Christian historian Dr. Wallace Marshall and I are debating whether or not enough evidence points to the existence of a god. For background and format, and Dr. Wallace’s opening statement, see entry one. For all subsequent entries, see index.


That the Evidence Points to Atheism

by Richard Carrier, Ph.D.

Dr. Marshall’s definitions are all suitable for the purpose (of “God,” “evidence,” and “atheism”). But as I have found to be a common feature of Christian defenses of belief, his arguments for God depend on leaving out evidence; evidence that, when put back in, reverses the conclusion.

The Cosmological Argument

The Kalam Cosmological Argument (KCA) deductively gets to “the universe had a cause” if its premises are true. But then the syllogism ends; leaving unclear how “cause” gets to “God.”

First, though, neither of those premises are actually known to be true.

We do not know that time can have a cause. It’s unclear that’s even logically possible, given that causes by definition precede events in time. But we also don’t have any evidence that laws of causation observed to operate inside a developed universe, also operate in the absence of one. As physical laws depend on the structure of the universe they govern, causal laws are not even likely to exist in the absence of a governing structure.

We also do not know the universe, in the required sense, began to exist. We have ample evidence our present universe began, with an event we call the Big Bang, approximately 14 billion years ago. But we no longer have any evidence that bears on what did or did not precede that event. We therefore cannot say that existence began. Mainstream cosmological science concurs that there may be other universes that ours emerged from or that preceded ours, possibly to past eternity.

Second, even if the universe had a cause, there is no argument that makes that cause likely to be “an eternal mind.” In fact, of every logically possible option, that is the least plausible. A mind is an extremely complex entity (as I’ve explained before in The Argument from Specified Complexity against Supernaturalism, or AFSCAS); and there is no evidence disembodied or uncaused minds are even possible, much less likely to exist (as I’ve argued in The God Impossible); particularly without any place or time to exist. The notion of something existing nowhere, and at no time, is incoherent (as I’ve argued before, in my debate with Tom Wanchick).

Vastly simpler fundamental causes for existence are possible; and are inherently more probable, being vastly simpler and based on known more than unknown science. An extremely simple quantum vacuum will suffice (e.g. the He-Gao-Cai thesis). Even a suitably defined “nothing-state” is sufficient (as I’ve argued in The Problem with Nothing). And yet for all that, existence might well be past eternal and without cause.

The Fine Tuning Argument

It’s far more likely any apparent fine-tuning of the universe is caused by chance or necessity than design. First, chance/necessity predicts many peculiar observations that are all met (such as the universe’s vast size, age, and almost total lethality to life); whereas design predicts very different observations (as I’ve summarized in Bayesian Counter-Apologetics and even more formally in my chapter on design arguments in The End of Christianity). Second, “design” requires positing an even more finely tuned Mind (per AFSCAS); whereas “chance/necessity” only requires positing a very simple originating state (per above).

(It’s also not correct that “if premises 1 and 2 are more plausibly true than not, the conclusion follows necessarily.” I shall assume Marshall must have meant: if the conjunction of premises 1 and 2 are more probable than not, then so is statement 3.)

The Moral Argument

Whether “objective moral values” exist depends on how one defines “objective.” In the sense of “exists even when minds do not,” there is no evidence any such values exist. In the sense of “what all rational and fully informed minds would follow,” they exist necessarily (as the realizable potentials of any given universe); therefore no God is required (as I’ve explained in The Real Basis of a Moral World).

The Fitness Argument

All aesthetic responses humans feel (to “beauty, art, music, falling in love, our longing for ultimate meaning, and the mysteries of the mathematical realm”) are contingent outcomes of our evolution by natural selection. There is no evidence they do or even plausibly would derive from a divine source (see my summary on point in The End of Christianity, pp. 300-02; my discussion in All Godless Universes Are Mathematical and Musical Aesthetics; and my extensive coverage of the science in Sense and Goodness without God, pp. 125-27, 161-64, 193-207, 349-66).

The Problem of Evil

There may yet be a logical problem of evil (see “Logical Problem of Evil” in the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy and The Impossibility of God edited by Michael Martin and Ricki Monnier), but I’ll only frame it evidentially.

Most of what we mean by “evil” is the callous disregard for human misery and justice displayed by the universe itself in its very design, indeed even in the design of human bodies and brains. As no moral God would make such a world, we know no moral God did. Likewise even human moral evil is always policed by moral people who are able; thus that God does not help police it proves he is not a moral person. That there “might be” excuses for this, that God somehow can’t even tell us (!?), is not evidence it’s probable he does. It is in fact extremely improbable—as God has fewer limitations than we do in these regards; therefore is less likely than we are to fail in these duties.

What We Can’t Overlook

In addition to the above—which in every case makes Dr. Marshall’s own evidence prove God improbable, rather than likely—other evidence does as well:

  • The evidence of human moral development disproves moral gods.

A “moral god” hypothesis predicts a universe governed by justice-laws or kind and just stewardship, and a happiness-promoting (rather than misery-inducing) moral code communicated, worldwide, from the dawn of human record. But we observe no such laws in the universe; no stewards but us; and no fully apt moral code (especially not in any alleged divine books, and least of all before very recent times). The best moralities (the ones that most promote happiness and least induce misery in human societies) have always just slowly evolved from human trial and error over thousands of years, as humans overcame ignorance and experimented and learned (see Pinker’s Better Angels of Our Nature and Shermer’s The Moral Arc).

Thus, the evidence of human morality matches not what theism predicts, but what atheism predicts: its starting abysmal and being slowly improved by humans (not gods), over thousands of years, in the direction that would make their societies better for them. The evidence of human morality thus makes atheism substantially more likely.

  • The evidence of religious history disproves any real deity exists.

A real God would ensure all communications from the divine would be consistently enough the same at all times in history and across all geographical regions, and presciently enough in line with the true facts of the world and God’s values, as to assure us which were real. But atheism predicts these “communications” will be pervasively inconsistent across time and space, and full of factual errors about the world and immoral or harmful directives promoted as good, exactly matching the ignorance of each culture. Lo, the evidence matches atheism, not theism.

Indeed this evidence alone makes atheism substantially more likely; far more so in conjunction with everything else I’ve surveyed.

-:-

Such is my first reply.

Continue on to Dr. Marshall’s response regarding the cosmological argument here. Or skip to my further defense of the Argument from Indifference here. Or skip to Marshall’s response regarding the moral argument here.

Discover more from Richard Carrier Blogs

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading