The flaws in Soluminsansis' syllogism:
P1. If atheism is true, our sensory perception and cognitive faculties were not designed to fulfill a specific telos, namely, the acquisition of truth and discerning of reality as it actually is, but rather, evolved through processes which aimed solely at the passing on of the creature's DNA.
Sensation and perception are two different processes, though they are related. However, saying that these separate functions relate to a telos [an ultimate purpose] is a stretch. That our sensations and perception of same as a means to discover truths of the world around us is a valid result of that perception, but our physical sensory inputs are all of an external nature; our contact with the world around us. What we think, what we conclude on what we think has an entirely different input than external forces. Therefore, P1 is not a constant dependable to rely on the conclusion [P6, which ought to be 'C']
P2. The passing on of the creature's DNA does not necessarily entail truth.
The passing of DNA, as stated [P1, and, assumed for P2] Is not an uninterrupted series of duplicated DNA for inheritance purposes, one generation to the next. According to Scientific American, life experience, particularly early life experience, has a direct effect on modification of DNA, which may, generation to generation, have its imprinted effect. There4fore, P2 is also flawed as stated, because, as stated, the perception of truth may be influenced by experience, and P2 does not account for that experiential modification.
P3. Therefore the atheist's sensory perceptions and cognitive faculties do not necessarily yield truth.
The yield of truth may be equally affected in the theist's sense and perception, so this posit is a non sequitur.
P4. Therefore if atheism is true, there is no justification for believing anything to be true.
Just as P3 is a variable for atheists, so it is for theists. Therefore, P4 is also a non sequitur.
P5. We intuit some things are in fact true, and do so with proper justification.
This is the only valid posit of the bunch, but, strictly on the basis of sensory perception, and purpose, this is function for both atheist and theist. Therefore, it is a non sequitur.
P6. Therefore atheism is false.
p6, as noted, is truly a conclusion, or should be, but given the non sequiturs, it is not, not merely another posit. Howevere, also given the non sequiturs, an aatheist can just as easily conclude theism is false.
I happen to agree with Soluminsanis, but not by this syllogism.
