For all you New Atheists out there, a little compare and contrast exercise. Tell me if you think this proof makes sense:
- My mind is identical to certain neurochemical processes in the brain.
- We have observed these neurochemical processes, and have verified that they exist.
- Therefore, my mind exists.
If that one sounds valid, how about this one?
- God is identical to the whole of nature.
- We have observed the whole of nature, and verified that it exists.
- Therefore, God exists.
I can think of two objections to the second proof. The first is that a lot of modern theists might not be able to sign onto our working definition of God. Fair enough, but I should note that our pantheistic account is not wholly without precedent — Baruch Spinoza believed in deus sive natura (God or nature) as interchangeable properties, and much of Eastern philosophy contains roughly analogous concepts. (Replace “God” with “tao,” and the proof still holds.)
The second, stickier objection is that “God” in this proof has a form, but not much content. (Same goes for tao.) We can point to physical properties we believe to be correlated with God as much as we’d like, but the deity’s most important properties are entirely spiritual. So demonstrating the existence of certain physical phenomena that we’d expect to exist in a God-created universe really tells us absolutely nothing.
So for atheists who believe in the existence of their own minds, here’s the dilemma: why does that rebuttal apply to the second proof, but not the first?