May 11, 2012

Does God Need a Designer?

According to Richard Dawkins and some atheist visitors at my blog, if God were to exist then, theoretically, God would need a designer. Well, if this is true, then we're all set because God has one in Richard Dawkins. However, Dawkins' ideas about who and what God needs to be are a bit skewed. Dawkins' rationale for insisting that God needs a designer is as follows: If god exists, then God must be a pretty complex kind of guy. After all, God has made some pretty complex things. And, if God is complex, then God would certainly need an even more complex designer. Because, well, just look around and you'll see that complex inventions are invented by people who are more complex than their inventions, right?

There are a number of reasons why Dawkins' rationale isn't very viable. The main reason why Dawkins believes that God needs a designer is because Dawkins has created a god according to Dawkins' own image of a god, not according to the actual properties that the living and transcendent eternal God would exhibit. The God described in scripture, and the God that would be logically necessary as an eternal and transcendent being, is a God that has nothing in common with the straw-man figure that Richard Dawkins has designed.

Outline

I. A god after Dawkins' own image
II. Dawkins' straw-man arguments against the Divine Creator
III. Why a full explanation of God is not necessary
IV. The biblical God versus straw-man caricatures

I. A God after Dawkins' own Image

Atheists who place a higher value on academic status than on logical reasoning also tend to place a higher value on the quantity and volume of raw knowledge rather than on the quality and value of logical conclusions. With this in mind, it's not difficult to see why Richard Dawkins would arrive at so many misconceptions and false conclusions.

In his Delusion book, Dawkins offers his personal definition of God: "Instead I shall define the God Hypothesis more defensibly: there exists a superhuman, supernatural intelligence who deliberately designed and created the universe and everything in it, including us."According to the Bible, God is not merely "superhuman," but a perfect, complete, eternal, omnipotent and omniscient being. Because Dawkins cannot seem to reframe his thoughts within an alternative perspective, his observations are misconstrued. For example, Dawkins argues that God must need a designer more complex than himself. This is an argument from degrees and, as I'll point out, this approach towards explaining God is not logical. The first premise of Dawkins' argument is loaded with preconceptions:

P1. Every existing entity that shows evidence of design requires a designer superior to itself.

Dawkins preconceptions are revealed in the following points:

A Fallacy of Degrees

1. Superior designs emanate from a superior minds.
2. The mind of God is not simply superior, it is perfect, complete, omniscient, and eternal.
3. There is no mind superior to a perfect, complete, omniscient, and eternal mind.
4. Therefore, there is no need for (or possibility of) God having a superior designer.

Some people offer that this argument is a case of "special pleading," a logical fallacy. But one only has to look to a secular website named Freethoughtpedia in ordeer to see this is not so.

"From a philosophic standpoint, the fallacy of Special Pleading is violating a well accepted principle, namely the 'Principle of Relevant Difference'. According to this principle, two people can be treated differently if and only if there is a relevant difference between them."

It would probably be accurate to state that being eternal, perfect, omnicient and omnipotent would count as "relevent differences" that have logical consequences. One of those logical consequences of God's nature is obviously that God would not need a designer.

If you need a few examples of the Principle of Relevant Difference, you can see them at the Nizkor website.

Dawkins also argues that God must be very complex in order to create a complex world. Again, this is based on naturalistic preconceptions about the nature of creation. According to the Bible, God is the reference point of all material creation, truth and logic. When you consider the nature of logic, you understand that the most effective use of logic always aims towards economy and simplicity. Christopher Hitchens once stated, “arguments that explain everything…explain nothing." While it is true that one argument cannot explain everything that exists. One central fact, God's existence, can help to elucidate characteristics about everything that exists, because God is the ultimate source of the physical world. The denial of this central fact will always ultimately result in non-cohesive and illogical explanations. Dawkins' illogical arguments seem to underscore this point.

People who sincerely seek truth and true explanations are drawn towards logic and logical principles. A review article underscores the fact that top ranked atheist secular humanist apologists go out of their way to avoid logic and logical principles in their reasoning

In The God Delusion Dawkins proposed that his argument from improbability, the "Ultimate Boeing 747 Gambit," was the "central argument" of his book. Dawkins also claimed that his six-point summary was his central argument of his book. In any event, Dawkins' Boeing 747 Gambit has nothing to do with any God theists believe in, but is merely a straw-man argument with a couple of wings attached. A straw man argument is an argument that mischaracterizes a concept and then disproves the mischaracterization. People who tend to use straw-man arguments tend to avoid debates because these types of arguments crash and burn when a few simple questions are asked.

