The previous chapters discussed the invalidity of the Christian concept of a creator. The concept has been refuted through several topics and through the presented main evidence - The Book of Revelation. The current chapter will then be evaluating and providing evidence for two options:
(1) The possibility of a neutral creator.
St. Thomas Aquinas' presentation on a possible Creator, the quinque viae, will also be evaluated briefly through evidence. Then St. Augustine of Hippo's free-will argument will also be discussed and evaluated. Blaise Pascal's wager will be presented with an alternative theory.
Examples below from the Bible itself:
Exodus 15:2 - " The Lord is a man of war: the Lord is his name".
Isaiah 45:7 - "I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things".
Deuteronomy 32:39 - "See now that I, even I, am he, and there is no god with me: I kill, and I make alive; I wound, and I heal: neither is there any that can deliver out of my hand".
Revelation 6:8 - "And I looked and behold a pale horse: and his name that sat on him was Death, and Hell followed with him. And power was given unto them over the fourth part of the earth, to kill with sword, and with hunger, and with death, and with the beasts of the earth".
Evidence from Thomas Aquinas' Summa Theologica The Five Ways :
1. The Argument of the Unmoved Mover
Evidence against the Unmoved Mover theory: The Sol star or sun is both mover and moved. The behaviour of the galaxy creates the conditions of its composition and creation. There also different types of galaxies with stars in them. Galaxies also collide with each other and some are not spiral types. Galaxies are also moving in several directions. Is it possible that the movement of galaxies are infinite rather than originating from one Unmoved Mover? If there was one "bang" is it possible that chemical conditions created the bang rather than a mover? The formation of ice is a prime example where chemical conditions changes water into ice by simply lowering the temperature in a controlled environment. All of the previous information was gathered years after the statement by Thomas Aquinas which is an example of social evolution. No object moves itself unless it has free-will or guided by another object but this would mean that the Unmoved Mover has been identified in possessing a quality of the created: free-will. For instance, "the fire and wood" analogy mentioned by Thomas Aquinas. These objects has no free-will but it is guided by another agent - the sentient human being. The question arises: Objects which contain free-will derived from objects without free-will? For example, earlier chemicals evolved into human beings on Earth. The variable of "free-will"(from natural evolution) refutes the Unmoved Mover theory. Finally, thinking robots or artificial life-forms are made from computer chips which does not contain "free-will".
2. The Argument of the First Cause
Evidence against the First Cause theory: There is no first cause, there is just cause and effect. The cycle of the four seasons on Earth is a prime example of the very highly probable and natural conclusion of an infinite cause and effect. The supposition of "Hell" and "Heaven", if believed, validates the idea of an infinite cause and effect. In other words, the belief of predestination and value of the afterlife validates infinite cause and effect. Finally, there is no first cause through natural and supposed supernatural examples. Even though; by natural means, it could be deducted that there was a "big bang" for the universe, the said event could not validate the existence of a creator. The suggestion of the term - First - would suggest a creator which could not be proven and therefore it is just "cause and effect".
3. The Argument from Contingency
Evidence against the Contingency theory: St. Anselm of Canterbury in his treatise, Cur Deus Homo or Why God became Man, offered his opinion on this subject. He presented the 'Greatest Conceivable Being' or GCB theory. The GCB theory is to suggest that when a person imagines a being that being is neither created nor destroyed then this being is God or the creator. Gaunilo, his opposing contemporary of the era, offered an interesting rebuttal: Imagine the 'Greatest Conceivable Island'. The obvious becomes tantamount to a natural "sin": the imagination could be wrong or theories are flawed. In other words, just because an object is imagined does not make it a fact or true. Therefore, the 'Greatest Conceivable Being' develops into a relativistic opinion or an absurdity rather than an absolute fact. The alternative theory is to present that the origin of "free-will" derives from natural reactions rather than from 'divine' predestination. For example, the creation of the universe from an unthinking group of chemicals into a group of reacting molecules forced by natural pressure and gravity. Then these natural molecules developed into bacteria which developed naturally into other life-forms. In other words; the factor of "free-will", deriving from a natural source, refutes the GCB theory and the argument from Contigency. Let me interject a possible hypothesis: In the early phases of the universe only thinking molecules possibly existed and then sentient thinking gaseous life-forms developed before any other type of sentient thinking life-forms existed later and elsewhere. The previous interjection proves that GCB and the contingency theory, which derived from the mind or a priori, are not proven theories therefore flawed.
