The Limits of Formalism: A Critical Examination of Mathematical Arguments Against Atheism

Authors

  • Ismail A Mageed * PhD, AIMMA, IEEE, IAENG, School of Computer Science, AI, and Electronics, Faculty of Engineering and Digital Technologies, University of Bradford, United Kingdom. https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3691-0773

https://doi.org/10.48313/pab.v2i2.41

Abstract

Historically, scripture, revelation, and metaphysics have been used to argue against the persistent philosophical division between theism and atheism. A unique strategy has developed in the present by which one seeks to use the supposed objectivity and certainty of mathematics to challenge atheism. This paper critically examines the most prominent of these arguments, including probabilistic arguments from fine-tuning and formal logical proofs like Gödel's Ontological Proof. It argues that while these frameworks are intellectually sophisticated, they do not constitute mathematical proofs in the rigorous sense. Instead, they are philosophical arguments cloaked in mathematical formalism. Their ultimate failure to be decisive lies in their reliance on unproven metaphysical axioms, questionable applications of probability theory, and an overreach of the epistemological capacity of mathematics. Consequently, they fail to provide a definitive refutation of the atheistic position.

Keywords:

Formalism, Atheism, Metaphysics, Gödel's ontological proof, Logical necessity, Probabilistic teleological arguments

References

  1. [1] Gaspar, Y., & Tambor, P. (2024). The laws of nature and the problems of modern cosmology. Foundations of science, 29(3), 847–870. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10699-023-09904-1
  2. [2] Mordka, C. J., Stala, J., Bochenek, K., & Osewska, E. (2023). Credo ut intelligam. Notes on Kołakowski’s philosophy of religion. European journal of science and theology, 19(2), 39–51. http://www.ejst.tuiasi.ro/issue19.html
  3. [3] Haq, Z. U. (2022). Much ado about nothing: problems with logical reasoning in theism-atheism debate. Religions, 13(11), 1092. https://doi.org/10.3390/rel13111092
  4. [4] Rowe, W. L. (1998). The cosmological argument. Fordham University Press. https://doi.org/10.1515/9780823296774
  5. [5] Manson, N. A. (2020). How not to be generous to fine-tuning sceptics. Religious studies, 56(3), 303–317. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0034412518000586
  6. [6] Mageed, I. A. (2025). The unfolding dialectic: A comparative analysis of human and artificial intelligence, its open challenges, and future prospects. Preprints, 1–7. https://doi.org/10.20944/preprints202506.1896.v1
  7. [7] Mageed, I. A. (2025). Does infinity exist? Crossroads between mathematics, physics, and philosophy. Preprints, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.20944/preprints202506.2056.v1
  8. [8] Mageed, I. A. (2025). The islamization of mathematics: A philosophical and pedagogical inquiry. Preprints, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.20944/preprints202506.2451.v1
  9. [9] Mageed, I. A. (2025). Re-Writing the history of mechanics: From the Islamic golden age to the newtonian synthesis. Preprints, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.20944/preprints202507.0135.v1
  10. [10] Mageed, D. I. A. (2025). Do you speak the phenomenal koch snowflake fractal? Open problems and prospects. Preprints, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.20944/preprints202507.0580.v1
  11. [11] Mageed, I. A. (2025). Navigating meta-universes of melded infinities: A theoretical exploration of the mind’s ontological power. Preprints, 1–11. https://www.preprints.org/manuscript/202507.0621/v1
  12. [12] Norton, J. D. (2021). The material theory of induction. University of Calgary Press. https://B2n.ir/us2720
  13. [13] Arion, A.-C. (2021). TWO research paradigms, with or without „god hypothesis”: cs lewis and richard dawkins. International multidisciplinary scientific conference on the dialogue between sciences & arts, religion & education (Vol. 5, pp. 67–79). Ideas Forum International Academic and Scientific Association. https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=1008804
  14. [14] Lin. (2022). Bayesian epistemology. https://b2n.ir/ym1988
  15. [15] Wainwright, W. J. (2020). The burden of proof and the presumption of theism. In Does god exist? (pp. 75–84). Routledge. https://b2n.ir/pe2363
  16. [16] Liu, S. (2020). Philosophical reflection over the origin of the universe. Philosophy study, 10(3), 214–223. https://b2n.ir/sn1229
  17. [17] Kerszberg, P. (2020). Cosmology: Newton to einstein. In Companion to the history of modern science (pp. 639–650). http://dx.doi.org/10.1201/9781003070818-48
  18. [18] Priest, G., & Gabriel, M. (2022). Everything and nothing. John Wiley & Sons. https://B2n.ir/hj7551
  19. [19] Niskanen, S. (2021). Anselm’s Predicament. Journal of the history of ideas, 82(4), 547–568. https://www.jstor.org/stable/27069788
  20. [20] Kanckos, A., & Lethen, T. (2021). Kurt Gödel’s reception of Charles Hartshorne’s ontological proof. In The vienna circle and religion (pp. 183–196). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-76151-6_10
  21. [21] Peirce, C. S. (2022). A neglected argument for the reality of God. DigiCat. https://philpapers.org/rec/PEIANA
  22. [22] Feser, E. (2017). Five proofs for the existence of God. Ignatius Press. https://B2n.ir/qd7920
  23. [23] Kant, I. (2024). Critique of pure reason (Vol. 6). Minerva Heritage Press. https://B2n.ir/yt8396
  24. [24] Pagani, P. (2024). Necessità de dicto e de re a partire da Alvin Plantinga. Acta philosophica: Rivista internazionale di filosofia, 33(2), 267–287. https://www.torrossa.com/en/resources/an/5857446
  25. [25] Lorkowski, C. M. (2021). Atheism considered. Springer. https://B2n.ir/pz9927
  26. [26] Lampert, F. (2023). Can we believe without sufficient evidence? The james/clifford quarrel and the response of alvin plantinga. International journal of undergraduate research and creative activities, 5(2), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.7710/2155-4838.1081

Downloads

Published

2025-06-18

Issue

Vol. 2 No. 2 (2025): Perspectives on Art and Beyond (PAB)

Section

Articles

How to Cite

A Mageed, I. . (2025). The Limits of Formalism: A Critical Examination of Mathematical Arguments Against Atheism. Perspectives on Art and Beyond, 2(2), 60-63. https://doi.org/10.48313/pab.v2i2.41