One of the most widespread beliefs among people is the belief in a supreme being some being to whom we ordinary beings owe our existence but which depends upon nothing else for its own existence. Such a being we call God. We have previously examined quite different beliefs -- beliefs that we have free will, that every event has a cause, that humans possess an immaterial mind as well as a body. In each case, we have been trying to become as clear as possible about what is believed; and we have then examined the belief to see whether or not it is justified. These two tasks face us once again. We must first consider what is being believed when someone believes that a supreme being exists;.then we must try to discover whether or not this belief can be justified.

It may be objected here that the belief in a supreme being is unlike any of the other beliefs we have examined because a supreme being is unlike any other being so that this belief, unlike our other beliefs, is not open to scrutiny. It is true that a being we would be willing to call God would be different in many important respects from most beings that we ordinarily believe exist, but this alone does not warrant the claim that the belief in the existence of God should be exempt from the scrutiny we give more ordinary beliefs. There are many fanciful beliefs, such as beliefs in the existence ot witches, wizards, fountains of youth, which are beliefs in things that differ in many important respects from those ordinary beings that we believe exist. Yet we think that such beliefs must be scrutinized carefully so that we have grounds for either acceptor rejecting them. Thus, initially at least, the belief in the existence of a supreme being seems open to the examination we apply to any other belief so it seems that no one is justified in such a belief unless there is some reason for thinking that such a being exists, or, at the very least, that there is no reason for thinking that such a being does not exist. However, although we have said that this seems to be true initially, we might want to leave open the possibility that after our examination of this belief we ;ht be able to conclude on the basis of what we have found, that the belief in a supreme being is, after all, sui generis, or unique, so that we could perhaps be justified holding such a belief even in the face of what seems to be contrary evidence.

EXAMINATION OF THE CONCEPT OF SUPREME BEING

The first task mentioned previously is the task of becoming as clear as we can about the nature of the belief. To do this we must become as clear as possible about the concept of God. Let us do so now. What we want to do is find those characteristics or qualities of a being which we would be convinced is God. To begin, let us distinguish between the terms 'god' and 'God.' We can talk about one god or many gods, lesser gods and false gods. That is, the term 'god' is a general term, such as 'person,' 'horse,' and 'stone,' and as such can apply to a whole range of entities. On the other hand, the term 'God' is usually used to talk about one specific being, namely, the one and only supreme being. Thus, we cannot talk about many Gods or lesser Gods, because if God exists, then there is exactly one being which is supreme. In line with this, we shall use 'God' to mean 'the supreme being,' and will use it interchangeably with 'the supreme being' throughout the following discussion.

The problem before us is to characterize adequately a being we would call God. We already have some idea of where to begin, because the word 'supreme' is involved in the concept we are characterizing. Our question is the following: What characteristics are we ascribing to a being in calling it supreme? We may ask, "Supreme in what regard?" Surely not supreme in evil, or merely in physical size or prowess, or even in physical beauty. We generally mean that the supreme being is supreme in those characteristics or properties that make a being more perfect than it would be if it lacked them, so that we would call a being God only if it were the most perfect being of which we could conceive. Consequently, we would claim that the supreme being is one who is supreme in its ability to perform actions and to know what occurs, and one who is certainly supreme in goodness. Thus we think of God as the being who is all-good, all-knowing, and all-powerful. That is, he is supreme in goodness, knowledge, and power. Let us then consider these three characteristics separately.

The Supreme Being is All-Good

We can understand the statement that the supreme being is all-good to mean that whatever the supreme being wills or commands or does is the right thing to do. Thus whatever God decides, does or commands is morally right. In addition, however, he always has good motives for willing, doing, or commanding in the way he does because he is a loving God who cares about the world and its inhabitants. Thus God does not do the right things with the wrong motives, nor does he have good motives but mistakenly do the wrong things. Let us take the statement 'God is good' to mean that God has good motives and whatever he wills, does, or commands is morally right. There is, however, a problem about how to interpret this. We could interpret it to mean that if a being is the supreme being and he wills or commands or does something, then by definition this is the right thing to do. On the second interpretation the statement means that if a being is the supreme being and if he wills or commands or does something, then as a matter of fact, this is the right thing to do. Which interpretation should we use? It has been claimed that neither alternative is appealing because each is faced with a problem. If we accept the first interpretation, then it would be true that if the supreme being willed or commanded that someone wantonly inflict pain on innocent babies, or inflicted such pain himself, then inflicting pain on innocent babies would be defined as being the right thing to do. Although we shall not consider moral problems in any detail until Chapter 6, it surely seems that if wantonly inflicting pain on innocent babies is morally right, then nothing is morally wrong. We want to deny that this could be morally right. Yet if a supreme being's doing or cammanding it, which is surely possible, entails that it is right, we cannot justify such a denial. If it be objected at this point that God would not engage in or command wanton infliction of pain, we can ask, "Why not?" The answer cannot be that he could not because he is good and inflicting pain is wrong. For if he were to inflict pain, then on this view, it would follow that doing this is right. Nor can we find another answer any more helpful. This view, therefore, seems faced with an insoluble problem

Let us turn to the second alternative. On this view it is possible that what God does is wrong although as a matter of fact what he does always turns out to be right. Thus although it is true that if God does or commands an act then it is right, it does not follow from this that if God were to wantonly inflict pain, then that would be right. We can say that if God were to wantonly inflict pain, then he would do something wrong, but that as a matter of fact, God never would inflict pain needlessly. Thus the second interpretation avoids the problem facing the first interpretation. However, there seems to be one consequence of this view that some people have found objectionable. It is claimed that if God does not prescribe the standard of what ought to be done, then there is a moral standard which exists independently of God so that he can be judged by reference to it. Surely, it is argued, something has gone wrong with a view if it entails that it is possible for us to judge the moral worth of the supreme being. However, it is not clear why anyone objects to a view that entails that it is logically possible to judge God's commands and acts by a standard. If the view entailed that it is not only logically possible but also morally permissible for a human being to judge God, then it might well be objectionable. But the view does not entail that statement. The second interpretation, then, seems to be able to avoid the objection to it. Let us, therefore, define the sentence 'The supreme being is all-good' as 'All motives of the supreme being are good and all acts the supreme being wills, does, or commands are, as a matter of fact, the right things to do.'

The Supreme Being Is Omnipotent

The quickest way to define this statement is by saying that it means that the supreme being has the ability to do anything at all. But this definition is too loose, because it does not decide the issue of whether God can do something that involves a logical contradiction. Does God, for example, have the ability to make the mercury in one thermometer be one inch from the bottom of the thermometer at the same time that it is two inches from the bottom? Does he have the ability to make a lake frozen at the same time that there is no ice on it? Some have argued that if we claim that God does not have the ability to do something involving a logical contradiction, then we must conclude that he does not have the ability to do everything and thus is not omnipotent. However, there seems to be no reason why it would be limiting God's power to say that he |is able to do anything that it is logically possible to do. This rules out nothing that has been claimed to be among God's acts, including creation out of nothing. It rules out only acts the descriptions of which involve a contradiction. Let us therefore try the following: 'The supreme being has the ability to do anything that is logically possible to do' as the definition of the 'The supreme being is omnipotent,' (all powerful).

At first glance this definition surely seems satisfactory, but we shall have to make another revision. Consider the act of sitting in a chair at a time when God is not sitting there. It is clear that you, I, and almost everyone are able to sit in a chair at a time when God is not sitting there. But is God able to do this? Is God able to sit in a chair at the same time God is not sitting there? Clearly not, and, because it is logically possible to do it (you and I do it), we must conclude by the preceding definition that God is not omnipotent.

It does not seem, however, that because God or anyone else cannot both be at one place and not be there at the same time, this is any limitation on his power. It is, therefore, not the kind of inability that should be allowed to count against his omnipotence. Let us, consequently, revise the definition as follows: 'The supreme being is omnipotent' means 'The supreme being has the ability to do anything that is logically possible that he do.' Using this definition we can avoid concluding that God is not omnipotent because of the above inability. The sentence

The supreme being is sitting in a chair at a time when he is not sitting there

The definition we have settled on not only avoids the preceding problem, but it also allows us to solve an ancient puzzle. Consider a boulder so heavy that God does ot have the ability to lift it. Does God have the ability to create such a rock or not? If he has this ability then there is something else God does not have the ability to do, namely, lift the rock. But either he has the ability to create the boulder or he does not. Therefore there is something God does not have the ability to do, either lift or create a certain boulder. Therefore God is not omnipotent.¹

How might we refute this argument? The first thing to notice is that it contains two conclusions: that there is something God is unable to do and, consequently, that God is not omnipotent. We must surely accept the first, simply because there are many things God cannot do (that is, whatever involves a logical contradiction). But because God's inability to do self-contradictory things does not limit his power, we should question whether we can draw the second conclusion that his inability either to create or lift this boulder limits his power. Using the preceding definition, the question is whether or not the statement that God does these tasks is self-contradictory. If his doing at least one of them is self-contradictory, then it is fallacious to draw the conclusion that God is not omnipotent. There seems to be no contradiction involved in saying that God creates a rock he is unable to lift, so let us not try to avoid this problem by agreeing that God is unable to create the rock. The question, then, is whether it is logically possible that God lift such a boulder. That is, is it logically possibly that God lift a boulder that he is unable tojift? The answer is clearly that it is logically impossible for God to perform this act, and, therefore, his inability to lift it does not limit his power. We can, therefore, avoid the conclusion that God is not omnipotent by agreeing that God is unable to lift such a rock, because such an inability does not limit his power.

There is however, one more objection to the preceding definition of 'omnipotence' which is worth considering because of its consequences for what is called "backward causation." Consider the following sentence:

The supreme being brings it about in 1982 that Henry VIII has exactly one wife during his lifetime.

