Wednesday, November 27, 2019

Another Logical Syllogism Attempt Defending A God Debunked

Humanity has discovered and developed logical syllogisms as part of deductive proofs of reality. The results are certainly valid IF (and, it is a big one) ALL of the premises are true. All logical syllogisms I have seen in support of a God have at least one premise that is false or unsupported by evidence. Below is just one more attempt to support Christianity through this apologetic, and my comments in red debunking the appropriate statements:


Note from the editor:
I recently got this nice little outline of arguments for the existence of God from a friend Lee Tavares.   I have much of this in different presentations on the topic of the existence of God at the web site, but I found this outline to be such a good little synopsis, I thought I would simply publish it as is.  Hopefully, this will be helpful to some.
John Oakes
TWELVE INDEPENDENT SYLLOGISTIC ARGUMENTS FOR GOD.
#1) ARGUMENT FROM CAUSALITY.

Premise 1) Everything that begins to exist has a cause. True

Premise 2) The universe began to exist. Speculation. Quantum mechanics reveals that whole universes can come in and out of existence, no God is necessary.

Therefore, the universe has a cause. It does not follow.
  
#2) ARGUMENT FROM COMPLEXITY.

Premise 1) The more complex something is, the more likely it is a product of design. Perhaps regarding human activity. However, it is an argument from ignorance to apply it to nature, as we use nature to compare human creations. Evolution and cosmology explain reality without the need for a God.

Premise 2) Biological complexity is more complex than all man-made designs. Perhaps, but so what?

Therefore, biological complexity is a product of design. It does not follow.

#3) ARGUMENT FROM FINETUNING.

Premise 1) Finetuning is either due to chance, necessity or design. True

Premise 2) Finetuning is not due to chance or necessity. Both cosmology and evolution have revealed that apparent finetuning can be random.

Therefore, finetuning is due to design. It does not follow.
  
#4) ARGUMENT FROM THE LAWS OF NATURE.

Premise 1) Laws require a lawgiver. The laws of physics/nature can simply be embedded into our uncreated universe.

Premise 2) The universe is governed by laws. True

Therefore, the laws of nature require a lawgiver. It does not follow.
     
#5) ARGUMENT FROM THE RELIABILITY OF OUR COGNITIVE FACULTIES.

Premise 1) Our cognitive faculties can only be reliable if they were actually designed. Our cognitive faculties are wonderful, but are flawed and can be unreliable. Thus, the need for objective analysis of reality through science.

Premise 2) Our cognitive faculties are reliable. No, see above.

Therefore, our cognitive faculties were designed. It does not follow.
  
#6) ARGUMENT FROM LOGIC.

Premise 1) Objective logic cannot be based on our subjective minds, a non-static universe or immaterial abstractions outside of a mind. Logic and mathematics are languages to express realities in our natural universe. There is nothing to support the claim that these tools must come from an “outside” mind.

Premise 2) Objective logic exists. True

Therefore, objective logic is not based on our subjective minds, a non-static universe or immaterial abstractions outside of a mind. It does not follow.
  
#7) ARGUMENT FROM FREE WILL.

Premise 1) Free will cannot be the result of mere chemical reactions. Unsupported claim and it assumes that we have free will.

Premise 2) We have free will. Evidence strongly points to the conclusion that we don’t have free will

Premise 3) Our free will began at some point. See above.

Premise 4) There cannot be an infinite regression of volitional causal agents to account for our free will. See above.

Therefore, there is a self-existent volitional being who accounts for our free will. It does not follow.
  
#8) ARGUMENT FROM MATHEMATICS.

Premise 1) Evidence for design within mathematics would point to a teleological source of mathematics. See Argument from Logic rebuttal.

Premise 2) There is evidence for design within mathematics. There is evidence for order. Design from an “outside” intelligence is an Argument from Ignorance.

Therefore, there is a teleological source of mathematics. Does not follow.
  
#9) ARGUMENT FROM MORALITY.

Premise 1) If objective moral values exist, then God exists. No evidence for objective moral values. Morality is the product of evolution and socialization. Most humans have subjective moral values of well-being that allow human societies to develop objective measures of behavior consistent with such. No “outside” God necessary.

Premise 2) Objective moral values exist. Unsupported assertion.

Therefore, God exists. It does not follow.
  
#10) ARGUMENT FROM CONTINGENCY.

Premise 1) The universe has an explanation of its own existence (either by the necessity of its own nature or by an external cause). True

Premise 2) The universe cannot be explained by the necessity of its own nature. Sure, it can. As stated above, recent science reveals that all of our natural reality could very well be uncaused and eternal. The hypothesis is at least as plausible as “Goddidit.”

Therefore, the universe can only be explained by an external cause. No
  
#11) ARGUMENT FROM THE HISTORICAL EVIDENCE FOR THE RESURRECTION.

Premise 1) The resurrection would be evidence for God. Not necessarily. There are many instances of people reviving from being “dead” and these can be explained through natural processes.

Premise 2) The resurrection occurred. Sorry, big fail. The extraordinary claim is made from a book whose provenance is unknown by authors who are unknown and the story circulated for decades before it was written down. The oldest copies of these stories that we have are several centuries after the supposed life of Jesus. The story is inconsistent, incoherent, and improbable. It is not dramatically different than other stories of creation and a supernatural God. You can choose to accept all of this, I will not.

Therefore, the resurrection is evidence for God. It does not follow.
  
#12) ARGUMENT FROM BIBLICAL FOREKNOWLEDGE.

Premise 1) Biblical foreknowledge would be evidence for God. Perhaps, IF all other explanations for such were ruled out. They haven’t been ruled out. For example, the authors of the NT has access to the prophecies of the OT and were steeped in the expectation of a coming “Savior” (from an “Original Sin” that has thoroughly been debunked by science).

Premise 2) The bible contains foreknowledge. No, it contains general claims of such that, under close examination, fail to meet the burden of acceptance.

Therefore, biblical foreknowledge is evidence for God. Does not follow.
- - - - - - -

***If you disagree with this post, how do you justify or verify that your beliefs are true? What is your view regarding the value of evidence?***
- - - - - - -

No comments:

Post a Comment

Labels

Choose how you look at reality wisely. Yes, it is a binary choice.

Choose how you look at reality wisely. Yes, it is a binary choice.
Click on image

SCIENCE JUSTIFIES ITSELF

SCIENCE JUSTIFIES ITSELF
Click on image