* * * * *

Premise 1: If the primacy of consciousness is invalid, then the claim that God exists is not true.

Premise 2: The primacy of consciousness is invalid.

Conclusion: Therefore, the claim that God exists is not true.

Immediately at first glance, we can see that this argument is valid. It conforms saliently to the mixed hypothetical syllogism known as modus ponens, which is a valid argument form expressed by the following model:

Premise 1:    If P, then Q.
Premise 2:    P.
Conclusion:   Therefore Q.

This form of hypothetical syllogism is called mixed because it is an inference to a non-hypothetical conclusion from two premises, one of which is hypothetical in nature (i.e., if..., then...). In the case of the Argument from the Fact of Existence (or "AFE" for short), P corresponds to the clause "the primacy of consciousness in invalid," and Q corresponds to the statement "the claim that God exists cannot be true."

The obvious question then becomes, are the premises true? If the premises are true in an argument that is shown to be valid, then its conclusion is necessarily true. The burden of AFE is to show a necessary dependence of god-belief claims, including the claim that God exists, on the primacy of consciousness metaphysics. If this dependence can be shown, then AFE succeeds in meeting its burden and its conclusion must be accepted as true.

AFE essentially argues that god-belief claims rest on the implicit assumption that the primacy of consciousness metaphysics is valid. Thus, AFE is an argument stemming specifically from Objectivist principles as identified by Ayn Rand. Those principles are defined and validated in my essay The Issue of Metaphysical Primacy, with which readers should familiarize themselves before attempting to digest AFE, unless of course one is already familiar with the foundations of Objectivism.

DEFINITIONS:

There are a number of terms which are key to the case presented by AFE, and therefore bear mentioning of their definitions.

Existence: According to Objectivism, the concept 'existence' is an axiomatic concept. 

Consciousness: Like 'existence', the concept 'consciousness' is also axiomatic in nature.

Metaphysical Primacy: According to Objectivism, the issue of metaphysical primacy is the most fundamental issue to all philosophy. 

Primacy of Existence:

Primacy of Consciousness:

Stolen Concept:

Since the above syllogism may appear rather thin on substance, I have developed an expanded form of AFE which fills in many of the primary version's apparent blanks.

This expanded form of AFE is an elaboration of the primary form presented above. In this version, however, the two premises of the primary form are fortified by a number of supportive points, some of which are in the form of inferences (sub-arguments) and others in the form of evidences, or citations of theistic attributions justifying certain inferences and propositions.

1. The distinguishing characteristics of God show that God, if it could exist, is essentially a form of consciousness:

1. "God is a Spirit" (John 4:24)  See Note 1.II.a.i.
2. God is a "personal being" (common apologetic claim)  See Note 1.II.a.ii.
3. God is an "immaterial substance" (common apologetic claim) See Note 1.II.a.iii.
4. God's attributes are attributes of consciousness:

1. God has a mind (cf. Acts 20:19; Rom. 11:34; I Cor. 2:16; Philip. 2:5, et al.)
2. God has unlimited awareness (cf. Ps. 33:13-15, 139:1-24; Prov. 15:3; Acts 15:18; Heb. 4:13; I John 3:20, et al.)
3. God has a will (cf. Matt. 6:10; 26:39, 42; Luke 11:2; Rom. 12:2; Heb. 10:9, et al.)
4. God has thoughts (cf. Ps. 40:5, 92:5, 139:17; Is. 55:8-9; Mic. 4:12, et al.)
5. God speaks and authors judgments (cf. Gen. 1:2, 6, 9, 11, 14, etc., 21:2; Deut. 1:17; Ps. 50:1, 108:7; Rom. 11:33, et al.)
6. God is a moral being (common apologetic claim)
7. God plans the future (cf. Rom. 8:29-30; Eph. 1:4-5, 11; et al.; doctrine of prophecy)
8. God can love (cf. John 3:16, 5:42; Rom. 5:8, 8:39; II Cor. 13:11; Eph. 2:4; I John 4:8-11, 16, et al.)
9. God can be angry (cf. Num. 22:22; Ex. 32:2; Ezra 8:22; Rom. 1:18, 9:22; Eph. 5:6; Rev. 14:10, 19, et al.)
10. God experiences pleasure (cf. Gen. 33:10; Ps. 115:3; Is. 46:10; Matt. 3:17; I Cor. 12:18; Heb. 13:16, et al.)