In order to understand the mistake in this objection, it is important to distinguish between two different ways of affecting the past. The first is that someone now changes the way the past was. An example of this would be if God now caused Henry VIII, who already had six wives before he died in 1547, to have had only one wife during his lifetime. Such a way of affecting the past is in no one's power, not even God's, because it implies that Henry had only one wife and also had six wives, and this is contradictory. The second way of affecting the past is to cause, without changing the past, something which previously occurred. Although this may be quite unusual, it is not self-contradictory. For example, it logically possible that God now causes Henry to have had six wives. and thus God has this ability to affect the past.

A different illustration may be helpful here. Suppose that at a specific time, namely exactly at 12:00 A.M. on May 4, 1982, a certain individual, Maria, feels a twinge of pain in her arm. Ordinarily, we would suppose that this twinge was caused by events which immediately preceded it: Perhaps neural and muscular events were the immediate causes of the twinge. Moreover -- and this is the important point -- we would also suppose that these muscular and neural events occurred before the twinge occurred, perhaps at 11:59 and 59 seconds, A.M. on that date. Now this is what we would typically suppose, and this is what would typically happen. However, it is logically possible that the actual cause of Maria's twinge of pain occurs after the twinge occurs, say on May 5,1982. Such a case of "backward causation" is quite odd, but not self-contradictory. We can easily apply this illustration to the case of Henry VIII. Imagine that the past is just as we think it was; Henry VIII died in 1547 and during his lifetime he had six wives. It is logically possible that the cause of his having had six wives occurs now, in 1982, rather than in the sixteenth century, just as it is logically possible that Maria's twinge of pain on May 4 is itself caused by some event which occurs on May 5 of the same year. Since this is logically possible, it is logically possible that the actual cause of Henry's having six wives in the sixteenth century is something God does now in 1982. Thus, God has the ability to affect the past without changing the past. The past is unchanged because it remains as it was; Henry had six wives. But God affects the past because he now, in 1982, causes Henry to have had six wives in the sixteenth century. However, God cannot affect the past by changing it, because that is a self-contradictory act. The foregoing objection fails because it confuses affecting the past and changing the past; the former can occur even though the latter does not.

The Supreme Being Is Omniscient

We can begin our definition of the sentence 'The supreme being is omniscient' as we did the previous definition -- that is, by saying that it means that the Supreme Being knows everything. But again we must be careful because not even God can be said to know a falsehood. Thus, it would be better to say that a supreme being knows all truths. There is, however, still a problem that should be considered. If God knows all truths then he knows truths about the future, that is, he knows what will happen. But, it has been claimed, if God knows that something is going to happen before it happens -- for example, that I will write the word 'thus' at the beginning of the next sentence -- then it follows that I must write 'thus' there. Thus, God's foreknowledge, and hence his knowledge of all truths, is incompatible with my free will. Consequently, either no one has free will or God cannot forsee all future events and he is not omniscient. Must we surrender our belief that human beings have free will in order to guarantee God's omniscience? We can avoid this because in the premise 'if God foresees that I do something then I must do it,' the word 'must' indicates that the consequent follows logically from the antecedent. So the premise can be restated as 'It is logically necessary that if God (or anyone else for that matter) forsees that I do something then I will do it.' But it does not follow from the fact that I will do something that I must, in the sense of being coerced or forced to do it against my will. Thus it does not follow from foreknowledge of what I will do that I will not do it of my own free will.²

At this point someone might try a new line of attack. If someone has foreknowledge of what I do, then he can correctly predict what I will do. But he can correctly predict what I will do only if what I will do is causally determined and thus predictable on the basis of causal laws. Consequently, foreknowledge of what I do is not compatible with my doing it of my own free will. The first thing that can be said here is that the conclusion follows only if free will and causal determinism are incompatible. But we have previously found reason to deny this.³ Secondly, there is no reason to think that someone can make a correct prediction only on the basis of causal laws. We often justifiably predict that, for example, Jones will decide to forgive his wife her latest infidelity because we know what he has done in the past, not because we know the causal laws relevent to predicting what he will decide. In addition, it is not clear that foreknowledge correctly describes God's knowledge of my future. It las been claimed that for God the whole of the temporal span of the universe -- past, present, and future -- is like a brief moment of time for us and thus God knows what I will do in the way I know what I am doing now. No prediction is involved. Thus there are reasons for rejecting this second line of attack upon the compatibility of God's foreknowledge and our free will.

Before we move on, there is one other problem concerning God's omniscience that we should consider. Let us say that at a certain time, t_n, God decides for the first time to do something (for example, create a particular universe). If at that time, t_n, God decides for the first time to create this world, then at no time before t_n did God know what his decision at t_n would be because if he did, then he would not have decided for the first time at t_n. But if God is omniscient, then there is no time at which he does not know all truths, so that if God is omniscient then at every moment before t_n, he knows what he decides for the first time at t_n to do. Thus if God decides for the first time at t_n to do something, then God is not omniscient, for there is a time before t_n at which he did not know what he would decide. There are several ways to avoid this conclusion. One is to deny there is a time at which God first decides to do something. Two different reasons have been given for this. The first reason is that no matter how far back in time you might go God has already made all his decisions. The second is to claim that, unlike us, none of God's decisions are made at some time, because God is not a member of the world of temporal objects.

There is another way to avoid this problem. This is to deny that it is impossible for anyone to know at t_n what he will do and at a later time, t_n + 1, to decide for the first time what he will do. Such a situation is odd, but according to this proposal, it is not logically impossible.⁴ It surely seems possible, for example, that Jones knows now that he later will decide for the first time to forgive his wife her latest in a series of infidelities, although he is firmly resolved not to forgive her now. He knows this on the basis of what he has done in the past, each time resolving not to forgive her but each time finally giving in. If Jones can know beforehand what he will decide to do, then surely God can. There is no contradiction here.

We can finally rest content with the definition of 'The supreme being is omniscient.' It means that the supreme being knows all truths.

Other Characteristics of a Supreme Being

We have discussed three essential characteristics of a supreme being -- the characteristics of supreme goodness, omnipotence, and omniscience. The question now arises of whether there are any other characteristics an entity would have if he were the supreme being. There seem to be four additional properties. Because the supreme being is all-powerful, he can be neither created nor destroyed and is therefore eternal. Furthermore, he is the creator of "heaven and earth and all things" who loves and cares about the creatures he creates. And, finally, God is holy. There is no problem about what it means to say that God is loving. In being all-good, he is not merely fair and just, but is also benevolent and merciful toward his creatures, and deeply concerned about their welfare. The only problem about what is meant by calling the supreme being the creator of everything is whether this means that he created what there is ex nihilo (that is, out of nothing) or whether he created what there is out of some primordial chaos. Because there is disagreement about which is the correct interpretation, let us leave the question open by defining 'The supreme being is the creator of heaven and earth and all things' as 'The Supreme Being caused heaven and the physical universe to exist in their present form.' Thus we have not decided by definition whether nor not God's creation of things is ex nihilo.

There are two possible ways to interpret 'The supreme being is eternal.' The first is that as a matter of fact there is no time at which the supreme being begins to exist and no time at which he ceases to exist. The second interpretation is that 'The supreme being is eternal' means that it is logically necessary that there is no time at which the supreme being begins to exist and no time at which he ceases to exist. You will notice that neither interpretation begs the question of whether or not God exists because that there is no time at which he begins to exist and no time at which he ceases to exist, is consistent both with his always existing and with his never existing. There is, however, an important difference between the two interpretations. On the first interpretation it is logically possible that God be created and destroyed, but on the second, it is logically impossible that anything create or destroy God. Let us characterize the two interpretations of 'The supreme being is eternal' by saying that on the first if he exists then he always exists, whereas on the second, if he exists then he necessarily exists.

Which interpretation shall we choose? Although some people have argued for the first interpretation, the following, which echoes the ontological argument that we shall consider later in this chapter, will justify our choosing the second. We have said that any being we would call God must be the being supreme in perfection, so that if we can think of a being more perfect than some particular being, then we would not call the latter one God. Furthermore, if it is logically possible that something create or destroy God, then we can think of a being more powerful and therefore more perfect than God, namely, a being that it is logically impossible to create or destroy. Therefore we can conclude that it is logically impossible that anything create or destroy God. We want, then, to characterize God in such a way that it is logically impossible that he be created or destroyed. However, if his eternality is merely a factual contingency, then it is logically possible that something create or destroy him. But if he is necessarily eternal, then this guarantees that it is not possible that anything create or destroy him. Therefore, in order to have this guarantee, let us use the second interpretation.

The last characteristic of a supreme being that we have to consider is that such a being is holy. It is perhaps the hardest of all the characteristics to define. When we say that God is holy we are trying to express something of our feeling that God is worthy, even more than worthy, of our full devotion, adoration, and reverence; that God is that being whom we should worship, honor, and obey. This characteristic is important for our purposes because it can be used as a test of the adequacy of the sum total of the other characteristics that we have ascribed to the supreme being. If we have provided an adequate characterization, then the quality of holiness should really be redundant, because the total of the other characteristics should include all and only lose characteristics which would make any being having them the being whom we would find to be most worthy of our worship. In line with this, let us define 'The supreme being is holy' as 'The supreme being is that being who is most worthy of the complete devotion and reverence of humanity.'

We have characterized the supreme being as the eternal, loving, and holy being who created all things out of his omniscience, omnipotence, and supreme goodness, and we have analyzed what we are to mean by these terms. The question now before us is whether or not there is any reason to think that this concept of the supreme being that we have carefully tried to analyze, applies to anything; that is, whether there is a supreme being in the sense we have described. We are taking this question as equivalent to asking whether there is any reason to think that God exists since, in the major Western religious traditions (Christianity, Judaism, and Islam), God is understood to be the supreme being we have just described and defined. Certainly many people believe that God, or the supreme being, exists. It is also true that many people deny that there is a supreme being. The question before us is which, if either, is the more reasonable.

