Report on Berg

Report on Berg's 'The Six Ways of Atheism: New Logical Disproofs of the Existence of God'

Berg quickly dismisses the Platonic concept of 'ultimate reality', I think rightly. This is the only reality that we know and can know, therefore if God does not move in it, then he is nothing more than a concept, and Berg, rightly again, dismisses it via Occam's razor. However, Berg also dismisses science as useful with regard to the question, yet the above argument cannot stand without science. Nonetheless, if one argument, Berg freely admits this, is not proof comprehensive for the nonexistence of God, I hold no great hope for the rest of his proofs. I will read on but now I am entirely hostile.

Berg's second argument falls down in the same area. However he says, 'These two arguments are valid ways of showing that we should not believe in the existence of God even if they fail to absolutely disprove the possible existence of God.' I am now very much interested in his other proofs or disproofs as the case may be.

The third proof made in the introduction is no proof at all.

The fourth proof falls down beside heaven which is supposed the best possible world: Earth is merely seen as a testing ground by theists.

The fifth proof is certainly good; his argument runs that God has to make sense. Has he ever thought that God might exist and he might be entirely bonkers? Berg's logic seems unsound after this point; for if God is illogical in his thinking, anything is possible which most would think of as logical. Berg's final proof juts into his fifth proof, and he goes on to say 'Therefore a potential God not only does not but also cannot supply ultimate purpose to our world.' Methinks that his logic has gone skew-whiff somewhere.

Berg would not look so absurd if he did not make such big claims for himself. Effectively, there is no apriority: belief in God must be left to commonsense; and beyond reasonable doubt, He (God) does not exist. Sartre is right to think the fact embarrassing, however this is easily solvable as Aristotle, Kant and Sartre all agree on the solution; and, for that matter, so does Berg, therefore my criticism is not total. In fact, Berg should be praised for his attempt. He has certainly made himself elastic and his mistakes in thinking are clear. To put it quite simply, he has been not unconventional enough which is not as big a mistake as being utterly conventional or utterly absurd, as in the case of Richard Dawkins. I could rave some more, yet no-one wishes to be seen as a fool.