Friday, April 4, 2008

A Foundation of Sand

When I talk with an atheist, I don't start by challenging their logical assumptions. Not because the assumptions are solid and valid, but because I don't want to sound like a five year old ("Are too!" "Are not!" "Are too!")...

But, given the persistence of a certain commenter, let us consider the foundations of atheistic logic.

The atheist believes that the human brain (the center of logical reasoning) has arisen through the process of natural selection. That is, a process without the oversight of any intelligent, logically reasoning being.

Perform the following experiment:
  1. Place both your index fingers pointed towards each other, where you can see them, just above the bridge of your nose.
  2. Move your fingers towards each other, and then away from each other.
When the tips of your fingers reach a certain point (right inside the area between your eyes), you should see a little "floating hot dog". It's the two tips of your fingers, floating, disconnected from your fingers, and connected back-to-back.

You see, our brain "edits" our senses for its own (undirected/genetic -- according to the atheist) purposes (without our awareness or approval). This is the foundation of all optical illusions.

Now, how does the atheist know his brain is not "editing" his logical processes to yield the results most beneficial to his brain-genes?

He doesn't.


GCT said...

This was obviously pointed at me. OK, I'll bite.

I don't "believe" that the human brain came about through the process of evolution. I accept that this is the best explanation that we have, and the physical evidence points to it. I can't prove that god doesn't exist or that we aren't living in the Matrix, but the most reasonable, rational position is that these things are not true.

To hold otherwise is to believe that it is rational to hold positions for which there is no evidence. This is the case for your belief in god. There is no evidence for god, and your little experiment is part of the reason why your personal beliefs fall well short of the mark of evidence. Our brains also look for patterns that simply aren't there as well (as do the brains of other animals that are our cousins). But, to hold that it is rational to believe in things for which we have no evidence is to hold that belief in all gods is rational, that belief in invisible, pink unicorns is rational. I'm certain that you don't find belief in most of the things on that list to be rational, so you are being inconsistent in your logic.

Further, what logical assumptions am I making? I'm saying that there is no evidence for god, so I do not hold a god belief. This requires no logical assumptions and is the best rational position to hold. In order to believe in god, one must first hold an assumption that such a being exists, which is logically unsound and irrational, especially in the face of having no supporting evidence. Your very argument for god is based on logical fallacy.

How do I know my brain is not editing my logical processes? Because these are not my subjective logical processes at work, but objective ones. That I hold no assumptions is not a subjective decision but an objective fact. That your conclusions are based on begging the question is also an objective fact, not a subjective editing of my brain.

So, I guess your argument lies in tatters once again.

TheDen said...

How very fascinating, GCT.

I have a question for you.

Where did all this come from? How was the universe created?

I say God created it.

You will say something else...

Neither of us has proof or evidence.

Therefore, both theories are equally valid.

The universe (i.e. matter) had to come from somewhere. It was created somehow. How?

I can't explain it without God. Can you?

nedbrek said...

GCT, the existence of God is as plain as the nose on your face.

Oh, wait, you can't see the nose on your face.