II. Dawkins' straw-man arguments against a Divine Creator

The God of scripture is not merely "superhuman" but is fully omnipotent, omniscient and transcendent. Dawkins' misconceptions of a "superhuman" help to elucidate why he believes that God may somehow need a designer. Dawkins' writings, like the work of most atheist apologists, display an aversion for summarized, logical arguments. Nevertheless, Rich Deem has abbreviated Dawkins' anti-designer arguments from The God Delusion, as noted in these two summaries:

Argument 1:

P1. Every existing entity that shows evidence of design requires a designer superior to itself.
P2. If God exists, then God shows evidence of design in himself.
C1. Hence God requires a designer (another God) superior to himself.

Argument 2:

P1. Infinite regressions are not possible.
P2. Conclusion #1 above implies an infinite regression (an infinite number of gods).
C2. Hence, Conclusion #1 is not possible, hence Premise #2 is false, so God does not exist.

Dawkins' fallacies in Argument 1

1. Premise 1 of A1 is an oblique straw-man proposal. Dawkins personally does not believe this premise is true. But he offers this premise as though it is one that theists are supposed to agree with. However, it is loaded with mischaracterizations.

John 4.24 outlines an essential characteristic of the biblical God as a spiritual being: "God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in spirit and in truth."(NIV) A being that is essentially and ultimately spiritual does not show any visible evidence of design. In part IV of this article I'll offer more points as to why God does not need a creator or designer.

2. Premise 2 of A1 is a non-sequitur. The first part of the premise states, "If God exists…" and, just because God exists, then that supposedly means, "then God shows evidence of design in himself." You might as well say, "Truth exists… then truth shows evidence of design in itself." There is no logical principle that would allow for Dawkins' jump from the first part to the second part of his premise. It's a logically invalid form of deduction. And, for reasons I'll show later in part IV, it's also a patently false statement. With two false premises, obviously the conclusion cannot be considered to be true.

Dawkins' fallacies in Argument 2

1. Premise one of A2 seems to be true, though unverifiable: "Infinite regressions are not possible." In any event, premise 2 is shown to be false, so this becomes a non-issue.
2. Dawkins' second premise is based on a previous false conclusion, that "God requires a designer (another God) superior to himself."
3. Because Dawkins is relying on a false premise, the conclusion is false for Argument 2 as well.

III. Why a full explanation of God is not necessary

1. Forming a viable hypothesis and conclusion is important. Dawkins displays a very basic misunderstanding of how valid hypothesis are formed, as noted in Dawkins' quotes, "invoking a supernatural Designer is to explain precisely nothing.” Why? Because it “leaves unexplained the origin of the designer.” As a scientist, Dawkins really should know better. Both the scientific method and the tenets of critical thinking are based upon the understanding that many underlying questions are left unanswered in the process of forming and verifying a viable hypotheses.

2. Examples of hypothetical deductions with significant unknown aspects are available. For example, we don't know how or why quantum non-locality and quantum entanglement work the way they do. We cannot explain how they are possible. Not only that, quantum non-locality does not follow our classical understanding of logic, such as the classic law of identity. Nevertheless, the mechanical aspects of quantum mechanics work mathematically and, when assumed to be true, they work practically. Another example was offered by William Lane Craig. If the first man on the moon discovered a wrecked space ship there, would it be logical to assume that there was no designer or creator of the wrecked spaceship just because there was no explanation of how or why the wrecked spaceship had came to exist there? Obviously no, it would not be a logical deduction. These examples show that basic logical deductions can in fact be made without necessarily knowing all the facts or even foundational questions.

IV. The biblical God versus straw-man caricatures

1. A main aspect of why Richard Dawkins has failed in his attempt to pigeon-hole God in his own parodies is because Dawkins is mixing philosophical apples and oranges in his arguments. In order to objectively test an idea according to the principles of critical thinking, all the conditions of the hypothesis must be fully assumed. It's disingenuous to pretend to hypothesize God's existence while at the same time presupposing that God is constrained by the physical laws of the universe. But that is precisely what Dawkins had attempted to do. According to the biblical understanding of God, God holds metaphysical primacy because God is omnipotent, omniscient and transcendent, from a spiritual dimension. The primacy of transcendence outlined in Hebrews 11.3: "By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible."(NIV)