A final clarificatory point is in order. Some people mean by the term 'God' such things as this: 'the force for love in the world;' or, 'the original cause of things;' or, 'that which sustains the physical universe;' or 'the transcendant object of ultimate concern.' Other similarly vague definitions of the term 'God' are often proposed. We are not asking the question whether God in any of these latter senses oLthe term exists. We are not even considering the question. We are concerned solely with whether God, considered as the supreme being, exists.

CAN THE BELIEF IN THE EXISTENCE OF A SUPREME BEING BE JUSTIFIED?

Generally when we want to convince someone that something exists we show it to him whenever we can. That is, we try to get him to see it or touch it or in some way experience the entity in question. Getting someone to experience something is the surest way to convince him of its existence. If, for example, someone doubts that there is a four-legged animal which has a bill like a duck, the best way to convince him is to show him a duckbill platypus, and the next best is to have reliable witnesses tell him that they have seen such an animal. Similarly, the strongest proof for the existence of God would be one based on someone's experience of God, that is, one based on the case of someone who actually experienced God. Let us, therefore, consider whether or not there are good reasons to think that someone has experienced God, because if there are, then we have excellent reason to believe that God exists.

APPEAL TO EXPERIENCE OF GOD

There have been repeated examples of people who in all sincerity claim to have experienced God. William James in his study of religious experience quotes the reports of several such people, including the following:

I remember the night, and almost the very spot on the hilltop, where my soul opened out, as it were, into the Infinite, and there was a rushing together of the two worlds, the inner and the outer. It was deep calling unto deep -- the deep that my own struggle had opened up within being answered by the unfathomable deep without, reaching beyond the stars. I stood alone with Him who had made me, and all the beauty of the world, and love, and sorrow, and even temptation. I did not seek Him, but felt the perfect unison of my spirit with His. The ordinary sense of things around me faded. For the moment nothing but an ineffable joy and exultation remained. It is impossible fully to describe the experience. It was like the effect of some great orchestra when all the separate notes have melted into one swelling harmony that leaves the listener conscious of nothing save that his soul is being wafted upwards, and almost bursting with its own emotion. The perfect stillness of the night was thrilled by a more solemn silence. The darkness held a presence that was all the more felt because it was not seen. I could not any more have doubted that He was there than that I was. Indeed, I felt myself to be, if possible, the less real of the two.⁵

1. If someone experiences an entity, then the entity exists.
2. Some people have experienced God.
   Therefore
3. God exists.

People who think that premise (2) is true usually point to three different kinds of experiences to support their position -- religious mystical experiences, revelations, and miracles. In these three cases, such people argue, either what is experienced is God, or what is experienced is the direct result of something God does. There is, however, an important difference between religious mystical experiences and the other two. If in a mystical experience someone experiences God, then, as in the case quoted, he does so by being transported in some way beyond the natural world into the otherworldly presence of God. In the case of revelations and miracles, on the other hand, God participates by actually intervening in the ordinary course of the natural world. For example, the Ten Commandments were supposedly revealed to Moses by means of inscriptions on ordinary stone tablets. Miracles, such as turning water into wine, supposedly were witnessed by people in this the natural world. Because of this important difference between these kinds of religious experiences, we should consider their relevance to the argument from religious experience separately.

The Argument from Mystical Experience

We must begin by clarifying what we mean by 'religious mystical experience.' We have a choice in such a definition. We can define a religious mystical experience either as an experience in which, among other things, a person actually does experience God, or as an experience in which, among other things, a person believes that he experiences God. The difference between the two is that in the first case many experiences which people believe to be mystical experiences are not, because God is not actually experienced in them. In the second case we can grant all such experiences to be mystical but this implies nothing about whether God is experienced. Because in either case we must justify one claim, either that some experiences are mystical or that God is experienced in some mystical experiences, let us then choose the second kind of definition. This will allow us to define mystical experiences phenomenologically, without considering whether any entity is actually experienced.

In defining 'mystical experience' we can once again turn to William James. As a result of studying reports of mystical experiences such as the one quoted, James stated what he took to be the essential characteristics of such experiences. He said that mystical experiences are ineffable, transient, and noetic experiences in which the person involved is quite passive. Let us consider each of these characteristics.

1. Ineffability. The subjects of mystical experiences say that such an experience "defies expression, that no adequate report of the contents can be given in words. It follows from this that its quality must be directly experienced; it cannot be imparted or transferred to others."⁶
2. Noetic Quality. Those who have mystical experiences claim that they have gotten or received deeply significant and important insights during the experiences. Thus, to the person who experiences mystical states, they seem to be states of knowledge. They seem to be "states of insights into depths of truth unplumbed by the discursive intellect.''⁷ In the case of the religious mystic (that is, a person who thinks he experiences God in his mystical experiences), the insights or illuminations the subject thinks he attains are believed by him to be the result of a direct confrontation or union with the supreme being. For those whose mystical experiences are not religious, the insights are thought to be the result of a new and more heightened way of experiencing the world around us, rather than a result of contact with anything supernatural.
3. Transiency. As James points out, "Mystical states cannot be sustained for long. Except in rare instances half an hour, or at most an hour or two, seems to be the limit beyond which they fade into the light of common day."⁸
4. Passivity of the Subject. Although a person can prepare himself for and help bring about mystical experiences, "when the characteristic sort of consciousness once has set in, the mystic feels as if his own will were in abeyance, and indeed sometimes as if he were grasped and held by a superior power."⁹

4. Some people have had religious mystical experiences.
5. In religious mystical experiences God is experienced.
   Therefore

2. Some people have experienced God.

Support for the Argument: God Must Be Postulated as Experienced or as Cause

There is one type of obtainable evidence which would make it reasonable to accept the mystic's claim. Suppose that some strange mystical experiences are totally inexplicable in terms of the natural causes which are the subject matter of the natural sciences such as psychology, physiology, and biology. In that case, we might have some reason to think either that the entity experienced in such experiences is supernatural, or that the cause of the mystical experience is supernatural. That is, we might have to postulate a supernatural experienced object, or postulate a supernatural cause of mystical experiences, or both, in the attempt to explain such experiences. We could then justify the existence of such a supernatural being the way we justify postulating explanatory theoretical entities such as electrons, protons, and neutrons. These theoretical entities are postulated to explain certain observable phenomena. Such postulation is justified only if there is no way to explain what is observed without postulating something or other. If satisfactory explanations can be made without postulating such entities, then, as we saw in Chapter Four about the witch doctor's demons, we cannot justify the existence of such entities.¹⁰ The question, then, is whether there is any reason to think that some mystical experiences cannot be explained by means of natural causes, so that there is a reason to postulate a supernatural cause to explain them. If there is, then we may be able to use mystical experiences to justify premise (2). If there is not, then we shall have to conclude that whether or not the mystic experiences God, we have no grounds for claiming that he does and no way of using these experiences to justify premise (2).

We really have two arguments to consider. The first may be expressed by pointing out, first, that reports that people make of their strange mystical experiences are themselves exceedingly unusual. Such individuals report that they have merged with The One, or that they have in some manner been absorbed into pure unity, or similar utterly bizarre things. We nonmystics have no reason to think, generally, that such people are trying to deceive us, or that they are lying. Moreover, such reports as those just cited are common and consistently offered. Hence, the argument goes, the only way to explain these reports is to postulate the existence of some equally unusual entity such as a supernatural one. That is, the only way to explain the verbal behavior of the mystics, and perhaps other nonverbal behavior of such people as well, is by postulating the existence of some supernatural entity that they have experienced. Then, given (a) that the assumption that they experience something supernatural does explain their behavior, verbal and otherwise, and (b) that this is the only way to effectively explain this behavior, then we nonmystics are justified in believing that the mystics experience a supernatural entity when they have mystical experiences. Hence, it would seem that we would have justified premise (5), "In religious mystical experiences God is experienced," and thereby have justified (2), "Some people have experienced God." Thus, since all else in the relevant arguments has been granted, we would have shown that the important step (3), "God exists," has been justified.

The second argument is similar. It claims that religious mystical experiences are so very strange and unusual that the only way to explain their occurrence is by the assumption that something supernatural is their cause. That is, the only way to explain the occurrence of, and features of, religious mystical experiences is by postulating the existence of a supernatural cause of such experiences. Then, again given the assumptions that (a) the assumption of a supernatural cause does explain the occurrences and features of such experiences, and (b) that such an assumption is the only way to effect such explanations, then we would have justified the claim that some supernatural entity exists, as the cause of some mystical experiences. One major difference between these two arguments concerns what is explained. In the first, it is the behavior of the mystics that is said to be explained by the postulation of a supernatural entity; in the second argument it is the actual occurrence and features of mystical experiences themselves that are said to be explained by such a postulation.

Another significant difference is that with this second argument it is not clear what support has been produced for step (5)., "In religious mystical experiences God is experienced." This is because the second argument speaks of a supernatural cause of mystical experiences, rather than of a supernatural entity that is experienced in such experiences. However, we can bridge this gap in the argument. When we experience the effects of some cause, we may often be said to experience the cause as well. For instance, if I see certain footprints in the snow which were caused by raccoons, then in a sense I have experienced the raccoons, too. Of course, this is not the same as experiencing the animals themselves standing in front of me. It is, we might say, indirectly experiencing the raccoons. Still, this is a form of experiencing a thing. Hence, step (5) would again be justified and thus, via this second argument involving postulation, so would (2). Either way, then, the argument from the experience of God, when based on mystical experiences, would seem to have considerable plausibility for us non-mystics.

