Argument for GOD from intention

By Atheist Answers (Facebook Page)

This article is a polemic against atheism in the form of a deductive argument.

This deductive argument is going to be based on our human perception of intention, which to most people is self evident that such a causal force exists.

Intention is an action or series of actions where the end or goal is aimed at.

(Argument 1: Intention)

(1) Intention exists in reality

(2) Atheism can not rationally justify the existence of intention

(3) Therefore atheism is false


Premise 1

This premise is very self evident, our perception of intention is what philosophers would call "properly basic"; so any one who would want to deny this perception being true of reality, would have the burden of proof to demonstrate it.

It is self evident to us that there is a difference between my heart which beats unintentionally and my typing of this article at this moment. We perceive that they are different types of forces\processes (one had intention the other did not).

If any one claims the perception of intention in reality is nothing more than an anthropomorphic delusion, they then would have to hold that courts, police and jails are all set up basd on a delusion. That detectives which look for motives and intent are delusional.

The only types of people who would probably deny such a self evident perception as intention are atheists, because they have a bias to hold to a world view. So they would deny premises (1) above based on this argument below:

(Argument 2: Atheism)

(1) Atheism is true

(2) Atheism can not rationally justify the existence of intention

(3) Thefore intention is false

Premise (1) of the the atheist argument above is begging the question, and stating what is true by assumption, not by experience. The atheist has to start with the conclusion to deny premise (1) of the main argument, rather than start with our experiences of reality. I could launch into many arguments from here to show how a denial of the perception intention leads to nothing but an irrational world view; but I will refrain as I feel it is self evident enough that if a person rejects premise (1) of the main argument they are irrational...

Premise 2

Atheism can not ontologically account for such a force of intention existing; and therefore concludes it must be an anthropomorphic delusion. The reason it can not account for intention is because atheism is the metaphysical belief that reality is holistically at its fundamental core and first cause functioning by Blind, Unguided, Purposeless, Meaning-less Intention-less forces\processes (the opposite to this would be Theism). This is the atheistic basis of metaphysics, which is just a view of reality in which it removes our anthropomorphic perceptions.

Therefore if we humans are nothing but aspects built upon and with in that reality which is intention-less, there can be no intention in us or any other aspect of reality; thus if atheism is true our perception of intention in reality is a delusion. If reality is holistically in it's fundamental core functioning by intention-less forces\processes, no amount of no intention will add up to intention (intention-lessness is the absence of intention. Thus you can not have intention or you have an effect with no cause, you have something coming from nothing).

Premise 3 (conclusion)

Thus the conclusion follows from premise (1) & (2), atheism is false.

The polemic I give in the above article is a deductive argument. That means if the premises are true the conclusion (logically) has to be true.

So unless a premise is disproved, there is no argument against the conclusion.

That is how deductive arguments work. So if you disagree with the argument, please address which premise you disagree with and why...

To see a short recorded debate on this subject between a Theistic philosopher and an Atheistic philosopher, please see this link below: