Answering Some Atheistic Arguments found in Michael Martin's book - The Impossibility of God

Some responses are provided below against atheistic arguments that attempt to prove God does not exist. The arguments are taken from a pdf document that summarises arguments found in Michael Martin's book entitled The Impossibility of God. Michael Martin and Ricki Monnier, the editors of The Impossibility of God, have the following introductory point: “Standard definitions of God include:

God is the perfect being.

God is the being most worthy of worship.

God is the adequate object of religious attitudes.

God is that than which nothing greater can be conceived” (p. 17).

FIRST DISPROOF: NON-VIRTUOUS GOD (WALTON/CARNEADES): Here is the second disproof, based on an argument from Carneades, an ancient philosopher but written up by Douglas Walton:

1. God is (by definition) a being than which no greater being can be thought.

Response – The above definition of God is not correct. God is pure act, or being. Whereby God’s nature is being. In God there is no diversity between the divine essence and the divine being.

2. Greatness includes greatness of virtue.

3. Therefore, God is a being than which no being could be more virtuous.

Response – Line 3 anthropomorphises God by reducing the divine perfection down to that of virtue. A virtue is a habit that resides in a power. A virtue is thereby a habit that resides inside an accident of a creature. As God does not have any accidents, and therefore no powers (for powers are accidental to nature), then God does not have any virtues. God does, however, have attributes such as omnipresence, omniscience and so on. Line 3 is false.

4. But virtue involves overcoming pains and danger.

Response – Line 4 is false. Virtue is a habit I a power, such as the virtue of justice in the will, or faith in the intellect. Virtue is not defined according to overcoming pain and danger.

5. Indeed, a being can only be properly said to be virtuous if it can suffer pain or be destroyed.

Response – Line 5 is false and based upon the false understanding of line 4.

6. A God that can suffer pain or is destructible, is not one than which no greater being can be thought.

Response – Line 6 is false, for God can suffer when united to the human nature of man as occurred at the crucifixion of Jesus on the cross.  

7. For you can think of a greater being, that is, one that is non-suffering and indestructible.

Response – Line 7 is irrelevant, for line 7 is based upon the falsity of lines 5 and 6.

8. Therefore, God does not exist (p. 38).

Response – Line 8 is a false conclusion based upon the falsity of lines 5, 6 and 7.

SECOND DISPROOF: THE MORAL AUTONOMY ARGUMENT (RACHELS): Here is the third argument, from James Rachels:

1. If any being is God, he must be a fitting object of worship.

Response – True. God is to be worshipped.

2. No being could possibly be a fitting object of worship, since worship requires the abandonment of one’s role as an autonomous moral agent.

Response – Men is obligated to worship God according to the categorical imperative determined by the Eternal law. Man has a nature which is rational animal. Man, as rational is free to act or not to act. The categorical imperative is an extrinsic bond of the free. The extrinsic categorical imperative does not intrinsically compel man as a free agent to act against his nature as free.

The eternal law is the ultimate measure of man’s free act. If a man acts against the eternal law, he acts against his nature and thereby sins. The claimed nature of man’s freedom as autonomous is false. For autonomy denies the truth of the eternal law as the ultimate measure of all acts of all creatures.

Line 2 is false by affirming a false understanding of man’s freedom as autonomous, when in fact man’s freedom is determined by the nature of the will and the appetized good, and not from the categorical imperative applied to man, rather than correctly to the eternal law.

3. Therefore, there cannot be any being who is God (p. 54).

Response – A false conclusion, based upon the falsity of line 2.

THIRD DISPROOF: THE PERFECTION V. CREATION ARGUMENT (DRANGE): Theodore M. Drange gives ten disproofs for the existence of God, based on “playing off one another” the different attributes typically given of God (i.e., perfect, immutable, transcendent, nonphysical, omniscient, omnipresent, personal, free, all-loving, all-just, all-merciful, and the creator of the universe, etc. [p. 185]), as follows:

1. If God exists, then he is perfect.

Response – True.

2. If God exists, then he is the creator of the universe.

Response – True.

3. A perfect being can have no needs or wants.

Response – False. God can want to share His own goodness with creatures and still remain God.

4. If any being created the universe, then he must have had some need or want.

Response – Line 4 is false in part. God can created freely from His own choice. God’s freedom is not measured by any needs, for God is not in need of anything. God can create according to His free choice as a want.

5. Therefore, it is impossible for a perfect being to be the creator of the universe (from 3 and 4).

Response – False, for line 5 does not follow from the false statement of lines 3 and 4.

6. Hence, it is impossible for God to exist (from 1, 2, and 5) (p. 186).

Response – False as shown above.

FOURTH DISPROOF: THE IMMUTABILITY V CREATION ARGUMENT (DRANGE): Again, from Drange:

1. If God exists, then he is immutable.

Response – True.

2. If God exists, then he is the creator of the universe.

Response – False as a non sequitur. If God exists, then He may be the creator of the universe if the universe was created.

3. An immutable being cannot at one time have an intention and then at a later time not have that intention.

Response – False , based upon the false notion of time. God is eternal, which is outside time. God’s eternity is a single moment whereby everything in God occurs simultaneously. God’s time is not sequential time as inferred in point 4 below.

4. For any being to create anything, prior to the creation he must have had the intention to create it, but at a later time, after the creation, no longer have the intention to create it.

Response – False according to a denial of eternity of God. All acts of God are only one. The divine will to create and then cease creating is one act within God. To reduce all acts to several acts is to reduce God’s acts down to that of a creature.

5. Thus, it is impossible for an immutable being to have created anything (from 3 and 4).

Response – Line 5 is false, based upon the falsity of lines 3 and 4.

6. Therefore, it is impossible for God to exist (from 1, 2, and 5) (pp. 187-188).

Response – Line 6 is false, as shown above.

FIFTH DISPROOF: THE IMMUTABILITY V. OMNISCIENCE ARGUMENT (DRANGE): Again, from Drange:

1. If God exists, then he is immutable.

Response – True. God does not change.

2. If God exists, then he is omniscient.

Response – True. God is all knowing.

3. An immutable being cannot know different things at different times.

Response – True. There is no change in God’s knowledge.

4. To be omniscient, a being would need to know propositions, about the past and future.

Response – True. God knows all propositions.

5. But what is past and what is future keep changing.

Response – God knows both the past and the future, for God is outside time. God’s knowledge is not dependent upon what occurs or may occur in sequential time. God’s transcendence accounts for Gods knowledge outside sequential time.

6. Thus, in order to know propositions about the past and future, a being would need to know different things at different times (from 5).

Response – Line 6 is only true if God is only immanent and only existed inside sequential time. But God is both immanent and transcendent, inside and outside sequential time.

7. It follows that, to be omniscient, a being would need to know different things at different times (from 4 and 6).

Response – False through ignoring the knowledge had according to outside sequential time and God’s transcendence.

8. Hence, it is impossible for an immutable being to be omniscient (from 3 and 7).

Response – False based upon the falsity of lines 5, 6 and 7.

9. Therefore, it is impossible for God to exist (from 1, 2, and 8) (p. 189).

Response – False as shown above.

SIXTH DISPROOF: THE IMMUTABLE V. ALL-LOVING ARGUMENT (DRANGE): Again, from Drange:

1. If God exists, then he is immutable.

Response – True.

2. If God exists, then he is all-loving.

Response – True. For God wills good to all things including Himself.

3. An immutable being cannot be affected by events.

Response – True. God’s immutability does not change with the change in other things.

4. To be all-loving, it must be possible for a being to be affected by events.

Response – False. God’s will is perfect, therefore God’s will intends good to all in accord with the eternal law. God’s will as good does not change by events, for the eternal law does not change.

5. Hence, it is impossible for an immutable being to be all-loving (from 3 and 4).

Response – False from line 4.

6. Therefore, it is impossible for God to exist (from 1, 2, and 5) (p. 190).

Response – False from lines 4 and 5.

JM

Exposing the Error of Philosophical Idealism.

