Greg Johnston, Jr.

Let us examine an argument that claims that God is imaginary. The title of the argument is “Try Praying”. The main argument is that because God does not answer our prayer for Him to cure every instance of cancer, He is imaginary (does not exist). Several scripture references are cited in support of the argument, namely Mt 7:7-10, 17:20, 21:21; Mk 11:24; Jn 14:12-14. Several actual arguments exist in the article in the following form:

1. Premise: If God/Jesus said {something regarding prayer from the aforementioned verses}, and we ask God to cure cancer, then God should cure cancer.
2. Premise: God does not cure cancer.
3. Conclusion: Therefore, God does not exist.

The first argument quotes Jesus in Matthew 7:7-11 and makes the following argument:

1. Premise: If “our Father who is in heaven gives good things to those who ask him”, then if we ask him to cure cancer, he should cure it.
2. Premise: God does not cure cancer.
3. Conclusion: Therefore, God does not exist.

Is this argument valid? Is it sound? Are there any logical fallacies presented? There are several layers of assumptions intertwined into this argument that must be discharged for this argument to be proven. Furthermore, premise 1 is an argument itself. Here are the elements of the argument with the added assumptions:

1. Premise 1
1. Premise: Our Father who is in heaven gives good things to those who ask him
2. Assumption: Curing every instance of cancer is a good thing.
3. Assumption: God is required to do what we ask.
4. Premise: I have asked God to cure every instance of cancer.
5. Conclusion: Therefore, God must cure every instance of cancer.
2. Premise 2
1. Premise: God does not cure cancer.
2. Assumption: No instance of the elimination of cancer in one person in history can be attributed to God.
3. Assumption: No instance of the elimination of cancer in one person in the future can be attributed to God.
4. Assumption: If cancer miraculously disappeared it could not be attributed to God.
5. Assumption: If man discovered a cure to cancer it could not be attributed to God.
3. Conclusion
1. Assumption: For God to exist, He must meet the qualifications set out in premise 1, even if those qualifications are inconsistent with other depictions of God.

The deeply implicit assumptions in this argument present some difficulty in proving that this is indeed a valid argument. For instance, if one is going to argue from the Bible that God should cure every instance of cancer if He exists because it is good, that person has neither considered the attributes of God as presented in Scripture nor pondered the nature of the fallen world. Romans 8:28 states that “all things work together for good for those who love God and are called according to His purpose.” A biblical view of God is one that sees His ultimate sovereignty over all things. For more information regarding God’s sovereignty, see A. W. Pink’s The Sovereignty of God. The Bible presents the universe in a fallen state due to the sin of Adam. The entire cosmos is touched by the corruption of sin. Adam’s sin was imputed to all men (Romans 5:12). Earth was no longer a peaceful and safe place to dwell; furthermore, work would be hard (Genesis 3:17-19). God forewarned of disease, earthquakes, and famines (Luke 21:11). God uses disease for the purpose of teaching people (Proverbs 3:11, 15:32). To Moses, God asserted, “Who has made man’s mouth? Who makes him mute, or deaf, or seeing, or blind? Is it not I, the Lord?” (Exodus 4:11). Trials and sufferings bring patience and patience bring character and character brings hope (James 1:2; Romans 5:3-4). The syllogism is as follows: if we experience suffering, we will get patience. If we get patience, we’ll grow in character. If we grow in character, we’ll acquire hope. Therefore if we experience suffering, we’ll acquire hope. The negation of the syllogism is as follows: If we don’t acquire hope, then we have not experienced suffering.

The argument presented by godisimaginary.com in “Proof #1″ does not reflect the Biblical presentation of the nature and character of God and creation. God is all-powerful, self-existent, and transcendent, and is therefore in control of all things. For disease to exist, it must have a purpose in God’s plan. “For from Him and through Him and to Him are all things. To Him be glory forever, amen,” says Paul in Romans 11:38.

