Aristotle, and Descartes have offered versions of it.  It was thought that Hume and Kant had shown the falsity of the argument once and for all.  In spite of this, newer versions were proposed.  Michael Martin believed in his book Atheism that he effectively showed the failure of all forms of the argument.(Martin 95)

The label of the argument does not indicate very well what it is about.  Cosmology is the general study of the physical universe including its origin, nature, and development.  It depends greatly upon the findings of the astronomer and physicist.  The "cosmological" argument is not nearly that comprehensive.  It relies almost completely on the notion of causality and for that reason has been referred to as the "causal" argument.  The cosmological argument will be examined here with emphasis on two very important aspects:  causality and necessary being.  Hopefully, this will shed significant light on the concepts and their relation to the argument.  There will then be criticism of some ideas of William Lane Craig regarding different mathematical concepts of infinity and their connection to the cosmological argument.

The cosmological argument is as follows:

1.  Every event has a cause.

2.  The sequence of causes and events (effects) goes back in time.

3.  There had to be a first cause.

4.  That first cause was God.

This is the core of the argument because it is the basis of every accepted form of the argument.  There may be other nonstandard forms of the argument but they likely should not even be considered as versions of the cosmological argument.  The argument above posits that from objects in the world one works back to how they came into being (were caused), then how their respective causes were themselves caused going back in time to one original cause.  You can see why it can be called the "causal argument."

Perhaps the best known versions were offered by Thomas Aquinas in the Middle Ages.  There were three of them.  The first one involved motion or change.  The second used the notion of efficient causation that Aristotle first devised, and the third employed the idea of a necessary being.

The fact is that all three, as well as all other cosmological arguments, have to depend on causation in the development of the universe.  This development has to be followed back to the beginning.  In turn, causation has to depend on motion.  There is no getting around it.  The objects in the universe are in continuous motion causing each other to react in various ways.  All cosmological arguments depend on causation and consequently all also depend on motion.  It is the ordinary causation with which we are all familiar.  Efficient causation will not be considered.  The argument of Aquinas based on efficient causation is essentially the same as his argument based on motion or change.

The cosmological argument is the most readily employed by people in support of their belief in God.  Few would know to identify it by that name.  The popular argument is very brief, more of a statement like, "Somebody has to start it all."  With that, it is expected that the issue is settled.  No one disagrees.  They can't come back with an answer.  Here is the examination of the elements of the argument. 

Cause and Effect

There is no doubt that there are many events in this world that bring about other events.  It is said that these events "cause" the subsequent events, which are named "effects."  This is what is behind premise (1).  At times this only happens occasionally as when a horse kicks an old and weak barn that then collapses.  At other times, the occurrence is regular and predictable as when a copious rain causes fields of yellow grass to turn green.

Imagine what living would be like without the expectation of constant regularity.  What if electricity were available five days out of the week and it could not be known in advance which five days it would be?  Each week it would be different.  What if the water in rivers did not always run in the same direction?  What if gravity acted differently at different times and at different places.

Fortunately the world does not operate in this manner.  The fixed nature of its laws appears invariant.  This is perhaps why scientists believe that today's natural laws are the same as they were almost from the beginning of the universe and that they have remained the same throughout the entire universe.

People long ago came to depend on this regularity to run their lives.  As more laws were discovered, it became clear that nature operated in a fixed manner.  Certain events always brought about other events.  From this it was concluded that there had to be a Law of Cause and Effect.  There were small variations in the way it was stated.  Essentially it was this:  every event has a cause.  Certainly science and technology could not have advanced to the point they have without the very tight relation between cause and effect.   

These claims have been accepted with unquestioning certainty since there is much evidence to support them.  Yet, one wonders whether such high confidence is warranted in making these claims.  There are mysteries that have been puzzling scientists.  First, there are the quandaries that were introduced in the early 1900's by quantum mechanics.  To the surprise of many scientists, it was discovered that subatomic particles did not move with the regularity and predictability with which commonly observed objects in the world did.  There can be a good idea where a particle will be located at a particular second, but it is only a matter of probability, not certainty, that it will be there.

It had been known for a long time that the universe was expanding.  This was the reason that the Big Bang Theory got enough traction to become the standard model for the beginning of the universe.  In 1999 a team of scientists discovered that the universe was expanding at an accelerating rate.  The accelerating expansion, however, was puzzling and created new problems and uncertainties.

At about the same time, it was discovered that the regular matter with which we deal everyday on earth was not the only type of matter in the universe.  It it is difficult to detect so it has been hard to uncover its characteristics.  One thing that is known is that there is much more of it in the universe than there is regular matter.  It has been labeled dark matter.  In 2021 curious movement of the muon, a subatomic particle, was observed that indicated that ideas about dark matter may have to be reconsidered.  Then there is the mystery of what has been named dark energy.  It is difficult to study.  It exists in copious amounts throughout the universe. 

Uncaused Events

Alan Lightman in his book The Accidental Universe(Alan Lightman, The Accidental Universe (New York:  Pantheon Books, 2013) 39.) pointed out the central doctrine of science and stated it this way:  "All properties and events in the universe are governed by laws, and those laws are true at every time and place in the universe."  He noted that while the belief in the central doctrine remained strong it was not at the level it once was, given the recent quandaries.  The search by physicists for a Theory of Everything became very active in the 1980's but was put on hold.  Perhaps the laws are not as rigid as once thought.

Incidentally, it is not clear what the origin is of the Law of Cause and Effect.  It is not a law that has been pronounced or promoted in mainstream science at least not by that particular name.  Instead, a less rigid approach has been taken in which a general flow of cause and effect has been seen.  No mention has been made that it can be certain that there could never be random events.  Scientists have not been as interested in chasing the fine details of the Law.  Those who have promoted the Law of Cause and Effect seem to have been religious writers and commentators like Thomas Aquinas who have been interested in fashioning arguments for the existence of God.

The Law of Cause and Effect is just as open to scrutiny as any other law.  It is more narrow and rigid than the central doctrine.  The wording of the central doctrine shows that laws are supposed to be followed, but there is no indication that there could never be exceptions.  A law could apply 99.9% of the time and leave room for an occasional exception.  Perhaps a violation would occur about once in every million years.  It could very well be that no one would even become aware of such a deviation.  Simple occasional deviations would probably not make much difference in the general flow of events.

The fact that such deviations could be hard to detect makes it more difficult to deny that they happen.  How can anyone be so sure that there has never been an instance of a natural law being broken?  How could it be proven that it never happens?  To prove it, one would have to be able to observe every second of existence since the universe began.  Most scientists would agree that there does not have to be absolute certainty on the matter.  It is sufficient that a law be consistent for all practical purposes.

It could be that laws are always the same with exceptions.  Such instances would be the mutations that bring the creation of new species.  Here is what renowned biologist Ernst Mayr had to say,

There is indeed a great deal of randomness ("chance") in evolution, particularly in the production of genetic variation . . . .(Ernst Mayr, What Evolution Is (New York:  Basic Books, 2001, 120.)

Then there was the alleged first event that started the formation of our universe.  We don't know much about how it came about.  Could it be that the first event in our universe was set in motion by a cause or causes existing in a universe that preceded this one?  Or could it be that the first event came ex nihilo (out of nothing) that preceded it?  Perhaps it was one of those rare uncaused events.

Another unusual occurrence was the first appearance of life on earth.  How this could have happened has been studied for many years, and a good idea has been formed about it.  It has been theorized that certain carbon compounds were combined--perhaps through the effect of lightning--to form the first living cell.  This is still not certain.

The formation of life has never been accomplished by scientists (other than by regular natural reproduction) either chemically or otherwise.  Could it be that it has not been possible to duplicate the formation of first life because it involved an uncaused event?  It would certainly be difficult for scientists to duplicate an uncaused event.  To begin it would be hard to assess what the uncaused event was.

Suppose an uncaused event happens once every million years.  That would amount to a good number of uncaused occurrences because the universe is said to be about 13.72 billion years old.  Uncaused events could happen even more often.  Suppose an uncaused event happens in our world once every ten years.  The event would not need to have any great effect on events that followed.

A miracle is an event that does not follow normally applicable scientific law.  Usually those who believe that miracles occur, believe that God makes them happen.  Actually they would not be uncaused in that case.  They would be caused by God who would do it by interrupting the normal course of events.  Of course, there could be some who believed in miracles but who would not count them as being brought about by God.  They would simply think of them as uncaused events with no explanation for occurring the way they do.  These people could even be theists who do not believe that God intervenes in world events.

Unwittingly, the theist opens the door to the possibility that a supposedly constant and uninterruptible chain of cause and effect can be broken.  The break in the chain could occur without God being the one responsible for it.  Perhaps it could be done by someone else who is not a deity--someone with extraordinary powers.  Or it could just be a random event.  Either one of these could be an explanation but they indicate that cause and effect need not always work.

Then again no one can say without a reasonable doubt that God can perform miracles.  It has not been shown that unexplained events are the performances of God.  Believing that is a matter of faith.  Not all theists believe that unexplained events are acts of God.  These theists can disbelieve in miracles for different reasons.  For instance, they can believe that the full evidence as shown in the world does not indicate that God intervenes in the world.  This is much as the deists of the 1600's thought.

The unwavering theists can of course insist that only God can break a chain of events.  Yet that is only a matter of opinion.  The important point is that the theist lays open the possibility of the breaking of the chain of cause and effect.  To open that possibility, even if it only happens on rare occasions, is to seriously undermine the strength of the cosmological argument.

The Law of Cause and Effect has to be rigid and has to apply without exception in order to be used in an argument for God.  However, the universe may have continued to operate all this time with some exceptions.  There can be a few exceptions without affecting the general working of the universe.  The central doctrine of science would continue to hold.

The problem for theists is that to allow the exception of miracles allows the possibility that random events occur.  If there can be a break in the chain by God, why not random breaks at other times?  Random events are without a cause.  Some of those random events could be monumental ones such as the first event of the universe, the very event at the heart of the cosmological argument.  Another monumental random event could have been the creation of life.  In other words, these two could have been uncaused events.

The first step of the argument is not as solid as many have imagined it to be.  There is the possibility that rare uncaused events take place.  Such events probably go unnoticed at the time they occur.  There is no way of knowing with complete certainty that every event has a cause.  Therefore, the first event did not have to have a cause.  Much less is it a requirement that God had to be the cause of the first event.

Sequence in Time

The second premise in the cosmological argument contends that the sequence of causes and effects goes back in time.  This is not controversial.  It is obvious to everyone that events take place in sequence.  Everyone can observe it happen in their own lives.  Go back in time 12,000 years.  History has made it clear that there were a number of events that caused other events that caused further events that continued as ongoing sequences of cause and effect that have continued to this day.

Cosmologists and other physical scientists have studied what appears to have happened back to the beginning of the universe.  First there was a tremendous amount of energy thrown into space in what is called the Big Bang.  Eventually some of the energy coalesced into particles of matter that later combined to form atoms.  Eventually stars and their planets came about.  All this took place slowly over billions of years.  It has been assumed by many that everything began with the Big Bang because there is little evidence of what happened before.  Nevertheless, there could have been events that caused the Big Bang.  Whatever happened before the Big Bang, it is clear that cause and effect worked in time since then.

An important point to note here is that these events took place in only one direction.  Putting it another way, time flows in only one direction.  This is called Time's Arrow.  Events have never been seen to flow in reverse of the way they occurred before.  The idea of premise (2), that the many events that we see today can be traced back to a singular event, stands on solid ground.

First Cause

Theists like Aquinas who have employed the cosmological argument have pointed to this progression of cause and effect have then assumed without hesitation that there was only one event from which everything began.  Yet, it was only since about 1920 that it became clear based on the evidence that it all started from a single event.  Before that for all anyone knew, several events could have initiated the activity of the universe.  Certainly in the time of Aquinas--the 1200's--it could not be known how many initiating events occurred.  Since the discovery of the Big Bang, the argument is now more readily justified in assuming only one event.

The proponents of the argument actually prevent the regularity of cause and effect from working despite their steadfast insistence on following it.  They stop it from working every time they declare a miracle takes place.  Miracles have been claimed thousands of times.  This is questionable enough, but they unwittingly adopt the idea that there was no chain of cause and effect before the universe.  This is a much more serious matter.  They do this by discarding the Law of Cause and Effect before the beginning of the universe.  They give it no place before that although it is supposed to be an inexorable law. 

It is understandable to say that there had to be a cause that started the universe.  It is easy to comprehend the assumption that the universe could not have appeared by itself.  (This does not negate the possibility that it could have appeared by itself.)   Where the argument runs into rough ground is where it fails or refuses to acknowledge that under that reasoning there must still be a chain of cause and effect that took place before the First Cause of our universe.  In other words, there must be a cause to the apparent First Cause of the universe.  Then there must be a cause of the cause of the First Cause, and it continued back.  Note that for theists the First Cause can only be God.

There is reason to think that a chain of cause and effect could go back indefinitely before the beginning of the universe.  This could happen under several scenarios.  One could be that there were clumps of matter circulating for a long time, perhaps for an infinite amount of time.  Then at one point this matter reacted in some way that brought the beginning of our universe.  That prior matter could have become incorporated into the universe, or it could have remained outside it.  That is difficult to determine today.  This is only a speculative look into possibilities.

Another scenario could be that our universe sprouted out of a prior existing universe.  You can think of that universe as the parent universe.  Today, our universe could exist somehow inside the larger universe, or the parent universe could have died out.

A third possibility is that our universe has simply passed in time through a number of phases.  The phase that started with the Big Bang is just one phase.  Each phase could be similar to the other, or it could be significantly different.  This idea is similar to the theory that astronomers once considered to explain the long term action of the universe--the oscillating universe.  Under that, it was considered that the universe would expand to a limit and then gradually shrink down to the point from which it began.  It would then start again to spread to an expanse to about where it had gone before.  It would then shrink all over again in the same manner it had previously done.  This oscillating action would continue to repeat.  A newer form is the cyclic universe discussed below.

Another possibility does abjure the Law of Cause and Effect.  This involves the idea that the universe simply resulted out of nothing.  There was just emptiness before, whatever that means.  It does not posit a First Cause or any type of cause existing before the universe.  One or more initiating events could have just happened to start the ball rolling.  There would be no conscious being to make it happen.  This is a possibility based on uncaused or random events.

In the case of unusual events, it seems more plausible that they could be uncaused.  The laws found in the universe may be very regular and dependable while operating within it.  This includes cause and effect.  How can we know that these laws were in effect before the universe began?  How can we know that there were any laws of any kind in effect?  The laws of our universe could be in effect only in it and not necessarily anywhere else.

So there are several alternatives to a dramatically unique First Cause including ordinary physical causes such as the ones perceived in our universe everyday.  Yet, the most important observation in all this is the treatment of the Law of Cause and Effect by the cosmological argument's proponents.  They use the Law to work back to the beginning of the universe.  They are very confident that all the events trace back on a causal chain without deviation.  The Law is rigid.  Note that even if the proponents were to admit of some random events along the way, they would still have to maintain--if they continue to adhere to their argument--that it all reverts back to one single initiating event.  So far the Law operates just fine.  They then posit that there was no cause of the First Cause.  Incidentally, how did they come to know all their allegations?  As a side note, they assume without a doubt that what appears to be a beginning is not simply the commencement of the next phase or episode.

Note that to hold that there was no cause of the First Cause (God) they have to repudiate the Law, which is the very foundation of their argument.  At this point, they simply end the need for a prior cause.  Before that it was always necessary for there to be a cause for every event.  Then that need abruptly stops and no evidence is given for how it is known that there is a cessation of the Law.  It would seem that no matter how special and powerful the First Cause that it would still be necessary to have something that brought it about.  If it was an event that had simply happened, then there should be sound evidence to substantiate it.  Instead, the Law of Cause and Effect is abruptly halted without question as to how that could be.

We are accustomed to noticing a clear and definite beginning to many processes.  So when we are told that this is the way the universe began we are quickly satisfied by the explanation.  This may be especially true if we are given the story by someone we trust like a parent or teacher.  Later we may try to analyze the beginning of the universe more closely and find that we can't think of any alternative explanations.  So we accept the cosmological argument for the existence of God and think no further about it.  Others may also wonder why there is not a cause for the very existence of the First Cause.

Here is the fatal problem with the cosmological argument.  This is repetitious, but it is important not to miss the failure.  The argument first depends on the regularity of the Law of Cause and Effect.  The Law carries the argument admirably without a hitch back to the beginning of the universe.  Then in order to make the argument work to prove God, the proponents violate the Law by claiming that it stops working.  By this, the Law is made invalid.  Putting it another way, it is not a rigid law after all.  It is open to exception.  If this is the case, at the very least the law is not reliable enough to support the argument.

If the Law of Cause and Effect did not work before our universe began, there is reason to surmise that the First Cause could well have simply been a tremendous burst of energy that started events going.  This is what the Big Bang Theory describes as the first event.  It could be that there was no cause of the burst.  It was a merely random physical event that was not initiated or planned by any conscious being.

Of course, there is the alternate possibility that the Law of Cause and Effect is completely valid.  Concomitantly, the apparent First Cause was just a cause that was special in that it began our universe, but it itself was preceded by a long chain of causes.  In any case, the cosmological argument for the existence of God is clearly invalid.  It can only succeed if it invalidates the Law of Cause and Effect, the very foundation on which it rests.

Necessary Being

Some versions of the cosmological argument employ the notion of a necessary being.  The version produced by Wilhelm Leibniz is the best known.  The argument begins with the notion of a contingent being.  All things in the world are contingent.  First of all, they did not have to come into existence.  It is perfectly conceivable that they would have never come into being.  If they exist, they are contingent or dependent on being brought about by some other being or some physical process. 

Living beings are brought into being by sexual reproduction by their parents or by the production of seeds by plants of the same species.  Soil and stones were brought about by the action of the earth mainly through volcanoes.  The production of all these contingent things has been occurring since the beginning of the universe through the Law of

Cause and Effect

According to this version of the argument, there had to be a special cause that started the entire process.  It could not simply be another contingent being.  If it was a contingent being, it would have to have been produced by another contingent being.  This allegedly would not have been acceptable.  Therefore, the originating being would have to be one that was completely self-sufficient.  It would be able to fully provide for itself.  It would not have been caused by anything else.  This special cause was given the name of "necessary being."

It was necessary because without it all the contingent beings could not exist.  Since the proponents of a necessary being maintain that there was nothing before it, that would mean there had not been any prior contingent beings.  Not only that, there was no prior necessary being that created the necessary being that began our universe.  So there was no prior causal string of necessary beings.  This has to mean that the Law of Cause and Effect was not in effect at that point.

Now the necessary being was a conscious living thing.  The theists contend that this necessary being is none other than God.  The necessary being had the knowledge and power to make and organize contingent beings.  It was able to do this without any instruction or prior experience.  The one who started the universe was truly a necessary being and not simply a very capable contingent being.  What are we to think of this variant of the argument? 

First, we have to ask how is it that these theists came to know all their claims about a necessary being?  Were any of them present personally at the inception of the universe?  Did they clearly understand what was going on?  Did they examine the necessary being to ascertain its capabilities and that it was truly preceded by nothing?  If it was the necessary being that was the instituting cause, did they interview it and learn the relevant facts about its nature and intentions?  If they were not present, did they talk to anyone else who was present and could truly be counted on as a reliable witness?  Did they rely on other common sources of evidence such as video items while still being aware that those can easily be falsified?

The answer to where the proponents of the cosmological argument obtained their supporting facts is very simple.  They basically got it by sitting at their armchairs or their desks.  The claim that is usually made either by them or their followers is that they received their knowledge through direct inspiration from God.

It should be obvious that it is next to impossible to obtain knowledge about a necessary being.  Any allegations about it have to be based on pure speculation.  That does nothing to show that any necessary being exists in reality.  It is not at all convincing that only a necessary being could kick off the beginning of the universe.  No basis is established for rejecting the notion that a contingent being or even an inanimate object could have started the ball rolling. 

At any rate, the necessary being variant bears the same fatal flaw as the First Cause version.  This should not be surprising.  After all, they are basically the same argument.  The only difference is that the term necessary being is substituted for First Cause.  Of course, the theists see them both as God.

Perhaps the inventors of the necessary being wanted to make the First Cause more personal.  From the sound of it, the First Cause could be less than conscious, an impersonal force.  That is the feeling one gets about Aristotle's Unmoved Mover.  Actually "necessary being" still sounds impersonal.

The necessary being is still the First Cause.  Accordingly, it has all the failings of the cosmological argument based on a first cause.  Step 3 of the argument--there had to be a First Cause--is false.  It's failure is very clear.  The Law of Cause and Effect requires that there be a sequence of causes before the beginning of our universe.  The Law negates any First Cause.  On the other hand if the Law is not valid, the First Cause need not be anything special.  It could have been a random, inanimate, nonspecial event, like the Big Bang.  No necessary being was needed.  Discussion of the cosmological argument can end there.  There is nothing that can revive it.  However, it will be interesting and instructive to still explore the final step of the argument.

Alternative First Causes

The proponents of the cosmological argument cannot intellectually conceive an infinite series, in particular an infinite sequence of cause and effect.  So they have to assume a beginning of the series and call it the First Cause.  For example Aquinas declared, "Therefore it is necessary to posit some first efficient cause . . . "  (Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, pt. 1a, quest. 2, art. 3 in Five Ways, Anthony Kenny, trans. (New York:  Schocken Books, 1969) 34.  He offered no discussion on the nature of that First Cause and how we could come to know it.

Then he neglected to offer any explanation of how to make the connection between the First Cause and God.  Instead, he merely finished his statement above with " . . . to which everyone gives the name God."  (Id.)  He ends his argument about a necessary being again without explanation but with the same thought:  "and this is what all men call God."  (Id. 46)  This is an unbelievably weak argument.  Whoever heard of founding an argument simply on the fact that everyone agrees.  We have seen that universal assent can be in error.

What can we say about the idea that the First Cause has to be God?  Again we must remember that we have no way of knowing in the first place if there was a First Cause and what its nature may have been.  It is all speculation about imagined possibilities.

It could well be that the First Cause was something that was not significant, not complex.  It could have been a spark, a simple catalyst that set things in motion.  Maybe it was a single photon.  All the ingredients necessary including the enormous amount of energy could have formed in just the right configuration.  At that point just a small spark was sufficient to set off the Big Bang.  Of course, it is not clear what the "spark" would have been or where it came from.

It may be that this scenario is not satisfying to you.  It may be hard to fathom that a small spark from out of nowhere could start it all.  Perhaps a computer would be more acceptable.  We know computers to be very powerful, but it would not even have to be very powerful.  It could have probably lined up all the necessary ingredients to create a huge burst of energy and then set if off.  An omnipotent being was likely not needed.

It may be that these two scenarios bear no attraction for you.  It may be that you cannot accept the idea of an inanimate First Cause.  You think it should be a being with at least some life.  In that case, how about a cockroach?  A cockroach stepped on something and that set off the Big Bang.  Probably the cockroach did not live to understand the significance of what it had accomplished as the First Cause.  This cockroach scenario is probably not acceptable to you either.  How about a mouse?  If you want a more developed being, how about a young boy playing with his chemistry set?  He mixed the wrong chemicals and that caused the Big Bang.  Feel free to come up with your own description of the possible 

First Cause.

No doubt there are many who will find these scenarios unsatisfactory.  Of course, there are a number of other varied scenarios found in the mythologies of different cultures throughout the world.  They are likely no more satisfying.  The critics would say the stories are too simple, that the creation of such a massive entity as the universe demands a more complex explanation.  They would maintain that it would have had to be a very knowledgeable and powerful creator.  It could not simply be a Big Bang.

Perhaps you would like to go by the book of Genesis in the Hebrew Bible.  There God took care of the whole task of building the entire universe as we know it today in just six days.  That is contradicted by the scientific cosmologists who have made particularly great strides since 1900 in understanding the development of the universe.  They say that the universe was born about 13.72 billion years go and that it appears to still be expanding.  At the beginning, it was mostly energy in the form of electromagnetic radiation.  After that subatomic particles and the smallest atoms--hydrogen, deuterium, helium, and lithium--began to form.  It was not until more than 300,000 years later that a few of the larger atoms began to form.

If one chooses to follow the findings of the cosmologists, the early happenings were very simple.  There does not need to have been a great intellect behind that beginning.  There does not seem to have been great planning for that.  All the necessary ingredients just happened to line up at an accidental moment.  It certainly seems within the realm of possibility that a spark or a mouse could have set off the events.  What occurred for millions of years after that seems like it could have been random.  For those who insist on more intentionality and planning, a computer should suffice.  Controlling the early events would certainly seem within the capacity of a computer.

A challenge to these scenarios by the critics would understandably be the following question.  How can you know that any of these stories is true?  The answer could be, "These are just fanciful guesses at what the possibilities may have been as to what happened.  There are surely numerous possibilities that people could sit and concoct.  How can you be sure that your version with God as the First Cause is the correct one?"

They could answer admitting that they had not been present at the time of the Big Bang but that they strongly believed it on faith.  The problem with the answer about faith is that any belief can be justified on faith.  The fact is that it is anybody's guess what was the First Cause, if any.

As mentioned before, a smaller, simpler First Cause seems more plausible since the Big Bang was a simple action.  It is easier to picture a simple First Cause that was by definition uncaused--like a spark or a mouse--than a complex one like God.  After all according to the Yahwehists, he is a most impressive being who bears many insurmountable traits.  He is supposed to be all-knowing, all-powerful, infinitely expansive, and so on.  It is hard enough to imagine a spark or a mouse simply appearing out of nowhere to be the First Cause.  It is manifold times more difficult to comprehend a being with such infinite attributes that could come out of nowhere with a cause.  Then there is the claim by believers that he created himself.  That is impossible to imagine.

The Necessary Being Revisited

This discussion brings up further weak points in the necessary being version.  Remember that the claim is made that a necessary being existed for the purpose of creating contingent beings.  No justification is given for assuming that it was a necessary being and not a necessary thing, i.e. an inanimate object.  The spark and the computer could be examples of inanimate necessary things.  There does not seem to be any reason why the universe could not have been started by an inanimate necessary thing.  The only requirement for the necessary being in the argument is that it be uncaused, self-sufficient, and capable of creating at least one contingent being that would itself be able to create at least one other contingent being and thus start the process.

All this brings to mind the possibility that there could have been more than one necessary being.  They could have worked in tandem to be the First Cause.  If you prefer, you could call them the Joint First Cause.  Perhaps the mouse could have worked with the computer in a cooperative effort.  It was a smart mouse.  You would expect that of a necessary being.

Then there is the point of how it can be known that the necessary being has continued to exist to this day.  The proponents believe this without question.  Where does the argument show that?  The only thing we can conclude from the argument is that the necessary being existed long enough to set off the events that marked the beginning of the universe.  In discussing above the four possible necessary beings, it was not clear what happened to them after the tremendous bang of energy.  One would imagine that they were blown away.  So who is to say that this is not what happened to whatever version you choose as the necessary being.

All the argument states is that a necessary being was indispensable at the creation of the universe.  Once its work was done of setting events in motion for the eventual creation of contingent beings, it ceased to be necessary.  All this can also be said of the First Cause.

The cosmological argument alleges that the First Cause or necessary being was the initiator of the universe.  It started the process and that is as far as the argument goes.  It does nothing to further show that the First Cause was God.  The definition that theists usually maintain for God contains many strong attributes (characteristics) such as great power and knowledge.  The argument does not mention any attributes of the First Cause or necessary being other than those of (1) being uncaused and (2) being necessary.  We are given nothing to make a connection between the First Cause and God.  Clearly the cosmological argument does not establish the existence of God.

A Metaphysical God

The cosmological argument only involves the physical world.  It makes no reference to spirit.  That is one of its attractions.  Everyone is familiar with cause and effect in everyday experience so the argument can make a definite impression.  Theologians later came up with the idea that God could not simply be considered a physical object like other physical objects nor seen as interacting with them as a physical object.  This idea has also been used to deflect other criticisms of the theological doctrines related to physical phenomena.(For an interesting discussion of this, see Ronald M. Hepburn, Christianity and Paradox (New York:  Pegasus, 1968) 174-178, originally published 1958).

There has also been the additional important motivation in not wanting to associate God with physicality.  That is that the physical is somehow inferior and undesirable.  God stands beyond and apart from the physical world; he is transcendent.  This feeling can be traced back to Plato, and Christians followed it closely for a time.  God was not supposed to be thought of as physical.  Instead of a physical God, a spiritual or metaphysical God has been posited. 

This supposedly solves any problems in the cosmological argument.  It is not clear how that is accomplished.  Apparently, the transcendence and nonphysicality of God allows for him to require no cause for his existence.  Can it be that simple?

The first observation is that the Law of Cause and Effect is still violated whether God is physical or not.  Regardless of the metaphysical nature of God, it would still seem necessary that something or someone caused him to be.  If not, then the Law of Cause and Effect is invalid and still cannot support the cosmological argument.  Even in the case of nonphysical entities, something has to cause them to act the way they do.  Otherwise, you may be saying that they proceed randomly or arbitrarily.

Then there is the question of how a nonphysical being is able to interact with a physical object.  This question has been asked of dualists for centuries.  No satisfactory answer has been given.  It has been hard to see how something that has no physical solidity can move or affect something that does and vice-versa.  There are cases in which objects can be made to move without being touched or visibly acted upon, but they are readily explained by purely physical action.  An example comes from wireless remote controls used by devices to control objects such as television sets, drones, and toy airplanes.  All those are the product of electromagnetic radiation.

The idea of ghosts or spirits that move around has been discredited.  Even if it turns out that ghosts actually exist, there would surely be a physical explanation.  Movement caused by a nonphysical entity has not been credibly observed.

The third question here is how did the theologians come to know that God was not physical.  They claimed he was supposed to be pure spirit, or if not, metaphysical.  What does metaphysical mean in relation to God?  As with the other divine attributes, when did the theologians have the opportunity to examine God to ascertain his attributes?  When did they interview any credible, first-hand witnesses about it?

An escape from the problem with physical-nonphysical interaction has been offered by positing a God that is both transcendent and immanent.  By being the latter, he is able to dwell in the physical world and interact with all things in it.  He becomes a physical being, but it is not said exactly what form he takes.  Nor is it clear when he is transcendent and when he is immanent.  Ultimately, the idea of a metaphysical God is not strong enough to save the cosmological argument.

A Cyclic Universe

The idea that our universe began at a single point and expanded explosively in a few seconds--the Big Bang theory--is widely accepted by cosmologists.  Evidence that is connected with it has been uncovered by physical scientists and so far gives it great support.  Still there are a few serious questions about it that cosmologists are trying to answer.

The Big Bang theory has given some the encouragement to believe that there were no material objects at all before the Big Bang.  There was nothing but a void.  The theory gives no indication that this was so.  It is an open question as to what happened before.  It appears there could have been any number of possibilities.

John Barrow wrote The Book of Universes reviewing a large number of possible universes.  It seems there could be an immense multiverse containing many universes.  Our universe may occupy just a small region of that multiverse.  A surprisingly large number of different universes, some strange, can be calculated from the General Theory of Relativity.  Here are some of them:  (1) de Sitter's universe of matterless motion, (2) Godel's spinning universe, (3) the table top universe, (4) the electric universe, (5) chaotic universes, (6) mixmaster universes, (7) magnetic universes, (8) random universes, (9) fake universes.(John Barrow, The Book of Universes:  Exploring the Limits of the Universe (New York:  W.W. Norton, 2011).)

An interesting one which has been more widely promoted is the cyclic universe.  Its two originators Paul Steinhardt and Neil Turok wrote a book on it, Endless Universe.(Paul Steinhardt and Neil Turok, Endless Universe:  Beyond the Big Bang (New York:  Doubleday, 2007).)  The inflationary model of what happened at the Big Bang became the standard model of cosmology in the 1980's.  The authors pointed out that there were a number of problems with that model and that it should not have been accepted so hastily.  They came up with the cyclic model that they claim answers questions which the inflationary model does not.  Unfortunately, the cyclic model depends on string theory which has not been well tested by experiment.  The authors point out that the two models agree between the one-second mark after the Big Bang and the present time.(Id. 16)

In relation to the cosmological argument, the important idea presented in the cyclic model is that there is evidence that energy and matter in motion existed before the Big Bang.  The universe was not created out of nothing.  It was not even begun from a huge lump of matter.

The cyclic theory holds that two branes (short for membranes) collided and that is what scientists have been calling the Big Bang.(Id. 144-145)  The theory shows there was activity before the Bang.  Anyone interested is commended to read the book or search the internet.  The point is that this seriously considered alternative theory presents a credible claim that the Big Bang was not the beginning of everything but rather merely the introduction of a new episode in existence of our universe.

Craig's Problem with Infinity

William Lane Craig is a theist who publishes arguments supporting Christian belief in God.  In 1979 he presented a version of the Cosmological Argument based on ideas in mathematics and cosmology.(William Lane Craig, The Kalam Cosmological Argument (New York:  Barnes & Noble, 1979).)  Michael Martin mounted a formidable criticism of Craig's arguments that pointed out a number of errors.(Martin, 101-106.)  I would like to consider one of Craig's points.  It is found in an article that Craig wrote in 1992.(William Lane Craig, "Philosophical and Scientific Points to 'Creatio ex Nihilo,'" Contemporary Perspectives on Religious Epistemology, R.  Douglas Geivett and Brendan Sweetman, eds. (New York:  Oxford University Press, 1992) 185.)

Craig claimed that there could not have been a beginless universe, i.e. it could not have existed from eternity.  I want to criticize mostly the mathematical portion of his argument, more narrowly his understanding and use of "actual infinite" a concept formulated by mathematicians.  His employment of the actual infinite is the underpinning of his mathematical (a priori) argument.

Actual infinite is a term that began to be used by mathematicians after the work of Georg Cantor with transfinite numbers became known in the 1880's.  Cantor also discovered set theory in the course of his work.  It is only necessary for our purposes to point out a few features of infinite number series or sets.  The best known infinite series is the natural numbers

(1) 1, 2, 3, 4, . . .

Another well known infinite series is

(2) 1/2, 1/3, 1/4, 1/5, . . .

They are called infinite because they are considered as continuing without end.  There are many (probably an infinity of) infinite series.  Some infinite series are denumerable.  A denumerable series can be enumerated by the natural numbers, series (1) above.  That is, their members can be placed in a one-to-one correspondence with the natural numbers.  Series (2) is also denumerable.

Cantor discovered that there are nondenumerable series (sets).  They cannot be enumerated alongside the natural numbers.  The real numbers are an example of a nondenumerable set.  Cantor organized different infinite series with different properties such as denumerability into classes.  In order to be able to more clearly discuss classes and their different properties, Cantor applied the concept of the "actual infinite."  Under this idea, an infinite series could be thought of as a "completed unity" or as a "totality" or as "existing all at once."(David Hilbert, "On the Infinite," Philosophy of Mathematics, Paul Benacerraf and Hilary Putnam, eds. (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.:  Prentice Hall, 1964) 139.)  The natural numbers themselves could be thought of as an actual or completed unity.

Many mathematicians strongly disagreed with the actual infinite and Cantor's ideas.  The discovery of paradoxes in set theory did not help.(Id. 141)  Mathematicians preferred to think that they were dealing with only one infinite. This could be called the potential infinite.  This way of looking at it posited that a quantity was infinite if it appeared that it could be added to endlessly.  It was only potentially infinite because the counting never got to the end.  The actual infinite caused great consternation about the infinite among mathematicians to the point that it was stated, "Sometimes it is said--even by Hilbert--that references to the infinite are 'meaningless.'"(Id. 5)  David Hilbert was a mathematician who accepted Cantor's system (as did all later mathematicians) and upon whom Craig seems to have relied upon significantly in arriving at his ideas.  Perhaps he should have pondered more on Hilbert's "meaningless" infinite before proceeding very far.

