The Rockthropic Argument for God
How my pet rock proves that God exists...
Introduction
Matthew Adelstein has recently come up with a new argument for the existence of God that he thinks should increase our credence in theism to infinity (and beyond to Beth 2!!!). In this post I will be arguing against this Anthropic Argument for God through the process of a reductio. I argue that if the argument is valid and sound, then it can be used to prove that any state of affairs demonstrates the existence of God, thus calling into question the efficacy of the reasoning processes used.
1 - The Rockthropic Argument for God
1.1 - Informal Statement of the Argument
I want everyone to meet my pet rock, Rocky…
Now Rocky exists right? Look at the cute picture of his intrinsically valuable face.
Now, we need to take a detour before returning to Rocky - we need to enter the philosophical kingdom. A world where the truth-seekers of tomorrow investigate the fundamental nature of reality from their armchairs.
In the philosophy kingdom, there is a cute toy called the SIA (Self Indication Assumption). It’s at the top of Adelstein’s toy box. The claim says…
“All other things equal, an observer should reason as if they are randomly selected from the set of all possible observers.”
- Wickedpedia (???), Anthropic Bias, Self-indication assumption.
Adelstein states it as the following in the context of his argument…
“That’s the view that a theory that predicts more people existing explains your existence better. More specifically, suppose one theory says that N times as many people exist as another theory. SIA says—and maybe there are weird caveats which we’ll get to later—the first theory explains your existence N times as well as the second one.”
- Matthew Adelstein (2024), The Best Argument For God
I’m not going to defend this principle as it is just blatantly obvious - it is intuitive and obvious to anyone who reflects on it. Adelstein has also compiled 27 intuition pumping syllogisms arguments for the SIA which prove it to be the case.
#SSAdestroyedwith27syllogisms
So in the context of Rocky, we can state the rSIA as follows…
rSIA - A theory that predicts more rocks existing explains Rocky’s existence better. More specifically, suppose one theory says that N times as many rocks exist as another theory. The first theory will explain Rocky’s existence N times as well as the second one.
With the rSIA secured, now we can move to the next stage of the argument.
Given the rSIA, 10 rocks existing would make Rocky’s existence 10 times as likely as if there was 1 rock - poor Rocky all alone. 1000 rocks existing would make Rocky’s existence 100 times likelier than if there were only 10 rocks. And following from this, logically and inescapably, infinitely many rocks existing makes Rocky’s existing infinitely more likely than if any finite number of rocks existed.
So the latter theory, of there being infinitely many rocks, will explain the existence of Rocky infinitely better than any theory which has only a finite number of rocks.
So given that Rocky does in fact exist in the actual world - my precious Rocky is not a figment of my imagination (fuck anyone who says otherwise) - we should reason that there are infinitely many rocks in existence across all possible worlds (let’s throw in an infinitely large ontological commitment whilst we are at it).
However, this infinity must be the biggest kind of infinity there can be in terms of existent objects - Beth 2.
So far, I have demonstrated through my powers of logical deduction and bare assertion, that the existence of Rocky PROVES that Beth 2 rocks exist across all possible worlds.
Now, how does this relate to theism? Well theism is the claim that a perfect being exists, which by its perfection, is infinitely good, infinitely powerful and infinitely knowledgeable (God even knew all 27 of Matthew’s syllogisms for SIA before he made them up). So, it can be clearly seen through the light of intuition and armchair seemings, that a perfect being would desire to create as many good and valuable things as it can.
Rocky is clearly a very good and valuable being, he is my pet rock after all. His intrinsic beauty, loveliness and goodness all are clearly seen, so that all are without excuse who deny them. Rocky is also good and valuable by essence of what he is, a rock. Rocks in general are very good and valuable as they contain lots of minerals, compounds and have a diverse array of beautiful shapes. One can clearly see that rocks are good and valuable, it is just obvious. Any argument for the opposite conclusion is going to contain premises that are less plausible than the initial claim.
So on theism, we have a strong reason to expect, and predict (science language makes the conclusion more true), that Beth 2 rocks would exist across all possible worlds, because they are the kinds of things that a perfect being would create - they are good and valuable things.
However, on atheism, we would have no such reason to expect that Beth 2 rocks would exist across all possible worlds. Atheism gives us no reason to expect rocks to exist.
An atheist would have to tie themselves into New York pretzels to come up with an explanation (a pathetic, grasping at straws one motivated by nothing but their sinful rejection of the God they know exists) of how Beth 2 rocks would exist on a naturalistic worldview.
