Only a being who is apart from the laws of nature and partakes of the moral sphere could explain our being moral agents (from 7).

Only God is a being who is apart from the laws of nature and partakes of the moral sphere.

Only God can explain our moral agency (from 8 and 9).

God exists.

FLAW 1: This argument, in order to lead to God, must ignore the paradoxical Fork of Free Will. Either my actions are predictable (from my genes, my upbringing, my brain state, my current situation, and so on), or they are not. If they are predictable, then there is no reason to deny that they are caused, and we would not have free will. So, if we are to be free, our actions must be unpredictable-in other words, random. But if our behavior is random, then in what sense can it be attributable to us at all? If it really is a random event when I give the infirm man my seat in the subway, then in what sense is it me to whom this good deed should be attributed? If the action isn't caused by my psychological states, which are themselves caused by other states, then in what way is it really my action? And what good would it do to insist on moral responsibility if our choices are random, and cannot be predicted from prior events (such as growing up in a society that holds people responsible)? This leads us back to the conclusion that we, as moral agents, must be parts of the natural world- the very negation of Premise 7.

FLAW 2: Premise 10 is an example of the Fallacy of Using One Mystery to Explain Another. It expresses, rather than dispels, the confusion we feel when faced with the Fork of Free Will. The paradox has not been clarified in the least by introducing God into the analysis.

COMMENT: Free will is yet another quandary that takes us to the edge of our human capacity for understanding. The concept is baffling, because our moral agency seems to demand both that our actions be determined, and also that they not be determined.

19. The Argument from Personal Purpose If there is no purpose to a person's life, then that person's life is pointless.

Human life cannot be pointless.

Each human life has a purpose (from 1 and 2).

The purpose of each individual person's life must derive from the overall purpose of existence.

There is an overall purpose of existence (from 3 and 4).

Only a being who understands the overall purpose of existence could create each person according to the purpose that person is meant to fulfill.

Only God could understand the overall purpose of creation.

There can be a point to human existence only if God exists (from 6 and 7).

God exists.

FLAW 1: The first premise rests on a confusion between the purpose of an action and the purpose of a life. It is human activities that have purposes-or don't. We study for the purpose of educating and supporting ourselves. We eat right and exercise for the purpose of being healthy. We warn children not to accept rides with strangers for the purpose of keeping them safe. We donate to charity for the purpose of helping the poor (just as we would want someone to help us if we were poor). The notion of a person's entire life serving a purpose, above and beyond the purpose of all the person's choices, is obscure. Might it mean the purpose for which the person was born? That implies that some goal-seeking agent decided to bring our lives into being to serve some purpose. Then who is that goal-seeking agent? Parents often purposively have children, but we wouldn't want to see a parent's wishes as the purpose of the child's life. If the goal-seeking agent is God, the argument becomes circular: we make sense of the notion of "the purpose of a life" by stipulating that the purpose is whatever God had in mind when he created us, but then argue for the existence of God because he is the only one who could have designed us with a purpose in mind.

FLAW 2: Premise 2 states that human life cannot be pointless. But of course it could be pointless in the sense meant by this argument: lacking a purpose in the grand scheme of things. It could very well be that there is no grand scheme of things because there is no Grand Schemer. By assuming that there is a grand scheme of things, it assumes that there is a schemer whose scheme it is, which circularly assumes the conclusion.

COMMENT: It's important not to confuse the notion of "pointless" in Premise 2 with notions like "not worth living" or "expendable." Confusions of this sort probably give Premise 2 its appeal. But we can very well maintain that each human life is precious-is worth living, is not expendable-without maintaining that each human life has a purpose in the overall scheme of things.

20. The Argument from the Intolerability of Insignificance In a million years, nothing that happens now will matter.

By the same token, anything that happens at any point in time will not matter from the point of view of a time a million years distant from it in the future.

No point in time can confer mattering on any other point, for each suffers from the same problem of not mattering itself (from 2).

It is intolerable (or inconceivable, or unacceptable) that in a million years nothing that happens now will matter.

What happens now will matter in a million years (from 4).

It is only from the point of view of eternity that what happens now will matter even in a million years (from 3).

Only God can inhabit the point of view of eternity.

God exists.

FLAW: Premise 4 is illicit: it is of the form "This argument must be correct because it is intolerable that this argument is not correct." The argument is either circular, or an example of the Fallacy of Wishful Thinking. Maybe we won't matter in a million years, and there's just nothing we can do about it. If that is the case, we shouldn't declare that it is intolerable-we just have to live with it. Another way of putting it is: we should take ourselves seriously (being mindful of what we do, and the world we leave our children and grandchildren), but we shouldn't take ourselves that seriously, arrogantly demanding that we must matter in a million years.

21. The Argument from the Consensus of Humanity Every culture in every epoch has had theistic beliefs.

When peoples, widely separated by both space and time, hold similar beliefs, the best explanation is that those beliefs are true.

The best explanation for why every culture has had theistic beliefs is that those beliefs are true.

God exists.

