explanation because they are mere "brute facts," which all logical chains of explanation are reduced to in the end. He maintains that the idea of total explanation is therefore incoherent, and lends only false plausibility to the arguments of the theists (Masterson, 1971, p. 120).
Flew maintains that the universe is self-sufficient and contains its own explanation within itself. It is itself ultimate. In a universe viewed in this way, it is clear that God would be nothing more than a superfluity. Many theists have contended that the very orderliness of the universe is evidence of a divine creator. To this, Flew replies that we can never know what properties and tendencies (orderly or otherwise) the elements of the universe have in and of themselves as opposed to the way in which we observe them to be. He argues most forcefully that instead of engaging in idle speculation about the unknowable, we would do better to adopt the straightforward outlook that the order manifested by things is a natural and underived property of those things (Masterson, 1971, p. 119).
Flew then takes his arguments against God one step further, and attempts to show that God is not only and elaborate and unnecessary idea, but that He is also incapable of being both omnipotent and omnibenevolent. This brings us to the familiar problems o
...