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy defines philosophical Idealism as -

 This entry discusses philosophical idealism as a movement chiefly in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, although anticipated by certain aspects of seventeenth century philosophy. It examines the relationship between epistemological idealism (the view that the contents of human knowledge are ineluctably determined by the structure of human thought) and ontological idealism (the view that epistemological idealism delivers truth because reality itself is a form of thought and human thought participates in it). After discussing precursors, the entry focuses on the eighteenth-century versions of idealism due to Berkeley, Hume, and Kant, the nineteenth-century movements of German idealism and subsequently British and American idealism, and then concludes with an examination of the attack upon idealism by Moore and Russell.

The same article summarises idealism as –

 It nevertheless seems safe to say that within modern philosophy there have been two fundamental conceptions of idealism:

something mental (the mind, spirit, reason, will) is the ultimate foundation of all reality, or even exhaustive of reality, and

although the existence of something independent of the mind is conceded, everything that we can know about this mind-independent “reality” is held to be so permeated by the creative, formative, or constructive activities of the mind (of some kind or other) that all claims to knowledge must be considered, in some sense, to be a form of self-knowledge.

The fundamental principle of idealism as stated above is that reality is created, formed, or constructed by human thought. Consequent to the fundamental principle, thought is a cause of external reality. So, when a man thinks is his mind that a tree exists, then the tree exists outside his mind. The causality of philosophical idealism requires thought, which is interior to the man, to cause many things known by the man’s mind, which are outside the man’s mind existing in the concrete real. The absurdity of idealism may be exposed by noting several examples –

Man knows the tree, and by knowing the tree, the tree is caused to exist by the man’s knowledge of the tree. Consequently, when man causes the tree by thought, the tree in the real, outside man, has many causes, such as soil, nutrients, water, and atoms, and sunlight which also cause the tree, which just so happen to coincide with the man’s knowledge of the tree. Let us hypothetically suppose as true that in accord with idealism’s understanding of the relationship between man’s knowledge and things existing externally from the man in the real, that the man’s knowledge causes the tree.

Then man’s knowledge of the tree must cause all causes within the tree, that make the tree exist in the real, and all the causes that are external to the tree that also cause the tree to exist in the real. For knowledge to cause the tree means knowledge causes the tree in toto, which includes knowledge causing all causes within the tree. Yet such knowledge of the tree by man must be comprehensive knowledge whereby the man knows all causes all the time, in a complete and comprehensive manner. Yet such knowledge of the tree is not possible, as argued below.

 Man does not have a comprehensive knowledge of any body at all as Implied by Idealism.  

We know this from the nature of human knowledge that is only apprehensive and not comprehensive. Apprehensive knowledge only permits some knowledge of the nature of a body, whereby the nature of a thing is known apart from its individuating notes in the real. Such oppressive knowledge of any body is the reason why man uses the process of judgement and reason to arrive at new knowledge of bodies. For example, a man knows Peter, who is a man, and then makes the judgement that Peter is a man. The judgement made arrives at a new conclusion after the man apprehends both the natures of Peter and man. Consequent to judgement, men use reason to arrive at further conclusions. For example, Peter is a man. Man is mortal. Therefore, Peter is mortal. Whereby the conclusion is a new truth known through the process of reason.

If such knowledge of Peter as a mortal man causes Peter and Peter’s mortality, then knowledge of Peter alone, which causes all the causes in Peter, would already know peter is both mortal and all other truths about Peter that could be arrived at though reason. Consequently, the philosophy of idealism has a false understanding of the nature of human knowledge, which commonly uses judgement and reason, which is always made apart from any possibility that human knowledge is comprehensive. Therefore, strong evidence is found from the natural use of human intellect in reason to show human knowledge acts in a manner diverse to that required by idealism.

 The Existence of Science Contradicts Man’s Mind as a Cause of External Reality  

Inductive sciences assume external reality is objective and thereby known to have causes through hypothesis, models and experimental data collected from those models. Such causes are then known to exist within things that exist in the real. The change from non-knowledge to knowledge of causes within things which existed before knowledge of those causes was known is strong evidence that man’s mind does not cause external causes, but man’s mind is in fact informed by external causes, whereby man comes to know causes, which always assumes those external causes existed before man came to know those causes. The causation of things eternal to man prior to knowledge implies external causes act independent of man’s knowledge.

