In continuing the tradition of driving logical trainwrecks, Berg even manages to surpass himself in logical incompetence with the second of the six arguments:
Argument 2: The Man And God Comprehension Gulf Argument
1.Man is finite (in time, space and power etc).
2. God if he exists is infinite (in time, space and power etc).
3. Therefore mankind cannot possibly recognise God or even know that God exists.
Again, Berg doesn’t know what his logic really proves; even if the argument holds water, it would at best leave agnosticism, not atheism, as the default position.
In a sense, this argument is difficult to logically refute because no logic was used in constructing it. The leap from the second premise to the conclusion is insufficiently supported as it is merely assumed to be true.
Moreover, theists have long maintained that God cannot be fully understood. The Psalmist has stated that “Great is the Lord and most worthy of praise; his greatness no one can fathom.” And the Apostle Paul famously remarked that “For now we see through a glass, darkly.” The problem with the argument is that Berg fails to distinguish the perfectly fathomable with what can be reasonably said to exist. If God is truly omnipotent, then who is to say that He cannot reveal Himself to mankind to its satisfaction? If a super-powerful, transnatural entity shows itself in front of Man by demonstrating god-like powers, then we would correctly conclude that gods do in fact exist, even if we cannot construct a holistic understanding of such an entity.
Of course, we already know that we can recognize universal truths that stretch through all of matter, space, and time in the form of proofs. Geometric proofs and universal logic could be described as “infinite” and yet we can discern those through rational thought even if we can’t comprehensively grasp what Neal Stephenson terms the Hylean theoric world.
Perhaps this is why Man – who is made is traditionally held to be made in the image of God – recognizes the existence of God when animals cannot. Man may be finite, but there is obviously a component in his nature – called it a soul or quantum fluctuations, or whatever – that can ascertain at least part of the infinite.
Berg has proven himself to be a sloppy logician that has such a myopic focus on dialectic logic that he doesn’t take into account the observable facts that directly contradict his logic. At this point, it should be clear to the fair reader the irony of common atheist dismissals of Anslem’s ontological argument or Aquinas’s five ways, while they themselves rely on pure logic. Not to mention logic that is deeply flawed and contradicted by the empirical facts