FLAW: Premise 2 is false. Widely separated people could very well come up with the same false beliefs. Human nature is universal, and thus prone to universal illusions and shortcomings of perception, memory, reasoning, and objectivity. Also, many of the needs and terrors and dependencies of the human condition (such as the knowledge of our own mortality, and the attendant desire not to die) are universal. Our beliefs arise not only from well-evaluated reasoning, but from wishful thinking, self-deception, self-aggrandizement, gullibility, false memories, visual illusions, and other mental glitches. Well-grounded beliefs may be the exception rather than the rule when it comes to psychologically fraught beliefs, which tend to bypass rational grounding and spring instead from unexamined emotions. The fallacy of arguing that if an idea is universally held then it must be true was labeled by the ancient logicians consensus gentium.

22. The Argument from the Consensus of Mystics Mystics go into a special state in which they seem to see aspects of reality that elude everyday experience.

We cannot evaluate the truth of their experiences from the viewpoint of everyday experience (from 1).

There is a unanimity among mystics as to what they experience.

When there is unanimity among observers as to what they experience, then, unless they are all deluded in the same way, the best explanation for their unanimity is that their experiences are true.

There is no reason to think that mystics are all deluded in the same way.

The best explanation for the unanimity of mystical experience is that what mystics perceive is true (from 4 and 5).

Mystical experiences unanimously testify to the transcendent presence of God.

God exists.

FLAW 1: Premise 5 is disputable. There is indeed reason to think mystics might be deluded in similar ways. The universal human nature that refuted The Argument from the Consensus of Humanity entails that the human brain can be stimulated in unusual ways that give rise to widespread (but not objectively correct) experiences. The fact that we can stimulate the temporal lobes of non-mystics and induce mystical experiences in them is evidence that mystics might be deluded in similar ways. Certain drugs can also induce feelings of transcendence, such as an enlargement of perception beyond the bounds of effability, a melting of the boundaries of the self, a joyful expansion out into an existence that seems to be all One, with all that Oneness pronouncing Yes upon us. Such experiences, which, as William James points out, are most easily attained by getting drunk, are of the same kind as the mystical: "The drunken consciousness is one bit of the mystic consciousness." Of course, we do not exalt the stupor and delusions of drunkenness, because we know what caused them. The fact that the same effects can overcome a person when we know what caused them (and hence don't call the experience "mystical") is reason to suspect that the causes of mystical experiences also lie within the brain.

FLAW 2: The struggle to put the ineffable contents of abnormal experiences into language inclines the struggler toward pre-existing religious language, which is the only language that most of us have been exposed to that overlaps with the unusual content of an altered state of consciousness. This observation casts doubt on Premise 7. See also The Argument from Sublimity, #34, below.

23. The Argument from Holy Books There are holy books that reveal the word of God.

The word of God is necessarily true.

The word of God reveals the existence of God.

God exists.

FLAW 1: This is a circular argument if ever there was one. The first three premises cannot be maintained unless one independently knows the very conclusion to be proved-namely, that God exists.

FLAW 2: A glance at the world's religions shows that there are numerous books and scrolls and doctrines and revelations that all claim to reveal the word of God. But they are mutually incompatible. Should I believe that Jesus is my personal saviour? Or should I believe that God made a covenant with the Jews requiring every Jew to keep the commandments of the Torah? Should I believe that Muhammad was Allah's last prophet and that Ali, the prophet's cousin and husband of his daughter Fatima, ought to have been the first caliph, or that Muhammad was Allah's last prophet and that Ali was the fourth and last caliph? Should I believe that the resurrected prophet Moroni dictated the Book of Mormon to Joseph Smith? Or that Ahura Mazda, the benevolent Creator, is at cosmic war with the malevolent Angra Mainyu? And on and on it goes. Only the most arrogant provincialism could allow someone to believe that the holy documents that happen to be held sacred by the clan he was born into are true, whereas all the documents held sacred by the clans he wasn't born into are false.

24. The Argument from Perfect Justice This world provides numerous instances of imperfect justice-bad things happening to good people, and good things happening to bad people.

It violates our sense of justice that imperfect justice may prevail.

There must be a transcendent realm in which perfect justice prevails (from 1 and 2).

A transcendent realm in which perfect justice prevails requires the Perfect Judge.

The Perfect Judge is God.

God exists.

FLAW: This is a good example of the Fallacy of Wishful Thinking. Our wishes for how the universe should be need not be true; just because we want there to be some realm in which perfect justice applies does not mean that there is such a realm. In other words, there is no way to pass from Premise 2 to Premise 3 without the Fallacy of Wishful Thinking.

25. The Argument from Suffering There is much suffering in this world.

Suffering must have some purpose, or existence would be intolerable.

Some suffering (or at least its possibility) is demanded by human moral agency: if people could not choose evil acts that cause suffering, moral choice would not exist.

Whatever suffering cannot be explained as the result of human moral agency must also have some purpose (from 2 and 3).

There are virtues-forbearance, courage, compassion, and so on- that can only develop in the presence of suffering. We may call them "the virtues of suffering."

Some suffering has the purpose of inducing the virtues of suffering (from 5).

Even taking premises 3 and 6 into account, the amount of suffering in the world is still enormous-far more than what is required for us to benefit from suffering.

