Phrenological Argument Against God

First drafted 2000 revised 2014
by Joey Lawsin

The Phrenological Argument, also known as God's Parapraxis, is a new intriguing philosophical argument formulated by Joey Lawsin that presents God's Mental State of Inadequacy in his creation of the Human Mind. It argues that if God has a perfect mind flawlessly capable of knowing things in advance, then he would have anticipated ahead of time the consequences of creating a human mind that cannot fathom Truth and Reality. But since he created a mind incapable of knowing what is real and what is true, then it shows God carries an erroneous lapse somewhere in his memory. This mental erracity offers a compelling evidence that proves God is not after all all-knowing. sHe failed to foreknow in advance that if the mind is not capable of discerning reality, then sHe will never ever be known.

The basic form of the argument is as follows:
1. God is the creator of the mind.
2. The mind is unable to discern truth and reality.
3. therefore, God will never be known.

A modified version:
1. If God created the mind for humans to know him
2. But god overlooked his parapraxis
3. Then, God is not omniscient.

A follow-up variation:
1. If God is real
2. But the mind is unable to perceive reality,
3. Then reality is nothing but an illusion.
4. Therefore, the reality of god is also an illusion.

From an evolutionary perspective, if Nature created the Mind, then the mind just evolved along the process with a different purpose. What is it? Why did it evolve in the first place if it cannot detect truth and reality? If Nature's creations possess attributes, properties, and actions, like beauty, height, and motion respectively, are these qualities also real and true? What about animals, do they have direct cognition of truth and reality as well? How can we prove that all we sense are pigments of our imaginations? If humans go to extinction, will the world still exist?  If the brain goes dead, does reality still exist?  If the natural world exists, how do we prove it doesn't? Are we real or everything is just an illusion?

Before I answer all these questions, let me first discuss what is reality and what is truth. Remember that Reality and Truth are two different things. Something can be real but not the truth. Something can be true but not real. Something can be real and true but doesn't exist. Confused? Well, let me explain using some exciting examples.

The ideas of Santa Claus and Pegasus are obviously abstract concepts. Both are creations made by replicating what the mind perceives. To create Santa and Pegasus, we need to describe them first by defining their attributes. By Definition, Santa Claus is a person who brings gifts to children on Christmas Eve, while, Pegasus is a horse-like animal with white wings. By Representation, Santa Claus can be depicted as a fat jolly being with a white beard, who wears yellow gloves, a big red suit, and a red dangling cone hat. On the other hand, Pegasus can be described as a white horse with wings that can fly like a bird. Since both ideas can be created by definition, association, description, and assumption, how can we establish which one of these two creations is real and true?

Santa Claus can be represented by a real person as long as the descriptions exactly fit his persona. With Pegasus, there is no natural animal that looks like a horse with wings that can be found anywhere. The horse can only be represented by combining the features of a stallion and an eagle's wings on a drawing board. If Santa Claus comes to life through a real person and Pegasus comes to life through a drawing, can we consider now the ideas of Santa Claus and Pegasus as actual objects or physically real? Can we consider their physical presence (person vs. drawing) proof of their existence? Can both be proven as actual evidence prescribed by the scientific method? How can we validate the evidence to be true, false, and real? Are both really existing or are they still being imagined?

To determine if both examples are true and real, let us use SCQRE; a measurement that examines the five basic test elements of reality: Sensory, Codexation, Quality, Reason, and Equipment.

1. By Reason:

• Santa Claus - can be defined, associated, represented, assumed, codexated
• Pegasus - can be defined, associated, described, assumed, can be codexated

2. By Quality:

• Santa Claus - can be described as a person, a man,
• Pegasus - can be described as an animal, a horse, a bird

3. By Senses:

• Santa Claus - can be seen, touched, tasted, smelled, heard
• Pegasus - can be seen through drawings but can be sensed

4. By Equipment:

• Santa Claus - with mass, affected by gravity, can be detected
• Pegasus - not applicable

5. By Codexation:

• Santa Claus - physical and abstract
• Pegasus - abstract, not physical

By comparing and contrasting the results above, We can conclude that Pegasus is conclusively still abstract and exists only in the mind. Its physical existence is not real because we can't prove it by detection, by codexation, and by sensation. Pegasus is simply a representation that has no physical bearing or material inherent identification from the outside world. He might be valid to be true internally in the mind, but he is not really in the external world. He only exists inside the mind but not outside the mind. He is only true inside the mind but not really outside the mind.