Aristotle seems to have considered the idea of the actual infinite and to have rejected it.  It is open to question whether there is any great difference between the potential infinite and the actual infinite.(James Thomson, "Infinity in Mathematics and Logic," The Encyclopedia of Philosophy.)  Here is the essential point:  an actual infinite is still infinite just the same as a potential infinite is infinite.  Take any infinite series that is an example of an actual infinite and it is also a potential infinite.  It is added to endlessly.  To think of it as a completed unity or a totality is actually erroneous because it does not stop being infinite and therefore never complete.  It is certainly not finite.  Even when a particular type of infinite series is approaching a limit, it is still infinite.  An actual infinite is infinite by its very appellation.  That could not be more clear.

Perhaps mathematicians should have never started using the term actual infinite to distinguish different infinite series from one another.  Couldn't they have simply talked about classes as Cantor first did?  Talk of "actual" and "completed" infinites certainly created confusion among mathematicians and even more among lay people.  Those terms easily give the impression of a finite quantity.  Different classes of transfinite numbers show different characteristics, but they are all infinite in the same way--they are all endless, boundless.  It will help to keep in mind that the term "actual infinite" was invented to make easy reference to specific infinite series.

The term potential infinite can also be misleading.  It implies that there is for now only a potential to be infinite and that at some point it will become truly infinite.  That is not at all how it happens.  Any quantity that is infinite is simply endless; it just keeps going and going.  It has no potential to arrive anywhere.  If it does, it is finite.  It is simply an ongoing process.  Perhaps the best approach is simply to talk about infinite sets of numbers or points and their characteristics.

Infinite Confusion

All this disclarity can lead to abundant confusion.  One possible pitfall is for people to confuse the actual infinite with the finite, i.e. to misjudge the actual infinite as being finite.  William Craig was one of those people.  There are several indications in his article to show this to be the case.

(1) He seems to adopt as a definition of actual infinite a collection in which "a part of it is equal to the whole of it."(Craig, 186)  I have not seen that definition anywhere else.  That may be a characteristic of some actually infinite sets but is questionable as a definition.

(2) The characteristic that Craig was talking about can be found in the natural numbers (positive integers) 1, 2, 3, 4, . . . .  The natural numbers series is made of the even numbers and the odd numbers that are themselves infinite series.  Yes, it is said that the even numbers are equal to the natural numbers of which they are supposedly only a part.  The same is true of the odd numbers.  How can that be?  It is possible because all three sets of numbers are infinite and of the same class.  Given that, they are said to be equivalent (equal) to each other.  It is indeed puzzling, but that is what happens when you try to understand infinity.  That makes it understandable that it has been called "meaningless."  At some point, it is probably better to just stop thinking about it.

Craig tried to use these three sets involving the natural numbers as part of an imaginary example about a library with an infinite number of books.  He said that if all the infinity of odd-numbered books were loaned out mathematicians would say that there were no less books than before.  He couldn't believe this, but the mathematicians' claim should not be surprising since the even-numbered books that are left are infinite.  Not only that, the infinity of odd-numbered could not have all been loaned out.  It would take eternity to loan them out.  You have an infinity of odd-numbered books just as you had before.  Craig was aghast because he was thinking finitely about the infinite.

Craig also came up with the following example:

Suppose we loaned out book numbers 4, 5, 6, . . . out to infinity.  At a single stroke, the collection would be virtually wiped out, the shelves emptied, and the infinite library reduced to finitude.  And yet, we have removed exactly the same number of books as when we first loaned out all the odd-numbered books!  Can anybody believe such a library could exist in reality?(Id. 188)

First, how can any infinite number of books in any form ever exist in reality?  Humans are the only producers of books, and they have only existed for a finite amount of time.  They could not have produced an infinite number of books.  It is doubtful that they will produce an infinite number of books in the future.  For one thing, they would have to be around forever and that is not a sure thing.

Then it has to be asked how can an infinity of books be loaned out in the real world.  How does an infinity of books get gathered up?  It extends endlessly.  When the librarian thinks s/he has reached the end, there are still more books.  An actual infinite has been said to be a totality that "exists all at once."  If you say this infinite set of books exists all at once, then how can that be?  It would seem that the books would have to take up a finite space if that were true.  If that were the case, it would seem that the number of books would have to be finite.  You could only cram a limited amount of books into a finite space since each book takes up some space.  An infinite library would have to be placed in infinite space.

Craig's example of a library of an infinity of books was doomed from the start.  If he wanted to consider what happened in the real world, his infinite library couldn't even get off the ground.  The problem with an infinite library is not that it can't be counted using infinite number series.  It is that it cannot exist in the real world because the real world is confined to a finite space and its limitations.

Craig claimed that these and other examples showed "that an actual infinite cannot exist in the real world."(Id. 189)  At the same time, he was emphatic in saying that this did not apply to Cantor's purely mathematical system.  The fact is that whether you are dealing with pure transfinite numbers or real infinite objects such as books, balls, pencils, or any other physical objects the infinite is still going to be mysterious and indecipherable.  If you can find a library with an infinite number of books somewhere, it may well be that the odd-numbered books are equal to all of them.  The problem would be in how you ascertain that.  The infinity of books would just be a concrete instance of the infinity of numbers so there would be the same results as with the numbers by themselves.  The actual infinite is not negated when it is found in a concrete situation.  It is still infinite.

The Actual Infinite is Infinite

What specifically derailed Craig was that he confused the actual infinite with the finite.  It is puzzling enough to review Craig's examples keeping in mind at all times that they really involve the infinite.  Still one can get the idea of how infinites can be equivalent even if one set is only a part of an apparently larger set.  However, if you unwittingly think finitely, you will become convinced it is impossible.

Take the proposition that the infinite odd numbers are equivalent to the infinite natural numbers.  That is an acceptable proposition in the transfinite system.  If you take each set to represent books, it is comprehensible once you get used to the idea of the infinite.  Say that you feel that you are thinking in infinite terms.  Instead you are still thinking unconsciously as if the different infinite number series were finite.  You believe you are looking at them as infinite but are only thinking of them as very large finite series, say with the biggest number of only ten trillion.  You are unaware of this erroneous thinking.  (Incidentally, i am afraid that the example often used of an infinite series of real numbers fitting into a finite line segment, of say one inch, can help bring about this confusion.  Hilbert used this example in the article of his that Craig cited and must have studied closely.)

When you think of subtracting the odd number of books from the entire infinite collection, you can't help but think that half the collection is gone.  You are not truly thinking in infinite terms.  What is half of infinity?  This is what must have happened in Craig's thinking.  This explains why he was incredulous about what could happen with the infinite number of books in his library.

(3) At one point, Craig declared, "Now the concept of an actual infinite has to be sharply distinguished from the concept of a potential infinite."(Id. 186)  Wrong.  One wonders about the need for a distinction.  The term actual infinite can be used to designate series that can be thought of as existing as a unit, but that can be confusing.  It is also open to question whether there is a need to consider certain infinite series as existing all at once or as totalities.

Perhaps simply using the term "unit" would be less confusing.  There would be no talk of "totality" and "completed unity," which gives the impression of a finite quantity.  Or there could also just be reference to the class of a series.  In sum, it appears that the only difference between the two infinites may be a semantic one.  The name "actual infinite" was employed by mathematicians simply to distinguish infinite sets with properties which were not found in other sets.

We saw above how little difference there is between the two concepts.  Let me state again emphatically:  the actual infinite is infinite; it is not finite.  All series that are called actually infinite are potentially infinite because they also increase without limit.  Yet they can also be thought of as a unit.  Craig's claim that the actual infinite has to be sharply distinguished from the potential infinite reveals his misunderstanding of the correct concept of the actual infinite.

(4) Here is another indication that Craig thought of the actual infinite as being finite.  He talked about his infinite libarary in the following:

Suppose each book had a number printed on its spine.  Because the collection is actually infinite that means that every possible number [his emphasis] is printed on some book.  Now this means that we could not add another book to the library.  For what number would we give it?  All the numbers have been used up!(Id. 188)

I am assuming that the books are numbered with the natural numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, . . . .  That the collection of books is infinite means that their quantity is infinite.  The natural numbers are infinite.  You can analyze this in two ways.

(a) Add another book to the library and you can always reach for the next natural number to place on its spine.  You would take the next natural number and put it on the book you last added.  There will always be another number to add to how ever many books you wish to add.  If a librarian had started an infinite library on the day Craig started writing his article, she would still be adding books and that would go on forever.  There would be an infinity of natural numbers to place on their spines.  She would never get to every possible number.

(b) The natural numbers with which the collection is counted are considered to be an actual infinite.  That supposedly means that they "exist all at once."  (That is puzzling.  If someone had started counting the natural numbers 13 billion years ago, they would still be counting today and continue forever.  Yet the numbers allegedly "exist all at once.")

Since this is the case, it should be possible to place all the numbers in a box.  It would no doubt have to be a big box.  If we decided to add another book to the collection, we would find the number in the box.  It would have to be there because there would be an actual infinity of numbers in there.  It would be the number following the number that was placed on the spine of the prior book that was added.  Because the infinity that is the natural numbers would be in the box, every possible number would be in there, and we could never run out of numbers.  Craig did not realize the natural numbers are always infinite, as well as all the other "infinite" series.

Craig's Problem with the Past

Craig analyzed the concept of time in the universe--in particular, the nature of the past.  He pointed out that if the universe had existed forever, that would mean there has been a beginless series of events in time that would be the past which is "completed and actual."(Id. 189)  According to Craig, this means the beginningless series is an actual infinite that Craig insisted could not exist in reality.  Therefore, a beginless series of events could not have been a reality of the universe.

Why not?  Assume that the past is all the time before last midnight.  Every event that occurs after that we will count as the present.  That would mean that the past is completed.  You can think of the past as a completed unit, i.e. an actual infinite.  That is all well and good, but the past can still be infinite even if it is an actual infinite.  It could go back in time endlessly.

Being an actual infinite does not preclude that there could have been no beginning.  In fact, the infinite part of it practically guarantees that the past goes back with no beginning especially if you believe that the most recent part of the past ended yesterday.  That means that the actual infinite was completed on this end, the more recent end.  However, at the more distant time of the infinite series there could not be a beginning.

Imagine counting back in time.  Take whichever unit of time measurement you desire--one second, one minute, one hour, etc.  Go back in seconds.  Start from last midnight.  Keep going back.  You keep right on counting.  Perhaps you could use a reliable clock or a laptop computer containing a good program that would do the counting for you.

Now after a considerable amount of time counting, you would approach the time of the Big Bang.  It was extremely hot for a period of time after the Big Bang but maybe you could survive that.  Many physicists claim that space and time began with the Big Bang, but who is to know that for sure.  Perhaps there was time and matter before that.  Maybe there was a prior universe.  Say there was.  You could exist in it and keep on counting.

Now how would you be counting the seconds?  Naturally, it would be done by means of the natural numbers.  That is exactly how you started with yesterday being the number 1 and so on.  Now the natural numbers are an actual infinite but they are in every way infinite.  So counting into the past, they go on endlessly.  Looking at it another way, there was no beginning.

There is another way of thinking of the count in time as beginningless, which is what Craig so adamantly denied.  This happens if you count back using the negative numbers -1, -2, -3, -4, . . . .  The first going back would be -1, the one before would be -2, and so on.  You would go back to lower and lower (more negative) integers and never finish your counting journey.  That would mean that you were counting time going into the past with a negative infinite series.  The counting would still go on endlessly meaning again that there was no beginning to time.

That Craig did not realize all this was the result of his conceiving of the actual infinite as a finite quantity.  It is not.  Therefore the universe, or multiverse if there was a series of universes existing before this one, could very well be without a beginning.

Some philosophers have tried to answer Craig's arguments by going into great detail in pointing out his errors or showing the actual infinite can exist in reality.(See, e.g., Wes Morriston, "Craig on the Actual Infinite," 38 Religious Studies 147 (Cambridge:  Cambridge University Press, 2002.)  Other articles can be found on the internet.)  While those approaches are commendable and enlightening, it should be sufficient to point out his confusion in counting the actual infinite as finite.

Craig's goal was to try to show that existence had to have a beginning in time.  Time could not have been occurring endlessly before now.  In turn that was supposed to show that God created the universe with nothing going on before that.  That does not follow.  After all, Genesis 1:2 mentions that the earth was formless and that there was a raging ocean.  So there was something.  God could have created the universe with events taking place in a preceding universe going back infinitely in time.  Craig's mathematical argument fails to show that there was not something in existence before.  Secondly even if there was no time before the start of the universe, there is no evidence that it was God who created it.  We showed previously some other possibilities as to how it could have been started. 

Here is another way it could be shown that the past can exist infinitely back in time.  Say that you sail through space in a spaceship or in a time machine or a magic carpet.  Take your choice.  As in the previous example, all events occur in reverse order of the way they originally took place.  In other words, you travel back in time.  Assume that the mode of transport you chose can be readily fueled and repaired through eternity.  The ship does not have to travel in any particular path.  Eventually you will see the younger suns (stars) and their planets disappear and then the rest of the suns.  Later the temperature of the universe will go up and you will know that the time of the Big Bang is near.

Hopefully, you will be able to survive those high temperatures and the Big Bang.  It is hard to see how that could be possible, but maybe you could pull it off.  Everything could disappear at the Big Bang including you.  Or events could continue occurring in reverse of what had happened before the Big Bang.  Things may look much different from what they were after the Big Bang, but you would still see events take place on and on and on.

Perhaps one day everything would stop.  This would probably mean that you had reached the beginning of physical events, or would it just be a pause.  If the chronometer were to keep on working, it could mean that time and existence could be counted before the beginning of physical events.  You and the chronometer counting backward would constitute the universe.  That would mean that there was no beginning.  The universe could have always been there even though it was almost completely empty.

Interestingly, if the universe exists from eternity (negative eternity?), you could never know that.  You could keep going back and back, but no matter how far back you went, you could never be certain that at some point all events would stop.  That would include the chronometer ceasing to function.  This uncertainty would remain no matter how far back you went.  It could be that you would keep riding back endlessly.

All this goes to show that through this thought experiment it is clearly imaginable to go back in time through a series of events that took place in the remote past.  This regression could take place endlessly.  Craig's attempt to make an a priori argument using ideas from transfinite numbers simply did not work.

Craig's Problem with the Future

Craig stated, "The past is completed and actual; only the future can be described as a potential infinite."(Craig, 189)  Almost everyone would agree with that.  The past is surely gone, over and done with.  However, after more thinking, i realized that statement is wrong.

Now take the unit of time as the day.  A day will be the 24 hours from the previous midnight to the next midnight.  The present will consist of the entire day in which we are living.  The boundary of the past will be last midnight.  That means that yesterday will already be part of the past.  Yesterday will be the very recent past, but it will nevertheless be the past.  Of course, all days before that will be in the past.

Assume today is the 10th of the month.  It is the present.  The 9th of the month is the most recent day in the past.  Now say that it is one day later; it is now the 11th.  This day is now the present, and yesterday the 10th is now in the past.  Tomorrow, the 12th will be the present and the 11th will be the past.  It goes that way without apparent end.  Even after our sun goes dark and fails to provide the measure for our days, we can still measure a day by the number of seconds it contains so we can keep right on counting by days.

So it cannot be said, "The past is completed and actual"?  That can only be claimed in the short period of time of one day--during the present day.  After the present day is over, there is a shift.  Today goes into the past.  There is now a new past.  So the past was not completed yesterday.  That could not have been if the past was renewed after 24 hours.  When the past is changing so often, it is downright fluid.  Craig may still want to insist that the past was completed.  If that is so, he would have to admit that it was only completed temporarily.  The completion only lasted for 24 hours.  Then there was a new completed past.  The past is then continually increasing, and it is doing so without limit.  So what have we here.  This is none other than a potential infinite.  The past is not static as one often thinks.  It is continually and regularly being added to on this later end.

Someone could object saying that a day is too small a unit of time to consider as the present.  Let us then extend that unit to one year.  The change to the past would occur much more slowly, but it would occur in the same manner as before.  Years would be added to the past continuously without limit.  The past would never be permanently complete.  You could use the unit of present time as the hour, the minute, or even the second.  You can use the second because the one that just passed is gone.  You no longer have any control over it.

The choice of which unit of time is an interesting yet minor point.  The more important point is that the past is always increasing.  We can count the increase using the natural numbers.  There is no end in sight.  Whatever time span you choose, the present can be nothing but finite.  The past is potentially infinite going forward.  It could also be infinite going back, so that means the past could be infinite at both ends.

What then is the future?  It never arrives, so it never exists?  It is just an expectation, a construct of the imagination.  What does the future mean with respect to physical reality?  It does not seem that the future exists anywhere in physical reality.  Whenever physical reality is experienced, it is always in the present.  Craig stated, "Only the future can be described as a potential infinite."(Id.)  We just saw that the present is a potential infinite.

The future is always on the verge of arriving but never gets here.  Only the present is ever here with its many physical objects in place and their related events.  Nothing ever takes place in the future.  What happens in the present with respect to the future is that certain events are planned or expected to take place.  It may happen that some of those events will fail to take place.  Then there are events that are not expected for any future day, but that will take place nonetheless.  Examples are a house fire, an auto accident, a surprise visit from someone.  The expected and planned events, the anticipated holidays are mental in nature.  They are conceptions of what will happen but nothing else. There is no actual physical reality in the future.  Nothing happens there.

It is also true that nothing takes place in the past.  However, there are differences from the case of the future.  November 2, 2016 was the day the Chicago Cubs won the World Series in baseball for the first time in 108 years.  Today it is no longer a physical event, but at the end of the game on that day it was.  There is ample evidence that the event took place on that day along with numerous other events on that same day.  There is widespread evidence of countless objects that have to have existed in the past including all natural things like mountains, rivers, trees, bushes, etc. as well numerous human artifacts.  In days in the past, these objects were part of the physical reality of the then present.  Many continue to be a physical reality in today's present such as mountains, buildings, statues.

It is easy to see how the days of the past can be counted.  It is another thing to understand exactly what is being counted when supposedly counting days in the future.  One can print all the calendars that are coming in the future.  You could count in the correct sequence all the upcoming days.  Of course, you would never finish. Yet, you would not be counting days that existed in any way in the future.  You would only be counting dates represented by numbers on calendars.

You would not be counting actual days because they would not exist yet.  They would only be expected to exist at some time later.  If the days are not even in existence, they cannot be counted.  So how can they be said to be a potential infinite, as Craig claimed, in the sense of being an infinite series?  They can perhaps be called potential because they will likely exist later, but they are now only in a fantasyland of the human imagination.  They cannot themselves be counted.  The closest is the numbers on calendars representing them.

Other mammals surely have some feeling about the future but without details.  Through the use of induction we can expect that tomorrow will be a normal day at work or that we will be as healthy as we are today.  The further down the calendar we peer the less certain will be our assumptions.  We can expect the elementary school near our house to still be there in 10 years, but not so much in one thousand years.  We can imagine that at that time the sun will rise and set much as it does today.

Scientific Arguments

Craig did not only make his case for a beginning of the universe by the use of a priori arguments which he called "philosophical" arguments.  He also used a posteriori or empirical ones which he called "scientific."  He made full use of the Big Bang theory.  It claims that the universe started from a singularity and expanded from there.  A singularity is considered a point of infinite density.  That brings on puzzlement.  Remember the questions that came up before when trying to fathom the nature of infinity.  Now we ask what does it mean for something to have infinite density.  No such thing has been observed on this earth.  A singularity is the result of mathematical calculations related to the General Theory of Relativity.

Some Yahwehists believe on the basis of the Hebrew Bible that God created the world out of nothing.  However, Genesis 1 does mention "waters" so there was something there.  The writers of the Bible thought the world was the same as the universe.  Some Yahwehists like Craig find confirmation in the Big Bang theory of a creation ex nihilo.  However, there is not much evidence supporting any claim that there was nothing before the Big Bang.  There are not many physicists opining with great confidence that there was nothing.  It is interesting that at least the standard Big Bang theory indicates the universe will continue to expand at an accelerating rate.  At some point, it will become so spread out and so cold that it will no longer support life as we know it.  One would think that in light of that possible outcome theists would not feel cozy with the theory.

Another interesting twist is how happily Craig and other theists adopt the Big Bang theory in spite of its differing from the account of the book of Genesis in the Bible.  Look at the contrast just in terms of time.  In Genesis it only took six days to create the world (universe) in its present form.  Geologists tell us that the evidence shows the earth to be about 4.6 billion years old, while cosmologists estimate based on ample evidence that the universe is more than 13 billion years old.  That is a drastic discrepancy.  It would seem to invalidate the claim of six days.  That in turn could put into question some of the other allegations of fact in the Bible.  Yahwehists use science to confirm what they wish to believe but reject it when it does not.

Apart from the lack of evidence for the universe being created out of nothing, there are theories that point to existence of energy and matter before the Big Bang.  Remember the Cyclic Universe theory.  Things are not as simple as Craig imagined them.

5 The Teleological Argument

Like the cosmological argument, the teleological argument is popular among religious philosophers as well as the wider populace.  It is not unusual to hear from people trying to give reasons for believing in God that the existence of beautiful roses or a majestic bird like the eagle or the macaw or the intricate organization of nature as a whole indicate that there must be some conscious being who designed it all and that being is God.  It is accordingly claimed that God had an end or purpose in creating the universe.  Hence "teleological" was derived from the Greek word telos, which means end.

The related arguments and counterarguments focus more on the design of the different items under consideration so the overall argument is often called the Argument from Design.  After all, finding signs of design is the first step.  That step has to be solidly taken before assessing what purpose the designer may have had in mind.  Furthermore, deciding what is the purpose is a more difficult proposition.

The argument in everyday conversation can take form when a person asserts that a flower is beautiful, is symmetrical, is very similar to the other flowers of its species, produces seeds that later give life to other flowers, and goes through a precise life cycle.  The person then claims that the flower could not have come into being by accident.  It is also clear that flowers and other plants cannot be created by humans.  It could only have been created by God.  This is an argument from design by direct example.

Argument from Analogy

A more complicated version of the argument is the one by analogy.  Perhaps the best known example of this is the one presented by William Paley, an English clergyman who wrote his version in 1802.  (William Paley, Natural Theology, or Evidence of the Existence and Atrributes of the Deity from Appearances of Nature (1802), reprinted (Oxford:  Benediction Books, 2015).)  He used the watch as an example of something that shows the hallmark of having been carefully planned, designed, and constructed with a purpose in mind.  This becomes obvious to anyone inspecting the watch.  The unsurprising conclusion is reached that an intelligent mind undertook the project.  This would have to be the common inference even if imperfections were found in the watch such as improper construction or deterioration of the parts due to the age of it.

The analogy is then in the similarity of a watch to the earth and the solar system.  The earth itself shows intricacy and regularity.  Plants and trees go through regular cycles of growth and decline.  They give off seeds from which similar plants and trees come to life.  Even inanimate objects such as rivers and other bodies of water have a certain regularity.  The four seasons bring about the same predictable changes every year.  Humans figured out that movements of the earth including rotations had much to do with the precise changes that were regularly observed such as the always-constant features of the day.

Paley was no doubt thinking of the idea that the earth and the other planets in the solar system were said to operate like clockwork.  The analogy was then easy to draw.  The deists of the 1600's were fond of the image of a clockwork universe that operated automatically of its own power.  Paley was surely familiar with this picture.  While the deists believed that the universe operated on its own, most of them did believe in a God who had designed it and set it in motion.  Therefore the idea was not original with Paley.  It had been circulating for some time before he published his book in 1802.

David Hume presented a refutation of the argument from design by analogy in his Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion.(David Hume, Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion (1779), reprinted at various times including (Indianapolis, Ind.:  Hackett Publishing, 1998).)  The argument by analogy is vulnerable on several points.  To mention some, first there is the weakness in all analogical arguments.  This is that the analogy may not be as close as imagined.  It can be claimed that situation B is like situation A that is known to be correct.  Therefore, situation B must also be correct.  Yet it may be that the similarity between A and B is not that great.  There could be some items that are very much alike, but there could be other aspects that are significantly different.  The proponent may not have recognized the differences or because of unconscious bias may not perceive any significant differences.  Even one difference can significantly weaken the analogy.

With respect to the attempt to try to prove God, there are additional problems.  Assuming that the universe was created by a mind, there are questions that should make a theist uncomfortable.  The analogy here is between a divine mind and the human mind, which is the most developed mind with which we are familiar.  The human mind can be impressive, but it is also prone to error, sometimes serious error.  Are we to suppose that the divine mind is likewise affected by error?  There are after all various aspects of the earth alone that call into question the wisdom of the design.  Take for instance, earthquakes that give no warning of their impending appearance.  Furthermore, if a proponent of the argument asserts that God's mind is not held back by error, how is that supposed to be known?

Then there is the clear fact that the human mind is always observed attached to a body.  That must mean that God also has a body.  This is in contrast to what most theists have come to hold.  To them, God is spirit, which means he does not have a body.  Then there is the observation that humans often put their minds together and work cooperatively especially when it comes to engaging in a big project.  Creating the universe was certainly a big project so that must mean that there was more than one God involved.  This would be a blow to monotheism.  It would mean that polytheism was the right view all along.

Then there is the possibility that the designer was not even animate.  As discussed with respect to the cosmological argument, the designer (the First Cause in that argument) could have been a computer or a bank of computers.  In addition to showing that the analogy may point to some undesirable similarities for the monotheist, it says something related to the attributes of God.  It shows that even if it could be established that the universe is the product of design, it tells us nothing about the nature and attributes of God.

Then there is what may be the most damaging response to the analogy between the universe and human artifacts like watches.  This is that the two cannot be compared.  Any human artifact is very different from the universe.  A watch was designed by humans and can thus be comprehended by other humans.  While we have learned much about the universe, it is more complex.  Still there is much more that we do not know about it,  and it looks like there is a long way to go before we know everything, if ever.

Then there is the idea that the universe is a much different entity than any human artifact.  It is supposed to encompass everything, it may be all of existence.  It is an incomparable entity, and it is so difficult to comprehend that one should not try at this point to draw any conclusion that a mind drew it and what that mind may have been like.  Richard Dawkins, an Oxford biologist, wrote a clear and detailed book The Blind Watchmaker explaining evolution and disputing that living things could have been the product of conscious design.(Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker (New York:  W.W. Norton & Company, 1986).)

Intelligent Design

In spite of the many detailed findings by scientists that support evolution, creationists continue to argue.  They have sought to distance themselves from traditional creationism and tried to base their beliefs on science.  They have called their approach "intelligent design" (ID).  Creation science is another appellation for it.  They count some scientists in their midst who are mostly of the Christian persuasion.  For instance, Michael Behe, a biochemist at Lehigh University, is a Catholic.  He attacked evolution from a biochemical perspective.(Michael Behe, Darwin's Black Box:  The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution, 2nd ed. (New York:  Free Press, 2006).)

Intelligent design advocates start by exposing the weak points in evolutionary theory, i.e. the still open questions or disagreements among evolutionary biologists.  Champions of intelligent design try to capitalize on these weaknesses and conclude that they show that evolution is not strong enough to be fully accepted as a theory even from a scientific perspective.  They do not seem to be aware of the fact that all the sciences still contain open questions that resist the finding of clear answers.  Sometimes there are answers, but there can be competing answers to the same questions.  That brings up controversies among scientists who take different sides of a question.  These disagreements are normal and to be expected since some questions are still open to different answers.  It is not usually the case that these disagreements overthrow an entire theory especially a large one like evolution that has been well supported for almost two centuries by numerous findings including millions of fossils and anatomical studies of animals.

The intelligent design people are justified in criticizing some of the specific explanations found in evolutionary theory and accepted by evolutionary scientists.  However, their disagreements need to be based on facts and cogent, sensible arguments about those facts.  The criticisms should also be consistent with all the noncontroversial facts known about evolution.  Hopefully, those pushing I.D. would also come up with sound alternate facts for an explanation based on established scientific facts and methods.

Constructive ideas are not likely to come from I.D. defenders because their minds are made up that the explanation of all existence is design by a solitary entity, Yahweh.  Even if they accepted multiple gods, they would still be committed to a theistic explanation and not a scientific one.

I.D. theorists claim that they are engaged in science because they engage in study and criticism of evolution from a scientific perspective and not a religious one.  However, when these I.D. partisans go on to insist that answers to questions have to be that God designed everything, they leave the scientific realm.  They can no longer say they are engaging in science.  At best, they can claim that they are offering a hypothesis, but there is no evidentiary basis for that except religious notions.  They have moved on to faith in religious explanations.

The I.D. believers point out that if there is no evolutionary explanation at present for the appearance of a living things. Their inference is that they were designed by someone and furthermore that someone had to be the standard God that they believe in.  That simply does not follow.

It could be that the given scientific problem under consideration needs to be studied further by evolutionary scientists.  It may need to be examined for a long time.  This is not unusual.  There are many problems that were unanswered for a long time.  Some are still unanswered.  The idea of an ether in space was wrongly followed for centuries.  It took several decades until the Higgs boson that had been theorized was detected.  After further investigation, answers may be found for what now seem unanswerable questions.  Intelligent design people just have to be patient.

Then there is another possibility.  That is that there is no answer for some problems and that none will ever be found.  With respect to living things, some of their characteristics may simply not have an explanation for why they appeared.  They came about by accident and that is all there is to it.  They are simply basic.  This does not give any justification for falling back on God as an explanation.  There is no natural law that states that all occurrences have to have an explanation.  There may be physical causes for them but not any rationale for their serving any purpose.  Scientists, religionists, and humans in general want an explanation for everything, but that doesn't mean one has to be forthcoming.

Music is a phenomenon that is enjoyed by practically all humans.  Yet it is hard to see where it serves any advantage for survival as is generally required by evolution.  It does not help in survival nor in finding shelter from harsh weather or natural disasters.  Other animals do not seem to have much appreciation for it.  It brings enjoyment to humans and thus gives them another reason to keep on living, i.e. surviving.  Still that does not seem a strong enough reason to count it as a trait developed through evolution.  Besides the creation and appreciation of music may not go back for very long as do other traits that are explainable by evolution.  Musical instruments are a relatively recent invention.

The I.D. followers are simply wrong in maintaining that the only alternative to unclear evolutionary questions is to posit a God.  They have also used the approach of pointing to natural items like cilia, the immune system, and the human eye and then claiming that their allegedly irreducible complexity can only be explained by intelligent design.("Intelligent Design," Wikipedia 11/26/2016.)  Of course, they do not admit the very remote possibility that a god intervened at some points in the evolutionary march and designed a select number of items.  No, these special examples are supposed to show that one God created everything and the theory of evolution is hopelessly deficient in explaining the structure and nature of living things.

In using their examples, they commit a well-known logical error--the fallacy of composition.  It says that you cannot take a true statement about a part of a whole and conclude that it is true of the whole.  An example is someone saying that all the personal computers s/he has ever observed use the Windows operating system and concluding that all personal computers must use Windows.  Another example involves a child familiar with ball point pens containing only black or blue ink.  From that the child concludes that all ball point pens are manufactured with only those colors and no others.  Even if the I.D. proponents could show that some items are the product of intelligent design, that would not say anything about the entire production of the universe.  For one thing, it is much more expansive.  It has also been in existence for a much longer time.  Much more would have to be explained about its design.

In order to establish that the universe is the product of intelligent design, its proponents would essentially have to falsify the entire theory of evolution.  That is a very tall order given all the evidence that stands behind it.  If they could do this, they would then still have to make a sound case for a god or gods creating all living things.  They would have to show sound evidence of intentional, conscious creation.  There are many problems with showing the intelligent design of even one item.  Eliminating the theory of evolution would not suffice.

Under the verifiability thesis, which is a sound approach, the I.D.er's would at least have to demonstrate a credible procedure for showing that God created the universe.  This failure to do so shows again that the intelligent design idea is a matter of religious belief based on faith and not science.

There is one procedure that could be acceptable to scientists and other evidence believers.  This would be for the intelligent designer himself to come forward in person and show in detail how he created the universe.  He could demonstrate the creation of various articles such as roses, chrysanthemums, eyes, planets, etc.  This would answer many questions that scientists have on the nature of things and how they came to be.  The intelligent designer could have made this demonstration long ago.  Naturally, the I.D. people will not propose this as a proof because it is embarrassing that he has not already done it.

The Powers of God

Theologians have come up with the following wide definition of God:  male, personal, bodiless, eternal, creator and sustainer of the universe, omnipresent, omniscient, perfectly free, and promulgator and enforcer of moral obligation.("God," Oxford Companion to Philosophy (Oxford:  Oxford University Press,  1995).)  Monotheists add that there is only one God.  Some who have tried to refute arguments for the existence of God have taken this unitary definition and maintained that if only one of its elements is missing then that serves to invalidate the entire argument.

It is interesting to examine whether it is possible to have some of those attributes.  For example take omnipotence.  The concept has problems.  Perhaps the most difficult question to be answered is this:  can an omnipotent God make a stone that he cannot lift?  Either way that is answered invalidates his omnipotence.  If it is impossible for a being to be omnipotent, then there can be no omnipotent God and presumably that shows that there can be no God.  It appears that the theologians in designing an insuperable God painted themselves into a corner by unwittingly making him more vulnerable to objections and paradoxes.  It should not be that easy to refute the existence of God.  A number of attributes could be erased and still leave a powerful enough god or gods to be worth following.

If the universe was created by conscious design, there is a good case to be made for design by a group of gods--two heads are better than one.  The gods could each show some of the traits listed above and collectively possess all of them in total.  This goes against the contention that there is only one God.

It is desirable not to take the easy way in studying the nature of God.  A much more modest version of a God would still show impressive power.  Let us study a God more like the one followed by the early Hebrews in the time of Moses.  He was pictured as very powerful, knowledgeable, caring, and forgiving without much discussion of other attributes.  The word "infinite" was not employed.  That was done freely much later, especially by Christian theologians.  Apparently, the Israelites were content to simply have the protection of a God who had the power to undertake what was necessary including the defeat of the gods of the nearby competing tribes.  God was not then yet an ethereal bodiless spirit.  Instead he was physically present as the Israelites traveled through the desert after leaving Egypt.  He had feet so he apparently had a humanlike body.

Moses, Aaron, Nadah, Abihu, and seventy leaders of the leaders of Israel went up the mountain and they saw the God of Israel.  Beneath his feet was what looked like a pavement of sapphire, as blue as the sky.  God did not harm these leading men of Israel who saw God.  They then ate and drank together.(Exodus 24:9-11)

I want to examine a God that possesses only the capability necessary to design and control the world we live in.  This would mean that he would also have whatever control of the solar system was necessary in order to ensure the welfare of the earth.  It is well known that asteroids travel from distant parts of the solar system and can impact the earth with devastating effect.  He would also have whatever control was necessary over other parts of the universe.  This may not need to be much because those other parts are so remote from us.

Theists believe that God not only has control over the earth, but that he also created everything else--the entire universe.  Yet this is not necessarily so.  It could be that the material for the universe simply appeared spontaneously at some point or that it existed from eternity.  It could also be that the particles were created by a different god or gods and then another set of gods fabricated the chemical elements from those particles.  A still different god or gods put the elements together to form objects.  It could have been a very wide collaboration.

Maybe our earth god only came along in time to form our solar system.  Another possibility would be that God created everything right down to humans but soon after that lost his power to create anything new.  Regardless of how it may have actually unfolded, it is preferable to examine a more modest God who only has the full capacity to properly control and direct our world and it inhabitants.  Can even that limited a God be shown to exist?

That he is male is the overwhelmingly traditional view of God's gender.  Yahweh could not be a female since there has been such low regard for women in the Yahwehist traditions.  This God need not have lasted from eternity and need not continue infinitely.  He only had to come into existence before our solar system was formed.  He will not have to remain after life on this earth has been completely extinguished.  God will then no longer be necessary.  After all, it has always been unconsciously assumed that his purpose has really been to watch over human beings on earth.  Once God no longer has that purpose, it could be that he himself is destined to die.  In other words, he may not be immortal.