 Man’s knowledge is not Ongoing and Therefore Not Causative of External Reality

Men come to know the external reality, then move on to know other external realities, and sometimes, whilst asleep, do not in act actually know any external reality for several hours each day. The man who knows the tree and then ceases to know the same tree does not cause the tree to stop existing. We know this from common sense experience. A tree is known to exist in the backyard, is filmed to continue to exist, whilst the man sleeps. As the man sleeps the tree does not disappear from the camera, but remains the tree. Similar examples can be given for any external thing, which continues to exist, even when no man knows of the things existence. Such simple life experience is enough to overturn the philosophy of idealism.

 Discovery Provides Evidence for External Things Existing apart from Knowledge  

A man digs a hole and finds some gold. The gold then must have existed prior to the man digging the hole, and the gold is then not dependent upon the man discovering the gold. Both discovery and surprise in the man who finds the gold is strong evidence that the gold has its own external causes which are sufficient to account for the existence of the gold, apart from any knowledge of the gold.

Furthermore, if all of external reality corresponded to human thought as the cause of external reality, then man could imagine anything, and thereby think of some new reality and that reality would begin to exist for as long as the thought existed. So if we use the example of the man digging up the gold, idealism would posit that the man caused the gold by thinking of the gold when he dug the hole. But what of the same man, who thinks of gold whilst digging another hole, but never finds the gold? Should not the man digging, and thinking of gold, always find the gold? According to idealism it necessarily follows that the reality of gold follows upon the thought of gold. Why then in the practical don’t men just think of gold and gold then appears? Because external reality does not follow upon thought. Again, a simple experiment shows the practical falsification of the philosophy of idealism.

External reality is not caused by thought. But thought may follow upon external reality, because external reality is active in the act of knowledge. The activity of the object, external to the knower is well attested by moderate realism, and by the modern application of science which requires external reality to act to provide data to then use the date to check theory. The idealist cannot account for science, which assumes the activity of external reality in the act of knowledge, for idealism denies the very activity of external reality.

 Some Corollaries to the Falsity of Idealism

 Man does not cause external reality through knowledge of external reality.  Man’s knowledge does not account for the existence of external things. As the mind does not cause extrinsic causes, then the mind (intellect) only has causes intrinsic to man himself. Hence knowledge of the real, is caused by the senses, and the intellect, which do not cause the tree.

The Correct Understanding of the Human Mind is other than Idealism and Materialism –

Both Idealism and Materialism are false philosophies of the human mind. Consequently. there must be another philosophy that correctly accounts for the action of the human mind. One such candidate is the moderate realism of St Thomas, which says the human intellect is a spiritual power that becomes the form of the external thing known in the intellect. Hence when the man knows the tree, the man’s intellect remains an intellect, but also becomes the form of the tree, and has his mind informed by the tree to know tree-ness.

The Academy is Shown to be False with Regard to the Human Intellect –

As the academy embraces idealism and materialism, and both philosophies are false, then one should become a moderate sceptic regarding the opinions of the intellectuals who claim to be educated in the area of philosophy. For if the philosophers can and have made such elementary blunders concerning the nature of the human intellect, then they can and probably have made several other elementary errors in other areas as well.

 The Elementary Errors of Idealism and Materialism Point to Man’s Fallen Nature –

The Catholic Church teaches man has a fallen nature and is thereby prone to easily sin and thereby have a darkened intellect. The darkening of the intellect then causes difficulty in both finding truth and then living that truth. The falsity of idealism and materialism is strong evidence from within the academy that the academy is composed of men who have a fallen nature, and who find it difficult to explain reality and then live by their explanations of reality. Nobody can live out idealism or materialism, for nobody can live out an error.

 The Falsity of Idealism and the Avoidance of Solipsism – 

If Idealism is true then when a man knows other men, all other men are cause by the knowledge of the one man. Such a philosophy of one causing the many is consistent with solipsism, which says only the one man can be known to exist.  For if only one man causes all of reality through knowledge then really only the one man exists as the cause of all other things. Idealism is not identical to solipsism, but has some consistency with solipsism. The falsity of idealism once exposed then removes the false wold view of solipsism.