With Santa Claus, we can conclude that he is real and true. He is true because he can be defined, associated, described, assumed, and codexated. He is real because he can be represented by a man, a person who can be seen, touched, smelled, tasted, and heard, and comes with all the general properties of matter like mass, weight, volume, and density to name a few. He can be transcodified from abstract to physical, from idea to reality.  Thus, Santa is true inside the mind and real outside the mind.

Now, what about that other Santa Claus who rides on a red sleigh with flying reindeer, IS HE REAL? You be the judge!

But is Reality Really Real? Here are some provocative conclusions that support Reality as an Illusion. These inferences are based on physics, philosophy, and perspective. Some of these new radical concepts or signature paradigms are shared on this site. The complete discussions can be found in my book Originemology.

1. The Railroad Train Effect
2. The Illusion of Reality
3. The Essence of Life
4. The Codexation Dilemma
5. The Guesswork Predicament
6. Dimetrix

"Truth lies inside the mind; Reality lives outside the mind." 
~ Joey Lawsin

About the Author :

Joey Lawsin is the author behind the new school of thought "Inscription by Design". He is a revisionist who wants to change the world by rewriting the textbooks with new concepts that debunk the old scientific, theological, and philosophical ideas of antiquity. He published a book in Physics, created a conscious machine known as Autognorics, and formulated the Mother of all Theories "The Single Theory of Everything". The article above is an excerpt from his book "The Bible Proves God Does not Exist".

Disclaimer: This article is intellectual property. The author retains the copyright to most of the research materials on this site unless cited otherwise. Some of the articles are edited on a day-to-day basis without notice and incorrect spelling, punctuation, and grammar can be found in any of the documents. If you are interested in using any of these works for the purpose of scholarly discussion or study, please first inform the author by email or cite the author's name or source as follows: A Journal of a Creative Mind, Joey Lawsin, 1988, USA.

#originemology, #codexation dilemma, #autognorics, #interim emergence, #inscription by design

#phrenological, #mental error, #omniscience fallacy, #parapraxis

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Lawsin asserts that the idea of God, like other concepts, is an assumption or guesswork. Just as abstract numerals exist only in the mind, the concept of God may similarly be a product of human imagination and supposition (the codexation dilemma). 

Some counterarguments to Joey Lawsin’s perspective:

The Mystery of God’s Ways: Critics argue that God’s ways are inherently mysterious and beyond human comprehension. Lawsin’s argument assumes that God’s actions must conform to human logic, but proponents of divine mystery contend that God operates on a different plane of understanding.

Free Will and Responsibility: Lawsin’s argument focuses on God’s omniscience and the limitations of human minds. However, defenders of free will emphasize that God grants humans the ability to choose, even if it leads to imperfect understanding. Our responsibility lies in seeking truth despite cognitive limitations.

The Fallibility of Human Reason: Lawsin’s argument assumes that human cognition should be flawless if God exists. However, other philosophers recognize that our reasoning faculties are fallible due to factors like bias, limited knowledge, and cognitive biases. Imperfection doesn’t necessarily negate God’s existence.

Compatibilism: Some theologians and philosophers propose compatibilism—the idea that God’s omniscience and human free will can coexist. They argue that God’s foreknowledge doesn’t negate our choices; rather, it encompasses them. In this view, God’s knowledge doesn’t determine our actions but harmonizes with them.

The Problem of Hiddenness: Critics of Lawsin’s argument point to the “hiddenness” of God. They argue that God intentionally remains elusive to encourage genuine seeking and faith. If God were fully knowable, belief might become mere intellectual assent rather than a relational journey.