God needs to have a body so that he can move physical objects.  He need not do this directly.  He could affect objects through the use of gravity or electromagnetic radiation or some other invisible means, possibly dark energy.  He could take different forms to make himself invisible and undetectable by human means.  For instance, he could adopt a body made of a very diaphanous material, say one consisting of helium atoms.  It is next to impossible to conceive how a group of helium atoms could function effectively to do anything.  You could call this rarified material "spirit," but it would nevertheless be physical.  It would not be nothing as seems to be the implication of the concept of spirit for many.

God's personal and moral qualities would be highly admirable but need not be infinite.  He would be loving, compassionate, merciful, supportive, and empathetic.  He need not even be superhuman in these characteristics.  Nor need he even have the status of a saint.  To assist in the well-being of sentient beings on this earth, it should be sufficient that he have the personal and moral qualities of an admirable human father, not necessarily a model father.  A father develops feelings of caring, concern, and responsibility for his children even the adopted ones.  He will do everything within his power to aid his children in time of serious need.  Assume there is one God since that has become widely accepted.  It also makes the discussion simpler.

The argument from evil has been used to show that God cannot exist.  It is known as being a powerful thrust against belief that a God exists.  The argument is simple.  There is much evil in the world that God has good reason to stop.  God is supposed to care.  Evil continues unabated so it must be that he does not exist.   The argument from evil can be subsumed under the examination of the design of the world by God.  If the design of the world indicates that the evil found in it could have been avoided, then God cannot exist.

The Development of the World

There are other arguments from design some of which depend less on analogy.(Martin 127-153)  Instead of reviewing them, i would like to do something that i do not believe has been tried before.  This is to review some important relevant facts about the development of our world.  For this it will be necessary to look at what happened in the development of the universe.  The goal of this is to find what evidence we see of conscious design of the universe with special attention to our world, since we don’t know much about other locations in the universe.

Some of the information in these three chapters on teleology was covered in the first book of this trilogy, The Predominance of the Physical World.  It will be repeated briefly here since you may not have read that book.  For more information, study scientific books on the subjects.

It will be enough to hit salient points and discuss what can be concluded from those observations.  Most of the facts cited are widely accepted.  What will be shown will be more than enough to decide whether the world was the result of intelligent design or not.  That is one reason for not going into great detail. 

In reviewing the development of the universe, there will be reliance on what scientists have found because it is trustworthy.  The vast majority of scientists do not engage in conspiracies to promote any agenda other than accurate knowledge.  There is an occasional one who fabricates evidence for the sake of professional advancement or financial gain.  As in all areas of endeavor, most participants do their honest best.  Remember that sometimes the facts are not clear and leave room for differences in interpretation.

The conclusions to be relied upon are for the most part beyond any genuine controversy.  Scriptures will be cited to make comparisons on how they differ from scientific models.  The review will be divided into different periods of time with my comments at the end of each particular section.

Before the Atoms

There is still much uncertainty about what the conditions were at the exact microinstant that the Big Bang took place.  There is informed speculation.  Superstrings may have existed, space-time may have fluctuated violently, the four fundamental forces of nature may have been united, there may have been more than four dimensions, all the material that came to make up the universe could have been confined in one infinitesimally small point.  This took place in a very short period of time that ended at 10-43 second, called Planck Time.  10-43 written in regular style is .0000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 second.  That is 42 zeros to the left of the 1.(Voyage Through the Universe:  the Cosmos (Alexandria, Virginia:  Time-Life Books, 1988) 104-107.)  Alas, we have to live with the very small period of ignorance between the Bang and 10-43 second. 

Cosmologists know a considerable amount about what happened after 10-43 second.  Amazingly they can trace events that far back because they can tell with accuracy what the temperature was at different points in time.  This in turn gives them a good idea what was going on with respect to energy and matter at the corresponding time.

At 10-43 second, the temperature was 1032 degrees Kelvin (K).  Written out in regular digits that is 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000o K.  That is 1 followed by 32 zeros.  That was 10 trillion trillion times hotter than the core of an average star today.(Id. 120)

What existed was an extremely dense soup of components of energy and matter colliding violently against each other.  Photons carried the electromagnetic force, which includes light.  There were no protons, neutrons, or electrons, which are the constituents of atoms.  Instead there were smaller particles including leptons and bosons.  There were different kinds of quarks.  The leptons evolved into electrons, neutrinos, and the very rare muons and taus.  At the time, there was also a corresponding antiparticle for each of these regular particles, e.g. antiquarks, antineutrinos, and antielectrons, which are called positrons.  Matter was evenly divided between regular matter and antimatter.  The bosons are the carriers of force with a separate type for each of the four fundamental forces.

It is thought that three of the four forces remained united at this time.  The force of gravity became independent.  The electromagnetic, the strong nuclear, and the weak nuclear forces remained united in what is called the electronuclear force.

The tremendous amount of energy available caused violent collisions among the photons, other bosons, quarks, leptons, and other particles, including the antiparticles.  There were also unknown particles.  Under the conditions, photons were interchangeable with particles.   Particles disappeared in collisions that created other particles.  The newly created particles could then possibly vanish in other collisions that would create other particles.  It was unknown what particles would be produced by a crash between colliding particles.  An impact between particles of the very same kind could yield different results each time.(Id.)

Examples are (1) a lepton and an antilepton could collide and annihilate each other with many different outcomes.  A boson could be produced or instead a quark-antiquark could be born.  (2) A crash between a quark and a lepton could produce a boson of the electronuclear force along with a quark, an antiquark, a leptoquark, and an antileptoquark.  In addition, the original quark and lepton were created anew!  Some occurrences are indecipherable.(Id. 121)

A number of particles soon became extinct among them leptoquarks, antileptoquarks, the X Higgs boson, and H Higgs boson.  Other particles that disappeared were far more massive than any known today.(Id. 120)  The universe expanded rapidly and the temperature fell precipitously.

If you had been there to witness this chaos, you would have seen nothing for two reasons.  First, everything was so dense that the photons that were needed to move far enough to produce light could not travel.  The universe was completely opaque and remained so for about 300,000 years.  Second, at those temperatures you would have been vaporized as soon as you were created.  The positive thing is that you would not have felt a thing.  It was so dense at 10-43 second that the mass now making up "a cluster of galaxies would have fit easily into a volume smaller than that of a hydrogen atom."(Id.)

After two seconds had passed, antimatter had been annihilated after collisions with ordinary matter.  There had been a very slightly greater amount of ordinary matter before the collisions took place so afterward there was some of it left over to form the present universe.  The temperature cooled down enough for quarks to unite to form protons and neutrons, the constituents of atomic nuclei.(Id. 126)  After 1 minute, neutrinos, "decoupled" from particles, i.e. they stopped interacting with them, and are still abundantly present today.

After five minutes, the temperature had cooled enough to reduce the energy of photons so that they were less able to prevent protons and neutrons from combining.  This combining formed the atomic nuclei of varieties of hydrogen and helium.  These two elements account for most of the known matter in the universe at the present time.  No nuclei of other elements (except lithium) were formed for perhaps a billion years.  The temperature by then had gone down but still prevented atomic nuclei with a greater number of protons and neutrons than those of hydrogen and helium from taking shape.(Id. 136)  Photons retained enough energy to knock away any electrons that tried to combine with the atomic nuclei that had been formed.  This in turn prevented the formation of complete atoms.

At this time, the number of neutrons was only 14% of the number of protons.  The two particles had been equal in number when they were born, but collisions with electrons and positrons had been less kind to neutrons.(John Gribbin, Companion to the Cosmos (Boston:  Little, Brown and Company, 1996) 55.)  Helium nuclei had been synthesized and made up 25% of the nuclear material in the universe.  Everything else was lone protons, which happen to be hydrogen nuclei.  The time during which protons and neutrons combined to form nuclei is called the Nucleosynthesis era.  It lasted four minutes starting after minute one and ending after minute five.

There were no dramatic changes after the first five minutes.  Protons and helium nuclei floated in the air along with photons and electrons.  The photons continued to hit the electrons preventing them from adhering to the protons and the helium nuclei in order to form stable atoms.  The temperature remained high enough to give the photons the energy to do this.  The universe was much more calm than it had been in the first five minutes.  It continued to gradually expand and cool down.

Atoms

It took the passage of 300,000 years for the formation of atoms to begin.  The photons had started to weaken and so gradually interfered less with the electrons.  The photons weakened because the temperature had fallen to 3,000o K.(Illustrated Encyclopedia of the Universe (New York:  Watson-Guptall, 2001) 128.)  This atom formation took place over approximately the next 500,000 years.(Gribbin, 56)  Still, this only involved the atoms of hydrogen, helium, their isotopes(varieties), and a slight bit of lithium, the heaviest atom of the time.

The previous clashing of the photons and the electrons had produced an opaque plasma fog throughout the universe.  With the weakening of the photons, space gradually became transparent.(Voyage, 130-131)  Radiation did not ever again have any significant interaction with matter.(Gribbin, 56)  This ushered in the Matter Era.  All the preceding is set out in the Big Bang theory that is widely accepted except for some details.  It in turn draws on the well-established theory of general relativity and the knowledge of nuclear interactions.

The First Stars

It is estimated that stars began to form around 1 million years after the birth of the universe.(Id.)  Galaxy formation may not have begun until 1 billion years.(Encyclopedia of the Universe, 128)  Little is known about what happened during star and galaxy formation.  Much more is known about the first five minutes.

The other elements besides hydrogen, helium, and lithium had to wait to be formed inside of stars and then only after the stars developed hot cores.  Nucleosynthesis in stars does not take place until the temperature at the core reaches about 10 milliono K.  It takes some time from the birth of a star for it to reach that temperature.(Gribbin, 380)  Our sun is predicted to last 10 billion years.  It is therefore middle-aged since it came into being about 4.6 billion years ago.(Id. 19)

At the time of atom formation starting at 300,000 years after the Big Bang, gas shown brilliantly for a time.  The universe eventually darkened along with the matter in it.  The stars began to form when the universe was about 1 million years old.  The heat in their cores enabled the production of the lighter elements from hydrogen.  These elements remain in a star for the normal duration of the star.  They last for at least 3 million years.  A small percentage of stars end their lives as supernovas.

A supernova is an extremely violent explosion that marks the end of a large star.  The light from the explosion shines as brightly as an entire galaxy.  Only a few supernovas occur in a galaxy in a century.(Gribbin, 393)  The importance of a supernova for living things is that it scatters into space all the elements previously manufactured in the star.  Millions of years later--if and when planets are formed in the vicinity--those elements are incorporated into the planets.  If a number of other conditions are met, a planet may produce life but not necessarily as complicated as human beings.  Joni Mitchell was scientifically correct when she sang, "We are stardust." 

At the universe's age of 300 million years, the gravity of the dark matter began to pull the gas into narrow regions that were separated by huge empty voids.  The gas later formed the first galaxies.(Heather Couper and Nigel Humbest, D.K Space Encyclopedia (New York:  D.K. Publishing, Inc., 1999) 228.)  Galaxies were mostly formed by colliding clouds of gas.(Id. 229)  This of course took place on a very large scale.

Most stars were formed from the many clouds of gas that were present at around 1 billion years of age of the universe.  It should be no surprise that the clouds were mostly composed of hydrogen.  All the clouds continued to float indefinitely, but at times an outside disturbance caused a particular cloud to collapse into itself.  Small knots formed in the spinning cloud and grew denser because they had greater gravitational pull than the cloud.  The knot in the center grew, and the pressure and temperature in the center rose.  If the temperature reached 10 million degrees, nuclear reactions began in that hot center.  A star was born.(The Universe Revealed, Pam Spence, gen. ed. (Cambridge, England:  Cambridge University Press, 1998) 98-99.)

The cloud of gas kept spinning around the new star, which was shrinking.  The spinning created centrifugal force that kept the cloud from collapsing inward.  Instead a flattened disk was formed.  The material in the cloud formed clumps.  The star could react violently and produce a strong wind that would blow away the clumps.  That would leave the star alone.  Alternatively, the clumps could be large and dense enough to withstand the stellar wind and continue to spin around the star.  It was then possible that they could eventually form planets.(Id. 99)  The stars that were formed after the first stars came from clouds of combined dust and gas.  By then, dust had become available in space.  This process of star formation has continued and will continue for a long time to come.

Our star is not near the center of our galaxy, the Milky Way, as was once thought.  It is situated well away from the center on one of several spiral arms.  The Milky Way is 100,000 light-years across and 2,000 light-years thick.  It orbits around its center taking 220 million years to complete one orbit.  It appears to be 12 billion years old based on the age of its oldest star clusters.(Id. 194-195)

A star spends most of its life burning the hydrogen in its core that converts into helium.  Thank you, hydrogen!  After the star burns all the hydrogen in its core, it burns what is in its atmosphere.  It cools and expands.  If it has planets, it will stretch to swallow up the near ones.  Accordingly, our sun could engulf Mercury, Venus, Earth, and Mars.  Not to worry.  This should not take place until around 5 billion years from now.

Comment

The questions to consider are why is the process of creation and development so violent, why do some objects appear to be unnecessary, and why is it taking so long construct the universe, 13.72 billion years and counting.  Even now it has still not been completed.

At the very beginning, photons and particles collided violently, disappeared, then other photons and particles appeared, but there was no way to know what they would be.  The physical laws in effect today were not all in effect at the time.  There seems to have been much randomness.  Some of the types of particles that existed in those moments have never been observed again.  Why this waste of particles?

The subatomic particles that are well known today as the first-line constituents of atoms--protons, neutrons, and electrons--were not present.  Obviously, atoms themselves were not present.  Why not?  Quarks and leptons that later formed the three particles were present.  Shouldn't they be called subsubatomic particles?  After the first five minutes, it was relatively calmer for 300,000 years.  Still, photons, electrons, and clumps of protons and neutrons of no more than five just flitted about wildly in darkness with the photons knocking around the electrons and thus preventing any formation of atoms.

This picture of the beginning of the universe is one of complete chaos and constant violence in the middle of unimaginably searing heat.  This was the most chaotic state the universe would ever be in.  There was no band playing, no parade, no solemn gathering, no speeches dedicating the universe to a worthy purpose.  This couldn't happen because there was not a sign of life anywhere.  There couldn't be.  The ingredients for any kind of animate beings were simply not there.  There was no supreme being there to memorialize the occasion. 

Another questionably superfluous feature of this era was antimatter.  It was completely annihilated as far as can be estimated.  Why the seemingly unnecessary steps of making antimatter and then annihilating it away?  There was also all the regular matter that had to be consumed to destroy the antimatter.  Why not just start with the regular matter necessary to create the universe?  There is no evidence of planning.

Then there are the neutrinos.  There appears to be an abundance of them left over now wandering throughout the universe.  Yet it is not clear what function they perform today especially here on earth.  Why not produce only the items of matter and energy that were going to remain of use in the future?  Furthermore, why not eliminate those items that were useful at some time in the past but have ceased to be necessary?

It took 300,000 years for atoms of hydrogen and helium to even begin to form.  Then It took another 500,000 years for the process to be completed.  Why so long?  It is said that at this time radiation dominance ended, but it still wields significant power.  It is present in different forms throughout the universe.  It can be deleterious to living things.  Just ask those who have contracted skin cancer from exposure to the sun's radiation.  Does radiation still have to be kept around?

It is estimated that it was not until the universe was 1 million years old that the first stars began to form.  Why the delay?  It was a violent process brought about by clouds of colliding gas.  It was also a random process with no pattern of when stars would be produced and when the gas would just continue to float on haphazardly.  After 1 billion--the equivalent of 1,000 million--years, the galaxies began to form out of colliding clouds of gas.  It was not until the universe was 9 billion years old that our solar system began to appear.  It does not seem that anyone was in any hurry to get the earth going. 

In all this, it is very hard to find any design or planning or organized construction.  It is hard to imagine a beginning that could be less organized and more violent.  First, there was a tremendous explosion followed by frenetic activity.  There was no progress in the formation of anything new.  Photons would not let even the simple hydrogen atom form with only one proton and one electron.  Why didn't the temperature go down quickly so that simple atoms could form?

Why not simply start the universe with atoms fully formed?  It could be the simplest atoms first, but within a day or even hours afterward, make the atoms that correspond to the larger elements.  While undertaking this task, why not set a limit on how large atoms can be?  This would avoid the existence of large elements like uranium and plutonium from which very lethal atomic bombs can be made.  Some of these larger elements produce radioactivity that is lethal to living things.  Radon-222 is a radioactive gas that can seep from the ground into homes and potentially cause health problems.(Robert Hazen & James Trefil, Science Matters (New York:  Anchor Books, 1991) 117.)

Leucippus, a Greek from the 400's B.C.E., and his student Democritus were the first known proponents of atomism, the idea that everything is made of minute, indivisible atoms.  The concept remained plausible but open to doubt since no once could see an atom.  In 1905, Albert Einstein explained Brownian movement on the basis of the activity of atoms and the idea became more widely accepted.

About the same time, it became clear that the atom was not indivisible.  First, the electron was discovered to be a component of the atom, then a nucleus containing protons and neutrons.  Atoms of different elements need to interact and combine in order to form substances.  For instance, we know that such a common and simple item as water is not made of only one element but is instead comprised of hydrogen and oxygen.  So we cannot stop at counting the atom as the smallest component.  There are protons, neutrons, and electrons.

Couldn't it stop there?  These three particles could be the simplest indivisible items.  Also there could be one fundamental force instead of four.  Let's say that would be the electromagnetic force that employs the photon as its boson.  Physics would not have to be so complicated.  Students in high school and college would not have to struggle as much in understanding it.  Of course, there would still be quantum mechanics to try to fathom.

Instead of this simple picture, which was extant in 1932, it is now said that in the nuclei of atoms "hundreds of different kinds of elementary particles whiz around, being created and absorbed each instant."(Id. 124)  Perhaps all this complexity is necessary in our world given the way it is, but could it have been designed more simply?  The world could have been just like it is, but with a simpler underlying infrastructure.  Maybe the world with a simpler infrastructure could have even come out a better place for living things.

Hypothetical Intelligent Designer

Hopefully some cosmologists find these questions interesting enough to study them.  Here is another angle from which to look at all this.  It would be interesting to examine the steps a hypothetical intelligent designer--not the God of the creationists--would have gone through in constructing the universe.  Assume this designer was a female.  It is hard to believe she would have done it the way it took place.

First, it would be expected that an intelligent designer would have methodically planned the entire enterprise of designing and building a universe.  S/he would have taken all the time necessary to think in her mind what would be the best material to use for the construction of the universe.  She could have run simulated experiments in her mind to assess which would be the best materials and how they would interact.  If she didn't want to run the assessments just in her mind, she could have made the materials and run the experiments in physical reality.

The standard God of the theists who is omnipotent and omniscient certainly could have accomplished this without a hitch.  Consider the limited God proposed earlier who only has control over this earth and related objects and events.  That God would still be expected to design the entire operation of designing our solar system including all related meteorological and geological events.  He would also have been able to affect any other events in the rest of the universe that could impact the earth.  For those who fear that galactic aliens may someday invade the earth, it may be reassuring that this God would still be able to fend them off.

While this limited God was only posited as having the power necessary to control our earth, in effect he would also have the power necessary to design, construct, and control the entire universe.  After all, scientists believe that the same elements that comprise our earth also make up all the other objects in the universe.  Light, radiation, and other phenomena are also supposed to be the same everywhere.  Of course, the mysterious dark energy and dark matter could be an exception to this.

Return to the imaginary hypothetical intelligent designer.  This designer would not have built a thing until the design was complete and satisfactory.  It would have been done the way architects design houses and more elaborate buildings.  There would have been a detailed and comprehensive blueprint or set of blueprints.  This independent designer would have also designed and manufactured all the materials for constructing the earth and the solar system.  One would expect those materials to be reliable and pose no health risks to living things.

She would have decided what chemical elements would be needed to compose these materials.  She would then have carefully organized the elements in a plan like a chart.  What would that plan look like?  One part could look like the periodic table of elements first drawn up by Dmitri Mendeleyev in 1869.  It is arranged in rows and columns in accordance with the number of protons in the nucleus of each element.  The columns group the elements that have similar chemical properties.  She could have designed the atom to contain only the necessary subatomic particles as suggested before.

Only after all this prior planning would she have gone forward with creating the atoms and other building blocks such as the important compounds that are found today.  After that she would have taken hydrogen and directly created stars with it.  There would have been no need to have clouds of gas swirling about for hundreds of thousands of years from which stars were or were not produced.  She would have heated the hydrogen enough so that it would produce helium and in the process have provided light and heat.

She would have spaced the stars evenly throughout the sky rather than as they are now in haphazard fashion.  Granted there are some rough patterns visible like the Big and the Little Dippers, but they are the exception rather than the rule.  The galaxies are now bunched up in what astronomers have named "clusters," and there are vast areas of starless space between them.  The stars could have been simply placed in lattice formations.  Or they could have been arranged in beautiful designs that looked like crystals or jewelry or animals.  The possibilities would have been far-ranging.

There are now also far reaches in space that only contain gas and dust.  Some of that could be used to create future stars, but probably not all of it.  Why not create only the amount to be used?  She could have then formed the planets around the stars.  Having all the necessary elements on hand, there was no reason for delay.

In the Bible it seems clear that God's intention in creating the universe was to have humanoids at the center of attention, with the exception of himself.  This leads to the idea that any stellar objects that do not contribute to the existence of living things throughout the universe are superfluous.  This idea underlies the discussion in the following paragraphs.  

There are any number of stars that do not have any planets around them.  Why create them at all?  They seem superfluous.  Many of them are far away from any living things and so are not needed for heat or light.  Then there are the stars that have planets but those planets are not habitable.  Why create those stars (suns)?  Then there are the solar systems that contain some habitable planets and other planets that are not.  Why create the planets that cannot bear life?

An example of one of those systems is our own.  Our system contains eight planets.  The only one that is habitable is our earth.  What is the point of having the other seven planets?  They don't appear to have any purpose.  Saturn with its rings is pretty to look at, but it cannot be appreciated with the naked eye.  A good telescope is needed so most people cannot have the pleasure of fully observing it.  Even if they have a telescope, it is not always readily at hand for use.

Why not have just one planet in the system, the one with life?  Let it rotate alone around the sun.  There would probably need to be adjustments made like locating it further away from the sun.  While the designer was at it, why not create one or more additional moons so that the world's inhabitants could enjoy beautiful moonlight every night?  If the moons were made bigger and thus brighter they could even serve as an abundant source of light at night.  Also why not dispense with the asteroid belt, comets, and other rocks flying out there that are capable of causing great destruction to the world's inhabitants?

Incidentally, humans have widely believed that when God made our solar system he intended it to be the entire universe. So why not simply create the sun, the earth, and its moons?  What use do we earthlings have of other stars?  The stars could still be up there as decoration, but God could have just placed gigantic bright sequins out there.  Or they could be tiny fires burning.  Something like this seems to be what the writer of the book of Revelation in the Christian testament believed when he said, "The stars fell down to the earth . . . the sky disappeared like a scroll being rolled up. . . ."(Revelation 6:13,14)

Once the earth was constructed, the designer/fabricator might as well have filled it immediately with all the plants, insects, and animals.  There would have been no reason to leave the world barren for very long.  This would be consistent with the old human belief that living things were created at the same time as the earth.  Take a look for instance at the first two chapters of the Hebrew Bible which describe the creation of the earth.  In chapter 1 of Genesis, he created all animal life.

Then God said, "And now we will make human beings; they will be like us and resemble us.  They will have power over the fish, the birds, and all animals.  . . ."(Genesis 1:26)  Incidentally, if you will look at chapter 2, you will find a discrepancy.  There you will find a different account.  There God created the human male first.  Then he planted the garden of Eden and put him in it.  After that, he formed all the animals and all the birds.  It was only then that God created woman out of one of the man's ribs.

How long should it be expected for God, the designer/fabricator, to have taken to complete the construction of the world to what it is today?  One would think that he could have finished the project in a matter of hours.  Genesis said that by the third day, God had produced all kinds of plants and by the fifth day fish and birds.  Genesis stated that it took him six days for the entire project.  Perhaps he had taken a long time in designing everything before he started the six days of actual construction.  If that is so, Genesis should have mentioned that.

Most of the effort of the intelligent designer would probably have been in design.  Everything as far as we have covered--the creation of the sun and the nascent planets along with elements of the periodic table--was not complicated.  What is more challenging is the design and fabrication of plants and other living things.  Still, the making of the more complicated creatures could have been done on the basis of the simpler ones.  It could have gone smoothly step by step and getting progressively more complex.  That is the way evolution worked except much more haphazardly.

If God the designer had felt that the job was too difficult to handle alone, he could have fabricated some helpers.  For instance, he could have constructed a computer to help.  It could have been a very big and powerful one, or it could simply have been a capable laptop computer.  It could have helped him make more advanced computers.  He could have wound up with a bank of very capable laptops more powerful than any that humans have manufactured up to now.

Maybe he would have wanted to fabricate some conscious thinking beings to operate the computers.  Possibly these beings would have also been helpful as sounding boards with which he could discuss good approaches to the various possible alternatives that would spring up.  These thinking things could have been robotic with just the capacity to understand and solve problems.  They would not have had feelings.

It could be argued that it would have been necessary for them to have emotions in order to construct animals who would possess emotions.  However, it could be maintained that the robots or bots would not have actually had to feel the emotions that animals feel in order to create them.  All that would have been needed would have been a sound understanding of emotions.  After all, emotions are not all that comprehensible so it may be impossible for anyone to have a complete understanding of them.

If God had enlisted helpers, he could have been accused of implementing polytheism.  If the robots had not been given emotions, it could be claimed that they could not have been gods.  If they had received emotions, perhaps they could have just been counted as angels.  But aren't angels minor gods?

Clearly the independent intelligent designer could have designed a much better world than ours.  Everything the independent intelligent designer could do, God should have been able to do.  With aids and robots, God should have been able to complete the job much more quickly than the 13.72 billion (13,720 million) years it has taken to now.

Six days may not have been enough, but what about six years?  600 years?  Surely that should have been sufficient.  After all, we lowly humans have amassed a tremendous amount of knowledge in just about that length of time.  This serves to indicate that any intelligent designer should not need thousands of years.  To make sure we are being fair to God, let's say he should have taken no more than 6 million years to create the universe and brought it to the point it was in the year 2,000 C.E.

6 The Teleological Argument: Preanimal Earth

From a Huge Cloud

Our solar system formed in much the same way that the billions of other solar (star) systems were begun, from a cloud of dust and gas that was floating about until a disturbance occurred.  This alteration could have been caused by a supernova, the explosive death of a large star.  The disturbance started the nebula spinning around.  The dust in the cloud collected into clumps while the cloud slowly flattened into a disklike shape as it spun around.

The larger clumps eventually formed the planets and the biggest one in the center became the sun.  The paths of all these clumps were not set apart neatly, so as to not cross each other; there were ongoing violent collisions.  The smaller clumps are called asteroids and are still flying around in varying sizes.  Most of them have orbits between Mars and Jupiter but some cross the earth's orbit.  Some hit the earth and a big one could cause extensive damage to living things.  Comets are icy objects that orbit well beyond the outer edge of the system.(Smithsonian Earth, James Luhr, ed.  (New York:  DK Publishing, Inc., 2003) 25.)

The sun blew a solar wind consisting of energetic particles toward the planets.  This carried hydrogen and helium to the outer portion of the solar system.(Id.)  This left little of the two gases for the inner planets--Mercury, Venus, Earth, and Mars--so they developed as rocky planets with hard surfaces.  The four outer planets--Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune--became gigantic gas planets consisting mainly of hydrogen and helium.  Their surfaces are soft.  The gas composition gradually becomes denser toward their interiors.

It is estimated the sun and the planets were born about the same time, with the sun perhaps coming a little earlier by a few million years.  However, there is nothing that would have prevented the planets from forming a little before the sun.  It is calculated that the solar system began 4.567 billion years ago (bya).  Often, it is rounded up to 4.6 billion.  In millions, it is 4,567 million.  Perhaps 4,567,000,000 will give a better idea of the vastness of the number.  You may sometimes hear that the system is 4.5 or 4 1/2 billion years old because it may be easier to remember that number.  Note that the system was born when the universe was already over 9 billion years old.  By then many stars had already been born and had died.

For the purpose of time comparison, think about what is the frame of reference for most of us with respect to the past.  That frame does not go back much before 6,000 years ago (ya).  It is very much centered around what we know about human civilization.  We are not generally conscious of how humans lived before that date.  For one thing, humans before that date did not write much, so there is little written record of what life was like.

The asteroids bombarded the planets intensely for some 600 million years.  The craters that are visible today are evidence of this ongoing assault.  One of the best known is found in the U.S. and named simply Meteor Crater.  It is in northern Arizona.  We can easily discern many craters on the moon, but the earth does not seem to have nearly as many.  What happened was that the surface of the earth has gone through many changes that obliterated the traces of past craters while that of the moon has been relatively static.  It is very likely that the earth was pelted with many more impacts since it is much larger.  Some of the asteroids were large.  Some impact craters on the moon are up to 1,500 miles (2,500 kilometers) across.  An example is the Aitken Basin.  The early violent impacts kept the surfa_ce rock of the earth in a melted state and prevented the formation of an atmosphere and of life.(Id. 27)

Evidence of the age of the earth has been gathered in several ways.  One is by study of the geological strata that are found on the surface.  There are many layers.  Then there are the measurements of the decay of radioactive isotopes of carbon, uranium, and other elements found in rocks.  This is a very accurate method.  "The data on this point are unassailable," stated Robert Hazen, an eminent earth scientist, in his very enlightening book The Story of Earth.(Robert Hazen, The Story of Earth (New York:  Viking, 2012) 29.)  I am depending very much on this book in developing this exposition of the history of the earth up to the appearance of humans.

The earth reached its present size (diameter 8,000 miles) in a relatively quick time, but it was not a calm process.  Toward the end of this time, a few dozen planetesimals and miniplanets, each several miles in diameter, were in close proximity to the protoearth.  There is great agreement among scientists that this is how things looked.  Here is how Hazen described the process.

[T]he final stages of this process occurred in episodes of unfathomable violence.  Once every few thousand years, a miniplanet smacked into the proto-Earth and was swallowed whole.

During that turbulent time, Earth was a hot, blackened sphere, punctuated with glowing red cracks, towering volcanic magma fountains, and incessant meteor impacts.  Each of the giant impactors smashed into the sphere, blasting vaporized rocks into orbit and disrupting the entire surface into a molten, red-hot rocky slush.(Id. 31-32)

The Rendezvous with Theia

One of the many impacts was particularly significant--protoearth-shaking one could say.  When the solar system was 50 million years old, there was a miniplanet that was sharing the same orbit with the protoearth.  It was about one-third the size of the earth and as much as three times larger than Mars.  It was clearly a candidate for becoming a full-fledged planet.

Two space objects cannot share the same orbit indefinitely.  There has to eventually be a collision.  It has become widely accepted among scientists that the smaller would-be planet smashed into the protoearth in what has been labeled the Big Thwack.(Id. 42)  Although earth has suffered numerous impacts from space objects that caused considerable disruption, this one was especially significant.

The crashing smaller miniplanet--labeled Theia by geologists--scattered into an immense cloud that heated to tens of thousands of degrees and surrounded the protoearth.  The crash was great enough to also cause a big chunk of the protoearth to explode outward and merge with the cloud.  The rest of Theia was absorbed by the protoearth making it a larger planet.  For what may have been weeks, a hot silicate rain fell on the protoearth's ocean of red, hot magma (melted rock).  High in space, the rocky debris from the crash gradually coalesced to form the moon.  Theia was named after the goddess in Greek mythology that gave birth to the moon.

Scientists did not rashly reach the conclusion that our moon was created by a Big Thwack from a planetesimal.  Three main hypotheses were considered and discussed for more than one hundred years.  (This should be instructive to lay people who sometimes demand quick and unbending conclusions from scientists about tangled questions.)  Finally, the study of the moon rocks gathered in the Apollo space flights that took place around 1970 provided good evidence along with the new ability to design and study computer models.  The Big Thwack is now the widely accepted model although some of the details are subject to change.

The Big Thwack theory explains several facts that other explanations did not handle as well.  The moon does not have an iron core because all of Theia's iron wound up inside the earth.  The moon does not have any volatile substances on or above its surface because the volatiles of Theia were blown away in the Big Thwack.  The earth spins on its axis not in a perfect line straight up and down but in a 23 degree tilt to the vertical.  The blast from Theia at an angle explains this anomalous orientation.

There are similar anomalies in other parts of the solar system.  The Big Thwack opened an avenue among scientists for thinking about these occurrences.  Perhaps thwacks from other giant rocks answer certain questions such as why Venus at some point lost so much water and why it rotates in a manner that is opposed to the other planets.  Looking down at our solar system planets from above the earth's north pole, most planets spin on their axes counterclockwise while Venus spins clockwise.  Uranus, the third largest planet, presents another anomaly.  It rotates on its side so it appears to roll along the line of its orbit around the sun.  "The moons of other planets, too, have oddities.  Neptune's third largest moon, Triton, which is comparable in size to Earth's Moon, orbits at a steep angle to the planet's rotation and in the opposite direction of the rest of the Solar System."(Id. 41)

An interesting revelation found in these anomalies is that nature is not always neat and tidy.  That may be the impression presented in middle school textbooks or in news stories.  However, there are exceptions and not just in astronomy.  It is seen in other aspects of nature.  One must not get seduced into believing that nature is always simple.  One often has to look deeper.

The moon looked much different when it was formed than it does today.  One reason for that is that it is now much further away from the earth than it was then.  It is now 239,000 miles away; then it was 15,000 miles apart.  Close measurements were made in order to reach this conclusion.  The Apollo astronauts left mirrors on the moon so that laser beams could be bounced off them.  It was determined that on average the moon has been moving away at a rate of 3.82 centimeters per year or about one and one-half inches.

The moon was not always the quiet object that it appears now.  Like the earth, it had a black surface with red cracks filled with hot magma and volcanic basins.  It was a violent body.  If there had been anyone standing on the earth, the moon would have appeared enormous.  During a full moon, you could have easily read a book.  One drawback is that you would not have been able to admire the night-sky stars and planets as we do today.  The intensity of the brightness would have prevented that, much as the sun blocks our day-viewing at the present time.

The motions that the earth and the moon went through were much different than today.  The earth took about the same time to orbit the sun as it does today, but it spun much faster around its own axis.  A complete revolution took five hours instead of the twenty four that it takes today.  That means that a day only lasted five hours.  There were about 1,750 days in a year.  Imagine the sun rising every five hours.  The work day would have been much shorter and so less exhausting.  However, commuting would have taken a much bigger chunk of the day than it does now.  This is assuming that we would always go home to sleep in the dark hours.  These time periods are only estimates, but they are based on the study of coral reefs and tidal rhythmites, which are finely layered sediments.(Id. 48)  The lunar phases and eclipses occurred frequently.

The ocean tides we see today can reach enough force at their high points to be violent, frightening, and destructive.  They are nothing compared to what was seen then.  Being closer to the earth, the moon exerted tremendous forces on the earth's molten rock surface enough to make it bulge upward as high as a mile every few hours.(Id. 49)  This created great internal friction, which increased the earth's heat.  This delayed the cooling that would eventually occur.

The earth rotated on its axis more rapidly than the moon orbited around the earth.  Given that picture, the law of conservation of angular momentum dictated that the moon had to move away from the earth.  This saved the moon from crashing into the earth and becoming buried in it.  This would have happened if the earth had been rotating below a particular speed.  A crash may have happened in other planet-moon systems in the universe.  It is possible that our neighbor planet Venus underwent this scenario.  It is surmised that it may have had a moon at an early age that blasted it, disappeared into it, and started it spinning in the opposite direction (clockwise) than what the other vertically spinning planets follow.