So, the existence of Rocky gives us an infinitely high credence that Beth 2 rocks exist across all possible worlds, and this can easily be explained on theism, but no such explanation exists on atheism. Therefore, Rocky is infinitely strong evidence for God.
#atheismblastedoutoftheprobabilityspace
1.2 - Formal Statement of the Argument
My pet rock Rocky exists.
Rocky is likelier to exist if there are more total rocks [rSIA].
If 10 rocks existing makes Rocky’s existence 10 times likelier and 1000 rocks existing makes Rocky’s existence 1000 times likelier, then infinitely many rocks existing makes Rocky’s existence infinitely likelier.
Therefore, one should reason that because Rocky exists, there are infinitely many rocks in existence across all possible worlds.
This infinity must be the biggest infinity there can be - Beth 2.
So we should reason that there are Beth 2 rocks in existence across all possible worlds.
Theism can easily explain and account for the existence of Beth 2 rocks across all possible worlds (rocks and Rocky are valuable and good intrinsically). This gives God a very strong reason to create Beth 2 rocks and Rocky.
However, atheism has no such explanation or account for the existence of Beth 2 rocks across all possible worlds.
Therefore, the existence of Rocky is infinitely strong evidence for God.
#atheistsilencedwithasingleargument
2 - What My Point Is
If you accept the Anthropic Argument that Matthew lays out in his posts and defends on his YT channel, then I see no reason why a parallel argument called the Rockthropic Argument cannot also be made. I want to anticipate a few possible symmetry breakers that Matthew might give and DESTROY them into pieces.
2.1 - Rocks are not valuable and good unlike persons
Tell that to my face and see what happens (#justiceforRocky). Matthew may claim that one can intuitively see that people are valuable and good entities in themselves, but that rocks are not, and that my explanation for them being good and valuable is just ad hoc and made up on the spot to try and run the argument. Two replies…
Alpha - I can easily claim the same in reverse, that Matthew’s explanations for why people are good and valuable are just ad hoc and made up to try and run a theistic argument. If all that is being used to justify the claims of value are armchair intuitions then it is at best a stalemate and either both arguments go through or neither do.
Beta - Ok, lets choose another non-person thing that Matthew does think is valuable, shrimp for example (whatever his boner is with shrimp I have no idea). The Shrimpthropic Argument for God would go through, so there are Beth 2 shrimp right?
2.2 - The Anthropic Argument says that we should have infinite credence in Beth 2 people, but since rocks are not sentient, they cannot have any credences.
Again, two replies…
a) If Rocky was sentient, say that some Van Gogh-esque panpsychism is true and Rocky gained the ability to have credences, should Rocky have an infinitely strong credence in God after hearing the argument? By the argument, he should.
b) Again, trade Rocky for Shrimpy. Should Shrimpy have an infinite credence in God after hearing the Shrimpthropic Argument? By the reasoning used, he (or she/they/it) should.
2.3 - Summary
All I have done is taken the exact structure of Matthew’s Anthropic Argument for God, and changed the variables in the argument. The structure and the principles used are identical. Two possible symmetry breakers have been OBLITERATED in the market place of ideas.
The point I want to make is that I think the Rockthropic Argument is a reductio against the kind and structure of reasoning used in the Anthropic Argument. If the SIA is taken seriously, anything that can be intuited as valuable and good can be used as evidence that one should have an infinitely strong credence in God.
Matthew thinks that the SIA and his existence effectively prove God.
I think that the kinds of arguments that can be used with the reasoning given are reductios against the SIA.
2.3.1 - But I have 27 arguments for the SIA, so your one reductio is not enough to show that the SIA is false. My 27 arguments outweigh your 1.
Is this what philosophy has come to? Let’s count the syllogisms/arguments and see who gets the most.
It’s like the child who argues that they know more about Pokemon than everyone else because they have more Pokemon cards than everyone else.
The intuitive strength of my 1 reductio is so much stronger than the intuitive strength than your 27 syllogisms, so there!
#SIAdefeatedwithassertedintuitions
Conclusion
In this post, I wanted to share why I reject the Anthropic Argument for God. I feel that the SIA allows one to reason in ways that would allow them to claim that anything is infinitely strong evidence for God, granting that a just so story could be made as to why such a thing is good and valuable.
Sorry Matthew, send your new favourite toy to a charity shop and find a new one.
References…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_Bias#Self-indication_assumption
https://benthams.substack.com/p/the-best-argument-for-god
https://benthams.substack.com/p/arguments-for-god-tier-list?open=false#§the-anthropic-argument-s
This is hilariously written (you’re getting a follow), but I think this counter is pretty bad for basically the reason Matthew says.
What exactly are "possible observers"? Reeks of dualism to me.