So what, then, is a “good thing” that Jesus told his audience at the Sermon on the Mount to ask for? That’s not for us to decide. In order to understand what to pray for, one must be indwelt by the Holy Spirit, because we are too weak:

Likewise the Spirit helps us in our weakness. For we do not know what to pray for as we ought, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us with groanings too deep for words. And he who searches hearts knows what is the mind of the Spirit, because the Spirit intercedes for the saints according to the will of God. (Romans 8:26-27, ESV)

In order to be indwelt by the Holy Spirit, one must be saved. The Bible presents a radically different view of man than the world wants to accept. Man is by nature spiritually dead (Ephesians 2:1) and under the rule and dominion of Satan (Ephesians 2:2-3). It is only when God elects to have mercy on an undeserving sinner and regenerates their depraved soul that salvation occurs and the human becomes indwelt with the Holy Spirit (Ephesians 2:4-10). This is an act of grace and results in the person’s repentance and profession of faith in Jesus Christ. When this occurs, the person may pray for those “good things” that Jesus said that they would receive if only they asked. In a spiritually dead state, however, not even a single soul is capable of asking for “good things”.

There are many other ways to provide counterexamples to invalidate this argument, but they are not needed. The assumptions implicit in this argument are the keys to its own demise.

Are there any fallacies presented in this argument that we can learn from? An obvious one is the fallacy of non sequitur, which simply means that the conclusion does not follow from the premises.

There exists a militant atheist website at the following URL: godisimaginary.com. The home page makes some of the following claims:

• Billions of people attend millions of churches around the world to worship God. Yet the God they worship is completely imaginary. Their belief represents a delusion.
• It is easy to prove that God is imaginary. Start at the beginning with Proof #1…

This site claims to present 50 proofs that God doesn’t exist. I will attempt to address all 50 of these “proofs” one by one. But first, let us define some terms.

• A proof is a series of propositions in a logical formula used to establish the truth of the argument.
• An argument is a set of statements used in an attempt to establish a fact. Arguments require at least 1 premise and a conclusion. An argument is not a statement of fact or a series of statements of fact. For example, this is not an argument:
  1. The sky is blue.
  2. My shoes are blue.
  3. I like my shoes because they remind me of the sky.

  This is an argument:

  1. Premise: All computer programmers are geeks.
  2. Premise: I am a computer programmer.
  3. Conclusion: Therefore, I am a geek.
• A premise is a statement that supports a conclusion.
• A conclusion is a deducted inference that must be true if the argument is sound.
• A sound argument is an argument that is valid and all of its premises are true.
• An argument is valid if and only if it is impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion to be false. In other words, if all of the premises are true and the conclusion is false, the argument is invalid. Observe the following invalid argument:
  1. All computer programmers drink decaffeinated coffee.
  2. I am a computer programmer.
  3. Therefore, I drink decaffeinated coffee.

  While at first glance this argument looks fine, it is in fact the case that I am a computer programmer and drink strongly caffeinated coffee. Therefore, the argument is invalid. The first premise is false.

As I systematically analyze the arguments (or non-arguments) made by the authors of the site linked above, I will be looking for valid and sound arguments as well as formal and informal logical fallacies.

There is a trend among humanity to ponder their existence. The following questions have been asked for centuries:

• Do I exist?
• If I exist, what else exists?
• How did I come into being?

In modern times, the questions have been more narrowly focused.

• Did I indeed evolve from other species?
• Does God exist?
• If God exists, what are his characteristics?
• Is matter self-existent?

Many have attempted to answer the question of ontology. Some claim that matter is self-existent. Others argue that matter was created out of nothing by a self-existent God. This post is an adaptation of a treatise that I wrote in university for an atheist philosophy professor. I got an A.

The following are four possible explanations to account for existence¹:

1. Reality as we encounter it is an illusion
2. Reality as we encounter it is self-created
3. Reality as we encounter it is self-existent
4. Reality as we encounter it was created by something that is self-existent

In order to prove that one of these is true, one would simply need to disprove the other three. This post attempts to invalidate options 1, 2, and 3, leaving option 4 as the only rational choice.