 Parts of Enlightenment Philosophy are False –

Enlightenment Philosophers such as Rene Descartes promoted a philosophy of knowledge as the precursor to idealism. For Descartes said man only knows his thought. By Descartes saying such a statement, other philosophers who followed Descartes than concluded that only ideas are known, therefore external reality is really only an extension of ideas and therefore external reality is caused by human ideas.

As idealism is false, then the Philosophy of knowledge promoted by Rene Descartes may well be false in principle. As it turns out, Descartes philosophy is false, for man does not know only ideas, but knows the nature of bodes through ideas attained through the internal sense of imagination and the eternal senses of taste, touch, sight, smell, and hearing. As the idea is not what is known as Descartes taught, but that through which the external reality is known, then there is no need to posit that man only knows ideas and consequently external reality is tied to, or caused by human thought as the idealists taught.

Descartes classic statement that “I think, therefore I am”, presupposed Descartes principle of man’s intellect only knows ideas. For if only ideas are known, then I exist, because I think and thereby know I exist. Hence only knowledge of ideas leads to the conclusion that man’s knowledge is causative of concrete, real things. But because Descartes principle of man only knowing ideas is false, his statement of “I think, therefore I am”, is also false. For man exists first, then knows of both his ability to know external reality, and his ability to reflect and thereby know that he exists. Descartes, would have better said, I exist, therefore I can think, rather than his famous, but false statement of “I think, therefore I am”.

 Idealism Ignores the Activity of the External Things in the Act of knowledge.

By idealism proposing that the human mind causes external things to exist, the external thing thereby does not in any way cause the act of knowledge. But if the only cause of knowledge is the man (subject), and not the tree (object), then according to idealism, knowledge is only ever subjective and not objective. Whereby man both never knows the tree as an object of knowledge, for the tree as an object does not cause knowledge. But man knows the tree as an object only subjectively and the knowledge thereby causes the concrete object external (the tree) to the knowing man.

Idealism is thereby inconsistent. For idealism teaches man does have a knowledge of the tree, and thereby admits of the causation of the tree in knowledge, making knowledge objective. But idealism then denies the causation of the tree in knowledge by affirming that human knowledge alone causes the tree. Thereby idealism teaches knowledge is only subjective. And by idealism denying the activity of the object of knowledge, idealism cannot consistently affirm any access to objective knowledge and thereby cannot make any consistent claims concerning what knowledge may or may not do to any objective reality outside the activity of the subject.

In short, by idealism’s denial of the activity of the object in the act of knowledge there remains no causal link between the subject and the external object, to then affirm the act of knowledge causes the object. If only the subject is the cause of knowledge, then knowledge as a cause of anything outside the subject must remain unknown, and not affirmed as causative of any concrete reality outside the knower.

JM

Exposing the Error of Materialism

Materialism is defined by the encyclopedia of Britannica as –

Materialism, also called physicalism, in philosophy, the view that all facts (including facts about the human mind and will and the course of human history) are causally dependent upon physical processes, or even reducible to them.

Mechanical materialism is the theory that the world consists entirely of hard, massy material objects, which, though perhaps imperceptibly small, are otherwise like such things as stones. (A slight modification is to allow the void—or empty space—to exist also in its own right.) These objects interact in the sort of way that stones do: by impact and possibly also by gravitational attraction. The theory denies that immaterial or apparently immaterial things (such as minds) exist or else explains them away as being material things or motions of material things.

And similarly, according to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy –

Physicalism is the thesis that everything is physical, or as contemporary philosophers sometimes put it, that everything supervenes on the physical. The thesis is usually intended as a metaphysical thesis, parallel to the thesis attributed to the ancient Greek philosopher Thales, that everything is water, or the idealism of the 18th Century philosopher Berkeley, that everything is mental. The general idea is that the nature of the actual world (i.e. the universe and everything in it) conforms to a certain condition, the condition of being physical. Of course, physicalists don't deny that the world might contain many items that at first glance don't seem physical — items of a biological, or psychological, or moral, or social nature. But they insist nevertheless that at the end of the day such items are either physical or supervene on the physical.