Moreover, some who suffer can never develop the virtues of suffering-children, animals, those who perish in their agony.

There is more suffering than we can explain by reference to the purposes that we can discern (from 7 and 8).

There are purposes for suffering that we cannot discern (from 2 and 9).

Only a being who has a sense of purpose beyond ours could provide the purpose of all suffering (from 10).

Only God could have a sense of purpose beyond ours.

God exists.

FLAW: This argument is a sorrowful one, since it highlights the most intolerable feature of our world, the excess of suffering. The suffering in this world is excessive in both its intensity and its prevalence, often undergone by those who can never gain anything from it. This is a powerful argument against the existence of a compassionate and powerful deity. It is only the Fallacy of Wishful Thinking, embodied in Premise 2, that could make us presume that what is psychologically intolerable cannot be the case.

26. The Argument from the Survival of the Jews The Jews introduced the world to the idea of the one God, with his universal moral code.

The survival of the Jews, living for millennia without a country of their own, and facing a multitude of enemies that sought to destroy not only their religion but all remnants of the race, is a historical unlikelihood.

The Jews have survived against vast odds (from 2).

There is no natural explanation for so unlikely an event as the survival of the Jews (from 3).

The best explanation is that they have some transcendent purpose to play in human destiny (from 1 and 4).

Only God could have assigned a transcendent destiny to the Jews.

God exists.

FLAW: The fact that Jews, after the destruction of the Second Temple by the Romans, had no country of their own, made it more likely, rather than less likely, that they would survive as a people. If they had been concentrated in one country, they would surely have been conquered by one of history's great empires, as happened to other vanished tribes. But a people dispersed across a vast diaspora is more resilient, which is why other stateless peoples, like the Parsis and Roma (Gypsies), have also survived for millennia, often against harrowing odds. Moreover, the Jews encouraged cultural traits-such as literacy, urban living, specialization in middleman occupations, and an extensive legal code to govern their internal affairs-that gave them further resilience against the vicissitudes of historical change. The survival of the Jews, therefore, is not a miraculous improbability.

COMMENT: The persecution of the Jews need not be seen as part of a cosmic moral drama. The unique role that Judaism played in disseminating monotheism, mostly through the organs of its two far more popular monotheistic offshoots, Christianity and Islam, has bequeathed to its adherents an unusual amount of attention, mostly negative, from adherents of those other monotheistic religions.

27. The Argument from the Upward Curve of History There is an upward moral curve to human history (tyrannies fall; the evil side loses in major wars; democracy, freedom, and civil rights spread).

Natural selection's favoring of those who are fittest to compete for resources and mates has bequeathed humankind selfish and aggressive traits.

Left to their own devices, a selfish and aggressive species could not have ascended up a moral curve over the course of history (from 2).

Only God has the power and the concern for us to curve history upward.

God exists.

FLAW: Though our species has inherited traits of selfishness and aggression, we have inherited capacities for empathy, reasoning, and learning from experience as well. We have also developed language, and with it a means to pass on the lessons we have learned from history. And so humankind has slowly reasoned its way toward a broader and more sophisticated understanding of morality, and more effective institutions for keeping peace. We make moral progress as we do scientific progress, through reasoning, experimentation, and the rejection of failed alternatives.

28. The Argument from Prodigious Genius Genius is the highest level of creative capacity, the level that, by definition, defies explanation.

Genius does not happen by way of natural psychological processes (from 1).

The cause of genius must lie outside of natural psychological processes (from 2).

The insights of genius have helped in the cumulative progress of humankind-scientific, technological, philosophical, moral, artistic, societal, political, spiritual.

The cause of genius must both lie outside of natural psychological processes and be such as to care about the progress of humankind (from 3 and 4).

Only God could work outside of natural psychological processes and create geniuses to light the path of humankind.

God exists.

FLAW 1: The psychological traits that go into human accomplishment, such as intelligence and perseverance, are heritable. By the laws of probability, rare individuals will inherit a concentrated dose of those genes. Given a nurturing cultural context, these individuals will, some of the time, exercise their powers to accomplish great feats. Those are the individuals we call geniuses. We may not know enough about genetics, neuroscience, and cognition to explain exactly what makes for a Mozart or an Einstein, but exploiting this gap to argue for supernatural provenance is an example of the Fallacy of Arguing from Ignorance.

FLAW 2: Human genius is not consistently applied to human betterment. Consider weapons of mass destruction, computer viruses, Hitler's brilliantly effective rhetoric, or those criminal geniuses (for example, electronic thieves) who are so cunning that they elude detection.

29. The Argument from Human Knowledge of Infinity We are finite, and everything with which we come into physical contact is finite.

We have a knowledge of the infinite, demonstrably so in mathematics.

We could not have derived this knowledge of the infinite from the finite, from anything that we are and come in contact with (from 1).

Only something itself infinite could have implanted knowledge of the infinite in us (from 2 and 3).

God would want us to have a knowledge of the infinite, both for the cognitive pleasure it affords us and because it allows us to come to know him, who is himself infinite.

God is the only entity that both is infinite and could have an intention of implanting the knowledge of the infinite within us (from 4 and 5).