Objection: No Need to Postulate the Supernatural

The weak point in the first argument comes in the claim that the only way to explain the behavior of mystics is via the assumption that they have experienced a supernatural entity. Consider how we explain the verbal and nonverbal behavior of persons who report sighting flying saucers and other strange UFO's. Ordinarily it is noted that what they have experienced are regular commercial or military aircraft which are flying in unusual weather conditions; or that they have experienced rapidly moving and rapidly changing cloud formations; or, perhaps, that they have experienced falling meteorites. In a few cases it is maintained, instead, that such individuals have experienced nothing at all, but rather that they have hallucinated in odd ways. These assumptions explain the behavior, verbal and nonverbal, of such people in a great many cases, indeed the vast majority, of alleged UFO sightings. It is similar in the situation of the mystics. Thus, in some cases where mystics claim that ordinary objects in their surrounding physical environment take on highly unusual features, one might plausibly contend that what is experienced is simply the surrounding physical environment seen under atypical lighting conditions or atmospheric conditions. In most other cases, where mystics claim to be absorbed into a union with pure being, or with the One, or something of the sort, one might plausibly explain what has been experienced is nothing at all; on the contrary, such people have had strange hallucinatory experiences. Their hallucinations could be exceptionally striking and perhap vivid, and this would explain their subsequent behavior at least as well as the assumption that they have experienced a supernatural entity. Hence, the latter assumption is not needed for purposes of satisfactory explanations.

What about the second argument, in favor of the claim that we need to postulate the existence of a supernatural cause of mystical experiences? Many people claim that we can explain such experiences without any reference to a confrontation with anything supernatural or divine. They say that mystical experiences, like many other strange experiences, are really the result of abnormal states of mind, and like other psychological abnormalities, they are the proper subject of physiology and psychology. Evidence in favor of this view comes from the fact that certain experiences which fit completely the description of mystical experiences given by James have quite natural explanations. Experiences which seem to provide indescribable insights into reality have been induced by inhalation of nitrous oxide (laughing gas), ether, and chloroform. It has also been found that certain drugs, such as mescaline and LSD, produce experiences with the phenomenological characteristics of mystical experiences. Surely, it is claimed, all these are merely abnormal experiences produced by natural causes.

Given all of this evidence, it is reasonable to conclude that many mystical experiences have quite natural causes. And, given the fact that we can explain the behavior of people who have mystical experiences in ways that do not require the assumption that supernatural entities are experienced, we may conclude that the attempt to justify step (5) and with it premise (2) on the basis of mystical experiences does not succeed. We need to look elsewhere for an argument which justifies the belief in the existence of God.

It might be objected that this conclusion is a bit too quick and premature, especially regarding the second of the two arguments just presented. After all, not all or even most mystical experiences are produced by drugs or other similar agents. Thus, nothing has been said to show that these mystical experiences, ones not caused by drugs and the like, lack a supernatural cause.

This objection misses the point of the argument. The crucial idea is that many experiences which are similar phenomenologically or, as we might say, internally, to mystical experiences, are caused by drugs, laughing gas, chloroform, LSD, and related agents. None of these agents, surely, is a supernatural one. Hence, since these experiences are just like mystical experiences phenomenologically, and since these experiences have quite natural causes, it is reasonable to think that mystical experiences also have quite natural causes, ones which will in time be discovered by advances in the sciences of psychology and physiology. Thus, both the subsequent behavior of people who undergo mystical experiences and the actual occurrences of mystical experiences, are explicable by means of perfectly natural causes. The argument from mystical experiences, while it might give the person who actually has the experience some reason to think that he or she has experienced God, provides no justification for the rest of us nonmystics to have a belief in God. Some other argument should be sought.

The Argument from Revelations and Miracles

Revelations and miracles both differ from mystical experiences in that in the former, unlike the latter, God is thought to intervene in the ordinary course of the natural world. By 'God's intervention' is meant 'an occurrence in this, the natural world, which is not brought about by physical causes but is, rather, directly caused by God.' Thus, according to this definition, something is a revelation or a miracle only if it has a supernatural cause. Most people would probably agree that this is true of revelations where, for example, a vision appearing in a bush which burns but which is never consumed, is said to reveal some word of God. There has been, however, much disagreement regarding miracles. No one denies that some miracles -- such as the biblical miracles of turning water into wine, feeding a multitude from a few fish and loaves of bread, walking on water, and the vertical parting of the waters of the Red Sea -- would be the direct result of supernatural causes, because in each case some law of nature would have been violated. That is, if each of these events occurred, there has been a violation of some scientific law which has been repeatedly confirmed to hold universally. Thus, if we have reason to think that such events have occurred, then we have some reason to believe that God exists.

It has been claimed, however, that not all miracles involve a violation of a natural law otherwise confirmed to hold universally. R. F. Holland, for example, considers the case of a child who has wandered onto a railroad track unaware of a train approaching around a curve, so that there is no chance for the engineer to see the child in time to stop.The mother, watching from a distance and unable to help, sees the train approach and grind to a halt a few feet from her child.

The mother thanks God for the miracle; which she never ceases to think of as such although, as she in due course learns, there was nothing supernatural about the manner in which the brakes of the train came to be applied. The driver had fainted, for a reason that had nothing to do with the presence of the child on the line, and the brakes were applied automatically as his hand ceased to exert pressure on the control lever.¹¹

Let us call any miracle, such as the preceding, which does not violate any law of nature a "coincidence-miracle," and the kind which does violate a law of nature, a "violation-miracle." Although these two concepts of miracles differ importantly, there are three features anything must have to be a miracle, first, whether or not he intervenes, God is in some way involved in and responsible for what occurs; secondly, what occurs is amazing and unusual; and, thirdly, some disaster is avoided, or at least someone is aided, by what occurs. In both cases the feature that is most relevant for our purposes is that God is in some way involved in what occurs. Thus if there is reason to think that either kind of miracle has ever occurred, then we are justified in believing that God exists. We are interested in the following argument:

6. Some people have experienced miracles.
7. Miracles are, by definition, situations in which God participates.
   Therefore

2. Some people have experienced God.

There have been many cases of amazing coincidences where horrible disasters have been averted. Do we have any reason to think that these are coincidence-miracles? We must also admit that there are many cases of incredible coincidences where horrible disaster has resulted. How should we handle these? Is there any reason, in either case, to reject the claim that these are no more than very rare and most improbable coincidences? So long as each such event is explainable, each in its own way, in terms of a coincidence of individually quite ordinary occurrences, then there is no reason to regard the coincidence as anything more than that; there is no reason to think that something supernatural is involved. Given all the many chances for coincidences, it is not at all surprising that once in a while some very surprising things occur quite naturally. Thus, there is no reason to believe that coincidence-miracles have occurred.

The more usual attempt to justify a belief in God on the basis of miracles, however, is premised on the existence of violation-miracles. If there are grounds to believe that some law of nature confirmed to hold universally has been violated in such a way that some disaster has been averted, or someone aided, or some insight received, then this is surely some evidence for justifying the claim that occasionally God has intervened in the natural course of things, either to bring about a miracle or to reveal something. Are there then, grounds for believing that there have been miraculous violations of laws of nature? The most celebrated attempt to deny such grounds is that made by David Hume.

Hume's Objection: Belief in Violation-Miracles Is Always Unjustified

Hume says,

A miracle is a violation of the laws of nature; and as a firm and unalterable experience has established these laws, the proof against a miracle, from the very nature of the fact, is as entire as any argument from experience can possibly be imagined. . . . Nothing is esteemed a miracle, if it ever happens in the common course of nature. It is no miracle that a man, seemingly in good health, should die of a sudden; because such a kind of death, though more unusual than any other, has yet been frequently observed to happen. But it is a miracle that a dead man should come to life; because that has never been observed in any age or country. There must, therefore, be a uniform experience against every miraculous event, otherwise the event would not merit the appellation. And as a uniform experience amounts to a proof, there is here a direct and full proof, from the nature of the fact, against the existence of any miracle; nor can such a proof be destroyed, or the miracle rendered credible, but by an opposite proof, which is superior.¹²

The crucial premise in Hume's argument is his claim that all the evidence relevant to the event counts as evidence against it being a violation of a law. It is true that all the evidence independent of the event itself counts against a violation, but that does not rule out evidence provided by the event itself which might count in favor of a violation. Surely, it might be claimed, if someone personally witnesses an event which as he describes it is a clear violation of a law, then we have good reason to think that a violation has occurred. If, for example, someone claims that he witnessed a violation of a natural law, such as a dead person restored to life, then we have eyewitness evidence which, it could be argued, outweighs the independent evidence. Hume, however, has an answer to this argument. He agrees that we should weigh the two sets of conflicting evidence. The question, then, is whether it is more probable that such an eyewitness is deceived about what he claims to have seen, or whether it is more probable that a dead person has been restored to life. Is it, as Hume asks it, more miraculous that what the person claims is false, or more miraculous that a dead person is restored to life? He answers,

I weigh the one miracle against the other; and according to the superiority which I discover, I pronounce my decision, and always reject the greater mirade. If the falsehood of his testimony would be more miraculous than the event which he relates, then, and not till then, can he pretend to command my belief or opinion.¹³

Following Hume we can agree that the independent evidence outweighs the testimony of others. But what about a case in which someone himself experiences what surely seems to him to be a violation of a law of nature? This case is something like that of the mystic. It seems to both that they have experienced an event which in important ways is quite different from what has been established by uniform experience. Is it reasonable for a person who has had a certain kind of experience which seems to violate a law of nature to believe that a violation actually has occurred? We have seen that the person who has had a mystical experience is not unreasonable in believing that he has experienced God, but we also saw that there is not sufficient reason to justify his belief. The case of miracles, however, differs from the mystic's case in an important respect. There is no evidence against the claim that the mystic experiences God because his experience may well result from perfectly natural causes. There is, however, a great deal of evidence against the claim that a violation has occurred. Thus, not only is there not sufficient reason to justify a claim that a violation-miracle occurred, but there is surely a question of whether one should trust one's own testimony in the face of the overwhelming evidence against the violation tie seems to have witnessed. In short, the reasonable conclusion is that what was experienced is the result of natural causes in spite of the way it may seem. Hume's irgument, therefore, seems to be sound, and its conclusion is justified, that is, there ire no grounds for believing in violation-miracles or revelations. We cannot appeal to violations of laws of nature, whether violation-miracles or revelations, to justify a relief in the existence of God. And because we have seen that we cannot appeal to coincidence-miracles, we must give up the attempt to justify God's existence by means of miracles and revelations.