Materialism reduces the real down to only that which is material, or physical and thereby excludes any reality to that which is non-material. By its nature, materialism must exclude the notions of 1) an immortal, immaterial soul in man and life after death, 2) immaterial creatures, such as angels and 3) the supreme immaterial being in God. Logically, if materialism is true, then an immaterial God cannot exist, and the major world religions such as Islam, Christianity and Judaism are all false. Furthermore, if materialism is true, man does not have an immortal soul and life after death is not real, and therefore heaven and hell do not exist.

Materialism is also essential to atheism. For if materialism is true then atheism may be true. But if materialism is false then an immaterial God may exist, then atheism may be false and monotheism may be true. Some of the consequences of the materialist worldview are enormous. If materialism it true, then the major world religions are at best only subjective, and false interpretations of reality and have no objective, nor binding claim over men. If, however, materialism is false, and then because truth is one, then there may be one religion which is objective and does make a binding claim on men for their adherence.

 An Argument to Expose the Error of Materialism.

Materialism says all of reality is physical or stated in another way is material. For example, a tree is a physical thing, or in accord with the philosophy of materialism is material, and can be seen, touched, tasted, smelt and located relative to other physical things. Other examples such as a cow, a house, a bridge and many other physical things can be known to exist through sense knowledge. From the materialist principle that all of reality is material, it follows that everything that exists can be known through sense knowledge, such as sight, taste touch, smell and hearing.

Therefore, because the fundamental principle of materialism states all of reality is material, then materialism, which is a part of reality, itself must also be material and not immaterial. Hence the philosophy of materialism is a material thing that can be known through sense knowledge, such as sight, taste touch, smell and hearing. Hence materialism, like the tree, bridge, or house, may be sensed and thereby located relative to other material things. To sense materialism as this material thing is to sense this particular material thing, (or a set of material things) which is identical with the fundamental principle of the philosophy of materialism. This particular material thing, (or a set of material things), which is in accord with the philosophy of materialism accounts for all of reality is then either –

1)         Outside the mind  - If so, then the material thing(s) which is itself materialism, does not account for the mind. Hence the principle of materialism which says all things are material, must exclude the mind. Hence if the material thing, which is itself materialism is only outside the mind, then the mind itself is not included in the principle of materialism. Hence if materialism is only outside the mind, then materialism is false, for materialism does not account for the mind, which is not subject to the principle, or the physical thing, which is materialism.

2) Inside the mind  - Similar to the above argument. If materialism is only the human mind, then materialism is not anything other than the human mind. Hence if materialism is only the human mind, then everything outside the mind is not accounted for by materialism. Hence materialism is false.

 3) Outside and inside the mind.  – If the material thing, which is materialism is both outside and inside the mind, then materialism is then either –

 3a) Identical with the human mind and all other things outside the mind.

Then materialism is identical with all things. Hence materialism as a principle of the philosophy is really all things which are materialism. But all things are not the principle of materialism, for all things would be both themselves (tree, and bridge) and materialism. But as the tree and bridge and all other things are things unto themselves (the tree is the tree), then all things are not of themselves materialism. Hence all things are not materialism. Hence materialism is false.

 3b) Really distinct from the human mind and really distinct from all other things outside the mind.

Then materialism is not itself the mind, nor itself any of all things, but something(s) material other than both the human mind and all things. Hence materialism is a material thing(s) other than all things. Such a material things, which is other than all things, cannot be, for a material thing is always within the group of all things. Hence if materialism is not the human mind, nor any of all other things, then materialism is false. Materialism is not the mind nor all things. Hence materialism is false.

 3c) Identical with the human mind, but really distinct from all other things.

Then materialism is the human mind. But the human mind according to materialism is an organic body (the brain) and not materialism. Hence materialism is self-contradictory if it asserts materialism is both identical to the human mind, and the human mind is an organ, which is itself not materialism. Hence materialism is false.

 3d) Really distinct from the human mind, but identical to all other things.

Materialism is all things, exclusive of the material human mind, which is the brain. Such a conclusion is self-evidently false, for if materialism is all things, then all things are not themselves but are all materialism. For example, the tree and rock are not tree and rock, but materialism. Hence materialism is false.

