Elliott – Lesson 9 – Objective Reality argument

Objective Reality Argument

P1: if you can never accept an objective reality, then you have to accept that you may not be real

P2: if you have to accept that you may not be real, then you can never know if anything you say is true.

P3: atheists can never accept an objective reality.

T:  atheists can never know if anything they say is true

Elliott: I probably should have addressed this argument before I took apart the “Circus Argument”, as you have obviously used this one to support one of your premises there. However, the order in which I took them on was dictated more by the order in which I read them than anything else. Frankly, this one presents no challenge as it is one of your weakest arguments; it fails at the first premise. Its logical structure is OK, though personally I find it too wordy (you could do some editing with most of your arguments), but the whole argument hinges in the soundness of the first premise, which can very quickly and easily be shown to be false.

The structure of the argument is:

P1: A ⊂ B

P2: B ⊂ C

P3: X = A

C:  X = C

All that needs to be done here is to show that P1 is unsound to make the whole argument fail.

P1: if you can never accept an objective reality, then you have to accept that you may not be real

P1 flies directly in the face of Renee Descartes “Cogito ergo sum” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cogito_ergo_sum); if you want to take on the entire Modernist project, be my guest, but I don’t like your chances. Descartes demonstrated quite clearly with his now famous maxim that uncertainty regarding an objective reality is no barrier to having a certainty that you exist. Your qualification with the word “may” might give you a very narrow possibility of escape, but it would take some extremely fancy footwork to pull it off, and personally I can’t see how you would manage.

To put it bluntly, how could the enquirer in the situation above possibly conclude that they were not real if they were thinking that thought? Unless they actually exist, there is no possibility of the thought being manifested; therefore, they MUST necessarily exist. If you wish to debate this point, you will have to travel down the same path as Kierkegaard with respect to the existence of the “I”, in which case you will undermine your own contention outlined in the exegesis that Christians have a stronger hold on objective reality than atheists. – unless you want to argue that Christians do not possess an identity.

P1 is clearly shown to be unsound

P2, P3 and the conclusion are totally dependent on P1 being sound; thus, having completely demolished the first premise, the entire argument falls – and the Circus Argument, which uses this argument to support one of its premises, also falls.

QED.

Well, that’s it, Elliott. I have now exposed the flaws and fallacies in all of the arguments you have posted here. I hope you realise that I have only done so in order to stimulate you to do some real study of philosophy, logical structure, and critical thinking. These subjects were the ones that inspired my interest in philosophy as an undergraduate, which led to my furthering my studies in that field and now, have led me to undertake a PhD, which I am beginning in a few weeks. If you apply yourself to your studies, you will be amazed at how far it can take you.

I’ll be watching, Elliott.