Douglas Adams' piece on the Babel Fish is marvelously silly but the of substitution "Babel fish" with "free will" reveals an interesting inconsistency.
God: "I refuse to prove that I exist, for proof denies faith, and with without faith I am nothing."
Man: "Free-will is a dead give away isn't it? It proves you exists and by your own argument you don't. QED"
This argument poses two problems, either the problem stated my mans rebuttal, or the possibility the there is no free-will.
Those that absolutely adhere to the arguments for free-will, must sacrifice God in order to do so if they also hold that God is a matter of faith that would be destroyed by knowledge of God.
The "there is no god" position remains the null hypothesis.
Now that cognitive neuro-science and FMRI studies are giving us insights into the in working of the brain and mind. It looks more like free-will is a man made myth much like God.
Not only do we see and understand how the brain works more than ever, we can demonstrate that it works in a way the is to be expected without the intervention of any super-natural influence, we see how our responses line up with our evolutionary heritage.
Presuppositional Apologetics
Also known as presuppositionalism, this argument attempts to put God in place of the usual assumptions in parlor trick style.
Critics note the PA begs the question of the truth of the apologist's religion, and of the non-truth of other systems of thought.
The two most popular refuting arguments from the "Ghost that never lies" which looks suspiciously like whatever theist god model presented and the matrix scenario in which the inhabitants are presented with a picture of a universe in which the laws are different any respect such that 2+2 might equal 5 which is used the explore whether logic depends on god or god depends on logic.
The of the more practical observations, is the fact that we have experience that Methodological Naturalism, gives us tools that allow us to examine the world we live in and make useful predictions. These predications allow us to build computer components less then 40nm across. The transistor was it self predicted by theory worked in quantum mechanics. We can now cure some genetic conditions including "boy in a bubble" syndrome where a single gene mutation prevents infants from developing marrow based T-cell factories. The world food supply is vastly greater than it could have been with out the observations of methodological naturalism.
I can't help noticing how PA attempts character reality as something that mercy of their invisible friend. If you've read the invisible friends book, you find it has an incompetent author demonstrably incapable of remembering the name of a leading character after a name change (Jacob-Israel). It has all the hall marks of being author not by committee but by four committees
One of the issues I've noted is a difficulty in finding a quick direct refutation of PA. Since PA is so closely connected to the transcendental argument for god (TAG), renowned for being a philosophical mess. There might not be a full refutation only that TAG and PA remain a bald assertion without support.
One big flaw in these arguments that they assume something that should be testable. If a god existed that fiddled with reality in order to exert its will, we would see evidence in miracles. But when look at what are claimed miracles we find only unsubstantiated claims, rare events, and phenomena that we simply had no explanation for at least until at a later time when someone explores the question and finds real answers, like Ben Franklin and his kite.
Other problem of PA, is that sails too close to post-modernism, which says there is no reality only perception. It's an argument which is useful those want to control opinion regardless any concern for anything that might be observed as truth or that which corresponds to reality, at as it has been observed.
A useful strategy in dealing with those who present PA, is to press them on the logic of their argument until their logic breaks down into absurdity. Questions like "can god create a boulder so big he cannot lift it?" whether the answer is yes or no, the implication is that god is not omnipotent.
A useful strategy in dealing with those who present PA, is to press them on the logic of their argument until their logic breaks down into absurdity. Questions like "can god create a boulder so big he cannot lift it?" whether the answer is yes or no, the implication is that god is not omnipotent.
