Toward a Different Debate about the Existence of God

The scientific establishment in the United States promotes three lies about biological evolution:

  1. Human beings evolved from animals.
  2. Natural selection, epigenetics, and natural genetic engineering explain how giraffes descended from bacteria.
  3. Evolution does not violate the second law of thermodynamics because the law only applies to isolated systems.
The truth is:

  1. Hypothetical creatures called *homo sapiens* evolved from animals. Homo sapiens don't have free will and the conscious knowledge of human beings as opposed to the sense knowledge of animals.
  2. The three mechanisms only explain why giraffes have long necks.
  3. The second law of thermodynamics only applies to liquids, solids, and gases. A Boeing 747 does not have a temperature.
The cosmological argument for God's existence is based on the scientific fact that human beings did not evolve from animals. This fact and the metaphysics of Thomas Aquinas provides an argument for God's existence. This argument is properly called the *cosmological argument* because it is similar to the "prime mover" argument from Aristotle and the "first cause" argument by Aquinas, but makes much more sense. One would think a person could learn what the cosmological argument is from the entry with this title in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. The SEP just discusses the demented "first cause" argument because, I suppose, the SEP is an official publication of the scientific establishment.

This book does not explain the cosmological argument either nor does a book that the author recommends:

Graham Oppy's *Arguing About Gods* is one of the recent and significant works that present a comprehensive account of the numerous arguments about the existence of God. (p. 28)

Paul Seungoh Chung is trying to shed light on the arguments for God's existence and starts by saying,

There is something odd in the way we argue about the existence of God.(p. 1)

It makes no sense at all to argue about God's existence. What makes sense is to argue about the reasons there are for believing God has revealed to us that we pay for our sins after we die. The cosmological argument is the existence of human beings plus metaphysical handwaving. It shows an understanding of the argument to say the metaphysical handwaving has no content and is contradictory. The metaphysical handwaving, however, sheds light on why God told Moses his name was Yahweh ("I am who am", Exodus 3:14). A finite being is a composition of two principles or incomplete beings: essence and existence. A finite being's essence limits its existence, and God is a pure act of existence.

The book has the heading "Debate between Richard Swinburne and J. L. Mackie." Swinburne argues that morality (free will) and the conscious knowledge of human beings is evidence that God exists. This is the author's account of Mackie's rebuttal:

Likewise, morality and consciousness may be explained in materialist terms, and although he concedes that there is some difficulty in giving an account of how conscious awareness emerges for the materialist, the difficulty for rival positions is 'at least as great. (p. 24)

In my opinion, so-called atheists and agnostics are either irrational or dishonest. The irrational ones say that "morality and consciousness" are illusions. The dishonest ones say that "morality and consciousness" are emergent properties.

What the dishonest ones mean is that there is no spiritual substance lurking between the grey and white matter of the human brain. In other words, human beings do not have souls. The honest way to express this is to say there is no evidence human beings have souls. Since I am a Catholic, I would add that the idea conflicts with the doctrines of Original Sin and the Second Coming of Jesus Christ.

Another honest way of expressing this is to say, "Human beings have the property of free will and consciousness, and water has the property of freezing into ice. This property of water emerges from the properties of hydrogen and oxygen. By analogy, the properties of free will and consciousness emerge from the atoms and molecules in the human brain." Using the phrase, "by analogy," brings out that free will and consciousness are not scientific observations. We know we have these properties because we can make ourselves the subject of our own knowledge.

Notwithstanding reason and Christian dogma, many people think God gives souls to us at conception and these souls go to purgatory when we die. This idea makes everybody happy. It makes atheists and agnostics happy because it shows how irrational religious people are. It makes religious people happy because it explains why atheists and agnostics don't believe in God. The explanation is that atheists and agnostics have a materialistic world view.

As you can see from the title, the author has a lot to say about world views. I personally do not have a world view. Nor does Bernard Lonergan who wrote Insight: A Study of Human Understanding. My mind is structured like the scientific method. At the lowest level I make observations, which requires paying attention. At the level of inquiry I ask questions and extremely intelligent people invent theories to answer the questions. At the level of reflective judgment, I gather the evidence and decide whether a theory is true or just probable. This requires being rational. The next level is deciding what to do with my body. This requires being responsible.