Conclusion

As points, 1 to 3 all arrives at the falsity of materialism and points 1 to 3 represent the full extent of the options available to determine what materialism is then materialism is always false.

The above argument may be restated more simply as follows.

Materialism states all things that exist are material.

Hence, because materialism exists, then materialism is itself a material thing(s).

But as no material thing is of itself materialism, then materialism is of itself not a material thing.

Hence the claim of materialism that all things that exist are material is a self-refuting proposition.

For materialism itself is not material, as is implied within its own principle.

Hence materialism is false.

Some of the consequences of the falsity of materialism are –

Man may have an Immortal Soul -  Not all things are material. Hence men may have an immortal soul, such as claimed by the major monotheistic religions of Christianity, Islam and Judaism. If man does have an immortal soul, then man has a value far beyond that posited by materialism, for man will continue exist forever, contrary to the conclusion of materialism that reduces man’s existence to a temporal existence of the living, material, human body.

A Fundamental Error Embraced by the Intellectual Elites -  The Academy that embraces the philosophy of materialism is in error. Hence the academy which embraces the error of materialism should be treated with suspicion on matters that relate to the false conclusion that man is only a material thing, rather than a composite of body and soul.

Atheism is false -  If materialism is false, then atheism is false. For atheism only may be true if materialism is true. For if materialism is true, then there are no spirits, and because God is a spirit, then God does not exist.

An atheist may object and say the above statement ignores many other forms of theism, including some forms that teach God has a body, as the Mormons do. But the above statement concerning the nature of the one God which is a spirit is the only real possibility that can be true. As all other forms of theism are false and only monotheism is possibly true (actually monotheism is true), then if materialism is true, then monotheism is false. And consequently, as all other forms of theism are also false, then atheism is then true.

Materialist Based Social Philosophies May all be Debunked -  All social philosophies such as communism, Nazism and Fascism are all open to being falsified, for they are all at least in part based upon a materialist understanding of the world and man.

Materialist Based Economic Philosophies May all be Debunked -  All economic theories that reduce man to a servant of the economy are open to being falsified. For because materialism is false, man may have an immortal, non-material soul. The reality of the immortal soul in man infers the economy exists for man to attain another ultimate end, other than the economy.

The Materialist Notion of the Human Mind may be Debunked -   Materialism reduces the knowledge of all things down to sense knowledge. For sense knowledge knows material things as this particular thing as sensed. As materialism is false then a correct understanding of man may include the possibility that all things may be known in a way other than only sense knowledge. Such a possibility corresponds well with the Judeo-Christian anthropology of man as a composite of body and soul, where the soul has a power, called the intellect. Whereby the intellect acts to know natures of things through an act of abstraction, which is to know things in a manner other than that had by sense knowledge (above the material).

All Other Ism’s Need Not be Material as Required by Materialism -  Because materialism is not itself a material thing, then many other isms need not be material things either. For according to materialism, only things that exist are material, hence all isms are also material things. Hence according to materialism, capitalism, deism, Protestantism, secularism, scientism and all other isms are material things that can be sensed. Nevertheless, because materialism is itself not material, we need not be bound to the absurdity of all the other isms also being material. So, capitalism, deism, Protestantism, secularism, scientism and all other isms are not material things, but more likely, abstract and therefore non-material systems of belief.

Mathematics Need Not be Material as Required by Materialism -   Because materialism is false, mathematics need not be a material thing. For example, numbers need not be material, but may be non-material forms that reside in the human mind and are expressed according to convention within equations. For if materialism is true, then all numbers are material things. So, the number 3 then becomes a material thing, which is itself 3. The problematic nature of the materialist claim is resolved by noting 3 is not material, but abstract. The abstract nature of number is more acceptable by noting that when we speak of material things in association with numbers, we know the material things are material and the numbers are abstract. For example, 3 apples, indicates a set of material apples, along with the abstract notion of 3. Hence 3 apples is a combination of a set of material apples, which are then abstracted by the human intellect and combined in the intellect which makes a judgement to combine 3 with apples, for the man to then say ‘3 apples’.