A simple way to conceive the transcendent aspect of God is to consider the 3d coordinate system as a representation of the physical world and how different dimensions have more or less limiting descriptive conditions. If a person wanted to describe 3D cubes and spheres mathematically, this would require coordinates from more than just a one dimensional point. And it would require coordinates from more than just a two dimensional plane. The physical world is more fully described in three dimensions, if not more. But the transcendent spiritual dimension is not confined by these types of parameters. It transcends these types of restrictions, even as eternity transcends time. Conceptually, a transcendent being has metaphysical primacy over the physical world. That's a very basic logical deduction. By attempting to limit God to qualities of the physical world, such as physical causation, Dawkins is limiting a supernatural being to a materialist paradigm. This is disingenuous to the precepts of critical thinking and basic philosophical deduction.

A. That which is transcendent and eternal does not require a creator

1. God is spiritual, transcendent and eternal.
2. That which is spiritual, transcendent and eternal has metaphysical primacy over that which is physical non-transcendent and temporal.
3. Because God has metaphysical primacy over the physical world, God is not subject to physical laws and physical causality.
4. Because God is not subject to physical laws and physical causality, God does not logically require a designer or creator, as temporal physical things do.

B. God does not display design features

1. The three principle features of God are God's truth, love and transcendent spiritual nature.
2. None of these features are visible design features.
3. Therefore, God should not be considered a designed being.

C. Logical reasons to note why God is not complex

1. God may be conceived as a spiritual, all-knowing consciousness.
2. Though vast collections of knowledge may be considered complex, the state of consciousness that holds that knowledge is not necessarily complex.
3. Therefore, God does not need to be complex.

1. Logical proofs conform with the ultimate logical truths of existence.
2. The strongest logical proofs have a tendency towards simplicity.
3. Therefore, the ultimate logical truths of existence exhibit a tendency towards simplicity and not complexity.
4. God as the ultimate singularity and reference point of logic an truth would be in keeping with the most simple manifestation of logic and truth.

D. Concepts of hypothetical gods that create each other are not valid

1. God, by definition, is the highest perfection of wisdom, power and authority.
2.  The highest perfection of wisdom, power and authority would be sovereign in both time and eternity.
3. If God is sovereign in both time and eternity, then the concept of multiple gods creating each other is logically incoherent.
4. Therefore, the concept of various gods creating each other is not a logically valid concept.

Each of these outlines may be further elaborated upon and discussed. For those who insist on avoiding logic and truth, each new philosophical trend will be a nice distracting trend that lasts about as long as bell bottoms and the beehive hair do. As C.S. Lewis noted, "That which is not eternal is eternally out of date." In this light, Dawkins God designs are a major philosophical fashion risk. If you are into the synthetic and toxic materials cleverly woven in the sweat-shops of cold-hearted atheist materialism, then go with Dawkins. If you are interested in a philosophical emperor with no logical clothes, who is en-vogue merely because of his respectful institutional stature, then go with Dawkins. Otherwise, if you are interested in the timeless beauty of truth that never goes out of style, then go with the robe of righteousness that is freely offered in Christ. Your choice.

Tags: Philosophy, apologetics, atheism, Christianity, truth, deception, Does God need a designer? Dawkins quotes on how God needs a designer, Does God need a creator? Dawkins' main argument against God. Rich Deem's summary of Dawkins' arguments against design, Dawkins' straw-man arguments against God, Hebrews 11.3 commentary, why Richard Dawkins avoids logical debates, why atheists fear debate, debunking Dawkins' Ultimate Boeing 747 Gambit, Dawkins disproved, Atheist Fallacy of Degrees, Principle of Relevant Difference, special pleading

(updated 3/16/12)

10 comments:

  1. Funny case of special pleading. Everything needs a design, but not god since he is by definition undesigned. A logical fallacy at its prime.

    Your concept of science is as always faulty, it is not content with not knowing. We have limited knowledge on QM, but we are still in the process of learning about it. You, on the other hand, just embrace ignorance. God did it is your answer and you do not care if it is true or not. If everyone was like you, people would still think that thunder is a sign of god being angry.