The Matrix, an Oscar-winning film from 1999, portrayed reality as being a great illusion. Could it be the case that all of the things that we see are really just illusions? Are the thoughts that we think really being pumped into our brains from some sort of supercomputer? Do we even have brains? Do I even exist? In the Meditations (2004), Rene Descartes answered these questions by claiming that while one thinks, it must be the case that the thinking one exists. The phrase “I think, therefore I am,” came from Descartes’ theory. Since all of humanity is capable of thinking, it must be true that humanity exists. Furthermore, Descartes discovered that material things exist as well. Thus, the proposition that existence is really an illusion must be false.²

Probably the most prominent view by those other than theists is the idea that reality as we encounter it is self-created. If reality exists and is not an illusion, then either it has been created or is self-existent. If it has been created, either it created itself or was created by something that is self-existent. The claim that the universe and everything contained within it was self-created has a fatal flaw. In order to create itself, something would have to exist before it existed. For the universe to come into being by a combination of space, time, and chance, it would have to have existed in some form beforehand. This view does not account for the creation of the universe—the universe would have to be self-existent or be created by something self-existent. Thus, because it is impossible for
something to be and not be, it is impossible for something to create itself, and this view is therefore invalid.

The two remaining views depend on the reality of self-existence: either reality as we encounter it is self-existent or was created by something that is self-existent. If something exists, and it is not possible for that thing to have created itself, then it must be true that it was created by something else. Therefore, either something self-existent has created all things or all things were created by something that was not self-existent in some sort of chain reaction of creation spanning the ages to eternity past. Because only a self-existent being is eternal, this hypothetical chain reaction must have been started by a self-existent being in the first place. Therefore, if something exists, it is necessary to conclude that a self-existent being exists. The question is now whether all matter is self-existent or whether it was created by a self-existent being. In order for matter to be self-existent, it would have to be eternal. It is generally accepted among the scientific community that matter as we know it came into existence as the result of the “Big Bang” around 15 billion years ago (LaRocco & Rothstein, 1995). This explosion, according to the theory, occurred at a point of singularity and resulted in galaxies growing and being spread across the universe. This theory, if true, would not serve as evidence that matter itself is self-existent, because that matter came into existence at a certain point in time as the result of an explosion. The Big Bang theory begs the question of what caused the explosion to occur in the first place. If it is true that matter is not self-
existent, then it must have been created by something self-existent. Could it be true that the Big Bang was caused by a self-existent being? That is a matter of speculation. Regardless of whether the Big Bang theory is true or false, matter itself is either self-existent or created. Matter itself is by nature found in four forms – solid, liquid, gas, and plasma. It is unstable and subject to change. It is not in a constant state of eternal being. It has been proven by nuclear fission that an atom can be annihilated in order to harness and dissipate its energy, thus destroying matter. Furthermore, it appears to be the consensus in the scientific community that atoms tend to decay over time, resulting in the degradation or destruction of matter. Thus, it is not possible that matter itself is self-existent. Because matter is not self-existent, it must have been created by something that is self existent. Therefore, a self-existent one created the universe.

There are many objections that could be interjected into this argument and, indeed, this topic has been the subject for much debate and many dissertations. Regardless, logical reasoning proves that it must be true that if the first three ontological options are false, the fourth must be true. It is outside the scope of this paper to argue what that self-existent being is, but it must be
transcendent and eternal—two qualities that are typically ascribed only to God.

Notes

1. This is a comprehensive list and accounts for every possible theory of existence. For more information, see Sproul (2010).
2. Descartes’ answer has been the accepted one for centuries. For more information, see Descartes (2004).

References

• Descartes, R. (2004). Meditations on First Philosophy in which are demonstrated the existence of God and the distinction between the human soul and body. (J. Bennett, Trans.). Retrieved from http://www.earlymoderntexts.com/pdf/descmed.pdf. Original work published in 1641.
• LaRocco, C. & Blair, R. (1995). The Big Bang: It sure was BIG!!. Retrieved from http://www.umich.edu/~gs265/bigbang.htm
• Sproul, R.C. (2010). Defending Your Faith: The Four Possibilities. Retrieved from http://www.ligonier.org/learn/series/defending-your-faith/four-possibilities/. Audio available for free from http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=323101245201