The script that earth followed could have easily turned out much differently if the impact of Theia had only been at a little different angle.  If Theia had hit earth head on, most of it would have probably become buried in the earth and made it a more massive planet.  Maybe it would have made the earth also spin clockwise like Venus.  That would mean that the sun would rise in the west.  On the other hand, if Theia's blow had been more glancing, the debris that resulted may have formed into several smaller moons.  As Hazen observed, "Chance plays a significant role throughout our dynamic cosmic neighborhood.  Our Solar System's history is a litany of thwacks and near-misses."(Id. 54)

Geologists have divided the history of the earth into a number of time periods, which were further divided into subperiods, subsubperiods, and so on.  It is a wonder that they can get any college students to major in geology.  We do not have to be concerned with knowing all the names of these periods.  Years past or years of age will be used as a reference.  One period, the Hadean eon, covers the time span from the beginning of earth 4,567 million years ago (mya) to 3,800 mya.  That is a duration of 767,000,000 or 767 million or .767 billion years.  It is named after Hades, the Greek name for hell.  The appellation is understandable.  There were numerous volcanoes and glowing rivers of lava.  The ongoing bombardment by asteroids kept the surface rock in a molten state.  It was no place for the propagation of life.

Hot, Black Earth

After the Big Thwack, the earth and the moon both had an atmosphere composed of silicate rock gas existing at a temperature of 10,000o Fahrenheit (F).  The atmospheric gas eventually "cooled" to 3,000o F, which enabled the formation of the earth's first rock crystals.  The cooling of the atmosphere condensed the gas into droplets that rained on the molten surface.

With the help of the process of crystallization, the inside of the earth developed its different sections.  The iron in the early earth sank to the center and formed the core that has been divided into the inner core and the outer core.  90% of the core is made of iron.  Above the core is the mantle, which geologists have classified into lower and upper sections.  Then there are the oceanic crust and the continental crust.  The material becomes denser the deeper one goes.  Iron is one of the "big six" elements that make up 98% of the mass of the earth, the moon, Mercury, Venus, and Mars--the inner, rocky planets.(Id. 56)  The other five elements are oxygen, silicon, aluminum, magnesium, and calcium.  The crust on which we sit makes up only a small part of the earth.  At its deepest, it is 45 miles.  The center of the earth is 3,960 miles down.  That makes the crust at most 1.14% of the entire depth (radius) of the earth.  The temperature in the inner core varies from 7,200o to 8,500o F.

In addition to the extreme heat of the early earth on its surface and above it, heat came up from the inside.  That heat originated in the core and was transferred to the rocks in the mantle, which moved upward a few inches per year.  A convection current was set up with the rocks rising to points underneath the crust, then moving sidewards as they transferred their heat, and descending again to complete the current loop.  Sometimes the heat was high enough to break the brittle rock that comprised the crust and spew upwards in volcanoes and lava flows.  The volcanoes in those days were numerous all over the globe with the streams of magma at times reaching thousands of feet high.  Today the heat from the core continues to rise by convection, witness the still-present eruption of volcanoes.  Luckily for us, they are fewer and much tamer than they were in the past.

There is not much known about how events transpired in the first few million years of the earth, but there are different ideas based on informed speculation.   There was, and continues to be, a tremendous amount of water inside the earth.  That water was under great pressure and had to eventually come up.  With the steam that was continually gushing from the interior by way of volcanoes and cracks in the earth, it was inevitable that vapor would form above the surface.  Some vapor condensed into water and filled lower places on the surface to form ponds and lakes.  For a long time, some of that water met the hot rocks just below the fissures in the ground creating explosively steamy geysers shooting high into the air.  It is the speculation that much of the earth became blue with water between the age of 100 and 200 million years.  There were no continents.  The ocean was sprinkled with steaming volcanic islands surrounded by narrow black basalt beaches.

The growing appearance of water did not mean that the earth had become an idyllic place--far from it.  Huge rocks from the original nebula, some as wide as one hundred miles, continued to hit frequently.  This slowed down the formation of an ocean by vaporizing large quantities of water.  The atmosphere did not contain any oxygen so the living things with which we are now familiar would not have been possible.  There was plenty of turmoil.  As Hazen described it, there was "a global tempest of turbulent dark clouds, howling winds, shattering lightning, and unceasing torrential rain."(Id. 95)

There was some hardening of the surface as it gradually cooled, but the frequent asteroid crashes destroyed much of the relatively delicate surface which was at first made of basalt.  This happened before the earth was 200 million years old.  Basalt is black so from space the earth looked black with many rivers of red lava.  There would have been no drifting clouds of white vapor as we see today.  There would have been glowing red spots where volcanoes were bursting with trails of steam.  Eventually the black basaltic land of earth changed in color to gray.  This was the result of a much less dense granite rising above the surface and covering the basalt.  The lighter granite was able to make much higher piles of rock and eventually made possible tall mountain peaks.  None of today's mountains were anywhere near being formed at that time.  The scarce land became gray when the earth was between 200 and 500 million years old.

The convection of heat from the mantle that rose to the surface took place at the time, but it was sporadic and on a small scale.  It created gradually larger pieces of land bringing up hot magma and cycling down colder chunks of basalt. Over millions of years, the process became more organized and more expansive.  The convection cycles could reach hundreds of miles deep and thousands of miles across.  The magma rose to form ridges in the ocean floor while the old basalt sank down in what have been named subduction zones.

This was the beginning of plate tectonics.  Plates make up the thin outer layer of earth.  Beneath that lies the mantle that moves very slowly.  Tectonics derives from the Greek word "build" so plate tectonics is an extensive description of the slow interaction of the plates with the mantle below to build the surface, mainly through earthquakes.  This building will continue indefinitely.

After the basaltic crust sank, chunks of granite formed at the subduction zones.  In time this process would repeat itself and the added granite would pile on to build bigger and bigger chunks.  Some of these chunks are present today and some of those are as old as 3.8 million years.  Many of these chunks took shape under water since the earth was still mostly covered by water.  These chunks were named cratons based on the Greek word for "strength."

That strength helped some of them survive intact to this day.  This has made them good subjects of study by earth scientists because they contain very old rocks that can provide information about the early earth.  Today there are about three dozen surviving cratons with widths from one hundred to more than a thousand miles.  These cratons today undergird different land areas around the globe including most of India.  They have been transferred around along with many smaller fragments for all these eons by plate tectonics, specifically by the upper convection current moving laterally along the ground.  Of course, it has been a very slow movement as the cratons have at different times been joined and then torn apart in the formation and deformation of continents.

First Living Things

At a very early age of the earth, all the ingredients needed for the beginning of life were present.  The material for living things is called organic.  Carbon is the indispensable element in anything organic.  It combines readily with the other elements that form living objects--oxygen, hydrogen, nitrogen, sulfur, and phosphorus.  There was a plentiful supply of these elements in the oceans, atmosphere, rocks, and minerals that were in existence.  Energy was essential and was abundant in sunlight and the earth's heat.  The ambient temperature was much higher than it is now.  With these conditions, it may be that the first organic molecules formed by the earth's age of 400 million years.(Smithsonian Earth, 26)

A serious problem began around 450 million years of age.  Meteoritic bombardment had been frequent from the beginning, but at this point it intensified.  It reached a level about 150 times what it is today and stayed at that pitch for the next 400 million years.  Not surprisingly, this changed the conditions on earth drastically.  The heat that was produced vaporized the ocean as well as the atmosphere.  It is hard to believe that any life that would have been generated could have survived.

It is interesting to see the definition of life that was given by origins-of-life scientists at a 1994 NASA panel. It was agreed that "life is a self-sustaining chemical system capable of undergoing Darwinian evolution."(Hazen, 129)  Later it was posited that the definition should state that the system is capable of "incorporating novelty."  This addendum seems unnecessary since Darwinian evolution depends on mutation that itself can bring about novelty.

There is the possibility that the first life appeared as far back as 4.4 bya.  For one thing, hydrocarbon residues were found on sedimentary rocks in Greenland.  The residues dated back 3.8 billion years, but they could have been left by single-celled organisms that first appeared more than 4 bya.  They were probably bacteria that lived in shallow water that enabled them to absorb sunlight as a source of energy.  Single-celled microbes do not contain a nucleus and contain a flagellum for easier navigation in a water environment.  Everyone also knows they can wreak havoc on animal bodies many times their size.  Do they have a right to lord it over us since they were here long before we were?

There is another piece of important evidence that makes it possible for life to have arisen as far back as 4.4 bya.  This is the recent knowledge that microbes can exist in very extreme environments.  The first indication of this came in the late 1980's when microbes were discovered thriving deep at the bottom of the dark ocean floor well away from any sunlight.  There the hot volcanic crust produces geyserlike vents that bring forth minerals that help sustain ecosystems.  Since then it has been found that microbes can establish themselves in acid water coming from mine waste, from boiling water above volcanic zones, in frozen Antarctic rocks, on dust particles floating miles above the earth, and in abundance miles inside the earth's crust.

Given this capacity to survive in extreme conditions, it is certainly plausible that microbes could have appeared at the juncture of the earth's crust and the early ocean.  This location also makes it more credible that there they could have been safe from the crushing impacts of the meteorites.  Then there is the possibility that the landing meteorites themselves could have brought microbes with them when they made their trips to earth.

This brings up another interesting possibility.  This is that life could have arisen 4.4 bya and again say 4.1 bya.  This could have happened if the first life had been completely wiped out by the meteorites or by some of other method or combination of methods.  None whatsoever would have been left.  The decimation of the first group would have been an extinction, a complete one.  Then at some later time a new batch of microbes appeared without having any relation to the first group of microbes.  You can assume that to have happened 4.1 bya.  The new group could have arisen by the same method as the first one or in a different way.  For instance, the first population could have arrived on a meteorite, but the second could have been born on the ocean floor or vice versa.  It would have been a second independent appearance of life.

Single-celled microbes were the only life on earth for at least one billion years depending on when they first appeared.  It is believed that multicellular organisms did not originate until 2.7 bya and at earth's age of almost 2 billion years.  This has been corroborated by what are called chemical fossils--hydrocarbon traces left in rocks, which indicate that organisms existed there.  These multicellular microbes were still microscopic in size and were able to live without oxygen.

Relatively soon, some of them evolved the ability to perform photosynthesis.  This is the taking of water and carbon dioxide in the presence of sunlight to produce oxygen.  At 2.2 billion years--1/2 billion years later--the amount of oxygen in the atmosphere was 1% of the present level.  The process accelerated.  After another .3 billion (300 million) years, the oxygen level reached 15%.  The older types of microbes that did not do well in oxygen were forced to go underground.  The photosynthesizing microorganisms performed a great and indispensable service that allowed the viability of the numerous oxygen-dependent living beings that appeared later.  Another great service they performed was the production of ozone, an isotope of oxygen.  The ozone layer that developed in the atmosphere was essential in blocking out the lethal ultraviolet radiation coming from the sun.

The multicellular organisms did not take hold right away.  There would not be much evolutionary change in them until 1 bya.  That was from 2.7 bya to 1 bya, a period of 1.7 billion years.  The change came partly due to the evolutionary innovation of sexual reproduction.  There was also a new ability to increase in size due to the helpful specialization of cells for performing different tasks within the organism.  All of this microbial life existed in water.

The First Continents

Larger land masses were gradually formed and slowly moved around by plate tectonics.  The cratons were being joined to construct the first continents.  The cratons have been altered by various geological events through the millennia such as heat, pressure, and erosion by subsurface water.  They have been shuffled around for long distances.  Still geologists through painstaking effort are able to analyze the different types of rocks and decipher much about the history of the earth.  It is like working a jigsaw puzzle that changes and moves its pieces right before they are joined together.  At the lines at which cratons collide--the suture zones--mountain ranges are formed.

There is good evidence that the first land mass large enough to be called a continent was formed about 3.1 bya or when the earth was 1.5 bya.  It has been named Ur.  There is a little evidence that a large land mass called Vaalhara may have been around 3.3 bya, but that is open to question.  There are disagreements among the researchers as to what the geological configurations have been.  The further back in time, the more difficult it is to readily perceive what conditions were like.  The continent of Ur is thought--on the basis of magnetic data--to have lasted almost 3 billion years, finally starting to split 200 million years ago.

The appearance of land saw the first large-scale erosion that in turn brought the first sediments to the edge of the ocean water.  It is generally believed that at the time the atmosphere exhibited no oxygen.  Yet carbon dioxide levels were high maybe as much as thousands of times greater than they are today.  Rain consisted of carbonic acid that strongly affected the land.  Temperatures were falling rapidly to below average.

The Supercontinents

It appears that there have been at least six huge continents--supercontinents--in the last 3 billion years.  The first supercontinent was Kenorland or Superia.  It formed 2.7 bya.  Although it does not appear that there was any causal relationship, this also marks the occasion in which multicellular microorganisms were first born and when photosynthesis got underway.  Kenorland was compiled from Ur and many other smaller pieces.  Paleomagnetic data indicate that it existed at a low altitude probably around the equator.  There was still plenty of ocean all around.

Kenorland did not last very long as far as supercontinents go.  After 3 million years--at 2.4 bya, it began a slow fragmentation when Ur started to split from the contemporary cratons.  The craton pieces scattered from the equator to the poles.

The next event in the supercontinent cycle came 400 million years later, about 2 bya.  Because this happened more recently, there is a clearer picture of what happened.  Still, there are differing points of view on what was happening.  At the time, there were at least five different continents.  The largest was Laurentia constructed from more than a half-dozen cratons thousands of miles across.  They now support much of central and eastern North America.  Ur was the second largest continent.  It was separated from Laurentia by a large ocean.  Several continents and cratons meshed together creating various mountain ranges at the junctures and a supercontinent that has been given different names, one of them being Columbia.  It is believed to have been eight thousand miles long from north to south by three thousand miles.  It was concentrated around the equator, which meant that there was little ice sitting on the poles.

Soon after the formation of Columbia, a period of 1 billion years ensued that has been smelliest in the history of the earth.  This was due to an abundant population of sulfur-eating bacteria that produced organic sulfur compounds which spread the strong odor of a modern septic system.  Luckily, there were no animals around that were inconvenienced by this.  There were plenty of microorganisms, but they were probably not affected by the stink.  It would still be a long time before any other living creatures would be around.  The land was a hot, dry, rust-filled desert devoid of any vegetation.  From space, one would have observed one great reddish supercontinent surrounded by an even greater superocean.

Columbia eventually started to break apart as apparently dictated by the supercontinent cycle.  Ur split off to the west from Laurentia.  The divergent continents and cratons remained mostly near the equator with no continents at the poles.  This meant that sea levels were high.  It appears that less than one quarter of the world surface was dry.

The pieces of Columbia drifted for about 200 million years.  The Ur, Laurentia, and other continents started to gather into the new supercontinent of Rodinia about 1.2 bya.  The merging cratons of the time have left signs of their lines of commingling in the various mountain ranges found today in diverse locations in Europe, Asia, and North America.

The earth record is not clear, but it appears that Rodinia was near the equator with Laurentia at the center surrounded on all sides by large fragments that are now in various places like Africa and South America.  Laurentia now comprises most of North America and Greenland.  Rodinia was large but the surrounding superocean was even larger.  Like Columbia before it, Rodinia was dry, rusty, red, and lifeless.  The air had a little more oxygen than in Columbia's time but not enough to support post-microbial life.  It was also not enough to provide an ozone layer to block out much ultraviolet radiation.  The superocean Merovia may have held a few scattered volcanic islands.

The first sign of trouble for Rodinia came 850 mya when two cratons that are now parts of southern Africa began to separate to the southwest.  100 million years later a second rift zone isolated the West African craton.  Another 100 millions years later (750 mya),  Rodinia split in half along a rift zone running north and south.  Ur went to the west and a continental cluster made up of Laurentia, Baltica, Amazonia, and some smaller cratons moved to the east.  This fragmentation was beneficial to the microbial population.  Greater erosion of the land provided mineral nutrients to photosynthesizing algae.  Limestone deposits of the period indicate an abundance of algae.

Snowball Events

There is evidence that there have been periods in which ice caps did not just exist at the poles but extended all the way into what we now call the tropics.  These are referred to as "snowball events" on a "snowball earth."  It may be that the earliest snowball events occurred around 2.9 bya and again about 2.3 bya.  The evidence for this is found in the kind of sedimentary rocks found at different latitudes.

The large proliferation of microbes that took place at the breakup of Rodinia (750 mya) may have been a factor in bringing on three periods of an unusually cold earth from 740 to 580 mya.  It was an abrupt and drastic change.  The plentiful photosynthesizing microbes may have absorbed too much carbon dioxide.  This gas is instrumental in the formation of an atmospheric greenhouse effect.  It keeps in heat around the earth in the way that the interiors of the greenhouses built by plant growers are kept warm.  There were other factors producing the cold.  Scientists are still sorting out the details.

During the period, the temperature did not stay cold the whole time.  It was a very interesting period of climate instability that has not been seen before or since.  There were three different snowball events or glaciations.  In between, there were two interludes during which the world's temperature rebounded and became much hotter than average.  This happened after carbon dioxide was able to recover and help warm things up again.  Methane, another greenhouse gas, possibly contributed to this warming.  The warming was not able to sustain itself and glaciation returned.

The first cold event peaked at 720 mya, the second at 650 mya, and the third one--less severe--at 580 mya.  Although there is no conclusive evidence, it seems that each of these events decimated the earth's microbial population.  Only the lucky ones that were able to find shelter in hot fissures of the ocean floor were able to survive.  No living things other than microbes appeared to exist at the time.  These three events were apparently harsher than the ones that took place earlier around 2.5 bya. 

Gondwana was the next supercontinent to form.  It was in existence 550 mya.  The earth was 4 billion years old at this time.  After that, another supercontinent Pannotia assembled.  The latter did not stay intact for very long.  Gondwana grew to a length of eight thousand miles from north to south.  Smaller continents included Laurentia and one that eventually became Europe.  All the continents were aggregated in the southern hemisphere while an expansive ocean covered the northern half.

About 250 million years later, Gondwana moved northward and clashed with Laurentia.  This formed the Appalachian mountains.  Today this rolling range is modest in comparison with ones like the Himalayas and the Rockies.  However, Appalachian peaks once reached the height of six or seven miles rivaling the better known tall mountains.  Two forces were at work.  First, there were the forces brought by continental collisions that bunch land mass upward to unbelievable heights. Then there was erosion that brings peaks back down to a humble stature.  The merger of Gondwana and Laurentia formed the most recent supercontinent Pangaea, which congregated almost all the earth's land in one place with three quarters of it in the southern hemisphere.  The superocean Panthalassa enveloped Pangaea.

Pangaea began to fragment into seven large pieces 175 mya.  Laurentia and Gondwana came apart and opened the north Atlantic ocean while South American land and the west coast of Africa rifted to make way for the south Atlantic.  Antarctica and Australia moved south to initiate their own island continents, and another mass split from the east coast of Africa to move northward for 50 million years.  It finally crashed into Asia, crammed land upward forming the Himalayan mountains, and became known as India.  These major movements were accompanied by movements of smaller pieces, which often joined together and then split apart.  Of course, all of this continued to be the work of plate tectonics slowly but continually doing their thing below the surface.

Comment

The events of the universe have been violent and chaotic, with the only distinct pattern being a continuous formation and demise of stars.  Planets around the stars have no doubt been formed, but we have not been able to discern many.  Clusters of stars and galaxies were formed in scattered fashion throughout space.  Where they formed seemed to depend on where there happened to be large clouds of hydrogen with no pattern whatsoever.  There was no way to predict whether a cloud of gas would coalesce to form a star or simply continue to float through space.  This process of stellar formation has gone on for more than 13 billion years and continues.

One particular cloud of gas and debris started spinning, probably caused by a violent supernova.  The debris from the exploded star contained the elements that we now find on our earth including our bodies.  The spinning cloud very slowly coalesced into our solar system.  Later numerous large rocks flew around and smashed up potential planets.  The earth reached its present size probably between 50 and 100 million years after the cloud started spinning so it went very slowly.(Brent Dalrymple, Ancient Earth, Ancient Skies:  The Age of Earth and its Cosmic Surroundings (Stanford, California:  Stanford University Press, 2004) 21.)

There was no grand inauguration or even a dedication at the start of the universe.  There was just a tremendously hot and violent explosion without anyone writing about or photographing the initiating events and what happened after that, at least for the first one million years.  A good record of what happened would have been not only interesting but beneficial later.  Hundreds of scientists have had to spend countless painstaking hours piecing together what might have happened, and even then there are many open questions.  Likewise, there was no ceremony to mark the beginning of the earth.  No one documented the first 4 billion years.

Granted there is not much excitement in the formation of a solar system, even one with planets.  A gaseous cloud spins around.  Rocks gradually develop to collide violently with each other until planets begin to take shape.  There is no evidence that the birth of our earth was exceptional and different from other planets.

It is surprising that there are not more signs of a special start to the earth since it was allegedly created by an intelligent superbeing for his special creatures--humans.  There could have been a little more fanfare.  Certainly it would not have taken so long (9 billion years) just to get things going.  After that the earth remained fiery hot for many millions of years with violent eruptions inside and massive bombardment from above.  The planet was uninhabitable with clearly no thought about populating it with living beings as we know them today.  Even the bacteria did not appear until much later.  Why not inhabit it with humans from the very start?

Then there was the formation of the moon.  One would have thought that it would have been formed in a calm, deliberate manner since it is a beautiful and welcome addition to the sky on many nights.  Instead, it was formed as the result of a very violent collision.  It is hard to see how that was planned.  If Theia had been much larger, the crash could have broken the planet into small pieces.  That could have prevented the inception of life.  If life had arisen, perhaps microscopic organisms would have sprouted but nothing more complex.

There were several conditions after the Big Thwack that changed, and it is puzzling why they did.  There may have been an early atmosphere along with some seas on the earth's surface, but the heat generated by the Big Thwack wiped them out.  The surface consisted of black basalt interlaced with many rivers of lava.  The basalt eventually submerged beneath the surface to be replaced by a lighter granite, which made possible the later formation of mountains.  Why go through a basalt stage?  Why not design a granite surface from the get-go?

Instead the granite was designed to come up for millions of years from the inner earth by the use of convection currents.  This is part of the prevalent system of continually rearranging the earth's surface.  It is a slow-going process that results to this day in earthquakes and volcanoes.  It is not clear why the plate-tectonic system had to be designed and implemented.  Also it is hard to see why it has been continued to this day.  Perhaps it was necessary in the early billions of years to be moving the earth's surface, but did it have to be continued into the time of the appearance of vulnerable living things?  Why not build a permanent surface at that time with a calm interior that did not ever erupt?  Instead, the floor shifts unendingly with sometimes devastating effects on the inhabitants.

Imagine a home builder designing and constructing a new house for you that seems normal with no apparent defects.  A year later the floor shifts unexpectedly from time to time.  Sometimes the ground underneath even erupts violently and the walls tremble and crack knocking down objects and injuring people.  You would certainly find it hard to believe that a construction contractor could engage in such shoddy workmanship.  You would be upset and complain to whichever government authorities could take action to remedy your situation and ensure that the builder would never again be allowed to sell such a grossly defective building.  You definitely would not recommend the builder to anyone.

The earth may have become completely blue by the time it was 200 million years old.  Earth scientists are not sure about this.  It may have been blue because it was completely filled with water with little if any land around.  That would have meant that the prior intensity of meteorite bombardment would have diminished at least to the point that it no longer vaporized any moisture that might manage to accumulate.  This did not mean the bombardment ceased.  It only relaxed relative to what it was before.  Perhaps, this greater calm allowed bacteria and other one-celled organisms to appear and thrive.

However after 450 million years of the earth's age, it is believed that the intensity of the bombardment increased for some unknown reason.  It had to be violent enough to vaporize the water covering the entire globe.  The hydrous atmosphere probably also disappeared.  It would not be surprising given such intense destruction that it did not also destroy at least some of the microbes that had been able to install themselves on the earth.  The earth was intensely hot and dry again.

Why this change in conditions?  Why allow water to accumulate only to have it obliterated by meteorite bombardment?  Then there were the living microorganisms that were allowed to flourish only to perish in the meteoric heat.  They may have all been wiped out. If not, it is likely that many were.  This may have happened two or more times with microbes originating only to be demolished by harsh conditions.  It is hard to discern any purpose in these destructions.

There were other fluctuations.  For billions of years, continents traveled in a very slow "continental drift"  based on plate tectonic movement.  Why not construct a set of continents or even one huge continent and leave it that way.  It is puzzling.  While you are at it, why not design the continents in attractive, regular, and symmetrical patterns.  Instead, they are irregular, haphazard, and jagged around the edges.

Then there is the evidence that there were three great glaciations.  There were a number of small glaciations after animals appeared but not as encompassing.  There were interglacial periods when the earth warmed up considerably.  What was the point behind these gyrations?  It is hard to maintain that there was any design of the earth.

7 The Teleological Argument: Animal Earth

An Arms Race

The first animals lived in shallow areas of the ocean, near shores where the sun's rays penetrated.  They probably appeared around 600 mya.  They have been named "ediacarans."  They were soft-headed and are possible relatives of jellyfish and worms.

By 530 mya, a wide variety of sea animals were on the scene with hard, mineralized shells and spines.  There was a reason for those hard shells.  They marked the beginning of an "evolutionary arms race."(Hazen, 237)  This means that there arose a predation system among animals in which certain of them, the predators, killed and ate others for their sustenance, the prey.  It is in very wide practice to this day.  These early animals grew progressively larger in order to fight more successfully.  They gained new armor in teeth and claws.  Their hard shells and sharp spines were designed for sound defense.

To the Land

The first plants did not appear until much later.  You would think they would have appeared before the animals.  They were actually microscopic spores from about 475 mya.  Plants slowly left exclusively wet areas and spread to barren lands.  The first land plants probably came into existence around 410 mya.  Evolution would not bring about leaves for tens of millions of years.  By 360 mya, forests appeared in swampy areas. 

It was a slow transition for animals to make it onto the land from the water.  A few fish developed primitive lungs for utilizing air. The earliest four-legged land animal from around 375 mya was a walking fish with finlike feet.  The first creatures of any size to make a home on land were invertebrates, meaning without a spine.  They were small, for example insects, spiders, and worms.  It was not until 340 mya that the first true amphibians appeared--clearly distinct from fish.

For millions of years, life was good but there were also tough times.  Climate could be unpredictable, bringing surprisingly cold periods or hot ones.  There were plant-killing droughts that could be countered by devastating floods.  There weren't as many asteroid crashes and harsh volcanoes as before, but they could still occur and cause tremendous destruction.  Species extinctions could come on a massive scale and occurred more than once.

Mass Extinctions

A wide-ranging extinction of animals (perhaps some microbes, too) occurred 444 mya.  It was probably caused by the preceding glaciation of the Gondwana supercontinent.  There could have been additional causes, this is not always clear.  It is estimated that 60% of marine invertebrates and 86% of all species of the time completely vanished forever.  This is known as the first major mass extinction.

The second major mass extinction came around 365 mya.  It wiped out 70% of all species.  There are a number of causes of mass extinctions, not all of which always figure in every mass extinction.  They are

1.  Extensive volcanic activity (volcanism) that can propel dust and particulates into the air that retard photosynthesis causing a decrease in food.  Sulfur oxides can be emitted which afterward fall as acid rain.  Increased atmospheric carbon dioxide can cause global warming.

2.  Falls in the sea level can diminish the supply of food produced by the continental shelf for marine life.  They can also disrupt weather patterns.

3.  Meteorite impacts can, like volcanoes, eject dust and particulates into the air as well sulfur oxides.

4.  Significant global cooling and global warming.

5.  Release of methane into the air can initiate or increase global warming.

6.  Anoxic events in the ocean can significantly decrease the oxygen there.  Massive volcanism in the ocean can bring anoxic periods.

There are other possible causes including plate tectonics.("Extinction Event," Wikipedia 6-7-17.)

Around 250 mya, the greatest extinction of all occurred.  60% of all genera and 90% of all living organisms were extinguished.  It was so disastrous that biologists have labeled it the Great Dying.  There was no single cause, and it did not occur in a short, dramatic time period.  Several of the causes above were involved.  There was widespread volcanism at the time, which produced plenty of ash and dust to interfere with sunlight.  This had to cause significant cooling.  This was in addition to the cooling that was the product of a modest ice age that is suspected to have taken place at the time.

One of the greatest series of volcanic eruptions in the history of the earth took place in Siberia putting millions of cubic miles of basalt into the air.  These eruptions may have ignited chemical interactions in or near the ozone layer that depleted it allowing ultraviolet radiation to reach earth and spread extensive death.  A special factor may have also been in play in this particular extinction.  The oxygen level dropped quickly from as high as 35% at 290 mya to 20% at 250 mya.  This may have had a serious effect on the physiques of some of the organisms that had developed at the higher level of oxygen.  The trilobites perished in this extinction.  They were a widespread genus of sea creatures with attractive hard shells, which have made them photogenic and popular with fossil collectors.

The next major mass extinction occurred 200 mya with 80% of genera dying off.  Among these the conodont is the best known.  The causes of this event are not very clear.  Intense volcanic activity may have been involved.

The major mass extinction that is best known is the one that occurred 65 mya.  Yet it was only discovered in the 1980's.  The other major mass extinctions were also not well known until recently.  The extinction 65 mya became well publicized because it was the one that did away with the always fascinating dinosaurs.  They had proliferated after the prior mass extinction, which had done away with most vertebrates. This left the dinosaurs less competition for food and resources.  They are classified as reptiles and are fascinating partly because some kinds reached tremendous size.  The largest land animal ever discovered was the 110 foot (34 m) long four-limbed sauropod.  In all there were about 900 genera of dinosaurs.

This fifth mass extinction wiped out all the dinosaurs with the exception of one minor branch--the birds.  It also eliminated ammonites, the most common fossil from the era.  These were water-born cephalopods with extremely beautiful shells of spiral symmetry, iridescence, and ornamentation called sutures.  The surviving shells do not give an accurate picture of the complete animal.  Before 65 mya, the first flowers first grew on plants.

The evidence has been convincing that this major mass extinction was caused primarily by the crash of a meteor 6 miles (10 km) wide at what is now Chixulub, off the Yucatan Peninsula in southeastern Mexico. It was a catastrophic impact that sent vaporized rock and dust into the sky that blocked the sun; consequently crippling photosynthesis.  Enormous tsunamis covered the globe along with raging fires caused by falling debris from the impact as well as massive earthquakes.

As if the meteor impact had not been enough of a factor, there was the series of volcanoes on what is now India that had surely been negatively affecting the biosphere for hundreds of thousands of years.  Additionally, there was a serious drop in sea level that probably exposed much of the world's continental shelf cutting much of the food supply of marine life.  The lower sea level may not have been due to glaciation, a common cause.  There is no sign of glaciation at the time.  It is instead speculated that midocean ridges may have become less active causing a sinking of the entire ocean floor.

This extinction event happened more rapidly than others because of the effects of the meteor impact.  That has to mean that the animals had to die more quickly by burning, drowning, breathing polluted air, and starving.  More than 65% of all life was annihilated.  It is widely agreed by paleoscientists that there have been five major mass extinctions.  Another mass extinction appears to be going on right now.

In addition, there have been a number of minor mass extinctions, with the last three occurring 56, 37, and 34 mya.  Research is continuing to get a better idea of exactly how many there have been and of the details surrounding them.  At this point, it looks as if there have been 18 minor mass extinctions.  That means that altogether there have been a total of 23 mass extinctions.

Then there is the possibility of extinctions of microbes before the animals appeared on the scene.  There is no strong evidence for this, but it stands to reason given the even greater harshness of conditions at that time.  As Hazen pointed out, "There could have been hundreds of mass extinctions stretching back to the very dawn of life."(Hazen, 254)

The earth became tamer after the last minor mass extinction of 34 mya, but there were still occurrences that had to be discomforting if not destructive.  Of particular note were the periods of glaciation that increased 20 mya.  They did not reach the level of a snowball earth but are known as ice ages with repeated fluctuations back to warm weather.  In the last 3 million years, it appears there have been eight ice ages with ice caps spreading from each pole toward the equator.  The Arctic ice reached into the northern United States.

Ice bridges developed between the northern parts of Asia and North America that allowed mammoths, mastodons, and later humans to emigrate from Asia into the Americas.  The greater amount of water that was converted to ice meant that ocean levels of water could go down by hundreds of feet.  The increasing cold and later increasing heat could cause problems for organisms even in the short run.  Farther toward the equator, there was frozen ground that reached the Mediterranean sea.  Glaciers could be found on mountains in the tropics.  During interglacial periods, temperatures could reach higher than they are today.  Southern animals like elephants and hippopotamuses roamed as far north as England.

The Path to Humans

It is clear that many different animals lived on this earth a long time before humans.  Our common primate ancestor--from whom monkeys, great apes, and we descended--probably lived 30 mya.  The first hominids, the first primates who walked erect, started out 8 mya in Africa.  A few fossil bones have been found with humanlike features before 3 mya.  At that time, there is evidence of bipedal apes that were short (3 ft/1 meter tall) with small brains.  They have been labeled australopithecines, meaning southern apes.  It is possible that they were the fabricators of stone tools that probably date back to 2.6 mya.  This is not surprising because it has been discovered that today chimpanzees use stone tools.

The larger homo erectus was the first species in the genus homo to leave Africa around 1.8 mya.  The Neanderthals were descended from homo erectus and had a brain size nearly that of modern humans.  We belong to the species homo sapiens.  Neanderthals appeared 230,000 years ago (ya) in Europe and Asia.  It was likely that they could speak but only developed a simple language.  It is believed that modern humans originated about 300,000 ya in Africa.  Their first emigration from East Africa to other parts of Africa occurred around 120,000 ya.  They started leaving the African continent 100,000 ya.

The Neanderthals became extinct 40,000 ya, not long after the arrival of humans in their territory.  The last ice age ended 12,000 ya.  Since that time, humans have spread more widely throughout the globe while a number of large animals became extinct such as the woolly mammoth.  It is now becoming more and more clear that animal and plant species of all sizes are becoming extinct due to human activity.  Hunting, fishing, the clearing of forests, and global warming fueled by fossil fuel use are probably all involved.

The Welfare of Animals

An important question to ask is what has been the welfare of the animals during their time of existence.  What has been their level of comfort?  Was there an idyllic period(s) when animals lived in comfortable and contented existence?  It is hard to find any period like that.  Part of the problem is that paleoscientists do not have a great amount of information from the past about everyday living.  It would be interesting to reach some estimate of what life might have been like.

For billions of years, it was only the microbes.  We know that the conditions in the early eons were very harsh.  Billions or even trillions of microbes could have been killed but they are now numerous.  "There are more bacteria in your mouth than there are people on Earth."("The Diversity of Life," Discover Science Almanac, 2003, 409.)  At the time that statement was made, there were fewer than 7 billion people inhabiting the earth.

Pain

It does not seem likely that tiny microscopic organisms composed of just a few cells would possess a physiology complicated enough to feel pain.  Unfortunately, this may fail to give them any empathy for the creatures to which they cause pain.  It is with creatures the size of animals that it becomes more likely that they can experience pain.

The first animals were sea creatures that appeared about 580 mya.  Within the next 100 million years, there was a proliferation of sea animals.  They were not affected by barren land or by the low level oxygen in the air.  That so many creatures arose during this period attests to there having been auspicious conditions.

Still there were threats that they had to face.  Some of these inimical conditions menaced sea animals in later periods right down to the present.  The lowering of the water level could detrimentally affect creatures living in shallow waters.  This could bring widespread suffering and death, even extinctions.

Another source of discomfort was serious changes in temperature, either up or down.  In periods of glaciation, fish could feel the colder water even in tropical regions.  The weak ones could succumb quickly.  The strong ones could carry on longer but would likely succumb eventually, which could mean the end of a species.

Eventually, the earth's temperature cycle would swing back to warmer times although the change would not be a predictable one.  Then the species that had been spawned in the cold climate would be vulnerable to extinction if they failed to adjust to the heat.  Even if extinction did not occur, there would likely be widespread discomfort and death.  There could also be temperature changes as the result of a lack of sunlight.  This light could be blocked as the result of a large meteorite striking the earth.