We have been unable to justify belief in God by appealing to the experience of God. Is there any other kind of experience we might appeal to which would justify the relief? Some people have claimed that certain facts which we experience in this world can be used as a basis for justifying the belief, although they are not experiences of God. We often justify the existence of other entities in this way. For example, we justify the existence of subatomic particles, such as electrons and neutrinos, not by experiencing them, but by inferring, their existence from the existence of things we do experience, such as visible traces in cloud chambers. Others have claimed, however, that because a supreme being lies outside the realm of what we can experience in this world, we cannot justify his existence by arguments that rely on what we experience. These people claim we must use what we can call, using the terminology of St. Thomas Aquinas, a priori proofs instead of a posteriori proofs. The difference between these two kinds of proof is that an a posteriori proof is a proof in which at least one premise is an a posteriori statement, and an a priori proof of is one in which no premises are a posteriori, that is, all the premises are a priori.¹⁴

THREE A POSTERIORI ARGUMENTS

The proofs we have already examined and dismissed are a posteriori. The question before us now is whether there are any other a posteriori proofs which we might be able to use to justify belief in God. Aquinas, who thought that there are no a priori proofs of the existence of God, thought there were several sound a posteriori proofs. He produced five different a posteriori ways to prove that God exists, the most plausible of which we shall consider now. They are the arguments from motion and from causation (which we shall examine together as the first-cause argument), the argument from contingency, and the argument from design.

THE FIRST-CAUSE ARGUMENT

The first two ways of Aquinas have basically the same structure. The main difference between the two is that in the first way, the argument from motion, Aquinas begins with the a posteriori truth that some things are in motion, whereas in the second he begins with the a posteriori truth that there is an order of efficient causes. Because Aquinas takes motion to include not merely locomotion or change of spatial position, but all kinds of change, let us say that the first-cause argument as we shall first construe it, is based on the empirical fact that there are changes and causes of change. This argument, then, starts with the a posteriori truth that there are changes taking place now which are caused. It goes on to consider what would be the case if everything that causes a change were itself caused to change by something else, and concludes that its chain of causes whould be infinitely long. That is, no matter how many items in its causal chain had been enumerated, there would always be at least one that had not been enumerated. But, so the argument goes, such as causal chain cannot go on to infinity in this way, because without a first or initiating cause of change there would be no intermediate causes of change and thus no change now, contrary to the facts. Consequently, because there is change now, there is a first or initiating cause of change, which, as Aquinas says, we call God.¹⁵ Let us lay out this argument in some detail so that we can examine it thoroughly:

1. There are now things changing and things causing change.
2. If there are now things changing and things causing change, and something causes change only if it is caused to change by something else, then its causal chain is infinitely long.
   Therefore
3. If something causes change only if it is caused to change by something else, then its causal chain is infinitely long.
4. No causal chain can be infinitely long.
   Therefore
5. There is something that causes change but is not caused to change by anything else, that is, there is a first cause, namely, God.

First Interpretation: Temporally First Cause

Before we begin to evaluate the argument we must settle the problem of interpretation. For most of us today it seems obvious that the first-cause argument is concerned with causes which temporally precede their effects and thus with a causal chain stretching back into the past. On this interpretation, premise (4) asserts that a causal chain could not stretch back into the past over an infinite duration of time, because if there were no temporally prior, or first, cause of change then there could be no temporally subsequent causes of change and no change now. However, there are two reasons for rejecting this interpretation. The first is that premise (4) seems to be false on this interpretation. There is no reason to think that a series of causes stretching inifinitely back into the past is impassible. It is quite possible, and some people believe quite ikely, that the raw material of which the universe in its present state is composed has existed in some state or other over an infinite period of time. Why could not change have been going on for an infinitely long period of time? It is only if at some time before now there were no change and now there is change, that we must postulate a temporally original cause of change. But if change has always occurred, there was no temporally first cause and therefore no creator ex nihilo. Such a situation can be illustrated by considering a phonograph record of a song being sung by a human voice. Let us assume that this record was recorded from another record, which was itself recorded from another record. Could this series of recordings go on to infinity? Some people might want to claim that somewhere in the past there must have been a human singer recorded. But it is surely possible that no matter how far back into the past you go you will always turn up another record. Consequently, if we are to make the argument as strong as possible, as we should always do before evaluating any argument, then we should look for a more plausible interpretation. Another reason for looking for a better interpretation is that the argument equates the first cause with God. But if by 'first' we mean 'temporally first' there is no reason to say that the first cause of change, which existed at least many thousands of years ago, still exists now. Thus, there is no reason to equate God with a temporally first cause.

Second Interpretation: Ontologically Ultimate Cause

Is there a more plausible interpretation available? F. C. Copleston in his book Aquinas, distinguishes two different ways in which one thing can be causally dependent on something else; consequently, he distinguishes two different kinds of causal orders, a temporal series of causes and an ontological hierarchy of causes. According to Copleston, for Aquinas the phrase 'first cause' does not mean first in the temporal order of causes, but rather supreme or first in the ontological order of causes.¹⁶ This interpretation of 'first cause' as 'ontologically ultimate cause' rather than 'temporally first cause' allows us to avoid one of the problems facing the first interpretation. An ontologically ultimate cause exists now so that, unlike the temporally first cause, if we prove that there is such a cause we have no problem concerning its present existence. We might illustrate the difference between a temporal series and an ontological hierarchy of causes as follows. Consider a room with perfect reflecting mirrors on two opposite sides. In the middle of the room burns a candle which is reflected in the mirrors. We can imagine that this candle has been burning for an infinite period of time. That is, for an infinite period of time there have been light waves reflecting back and forth from one mirror to the other causing images in the two mirrors. Thus there has been causal action occurring over an infinite period of time. But, and here is where this example differs from the phonograph example, at any one moment the mirror images exist only if the candle exists at that moment. Although a recording of a voice can exist after what has caused the recording no longer exists, mirror images cannot. Thus we might say that the candle is of a different ontological order from the images. They depend for their very existence at any and every moment on the existence of the candle, but the existence of the candle in no way depends on the images for its existence. On this interpretation, then, the argument asserts that God is to things in the world what the candle is to its reflected images.

There is one problem that faces the first interpretation that we have not yet applied to Copleston's interpretation. We saw that there is no reason why an infinite temporal series of causes could not occur so that premise (4) seemed dubious. How does premise (4) fare on the second interpretation? Are there things in the world like the candle images in that for each of them they can exist at some time only if something else quite different also exists at that time? We know at least that for any human being to exist for any period of time, he is causally dependent upon what might indeed be interpreted as a hierarchy of coexistent causes. For example, his existence is dependent upon the temperature of the earth remaining within a certain range, which in turn is dependent upon the earth's distance from the sun, which is dependent upon the gravitational and centripetal forces affecting the earth, which are dependent upon the masses of the earth and sun, which are dependent upon the chemical constituents of the earth and sun, which are dependent upon the atomic and subatomic makeup of the earth and sun. We have, then, for each human being not only a series of antecedently preceding causes, but an order of contemporaneous causal factors. This does not seem to be what Copleston means, however, because this order of causes leads neither to infinity nor to anything we would call God. It seems to go to basic subatomic particles. What might Copleston reply here? He might claim that the basic subatomic particles are no different from anything else in the world. They also are causally dependent on something for their existence because their existence needs to be explained just like anything else in the world. In other words, he might link causes and causal orders with explanations as he did in a discussion of the topic with Bertrand Russell. He said, "Cause is a kind of sufficient reason. Only contingent beings can have a cause. God is His own sufficient reason; and He is not cause of Himself. By sufficient reason in the full sense I mean an explanation adequate for the existence of some particular being."¹⁷ The point here is that if we are looking for the cause of something, we are looking for a sufficient reason for -- that is, a complete explanation of -- its existence. Perhaps, then, we should consider a first or ultimate explanation of why there are things like people, horses, stones, and even neutrinos, rather than considering first causes of change, or ontologically ultimate causes.

Third Interpretation: Ultimate Explanation of Things

On the third interpretation we get an argument that is pretty much analogous to each of the steps in the first-cause argument. The argument can be stated this way:

1. There are now things existing and things explaining their existence.
2. If there are now things existing and things explaining their existence and each thing, X, that explains something else, Y, completely explains Y only if it, X, is itself explained by something else, then Y's complete explanation is infinitely long.
   Therefore
3. If each thing that explains something else completely explains it only if it is itself explained by something else, then its complete explanation is infinitely long.
4. No complete explanation can be infinitely long.
   Therefore
5. There is something that completely explains other things and is not explained by anything else, that is, there is something which is the ultimate explanation of things, namely, God.

It should be noted that on this interpretation the crucial claim in the argument is not that there would be an infinite number of different explanations, but that any complete explanation would be infinitely long. The idea here is that if the explanation of one thing requires reference to something else which itself needs to be explained, then the explanation of the first thing is not complete unless the second is completely explained.

One important consequence of this stress on the completeness of the explanation of one thing is that it is possible to give a quite plausible argument to support premise (4). Consider that we would not call something an explanation unless we could comletely express it, because the function of an explanation is to make what it explains itelligible, and something is intelligible only if it can be expressed. But a statement that is infinitely long is one that cannot ever by fully stated or expressed. Thus, no complete explanation can be infinitely long. Premise (4), then, no longer seems dubious. Can we now accept the argument as sound? Not yet, because we have not yet examined premise (2), which on this interpretation may be the dubious one.

Problem: Are Adequate Scientific xplanations Complete Explanations?

We can show premise (2) to be false if we can find an example where one thing is explained by reference to something else in such a way that even if we assume that each explaining thing must be explained by something else, the original explanation is, nevertheless, both complete and finite in length. If we find such an example, then even if an infinite number of different explanations were required in order to explain completely everything there is, it would still be true that some specific explanations of individual things would be complete and finite, so that premise (2) would be false.

