This is a post I originally posted to my other blog, The Humanist Observer.
http://humanistobserver.blogspot.com/ 

This post is in response to an "Ultimate Issues Hour" segment entitled "Who made God" on the Dennis Prager radio show, September 12th 2006, and can be listened to at:
http://www.townhall.com/TalkRadio/Show.aspx?RadioShowId=3&ContentGuid=8485759b-115c-4c89-bb0d-9b9e91de3e4f

Dear Mr. Prager,
Recently on your program during the "Ultimate Issues Hour" you took the position that because the universe exists, then a creator God must have "made it". You claim that this is a very powerful argument for the existence of God. You assert that the claim that "the universe made itself" is absurd. Furthermore, you characterized the objection in the form of a question "Who made God?" as a non-sensical one.

I have several objections. First, is the language employed. The word "made" implies active, creative, and conscious activity. To say that the universe "made itself" is indeed non-sensical. IF God exists, and it created the universe then the word "made" is appropriate. An atheist should not propose that the universe "made itself". Indeed, nothing can "make itself". But of course your use of these particular phrases is a way to stack the deck in your favor. Instead the atheist should propose that the universe came into being by natural processes, or that the universe is "self-caused".

If the theist argues that the existence of the universe requires a creator, why should the skeptic grant the theist an exemption for the explanation of God's existence? Simply because the theist defines God as something that "just is" and always has been, not requiring explanation? Why is this necessarily superior to the assumption that the universe "just-is", self-caused and came into being through natural processes? I argue that the only things exempt from explanation are imaginary things that do not actually exist. If you claim this, then the exemption is granted.

The concept of God is a total mystery. Theists typically claim that God is a non-material being, but a conscious "spirit" being. The word "spirit" is used to speak of disembodied (non-material) consciousness. Nobody has demonstrated the existence of "spirit" or given an adequate account of the possibility of its existence. There is only speculation of the existence of "spirit" in theology and other forms of religious thought.

On the other hand, as it now stands, cognitive sciences have revealed that consciousness, "the mind", is dependent on the material activity of the brain. Although it is not well understood exactly how consciousness arises from the electro-chemical activity of the material brain, scientists are working on this problem. We should not assume that they will never solve the problem of consciousness.

Is it possible that a special being (a God) with conciousness, a mind, but without a brain can exist? A disembodied mind? I think it is doubtful, and there is no reason to assume it true.

As to how the universe came into being, a simpler hypothesis with fewer assumptions is preferable to a more complex hypothesis with more assumptions. The hypothesis that the universe came into being by means of natural processes, without an external cause requires the universe, and the assumption that it is self-caused. The God hypothesis requires the universe, the assumption of God, and the assumption that God is self-caused. The latter hypotheses is obviously more complex, and assumes the existence of a mysterious entity not demonstrated to exist.

One often hears the argument that something cannot come from nothing. Therefore, a God must be the source of the something, the universe. But why should we permit the assumption that a God can come from nothing? Or that God has always been?

You, Dennis Prager, object that science does not have an answer to what proceeded and caused the Big-Bang which brought the universe into being. Indeed, science does not have the answers to every question that can be asked, and it may never have ALL the answers.

However, that does not mean that religious answers to these questions are by default correct. This is the "God of the gaps" argument that pretends to answer these questions. The theists should not be able to set up the rules that support their desired conclusion, and then declare that these rules are not relevant when the same rules can be used to question their premises and desired conclusion.

You, (Prager) claim that the question "Who made God?" is a non-sensical question. Perhaps so; but only to the extent that the concept of a God that is outside of time, space, and nature is equally non-sensical.

 War is not the answer?

One of Dennis Prager's favorite ways to slander "The Left" and those against the Iraq war is to focus on the phrase "War is Not the Answer." Indeed, this phrase can be seen on bumper-stickers and protests signs. Simply standing alone it is a slogan, not an argument. However, it can be the conclusion to an argument supported by premises and supporting evidence.

My problem with Prager is that he pretends that this slogan is the anti-war movement's argument.  He argues that it was based solely on an emotional reaction to the war.  This amounts to constructing a straw-man argument to knockdown. No doubt there are some not-so-thoughtful anti-war folks out there who employ slogans instead of substantiated arguments. However, it is no credit to a critic like Prager to attack his opposition's weakest argument, or in this case a bumper-sticker slogan.

Before I continue with the Iraq case, let me just make clear that I would agree with Prager in general terms that sometimes war is necessary. War indeed may be a neccessary evil, a phrase I predict Prager would not concur with taking issue with the use of "evil". But I make no defense of any conclusion that "war is never the answer."

Prager's favorite example, and rightly so, is World War II and the war to stop Nazi Germany and its fascist allies. It is important to note in this case that it was Nazi Germany and Japan that were the main instigators of these wars, and the U.S. and its allies were forced into war.

This was clearly not the case with Iraq, nor will it be with Iran.

Leading up to the Iraq invasion there were many arguments that led to the conclusion that war was not the answer, nor was it neccessary in this case. First, there was evidence calling into question the Bush administrations claims about Iraq's possession of weapons of mass destruction BEFORE the invasion.  Iraq had readmitted inspectors, and any threat of Iraq's possession of WMD and could have been contained.

Many of the arguments against the war predicted exactly the problems we are now seeing in Iraq at this time. That is, a nationalist insurgency attacking U.S. soldiers, civil-war and sectarian violence.   And speaking of anti-war slogans and posters. Back in 2003 prior to the invasion of Iraq I recall seeing a poster on a street corner with a depiction of Osama Bin Laden posed like an Uncle Sam with the quotes "I want you to invade Iraq!"  Iraq now is the training ground and recruitment issue of Islamic jihadists.  Mission accomplished for Osama!

 

 Hello, this is my first introductory post on The Pesky Lefty here at Townhall.com.  Why am I here?  To talk back and argue with conservatives, Judeo-Christian imaginary God believers, and jingoistic patriots.  But lets keep it civil and to actual arguments.

I am a "big fan" of the Dennis Prager radio show, as well as his columns here at Townhall.com.  I disagree with much of what he says, but he provides a lot of grist for my mill, so I credit him for that.  In fact I almost named this blog "Refuting Prager (and others)."

Please free to leave comments.