    P.S. And do explain what you mean by transcendent, spiritual nature. Another creepy ghostly concept that has no impact on the real world?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Anonymous,

    This article is an answer to two bloggers who had brought up this issue (God needs a designer) at a previous post, "The Organizing Principle of the Universe: Hierarchy and the Central Truth"

    http://templestream.blogspot.com/2012/03/organizing-principle-of-universe.html?showComment=1336757574598#c2980077557558916674

    That linked article offers a logical argument of why Gods existence is logical necessity, based on accepted mathematical proofs and empirical observations. As an apparent attempt to escape the bounds of that empirical argument, the two atheists proposed that, on a purely theoretical basis, God needs a designer. I have offered logical reasons why this is not so in the article you have commented on here and now.

    - If you would have carefully read this article with an open mind, you would have noted the logical proofs in it, If you with to challenge specific premises, then that might be of interest to people. Simple stating irrelevant comment that don't pertain to any specific premises, while a typical atheist ploy, isn't really helping atheism look good. You might want to form a better argument than this:

    "Funny case of special pleading."

    This one-liner comment is nothing but a bald assertion, and, a bald assertion is a verified logical fallacy.

    >P.S. And do explain what you mean by transcendent, spiritual nature. Another creepy ghostly concept that has no impact on the real world?

    - As I mentioned, if you'd like the empirical argument, go to the link I pated above. If you would like to actually offer your theoretical wisdom, you might want to try to look up some of these "creepy ghostly concepts" in philosophical websites before offering your opinion.

    The history of philosophy as it relates to the understanding to transcendence is a one and rich history.

    You might want to begin with a brief summary of Kant

    In modern philosophy, Kant introduced a new term - transcendental, thus instituting a new, third meaning. In his theory of knowledge, this concept is concerned with the conditions of possibility of knowledge itself....

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transcendence_(philosophy)

    The following article includes keywords, idealism
    immanence and transcendence

    http://ir.canterbury.ac.nz/handle/10092/5189

    You can review the The kalam cosmological argument for a transcendent cause of the universe.

    The Existence of God and the Beginning of the Universe - The kalam cosmological argument, by showing that the universe began to exist, demonstrates that the world is not a necessary being and, therefore, not self-explanatory with respect to its existence. Two philosophical arguments and two scientific confirmations are presented in support of the beginning of the universe. Since whatever begins to exist has a cause, there must exist a transcendent cause of the universe.

    http://www.leaderu.com/truth/3truth11.html

    ReplyDelete
  3. R:If you would have carefully read this article with an open mind, you would have noted the logical proofs in it, If you with to challenge specific premises, then that might be of interest to people.

    I already did this. Unfortunately the second half of my answer got swallowed. Though, Imnotandrey is doing a great job anyway and I do not see any need to step in.

    R:This one-liner comment is nothing but a bald assertion, and, a bald assertion is a verified logical fallacy.

    I beg to differ. Let us look what special pleading is, shall we?

    Special Pleading is a fallacy in which a person applies standards, principles, rules, etc. to others while taking herself (or those she has a special interest in) to be exempt, without providing adequate justification for the exemption.

    You did not provide any good reason to exempt your "God" from your own general rule that everything needs a designer, therfore, special pleading.

    R:If you would like to actually offer your theoretical wisdom, you might want to try to look up some of these "creepy ghostly concepts"

    I know about the term. I would just like to hear your interpretention. I would also like some empirical evidence of your hypothesis. Philosophy without empirical evidence is just masturbation of the brain.

    R:You can review the The kalam cosmological argument for a transcendent cause of the universe.

    The kalam argument is just a big appeal to ignorance with the god of the gape and a special pleading (god is exempt from needing a designer). It was also explained to you countless times that our Universe in its PRESENT form began to exist. We do not know what was before the big bang and we have no reason to assume the universe did not exist before in some other form.

    ReplyDelete
  4. R:If you with to challenge specific premises, then that might be of interest to people

    I already did that. Even though the second half got swallowed. However, Imnotandrey is doing a great job right now so I see no need to step in.

    R:This one-liner comment is nothing but a bald assertion, and, a bald assertion is a verified logical fallacy.

    I beg to differ. Let us see what special pleading is, shall we?

    Special Pleading is a fallacy in which a person applies standards, principles, rules, etc. to others while taking herself (or those she has a special interest in) to be exempt, without providing adequate justification for the exemption.

    You never provided any convincing arguments to exempt god from your own rule. Hence - special pleading.

    R:If you would like to actually offer your theoretical wisdom, you might want to try to look up some of these "creepy ghostly concepts" in philosophical websites before offering your opinion.

    I know what the term means. I am interested in your interpretention. You also need to back that up with some empirical evidence or else it will be just mental masturbation.