The problematic nature of materialism is highlighted when we note ‘3 apples’ according to materialism means ‘3’ and ‘apples’ are both material things. Yet everyone knows from experience that only each individual apple exists in a set of apples as material things. For nobody has ever observed through sense experience the existence of the material number 3. The immediately problematic nature of materialism, which is experientially shown to be a false philosophical construct made against common sense experience, is overcome by 1) noting the above falsification of the materialist philosophy and 2) also noting materialism is always falsified whenever men use numbers in common speech.

The Problem of the Universal May be Resolved Properly -  Because materialism is false, the problem of the universal had in mind may be resolved by noting the human intellect is not a sense as materialism requires, but a power of the soul to know natures in the abstract. For example, man knows tree, whereby the individual notes of the size, age, colour and other material properties of the tree are removed when the tree is known by the intellect. The abstract knowledge of tree had in mind then enables the man to consequently speak the word ‘tree’ in the universal, even though the tree always exists outside the mind in the concrete singular.

Other Errors of Materialism’s Explanation of Intellective Knowledge Exposed -  The falsity of materialism also leads us to observe the way in which materialism handles intellective knowledge. If according to materialism, all of reality is composed of material things, then knowledge itself must also be a material thing and consequently the human intellect is another sense. Therefore, according to materialism, just as touch feels heat, and the hand becomes hot through touching a hot surface, then similarly the human mind must also react in a way like that of touch, to react to heat, when heat is known in the mind. If the materialist philosophy posits the human intellect is another sense, the question which must be asked is just how does the human mind act when it knows something that is sensed by taste, touch, smell, hearing, and sight? Does the mind become hot when the mind knows heat, like the hand becomes hot through the sense of touch? If so, what evidence is there for this claim, other than the wild musings of materialist philosophers?

Likewise, the materialist understanding of the human mind may also be compared to the other senses and similar questions may also be asked concerning the sense reaction of the human mind. For if the eye in some physical way becomes red, when red is seen, does the mind also become red in some physical way when the mind understands red? If so, what evidence is there for this? Even if there is evidence for the mind becoming red, what evidence is there that the mind becoming red is actually a correct explanation of what the mind is doing, when the problem of the universal had in mind remains unexplained?

And if there is no evidence for the mind becoming red when the mind knows red, like the eye sees red, why then buy into the materialist philosophy that requires the mind to only be physical.

 The Falsity of Materialism Highlights the Problematic Nature of the Enlightenment Philosophy of Knowledge - John Locke proposed a philosophy of knowledge that was empirical based. Locke thereby reduced the human intellect down to that of just another sense. By doing so, Locke reduced man to a material thing, which is consistent to the materialist understanding of reality. As materialism is false, along with the false presentation of the human intellect as another sense, then so too John Locke’s philosophy of the human intellect as another sense is also false.

The falsity of John Locke’s Empiricism based philosophy of the human intellect as only another sense, shows another aspect of the Enlightenment to be false.

 Materialism is false and Secularism is also false.  Because materialism is false, then the worldview that says only life in this universe is the fulness of reality for men is also false. For only if the universe in its entirety is accounted for through only material things, or only material causes, it necessarily follows that man’s life with his material body had prior to death is the total sum of the human experience. For according to secularism, man only ever has the here and now of his own life in his own body, without any reference to life after death, heaven, or hell, or God as a being who exists beyond the material universe.

But as materialism is false, then man’s life and/or all of reality is not accounted for only through material causes. Then secularism, which is based upon the false philosophy of materialism is also probably false. For secularism denies 1) man has a spiritual soul, 2) the existence of created spirits and 3) the existence of God as the prime being, who is the only uncreated, pure spirit. As secularism necessarily denies any possibility of a spiritual realm, based upon a materialist understanding of the universe, then because materialism is false, it follows that secularism is probably also false.

Based upon arguments for the existence of the spirituality of the human soul, the existence of God and divine revelation that teaches the existence of angels as created spirits, evidence is provided to prove secularism is false. Consequently, because atheism is also false, then atheistic secular humanism is also false.

JM