Table Of ContentDOES GOD EXIST?
A DIALOGUE ON THE PROOFS
FOR GOD’S EXISTENCE
SECOND EDITION
TODD C. MOODY
Does God Exist?
A dialogue on the
proofs for God’s existence
Does God Exist?
A dialogue on the
proofs for God’s existence
Second Edition
Todd C. Moody
Hackett Publishing Co., Inc.
Indianapolis/Cambridge
Copyright © 2013 by Hackett Publishing Company, Inc.
All rights reserved
Printed in the United States of America
16 15 14 13 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
For further information, please address
Hackett Publishing Company, Inc.
P.O. Box 44937
Indianapolis, Indiana 46244-0937
www.hackettpublishing.com
Cover design by Brian Rak
Interior design by Elizabeth L. Wilson
Composition by Innodata-Isogen, Inc.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Moody, Todd C.
Does God exist? : a dialogue on the proofs for God’s existence / Todd C.
Moody. — Second Edition.
pages cm
ISBN 978-1-62466-040-5 (pbk.) — ISBN 978-1-62466-041-2 (cloth)
1. God (Christianity) 2. God—Proof. 3. Theodicy. I. Title.
BT103.M657 2013
212'.1—dc23 2013016741
Adobe PDF ebook ISBN: 978-1-62466-095-5
Contents
Preface vii
1. The Burden of Proof 1
2. Nothing Comes from Nothing 14
3. A Necessary Being 27
4. The Natural Order 50
5. Suffering 67
6. Miracles 88
7. More Gaps 107
8. The Role of Experience 122
9. The Space of Reasons 133
Suggested Readings 143
v
Preface
This dialogue started out as a short handout that I used in philoso-
phy classes quite a few years ago. I kept adding to the handout, and
eventually it became the first edition of this book. In the years since
publication I’ve received generally positive mail from instructors who
have used it, and sometimes from students looking for help with their
homework. I’ve had mail from people who are sure they know which
of the three characters is me. I regard this as a good thing. The truth
is, my own views on the subject have wandered quite a bit. Although
my goal was never to write an account of my own wanderings, I
think it’s impossible for a work like this not to reflect them. I think
this is a good thing too.
Times change, and, contrary to popular belief about philosophy,
the arguments change too. Old arguments take on new forms and
receive new criticisms. I’ve tried to include some of that newness
in this rewrite, but I’ve also put in some older material that I sim-
ply overlooked in the first edition, such as C. S. Lewis’s argument
from reason, and the problem of animal suffering. I’ve removed
entire sections that, by my own judgment and that of others, didn’t
work so well. But my overall goal has been the same: to provide
an engaging and natural overview of some of the main arguments
about the existence of God, and to do so in a way that isn’t overly
weighted with specialized terminology and references to the litera-
ture. I couldn’t avoid philosophical terminology and references to
important philosophers entirely, of course, but I’ve kept it to a mini-
mum. I recognize that many will find it a stretch to think of philo-
sophical argumentation as “natural” in any way. To me, however,
the dialogue form is a very natural way to present philosophy, and
even though Plato made it famous, dialogue has been underutilized
since his time, in my opinion. Dialogue, when sincere, is a kind of
collaborative thinking-through, a method of great potential power.
When not sincere, of course, it can collapse into mere controversy
and even bullying. In this book I try to model the kind of dialogue
where the interlocutors really listen to each other, despite holding
vii
viii Preface
strongly to their own views. They respect and like each other, even
in disagreement. Most important, their disagreement doesn’t inhibit
them from presenting their positions with conviction. This is impor-
tant, and I make the point explicit in the dialogue itself, near the end.
I think it’s part of the mission of philosophy to keep this sort of dia-
logue alive, especially in an era when what passes for dialogue is often
merely the exchange of talking points. Like real conversation, the
dialogue includes digressions, switchbacks, and repetitions. I think
this is important. A proper dialogue shouldn’t try to be a monograph
broken up into little speeches.
The God whose existence is under discussion is conceived in a
way that falls squarely within the Western monotheistic traditions.
Although passing mention is made of non-Western conceptions, it’s
not a goal of this dialogue to offer an overview of those traditions.
Neither is it my intention to undertake an examination of specifically
Christian, Jewish, or Islamic teachings about God. It is, as far as pos-
sible, about “mere theism.” I recognize, however, that it isn’t really
possible to separate ideas and arguments about God’s existence from
the traditions in which they arose. “Mere theism” is an artificial con-
struction, one that has no real tradition and few adherents. But arti-
ficial constructions have their uses. To the extent that Christian ideas
in particular are found in the text (and they are), it’s because they are
most familiar to me and present in the literature that I’ve studied. I’m
aware that there are other responses to the issues of theism found in
other traditions, but apart from the occasional nod in their direction,
I make no attempt to survey them. If this rises to the level of a bias,
so be it. I need hardly point out that very little of the philosophical
content of this dialogue is original with me. I haven’t seen the brute-
fact construal of the Cosmological Argument anywhere else, and I
certainly recognize that the distinction between natural and personal
causation, and the use to which I put it, is controversial, to say the
least. Still, I think it adds to the mix. Beyond that and a few other
minor variations, I only claim originality for the presentation. I hope
the result is worthwhile.
Chapter 1
The Burden of Proof
The scene is the game room at a college. It’s late in the afternoon, and there
are no students around except for three who have gathered around a battered
pool table, taking turns in friendly games of eight ball.
DAVID: Come on, God, just let me make this shot.
OSCAR: That’s a fine way to talk. Does God go in for pool?
DAVID: Well of course it’s just a figure of speech. I wouldn’t
really ask for God’s help to win a game.
OSCAR: Seems to me that maybe you could use a little help. Are
you serious, though? Do you really believe in God? I always thought
you were reasonably intelligent. Not spectacularly intelligent, mind
you, but—
DAVID: That’s enough. Yes, it just so happens that I do believe,
but I don’t think that makes me less intelligent than anyone else. A lot
of very intelligent people have believed and still do believe in God.
OSCAR: No doubt. A lot of intelligent people once believed in
witchcraft, astrology, flat earth, and phlogiston too. Most of those
people would reject those beliefs, if they were around today and had
access to the breadth and depth of knowledge that we have.
DAVID: So your idea is that modern people who believe in God
are unintelligent. Is that it?
OSCAR: Maybe “unintelligent” is a bit strong. Let’s just say I
think that, given our current state of knowledge, a belief in God is
completely unsupported, bordering on irrational. Is that better?
1