There were plenty of volcanoes and violent seismic activity in the ocean.  This could clearly cause serious problems for nearby inhabitants either directly or indirectly by raising temperatures or spreading noxious chemicals.  The indirect effect could extend for many miles.

Physical maladies and injuries obtained from normal daily activity were no doubt the source of significant suffering.  These conditions have not changed very much to the present day.  Physical maladies and disease can happen right from the beginning of life as birth defects.  They can be accompanied by pain perhaps severe pain.  A disease or an injury can handicap a creature in various ways such as making a bodily function difficult.  It can very well cause difficulties in the search for food.  A blind animal cannot survive.  An animal with digestive problems can suffer malnutrition.

Old age inevitably brings on similar problems including weakness and diminution of the senses.  In the animal world, there is no taking care of the old and infirm.  There are no nursing homes.  An individual has enough to do taking care of her/himself and the young ones.  An old animal on its last legs simply has to go through the difficulty and pain of slow starvation.  There are those who are lucky enough to go through a long and contented life.  Still, unless they are lucky enough to experience a quick death, they have to muddle through the displeasing experience of dying.  Old animals that serve as prey are more readily caught by predators.  This greater vulnerability is also true of young and weak prey.

Fear of Predation

This brings us to the final but very significant danger to some animals and that is predation.  It appears that this started from the beginning with the proof being that their fossils show that they were equipped for battle--predator against prey.  There were the strong shells that acted as shields for protection.  An example of these is the trilobites. In turn, the predators were equipped with ominous offensive weapons like long and sharp teeth.

The struggle between predator and prey started a trait in the prey that has continued to the present day.  It is sad to see the frequent manifestation of this trait, yet there is no doubt that it is useful, in fact indispensable.  The characteristic is fear.  It could be the most common trait among conscious beings.  It is observed everywhere in different manifestations.  Animals that are subject to being prey like squirrels and birds are continually on alert looking over their shoulder to guard against any predator sneaking up on them.  Even in connection to other animals that are not common predators, prey rapidly flee as an apparent precaution.  They would rather play it safe.

That extra caution can lead to unfortunate consequences.  Humans may see a bird with an apparently injured wing in their backyard.  They may approach it slowly in order to try to catch it and try to heal the wing.  The bird will most likely react distrustingly, and if it is still able to fly, go off some place where it cannot be helped.

Predation has had much to do with forming the psychological makeup of many species.  It may have had much to do with shaping the part of the brain involved with fear.  It may have been so effective at instilling fear that it went too far and installed the form of extreme fear called paranoia.  On the other hand, the fear response did not always work for the prey, witness the various predator species that have survived for millions of years at the expense of the prey.  The most efficient predator species has been the human one.

Predators have been forced to feel a different kind of fear.  Those predator species that have depended almost exclusively on animal flesh may have never felt that look-over-your-shoulder fear that prey experience.  Instead, they have felt the fear that if they are not successful at catching prey they and their children may starve.

The Inimical Climate

When animals appeared on land, they encountered many of the same problems that the ones in the ocean had first faced.  The level of oxygen and of carbon dioxide became important.  The level of either could vary along with that of different gases like methane.  The levels might not change fast enough to cause mass death, but at times it could be enough to affect health and comfort.  There could also be an increase that could be favorable to health.  Animals seemed to thrive during the period that the oxygen level rose to 30%.  There is the estimate that higher levels of oxygen promote psychological well-being.  Perhaps the animals of that time felt greater cheerfulness than at any other times.  This was a time long before humans appeared.

There were other times when the oxygen level was much lower.  It has been well below the level of 21% at which it is today.  The lowered oxygen levels may not have caused death directly, but they could have affected the animals by lowering their immune functions, making them more vulnerable to diseases, diminishing their reproductive rates, and causing them to feel more sluggish.  In the long term, there could have been extinctions of some species.

The many changes in the earth temperature cycle affected the land animals onerously just as surely as they had the sea-faring ones, including extinctions.  Then there are the dramatic changes in temperature that occur only temporarily.  These are the cold spells and heat waves that come every so often.  Both can cause great discomfort and even kill living beings especially when they strike unexpectedly.  Humans today can often seek shelter with heating and air conditioning that can be of great help.  Yet even in modern times, people can succumb to weather extremes.  Although heat waves are not as publicized as other weather disasters like monsoons and tornados, they still kill many people.

Humans fared better than the animals once they learned to use animal skins and pelts for covering in the cold.  In very cold waves, these were not enough.  They certainly were of no avail in hot times.  Nonhumans did not have the creative ability to fashion clothing and shelter.  They had a much harder time.  Even if they didn't die, they suffered much pain over the half billion years that they have been on earth.  Think of the suffering of cats and dogs for millions of years.  The fragile, the sick, and the old suffered the most.

Excess heat can be caused by drought, and you can be sure that there have been plenty of those over the many millennia.  Apart from heat problems, drought directly causes scarcity of water that can hurt and kill.  In addition, drought brings a lack of food, and the food that is produced is not as nutritious as in normal conditions.  This is not conductive to good health and comfort.  Nor does it bring forth healthy progeny.

There is another form of heat that has been devastating specifically to land animals for million of years.  It was the beginning of forest fires.  After forests appeared they unfortunately became tinder for great conflagrations.  These can quickly overcome animals especially if they catch them by surprise.  Some animals cannot move very fast, cannot outrun a fire, and cannot discern which way to flee.  When the flames of a fire are fanned by high winds, it becomes especially difficult to escape.  It is well known that smoke inhalation is lethal.  Then there are those unfortunate ones who are agonizingly scorched by flames.

Even if an animal manages to escape, life will not be easy.  Any spot that it thought of as its home, will likely be gone.  For instance, if it is a squirrel, the tree where it lived could well be burned along with the food the squirrel had stored in it.  Then there is the question of where it will find new food.  The fire could have destroyed food sources for a long distance, even miles away.  Assuming it is capable of traveling far, an animal can be too traumatized and disheartened to try to search far away.

Humans have started many forest fires both intentionally and unintentionally.  Luckily, they have not been here for very long.  It took some time for them to figure out how to produce fires.  One wonders how many forest fires the hunter-gatherers started by unwittingly forgetting to put out their campfires.  Did they realize that their failure was the cause of much destruction?

The usual ignition of fire before humans came was from lightning, and that still happens.  There have been periods in the past when lightning storms were more frequent.  Then there is the harm that lightning can cause directly, that is by striking someone.  There is no doubt that during the past millennia many animals including fish in the water were injured or killed by lightning bolts.  It has now become known that on a yearly basis lightning injures or kills a greater percentage of people than do several other more dramatic weather hazards like hurricanes.

One wonders how long it took primitives to realize how much of a threat lightning is and how to protect themselves.  After all, many of them thought that lightning was direct punishment from God.  If that was their thinking, they could have also thought that it was futile to try to avoid it.  It was only until the 1970's that it became widely recognized that it was very dangerous to seek shelter from rain under a tree during a lightning storm.  If a person is touching a tree trunk when a bolt hits it, it can be fatal.  Just standing under the branches can cause injury.  It is unfortunate to see a natural phenomenon like lightning cause so much destruction and suffering.

Lightning brings with it rain, which at times can be too copious, causing flooding and destruction.  Too  much water can uproot and drown plants that serve as food for animals.  Floods can destroy the habitat of those who do not live in trees.  Even the ones living in holes in the ground can be evicted or drowned.  After the flood, how far away will food be found?  If an animal is caught in a gushing torrent, it can be swept for a long distance.  If it is a very young, it will have to struggle to make its own way if it can escape the water.  There is the chance that it will drown along with other unfortunate ones.

Rain can come with violent storms like hurricanes and sunamis.  The winds in these can reach velocities well over 100 miles per hour.  Needless to say, these winds can cause great destruction to many animals and their habitats unless they reside in caves or holes.  In these kinds of storms, one wonders how any birds survive.  Objects as big as cows and cars have been known to be lifted by such violent winds.  Clearly, birds can't always be strong enough to hold on to tree branches, and flying in the middle of such gales has to be problematic.  These catastrophes can cause the same problems as forest fires.

The main defense that prey on land have is the ability, which is not always sufficient, to outrun and hide from predatory enemies.  Yet, predators can be very fast.  One thinks of the members of the cat family.  Then there are the bears.  The grizzly bear can easily outrun humans.  These animals are equipped with strong killing equipment.  One with an especially impressive mouth was the extinct saber-tooth tiger.

The Dodo Bird

Apart from the many mass extinctions, there have been countless extinctions of individual species.  Biologists assert that they have identified thousands of species that are living today.  At the same time, they point out that there are thousands more contemporary species that they have not been able to get around to identify.  A fortiori, many species that disappeared in the past have not been counted.

There are two extinct species that are of special interest.  One is the dodo bird and the other Australopithecus, meaning the southern ape.  Both of them are sad cases.  The dodo bird was first observed by sailors in the 1500's on the island of Mauritius, which is east of Madagascar a larger island east of southern Africa.  It became extinct sometime in the late 1600's.  It was never found anywhere else but on Mauritius, which was home to a very active volcano and sometimes battered by cyclones.

For many years, biologists believed the dodo to have been a failed design of evolution.  It looked fat, was unattractive, had short feathers, did not run fast or with coordination, could not fly, and did not avoid humans.  Instead, it was reported that the dodos would calmly walk up to arriving sailors and not resist being taken away for dinner.  To contradict that there is an account by a sailor that his group had a hard time chasing after a dodo.  The dodo was not studied much until 2000.  Since then paleontologists have examined the bones of some dodos and have reached new conclusions.  Some have ventured to Mauritius to take a closer look.

It appears there were a number of severe droughts that took place on Mauritius with one megadrought occurring 4,200 years ago.  This was long before any humans ventured there.  There was no sign of any primates or predators living there when humans landed.  Extreme climate shifts brought these megadroughts, which in turn helped spread wildfires and extensive animal death.  It appears there was a shallow freshwater lake where many different animals gathered to desperately try to quench their thirst with the disappearing water.  The evidence for this is in the numerous bones dug up there by paleontologists including those of dodos.(Emily Anthus, "The Smart, Agile, and Completely Underrated Dodo," The Atlantic, June 8, 2016.)

It looks like the dodos survived on the rough island of Mauritius for several million years.  Early human settlers may have judged the birds stupid because they were so tame, but the dodos had never lived with any predators around.  They had simply not evolved to fear predators including humans.  The dodos had also been able to do well without wings for flying.  Naturalists of the 1800's thought this sound evidence for a failure of evolution since all birds are supposed to fly.  Yet the bird survived for millions of years.  It had all it needed to live in its environment.

Paleobiologists have been able to study the bones of dodos with modern technology.  They have concluded that the dodo was able to run fast and showed agility.  The size of its brain gives some indication that it was smart.(Id.)  It has been conjectured that humans hunted the dodo to extinction, but investigation has not found dodo bones on human settlements.  The settlers brought with them monkeys and other animals including, unintentionally, rats.  These animals that could have made it hard for dodos to survive by eating their eggs.

On the reports that dodos were sluggish and dimwitted, it could be that there may have been groups of dodos that were that way because the species as a whole was already suffering from diminution (and from pain individually) due to assaults from the volcano, the climate, and possibly disease.  The sluggish ones tended to group together because they were the diseased, the weak, and the old.

Australopithecus

Another sadly interesting case of an individual extinction involves the genus Australopithecus.  Its vanishing was clearly the result of climate change.  Australopithecines have a number of similarities to today's chimpanzees, the closest species to humans in that they possess 98.4% of the same genes.  The genus appeared 4.4 million years ago (mya) and vanished about 2.4 mya.  It lived in different parts of Africa and never anywhere else.  It is likely that its diet was very much like that of chimpanzees--plant-based with some eating of small animals.  Males did not usually grow as tall as five feet while females were about one-third shorter.  They were not physically imposing.

During their 2 million year existence, they did not evolve greatly except for one outstanding new trait.  This was that they were the first primates to come up with the ability to walk with only two legs; they were bipedal.  Anatomical analysis shows that they could not have walked very fast.  Like today's gibbons, they may have had to stretch their arms to their sides if they were to walk far.  Impliedly, they could not have been able to run well.  Obviously, this made them more vulnerable to the fierce and speedy predators of their time of which there were plenty.

Australopithecus had anatomical similarities to humans but definitely not with respect to the brain.  Its brain was about the size of an orange or one-third as large as the average human brain.  This is probably the explanation for the lack of any tools (including weapons) to be found in the ground from the time.  It looks like it didn't have the brain power to construct anything as the human genus was later able to do.  That also makes it very unlikely that it was capable of having a language.  It would have also needed the appropriate vocal apparatus in the neck.  Humans have taught a few chimpanzees sign language, but it is not likely that australopiths could devise a sign language on there own.

They did not need to deal with cold weather and lived among trees.  Recovered bones of their hands and feet show that they were luckily still capable of climbing well up into those trees for their food.  They could not go as high as small monkeys but could still account well for themselves.  Because the australopiths could find safe refuge from predators in the trees, the predators were not a significant threat to them during most of their existence.  Eventually, there would be a change.

Around 2.5 mya, the entire earth became colder.  It started in the north pole as ice sheets formed there and then spread southward.  A new ice age was on its way.  The ice locked up a lot of water that could not fall as precipitation.  That made many parts of the earth drier.  Australopiths probably made their homes not in the rain forest but in the woodlands that were on the edge of it.  They could climb for food in the trees there that did not grow much taller than fifty feet.  In the rain forest, the trees grow to a height two or three times that.  Steven Stanley, a distinguished paleobiologist, described this in a book.(Steven M. Stanley, Children of the Ice Age:  How a Global Catastrophe Allowed Humans to Evolve (New York:  Harmony Books, 1996) 112.)  Australopithecus could also feed on the ground and then scurry up trees whenever predators threatened.  It could sleep in those same trees and be safe for the night.

As the ice age of the time continued its cold march southward, the woodlands (and the rain forest) diminished drastically as dry conditions took hold.  These woodlands must have become sparse in the number of trees they had per square mile but also must have shrunk into smaller patches with areas of grassland in between.  These grasslands are called savannas.  They only have a sprinkling of small trees on them.  The Serengeti Plain in Tanzania is the best known of these.  You have probably seen photos of it.

As the trees in the woodlands became sparser, that left less food for the australopiths.  This meant they had to spend more time on the ground looking for their meals.  Luckily, their contemporary predators probably did not hunt them much since they were used to australopiths being able to escape into the trees.  After the food in any particular grove gave out, the australopiths had to go search for food in a neighboring grove hoping there was still food there, other animals not having depleted it.  This could mean a long walk to the nearest available food.  They would very possibly be exposed on their migrant journey through grassland.

Eventually the predators discovered they could have a field day in this grassland.  Remember that the australopiths were not accomplished ambulators.  The predators around were much the same ones seen today--hyenas, lions, and leopards--with some additional fierce cats like megantereon and dinofelis, whose name means "terrible cat."  That they were tormentors of australopithecus is evidenced by their bones being excavated in the same caves.  Another imposing feline was the sabertoothed homotherium.  It appears that it was not interested in australopiths but instead feasted on elephants and other large pachyderms.(Id. 76-78)  Its saber teeth were too slender to withstand biting into the bones of animals like antelope and australopiths but could more readily tear up the flesh of large animals.

These last three mentioned cats may have had good hunting fortune in this time period but they all later went extinct.  Even menacing animals like them must have met up with hard times later.  Lack of food could have been a factor.  Today the predator cats and hyenas have a trying struggle during the dry season on the Serengeti Plain.  The prey leave the area at this time and make a long journey to where the vegetation is available.  Most carnivores are incapable of making the long journey especially the young ones.  Unattached males do follow the herds in small groups but do not have an easy time of it as they suffer high mortality.  "About two-thirds of all Serengeti lion cubs fail to reach their second birthday.  In fact, the great herbivore migration condemns many carnivores of all ages to starvation . . . "(Id. 115)

The ice age of 2.4 mya did not have an especially deleterious effect on the carnivores so they thrived apart from the regular daily obstacles and mishaps that they have always had.  In contrast, australopithecus faced an ominous future as the trees disappeared and the carnivores did not relent.  If they could find caves and try to hide in them, it was of no use.  The carnivores could easily enter after them and kill them.  Fire would have been an effective deterrent against the marauders, but the australopiths did not know how to ignite fire.

Solid weapons would have been useful, but there have been no traces left of any kind of tools from that period.  Even after humans appeared, a period of time passed before there is any evidence of their making tools.  So it is no surprise that species before them did not build any tools.  While chimpanzees use sticks as tools for digging, they have not constructed any artifacts.

Even if the australopiths had been able to fashion weapons like spears, it is open to question whether they could have used them effectively enough.  If australopithecus had taken on predators with weapons in groups to try to defend itself, it is doubtful that it would have had the ability to communicate and cooperate within a group.  It had to go it alone.

There was danger for humans later trying to take on big animals even in groups.  There is a primitive cave painting found in Lascaux, France, which is 15,000 years old.(John Haywood, The Illustrated History of Early Man (New York:  Smithmark Publishers, 1995) front cover).  It depicts a bison with a spear through it and its guts falling out.  At the same time, there is a man in front of it lying on the ground.  From the position of the bison's head, it looks as if it has just seriously gored the man.  The painting could have been trying to show the tragedy of one man who had tried hunting alone.  If it depicted a group hunt, there was a risk of injury or death even then.

Australopithecus was not very fleshy.  The lions would have had to massacre groups at a time in order to enjoy a satisfying meal.  Big cats run as fast as 40 miles per hour.  The cheetah sprints well above that.  World champion human sprinters run 15 mph for the few seconds they run in a race.  There is no doubt that the australopithecines were much slower than humans today and were pathetically hapless against their predators.  They could not last long after the dwindling of the woodlands.  Leaf-eating species of antelope of the time were also extinguished by the dryness.  They were succeeded by a species of antelope that survived on eating grass and that could outrun the predators.

It is ironic that the ice age and the dramatic climate change that it brought to Africa was apparently caused by a geological change that occurred a great distance from there.  This was the rise of the land structure that has become known as the Isthmus of Panama.  Its appearance 3 mya started the change in circulating currents in the ocean that later resulted in much colder temperatures all over the globe.(Id. 179-187)

It may be a matter of particular interest and sadness for us to know that we are descended from australopithecus.  As the latter was forced out of the trees, it became more free to carry its young since its arms were no longer employed in climbing trees.  A group of these evolved to possess bigger brains encased in bigger, heavier heads.  If these animals had still been climbing trees, they would not have been able to carry these heavy-headed infants.  The big-brained infants could only appear because their parents could carry them into a later age.

Stanley first recognized this and called it the "terrestrial imperative."(Id. 11)  This new group was the first of the humans.  In particular, it could have been the species homo rudolfensis.  It was labeled that because its fossil bones were found near Lake Rudolf in southeastern Africa.  The lake has been renamed Lake Turkana.  This first human species may have sprouted from the species australopithecus africanus.(Id. 168)  Stanley pointed out that humans only evolved because australopiths were forced out of the trees as a result of an ice age.  Thus humans were spawned out of a catastrophe.(Id. 13-14)

Early Homo

Australopithecus disappeared not long after homo started up.  It is puzzling to see how humans were able to escape extinction while australopiths were not.  They would have been just as defenseless against the predators as were the australopiths.  It is true that the larger human brain enabled humans to fashion weapons and other tools, but this did not produce results right away.  Furthermore, the capable hands that could make rudimentary knives and spears had yet to appear.  There was a significant time lag before these abilities became sufficient and before the humans discovered the abilities in themselves.

Perhaps the location where humans sprouted luckily did not have many predators.  Or it could be that the australopithecines were ultimately done in by something like a powerful disease.  At any rate, it is sure that many humans have been killed or maimed at the mouths of predators especially before they developed adequate weapons.  Even today, tribes of people like the Zulus of Africa practice keeping up their skills with spears so they can defend themselves against dangerous animals.

There is evidence that early humans used stone tools.  The tools could not have been used for hunting.  Any hunting by these early humans had to have been of small animals.  Their tools were used to strip away flesh from animals that were caught for food. 

It is likely that early homo engaged in a significant amount of scavenging.  Lions cannot consume the entire zebra or other large animal they kill and that is where the scavengers come in.  If humans were lucky enough to be the first on the scene after the lions left, they could quickly move in and strip away as much meat as possible.  This is where those primitive tools came in.  Doing the job by hand or with sticks was much slower.  The job had to be performed quickly before other predators like hyenas moved in.  Hyenas are well known as scavengers, but they can attack prey including humans and make a fresh meal of them.

It could be that the predators that were nearby did not have much appreciation for the taste of human meat.  That allegedly seems to be the opinion today among predators, with the leopard being something of an exception.  Leopards have been known to go on killing sprees of humans and so must like the way we taste.  Even with this, a hungry lion or tiger unable to find a more favored flavor would likely settle on human flesh in a time of need.  It could be that at some point only a few thousand humans in Africa were able to carry on the legacy of the genus.

Homo Erectus

There is controversy among paleontologists on what species can be included in the early days of the human genus.  The first species on which there is no question of being in the human genus was homo erectus.  It lasted from around 1.5 mya  to about 230,000 mya.  That is a species longevity of 1.25 million years.  Our species homo sapiens may go back as far as 300,000 (.3 million) years.  Clearly, we have more than one million years to go before we surpass erectus.  The only two homo species to appear after erectus are the Neanderthals and us homo sapiens, and both derived from erectus.  It appears that erectus disappeared very soon after its two successor species began.

Erectus was the first human species with members who ventured out of Africa.  It first went to a location near the present Israel, then to India, eastern China, and parts of southeast Asia.  It reached there 700,000 ya.  It reached all the way to England 500,000 ya.  They were small bands of about 40, which were isolated from each other.  The bands stayed away from others so as to have a greater number of plants and animals to pick for food.

Homo erectus was no better off in its first million years than the other animals in finding shelter.  Like them, it would hide from the rain under large bushes and trees.  In a copious rain, we all have seen that bushes and trees can leak badly and not provide much protection.  We also know that trees, because they are tall points in the landscape, can attract lightning.  One wonders how many were killed by lightning.  It is also open to question how long it took for them to realize that they were vulnerable to heat stroke in the summer if they did not seek shelter from the sun.  At times they had to work in the sun to find and gather food.

Early on, erectus must have discovered that caves offered superior protection.  There were enough caves to provide shelter and an escape in times of heat.  The big problem came with the large predators.  Suppose a tribe established a place of respite in a cave and that afterward a lion entered, clutched a child in its mouth, and ran away.  We know lions can easily out sprint humans.  You can imagine other scenarios.

Erectus did not have the means for combatting disease.  For millions of years, it was mostly dependent on its immune system for this.  Later they may have discovered herbs that could alleviate minor maladies like a cough or muscle soreness.  These are not effective against serious diseases.

Primitive people had some advantages over humans of today.  Their being in the open air much more may have prevented the spread of noxious viruses and bacteria.  These are known to be more easily transmitted from person to person whenever they are in close quarters such as buildings.  On the other hand, the situation could have been different for those residing in the cold climates of the northern hemisphere.  In the winter, they were forced to live in close quarters in order to stay warm.

There is evidence that erectus made use of fire.  This was the opportunistic use of brush fires that were already set, perhaps by lightning.  It would learn some of the various uses of fire.  It may have been another half million years, which was 1 mya, before erectus discovered how to start fire.  This has to be counted as one of the great achievements of erectus.  Some of the areas to which they migrated had colder climates especially the farther north they went.  The ability to control fire had to facilitate moving forward into these new territories.

The earliest homo shelter that has been found is a hut in eastern France from around 380,000 ya.  It had a conical shape formed of tree branches standing with gaps filled with leaves.  The oldest wooden spear discovered was located in Clacton, England and dates back 200,000 years.(Id. 31-32)  Erectus lived in the Paleolithic period, that is the Stone Age, that lasted from 2.5 mya to 12,000 ya.

Those early huts would not have protected from wind and rain.  For that, the huts needed to be covered well by hides.  In those days, people were nomadic and had to move often to find food after they exhausted the supply in their vicinity.  If they could have built solid shelter, they would then have to leave it behind.  If they wanted to live in a hut at the new place where they arrived, they would have to build it anew.  There is no evidence that they knew how to construct wagons so that they could haul the materials from their old huts when they moved.

They eventually invented tents.  Those could be taken up and reassembled at their new destination.  Due to their continuous movement and small groups, the hunter-gatherers never built towns or cities.  A serious quarrel could split a band into even smaller ones.  There could at times be skirmishes between bands that were not very destructive, certainly nothing like the later warfare that came about in more "civilized" societies.

There was not the opportunity to establish a strong authoritarian structure in these groups.  There were no doubt leaders or chiefs, but it would not be difficult for a smaller group to organize and secede if it disagreed with the original band.  It could travel far enough so as not to have to compete for resources with the first group.  In any case, it was hard for a leader to build great power because it was not possible to amass much property because of nomadic travel.  Disproportionate ownership of property can enable an individual or an oligarchy to exercise power over the rest of a group.  The available evidence is that hunter-gatherers, including those practicing the lifestyle today, share much of their meager property and cooperate with each other to a great extent.

The inventions of the hut and the spear along with the earlier-acquired skill of starting fire clearly set homo apart from the other animals in the ability to survive in the surrounding environment.  While homo erectus had a larger brain than the other animals, it was just another animal completely dependent on the surroundings to yield sufficient food on a daily basis for its survival.  It still had no weapons for killing larger animals.  It could hardly defend itself against them.  It was at their mercy.  It was a limited hunter that could also be limited in what plant food it gathered.

If the nomadic band ate too much of the food in the area, there would be a shortage.  This could also happen if there were other bands in the area to compete for the available supply.  The lack of refrigeration also prohibited how much food it was wise to pick at any one time.  This was especially true in the warmer climate of Africa.  One wonders how they learned to distinguish the edible food from the poisonous.  Good taste may not always be a proper indicator.  Did very many have to die of food poisoning in order to be able to assess which foods were to be avoided?

The campfires they employed inside caves and shelters produced noxious smoke.  Then there was the problem that it is sometimes harder to combat respiratory illnesses like pneumonia and bronchitis when the temperature becomes very low.  During cold periods in the ice age, the temperature could readily get to 25o below zero Fahrenheit.  Another advantage was that they were very young on average.  Being young meant a stronger immune system.  Those past 35 were old; to reach the fifties was unusual.

Broken arms and legs could be very serious for nomads.  Hunter-gatherers had to move around in their daily work and could have to walk long distances when looking for food.  Walking with a broken leg could slow things down, be painful, and worst, prevent bones from healing properly.  If bones did not heal correctly, the person could become permanently crippled, which would be a lasting impediment to her/is group, to say nothing of the trouble it would cause her/im.  For one thing, s/he would be more vulnerable to being caught by a predator.

Erectus must have eventually learned that not moving a broken limb was needed for it to heal properly.  First, thousands of years had to pass before they came to realize this.  Much time passed before they fashioned splints to hold limbs in place.  The plaster cast would be much more effective, but that would not appear until recently.  It would have been especially hard for children to properly wear a splint for weeks, and they are good candidates for breaking limbs.

Broken arms and legs could be sustained in falls when running after small game.  When climbing up hills, there could be a fall into a hidden hole or off an unexpectedly steep cliff.  Much later humans killed big game with spears.  In the north, this was especially important since they depended heavily in cold times on the animals not only for food but also for thick hides and fur to use for winter clothing as well as shelter.  Getting close to the big animals presented a serious danger.  The animals did not placidly accept being attacked.  They might well counterattack and manage to impale the hunter.  This could be fatal or produce serious permanent injury.  The meat from big game could not be stored for long. 

Any skirmishes between bands involved access to food and the possession of women.  Combat wounds may not have often been fatal since weapons were not that effective.  Still, there could have been injuries with serious consequences.  A cut with a sharp rock hand axe or a spear could become infected and lead to death.

Another human endeavor that caused problems was childbirth.  Birthing mothers often died.  This continued to be a problem all the way to 1900.  Part of the problem is supposed to be the large head of a child.  It is not easy for it to pass through the birth canal.  The head can sometimes suffer injury making that exit.  Permanent brain defects can result from this.  There can be other birth defects.  Then there is the problem of lack of sterile conditions.  Lack of awareness of the necessity of sterile tools and attendants' hands in all medical procedures was a problem that lasted into the 1900's.

Homo Sapiens

It appears that any big animals that humans managed to kill was by stampeding them either over cliffs or into bogs where the animals would get stuck and then be easily killed.  The spears would simply not be adequate for hunting of individual animals for a long time to come.  It looks like the Neanderthals, the first of the two species to succeed erectus, never did much big game hunting of individual animals.

It was homo sapiens who was able to fashion longer, more effective spears, as well as bows and arrows.  Evidence has been found that the first bows and arrows were invented about 64,000 ya.  An effective bow and arrow is not easy to design so it was probably not until some time later that truly adequate ones were made.  Sapiens in Europe, also known as Cro-Magnons, desperately needed to effectively hunt big animals like the bison and the mammoth in the ice age.  Cro-Magnons heyday started 45,000 ya.

During all these years, humans and other animals had to endure the harsh living that can often be brought by weather including its catastrophic events.  Luckily, there were no climatic catastrophes or other disasters serious enough to cause any major extinctions and thus humans were spared.  Nevertheless, there have been very damaging volcanoes.

There was an explosion of the volcano Krakatoa (or Krakatau).  It is part of the infamous Ring of Fire in the south Pacific.  A book was written about it with the chilling title Krakatoa:  The Day the World Exploded:  August 27, 1883.  (Simon Winchester, Krakatoa:  The Day the World Exploded:  August 27, 1883 (New York:  Harper Perennial, 2005).)  It was a crushing eruption that was heard for miles.  That one was small compared to one that had also occurred at one of the volcanoes in the Ring of Fire.  This was at Mount Tambora in 1815.  It blew ash clouds miles high that blocked the light of the sun over much of the world and brought a significant drop in temperature.  1816 was named the Year without a Summer.(Henry and Elizabeth Stommel, Volcano Weather:  The Story of 1816, the Year Without a Summer (Newport, R.I.:  Seven Seas Press,1983).)

As bad as that was, there was a volcanic explosion that was far worse before that at Mount Toba in Sumatra, another member of the Ring of Fire.  It occurred about 73,000 ya.  Clouds of volcanic ash rose over 20 miles into the atmosphere along with millions of tons of sulfur gas that went into the stratosphere and remained there for many years.  670 cubic miles (2,800 cubic kilometers) of Mount Toba flew into the air.  The ash and dust fell back down to bring heat and suffocating cough to beings on the ground.  Thousands died from the immediate effects and later from starvation from the paucity of food after vegetation failed to grow.  It is the greatest volcanic eruption of the last 23 million years.(Brian Fagan, Cro-Magnon:  How the Ice Age Gave Birth to the First Modern Humans (New York:  Bloomsbury Press, 2010) 94.)  The disaster hit the tropics around the world the most harshly with ash covering the ground varying in depth in different regions from a few inches to several feet.  The populations of human and other living populations around the world were dramatically curtailed.

Toba probably wiped out some species and came close with humans.  Perhaps even fewer than ten thousand people survived the short- and long-term consequences of the cataclysm, most of them in cooler environments far from the blast.  Humanity nearly became extinct.(Id. 94-95)  The magnitude of the catastrophe has only recently come to light and details are still being sorted out.  There is an excellent summary in Michael R. Rampino and Stanley Ambrose,"Volcanic Winter in the Garden of Eden:  The Toba Supereruption and the late Pleistocene Human Population Crash," Geological Society of America Special Paper 345 (2000).)

So homo sapiens, also referred to as anatomically modern humans, marched on slowly making modest technological improvements to their spears and bows and arrows.  Spearheads and arrowheads were still made of stone along with cutting tools.  Bone and deer antlers were also used for making some tools.  The invention of the sewing needle was a great boon.  This helped put together hides and pelts for better protection against the cold.  This became especially important during the glacial periods of the time.  12,000 ya marked the beginning of farming.  There were no significant advances in lodging until that time.

Farming

It is understandable that a monumental change occurred for humans when farming began.  This happened first in the near East around the Tigris and Euphrates rivers where Iraq is now located.  Not long after that cultivation of crops began independently in other parts of the world like southeast Asia, China, and Peru.  The Fertile Crescent of the near East was the focal point from which much of the farming in nearby areas like Europe was induced.  This happened a little over 10,000 ya aided by the end of the ice age that had started 2.5 mya.  The inception of farming was not a total blessing.

The first farmers only cultivated a small variety of crops, mostly the ones that had a high yield.  It was a much less variety of plants than what the hunter-gatherers had eaten.  The body is much healthier with a wide variety of foods.  Another problem with raising crops--especially a narrow number--was that every few years one crop or more was bound to fail due to disease, pest infestation, or bad weather.  The community could then suffer from malnutrition and even famine.  It would be a long time before farmers would learn the importance of cultivating a wider variety of plants, crop rotation, and effective methods of food storage.  The domestication of small cats helped here because they were efficient at keeping down the population of mice and other grain-consuming rodents.

Stationary living increased the birth rate.  This meant that there were more mouths to feed, which left a smaller portion for each individual especially during food shortages.  It was not much of an alternative to depend on supplementing the food supply through hunting and gathering because that would not bring enough food for all the new people.

Living in settlements was done in close proximity between dwellings which unfortunately meant that infectious diseases could more readily incubate and spread.  The inhabitants were also not aware of the importance of keeping sanitary conditions.  This ignorance would remain until they began to realize the need for sanitation after the Middle Ages that brought the Black Death plague.  Farming spread rapidly so that by 2,000 ya most of the human race was farming rather hunting and gathering.

Small groups or tribes made alliances with other tribes and formed what are called chiefdoms.  These could number from 1,000 members to more than 20,000.  It sounds like the twelve tribes of Israel were an example of this.  Chieftains at the head of these organizations sometimes grew to command great power.

The basic source of a chief's strength was control of property and resources.  One clear method would be to hold power over food surpluses to be doled out later when food was in short supply.  There was also control over water sources such as creeks.  It was convenient to be able to say who could have goods important in trade like stone and metals.  The latter was very desirable in making tools and weapons.  With weapons, the chief could equip a powerful army.

Even strong chieftains did not have a guarantee that they could stay in power.  They were expected to confer benefits upon their subjects.  They could do this by raising a strong, aggressive army that could go plunder nearby villages.  The spoils could be brought back and distributed among the happy and grateful subjects.  This dominance over other groups could also give the inhabitants a sense of pride in their group and their leader.  This same tribalist attitude has continued as one of the reasons nations start war.

Dictators, from 10,000 ya to the present, have used belligerence not so much because they wanted war but because their threats impressed their followers and helped keep them in power.  These dictators have also maintained power through brutal repression and by maintaining the fear that putative foreign enemies are on the brink of attacking.

Chiefs also tried to keep their power by the use of myth and religion that supposedly gave them a sacred superiority.  The chief could claim that his authority to rule had a special dispensation.  At death some chiefs believed they would be proceeding to an afterlife.  Trinkets could accompany the king along with servants who were to attend to him in the future world.  A good number of bodies of apparent servants have been dug up next to chieftains' graves.  The rulers had the power to order their servants killed so that they could go with them.(Id. 126-127)  Then there is the human sacrifice that was practiced to appease the gods.

The first large community of cities was Sumer in southern Mesopotamia, which lasted from about 5,500 ya to 4,000 ya.  It consisted of dozens of settlements of 2,000 to 8,000 people each.  The largest one was Uruk with close to 50,000.  Sumer is considered the first civilization.  It was peaceful during its existence.  Unfortunately, the "civilized" world did not remain peaceful. 

The cities were organized closely around a central temple.  The accepted god was supposed to rule over the people and the lands.  In effect, the chief priest was the ruler and had sole authority.  It was a religious autocracy.  All the food was brought to the temple where it was distributed back to the subjects.