It seems quite easy to find many examples which can be used to show that premise (2) is false. Consider how we would explain that there is a high tide at a particular time and at a particular location of a certain ocean. We would do it in part by reference to the position of the moon relative to the location of the tide. Although the resulting explanation might seem quite complicated because it requires mathematical laws relating the relevant masses and the resulting gravitational attraction between the moon and the ocean, it is clearly finite in length. Furthermore, it would seem that, whether or not the position of the moon is to be explained by reference to something else, as it siirely is, and even if the "chain" of separate explanations started in this way is infinitely long, the adequacy of the original explanation of the high tide is unaffected. It is a completely adequate scientific explanation as it stands, regardless of what else needs to be explained. It surely seems, therefore, that the high tide is completely explained once a completely adequate scientific explanation is given. The explanation of the high tide is finite in lengthand seems to be complete even if we assume that each explaining thing must itself be explained by another. It seems, then, that premise (2) is false.

It is not hard to construct what the reply to this example would be. We said that the idea behind this interpretation is that to explain something completely, everything referred to in the explanation must also be completely explained. But this clearly cannot be achieved if an infinite number of different explanations is required. Therefore, this reply would go, the explanation of the high tides is incomplete because it does not explain the position of the moon; thus the example does not refute premise (2). The important point to notice about this reply is that someone who makes it is committed to the position that a completely adequate scientific explanation of the high tide is, nevertheless, not a complete explanation. This is exactly the point Copleston makes at another place in his debate with Russell.

Russell: But when is an explanation adequate? Suppose I am about to make a flame with a match. You may say that the adequate explanation of that is that I rub it on the box.

Copleston: Well, for practical purposes -- but theoretically, that is only a partial explanation. An adequate explanation must ultimately be a total explanation to which nothing further can be added.

Russell: Then I can only say that you're looking for something which can't be got, and which one ought not to expect to get.

Copleston: To say that one has not found it is one thing; to say that one should not look for it seems to me rather dogmatic.¹⁸

Is there a reason to think that the principle of complete explanation is true? Copleston might attempt to turn the principle against Russell by claiming that it is certainly a presupposition of science, for scientific progress is premised on the doctrine that everything can be explained. We might agree that the achievements of science surely argue for a kind of justification of the principle as it is used by science, but must we then go on to agree with Copleston that science cannot do the complete job? Following Russell, we could interpret the principle so that it is sufficient for scientific purposes, but does not open the door to let in Copleston's nonscientific explanation. Science explains particular things and events so that the form of the principle needed for science is that there is a complete explanation of each particular event and each individual entity. Thus, this version of the principle, while allowing science all it needs, in no way states that the universe as a whole must be explainable independently of the particular explanations of each of the things that make up the whole universe. If we accept this version then we can agree with Russell that a completely adequate scientific explanation is a complete explanation and the high-tide example would falsify premise (2). There would, then, be no reason to claim that God is necessary to explain the world around us, no reason to postulate God as a theoretical explanatory entity. Science does not, however, answer questions such as. "Why is there something rather than nothing?" so perhaps we should agree that some kind of non-scientific explanation is required. It is not clear which position is more reasonable; thus we have reached an impasse on this point. We can, nevertheless, draw a conclusion about our main interest in explanation. Because we have not been able to resolve the debate about explanation in Copleston's favor, we can conclude that, although premise (2) may be true, it is open to reasonable doubt and therefore cannot be used to justify the conclusion that God exists. Thus, we should reject the third and final version of the first-cause argument. We cannot use it to justify a belief in the existence of God.

THE ARGUMENT FROM CONTINGENCY

The third way of Aquinas is a most ingenious attempt to establish the existence of God. It begins with the a posteriori truth that there are contingent things, that is, things such that it is possible that they begin to exist and possible that they cease to exist, and concludes that there exists a necessary being, that is, a being such that it is impossible that it begins to exist or cease to exist. Such a being is said to exist necessarily and is what we call God.¹⁹ Aquinas moves from the premise concerning the existence of contingent things to his conclusion by adding that it is impossible that contingent things always exist. Thus, he says, if everything is contingent, then at some time before now, nothing existed. But if at some time before now nothing at all existed, then nothing exists now, which is plainly false. Therefore there is a noncontingent, that is, a necessary being, namely God.

As stated, the crucial claim in Aquinas' third way is the claim that if everything is contingent, then at some time before now nothing existed. Why would Aquinas believe this? Partly because he is assuming, for purposes of the argument, that time is infinite. As Copleston says, "Aquinas is clearly supposing for the sake of the argument the hypothesis of infinite time, and his proof is designed to cover this hypothesis."²⁰ Imagine that this is correct, and that time stretches back infinitely into the past. We may then ask whether contingent things have always existed, throughout infinite past time, or whether they have existed for only a finite amount of time. On either of these answers, two possibilities are open. Take infinite time and the assumption that contingent things have existed for an infinite time into the past. This may mean either of two things, which can be expressed this way:

1. At each and every moment stretching infinitely back into the past, contingent things have existed.
2. Contingent things have existed at some times or other throughout infinite past time; that is, for any given moment of time in the past, some contingent things have existed at some time before that moment.

- - - ------------------------------

|-

|-

|-

|-

|-

|-

|-

|-

|-

|-

|-

|-

|-

|-

|

Now

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

c

c

c

c

c

c

c

c

c

c

c

c

c

c

c

As can be seen, at every moment of time extending back there are contingent things in existence. If we were able to actually draw such a line as would be needed, drawn infinitely to the left of the page, it would have an infinite number of cuts for moments, and each cut would have a letter c below it. Thus, we would have represented (a) in the diagram. The difference between (a) and (b) is that (b) leaves open the possibility of there being at least one moment when nothing existed. It requires only that for any such moment when nothing existed, some contingent things existed before that moment. Thus, (b) leaves open the possibility of a situation such as that diagrammed in the following:

- - - ------------------------------

|-

|-

|-

|-

|-

|-

|-

|-

|-

|-

|-

|-

|-

|-

|

Now

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

-

-

-

c

-

c

c

c

c

-

c

c

c

c

c

Now let us consider the other option, that contingent things have existed for only a finite amount of past time. Again we have two possibilities, namely:

3. At each and every moment stretching back into the past up to time to, contingent things have existed.
4. Contingent things have existed at some times or other throughout past time back to time to, that is, for any given moment of time back to t₊₁, some contingent things have existed before that time.

One reason why Aquinas' third way is so ingenious and fascinating is that it is designed to work no matter which option we choose, from (a) through (d). His central claim is that given the assumption of infinite past time, then if either (a) or (b) or (c) or (d) is correct, then at some time before now nothing existed. And this, he thinks, is all he really needs to make the argument from contingency work. Notice that by arguing in this fashion, Aquinas need not actually assert and endorse any of (a) through (d). In our statement of the argument, the differences between (a) and (b) on the one hand, and between (c) and (d) on the other, are not explicitly stated. The argument is, as we said, designed to succeed whichever of those options we take. The argument, then, is this:

1. Either there have been things for an infinite amount of time or there have been things for only a finite amount of time.
2. If there have been things for an infinite amount of time, then each different sum total of existing entities that can occur has occurred at some time or other before now.
3. If the only things that exist are contingent, then one possibility is that at some time before now none of them existed.
   Therefore
4. If there have been things for an infinite amount of time and the only things that exist are contingent, then at some time before now nothing existed. (from 2, 3)
5. If there have been things for only a finite amount of time and the only things that exist are contingent then at some time before now nothing existed
   Therefore
6. If the only things that exist are contingent, then at some time before now nothing existed. (from 1,4, 5)
7. If at some time before now nothing existed, then nothing exists now.
   Therefore
8. If the only things that exist are contingent, then nothing exists now. (from 6, 7)
9. It is false that nothing exists now.
   Therefore
10. It is false that the only things that exist are contingent, that is, there is a necessary being, namely God. (from 8, 9)

The crucial premises are clearly (2) and (3). Let us carefully consider both premises, beginning with premise (3), which is initially more plausible. If everything that has ever existed is contingent, then it is possible that each one ceases to exist at some time. Generally things cease existing at different times, so that usually at any one time some of them exist. But if we restrict our sample -- for example, to the freshman class of a particular college -- then although the members of the class will cease to exist at different times, there will come a time when all of these contingent beings have ceased to exist. If we now enlarge our sample to include all people and indeed all physical objects, we can see quite clearly that in this age of nuclear armament it is very possible that there come a time when no persons and indeed no physical objects exist. Surely, then, if only contingent things have ever existed, it is possible that at some time, which may as a matter of fact have occurred before now, every one of those things that had previously existed had ceased existing and no new one had begun to exist. Notice that this is not to claim it has happened, but only that it is possible that it has happened, which is a much weaker claim.

Premise (3) seems to be acceptable. But is it? Consider once again the principle of the conservation of mass-energy which we used as a reason for accepting premise (7). This principle states that if we take the universe to be a closed system, then no energy can be created or destroyed. But this looks familiar, because we can restate it to read that in the universe energy is such that it is impossible that some amount of it begin to exist and impossible that some amount of it cease to exist. Thus, given the truth of premise (9), once it is adapted to refer to energy, we must conclude that it is impossible that at some time before now nothing, including energy, existed. This will lead us to conclude that premise (3) is false unless we wish to claim that mass-energy exists necessarily rather than contingently, because it is something that can neither be created nor destroyed. But this is really not a viable way out, because when we characterized God as eternal, we decided that this should be interpreted so that it is logically impossible that he either begins to exist or ceases to exist. Thus a necessary being is one that is logically impossible to create or destroy. Therefore energy is contingent because it is logically possible to create or destroy it.