    R:You can review the The kalam cosmological argument for a transcendent cause of the universe.

    The Kalam argument is a big appeal to ignorance through the god of the gape and special pleading (god does not need a designer, but everything else does). You have been told countless times that our Universe began to exist in its PRESENT form. We have no basis whatsoever to assume it did not exist in some other form before.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I see Rick didn't learn anything from his previous excursion into cosmology relating to Vilenkin.

      Rick, why do you continue to make the same claims when they've previously been shown to be flawed or false?

      It's almost as if you don't care about the truth, but only care about promoting your beliefs as if they were true - that doesn't seem to be the sort of position an honest person would promote, does it? :-)

      Delete
  5. This is a blog spam-filter reply,

    In the interest of avoiding comment moderating for all comments, and for the reasons stated below, I've found it most unprofitable to attempt to engage in civilized discourse with the commenter named Havok.

    Beginning in December 2011, Havok became so frustrated with his lack of answers that all he could do was to post unsubstantiated slander against me. He claimed, for example, that I ignored or did not adequately address valid critiques of articles, such as, "How Identity, Logic and Physics prove God's Existence". However, Havok has yet to provide one such referenced example.

    Instead of apologizing, he continues to post more unsubstantiated lies and slander.

    Havok also continues to insist that I am "lying" about Richard Dawkins. I have clearly described why Dawkins is shown to be cautiously open-minded towards the moral viability of eugenics in an article,"How Richard Dawkins' Evolution Justifies Racism and Genocide" (VI. Richard Dawkins' moral relativism and views on eugenics).  If a third person, a civilized person, believes that Havok has offered a valid argument, I would be willing to entertain it. In any event, Havok is a good object lesson. His consistent slander and lies demonstrate that the sin nature is alive and well, though atheists such as Havok will continue to deny that it exists.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Let's recap:
      - You made the claim (following WLC) that the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem means that the universe must have a beginning.
      - It was pointed out to you, by myself, anonymous, and in the end Vilenkin himself, that this was not a legitimate claim to be making.
      - The Kalam argument relies upon the universe beginning to exist, a claim which WLC (and yourself) have supported by appeal to Vilenkin's work.
      -You knew, prior to making this post, that this premise is contentious at best, and flat out mistaken at worst, since this had been explained to you in previous comments.
      - Instead of modifying your position, you made the same claim relying upon the same premise which had been undermined.
      - You are therefore shown to not be interested in the truth, but rather in "conversion". You have no intention of engaging in honest dialogue, since doing so implies that you're willing to assess you own position given the arguments and evidence of others.

      Or, since you love syllogisms so much:
      P1. The Kalam argument relies upon a universe which begins to exist.
      P2. The evidence is not sufficient to support the claim the universe began to exist.
      P3. Therefore the Kalam argument's conclusion is unsecured, relying as it does upon unsecured premise(s).
      P4. Rick is aware of P1, P2 & P3.
      C. Therefore Rick is being dishonest when he refers to the Kalam argument.

      Simple enough, no? :-)

      Delete
  6. So, you wrote:


    - The multiverse theory is not based on any physical evidence nor is it based on valid philosophical logical deduction.


    It is based on just as much physical evidence as any theory for a "Creator" -- we have stuff, and have to explain how it gets there.

    It is mainly based on atheist presuppositionalism: If the earth and our solar system are fine-tuned for life, then there must supposedly be an infinite number of universes in order to allow for the odds of our universe to exists as it does.

    Actually, no; it's one explanation for how things might be the way they are, but it doesn't *require* it. Remember, as I've said many times before: the probability of the universe in which we exist being one we can exist in is 1. Otherwise, we couldn't be here.

    Indeed, it's worth noting that there are many other ways to construct a universe such that something *other* than us might exist, while we didn't.

    From a philosophical perspective, beginning a paradigm with a mere presupposition is usually not considered kosher. It is not a logically strong starting point. From this materialist hypothetical foundation, suggesting that an infinite number of things must exist because we exist is a second step of faith.

    Except no one is saying they *must* exist. They're saying they *can* exist.

    And pray tell, how is asserting a Creator not a case of arguing from a theistic foundation, and therefore just a step of faith as unsupported as you claim the materialist one is?

    Remember; the materialist hypothesis can work without positing any other *kind* of entity than what we can observe. Yours requires a significant difference in *kind* of entity.