There were differences in status with those up in the hierarchy receiving more favorable portions.  Food surpluses were stored in the temple for distribution in times of shortage or for use in trade with outsiders.  The temple controlled other aspects of communal life such as irrigation and the building and maintaining of temples, which was done on a grand scale.  In Uruk, a single segment of the construction of the temple of Anu took more than 65 million man-hours.(Id. 134-136)

How were the priests able to command so much authority?  There were the natural threats that people had little power to control such as disease and serious injury.  Possibly the greatest danger was the failure of crops, a regular natural occurrence.  There were pests that could devour a significant portion of a crop along with droughts and floods.

People were bewildered by these occurrences and wished to know how they could avoid these disasters.  At some point, someone suggested that superior beings (gods) were in control of the world.  These gods could have a tantrum and take it out on the inhabitants below.  The disasters they then sent could also be seen as punishment for whatever reason.  Individuals later arose who claimed--backed by faithful followers--to be able to communicate with the gods and plead with them to stop the punishment.  They came to be known as priests.  They developed into the leaders of some of the communities around the world.

Sumer was a place where they gained significant power.  The priests developed beliefs, rituals, and grand temples that were used continuously--not just in times of anguish--in the quest to win the favor of the gods.  The best known of the various Sumerian myths is the one that says that a great flood was sent by the gods in retaliation against the human race for the noise it made that disturbed the gods' rest.(Id. 134)

After 5,000 ya Sumerian artifacts suggest that there was a threat of outside invasion.  Thick walls were erected around the cities, more weapons were produced, and war was a more frequent subject of propagandistic art.  Before that Sumer had not been threatened with foreign invasion.  It appears that military leaders gained power equal to the priests. They built lavish mansions near the temples and their graves were filled with luxurious possessions.  The gap widened between rich and poor.

4,334 ya, Sargon, a king from northern Mesopotamia, swept down with his army and conquered the cities of Mesopotamia thus creating the world's first empire.  Before long, the center of Mesopotamian civilization would become early Babylon and later Assyria.  Belligerence and conquest would continue in the near East and throughout the world.  It has continued until now with all its dire consequences for the combatants as well as to the many unfortunate bystanders.

A grand scale of wholesale violence was reached during the reign of the Roman empire, the world's largest.  There were later aggressions like the conquests by Spain in the 1500's and the French army under Napoleon in the early 1800's.  Then there were the civil war in the U.S. and the two world wars in the early 1900's with all the mass agony they caused.

To be sure, there have been periods of peace in different parts of the world at different times.  Yet, the record shows that wars--at least small battles between small groups--have continued.  In wars today, combatants who are wounded can quickly be helped with modern surgery and drugs.  You can imagine what it was like before.  Arrowheads or bullets were removed without anesthetic, wounds cleaned, pain endured.  It was hoped that wounds would not become infected.  Many died, even of minor wounds, due to infection.  Then there was permanent maiming.  There were no programs for taking care of war veterans.

There may have been less armed strife before 1800 because there were hardly any rebellions by groups against the state in which they lived.  There were exceptions.   During the Roman empire there was the rebellion of the slave gladiators under a leader named Spartacus and insurrection by subjugated national groups such as the Jews and the Goths.  Before 1800 people did not have an inkling that their lot in life might be improved if those at the top of the society were to cede some of their power or at least relax some of the social rules.

Those in command propagated myths that could support a differentiation between them and the rest of the populace.  The ruling class was happy to promote the implication that they were similar to the gods and likewise had a right to control and use everyone else in whatever way they chose.  Some kings claimed that their authority was blessed by the gods while a few went so far as to assert a blood relation to gods.  A good example of a rigid religion-based structure is the caste system in India in which the Brahmins held great unquestionable power while others were considered well below them all the way down to the Untouchables.

The religious authorities in various countries could exercise power on their own as they did in Sumer for a time or could quietly cooperate with the royalty and the ruling class in keeping the peace.  They could support the class structure by teaching that everyone's status was ordained by the gods.  Furthermore, the time spent in this world was only a temporary sojourn.  Things would be much different in the life to come afterward.

There is no evidence that the hunter-gatherers employed slavery.  Today's nomads do not use it.  There were practical drawbacks to their holding slaves.  It would have been relatively easy for them to runaway, and confinement would have been difficult.  The time of the prospective slave owners would probably have been better spent hunting and gathering than trying to control slaves.  It took "civilization" to enable powerful people to possess slaves.

Incidentally, ancient Egypt did not depend greatly on slavery.  Contrary to popular belief, the pyramids were not built by slaves.  Slavery was not as important in ancient Egypt as in most ancient civilizations.  The skilled craftsmen who built the pyramids expected to be well rewarded for their work.  Sometimes they went on strike.(Id. 145)

The Middle Ages in Europe are known for serfdom.  The ruling class did not own individual slaves.  Instead the serfs were attached to the land.  If the landowner sold the land, the serf families stayed with the land.  The serfs were not free to live on their own.  This was not much better than the standard slave system.

Even today some individuals use slavery even though it is illegal.  These practitioners kidnap individuals, usually young women, and force them to work, often as prostitutes.  It is very difficult for the captives to get away.  The kidnappers control the money earned.  Overall, history is full of other examples of cruel human treatment.

Dwellings

The dwellings of most people did not improve dramatically from the time of Sumer, say 5,000 ya to 1800 C.E.  Homes were made of crude brick, mortar, and wood in the early years.  There was little change except for the improvement in masonry that could build thicker walls.  Still, the level of indoor comfort provided was not dramatically greater than it was 5,000 ya.  The castles of the rulers were erected with very thick walls and large fireplaces.

On a cold day in 1800, people would have trouble staying warm.  They could huddle close together, seek cover under blankets or animal pelts, or sit in front of a fireplace or a wood stove.  Individuals could stay as active as possible either inside or outside to create internal heat.  Then there was the problem that the smoke from fireplaces and wood stoves is unhealthy to breathe.

None of the above solutions were of any help in the summer time.  It was just the opposite.  In warm climates, there are still people who live in dwellings that are made of light materials such as thick grass and bamboo.  Wearing light clothing helped, but many cultures frowned on that.  It was acceptable only in sweltering southern Africa, in southwest Asia, and in the Americas.  The only fans that were available at the time were hand fans.  Those are not very efficient.

The Egyptian pharaohs and other kings had servants who would stand around them and wave large fans at them.  All this would still not be as effective as one or two of today's electric fans.  Swimming pools and bathtubs were available to the ruling classes; the masses could cool off in lakes if they were available.  Otherwise, the warm months had to be endured stoically by sitting quietly in the shade.

After 1900, there began to be a noticeable difference in the comfort of homes.  There were steam radiators, oil-fired furnaces, electric fans, and later natural gas.  Still, homes did not receive evenly distributed heat until the construction of larger furnaces that could force air throughout the abode.  These systems received wide use only in homes built after World War II.

Medical Advances

Starting in the 1800's, there were numerous technological improvements that provided wider possibilities for living including some reduction of time spent on tedious labor.  Unfortunately, improvements were not made without accompanying problems.  The machinery and materials used in manufacturing could cause serious injury or death.  It took a long time for safeguards to be developed.  Then there was the considerable air pollution and global heat generated by the factories since they relied on coal and oil to run the machinery.

The medical improvements that were made starting around 1850 had a profoundly beneficial effect.  Surgery was one area in which there was a great leap forward.  Humans had performed surgeries for thousands of years.  There were not many surgeries, but they did take place especially in cases in which it was necessary to save a life.  The reason that there was not much surgery performed was that it usually caused excruciating pain for the patient.  There was no known anesthetic other than liquor.  Medical assistants would have to hold down the patient so that s/he would not try to leave.  Given those circumstances, you can understand why it was common for people to avoid doctors.  Part of being a good surgeon was the ability to perform an operation very quickly, in a matter of minutes.  Post-surgery there was the serious problem of possible infection with no sound means for preventing and stopping infection.  Much depended on the strength of the immune system of the patient.

It was in Boston in 1849 that a dentist performed oral surgery using anesthesia for the first time.  That turned the tide on what doctors could do through surgery.  Unfortunately, too many potential patients continued to avoid doctors for a long time.

Another terrifying condition for thousands of years was that of contagious disease.  There were many individual cases of becoming infected with a pathogen and becoming very sick.  A common cold could turn into pneumonia and kill a person.  Of course, this happens even today in persons whose immune system is weak, often the elderly.  There were no effective medications for pneumonia and other diseases.

Then there were the epidemics that swept through large populations.  There are accounts of these going far back in history.  The best known one and perhaps the most pernicious was the Black Death in Europe around 1348.  These plagues continued through the 1800's.  Smallpox was an especially destructive pestilence.

A great breakthrough occurred in the late 1800's promoted by the research of several scientists, with Louis Pasteur being the best known among them.  Their studies validated the germ theory of disease that held that contagious diseases are caused by the invasion of invisible microorganisms into a living body.  Many scoffed.  They could not believe in the existence of invisible creatures.  Pasteur was able to develop vaccines that could immunize people from specific diseases.  Smallpox and other potentially fatal diseases from past millennia have been eradicated or greatly diminished.

Antibiotic drugs were invented and very successfully employed in combatting virus and bacteria caused diseases.  The problem today is that these pathogens can mutate.  When this happens, medical researchers have to try to find new antidotes that work and hope they can succeed.

Before 1800 there was not much change in medical treatment, home comfort, civil liberties, etc.  Even by 1900, the average life expectancy of a newborn child was around 50 years old.  Persons who reached 50 years could expect to live more but not much beyond 65.

Modern armaments in war have made it much easier to destroy lives en masse.  While great advances have been made to cure the body, psychiatric problems seem to have become more prominent.  This could be due to a greater willingness to acknowledge these problems on the part of the afflicted as well as those around them.  It could also be at least partly the result of more leisure time, which gives people more time to worry.  Humans have endured many tribulations through the ages.  It is not possible to find any design in the chronological progression of human lives.

Design of the Human Body

Another aspect of design involves the various parts of the human body.  The intelligent design supporters like to use the human eye as an example of a body part that could not have credibly appeared unless it was designed by a mind so superbly capable that it had to be that of God.  The implicit assumption is that the eye is perfect or near perfect.  Some questions arise immediately about its design.

First, there is the puzzle as to why the optic nerve attached to each eye has to cross over the other optic nerve in route to the brain.  The nerve of the right eye crosses over the nerve of the left eye and ends in the left half of the brain; the nerve of the left eye crosses over the nerve of the right eye and ends in the right half of the brain.  There seems to be no need for that.  Why could the nerves not simply go straight into their own half of the brain?  For that matter, why does the entire human nervous system cross over from one side of the body to the opposite side of the brain?

That is a minor consideration in comparison to other problems.  A serious imperfection in the human eye is that the accuracy of its vision can be affected by myopia, commonly known as nearsightedness.  In this condition, the person cannot clearly see objects that are far away.  The opposite condition also exists and is called hyperopia, or farsightedness, where the observer has trouble distinguishing objects that are close.  The conditions are permanent for the most part.  There can be some improvement in some cases that occurs naturally. 

These problems occur because the light from images in front of the eye does not fall correctly on the retina, which reconstitutes the images.  In the case of nearsightedness, the reconstructed images from distant objects fall in front of the retina and are not seen clearly.  The problem in focus is due to the eyeball being longer from front to back than what is normal.  With farsightedness, the images are formed beyond the retina because the eye is shorter than normal.

Another well-known malady in vision is astigmatism.  It is the failure of light to come to a single focus on the retina.  In this case, parts of an image can be blurry while other portions can be seen clearly.  Like in nearsightedness and farsightedness, this is not a disease.  All these are imperfections of the eye.  In astigmatism, the imperfection is due do uneven curvature of the cornea, the front covering of the eye.  It sometimes occurs from improper curvature of the lens inside the eye.

The eye defects mentioned are not rare.  It is estimated that more than 30% of people suffer from nearsightedness.  This usually manifests in children and remains with them for the rest of their lives.  Farsightedness becomes prevalent when people reach middle age.  It is at this time that many people begin to complain that they can't read print on a piece of paper without holding the paper at arm's length.  The problem becomes worse to the point that holding the paper at arm's length is not sufficient.

Astigmatism is much less common but does afflict some people at different times.  It can appear with either nearsightedness or farsightedness.  These imperfections can be alleviated with corrective lenses.  There is no mechanism in the body that corrects the particular problem whether immediately or over a period of time.  Nor are there any known mechanisms in the body that correct any other of the body's imperfections.

Even the sight of a normal eye is far from perfect or even impressive.  For perceiving at long distances, it is woefully behind the vision of the eagle and other birds.  They can pick out objects that are very far away.  Then there are creatures that can see very tiny objects.  Owls and cats have amazing night vision.  Why does the human eye not have all these capabilities?  After all we are supposedly God's children.  Why are humans only allowed to perceive a limited part of the the electromagnetic spectrum?

All of these additional abilities would be very useful.  Seeing at a long distance could help someone who is lost or who wants to find an object far away.  If humans could see at night, they could be much more aware of certain dangers.  Through the years, scores of people have suffered injuries because of not being able to see in the dark.

Imagine if humans could see microscopically.  Just in the area of microbial infection, it would be very helpful.  The germ theory would have been formulated long before it was.  Go as far back as homo erectus.  It could have noticed that it was tiny crawling microbes that caused certain diseases.  Much contagion for over a million years could have been avoided.  Being able to see in all parts of the electromagnetic spectrum would be useful.  People would be able to readily see bones in the body with their x-ray vision

Having more than two eyes would be of great benefit.  This would be a boon not just to humans but to other creatures as well.  It is easy to see how two eyes in the back of the head could be helpful.  How many people could have avoided surprise assault or murder?  Why stop at four eyes?  Two eyes on each side of the head would provided additional benefit.  For one thing, there would not have to be the concern with having adequate peripheral vision.  It could understandably be objected that people with eight eyes would be ugly.  In response, there is nothing to say that the eyes would have to be as large as the ones that we now have.  They could be much smaller.  After all, birds have very acute vision in spite of their small eyes.

Then there are the diseases of the eyes.  The development of cataracts is a common occurrence in people over 60.  It results from the hardening of tissue in the lens of the eye that occludes light from properly passing onto the retina and thus makes vision appear clouded.  It is usually more encumbering at night.  If the cataract is allowed to become excessively large, there is a greater risk of complications from the surgery.  Serious blindness can occur.  Cataracts are the primary cause of blindness in the world.  Unfortunately, many people live in countries that do not readily provide cataract surgery.  Some of these countries are in Africa and yet Africans appear more prone to developing cataracts.

Glaucoma is not widespread but occurs more frequently than one would like to hear.  It is not one disease but rather a group of diseases.  It involves damage to the optic nerve that can even cause blindness if not treated.  Often the cause of the damage is too much pressure in the eye.  There is no cure for glaucoma, and vision lost cannot be restored.  Dogs get glaucoma.

Another well known eye disease is age-related macular degeneration (AMD).  It is also incurable.  It is the leading cause of vision loss among people over age 60.  It involves loss of central vision in the eye due to a deterioration in the macula, the central portion of the retina.  This is why while people with AMD see poorly in the center of their field of vision but maintain sound peripheral vision.  There is a form of macular degeneration that affects children known as Stargardt's disease.  It has a completely genetic cause.  Genetics is partially involved in the adult form and in the dog form.

The retina can become detached from its base in the back of the eye.  This can result in loss of vision if it is not reattached promptly.  Detachment can occur when there is a blow to the head.  Remember that myopia occurs because the eyeball is elongated horizontally.  This apparently makes the eyeball more susceptible to having its retina detached.  Another retinal shortcoming is the development of openings or tears in it that affect vision.

There is also diabetic retinopathy, a problem for diabetics. They can lose their sight.  High blood sugar levels can have detrimental effects on the blood vessels in the retina.  The vessels can swell and leak or can block the flow of blood altogether.

Here are some other problems with the design of the eye.  The retina could be constructed of stronger material so that it would not be prone to getting tears.  The human eye and that of other vertebrates has an inefficient design of its retina.  The photoreceptor cells in the back of the retina face away from the light coming from the outside.  It would make more sense for the photoreceptor cells to be as close as possible to the incoming light.  This is the way they are set up in the eye of the cephalopods, which include squid and octopus.  It is believed that this inferior design is the reason that vertebrates suffer more commonly from retinal detachments than do the cephalopods.(the humanevolutionblog.com 1/14/18)  The eye is far from perfect.

The Ear

The ear has a sizable number of defects.  No animals have perfect ears.  It is said that 10% of humans of all ages living in the United States suffer from hearing loss.  That percentage is higher for older persons and for those residing in countries with low incomes.  The design of the ear itself seems more complicated than necessary.  The microphone, which was designed by humble humans, is much more simple and does the job well.  It is not prone to as many malfunctions, and any repairs can be easily made.

Ear deficiencies, as well as eye ones, can come at the very beginning.  Defects at birth are called congenital.  These are then classified into genetic and nongenetic.  The clear genetic shortcoming is a missing essential part in the ear of a baby that precludes its being able to hear.  Lack of hearing can be the result of a brain deficiency.  A baby born prematurely or with low birth weight is at risk for having a hearing deficiency.  Anoxia while in the womb can affect later hearing as can an injury to the head during birth or later.

The condition of the mother during pregnancy is an important factor.  If the mother has diabetes, there is a risk.  Temporary diseases of the mother like rubella (German measles), cytomegalo virus, and herpes simple can affect the ears of the fetus.  The mother's use of drugs or alcohol can be detrimental to the later permanent development of the child in general.

Childhood illnesses can permanently downgrade hearing.  Examples are meningitis, cytomegalovirus, mumps, and chicken pox.  Otitis media is an infection of the ear that often strikes children as a complication from a common cold.

A common cause of permanently diminished hearing is prolonged exposure to loud noise.  The problem does not manifest itself right away in most cases.  People in particular occupations are susceptible to this aural damage.  Old age is a risk factor.

Antibodies can attack and damage the inner ear.  This happens in autoimmune disorders in which the immune system mistakes the tissues in the body for deleterious invading microbes and attacks them.  These disorders are not temporary but permanent.  Examples of diseases that are autoimmune ones are rheumatoid arthritis, lupus, type 1 diabetes, irritable bowel syndrome, and multiple sclerosis.

Some antibiotics can affect the inner ear permanently.  Platinum-based drugs like cisplatin and carboplatin that are used in chemotherapy against cancer can have a similar negative effect.  There are brain tumors that impact sound hearing.  The acoustic neuroma can affect how well a person can distinguish words that are heard.  If it needs to be removed, brain surgery can be delicate.

Other Body Part Problems

The most widespread diseases of the mouth that can bring serious long-term consequences involve the teeth and the gums.  If problems in these areas are not attended in adequate time, they can cause the loss of teeth as well as other bad health effects.  Too many cavities in teeth can lessen their functional effectiveness as can problems with their roots.  It is actually periodontal disease of the gums that is the greatest cause of lost teeth.  After all, the teeth need solid moorings in the bone under the gums in order to be able to stand strongly.  Then there is oral cancer.  It can be found in the gums, lips and tongue.

Diseases of the mouth include minor ones like cold sores and canker sores that are a nuisance.  There are the effects on the mouth of sexually transmitted disease.  Syphilis and gonorrhea can manifest themselves in the mouth.  They became curable in the 1900's but have to be treated early.  Otherwise they can lead to heart or brain disease.

Skin diseases come in many forms and durations.  Some are permanent even if they disappear for a period of time.  They can reappear after that.  The itches and discomfort they present is annoying and painful.  Some of the permanent diseases are rosacea, eczema, psoriasis, moles, vitiligo, and seborrheic dermatitis.  Cellulitis and skin cancer can be dangerous especially the form of cancer called melanoma.

Congenital Defects

Too many children are born with defects.  Advances in medical care have made it possible to correct or at least alleviate some of these problems, but that is not always possible.  Besides the necessary procedures can be expensive and consume the time and talent of medical personnel.  Congenital defects related to specific parts of the body have already been mentioned.  It is worth at least briefly mentioning some of the other birth defects.  There are 4,000 birth defects with many of them being minor.  One out of every 100 babies comes into this world with a birth defect.

There are defects that involve the lack or the malformation of a body part.  The most common of these are the congenital heart defects.  Some others are spina bifida, cleft palate, cleft lip, and clubfoot.  There is also a class of defects in which food is not broken down chemically as it normally is.  An example is phenylketonuria (PKU) in which proteins are not properly processed.

One of the causes of defects is infection contracted by the mother during pregnancy.  Toxoplasmosis is one of these infections.  It is brought by a single-celled parasite that is one of the most common in the world.  Certain medicines and poor nutrition can cause birth defects.  The ingestion of alcohol by the mother can produce fetal alcohol syndrome that can produce a variety of disorders including brain damage, growth problems, and poor coordination.

There are genetic causes that involve the passage of chromosomes from the parents.  An error in this process can end with too few or too many chromosomes or damaged chromosomes.  Down syndrome develops after the baby receives an extra chromosome.  Chromosomal problems create hemophilia and color blindness in boys.

There are a number of congenital heart defects including

atrial septal defect

atrioventricular septal defect

coarctation of the aorta

D-transposition of the great arteries

hypoplastic left heart syndrome

pulmonary atresia

tetralogy of fallot

total anomalous pulmonary venous return

tricuspid atresia

truncus arteriosus

ventricular septal defect

The following are some other (non-heart related) defects:

anencephaly

anophthalmia/microphthalmia

anotia/microtia

craniosynostosis

diaphragmatic hernia

encephalocele

esophageal atresia

gastroschisis

hypospadias

microcephaly

omphalocele

upper and lower limb reduction defects.

General Disease

There are more than 30,000 diseases worldwide according to the World Health Organization.  There are effective treatments--not necessarily cures--for only one-third of them.  The number of diseases may be rising including those caused by microbes--in medicine often called pathogens--like the ebola, SARS, and Covid-19 viruses.  The rising world human population may be instrumental in the spread of contagious disease.

Here is a list of a few diseases.

aortic aneurysm

acanthamoeba infection

acinetobacter infection

acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS)

adenovirus infection

trypanosomiasis

alkhurma hemorrhagic fever (AHF)

Alzheimer's disease

amebiasis, intestinal

amyotropic lateral sclerosis (ALS)

anaplasmosis

anisakiasis

anthrax infection

arenavirus infection

arthritis (different forms)

ascariasis

aspegillosis

asthma

autism

avian influenza

This is an incomplete list of just the illnesses beginning with the letter "A" as compiled by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention of the United States.

Here are some of the most harmful ones.  They are familiar to most people and are not necessarily the ones that are found in news headlines.

artery disease (coronary and brain)

lower respiratory infections

chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD)

trachea, bronchus, and lung cancers

diabetes mellitus

dementias including Alzheimer's

cirrhosis

There is much more that could be said about all the numerous diseases, but there is no need to discuss them for the present purposes.  If you want to delve into any of them, there is much information in books, magazines, and the internet.

What is particularly fascinating is the autoimmune disorders.  Many of these diseases have been known for hundreds of years.  It is extremely difficult to comprehend how and why the body should make such a gross error as attacking itself.  The concept of autoimmune disease was first offered around 1900 but was ignored until 1965, which is understandable given its bizarre self-destructive nature.

Greater Powers

It is clear that the human body has many vulnerabilities in dealing with illnesses and injuries in terms of its present state.  Then there are the shortcomings of the human body with respect to the powers and abilities that it could possibly have.  You would think that if God were the designer of the world he would have given his creatures greater powers.  There is little hope that better natural powers can be acquired any time soon, if ever.  In light of the considerations here about design, this is worth exploring if only briefly.

Other species possess enviably more powerful abilities.  (1) The planarian is a flatworm that can regenerate body parts, and it doesn't have to be just one part.  If it is cut into several pieces, each part will regenerate the rest of the missing body to remake an entirely new planarian.  (2) The male horned dung beetle is the strongest creature in the world in proportion to its size.  It is able to pull 1,140 times its own body weight.  (3) The mimic octopus can change the form of its body to appear like poisonous creatures in order to scare menacing predators.  (4) Pit vipers can perceive in infrared.  (5) Alpine ibex mountain goats can walk up walls as can many insects, cockroaches, and other small creatures.  (6) The mantis shrimp can see all colors including ultraviolet.  (7) Dragon millipedes can shoot cyanide.  (8) Fleas are capable of jumping 200 times their body length.  (9) Geckos can walk up windows.  (10) Salamanders and starfish can regenerate limbs.  (11) Electric eels can hurl electric shocks up to 600 volts.  (12) Turritopsis jelly fish can make themselves young again many times.

There are any number of physical powers that would be very helpful to us.  They would have been even more useful to humans and other animals for thousands of years in the past given that they did not have many of the technological advantages that they later invented.  To have simple methods for avoiding injury and disease would have averted much pain and would still be very beneficial today.

Like the planarian, it would be very useful to be able to grow parts of the body that had become incapacitated or even severed.  The loss of a limb would not have to mean that the person would have to go limbless (or fingerless or eyeless) for the rest of her/is life.  The limb could be just as good or better than the first one.  A woman who had breast cancer would be able to regenerate a new breast.  That would be better than undergoing breast reconstruction using artificial material.  A defective kidney could be taken out and a new one regrown.  There no longer would be a need for organ transplants along with the problems they entail. 

There is a way that injuries from falls and tumbles, e.g. down the side of a hill, could be completely prevented.  That would be possible if animals could control the force of gravity.  A bear or a human could fall off a 1,000 foot cliff and immediately invoke the power.  It would float all the way down like a feather and calmly land on the ground at the bottom.

Humans could certainly find advantage in having much more acute eyesight.  With nocturnal vision many activities could be conducted at night without the need for light.  What about being able to project laser rays?  That would make the surgical procedures using a laser easier.  At the least eyes could have been designed that could not be harmed by laser rays as they are now.  Humans could benefit from the more acute hearing that other animals have, even into the ultrasonic frequencies.  A keener sense of smell could be an aid in tracking down objects the way dogs can.

Then there are the unusual abilities that some individuals claim to have.  These are capacities that are more readily classified as extrasensory perception (ESP).  They also go by names such as remote viewing, mental telepathy, and clairvoyance.  There is necromancy in which the psychic communicates with the spirits of the dead who then supposedly furnish information unknowable to living people.  Why only a few select individuals should have this power does not seem right--if indeed they  have them.  It would seem that all people should be able to see what is happening anywhere in the world or at least, say 5,000 miles away.  This would make it harder for potential evildoers to hide and perpetrate wrongs against others.  There could be x-ray and tomographic viewing.

Mental Maladies

It has only been since 1930 that mental illnesses have been adequately identified.  There has been a tendency to think of mental problems as not physical just as it has been assumed that the mind is not physical.  Different pathologies affect different organs and parts of the body.  Mental maladies are related to the brain and to some extent the nervous system.  Injury to the brain can originate behavior that was not previously observed in a person.

A number of mental illnesses can result from genetic inheritance and from brain injury in the womb.  The shortcomings can become apparent in early childhood or manifest themselves many years later.  Schizophrenia often does not appear until persons are in their early twenties.

In the past, it was believed that many of the afflicted were just imagining them or being overly dramatic.  The only mental illness believed possible was one in which the behavior of the patients was obviously extreme.  They were  the patients who, for example, regularly see visions such as bugs crawling on the ground all around them or hear voices telling them to cut themselves or to kill others.  There are now a number of mental illnesses that have been established as genuine.

The most common of these problems is depression.  A great percentage of the population experience it one time or other in their lives.  There is postpartum depression that befalls some women in the months after they have given birth.  All people feel sadness after an unfortunate loss or disappointment.  However, when the sadness persists for years or comes without any apparent explanation, it is depression--sometimes referred to as clinical depression.  Depression sometimes appears concurrently with anxiety.  There are a number of anxiety disorders that are more common than imagined.

A sizable number of mental illnesses have been better understood since 1950.  There are schizophrenia, obsessive-compulsive disorders (OCD), various personality disorders, post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), eating disorders, and others.  Mental Illnesses can be brought by genetics, trauma, unpleasant life circumstances, brain injury, excess drug use, or a combination of causes.

There are millions of people who suffer quietly from mental illness with those around them not being aware of it.  If their friends do notice strange behavior, they may not consider it as being serious.  It too often happens that a victim will commit suicide to the shock of everyone else.  Recently, there has been a big push for people not to use opiates since they are very harmful and addictive.  Unfortunately, many people become addicted because they are trying to alleviate some form of severe pain, mental or otherwise, they contracted through no fault of their own.

Psychosis involves hallucinations and other false sensations.  The person has no control over them and can come under tremendous stress especially when the hallucinations are frightening or instruct the person to undertake harmful tasks.  Sometimes the person is told to indiscriminately kill others, even as many as possible.

Fear is a natural reaction to real threats.  It definitely helps preserve safety and survival.  It is normal to feel fear when standing on the edge of a precipice on the side of a tall mountain with a possible fall hundreds of feet below.  It is another thing if the person still feels fear when standing 100 feet away from the cliff with no danger of falling.  This is phobia--an exaggerated, unjustified fear of some thing or situation.  It can be emotionally debilitating to the aggravated person, wasteful of time when s/he has to take extra measures to avoid the magnified fear, and can bring avoidance by friends due to the person's bizarre behavior.

Phobias are part of anxiety disorder.  There are some that are widely known.  Claustrophobia is perhaps the best known--the fear of being confined in a limited space.  There is agoraphobia which is a fear of being in public or open spaces.  There is acrophobia, an exaggerated fear of heights.  There is fear of dust along with a list of many others.

Nutritional Ignorance

There are any number of additional problems that make life harder than it could have been if it had been better designed.  In the area of nutrition, much has been learned since 1950, but there is much further to go.  Before 1753 there was not much systematic knowledge about nutrients that could help the body avoid disease and stay healthy.  In that year, Scottish physician James Lind conducted a test on several sailors who had contracted scurvy.  The disease was a frequent occurrence whenever sailors were at sea for a long time.  It was found that eating limes or oranges would cure scurvy.  As a result, British sailors later regularly carried limes on board their ships and thus earned the name of "limeys."  This was the first clear recognition that there were nutrients in certain foods that could prevent disease.  The nutrient in citrus fruits was not isolated nor identified nor given a name.  It remained a mystery for a long time.  People just knew that to prevent scurvy they had to eat citrus fruits.

Humans suffered for millennia because of their nutritional ignorance.  It was not until 1912 that the first vitamin was discovered, vitamin A.  The scurvy-fighting nutrient in citrus fruits was not identified until 1932 and labeled vitamin C.  Today scurvy is hardly a threat in developed countries.  It was later discovered that other diseases like beri-beri, rickets, and night blindness can be prevented through the use of vitamins.

A number of minerals were discovered thousands of years of ago.  Iron is probably the salient example.  Yet it was much later that it was recognized that minerals were necessary for good health.  Calcium is essential for strong bones.  Weak bones are more prone to fractures.  People over 60 years old suffer more frequently from broken bones.  Sometimes if they break a hip or a femur, they can never recover completely and have to be bound to a wheel chair for the rest of their lives.

For years, older people have been instructed to take calcium supplements to ensure they are ingesting enough calcium.  However, a recent study showed that supplements do not help to prevent weakening of the bones.  Furthermore, another study indicated the possibility that calcium from supplements may settle in the coronary arteries and thus contribute to arteriosclerosis.  An attempt to prevent an ailment may bring about a different one.

This happens in connection with other disease conditions.  Zinc is a mineral that strengthens the immune system as well as working to combat erectile dysfunction.  Taking zinc supplements is helpful on both of these counts, yet a man has to be careful not to ingest too much due to a risk that it could cause prostate cancer.

There is the problem that the body develops a tolerance to certain medicines and taking more and more is needed to produce an effect.  Then there are the side effects.  Different individuals can be affected in different ways.  Some persons do not experience discomfort at all.  For others, headaches, stomach aches, dizziness, distorted vision, hyperactivity, drowsiness can occur.  People who have taken aspirin for years to relieve pain or to prevent heart attacks can sometimes develop stomach ulcers as a result.  Some prescription medicines can cause serious enough drowsiness to affect driving a motor vehicle.  You would think more nutritional information would have been included in religious scriptures.

Sex Problems

Sex has always been a source of great pleasure for animals and yet there have been great obstacles to its enjoyment.  A number of animal species follow the practice of the males competing brutally, even to the death, for the right to a harem of females.  The winner of the competition gets the harem and losers have to depart to sexual frustration while wandering alone.

Going back to the earliest hunter-gatherers, humans at times have had to keep down their population.  There were not the methods available today for birth control.  Condoms made from animal skins were not always reliable.  Abstention from sexual intercourse may have been the major method for avoiding unwanted births.  That would have meant unwelcome frustration.  There was probably also general avoidance of any sexual stimulation since that can lead to sexual intercourse.

There is often a mismatch between women and men.  Women do not reach orgasm as easily through intercourse.  For women there is supposedly more of a focus on the emotional closeness with their partner than there is for men.  This can bring a feeling of detachment for the women. 

Then there are the physical problems that get in the way of enjoyment.  There is painful intercourse.  Women can suffer from vaginismus, a contracting of the vagina that an cause pain during intercourse.  Then there are the psychological fears that a young woman can have that discourage her from enjoying sex.  This can be especially true of victims of sexual abuse.  There is also the fear of pregnancy as well as sexually transmitted disease.

Some men experience pain during intercourse.  Phimosis is a malady in which the foreskin is too tight on the head of the penis and there is pain whenever it is retracted behind the head.  Circumcision removes the problem by elimination of the foreskin.

Miscellaneous Aggravations

There are miscellaneous aggravations.  Facial hair is not painful and can be kept out of the way by shaving.  It is not a pressing issue in relation to so many other social problems in the world, but it does affect all humans on earth.  Most men shave their faces, spending hundreds of hours in their lifetimes doing it.  This also requires spending millions of dollars on razors and the electricity used for electric ones.  This in spite of the fact that there is no significant purpose for hair on the body except for the head.

Some women have visible hair on their bodies.  Hair on the body is associated with masculinity and consequently has been an embarrassment for women.  Women with any hair on their bodies especially the face have shaved it diligently.  For both genders, it is aggravating to have to shave.

There is the aggravation of the bites of other creatures.  Usually no one dies but it can be painful and aggravating.  Lice, bedbugs, chiggers, hookworms, are some of the culprits.  In almost all cases, the only injury is a painful swelling from the sting that only lasts a few days.  Spiders and mosquitoes can cause serious even if temporary illness.  There are the black widow, the brown recluse, and wasps.  The venom from their stings can on occasion bring death depending on the health of the victim.

It is well known that there are mosquitoes that can transmit microbes to their victims that cause acute, sometimes fatal diseases.  Malaria has long been known to be passed by mosquitoes.  It has also been known that the tsetse fly in Africa transmits trypanosomes to the blood of vertebrates that cause illnesses such as sleeping sickness.  More recently, mosquitoes have been discovered to spread new diseases through viruses like the one that causes West Nile fever.

Mosquito-born pain and disease could be eliminated if only they could be stopped from stinging certain animals, right?  It is not that simple.  They do not use blood as a food source.  They gain their sustenance from vegetation.  If a male mosquito happens to buzz around you, it is there just to find a female with which to mate.  (Or it could have possibly taken a liking to you!)  A female would definitely be there intent on obtaining blood.  They need a protein found in blood in order to make their eggs viable.  It is a convoluted scheme for the reproduction of mosquitoes that is not found in other creatures.  It seems that only a sadistic creator would design such a system.

The Injustice of Death

A number of diseases are more likely to attack older people.  Their immune systems are less effective.  Regardless of whether they remain in good health or not, they must all eventually face a highly undesirable fate of the end of their lives.  Of course, that can happen at any age.  Death can happen to even young children.  It is a fate waiting for all of us.

Many people believe that death is merely a transition to living in different conditions of existence.  The details of that new existence depend on the particular religion followed.  It can be reincarnation in a new body.  It can be passage to a spirit form.  It can also involve resurrection in which the person is dead for possibly thousands of years and is eventually resurrected to live a new life.

