Proof #2 against Atheism

[AnAtheist]

David Brown:

If these are porperties of a single God, what is the problem? If God is supposed to be x, y, z , why can’t you show that God is x and that God is y and God is z ? There is no inconsistency unless the definitions are inconsistent; if the definitions could be united, there is no problem.

There are two problems:

1. suppose:
   god1 = {x,y,z}
   god2 = {w,x,y}
   You show ‘x’ and ‘y’. What god exists, 1 or 2?
2. suppose god = {x,y,z}
   “Proofs” like this, even if they would be valid, do not show god = {x}, god = {y}, but A = {x}, B = {y}. And then set A = B = god.
   You’re right, that is consistent with god = {x,y,z}.
   But it is also consistent with
   godA = {x}, godB = {y}
   godC = {x,y}
   godD = {v,x,y}
   nogodA = {x}, nogodB = {y}
   nogodA = {x}, godB = {y}
   …you get the picture

 

[David_Brown]

AnAtheist:

There are two problems:

1. suppose:
   god1 = {x,y,z}
   god2 = {w,x,y}
   You show ‘x’ and ‘y’. What god exists, 1 or 2?
2. suppose god = {x,y,z}
   “Proofs” like this, even if they would be valid, do not show god = {x}, god = {y}, but A = {x}, B = {y}. And then set A = B = god.
   You’re right, that is consistent with god = {x,y,z}.
   But it is also consistent with
   godA = {x}, godB = {y}
   godC = {x,y}
   godD = {v,x,y}
   nogodA = {x}, nogodB = {y}
   nogodA = {x}, godB = {y}
   …you get the picture

Quite right, but I don’t see that supports the notion I was criticizing, that showing x or y is necessarily bad, wrong, or unhelpful. It only shows that more must be done than just show x or y. Right?

David

 

[AnAtheist]

David Brown:

Quite right, but I don’t see that supports the notion I was criticizing, that showing x or y is necessarily bad, wrong, or unhelpful. It only shows that more must be done than just show x or y. Right?

Absolutely

 

[Drew98]

David Brown:

If these are porperties of a single God, what is the problem? If God is supposed to be x, y, z , why can’t you show that God is x and that God is y and God is z ? There is no inconsistency unless the definitions are inconsistent; if the definitions could be united, there is no problem.

That would be fine but that’s not what Maranatha is doing. His/her two recent threads “Proof against Atheism” and “Proof #2 against Atheism” are presented as two independent proofs that are complete in themselves. Not as part 1 and part 2 of a multi-part proof that will be tied together later.
David Brown:

Also, to say that “stripped-down” proofs are un-Catholic ignores the fact that Aquinas used them.

In my defense I didn’t say the proofs were un-Catholic I said the version of God implied by the proofs was un-Catholic. That is, not the full-blown Catholic God in all His glory but something far lesser.

 

[Maranatha]

rossum:

This assumes that the universe really exists. In other words you are assuming a realist position rather than an idealist position. There is a great deal of philosophical discussion already done on this, and the argument has not been resolved yet. You certainly cannot just make this assumption.

This is where reason and logic part company. Logically you are correct. It is hard to prove or disprove reality is real. Denying reality is the most common argument used by Atheist but is it reasonable? Theists affirm reality and use logic and reason to prove God. Atheist use logic and reason and deny reality to disprove God. If reality is reasonable then the proof stands beyond a reasonable doubt.

rossum:

Your original premise said “1. We grasp the universe as intelligible. This intelligibility means that the universe is graspable by intelligence.” Are you now saying that this should have read “1. We grasp a small percentage of the universe as intelligible. This intelligibility means that a small percentage of the universe is graspable by intelligence”?

Taking this change through you initial argumant gives the conclusion “4. Therefore this intelligible small percentage of the universe and our finite minds so well suited to grasp it are the products of intelligence.” All you have now shown is that a small percentage of the universe is the product of intelligence. That is trivially true. The computer on which I am typing this is a product of intelligence, and is a small percentage of the universe. Congratulations, you have shown that humans are intelligent because we can make computers.

I fail to see how either the Idealist premise (2.3) or the Mental Model premise are due to “blind chance”. Mere assertion does not make a thing so. You are going to have to prove this statement for each of the premises I stated.

Except things made by man, everything in the universe was made by blind chance or they were not. There are only two choices. If the universe was party blind chance and party intelligent design then you have proved the Theist position.

rossum:

There is a common misconception of evolution that it is a blind chance process. Just taking Random Mutation and Natural Selection (RM&NS), obviously the RM part is blind chance. However the NS part is certainly not a blind chance process. The overall RM&NS process does not react as a blind chance process, it can be a reasonably efficient way of searching a large range of possible solutions to find an optimal, or close to optimal, solution. There are a number of commercial enterprises which make their living using evolutionary techniques to solve solutions. I myself have written some evolutionary programs and it can be instructive to do so yourself. For a lot more on computing and evolution, see this page. Evolution is not a purely random process, and cannot be described as “blind chance”.