    On the other hand, the concept of an infinite creator is not a logical problem, as you and others suggest, when the question is properly understood.

    Looking at your post, this appears to be the section that discusses some of the "correct understanding".

    Examples of hypothetical deductions with significant unknown aspects are available.

    Indeed -- like the multiverse hypothesis, which is a much simpler hypothesis than an entire different category of object (a supernatural, uncreated Creator)

    For example, we don't know how or why quantum non-locality and quantum entanglement work the way they do. We cannot explain how they are possible. Not only that, quantum non-locality does not follow our classical understanding of logic, such as the classic law of identity.

    Which means that we can't use the classical understanding of logic to explain them. Congratulations.

    Nevertheless, the mechanical aspects of quantum mechanics work mathematically and, when assumed to be true, they work practically.

    Yes, but they explain facts that are otherwise inexplicable; including such facts as "how can you get something from nothing", in fact ;)

    Your "creator" hypothesis does not leave any traces that can be used to distinguish it from any other hypothesis, and drags in a whole slew of unsupported assertions.

    The thing about quantum mechanics is that it's the *simplest* approach that explains otherwise inexplicable data.

    Another example was offered by William Lane Craig. If the first man on the moon discovered a wrecked space ship there, would it be logical to assume that there was no designer or creator of the wrecked spaceship just because there was no explanation of how or why the wrecked spaceship had came to exist there?

    This is, to put it mildly, ludicrous. If we found a rock that looked like a spaceship, would it be logical to assume that there was a creator because the rock looked like something designed? No.

    If we found life on a planet, can we deduce the existence of a spaceship that brought it there? No.

    Your analogy is, to put it mildly, stacking the deck.

    (con't)

    ReplyDelete
  7. Now, to treat your argument at the end:

    1. God is spiritual, transcendent and eternal.

    Aaaand, we fall at the first hoop. Why is it that we should grant "eternal" nature to anything? You may assert it is so, but it's not something that can be casually granted. Indeed, since your proofs for the existence of God rely on things *not* being eternal, why should we permit the special pleading here, again?

    2. That which is spiritual, transcendent and eternal has metaphysical primacy over that which is physical non-transcendent and temporal.

    Again, assuming one even grants the existence of the "spiritual" and "transcendent". Remember, these are the things you're trying, in the big picture, to *establish*, so merely asserting them here undercuts the validity of your entire argument.

    3. Because God has metaphysical primacy over the physical world, God is not subject to physical laws and physical causality.

    If one accepted 1 and 2 blithely, this would, in fact, follow.

    However, 1 and 2 aren't granted lightly.

    4. Because God is not subject to physical laws and physical causality, God does not logically require a designer or creator, as temporal physical things do.

    So, in other words, there are no metaphysical laws or causality? Because that's more or less what you're asserting here.

    Oh -- and asserting that the "metaphysical" can somehow affect the physical without being, in return, affected by it.

    In other words, your God doesn't need a designer because, well, you've defined it that way.

    Useful definition from your point of view, pointless from anyone else's.

    ReplyDelete
  8. And, because I'm feeling comprehensive:


    1. The three principle features of God are God's truth, love and transcendent spiritual nature.




    2. None of these features are visible design features.

    But according to your own statements, nothing that loves is not designed -- therefore how is it not a "design feature"?

    3. Therefore, God should not be considered a designed being.

    And here your argument fails again -- "principle" features are not all features. So, even if one accepted 1 and 2, which I don't, 3 doesn't follow.

    1. Logical proofs conform with the ultimate logical truths of existence.

    Didn't you just observe that quantum mechanics undercuts the classical logical model? What makes a "logical" truth in this regard superior to a material fact?

    2. The strongest logical proofs have a tendency towards simplicity.

    This is an unsupported assumption. The Godel proof, for example, while it is simple in outline, is anything but in actual construction -- yet it was strong enough to bring down the completist model of mathematical logic.

    3. Therefore, the ultimate logical truths of existence exhibit a tendency towards simplicity and not complexity.

    See #2 above.

    4. God as the ultimate singularity and reference point of logic an truth would be in keeping with the most simple manifestation of logic and truth.

    And, as always, I see you base your arguments on "probable", "tendency towards", etc. And yet, we're supposed to buy your entire structure despite the fact that there's a much simpler explanation, that doesn't require any of this fuzziness?

    ReplyDelete

You are welcome to post on-topic comments but, please, no uncivilized blog abuse or spamming. Thank you!