In any of these states of life, there is no contact with family or friends on this earth.  It doesn't even look like the deceased person gets to at least occasionally return to experience conditions on earth as s/he knew them.  In reincarnation, the person is often reborn in a much later time period.  In spiritual existence, one can apparently no longer enjoy pleasures like eating and sex.  In resurrection, the person essentially ceases to exist until resurrected.  All of these cases involve the pain of not seeing past loved ones.  The survivors have the anguish of no longer having contact with the deceased.

In the case in which death is final with no possibility of ever seeing light again, it can be especially painful.  There are all the drawbacks of the possibilities reviewed above plus it is a permanent and irreversible actuality.  In fact, this may be the actual reality in spite of all the beliefs about afterlife.  Why must the plan be that way?  If it must be that way, why must humans possess such a strong desire to continue to live that even the thought of a final death causes much anguish.

Conclusion on Design

At this point, please review the information presented about the formation of the earth.  Start from the first microsecond of the universe to the present.  Study carefully the story of the development of the universe.  There may be disagreement on details among cosmologists, but the fundamental picture is well-founded.  Pointing out phenomena in nature that are not well known does not controvert the entire picture.

The evidence against design of the universe by anyone is overwhelming.  This is true at every stage of the development starting from the first microseconds.  It cannot even be said that there was an imperfect or faltering or inattentive design.  There simply was no design.  It cannot be said that it was a cruel creator since there were a number of items that are beautiful or beneficial to living beings.  Then there are the many features that are simply neutral, that is they are neither beneficial nor harmful.

Perhaps the closest description for any possible designer could be capricious.  This would explain the many haphazard occurrences.  The problem with that is that even the most capricious of people show at least some indication of a crude and stumbling intent.  An impulsive decision can be made at any one moment that cannot be understood, but at least a long-range goal can be discerned.  This has not been the case in the development of the universe.

Instead, the progression has been a very slow meandering one taking place over billions of years.  It was 300,000 years after the beginning that things finally became calm enough for atoms to barely begin to form, about 1 million years for the stars to start to take shape, 9 billion years for our star and its planets to get going, and an additional 4 billion years for any organisms more complex than two-celled invisible microbes to begin to sprout on our planet.  There certainly was no rush to create the human race.

Energy and the unfathomably tiny particles of physics have been the driving force behind the development of the universe.  They have not followed any plan, not even one in their favor.  They have followed physical laws, but there are times when these do not appear to control.  For instance, there is no law that dictates precisely when, if ever, a cloud of mostly hydrogen gas is to form a star.  If a star is formed, there is no law that determines whether it will have any planets, and if it does, how many.  Then there is the question of whether a single star will form or whether it will be two in a binary system.  There is a surprising amount of randomness in events.  This appears to happen in what could be considered a metarealm of physical events beyond the simple level studied by the physical sciences.

The process leading to the birth of the earth was very slow and very violent.  One might expect that building it would have been more deliberate, swift, and calm.  We know that there were many forms of instability.  Gigantic boulders from space were frequently crashing down including Thea.  The temperature was extremely elevated by this action as well as the widespread volcanic activity that made the entire planet red with striations of orange fire.  Noxious gases surrounded the planet making life impossible for everything but a few microbes that were able to survive only under the earth's surface.  Ice ages came and went.

You might be thinking that all this was a needed prelude to creation of complex conscious creatures.  Yet a prelude or overture is ordinarily just a short introduction to a much longer production.  This was not the case here.  Granted that the production could go on for billions of years more, still a preliminary period of more than four billion years seems excessive especially since everything that occurred does not seem to have been necessary.  It seems that there could have been fewer preliminary events and that they could have proceeded much more swiftly.

It is true that the violence and chaos had moderated significantly by the time more complex creatures entered the picture about 600 mya, but the change was only a matter of degree.  The creatures have still had to struggle mightily against harsh and violent forces.  If only to survive on a day-to-day basis, it takes considerable effort with no guarantee that there will be success.  For example two-thirds of lion cubs in Africa fail to survive their first year.  Homo erectus, the Neanderthals, and early homo sapiens did not live much above the level of the other animals in their struggle just to survive.  Later "civilization" has continued to be a painful struggle.

Remember that the word Greek telos behind the word teleology means purpose or goal.  There is no apparent purpose or goal in the development of the universe.  There is no coherent sequence of events toward any clear end.  There is evidence that the universe will ground to a halt after many billions of years, but no evidence of any intended, comprehensible ending to everything.  Instead, events will apparently continue just as they have for billions of years.  Stars will continue being born, last for a few billion years, the larger ones explode, and then die.  The living species--at least on earth--will continue to appear anew and then eventually all disappear into extinction.  Climate change and widespread disease will be large causes for these exterminations.  This is the way many species have ended before this time.  Biologists estimate that more than 99% of the species that have appeared on this earth have perished.

Humans are fully vulnerable to the threats that have caused extinction.  Climate change continues to be a serious threat to our survival even if it may not seem that way on a daily basis.  Then there is the bellicose attitude of many humans that could result in our total destruction as well as that of other species.  If there is any goal or intended pattern, it appears to be that all things including stars, humans, and even the universe are born, live for a time, and finally die.  That certainly does not seem like any grand plan or a great eternal existence.

You would think that the alleged designer would have wanted to provide a habitat for animals that was pleasant for them.  What would be the reason for making them endure harsh conditions?  The picture shown in the book of Genesis of the Hebrew Bible of the garden of Eden would be expected with a kind and caring designer.  Even if the place was not as idyllic as a grand and beautiful garden, it could certainly be much more hospitable than it has been.  There would only be minor problems and inconveniences to endure.  We have seen how life has been punctuated by catastrophes such as volcanoes, mass extinctions, epidemics, world wars, and more.

The explanation given by theists, at least the Yahwehists, for all the turmoil and suffering has been that it is all the fault of humans because they have sinned.  God could design a perfect world but has not instantiated it because he has judged it more imperative to create a harsh world to be used to punish humans.

The garden of Eden account is a version of this idea.  There the creator did not hold back from creating a perfect world at the outset.  All the animals including the first two humans Adam and Even enjoyed a wonderful existence in the garden.  Then one day Eve becomes curious about the nature of good and evil.  God become so incensed at this that he threw the couple out of the garden and closed it to all humans.

It was not that God failed to design a perfect abode.  In that, he appeared fully capable.  He designed the place and installed it but then closed it never to be seen again.  That has to make you wonder just how calm and kind that particular designer, the Yahwehist God, is.  Even if you are not a believer in the Yahwehist God, you would still expect that a God with any compassion would design and provide a world that was easy and pleasant to live in.  The conditions in our world both now and in the past have not been that.  That simply leaves no room for assuming a kind designer.

Possibly a theist could still insist that God designed the universe even with its many defects.  He could maintain that God must have had some reason for doing it that way.  It has to then be asked what sense is there behind building a universe with so many imperfections that cause so much pain. 

The fact is that it has taken an immense amount of time to produce what is seen today, and randomness has played a surprisingly large part in what has turned out.  The impersonal laws of physics explain much of the movement that takes place.  In connection with living things, evolution controls much of their development.  The pattern there is the promotion of the survival of the different species, but 99% of them have perished.

Perhaps some theist would admit that God did not design but only gained power over the world say 12,000 years ago.  If this were so, there would still be no evidence of design.  One would expect that upon taking over God would have then undertaken an extensive modification of the world to improve its numerous defects, at least the ones that cause harm to sentient beings.  That has not happened.  Events have proceeded much as one would expect without any outside intervention.  If any theist insisted on continuing to believe in such a God, it would be an impotent God.  Hardly anyone believes in a God without power.  He would be merely a figurehead God with whom few people would feel comforted.  The assumption of an impotent God would be a proof against the God that is widely accepted.  There is no evidence of design of the universe.

8 The Argument from Suffering (Evil)

The argument from evil against the existence of God can take several forms depending on the strength of the attributes given to God.  The standard form is the one that uses the attributes of power and love brought forward by the theologians in the Middle Ages.  It was not enough for them to talk of a God that possessed great power or great love.  They became enthralled with infinity in talking about God.  They postulated a God of infinite power and infinite love.  This exalted status could not be surpassed and was supposed to give everyone much greater confidence in a Supreme Being.

Here is the argument formulated with infinite attributes

(1) God is omnipotent and omniscient.

(2) God has infinite love.

(3) There is great suffering (evil) in the world.

Conclusion: God cannot exist since there is suffering (evil).

The Meaning of Evil

Besides the issue of the extent of God's nature, there is another very important aspect that needs to be clarified.  This is the meaning of evil.  For centuries this has been a mystery given that it has been hard for people to define.  It is advisable to find a better grasp of it if one is to assess its relation to God.  Evil gives a feeling of foreboding, a sense of a remote, alien, and nebulous force. 

In spite of its sense of remote mystery, evil has too often been personified.  There are the many tales of evil spirits taking unfavorable control of events or posing a frightening menace to people.  Those demons can have continuous involvement in the lives of some people, or they can simply be waiting in the wings to make only an occasional foray into events.  How frequently those demons intervene seems to depend on the person doing the reporting.  Some people pray frequently to beneficial spirits who are supposed to fend off the evil ones.  As in the case of gods, there can be one or many.  There can also be a chief demon among a group.  The Yahwehists have believed in varying degrees in a chief demon they call Satan.  The nature of these demons can be a deep mystery that is more evasive and unknowable than the nature of the gods.

Then there is the mystery of evil omens or signs that people need to watch out for to warn of hurtful events that lie ahead.  There is the evil eye that is a hard stare that can be thrust upon a person to cause them harm either immediately or in the future.  Thrust by a witch it can be especially deleterious.

The truth is that evil is not vague and mysterious.  It is actually very simple.  Philosophy and other intellectual endeavors have not been diligent in investigating the nature of evil.  Evil is the intentional causing of suffering.  It is harm caused by a person with sufficient understanding to comprehend what s/he is doing.  Lower animals and human babies are not considered to understand when they cause suffering.  Neither are inanimate objects no matter how great of an injury they may inflict.  Sensible people do not condemn a bear or a tiger who attacks and mauls someone.  Nor do they call a one-year-old child an evildoer for throwing a knife at someone.  An earthquake can kill thousands of people and other animals but it is not called evil.  If anyone does call it evil, it is in a metaphorical way out of a sense of rage.  It is certainly called that because it caused suffering, perhaps to loved ones.

We have seen that there was great violence on the earth before sentient beings appeared.  Yet no rational person would consider calling any of that turmoil evil.  No one was hurt.  There is the possibility that microbes were destroyed in those early years, but that is not clear.  At any rate, there is no evidence that anyone directed the violence and destruction, not even gods.  Instead, it seems to have been caused by natural sometimes random events.  Evil requires a perpetrator, someone aware that the consequences of what they are doing will hurt someone.  Evil can be involved even if the wrongdoer fails to harm anyone but only engages in an attempt.

Evil requires a victim or potential victim who can suffer harm.  Without any harm or clear potential harm, no act can be said to be evil.  This can be true even if the act was not destructive.  Go back to the time before 600 mya when there were no sentient beings of significant size or any nervous systems to experience pain.  If a boulder had been violently broken into small pieces, no one would consider that to be evil since no sentient being would be hurt by that.  (Assume that no microbes were living in the boulder at the time.)  This would be true even if the boulder were crushed by a conscious being.  The boulder would not experience any disappointment or pain.

The same observations about the boulder would apply if it were destroyed today.  It would not suffer any harm.  Now with sentient beings around, they could be negatively impacted.  Gophers could have a comfortable home underneath the boulder.  The boulder could have been polished by humans and had an inscription engraved on it honoring a person.  To see the boulder destroyed would cause sadness and aggravation to people.  If a person destroyed the boulder without needing to and knew that it would bring suffering, that person would be committing an evil act.

Here is another example.  One man is 25 years old, an another is 95.  The young one has children ages five and two and a wife who are fully dependent on him.  They have trouble making ends meet on his low wages.  Their families can't help them because they don't have money themselves.

The old man has no dependents and instead depends on his children and grandchildren for his personal well-being.  They have to travel far to check on him.  He suffers from many ailments--congestive heart failure, diabetes, diabetic neuropathy, very poor hearing, dementia.  He is demanding, gets angry at them easily, and is distrustful that they only care about their inheritance from him.  They would receive a substantial bequest and would welcome the money since they have financial needs.  He is in almost constant pain due to his neuropathy.  At times the pain becomes excruciating.

Both men commit suicide on the same day.  Have these men committed evil acts?  What harm has been caused?  In the case of the young man, it is not hard to judge that his act will have long-lasting harmful consequences.  His dependents will suffer financially and emotionally.

The old man will no longer suffer the pain that he had been suffering for a long time.  His children will be relieved from the burden of having to attend to his continuous demands.  Additionally, they will benefit financially from the death.  Society will not suffer from the death.  A number of institutions will be able to immediately benefit.  The health care system will have one less person to depend on it.  This will allow the helping of other sick people many of whom would be much younger with many years ahead of them.  Overall, it seems clear that his suicide provided more benefit than it did harm.

It is clear that evil is no more than the causing of suffering.  More examples could be examined but that should not be necessary.  Evil and suffering are closely related, sometimes even used synonymously.  Harm, pain, torture, travail, distress, agony, misery are some of the words that are similar.  Anyone causing these conditions is counted as doing an evil act.  Evil is not a mystery and should not be treated mystically.  Supernatural devils are not involved.

Because evil has been treated vaguely and mystically, it would be better to rename the argument from evil.  It would be more clear exactly what is meant if the word "evil" could be avoided.  It would also be more clear what is found to be so objectionable if one of the words just listed were to be used instead.  No one of these words captures what is involved in observing and feeling all of them, but "suffering" probably best catches the meaning and immediate feeling that includes all the words.  I will now call the argument the Argument from Suffering.  It is clear that there is a great amount of suffering in the world and that it would be desirable to reduce it.  People pray for the diminution of all forms of it all the time.

Two Counterarguments of Apologists

Even theologians have admitted that the argument from evil is a formidable obstacle to believing in God.  Still there are two major counterarguments that they have lodged.  They are (1) evil is the result of human free will and (2) evil is necessary to produce greater good.  Substitute the word "suffering" for "evil" in the statements.  We can then derive (1) suffering is the result of human free will and (2) suffering is necessary to produce a greater good.

The Suffering Before Free Will

Looking at (1), it is really talking about human sin.  According to this way of thinking, humans often commit sin.  They do so because they were blessed with free will.  The sin often makes others suffer.  In addition there is suffering because God has to punish people for their sin.  He punishes individuals but also punishes en masse by sending natural disasters such as diseases and floods.  Innocent ones have to suffer in the process but that is unfortunate "collateral damage."  In the end, humans are responsible for all the suffering.

The first problem with (1) is that there was ample suffering long before humans appeared on the scene.  Remember that the multicelled animals started to appear in bodies of water about 600 million years ago (mya).  There was ample predation not long after.  The nervous systems of these creatures may not have been highly developed but that does not mean they may not have been sufficient enough to produce pain.  A nervous system could be simple and still include ample pain receptors among its nerve cells.  The pain nerves could have comprised a large percentage of the total number of nerve cells, larger than the percentage seen today.  It seems that nature has used pain extensively for many years as a warning of danger to creatures.  The pain method may have been in place as far back as 550 million years ago.  If not, it surely came into being many million years when the more complex vertebrates came on the scene.

In discussing this, Richard Swinburne dismissed any concern about animal pain by assuming that it is less than that of humans as one descends on the evolutionary ladder.  He gave no evidence to support his claim.  It was just a plain supposition.  He also saw no reason for thinking that the smaller invertebrates suffer any pain at all.(Swinburne, 236)  Swinburne did not deny that there was animal pain.  He merely downplayed it and went on from there.

It is insensitive to so casually dismiss animal pain in discussing an argument as important as the one from suffering.  First it could well be that complexity in physiology does not correlate to sensitivity to pain.  Think of it this way.  Humans have more capable brains that give them a greater means for figuring out how to avoid danger.  Simpler animals need to rely more on their senses since they have smaller brains.  It stands to reason that at least for some animals tactile sensation including pain could be a very important element in their defensive arsenal.

Fear is an instrument for defense that is universal in animals.  Indeed it can be very useful.  It helps animals in the wild avoid danger all the time.  It is undeniable that fear is a form of pain.  It is myopic and arrogant to dismiss nonhuman pain as insignificant.  This is what happens when someone like Swinburne is intent on apologizing for God.

Then there is the observation of collective animal pain.  Assume for the moment that individual nonhuman pain is not as great as that of humans at least in the smaller animals that lived on the earth in the earlier eras.  Billions of creatures must have lived through those millions of years.  The sum total of pain when added up has to be enormous.  Then there is the suffering involved in just trying to stay alive.  These are not occurrences that simply took place in the past.  This wide suffering continues to this day.

Too much recent nonhuman pain has been brought, inadvertently or otherwise, by humans.  Too much is still brought by natural causes.  Humans to their credit have recently worked to prevent this suffering.  Too many times they are unable to prevent it or their efforts can fail.  It is obtuse to hold that human free will to sin is responsible for all nonhuman animal suffering--both before and after humans.  Surely no one will dare say that the suffering was the result of the free will of the lower animals!

To what purpose all this animal suffering?  There is none that can be gleaned.  There has been no teleological direction in the development of the universe.  All that suffering did not have the purpose to push events in any direction.  Arduous existence would not have had to take place if God had possessed the power to design the animal kingdom.  He could have created a painless world if he had wanted to.  Even if there has been a need for some suffering, it could have been much less.  God could have done much to ameliorate it.  It has been alleged that suffering in humans builds good character.  It is very doubtful that this is true with regard to other animals.

Human free will could have no effect before homo sapiens appeared, which is believed to have only been 300,000 ya.  Postulate that homo sapiens appeared as long ago as 500,000 ya to give the longest time for that event.  Even then animals--even large ones--had already been present for many millions of years with ongoing turmoil most of that time.  Then there is the question of how much free will the first humans had.  They were unreflective savages.

Nor can (2) the greater good counterargument hold up.  No greater good can be found to have come from all the nonhuman suffering.  Perhaps hardships made animals more capable of survival, but this would have been possible without the degree of suffering that occurred.  Besides much of the suffering was the result of the deadly predation system and the harsh climate conditions that brought regular suffering as well great disasters.  These were part of God's alleged design.  Of course a sympathetic God would not have tolerated these conditions.  At the very least predation and climate could have been designed to be just hard enough to toughen the creatures without being so lethal.  Besides God could have created tough enough creatures in the first place without any need to have harsh conditions to toughen them up.

At this point the argument from suffering against the existence of God is completely successful just on the basis of all the unnecessary nonhuman suffering.  It is incomprehensible for a benevolent God to allow it.  The theistic defenses of human free will and greater good fail.  We could stop here.  It should be clear at this juncture in view of so much animal suffering that God cannot exist--at least not one with any degree of caring.  The argument from suffering has been very much centered around humans so let us continue to examine the argument with them in the picture.

Problems with Free Will

The counterargument or defense of free will has been the main one employed against the argument.  People who are not philosophers quickly bring it up.  We just saw that free will cannot be involved with nonhuman animal life.  It can be different when humans are present on the earth.  There are ample examples of human actions that are done knowingly and cause suffering to others, either immediately or down the road.  There is no doubt that humans cause harm.

There are the cases of mass killing in which one man or a few men bring great harm to thousands or even millions of people and other animals.  This has usually happened in authoritarian dictatorships or oligarchies.  Often wars have been involved.  In the 20th century there were two World Wars.  There were the Communist governments under Josef Stalin and Mao Zedong in which millions of their own people died sometimes due to bad economic policies and sometimes through direct elimination.  In the 1980's there were widespread political murders committed by the governments in Chile and Argentina.  There has been much bloody genocide as the result of tribal conflict in Africa.  The administration running the government of the United States in 2003 invaded Iraq causing many unnecessary deaths.

There is another type of situation in which human free will is blamed.  This has occurred for thousands of years well before today's religions were organized.  This usually involves natural disasters.  A hurricane or earthquake kills or injures many and destroys property.  It is then claimed that the gods are angry over some human moral transgression or insult to them.  God (or the gods) decides to punish humans by bringing a storm.  It is often not clear what the transgression might have been.  This in spite of the fact that often the gods themselves do not behave morally.  Nonetheless many theists believe that humans are responsible for natural disasters because they have done something from their own free will that displeases the gods.

In mass punishment, besides the problem of not knowing what sins are being punished, there is the problem of not knowing who committed the sin.  Say it involves a disaster that affects one million.  Is the punishment for the immorality of all the members of the group?  Should young children who can hardly be said to have a free will or to commit serious sins be punished?  What about those who have led a very morally correct life or those who additionally often engage in virtuous acts?  In any society there are those who lead an immoral life and those who for the most part are righteous with occasional minor lapses.  Thankfully most people fall in the latter group.

When there is a disaster, the suffering does not fall in proportion to the evil committed by each individual.  Too often moral people suffer as much or even more than the bad ones.  There is no justice in how people bear the punishment of the community or nation.  In a severe catastrophe, there is even the question of whether the bad ones should receive the degree of punishment they do.  Say one of them had done nothing more than shoplift a $20 wrench from a store.  As punishment he was then severely maimed for the rest of his life in an earthquake.

Two examples of suffering of a large number of people because of the sins of a few come from the Hebrew Bible.  According to the book of Numbers 25:1-9, 16-18, some of the Israelite men were supposedly enticed by the women of the town of Peor to worship their god Baal.  This idolatrous behavior by the errant men angered the Lord God so he sent a plague on the whole Israelite tribe.  Furthermore he ordered his representative Moses to have all the errant straying men killed.  Once the Lord was satisfied with all the punishment, he halted the epidemic.  By then 24,000 Israelites had been killed by the plague.

Even further, the Lord could not forget the sin the Israelite men had committed against him near Peor.  So he later ordered punishment against all the people of the area of Midian because Peor was situated in it.(Numbers 31)  He ordered the Israelites to attack Midian and destroy it.  They prevailed and plundered all the wealth and burned the cities and camps.  They killed all the men including all five Midianite kings, all the boys, and all the women who were not virgins.  The soldiers were allowed to keep the virgin women.

The other example involves a single transgression of only one man, King David.  David ordered a census of the tribes of Israel.  After it was completed, David considered he had been wrong to conduct it and asked God to punish him for doing it.  Why it was wrong to conduct a census was not at all clear.  The Bible mentioned other censuses being taken without any controversy.  God decided to punish David by sending a plague on the entire nation.  David built an altar on which he made offerings to the Lord, which convinced the Lord to stop the plague.  By then 70,000 Israelites had been killed by it.(2 Samuel 24; 1 Chronicles 21:1-27)

Traditionally everyone is supposed to have free will and in equal amounts.  We humans still like to think that this is true for at least two reasons.  It is egalitarian.  Everyone is on the same level of responsibility.  There can be no excuses for doing wrong.  Each person is supposed to have full and equal control of her/is actions.  Whenever anyone breaks a moral rule, s/he is fully at fault.

Secondly it is a natural tendency to want to blame someone for harm done.  Without the existence of free will, it is not logical to hold anyone responsible.  Besides it does appear that people act with moral freedom of choice.  As an example, the same person will steal an item on one occasion and then refrain from doing it in a very similar situation.  Wrongdoers will often say that they know what they were doing was wrong.  Even criminals in prison will resent a suggestion that they might have acted because of a mental shortcoming and instead insist that they are fully capable of exercising their own will.

Today it has become clear that the idea of free will is far from simple.  In the second book in this series, the subject was examined.  It offered a sound answer, but there are still small questions that need to be studied.  The conclusion was that there is free choice but it is seriously limited.  Furthermore, individuals are not equal in this regard.  Much depends on particular circumstances including heredity, health, upbringing, and environment.  Even from one period of a person's life to another, the same person can show greater self-control and strength of will than at others.  The older the person, the more control is usually shown over actions.

For a long time it has been recognized that some persons show little control over their actions and can make bizarre choices.  These people are considered to be mentally ill.  (Some pets have been observed showing severely erratic behavior.)  The ones who are severely ill like the psychotic and the schizophrenic without a doubt have trouble controlling their desire and decisions.

More recently it has been observed that people with less serious mental illness can at least sometimes have problems with their willful actions.  Examples of these maladies are the bipolar, obsessive-compulsive, and narcissistic personality disorders.  It It is well known that persons in the throes of their manic phase in bipolar disorder do not have normal control over their decisions.  Paranoia makes its victims make irrational decisions.  Even people with a mild level of a mental illness can mistakenly take unthinking actions that they later regret.  For instance a person suffering from a depressive episode who is made irritable by it can hurt or insult.

Then there are some cases in which people are normally kind and peaceful, but in an isolated incident, perhaps the only time in their life, they "lose" it.  They do something that is totally out of character and unexpectedly different from what they have ever done.  Their family and close friends would have never imagined that they would do a thing like that.  Every so often we learn of unfortunate incidents like these in the news.

It can be an apparently caring husband and father who is laboring under tremendous debt or can't control his substance abuse as much as he has tried or was gravely shocked when his wife announced she was divorcing him and taking the children.  He then kills himself or even worse kills the entire young family at the same time.  This can happen in a moment of blind rage and despair.  Unfortunately the innocent young children have to suffer an undeserved early death.

Then there are the normal people that comprise most of the population.  They will never go through an episode in which they lose so much of their self-control, i.e. free will, that they do any great harm to anyone.  Yet they may have a weakness or a habit that they cannot control.

Fear of public speaking is an affliction that is widespread.  Some people can overcome it but others can't no matter how hard they try.  Yet public speaking can be important in their job.  There are other conditions that, no matter how much free will their bearer may try to employ to combat them, simply do not go away.  Some of these are fear of flying, making thoughtless comments that can be hurtful to others, petty theft like shoplifting, and petty embezzling.

Then there is another well-known affliction that can affect any number of moral, upstanding members of the community who lead commendable lives.  They suffer from an addiction.  It could be alcohol, prescription pain medication, illegal drugs, smoking, overeating, sex, gambling.  There are other less common bad habits that can still be a serious burden.  Even worse some people can suffer from more than one addiction at the same time.  The victims do not enjoy their addiction and would be happy to be rid of it.  Some can overcome their addiction but others are not so lucky and cannot summon enough will power to quit.  Some people manage to overcome an addiction but then fall into another one.

All in all it is far from a simple picture for free will.  It falls in a very wide range.  No one has perfectly free will.  Even those with the strongest willpower sometimes falter.  Most of us like to think we are in control but that is too often not the case.  Yet religions, the criminal law, and the public operate under the assumption that each person possesses the same amount of fully free will.  Convicted criminals are sent to long prison terms.  The religious contend that God punishes everyone because they act with free will.

The Victims of Free Will

Consider again the statement that suffering has to occur because humans possess free will.  One may think that it rightfully means that those who hurt themselves are responsible for it because they employed their free will wrongfully.  They could have employed it correctly.  One can think of a young man who repeatedly indulges in cocaine with full knowledge that he could become addicted.  He eventually does and acquaintances point out that  he did out of his own free will.

However, there is the consequence that is not discussed much by religious apologists.  This is the suffering of the victims of the free will of those who harm them.  Take the case of a young ruffian passing by a college campus.  He spots a shy-looking male student.   The passerby is a high-school dropout and has always resented the studious types.  There is no one around to witness.  The thug surprises the student, slugs him three times in the face, and leaves quickly.  One of the blows injures the student's eye badly.  The pain is intense and takes several months to heal.

The assault was the consequence of the free will of the assailant.  However, there is the question of why the student had to suffer because the attacker was free to exercise his free will.  He hardly had the chance to see who hit him.  He was a completely innocent victim who never had a chance to employ his own free will.  There are any number of depraved ones who attack completely innocent victims. 

Helen is a young woman who works hard all week and so reserves Saturday morning for shopping for groceries.  On this Saturday she decides to go in the afternoon.  It so happens that a crazed shooter goes there at the same time with an assault rifle.  He manages to randomly kill five shoppers before being killed by a security guard.  Helen is one of the five.

On a Friday night at 9 o'clock, Sam is driving home from a basketball game at the high school he attends.  He went to cheer on some friends who play on the team.  He is waiting at a stoplight when a drunk driver plows into the back of his car at 50 miles per hour.  Sam comes close to dying.  He has to spend five painful weeks in the hospital and go through four surgeries.

So what does it mean to claim that suffering is a rightful consequence of free will?  We have been told that these awful tragedies are necessary for our enjoying our free will.  Must we accept this?  Animals have no free will but suffer because of the free will of humans.  Must all sentient beings live at risk of experiencing this free-will-caused suffering?  With some humans, it is questionable whether they possess much free will.  Those who believe in free will also think that humanity suffers overall to an equal extent.  However, on closer look the suffering is very unevenly distributed.  The failure of free choice or misuse of it in a few situations causes disproportionately drastic consequences for innocent victims.

Supposedly countless, continuing incidents of unfortunate suffering are necessary so that humans can enjoy having free will.  Allegedly God had to give us free will so wide-ranging that it is necessary to allow us to misuse it horribly.  How far does the scope of that free will have to reach?  Might not God have wanted to place limitations on it?

The Mass Victims

As if the violations involving individual victims were not enough, there have been mass atrocities throughout history.  There have been wars, genocide, slavery, mass murders, and harassment of populations.  Slavery was common in a variety of places for millennia.  There has been genocide in many countries.

We saw earlier that the Jews conducted a large massacre against the Midianites.  It was one of the first in history.  They followed them with others, which they recorded in their Bible.  There were repeated mass murders of Jews by Christians and Muslims for almost two thousand years culminating in the greatest massacre against them by the Nazi party in Europe in the 1940's.

Perhaps the greatest mass killing occurred during World War II.  It is estimated that about 60 million people died including military and civilian.  Deaths from war-related famine and disease were included.  Then there were the millions who suffered wounds including psychological ones.  Too many times the effects continued for a lifetime.  Then there were the many whose homes and other property were destroyed.

Whose free will was involved in starting that war?  Surely it wasn't all the millions who suffered from it.  It has been widely agreed that the instigators of the war were relatively few including the Nazi party in Germany, the belligerent generals in Japan, and the Italian dictator Mussolini.

You can bet that there were many in those three countries who were not enthusiastic about a war but were dragged along.  There was fear of the governments that could employ very forceful means to coerce their citizens.  Certainly there was not any allowance for dissent.  Many parents of the young men who were forced to go fight must have felt reluctance.  There were many citizens who did not favor their countries' invasions but felt helpless to resist.

In any case those in these countries who favored starting a war paled by comparison with the many millions in the victimized countries who were adversely affected in major or minor ways.  Supposedly Russia and China each suffered more deaths than other countries.  It could have been 100 million in nonaggressor countries who suffered in some way.  You can imagine the emotional impact on the families of the soldiers and other victims who were killed or permanently maimed.  In human history there have been many more victims than perpetrators.

We are told that all this is necessary if we are to enjoy having free will.  The apologists for God tell us he could either give us free will or if not, we would never have the opportunity to choose on our own, even in minor matters.  We would be simple-minded automatons, robots.  He could program us to never cause harm but we would not be happy because we would not have freedom of choice.  Tragically this freedom to will has to include the freedom to plan and commit cruel and hideous atrocities.  Another group that has caused great suffering for masses of people has been the greedy.

Humans do not need so much freedom that they commit hideous atrocities, as they have for millennia.  Intertribal battles go back to the time of the early hunter-gatherers, perhaps 100,000 y.a.  Luckily the only weapons they had at the time were stones and spears.  Some anthropologists suspect that homo sapiens may have been involved in the extinction of the Neanderthals.

Modern technology and weapons have made it possible to meticulously plan and execute previously unimaginable destruction both in individual attacks and on the wide scale of war.  In 2017 a long gunman planned a mass shooting from a window of a Las Vegas motel.  He looked over a crowd of spectators at an outdoor concert and was able to kill 57 with his assault rifle.

Upon reflection it should become clear that these are not the only choices that God has in forming human character.  God could have put limits on human free will so that humans would not will to go to extremes in their damage against others.  He could have allowed us to lie, cheat, steal, and even murder, especially if the killing was well justified, but not to the extent some have gone.  This would occur because the impulse to hurt would not be nearly as strong.  Anger and emotional reactions would not be nearly as sharp.  Emotional traits would be such that the use of free will would not allow for the committing of extensive harm.

Humans could have been more rational.  They would not have the tendency to act so quickly on their emotions.  They could proceed more calmly and take the time to think things through.  This would avoid unnecessary disputes.  Reason could moderate many of the extremely detrimental actions of humans and still leave plenty of room for free will.  Using reason does not mean that mistakes in its application will not be made.  There will always be the possibility of mistake.  Furthermore the ability to choose to employ reason does not preclude taking emotions into account.

You can think of the possible versions of free will as varying on a scale.  On one end is total freedom.  Here people would commit the most heinous offenses whenever they desired with many in fact having heinous desires and acting on them.  Fortunately, only a limited number of residents of this world stand at this end.

On the other end is the robotic state that the apologists consider as deplorable.  In that condition people never harm anyone and always do the right thing.  There is no strife, only perpetual calm.  You can say it is boring but residents are very contented with their situation.  The thought of hurting others doesn't even cross their minds.  The setting is something like the garden of Eden in which Adam and Eve did not even know the nature of good and evil.  They apparently never bore any malice toward anyone.

Humans could be more toward the middle of the scale of free will.  They would not have to be perfect.  They would never commit major crimes.  There would only be occasional moral lapses and those would only involve minor harm.  People could occasionally lie, cheat, and steal only insignificant items.  Humans would be able to imagine doing horrible acts and would be capable of carrying them out but would simply not have the desire to do them.  They would have freedom of the will but would not use it for bad ends.  Freedom of the will does not have to entail the many despicable actions that humans have taken and continue to commit to this day.

The Intervention of God

To continue with this free will line of counterargument, assume that God insisted on giving humans the far-ranging free will that they have had.  Why could he not intervene at least in the monstrous cases?  At the very least he could stop the damage done by those who act with erratic free will, e.g. the mentally ill and partially mentally ill.  He may not want to get involved in the minor tragedies involving only a few persons.  It could be different in the great catastrophes like cruel dictatorships, mass shootings, and wars.

World War II Nazi Germany, it is a question whether the effort would have gone so far without the charismatic, fiery public speaker Adolf Hitler.  Without him the conquest may not have gone so far.  His Italian ally did not do that much.  In Europe at least, it could well be that the war was carried on for the the sake of the free will of one man, Adolf HItler.

God could have gone so far as to allow Hitler to run roughshod in Germany and Austria in the 1930's killing Jews and opponents of his government.  He could have allowed the invasions of countries like Poland and France.  He could have even allowed the killing of say a million people including some in the gas chambers that the Nazis constructed.  God could have allowed the Japanese army to invade the Philippines and China, killing thousands.  Indeed he could have allowed the free will of these oppressors to go far.  However at about that point, he could have put a stop to it.  This could have been done in various ways.

God could have killed or physically incapacitated Hitler, the Japan generals, and any others who were capable of conducting the war.  He could have scrambled their brains so that they could not issue any coherent commands.  They could have sent orders to dismantle their war machine and withdraw.  God could have surreptitiously--without giving them any hint that he was doing it--taken over their individual wills and had them cease their monstrous enterprise.  Of course, it would have been better if he had stopped them in the 1930's from ever starting any problems.

God may have been loathe to interfere with anyone's free will but the horrendous circumstances called for it.  If he had qualms about taking instigators' lives (they had not hesitated to take lives), he could have been compassionate about it and quietly ended their lives in their sleep.  Saying that God could at least intervene in the cataclysmic cases should not imply that he should not be expected to prevent harm in individual cases.

American football and boxing are sports that are violent, at times even brutal.  Football players can suffer broken limbs and serious concussions.  Appropriately, the administrators of organized sports have fashioned rules that try to prevent injuries.  Unnecessary roughness has been a penalty in football for decades that referees can assess.  More recently a new penalty has been added with the purpose of trying to prevent dangerous head contact.