I wasn’t speaking of the randomness of random mutation. It’s apparent that given enough time and enough mutations that an evolutionary system will find a solution or not. The question is, was the solution created by chance or was it there by design. This is where evolution can’t help. Extrapolating the physical sciences to the philosophical always fails.

 

[AnAtheist]

Maranatha:

Denying reality is the most common argument used by Atheist but is it reasonable? Theists affirm reality and use logic and reason to prove God. Atheist use logic and reason and deny reality to disprove God.

Atheists per se don’t do that. Followers of Solipsism do that. I know many atheists (incl. myself), who behold Solipsism as utter nonsense.

Except things made by man, everything in the universe was made by blind chance or they were not. There are only two choices. If the universe was party blind chance and party intelligent design then you have proved the Theist position.

Bifurcation again. Ok, let us define “blind chance” as “everything else than design” (incl. evolutionary processes). Then the wording of your #3 is still too fuzzy. Natural, non-intelligent processes do produce “reasonable” and “intelligible” results. We can observe that every day. E.g. processes governed by the principle of minimising potential energy automatically lead to Fibonacci series. Look at a flower.

Extrapolating the physical sciences to the philosophical always fails.

I guess, what you mean is, that to employ a scientific process to a different and thus wrong context usually fails, like social darwinism. I fail to see, what this has to do with the “proof” we are discussing here.
Otoh, if one builds a philosophy that contradicts science and observable reality, that philosophy is worthless.

 

[Maranatha]

Today you said:

AnAtheist:

Atheists per se don’t do that. Followers of Solipsism do that. I know many atheists (incl. myself), who behold Solipsism as utter nonsense.

On August 3ed you said:

AnAtheist:

I like to propose the following idea: What if all we see is quantatively nothing?
Matter is basically the same as energy (E=mc^2), and the universe’s total energy is zero, i.e. quantatively nothing.

Which is it? Do you believe reality as real or not? I’ve had at least 4 or 5 Atheists question reality in the past week.

 

[Maranatha]

AnAtheist:

Bifurcation again. Ok, let us define “blind chance” as “everything else than design” (incl. evolutionary processes). Then the wording of your #3 is still too fuzzy. Natural, non-intelligent processes do produce “reasonable” and “intelligible” results. We can observe that every day. E.g. processes governed by the principle of minimising potential energy automatically lead to Fibonacci series. Look at a flower.

If nature is setup to produce intelligible results, how do you think is got that way?

 

[Mystophilus]

Maranatha:

This is our second look at how reason and logic prove Theism and disprove Atheism.

We are able to intelligibly experience the universe. Most of the universe, including particles, energy and even most living things are intellectually unaware. The universe itself is not intellectually aware.

1. We grasp the universe as intelligible. This intelligibility means that the universe is graspable by intelligence.
2. Either this intelligible universe and our finite minds that are so well suited to grasp it are products of intelligence or both intelligibly and intelligence are products of blind change
3. Blind chance is unreasonable
4. Therefore this intelligible universe and our finite minds so well suited to grasp it are the products of intelligence.

Point 1, while a common assumption, remains an assumption. We have no means by which to prove it.
Point 2 omits the possibility that both intelligence and chance may have played a part, i.e., the scenario of a non-omnipotent God.
Point 3 is the real problem. This claim is not supported by any reasoning or data.
The conclusion in 4 depends upon the earlier points, which are not logically dependable, and the conclusion is, therefore, not logically dependable.

Most significantly, however, the presence of reasonable and highly intelligent people within both the Theist and Atheist camps suggests that we currently lack the necessary data to logically prove or disprove either viewpoint. Further, any examination of the attitudes of the adherents of either position quickly reveals that the majority of adherents ultimately base their belief upon subjective, emotional motivations rather than pure logic.

 

[AnAtheist]

Maranatha:

If nature is setup to produce intelligible results, how do you think is got that way?

As I said, that way the development of those structure costs the least energy. It is most economic in other words.

 

[AnAtheist]

Maranatha:

Which is it? Do you believe reality as real or not? I’ve had at least 4 or 5 Atheists question reality in the past week.

I very much think the universe is real. And that this reality exists in a certain way, no matter what we believe or how we behold it (you may call that Truth if you like).
On Aug 3rd I was talking about the **total energy **of the universe. That can very well be 0, and thus the universe contains quantatively nothing. Still it is very much qualitively real. I see no contradiction there, and to help the reader I deliberately underlined the word quantatively, to denote that this statement is concerned with the **amount **of something not the mere existence of something.