5. Therefore, God is best described as a form of consciousness.

2. ‘God’ as an ‘immaterial being’ is unbound by laws of nature.

1. God, as creator of the universe, is also creator or basis of the laws of logic. (common apologetic claim)  See Note 1.II.b.i.
2. God, as creator of natural law, can violate, bend or discard natural law (i.e., God does not obey natural law, instead natural law obeys God). (doctrine of miracles) See Note 1.II.b.ii.
3. Therefore, God, as creator of natural law, is not bound to natural law.

3. The idea that a form of consciousness which is unbound by the laws of nature implies that consciousness is not dependent upon existence. (inference) See Note 1.II.c.
4. Therefore, the idea of God alone implies dependence on the primacy of consciousness view of reality.

3. The tasks ascribed to God presuppose the dependence of existence on a form of consciousness:

1. God is said to have created the universe (i.e., existence) through an act of will. (cf. Gen. 1:1; John 1:3; Hebrews 11:3)  See Note 1.III.a.
2. God can change A into non-A (i.e., alter the identity of entities) through an act of will. (doctrine of miracles; e.g., Jesus turns water into wine - John 2:1-11, et al.)   See Note 1.III.b.
3. God can make A perform the behavior of non-A (i.e., alter the causality of entities) through an act of will. (doctrine of miracles; e.g., Jesus walks on water - Matt 14:22-33, et al.) See Note 1.III.c.
4. A personal will (i.e., volition) is a form of consciousness. (Axiom of consciousness)  See Note 1.III.d.
5. Therefore, existence is dependent on a form of consciousness ("God's will") - which means consciousness holds primacy over existence.

4. The characterizations of God are incompatible with the primacy of existence (i.e., are compatible only with the primacy of consciousness):

1. According to the primacy of existence, existence exists independent of consciousness. (Objectivism: Rand, Peikoff, et al.)   See Note 1.IV.a.
2. These characterizations of God do not hold that existence exists independent of consciousness, but that existence is dependent on a form of consciousness. (inference from I., II., and III.)  See Note 1.IV.b.
3. Therefore, these characterizations are incompatible with the primacy of existence.

5. Therefore, the claim that God exists can only be true if the primacy of consciousness is valid. Conversely, if the primacy of consciousness is invalid, then the claim that God exists cannot be true.

1. The primacy of existence and the primacy of consciousness constitute exhaustive metaphysics.

1. There are two fundamentals which a proper metaphysic must identify and distinguish in the foundation of a rational philosophy: that which exists (existence), and that by which one is aware of that which exists (consciousness). (Objectivism: Rand, Peikoff, et al.) See Note 2.I.a.i.
2. There is no third alternative to this distinction. (Axioms of existence and consciousness) See Note 2.I.a.ii.
3. The issue of metaphysical primacy states that, in any philosophy, one or the other (existence or consciousness) will hold metaphysical primacy over the other. (Rand, PWNI) See Note 2.I.a.iii.
4. Therefore, the primacy of existence and the primacy of consciousness constitute exhaustive metaphysics.

2. The primacy of existence and the primacy of consciousness are in contradiction to each other

1. The primacy of existence holds that existence exists independent of consciousness. (Objectivist principle derived from axioms) See Note 2.I.b.i.
2. The primacy of consciousness holds that existence in some way is dependent on an act or form of consciousness. (Rand, Peikoff)  See Note 2.I.b.ii.
3. Therefore, the primacy of existence is in contradiction to the primacy of consciousness.

3. Therefore, if the primacy of existence is valid, then the primacy of consciousness is invalid.

2. The primacy of existence is valid.

1. If existence holds metaphysical primacy, then the primacy of existence is valid. (Peikoff)
2. Existence holds metaphysical primacy.

