Let's defeat some arguments

[Guest guest]

Pamho, agtSP!

 

I thought it was about time to grap some atheistic arguments and defeat

them. This following argument is written by Micheal Martin - one of the

biggest atheists. The argument is taken from this atheistic website:

 

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/michael_martin/disproof.html

 

On the site we can also find some objections to the argument and Michael

Martins answers to these (I suggest you go and read the whole page.) But I

think we should try with our own answers. When we have defeated the argument

I can put everything together as a text and post it on different forums.

 

I will give my comments later...here's the text:

 

A Disproof of God's Existence (1970)

Michael Martin

 

Informal Statement of the Disproof

 

The ordinary man seems to believe that God is the most moral being in the

universe. (Whether he believes that God is morally perfect we need not

decide). Part of this belief of the ordinary man is that God does not have

certain kinds of feelings. Although God may have the feeling of anger, God

does not have the feelings of lust or envy. Moreover, part of this ordinary

concept of God is that God knows more than anyone else. (Again whether the

ordinary man believes that God knows everything we leave as an open

question). In particular the ordinary man supposes that God knows (at least)

all that men know. However these two beliefs, once correctly understood, are

logically incompatible. Let me explain.

 

Philosophers in talking about God's knowledge almost invariably equate God's

knowledge with what has been called propositional knowledge or knowledge

that something is the case. This intellectual view of God does not seem to

be shared by the common man. On his view God's knowledge includes other

types of knowledge as well. The plain man certainly supposes that God knows

how to do many things and he does not mean by this that God knows that

certain things should be done in such and such a way; he believes that God

has certain skills (procedural knowledge) i.e. at least all those skills

that men have.

 

Moreover, it is not obvious that ordinary people suppose that man's or God's

knowledge is exhausted by knowledge that and knowledge how. There is a use

of 'know' in ordinary parlance which cannot be reduced to knowledge that or

knowledge how. When one says "I. know Smith" one does not ordinarily mean

merely that one has certain propositional or procedural knowledge concerning

Smith. Usually what is at least suggested is that one has met Smith. In

other expressions of the form "Person P know X" the meaning is changed only

slightly. When one says "Jones knows sorrow" one does not usually mean only

that Jones knows that sorrow results in such and such behavior or that

sorrow is caused in such and such a way. One is usually suggesting rather

that Jones has had the experience of sorrow. The same thing goes for the

expression "He has known lust" or "He has known envy." A person who knows

lust and envy has at least had the feeling of lust or envy. Since God has

all of men's knowledge and more, he must know lust and envy. But to say God

has known lust and envy is to say that God has had the feelings of lust and

envy. But this is incompatible with God's moral goodness. Hence God does not

exist.

 

FORMAL PROOF

 

Premise (1) If God exists, God has not had the feelings of lust or envy.

 

Premise (2) If God exists, God exists as a being who knows at least

everything man knows.

 

Premise (3) If God exists as a being who knows at least everything man

knows, God knows lust and envy.

 

Premise (4) If God knows lust and envy, God has had the feelings of lust and

envy.

 

(5) God exists. (By hypothesis.)

 

(6) .: God has had and has not had the feelings of lust and envy.

(By (1) - (5).)

 

(7) God does not exist. (By (5) & (6)

Q. E. D.)