Objection: An Equivocation -- Physical Versus Logical Possibility

Something has gone wrong. On the one hand, premise (3) seems acceptable; on the other, it seems false. It surely seems possible that nothing exists, but it also seems impossible because the energy there is now could not have been created and cannot be destroyed. It seems that we have a problem about what is possible and what is not. To solve it we must examine the concept of possibility. It is important to note that there are several different kinds of possibility, two of which are relevant to our problem: logical possibility and physical possibility.

1. Logical Possibility: Something is logically possible if and only if it does not violate the laws of logic, that is, it does not logically imply a contradiction when it is conjoined with any analytically true sentence and the laws of logic. By this definition it is logically impossible that there is a married spinster living somewhere.
2. Physical Possibility: Something is physically possible if and only if (1) it is logically possible, and (2) it does not violate the physical laws of nature, that is, it is false that it logically implies a contradiction when conjoined with any true sentence (with which it is logically compatible) and with the laws of physics and logic. By this definition it is physically impossible that some cow jumped over the moon from the earth with no help.

If we re-examine premise (3), we shall find that it is acceptable when we interpret 'possible' one way, but quite dubious when we interpret it the other way. Let us consider physical possibility first. Thus (3) becomes:

3a. If the only things that have ever existed are logically contingent, then one physical possibility is that at some time before now nothing existed.

At this point someone might object that this way of handling (3a) rules out completely the claim that God created the world ex nihilo, because the law of the conservation of mass-energy, as here interpreted to apply to the universe as a whole, entails that a certain amount of energy has always existed. It is true that applying the law in this way makes creation ex nihilo physically impossible, but this does not rule out creation. Such a creation is surely a miracle and, like all violation-miracles, involves the physically impossible. Thus, although we would agree with Hume that violation-miracles and a fortiori creation ex nihilo are highly improbable, on the basis of what has been repeatedly established, this does not rule them out completely. That is, it does not make it logically impossible that they occur and, as we have also seen, it is only if miracles and creation ex nihilo were logically impossible that God would be unable to perform them.

Because (3d) using 'physical possibility' will not do, let us try 'logical possibility,' so that (3) becomes:

3b. If the only thing that exist are logically contingent, then one logical possibility is that at some time before now nothing existed.

Premise (2) is surely the most dubious of the premises, but I think we can make it seem somewhat more plausible by using an analogy involving coins. Consider two coins which are such that for each it is possible that it comes up heads and possible that it comes up tails. What are the possibilities available? There are 2ⁿ possibilities, where n is the number of coins involved. Thus for two coins there are four possibilities: heads, heads; heads, tails; tails, heads; and tails, tails. If we are given an infinite number of flips of these two coins we can surely conclude that at some time or other each of these possibilities will occur. Thus if premise (2) were stated as the flipping of two coins rather than the existence of objects, we could conclude that it is true. Furthermore, if we consider a million such coins, although there would be 2¹⁰⁶ possibilities, nevertheless given an infinite series of flips of all million coins, it would still seem likely that each of the 2¹⁰⁶ possibilities would have occurred at least once at some time or other. Indeed no matter how many coins we have, as long as the number is finite, it would seem that, given an infinite number of slips, each possibility would occur at least once. If we now apply the analogy so that we move from coins that can come up heads and can come up tails, to objects that can begin to exist and can cease existing, then we can see that given an infinite amount of time there may be some reason to claim that each possibility would occur at some time or other, and thus with premise (3) we would conclude, as in (4), that the one possibility of none of these objects existing would occur.

If, as the coin analogy implies, we might be able to accept premise (2), then the present interpretation of the argument from contingency may well be sound, because each premise is plausible and the argument is valid. One thing that should give us pause, however, is that the plausibility of premise (3) depends on which sense of 'possibility' is used. Which one have we used to make premise (2) plausible? To find out, let us consider another example, this time involving a roulette wheel. Given that there are an infinite number of turns of the wheel, it would seem that the ball would stop at least one time at each number at which it is physically possible for the ball to stop, no matter how large the roulette wheel is. Would it also stop at each logically possible number? Consider a roulette wheel that is fixed so that it is physically impossible for the ball to stop at the number 1. In such a case, the ball would not stop at least once at each number at which it is logically possible to stop, because there is no logical contradiction in the claim about a roulette wheel that its ball will stop at number 1, even if one also asserts that the wheel is fixed so that it is physically impossible that it stop at the number 1. Consequently, if the universe is more like a fixed roulette wheel than like one which runs randomly, then some things that are logically possible will not occur. Although it is logically possible that some day the cow will jump over the moon with no one helping it, it is surely physically impossible, so that we can conclude that it will not happen. It is physical possibility rather than logical possibility that is important for what occurs. Furthermore, because the law of the conservation of mass-energy can be used to show that certain logically possible situations, such as the situation in which nothing at all exists, are physically impossible and thus will not occur unless miraculously, we must use 'physical possibility' in (2) if we are to make it at all plausible.

We must use 'physical possibility' in premise (2) to make it plausible, but we had to use 'logical possibility' in (3) to make it plausible. We need to use different senses of possibility' in these two premises for both to be plausible. The result is that we can nake them both plausible only by equivocating in our use of the word 'possibility.' But this makes the argument invalid, because any argument to be valid must use all its terms univocally, with one meaning, throughout. Therefore the argument from contingency is faced with the following dilemma: If there is no equivocation on the word 'possible,' then at least one premise is false and the argument is unsound. If there is an quivocation on 'possible,' then the argument is invalid and, consequently, unsound. From this we can conclude that the argument is unsound. We cannot justify a belief in God using the argument from contingency.

THE ARGUMENT FROM DESIGN

One of the most discussed arguments that has been used to justify a belief in the existence of God is the argument from design, or, as it is called, the teleological argument. Although this argument is like those we have already examined in that it is an a posteriori argument, it differs from them in an important way. Unlike the previous arguments, which are all deductive the argument from design is essentially an inductive argument. It is an attempt to construe the universe, or at least certain characteristics of the universe, as being like certain things humans have designed and created, so at we can inductively infer from this evidence of design that there is a designer or creator like the intelligent designer of human artifacts but, obviously, much more intelligent. At the core of the argument, then, lies an analogy between the universe of things we know to be designed and created by intelligent beings. The argument from design, then, is an analogical argument, and we should, therefore, briefly examine the form of an analogical argument. Let us assume that there is some object O₁ and that we want to find out whether it has some property P₁, but we cannot find this out in any direct way. If we compare O₁ with some other objects we know to have property P₁ and find that O₁ is like the others in several other respects but differs from them in no important respects, then we can conclude that probably O₁ has property P₁. It is important, of course, that all the available evidence be considered, because there may be differences which make it improbable that O₁ has property P₁.

Analogical Arguments

We can state the general form of an analogical argument as follows:

1. Objects O₁, O₂, O₃, . . .O_n have properties P₂, P₃, P₄, . . .P_n in common.
2. Objects O₂, O₃, . . .O_n have property P₁.
   Therefore, probably
3. Object O₁ has property P₁.

From this example we can extract four different kinds of factors which will affect the probability of the conclusion. These and other relevant factors must be weighed in arriving at any final statement about the probability or improbability of a conclusion. The following two factors will strengthen the argument, that is, increase the probability of the conclusion:

1. The greater the number of objects included in O₂ . . . O_n having properties P₁ . . . P_n, the more probable is the conclusion.
2. The greater the number of properties included in P₂ . . . P_n that the objects O₁ . . . O_n have in common, the more probable is the conclusion.

3. The greater the number of objects that have P₂ . . . P_n but that do not have P₁, the less probable is the conclusion.
4. The stronger the claim made in the conclusion, relative to the premise, the less probable is the conclusion.

Two Versions of the Argument from Design

The two most celebrated versions of the argument from design are found in Hume's Dialogues on Natural Religion and the fifth way of Aquinas. Aquinas states his version is follows:

We see that things which lack knowledge, such as natural bodies, act for an end, and this is evident from their acting always, or nearly always, in the same way, so as to obtain the best result. Hence it is plain that they achieve their end, not fortuitously, but designedly. Now whatever lacks knowledge cannot move toward an end, unless it be directed by some being endowed with knowledge and intelligence; as the arrow is directed by the archer. Therefore some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are directed to their end; and this being we call God.²²

Look around the world: Contemplate the whole and every part of it: You will find it to be nothing but one great machine, subdivided into an infinite number of lesser machines, which again admit of subdivisions, to a degree beyond what human senses and faculties can trace and explain. All these various machines, and even their most minute parts, are adjusted to each other with an accuracy, which ravishes into admiration all men, who have ever contemplated them. The curious adapting of means to ends, throughout all nature, resembles exactly, though it much exceeds, the production of human contrivance; of human design, thought, wisdom, and intelligence. Since therefore the effects resemble each other, we are led to infer, by all the rules of .analogy, that the causes also resemble, and that the Author of nature is somewhat similar to the mind ofman, though possessed of much larger faculties, proportioned to the grandeur of the work, which He has executed. By this argument a posteriori, and by this argument alone, do we prove at once the existence of a Deity and His similarity to human mind and intelligence.23

1. The natural objects that make up the universe (that is, the nonsentient, non-manmade objects, such as trees, rocks, mountains, planets) act to achieve some end or goal.
2. If something acts to achieve an end, then it is directed toward that end by some intelligent being.
3. No natural objects are intelligent beings.
   Therefore
4. There exists some intelligent being that directs the natural objects to achieve some end or goal.
5. This director is God.

1. The universe is like a huge manmade machine made up of many lesser machines, except that the universe is much more complex than any manmade machine.
2. Like effects have like causes.
3. The cause of a manmade machine is an intelligent being.
   Therefore, probably
4. The cause of the universe is an intelligent being.
5. This cause is God.