1. If existence exists, existence holds metaphysical primacy. (Peikoff) See Note 2.II.a.i.
2. Existence exists. (Axiom) See Note 2.II.a.ii.
3. Therefore, existence holds metaphysical primacy.

3. Therefore, the primacy of existence is valid.

3. Therefore, the primacy of consciousness is invalid.

NOTES:                                                                   

Note 1.II.a.ii: In his debate against naturalist Jeffery J. Lowder, Christian apologist Phil Fernandez makes the following claim in identifying the Christian God: "The eternal uncaused cause of all else that exists. This being is personal, i.e., a moral and intelligent being, and unlimited in all its attributes." This claim is commonly encountered. Each of these concepts - 'personal', 'moral' and 'intelligent' - necessarily presuppose consciousness. Neither can be asserted in connection with obviously non-conscious entities, such as a rock or a drop of water. 

Note 1.II.b.ii: A miracle is a violation of the laws of nature, primarily of the law of identity (A is A). According to Christianity, God, by means of his will (i.e., by an act of consciousness), can change A into non-A (e.g., water is miraculously transformed into wine in John 2:1-11), and can make A perform the behavior of non-A (e.g., men walking on water in Matthew 14:24-33, Mark 6:45-52 and John 6;16-21). It is not in the nature of water to become wine without a process of fermentation, which requires at minimum fruit mash and yeast. In the hands of the Chrisitan god, however, water becomes wine without these components and processes, i.e., A becomes non-A without natural causality. Similarly it is not in the nature of men to walk on unfrozen water. It is in the nature of inflated beach balls to float on water. In the hands of the Christian God, however, men behave as beach balls, i.e., A performs the action of non-A.

Note 1.II.c: If a form or act of consciousness (e.g., a will or command) can bypass natural law, then it is not subject to natural law. If natural law is said to have its basis in a "spiritual" being (i.e., in a conscious being), then natural law is considered to be subject to the intentions of the conscious dictates of that spiritual being. This necessarily implies that consciousness is not restricted to the perception and identification of what exists, as we find in nature, but that consciousness is metaphysically causal in regard to its objects, which means: consciousness holds metaphysical primacy over existence.

Note 1.III.a: See Genesis chapters 1 and 2. The Genesis tale of creation holds explicitly that the existence of the universe ("the earth and the heaven" - Gen. 1:1) was the result of a divine act. Christians infer from this and from several New Testament passages (e.g., Ephesians 1:11, Hebrews 11:3, etc.) that this divine act was an act of will. Furthermore, since Christianity holds that God is omnipotent and that His divine will is sovereign, the believer can agree that God could have chosen not to create the universe, that nothing compelled God against His own volition to do so. Thus, the existence of the universe is the product of volition, i.e., of consciousness. Since 'universe' is properly defined as "the realm of existence," this necessarily assumes that consciousness holds metaphysical primacy over existence.

Note 1.III.b: See Note 1.II.b.ii. These things happen the way they do because God, the ruling consciousness, desires that they happen this way. They would not happen unless the ruling consciousness authorized or approved that they should happen. This goes for the nature of the objects which God has created, as well as the actions in which they partake. In other words, identity is dependent on God's will. Again, this position can only be held if one assumes that consciousness holds metaphysical primacy over existence.

Note 1.III.c: See previous note. These things happen the way they do because God, the ruling consciousness, desires that they happen this way. They would not happen unless the ruling consciousness authorized or approved that they should happen. Since action has identity, it is subject to the same sovereign, intentional influences of God's will (i.e., consciousness) as the objects which God creates.

Note 1.III.d: The concept 'volition' is the power to choose between alternatives, and necessarily presupposes awareness of alternatives, and is a both a form and a function of consciousness. Volition or will is a form of consciousness in the same sense that perception, memory, and introspective thought are forms of consciousness. Neither can be asserted without the necessarily implied concept 'consciousness'. Consciousness is an axiomatic concept; see Ayn Rand, "Axiomatic Concepts," Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, Expanded 2nd Edition, (New York: Meridian, 1990), pp. 55-61.

