Excerpt from Russell's Why I Am Not a Christian

Russell's conclusion is "Ð'...and therefore you do not get any advantage by introducing God as an intermediary." Ð''God as an intermediary' in this excerpt implies Ð''God having a reason'. This attachment of meaning occurs in 2, below.

Russell asks the question, "Why did God issue just those natural laws and no others?" Two answers appear: A. Ð''God had no reason.' and B. Ð''God had a reason.' He dismisses answer A quickly: if there was no reason, then there are no Ð''laws' and the opening question is not valid. His argument for answer B follows: 1. God had a reason for giving natural laws (to make the best universe); 2. if there was a reason for God-given law, then God was subject to law; 3. therefore no advantage by introducing God as an intermediary. As the premises do not guarantee the truth of the conclusion, this is an inductive argument.

A needed background supposition is the belief that a being that has reason gets that reason from a higher-level being, hence its intermediateness. An ultimate being can have reason on its own. I sometimes imagine I have reason on my own.

Weakness in the argument can be found in, "Ð'...if there was a reason for the laws which God gave, the God himself was subject to law, and therefore Ð'... by introducing God as an intermediary." God can have a reason for creating a law that God is not required to follow; the reason can come from Ð''within' God, it need not be external. Having a reason does not necessarily make God an intermediary. 2 , a sub-conclusion, is required to accept the conclusion, but 2 does not have to be true.

Russell's opening sentence presupposes we are aware of all God's laws; perhaps we are aware of but a few. We only know what we know; just because we do not know a thing, of it or about it, does not preclude its existence. This presupposition is another weakness in the argument. Is is true that we are aware of all laws God has ever issued?