In boxing pugilists can get bloody, usually around the eyes.  At times there is no bleeding but the weaker boxer is getting severely pummeled, is weak, wobbly, and clearly does not have a chance to continue and mount a sound contest.  If the boxing match becomes a rout, the referee is authorized to stop the fight and declare the dominating boxer the winner.  This in spite of the fact that the losing fighters often disagree with the referee, feel they can endure the beating, and come back to win.  The fans are also disappointed because they paid good money to see a complete fight in which pain and injury are expected.  They did not come out of a desire to witness a polite and gentlemanly contest.  If the subjugated boxer is willing to persist to the end, why not let him?

Boxing organizations and their referees have seen fit to set limits on what boxers should suffer even if both fighters are willing participants who want to persist to the bitter end.  Why then can't God intervene when things get out of hand in the world?  Why doesn't he step in and stop it like a boxing referee?  It could just involve oppression caused by human free will getting out of hand.  God could continue to allow natural events such as hurricanes and volcanoes to wreak havoc unabated!

The Greater Good Defense

The second major apologetic explanation for God's tolerance of suffering in the world is that it is necessary for the development of commendable traits in humans.  It is usually called the "greater good" defense.  The apologist Swinburne called it the "higher-order defense."(Swinburne, 240)  It claims that without all the suffering in the world humans could not learn and effectuate positive practices like compassion, kindness, graciousness, hospitality.  Also if we do not observe people and animals in situations of pain including intense pain, we will have no opportunity to be good to others.  You need to see actual anguish in order to feel anything positive toward anyone else.

Not much thought is given to the many animals in the world that cannot be helped because they are outside the reach of humans.  Sick human babies apparently have to suffer so that their parents, pediatricians, and others can exhibit compassion.  If they are born to parents and other family members who are incapable of showing kindness for whatever reason, then they will just have to suffer.  Then there are those who are born in deprived societies suffering from severe disease or famine.  Those around them may feel tremendous compassion but be unable to provide any aid.  Swinburne classified this suffering of innocents as natural evil as opposed to human-caused evil.  He defended its existence because it affords humans the opportunity to practice kindness.  The answer to Swinburne is that if there were no suffering there would be no need for compassion and kindness.

Swinburne employed a third defense which he called the "argument from the need for knowledge."  It is almost indistinguishable from his compassion-building defense in that it also points to obtaining a higher order benefit at the expense of suffering beings.(Id. 245)  Swinburne pointed out that knowledge is necessary in order to try to alleviate natural suffering such as disease and accident.  He then made the claim that natural suffering is essential so that scientists and doctors can discover and accumulate knowledge on how to alleviate the diseases and injuries of sentient creatures   Note there is some selfishness in this line of thinking.  Those of us living today and in the future can take selfish advantage of those in the past who had to suffer so that we could benefit from the knowledge derived at their expense.

The need for knowledge is an obvious observation given that we humans have had to grapple for it through our entire existence.  However, the counterargument falls on its face from its inception.  The need for knowledge would not be at all necessary if God had made a world in which there is no suffering to begin with.  To say it is necessary is getting it backwards--putting the cart before the horse.

Stop the suffering and you can forget about building either knowledge or compassion.  There could still be a desire for knowledge but that would come from the standpoint of intellectual curiosity or pastime.  There would not be the crying need to gain it for survival, the alleviation of suffering, the national defense, and other serious needs.  We could stop considering the ludicrous greater good (compassion and knowledge) counterarguments now but will go on to consider other points against them.

Actual Agonizing Experiences

The idea is that actual agonizing experiences are needed to teach benevolence and find the knowledge to advance.   There was the title of a successful song:  "What Doesn't Kill Me, Makes Me Stronger."  This has been a soothing myth for a long time but is simply not true in many cases.  It came out of more puritanical times in which many considered suffering through adversity as a badge of honor.

Today we find it to be different.  First the ill effects of trauma can last for the rest of a victim's life without having any positive influence.  It is important how children are treated by both their peers and by adults after their unpleasant experience.  We know the children who have been physically or sexually abused often carry the pain for the rest of their lives.  Children who are beaten can become violent.  Depression in adulthood can be the result of a bad childhood.

Adulthood trauma can also cause long-term negative effects.  This happens to some people who are involved in traffic accidents.  They do not want to drive a motor vehicle for years and are afraid to even ride in one.  Counseling may help but is not guaranteed.  I knew a woman aged 68 who was driving her car in her 20's and had only a minor traffic accident.  She has never driven again.  Fires, assaults, rapes, and other violent experiences can have these effects on people without making them more benevolent.

Then there is post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), a more extensive reaction to violence.  There can be recurring frightful memories and nightmares.  The victim can act out violently, withdraw, and feel depression.  Military combat causes PTSD with surprising frequency.  Police officers can suffer PTSD.

As if the effect on the victim were not enough, there is the impact on others.  Depression and withdrawal can affect a person's sociability to a drastic extent.  It can make them poor spouses, neglectful parents, and difficult coworkers.  Those with PTSD have been known to engage in random public shootings as well as in domestic violence.  Unfortunately there are times when wives have to obtain a divorce to avoid violence against themselves and their children. 

Suffering brings no benefit to the victims of sexual or physical abuse.  They can go on to abuse children.  This is bewildering.  They know it is wrong and do not wish to abuse others but cannot help but to act compulsively.  One would surmise that those who had been sexually molested would abhor the thought of molesting others.  Unfortunately this is not always the case.

People who grow up poor and become rich in adulthood can provide another example of the failure of suffering to improve benevolent traits.  You would expect that a person who had been deprived in childhood would invariably grow up to be kind, compassionate, and generous toward others especially toward poor people.  Too many times that is not the case.  Rich people who were previously deprived wind up being overly judgmental of the poor for being lazy.  In addition they can be greedy, stingy, and distrusting.  This can be because they still remember clearly being poor and are terrified of falling into financial misfortune and being poor again.

Surely at the creation God would have foreseen that suffering, especially to the degree that it has occurred, would not be effective in fostering benevolence and too often would sow just the opposite.  If God did not foresee this at creation, he has certainly had ample opportunity to realize it by now.

Theoretical Teaching

The apologists for God are simply wrong to insist that real-time suffering in the amount that it occurs is necessary for learning to foster feelings of compassion.  The majority of people learn compassion and kindness by being taught it.  Children are told of situations in which people are in distress and in need of help and are encouraged to extend them a helping hand.  This can additionally be learned through reading books, plays, and movies.  It is certainly a good thing that not everyone has to learn compassion through direct experience.  There would have to be much more intense and widespread suffering in order for every person to observe it first hand.

Another way to look at this is to notice that many people who take great risks to help others in deep distress have not themselves been the victims of much misfortune.  Examples are missionaries, medical personnel, social workers, and soldiers who travel to help in areas where people are afflicted by natural disaster, war, or disease.  Often those who take risks to help have up to then led peaceful, uneventful lives except for the problems everyone goes through--a broken arm, severe flu, chicken pox, insult, romantic heartbreak.  Yet they harbored enough feelings of concern to be willing to go to a disaster area even at the risk of death.  That is because benevolent traits are often encouraged in families and communities.  Most religions have a tradition of teaching benevolence without actual experience.

According to Swinburne the gaining of knowledge could not be done merely in a theoretical fashion, for instance through the use of computer modeling.  He believes there have to be living creatures in actual agony in order to have the best means for research to gain adequate knowledge.  The pain involved in cures such as cancer chemotherapy is supposedly also necessary.

The truth is that only a few experimental creatures could become ill in order to be used by the researchers.  Swinburne made no mention of this so it has to be understood that he believed that all the suffering that has taken place in its totality has been necessary.  Again this has to include all the sentient beings that were here before humans.  Even in the case of humans, it has to be realized that sound medical knowledge proceeded at a snail's pace before 1800.  Virtually all the suffering that occurred around the world before then was in vain for the purpose of gaining knowledge.  This knowledge counterargument is really part of a general counterargument pointing to the benefit of higher orders like compassion and kindness.  Accordingly it contains all the fatal defects of that counterargument.

In addition to the foregoing weaknesses of the greater good counterargument, there are at least two additional serious defects.  Those defects are also present in the free will counterargument.  The first defect is that these defenses rest on the claim that humans could not be happy without struggling hard to achieve benevolent traits like compassion.  This is an assumption that is accepted at face value and not given much further thought.  The second defect is that it fails to realize that God could have just created fully benevolent humans.

A Better Design

It would be expected that since God is supposed to be benevolent, that he would design his creatures as benevolent beings.  He would build them to always show ample kindness, compassion, and other benevolent attributes.  They would not choose to engage in any malfeasance.  This would not necessarily mean that they would not be aware of what is harmful nor that they would not be capable of carrying it out.  They simply would not want to commit mayhem of any kind.

God's apologists insist this would be a very sad and tragic state of affairs.  People would be docile and placid, would always be polite and considerate.  They would readily open doors and give up their seats for others when necessary.  This would be a very dull existence because humans would not have free choice, even if that meant undertaking the most hideous and destructive actions.

God could have implanted all those positive traits in everyone and prevented so much anguish.  Kind feelings may already be present at birth to some degree without having to personally experience suffering in order to gain the feelings.  Animals can sometimes be observed exhibiting kindness and compassion.  Female dogs have been known to suckle the offspring of another female.  Dogs and cats have aided humans they know in emergencies.  It is not clear that they had to suffer through prior experiences themselves in order to engage in beneficial acts.  Theists ignore the simple possibility of implantation of benevolence but instead continue to insist that all the suffering has been worth it.  This is hard to accept.

There is this question of why God had to install suffering in the first place.  It seems unbelievably upside down to claim that he had to do it so that humans could gain the qualities needed to deal with suffering.  Allegedly attaining those qualities made all the suffering worth it.  However, the qualities arose because of the need to alleviate suffering.  Leave out all the suffering at the creation, and the qualities would have been superfluous, unnecessary.  The price that has been paid to allegedly have them is way too high.  Better to have never heard of them but simply have a beneficial world from the beginning.

At any rate benevolent qualities can exist but do not have to accompany suffering in the first place.  Take kindness, charity, generosity, empathy, tolerance.  The other person does not have to be suffering for us to choose to show these qualities to them.  You can be charitable toward people who have no need for your gifts.  We often give things to show appreciation and affection.  Empathy can simply be shown to someone in a different situation from us, while tolerance is used toward those who think or look different from us.  Helpfulness can be used toward even those who are in just as fortunate a position as us but need support at the moment.  You can show generosity toward someone who is not poor but simply cannot afford what you can, like a cellphone or a television.

Charity can be seen in different situations.  Your neighbors do not have need for anything, yet you bake some lasagna and take it to them.  Kindness can be shown in many minor ways such as opening a door for a complete stranger.  Giving sincere compliments to make the recipient feel good are another example.

Even if there were no pain, children could be taught about pain and compassion hypothetically, in case it ever appeared in the future.  They could be told that different types of pain are very uncomfortable, are something that can greatly diminish the quality of life, and much to be avoided.  They could also be taught sympathy for others who might ever feel pain or have a handicap and that they should do whatever they can to help them.  Teachers could simulate pain in the children so they could sample what it was like.  If our world were ever able to eliminate pain, there would be an abundant number of examples from the past for teaching about it, including written history and since 1900 plenty of video.

There is a large group of people who show benevolence but are not in the caring professions.  They are what are sometimes called model citizens or upstanding members of the community or just simply kind people.  They have never committed a crime, are careful to treat others kindly and respectfully, are wonderful spouses and parents, donate to beneficial causes, and so on.  All who know them have great respect and admiration for them.

Place these near-perfect ones in the first of three categories of humans.  They are the ones that children are taught to admire and emulate.  The clergy preaches to everyone that they should be righteous and strive to conduct themselves to fit in this elite group.  The Catholic church makes saints of some of them.  It is praiseworthy for humans to qualify for this category even if it means being robotic and dull.  It is all for the better.

It is safe to say that the great majority of people fall in the second category.  Their weaknesses do not prevent them from being moral, socially benevolent adults.  They are not perfect.  They have the freedom of the will to live a life of criminality or to be marriage cheaters or child abusers or tax cheats or the like but choose to be good.

The hard-core miscreants can be said to form a third category.  It is only a small percentage who are selfish enough to seriously hurt others.  They can repeatedly engage in family violence, criminality, or even be serial murderers including those national dictators who kill many people. 

Surely God could have created humans to all fall in the first group.  That way everyone could have been at saint level.  What is wrong with that?  Everyone would be near-perfect.  If God did not wish to go that far, he could have placed everyone in the first two groups.  Everyone would have ample free will.  They would be free to commit the horrible deeds that humans have been known to commit.  Thus they would not be robots.  They would be prone to making mistakes just as has always been the case.  Yet they would choose good conduct.

The ones in the second group, which could be larger than the first, would show some misbehavior but it would be minor.  It could include occasional intentional acts such as harmful lying or bad driving.  There would be no great harm.  None of it would ever involve actions such as grand theft, assault, exploitation, rape, murder, especially harm on a mass scale.  Even though these first two groups would be able to imagine doing terrible acts against others and would have the power to carry them out, they would not do it.  The world would be a peaceful place with no third group.  That would mean there would be no one with a violent or asocial mental illness.

The Quantity of Suffering

Apologists including Swinburne admit that the quantity of suffering may be the most pressing question relating to whether God exists.  Anyone with enough sensitivity and reflection has to notice that there is a tremendous quantity of evil in the world.  Swinburne came up with a strange justification for that.  Here is the beginning of it.  See if you can understand it.  He first admitted the quantity of evil might count against the existence of God and then continued

But then I reflect that each bad state eliminated eliminates one [his emphasis] actual good.  Each small addition to the number of actual or possible bad states makes a small addition to the number of actual or possible good states.  Suppose that one less person had been burnt by the Hiroshima bomb.  Then there would have been even less opportunity for courage and sympathy; one less piece of information about the effects of atomic radiation, less people (relatives of the person burnt) who would have had a strong desire to campaign for nuclear disarmament and against imperialist expansion.  And so on.(Id. 264)

Why did Swinburne not go on to point out that the atomic bombing of Nagasaki a few days later was also good because it produced many more opportunities for good?  Where does it end?  Where does this reasoning come from?

Where did he get the idea that there has to be a one-to-one relationship between bad acts and good acts?  One bad act that becomes widely publicized can move one million people to have sympathy and to take wide action to prevent it from happening again.  At least 100,000 people died from the Hiroshima bomb.  They did not all need to die.  A small fraction of that number would have sufficed to obtain solid confirmation that an atomic bomb would produce massive death and radiation.

In fact the death of only ten persons would have been enough to inform the world of the dangers of atomic bombs.  Actually no deaths were necessary.  The ferocity of the first explosion in New Mexico was testimony enough to show it could kill thousands of people.  The lethal effect of radiation was already known although the extent of it was not clear.  Experiments could have been conducted to get a better grip on the full effect without having to kill anyone.  Later experimental atomic explosions caused a measurable incidence of cancer to  bystanders.  Medical scientists were able to learn from these and similar nuclear incidents.

Suppose that in the 1940's scientists had taken ten humans and subjected them to a small atomic explosion for the purpose of studying the effect and say five of them died.  There would have been a great public outcry.  There is no doubt that the scientists would have been prosecuted for murder.  No one would have disagreed with that.  Why then do theists believe that it was all right for God to allow the Hiroshima bombing for the purpose of promoting human knowledge and sympathy when there were so many other avenues open for doing that?  Closer examination of Swinburne's weak argument only reinforces the observation that the quantity of evil in the world surpasses even what is allegedly necessary.

Incidentally Swinburne in his discussion of evil included a section entitled God's Right to Inflict Harm.(Id. 257)  He pointed out that parents are in a position in which they are allowed to inflict some [his emphasis] harm on their children because they are their means of support.  Likewise God who created humans has the right to inflict suffering on us.

Since around 1950 parents have been greatly restricted in what pain they can bring to their children.  This change began to take place about 1900.  Governments passed laws allowing them to take away children from parents who used excessive force against them.  Criminal laws were passed against child abuse.  Today it has reached the point that a parent can face consequences for even minor spanking.

The pain that God has supposedly inflicted has been much more than some harm and for a much longer time.  Then there is the problem of communication.  It is expected that a parent clearly provide a reason for the pain inflicted on the child.  God does not explain the pain.  Humans are left to guess why disasters happen.

Compensation in an Afterlife

Ultimately Swinburne justified all the harm declaring that it will all be compensated in the end by God's provision of life after death.  Swinburne was a professor of the Christian religion at Oxford.  Christians believe widely that you can go to heaven if you obey certain Christian teachings.  This understandably can be a hard thing to believe for followers of other religions.  It looks then as if those who suffered unjustly on this earth and did not accept Christian doctrine will miss out on any later compensation.  Instead they may have to continue to suffer to a much greater extent since they may have to suffer more torment in hell for not following Christian beliefs.  Swinburne did not mention any of this.

The idea of justifying earthly human suffering on Christian ideas about the afterlife is extremely weak.  It only makes matters worse for those who wind up in hell.  Their suffering continues into eternity.  Here is an additional point.  There would not be any building of compassion in hell because the sinners there would purportedly not deserve compassion.

The only purpose for hell is punishment but why should that go on eternally.  Then the question has to be asked:  how can a loving and merciful God inflict severe punishment that never ends?  Even the most destructive of wrongdoers may not deserve an eternal sentence of agony.  Then there are those who have not done much wrong besides not being Christians.  There is simply no justification for all the suffering, now or in the hereafter.

A Wonderful Life

After all the discussion of free will and benevolence, the simple question has to be asked:  what is wrong with creating a world in which all sentient beings live a wonderful life all the time?  Here are some examples of what it would be like.  There would never be the bloody killing of other animals for food.  Food would never spoil so there would be no fear of food poisoning.  There would be no disease and bodies would be impervious to injury.  Violent weather events like earthquakes and hurricanes would be unheard of.

The climate would always be idyllic.  There would never be any "nature's fury."  There would only be light breezes and gentle rain.  The earth would not operate with the processes known today such as the roiling inner convection currents of magma that produce volcanoes.

There would be almost limitless abundance of everything so there would be no need to fight over resources and territory.  You can continue on your own to imagine what other wonderful conditions there could be.  All animals would become more gentle.  We already observe the sociable behavior of cats and dogs as well as other species like parrots, monkeys, and even wild cats.  Other wild animals could become just as peaceful.

The apologizing theists would not be satisfied with these wonderful conditions because in their way of thinking there would not be sufficient human free will and adequate opportunity for the development of benevolence.  First it is hard to understand how anyone could have any reservations about a perfect (or at least near perfect) existence for all in which there would always be joy.  How can that be wrong?  If the price to pay for that would be a loss of both free will and the need to feel pity, then it would be well worth it.  There could still be all the emotions left that would be necessary to enjoy all the surrounding conditions as well as the camaraderie with others.  That would surely suffice for enjoying a wonderful life.

It would seem that those who would object to everyone having such an enjoyable existence would be influenced by a puritanical attitude.  That is, they have an idea that life is meant to be difficult, full of adversity and suffering.  They look with suspicion at having too much pleasure.  They can't imagine a life of continuous joy, at least not in this world, so they are comfortable with fashioning excuses for God in creating the objectionable conditions he did.  Ultimately, they are rigidly attached to their belief that there has to be a God and so have to come up with bad excuses for the world he supposedly created.

An earthly paradise is fully compatible with both free will and positive feelings of compassion.  We have discussed the model persons who never commit any offenses.  Religious people expect their clerical leaders to be that way.  Yet their followers do not in any way picture them as being robotic.  Instead they consider their religious leaders to be as fully in command of their choices as anyone else.  Why then could not everyone in a wonderful earth be like that?  It would not have to mean that they were not aware of evil and their power for destructive acts.  They just would have the kind of character that would never falter.

Wait!  The apologists insist that God created a world with ample suffering so that humans could learn benevolence.  Yet the Yahwehists believe that the God of the book of Genesis situated everything in a paradise--the garden of Eden.  They were going to live a carefree life with everything they needed.  God did not then seem concerned with instituting suffering in order to cultivate free will or compassion until the humans got the yearning to acquire knowledge of good and bad.

Then there is the Yahwehist belief in a paradise to come after this world provided for the righteous believers.  Everything there presumably will be much like the garden of Eden.  Without exception everyone will behave perfectly.  In heaven everyone will act robotically, which is what the theists condemn.  Empathetic feelings like compassion will not be necessary because there will be no suffering, only joy.  Why will suffering not be necessary in heaven?  Why shut down the garden of Eden in the first place?  Why couldn't it have been our abode all along?

Someone could object that it is too much to expect that God have the super attributes that he is supposed to have, such as omnipotence and infinite love.  Reformulate the argument from suffering giving him only modest characteristics, as was done in the teleological argument.  Say he only has power over our solar system and the love of an average human father.  Even then, it would not be too much to expect that he should have provided a far better world than we have gotten.  If a God with infinite attributes could not provide a better world, a lesser God would be much less capable.

The argument from suffering (evil) against the existence of God is the strongest of all arguments directly invaliding his existence.  It has the advantage of not having to depend on scientific findings as do some of the other proofs.  It should be easy for almost anyone who is aware of history and current events in the world to recognize widespread suffering.  They may also be well aware of suffering of those closer to home.  A powerful and caring God would have never allowed it.

9 Some Newer Proofs of Nonexistence

The theists' attempts to prove the existence of God that were refuted above are the ones most commonly presented.  It has to be pointed out that some failed proofs only deal with one aspect or attribute of God.  Consequently, refuting one of them individually may not amount to a complete proof that there is no God.  For instance, disproving the cosmological argument only establishes that any first cause did not have to necessarily be God.  It does not contradict other indications that there may be a God.  A persistent theist could concede that God was not the first cause but that he nevertheless at some point came on the scene and designed everything in the universe from that point on.  However, we have seen the idea of God as a designer invalidated.  The argument from suffering has certainly put a lie to the idea of a powerful and caring God.

The refutations each invalidate one or more aspects or attributes of God.  Taken together they definitely discredit the idea of the existence of God.  This is the opposite of Swinburne's estimation.  He admitted that each argument individually did not prove the existence as many have supposed.  His proposition was that each argument in favor was incomplete but that taken together they increased the probability that God exists.  This is apparently the best he could do--come up with only a probability.  No one can be satisfied with that, especially theists.  You expect  certainty on the question. 

Argument from Absence (Deus Incognitus)

There are two more recent arguments that are able to stand alone in proving that God does not exist.  Around the year 2,000, i heard of an argument posed by a philosopher that the fact that God has never made himself present is proof that he does not exist.  Of course, the immediate reaction of theists is to point out that there are all sorts of indirect ways by which God's presence can be detected.  One example given is that he always answers prayers.  Most of us have realized that his record is spotty in answering prayers.

Then there are the allegations that some people have direct experience of God thus proving his presence.  We have seen that there are a number of possible explanations for these appearances including that those who claim to have directly witnessed God could have simply been mistaken.  The biggest problem with this is that God does not make himself known to everyone.  There is no just reason to appear to a random few.  Even in the situation in which he appears to someone, it is usually a short communication that happens only one time.  After that the person does not have the experience again.  The most damning objection to this occasional and random appearance is that it does not happen to all humans.

So that is the basic argument from nonappearance.  One would expect that a being so important, with such great consequence for the universe, or at least the world, and who had at least some interest in things would make at least an occasional and unequivocal appearance to all.  However, there is no credible evidence of this ever happening, religious belief notwithstanding.  If this had happened just once, it could have been done in a manner in which it would have been apparent to everyone that an extremely powerful entity in full control of the world was acting.  This appearance would have been visible to every conscious being in all four corners of the earth.  Afterward, he would have left an indelible monument commemorating his appearance.  It could be a great fire in the sky that could not be extinguished and would never need to have fuel added to it by mortals.  It could be any other sign that could only be put there by God and not by any earth being.

But why would God appear only once in all history?  You would think he would want to visit more often just to talk to sentient beings and enjoy(?) their company occasionally.  It could be as far apart as every 100 years.  It could happen in those years that end in double zeros:  100, 200, 2100.  There could be great festivities for the occasion.  Of course, there would be no reason why God could not come more often.  He could have come and built a castle at which to stay whenever he visited.  Even better, he could live here all the time.  After all, it would appear from the book of Genesis that he resided in the garden of Eden.  According to the Tanakh, he continued to interact with the Jews in the early centuries until he completely disappeared.  Incidentally, Professor Richard Elliott Friedman wrote a book about this, The Disappearance of God.  For some reason, it was later retitled The Hidden Face of God.(Richard Elliott Friedman, The Hidden Face of God (San Francisco:  Harper San Francisco, 1995.)

Christians teach that their main leader Jesus was divine.  Some go so far as to profess that he was God himself come to earth.  A careful examination of the passages in which Jesus spoke does not reveal that he believed himself to be divine.  Remember that Christians take a great risk in saying that Jesus was divine.  If they are wrong, Yahweh has to be outraged.  Other religions do not report that God has visited.

The apologists excuse the absence of God by bringing up free will again.  God does not wish to interfere with human freedom to choose, particularly with regard to whether they accept him or not.  God believes that if his presence were clear that would be too heavy of an influence in the direction of accepting him.  They would not have the freedom to decide to reject him.  They would tend to follow him sheepishly.  Better for him to stay completely absent.

For the sake of argument, let us assume that God needs to stay on the sidelines.  We return to the discussion of whether he could pay at least some visits.  He could pay occasional visits such as the ones every hundred years.  He could take measures not to influence anyone.  For this purpose, he could keep his communication light and not talk about anything important especially if it were any topic connected to religion or morality.

As with the issue of suffering, the problem is in quantity.  Even if it is necessary or advisable for God to stay away, must the absence be total and last through all of human existence so far?  Occasional confirmation of his existence would be nice.  Apologists point out that God also wants to leave an opportunity for believers to work on helping nonbelievers and doubters to come to the right decision.

Leaving room for some doubt may be acceptable, but it should not be surprising that complete absence could lead a substantial number of people to disbelief.  God should be able to understand that it would not be unreasonable for people to conclude there is no God.  One would think that God would be unhappy if even a few would fail to believe given the supposedly dire consequences that can follow from disbelief.  It would be much better if God were to make at least an occasional indubitable appearance that would assure everyone at least once in a while that he is really there.  The present quantity of absence--total abandonment--is just inconceivable.

The apologist idea that God has to remain at all times hidden in the shadows and not clearly be seen flies straight in the face of the cherished religious belief that he is always present.  He is allegedly always there to answer prayers and is a personal God.  Most people, even those who do not have a regular religious practice, pray to God at least on some occasions.  They fully expect that God is listening, is paying careful attention to understand everything that is being asked, is capable of granting any requests that may be made, and may proceed to grant those requests.

There are those who pray several times a day, sometimes going for hours if they have nothing else to do.  Sometimes, they ask for minor things such as aid in a sports contest or getting a raise at work or having all the grass in the backyard evenly green.  They may tell you that God has never failed to answer their prayers.  They say that prayer makes them feel close to God, that they know he is always there.  Those are the people who believe in a personal God and not one who is remote and uninvolved.  You don't have to rely to such a far-reaching extent in prayer to believe in a personal God.

The apologists also believe that there is efficacy in prayer and that there is a personal God with whom many religious people feel very close.  Yet this same deity will not show himself in any form of indubitable presence.  This is strange.  It would seem that if God truly wants to be close to humans that he would appear in every way he could.  He may not appear every day, but it would be frequent.  Parents like to see their children, even adult ones, frequently.  Grandparents feel the same way about their children and their grandchildren.

Religious humans would be thrilled for God to take physical form and come visit them.  They would be overjoyed to have God drop in on their birthday party.  Nonbelievers would take note and what would be wrong with that?  Worshippers would be delighted to have him visit while they were in attendance at their place of worship.  Everyone would be gratefully impressed if he were to personally intervene at least occasionally in one of those mass shootings that occur much too often.

In all the apologist theorizing on this issue, it sounds as if God stays hidden because he really wants some people to falter and ultimately fail in their lives.  Especially in cases in which individuals show strong doubt, you would think he would want to communicate with them and shore them up to prevent them from falling by the wayside.

Jesus spoke to this situation in the parable of the lost sheep.

What do you think the man does who has one hundred sheep and one of them gets lost?  He will leave the other ninety-nine grazing on the hillside and go and look for the lost sheep.  When he finds it, I tell you, he feels far happier, over this one sheep than over the ninety-nine that did not get lost.  In just the same way your Father in heaven does not want any of these little ones to be lost.(Matthew 18:10-14)

This is how much Jesus believed God would go out of his way to save someone.  This is far from the way God has acted in avoiding humans.

God's absence by itself is solid indication that he does not exist.  After all, it is a very simple and accepted proposition that if an item or being is never seen and there is no clear evidence of its presence then it must be that it does not exist.  The fact that some people have a strong conviction that the item exists does not stand up if there is not enough evidence to support it.

This is especially true if it involves someone whom one would expect would be readily available.  Take the example of a spouse or a parent.  The other spouse or the family would not expect a prolonged, unexplained absence.  Once the absent person showed up, there would be an explanation.  It could be that s/he had fallen gravely ill and been unable to communicate or had been kidnapped.  If the spouse remained missing for a very long time, say more than five years, it could be presumed that the person was no longer interested in the marriage or had died.  Most people would not blame the forsaken spouse for obtaining a divorce and going on with their lives without counting on the missing spouse.

Questioning whether God exists based on his absence for millennia is basic and understandable.  Children often ask the simple question, "Where is God?"  I remember asking the question when i was around five, "Why is he always invisible?"  My mother could only answer, "that's just the way God chose it."  That usually ends the questioning of children for the rest of their lives.  The question remains unanswered.

Theists may state that it is not necessary for God to make a clear appearance because humans should know what has to be done.  They have the ability to make all the correct decisions including the moral ones.  So everything is proceeding just fine in this wonderful world that God gave us.  God simply does not appear because he doesn't need to.  The facts do not support this view.  We have seen in reviewing facts that we live in a harsh world.

Argument from Absence from a Harsh World

There is no doubt to one looking closely at the situation that sentient beings in this world experience substantial hardship and suffering.  Only a few fortunate ones can pass through a long life with little travail.  Incidentally, it is very likely that all the other habitable planets throughout the universe present a harsh environment.  This is based on the observation that apparently all planets in the universe go through the same process of formation as that undergone by our solar system.

Given these hard conditions in the universe, it is only natural that people would ask why it has to be this way.  It would be good to know the answer to that question along with a number of other important questions.  Answers directly from God would be the most valuable in deciding controversies that have aggravated different groups for centuries.  These questions could involve nontheological areas in addition to the theological ones.

God would not have to prevent any natural disasters such as a violent hurricane or stop any wars or intervene in any actual events if he didn't want to.  He could just make an appearance to engage in dialogue.  Even if he refused to answer any questions or offer any explanations about anything, he could at least pay a visit.  He could at a minimum acknowledge that life is hard and offer consolation and encouragement.  Good parents at least do this even if they cannot provide any other aid.

There could be questions as a matter of curiosity.  So God could come if only to answer questions about the nature of things and how and why he had decided to create them that way.  He could also want to come simply to continue personal contact with his creation if only occasionally.  So no matter what the state of the world, there is reason for him to visit.

If there were no questions that needed to be answered and no need for consolation because we lived in a perfect paradise, God would never need to appear.  People would not have any pressing questions and may not even engage in much thought about God.

This points to the weakness in the Argument from Absence.  If God were always absent from a perfect world, it would be understandable.  He would not need to come help and would have nothing to explain. The true situation is that there has always been a burning need for him to visit to help.  The argument from absence is unassailable if it is modified to include the fact that this is a harsh world.  This Argument from Absence from a Harsh World is

1. The world needs God's help desperately.

2. God has always been absent.

3. God must not exist. 

This argument is very similar to the argument from suffering.  As we have already reviewed, there are countless ways in which the world could be improved for the immense benefit of sentient beings.  Even if the problems could not be completely solved, some melioration would no doubt be welcome.  However, if God did not desire to confer any new benefits, he could minimally come to console and sympathize.  This would be the least to be expected from a caring God.  It has not happened.  God is not present even though you would expect him to be present given the horrible suffering in the world.  The only conclusion is that God does not exist.

Proof by Bad Representatives

Beginning around 1990, radical reactionary Islamic extremists began an intense campaign of violent mass death.  The intention was to kill as many people as possible in order to attain wide attention.  The killing was done mainly through small bombs and the mowing down of people with trucks.  The bombings were often carried out by "suicide bombers."  These terrorists were so steeped in their cause that they were willing to plant bombs on themselves, go into a crowd, and detonate the bombs to kill those around them even if it meant killing themselves in the process.

The most extreme of the actions happened in 2001 when terrorists rammed airplanes into the Twin Towers in New York City and killed close to 3,000 people.  These terrorist attacks went on for many years.  The killings were indiscriminate and could include women, children, and fellow followers of Islam.

There were a number of different aims of the extreme Islamic terrorists.  One was to make everyone adopt Islam by force.  Another was to establish an Islamic caliphate in the Middle East as had existed in centuries past with dominance over a wide area.  Another was to keep women subject to conservative Islamic law that puts a number of restrictions on them.

One thing that was certain was that these goals and their promotion through violence and death were all clearly done in the name of God.  Some of these terrorists were often heard to exclaim "Allahu akbar (God is great)" before they began killing.  They clearly believed that what they were doing was for the benefit of God.

NonMuslim believers claim that the use of the word Allah means that Muslims worship a different God.  This is incorrect.  "Allah" is simply the Arabic word for God.  Muslims are strict monotheists.  The two other Yahwehist religions follow the God announced by Moses.  Islam took much of its inspiration from the Torah.  It is all the same God.

A just and caring God would not allow this.  First, one would expect that he would stop all harmful acts in his name, especially heinous ones.  We know that in all of human history he has taken no action against murderous acts whether in a religious context or otherwise.

Not having taken this action, he could take the more limited approach of stopping those who to try kill in his name.   Remember the Yahwehist Commandment against using God's name for evil purposes.(Exodus 20:7)  He could do this in a number of ways.  He could paralyze any miscreant before he had a chance to begin to act.  If God refused to take any action against these murderers, the least he could do would be to unequivocally and publicly dissociate himself from them.  He could in no uncertain manner announce to the whole world that he disapproved of these actions and that no one should for a minute believe that he endorsed them in any way.

None of this has happened in spite of every estimation that he would disapprove of such terrorist acts.  Humans are expected to do something to prevent this kind of violence.  If they can stop a killing without risk to themselves, they are expected to take the necessary action.  If they are aware of an imminent and likely successful plan to accomplish a mass killing, they are expected to at least inform law authorities.  In a similar vein, God could appear to the terrorists and warn them not to invoke his name or in any way claim his association in their violent actions.  At the very least, he could assure them that he would not stop their killing so long as it was not done under any hint that he approved.  He would not otherwise block their killing just as he does not prevent the many other nonreligious murders that take place.

Nor is this the first time in history that perpetrators of murder and mayhem have involved God as the reason for their actions.  Early tribes enlisted the support of their God, or at least their war god, to attack other tribes.  There are the now well-documented incidents of human sacrifice to gods that took place in different places around the globe.  Probably the worst example was the Christian Inquisition that started in Europe in 1231 C.E. and continued with varying intensity for centuries.  Even in those countries in which there was no formal Inquisition, it was deemed acceptable to kill others who had different religious beliefs and practices.  It would not be surprising to find Islamic terrorists who at least partly justify their actions by pointing to past Christian killing.

It is not much to expect that God would disavow religious fanatics who commit murder and other foul deeds in his name.  He has not done this.  What worse example of using God's name in vain than to employ it as a justification for murder and torture.  The simple proof here against the existence of God is this:  God does not disavow those who commit horrendous acts while claiming to represent him, so he cannot possibly exist.

Continued in Part 2

Home