Note 1.IV.a: See Ayn Rand, "The Metaphysically Given Versus the Man-Made," Philosophy: Who Needs It, (New York: Signet, 1982), pp. 23-34; Leonard Peikoff, Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand, (New York: Meridian, 1993), pp. 17-23, et al. See also David Kelley, "The Primacy of Existence," Part 1 (The Objectivist Forum, October, 1981, pp. 1-6) and Part 2 (The Objectivist Forum, December, 1981, pp. 1-6). Readers are also recommended to review David Kelley's audio lecture, "The Primacy of Existence," (1985), and chapter 1 "The Primacy of Existence" of his book, The Evidence of the Senses (Baton Rouge, LA: Louisiana University Press, 1986), available at Principle Source. Online see Eric Johnson's review OPAR, Chapter One: Reality of the first chapter ("Reality") of Leonard Peikoff's Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand; Michael Huemer's Objectivism and the Primacy of Existence; and my The Issue of Metaphysical Primacy. 

Note 1.IV.b: If a) the existence of the universe is the result of God's will (cf. Genesis 1 & 2), and b) the specific identity of the entities which God creates in His creative acts are the product of His choices, then it is vitally apparent that the characterizations typically assigned to the God of Christianity do not hold that existence exists independent of God's conscious acts, but that existence is explicitly dependent on those conscious actions which Christianity ascribes to God. God's will, as a form of consciousness, holds metaphysical primacy over the objects which God has created. And since anything that can be said to be distinct from God is said to have ultimately been created by God, everything distinct from God is therefore subordinate to the conscious activity of God. This is essentially and precisely what Christian theism holds in its metaphysical doctrines.

Note 2.I.a.i: This distinction is self-evident, and is present in all cognition. The distinction between the things that exist and the faculty of perceiving that which exists is the basis of the concept 'objectivity' and gives rise to the objective, hierarchical nature of knowledge. That we can identify the fact that knowledge is hierarchical in nature confirms the far-reaching relevance of the distinction between existence and consciousness. (See especially Peikoff, Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand, pp. 129-141.)

Note 2.I.a.ii: Of course, existence as such can be contrasted against non-existence. But it would be absurd to posit the primacy of non-existence (though I wouldn't put it past many philosophers, since this assumption is implicit in many theistic arguments). For if one begins with non-existence, how does he get to the undeniable fact that existence exists? To posit any means of causality is to presuppose the fact of existence by implication: something (i.e., something which exists) must be the cause of the action asserted as the means of causality. What does that leave us with? 

In my survey of False Primacies I review a number of supposed candidates which are implied in many irrational forms of philosophy. 

Note 2.I.a.iii: See, among others, Are the Primacy of Existence and the Primacy of Consciousness Exhaustive Metaphysics? and The Issue of Metaphysical Primacy.

Note 2.I.b.i: See The Issue of Metaphysical Primacy.

Note 2.I.b.ii: See The Issue of Metaphysical Primacy.

Note 2.II.a.i: Peikoff points out, "The primacy of existence is not an independent principle. It is an elaboration, a further corollary, of the basic axioms. Existence precedes consciousness, because consciousness is consciousness of an object. Nor can consciousness create or suspend the laws governing its objects, because every entity is something [i.e., A is A] and acts accordingly. Consciousness, therefore, is only a faculty of awareness. It is the power to grasp, to find out, to discover that which is. It is not a power to alter or control the nature of its objects." (Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand, p. 19.) The primacy of existence is implicitly assumed every time one asserts a truth claim about reality. See my essays How the Theist Checkmates Himself and A Lesson on the Issue of Metaphysical Primacy.

Note 2.II.a.ii: The fact that existence exists is indisputable. It must be assumed even in order to dispute it. To be conscious is to be conscious of something, i.e., of existence. For man, to be conscious entails the implicit recognition that existence exists.

[Back to Top]

[Back to the Argument from Existence]

[Back to Anton Thorn's Objectivist Atheology]