6. The natural objects that make up the universe are like things which act to achieve some end or goal.
   Therefore, probably

1. The natural objects that make up the universe act to achieve some end or goal.

The second difference between the two versions is more important. Aquinas talks only of an intelligent being who directs natural objects to some goal, whereas Cleanthes talks about the author of nature. That is, Aquinas' version proves only that there is some very intelligent director or designer who has planned the course of the universe, but Cleanthes' version proves that an extremely intelligent being created the universe in accordance with some plan or purpose. Before we examine the argument we must decide which conclusion to use. We know that Cleanthes' conclusion is stronger than Aquinas' because it claims that there is a creator and designer, whereas Aquinas' conclusion merely claims there is a designer. Thus Aquinas' conclusion will be more probable than that of Cleanthes relative to the same set of premises. However, the purpose of the argument is to establish the existence of God, and what we would call God is not merely the designer, but also the creator of the universe. Consequently, if we merely establish that there is a designer or architect of the universe, there is some doubt whether we are justified in calling such a being God. Let us, then, use Cleanthes' version for the purpose of a critical evaluation.

We can put Cleanthes' argument into the form of analogical arguments that we have previously discussed by letting O₁ = the universe, O2 . . .O_n = various kinds of machines, P₁ = the property of having an intelligent designer and creator and P₂ . . . P_n = various properties O₁ has in common with O₂ . . . O_n. If we pick for an example of a machine a watch as used by another defender of the argument, William Paley, we can point out several properties in common.²⁴ A watch has gears which revolve in a certain orderly way on certain axes, some of which affect others so as to cause the regular ticking off of the seconds, minutes, and hours. Similarly, we can observe the moon revolving around the earth and the earth revolving on its axis, and also around the sun, in a certain orderly way so as to cause the regular rising and falling of the tides and the regular coming of day and night. The earth, moon, and sun in their various relationships to each other produce a regular temporal procession just do the gears of a watch in their various relationships. And because a watch has property P₁ (that is, has an intelligent desigrier and creator), so also, most probably, does the earth and the rest of the universe. This, then, is the argument that we all consider. However, this is not the only analogy possible. Although we have followed Cleanthes and likened the universe to a machine, there is also a design to be found in human works of art. The formal relationships of shapes and colors which go together to produce the beautiful design of a painting are much like the shapes and colors which go together to produce the quiet beauty of a sunset reflected in a mountain pool, or the brilliant beauty of a New England fall, with the colors of leaves contrasting with the white birch trunks. If we were to use this analogy, then God would be the supreme artist rather than the greatest inventor. We shall, however, continue to use Cleanthes' machine analogy, because there seems to be no reason to think that the art analogy is any better.

In evaluating Cleanthes' argument we can do no better than to turn to his antagonist in the Dialogues, Philo, for the crucial objections. Philo's chief objections are aimed at two places: at the strength of the analogy and thus at the strength of the analogical justification of (4), and at the inference from (4) to (5) -- that is, from the claim supported by the analogy that there is a cause of the universe to the conclusion that this cause is God.

Objection to Cleanthes' Analogy: Nonintelligent Causes of Design

Philo's objection to the analogical grounds of the argument is essentially an attempt to show that there is no reason to think that the universe resembles the creation of an intelligent being any more than the causal product of nonintelligent forces. In effect, Philo is trying to show that many objects have properties P₂ . . . P_n in common with the universe, but do not have property P₁, that is, do not have an intelligent designer and creator. Philo is, then, applying factor (iii) in order to decrease the probability of the conclusion to a point where it is no longer probable. Philo claims that although what order and design we find in the universe might be attributed to intelligence, there are at least three other causes of order and design which have equal claim. Consider the order and design that results from vegetable reproduction, animal reproduction, and instinct.²⁵ We can find intricate order, design, and beauty in a flower, bush, or tree, and all of these are brought about not by an intelligent being, but come from a seed in the ground which receives water and sunlight. In none of thse four factors -- seed, earth, water, sunlight -- is there any hint of intelligence. Furthermore, consider a beautiful Persian cat, a peacock, exotic tropical fish, or even a particular human being. The ordering of parts of such organisms, the interrelating functioning of parts, the beauty of many of them are all the causal result of the fertilization of an egg in an act of animal reproduction. Here again there is no reason to think that intelligence was at all relevant, not even in the case of humans, where intelligence is usually used to avoid fertilization. Think also of the marvelous order and design produced by instinct. The geometric precision of bee hives, the intricate pattern of ant tunnels, the functional design of birds' nests, and beaver dams, all seem to be effects of instinctive forces rather than the studied result of some intelligent planning. What grounds are there for picking one from among four quite different causes of order and design? It is no less reasonable to claim, and therefore no less probable, that the earth and the other parts of the universe have sprouted from some seed or matured from some egg fertilized eons ago, or some residual part of the instinctive production of some animal long since extinct, than to claim that it is the planned result of some unseen being with great intelligence. Indeed, as Philo says in countering Cleanthes' analogy with one of his own,

Now if we survey the universe, so far as it falls under our knowledge, it bears a great resemblance to an animal or organized body, and seems actuated with a like principle of life and motion. A continual circulation of matter in it produces no disorder: A continual waste in every part is incessantly repaired: The closest sympathy is perceived throughout the entire system: and each part or member, in performing its proper office, operates both to its own preservation and to that of the whole. The world, therefore, I infer, is an animal; and the Deity is the soul of the world actuating it, and actuated by it.²⁶

From the preceding discussion we can conclude, with Philo, that because intelligence is only one among many things in this world that produce order and design, there is no reason to think it is any more probable that an intelligent being produced the universe than that one of the other causes of order and design produced the universe. Consequently, although we can agree with Cleanthes that the universe is in several respects like a machine which has property P₁, we have also found that it is like many things that do not have property P₁, so that the probability that the universe has property P₁ is quite low indeed. It is surely too low to conclude that from among all the kinds of causes of order and design we can pick out one which is probably the cause of the universe and that one is intelligence.

Objection to Inferring the Cause of the Universe Is God: Like Effects Have Like Causes

We have seen that the analogy essential to the argument from design cannot support the conclusion, statement (4) -- 'The cause of the universe is an intelligent being.' In a sense, then, it is superfluous to go on to show that even if statement (4) is granted, the move from (4) to (5) -- 'This cause is God' -- is unsound. However, not only is Philo's objection to this move interesting in its own right, but it stresses another important point relevant to supporting conclusions about unknown things by means of analogies with known things. Philo points out that if we conclude (4) on the basis of the similarity between the universe and some human artifact, such as a watch or ship or house, then we must conclude in accordance with the principle that like effects havp like causes, that the causes of the artifacts and of the universe are equally similar. In other words, although the more similar the universe and human artifacts are, the more probable premise (4) is, it is also true that the more similar they are, the more similar are their causes. Thus if the similarity is sufficient to make (4) probable, then we must follow through with the analogy and conclude that probably the causes are much alike. But if this is so, and if we accept the inference from (4) to (5), then, as Philo points out, we would have to attribute some most ungodlike characteristics to God. Consider the following points made by Philo:

1. Even if this world were perfect it must still remain uncertain, whether all the excellences of the work can justly be ascribed to the workman. If we survey a ship, what an exalted idea must we form of the ingenuity of the carpenter, who framed so complicated, useful and beautiful a machine? And what surprise must we entertain, when we find him a stupid mechanic, who imitated others, and copied an art, which, through a long succession of ages, after multiplied trials, mistakes, corrections, deliberations, and controversies, had been gradually improving? Many worlds might have been botched and bungled, throughout an eternity, ere this system was struck out: Much labour lost: Many fruitless trials made: And a slow but continued improvement carried on during infinite ages in the art of world making.²⁷
2. And what shadow of an argument, continued Philo, can you produce, from your hypothesis, to prove the unity of the Deity? A great number of men join in building a house or ship, in rearing a city, in framing a commonwealth: Why may not several deities combine in contriving and framing a world? This is only so much greater similarity to human affairs.²⁸
3. But further, Cleanthes; men are mortal, and renew their species by generation; and this is common to all living creatures. Why must this circumstance, so universal, so essential, be excluded from those numerous and limited Deities?²⁹
4. And why not become a perfect anthropomorphite? Why not assert the Deity or Deities to be corporeal, and to have eyes, a nose, mouth, ears, etc.?³⁰

This world, for aught he knows, is very faulty and imperfect, compared to a superior standard; and was only the first rude essay of some infant Deity, who afterwards abandoned it, ashamed of his lame performance; it is the work only of some dependent, inferior Deity; and is the object of derision to his superiors: it is the production of old age and dotage in some superannuated Deity; and ever since his death, has run on at adventures, from the first impulse and active force which it received from him. . . . ³¹

We have found two objections to the design argument which are sufficient to eliminate it as an inductive justification of the belief that God exists. This is the last plausible a posteriori argument for the existence of God. The natural move at this point is to reject a posteriori proofs and claim that if the belief in the existence of God is to be justified it must be by some a priori proof, some proof that uses no premises which are justified by evidence gathered through the experiences human beings have in this world. Let us consider such a proof.

AN A PRIORI ARGUMENT

One of the simplest yet most intriguing and baffling arguments that has ever been devised is the ontological argument. From the time of St. Anselm, in the eleventh century, to the present, is has been endlessly discussed. Time and time again it has been thought to be refuted and finally laid to rest, only to reappear as troublesome as ever. There have been two classical statements of the argument, one by St. Anselm and one by Rene Descartes. We shall consider Descartes' version first because it is the simpler argument of the two and brings out more directly one of the central points of contention.

THE ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT: DESCARTES' VERSION

Descartes argues that whenever I choose to think of the First and Supreme Being, and as it were bring out the idea of him from the treasury of my mind, I must necessarily ascribe to him all perfections, even if I do not at the moment enumerate them all, or attend to each. This necessity clearly ensures that, when later on I observe that existence is a perfection, I am justified in concluding that the First and Supreme Being exists.³²

We can lay out Descartes' argument in the following simple form:

1. All perfections are properties of the supreme being.
2. Existence is a perfection.
   Therefore
3. The supreme being has existence, that is, exists.