4.The Argument from Degree
Evidence against the Degree theory: There is neither "good" nor "evil" concerning the increase of temperature because it derives from chemical reactions which do not contain free-will. The source of "good" and "evil"; in summary, derive from social evolution, social constructs and therefore natural free-will. The previous supposition will be elaborated further in later chapters. The designations of "good" and "evil" both derive from free-will or free choice from naturally thinking and sentient beings. Therefore, "good" and "evil" derive from the reactions of others(agents) as they observe and react to actions from an acting agent.
Evidence against the Teleological argument: The reacting agents define what is "good" and "evil" therefore creating the limits and range of a sole acting agent. All the previous agents behave under a socially evolved contract or agreed evolved laws. For example; the court system, especially in the U.S., is an example of trial and error therefore enacting precedence. The collective decision by a group of individuals(reacting agents), a jury, is enacted and agreed upon. These reacting agents decides if the past acts of an individual(acting agent) is justified or unjustified. Chemicals also have laws to follow based on the natural environment or the natural laws of the universe. The existence of natural laws is a moot point on the existence of a creator or God.
St. Augustine's Fixed Cause Fallacy:
"Who then will blame Christians for not being able to give a reason for
(SOURCE: Pensees; Section 3: Of the Necessity of the Wager, Point 233 - 7th through 9th paragraphs)
The proposed summary of Pascal's wager:
All the previous evidence guides any sane individual to the conclusion that the God of Augustine does not exist along with the 'Fixed Cause' fallacy or predestination. I added "Reason" rather than "Temporal" or "Material" because there's evidence within Pensees that Blaise Pascal also attacked Rene Descartes' usage of the term "Reason". Blaise Pascal is criticizing, early, cartesian rationalism which states reason alone guarantees knowledge. The problem of both Blaise Pascal and Rene Descartes is the foundation of a flawed belief system in which is used to conclude their theories. Of course, we have the words of Blaise Pascal himself: the individual "must renounce reason" to preserve one's life.
What is the rationale derived from reason to explain our actions? The given theory of Pascal's triangle will be borrowed again in the next presentation. The proposed theory is given and presented as 'Probability wager':
The above is true among all individuals despite their various belief system or the lack of a belief system. The 'utility' of our action does not in any way proves or disproves the existence of a neutral creator it simply verifies our existence as contributors to society. The above 'Probability wager' leaves the question unanswered concerning a deity or creator and concentrates on the behavior of individuals - the end result of our actions. The flip of the coin (50% result), referenced and hinted by Blaise Pascal in Pensees, is left alone and the importance of the end result of any actions towards every individual is concentrated on.
The subject concerning "positive" and "negative" charge into society, by each individual in society, is discussed in the following chapter. The proceeding chapter discusses the highly probable origin of "positive" and "negative" charges and their results. The role of the acting agent and the various reacting agents, within society, have been proven through Pascal's triangle and the consequent 'Probability Wager'.
The acting agent is the sole individual and everyone else in society is the reacting agents. The subject concerning "God" exists outside of the acting agents and therefore would be a projected agent.
The projected agent could be "God", the state or another object. There are two types of projected agents: proven projected agents and unproven projected agents. For example, the idea or belief of a neutral creator could not be verified or proven while the idea of a state entity could be proven. For instance, when a child is born it knows nothing and is born with a "blank slate". The previous term was used by John Locke(1632-1704) and called the previous state of being as "tabula rasa". Therefore, through our experiences there are two types of projected agents: Proven and Unproven. Hence, the reason for the 50% probability principle in proving at least the existence of a neutral creator.