Belief

[theVOID]

The curse of Ad Hoc

Anyway, I tried out your Free Will argument and it works really well, It stumped a theist mate of mine (though to be fair that happens often )

[Captain Scarlet]

The curse of Ad Hoc
Anyway, I tried out your Free Will argument and it works really well, It stumped a theist mate of mine (though to be fair that happens often )

I must admit I would in some ways hate there to be a definitive proof of gods non-existence as it would rather limit the fun of such debates. What about:

1. If god exists then he is infinite (from necessity)
2. There are no actual infinites (from Hilberts hotel)
3. Therefore god does not exist

[theVOID]

I must admit I would in some ways hate there to be a definitive proof of gods non-existence as it would rather limit the fun of such debates. What about:

1. If god exists then he is infinite (from necessity)
2. There are no actual infinites (from Hilberts hotel)
3. Therefore god does not exist

This would be a good argument against Craig's KCA because he uses the Hilbert's Hotel for the notion that there are no actual infinites I'm sure Craig's God is omni too...

I don't really agree with 2 perhaps it is true that there are no "physical" infinites, but the Vacuum is likely infinite, however the argument is a good refutation. but as a refutation it works.

[The Omnissiunt One]

The curse of Ad Hoc
Anyway, I tried out your Free Will argument and it works really well, It stumped a theist mate of mine (though to be fair that happens often )

I must admit I would in some ways hate there to be a definitive proof of gods non-existence as it would rather limit the fun of such debates. What about:

1. If god exists then he is infinite (from necessity)
2. There are no actual infinites (from Hilberts hotel)
3. Therefore god does not exist

But what Craig cites as a contradiction (that the members of a subset of infinity can be placed in one-to-one correspondence with the members of the whole set) is not considered a problem by mathematicians; it is just a feature of infinity that does not feature in finite sets.

[Captain Scarlet]

I must admit I would in some ways hate there to be a definitive proof of gods non-existence as it would rather limit the fun of such debates. What about:

1. If god exists then he is infinite (from necessity)
2. There are no actual infinites (from Hilberts hotel)
3. Therefore god does not exist

This would be a good argument against Craig's KCA because he uses the Hilbert's Hotel for the notion that there are no actual infinites I'm sure Craig's God is omni too...

I don't really agree with 2 perhaps it is true that there are no "physical" infinites, but the Vacuum is likely infinite, however the argument is a good refutation. but as a refutation it works.

I am not convinced that your refutation would work around the vacuum. In and of itself it is largely physical given the quantum fluctuations and the birth and death of particle pairs. I don't understand what it means to be non-physical and therefore, to me, everything in reality is subject to Hilberts thought experiment.

I agree that this works better as a refutation. The most obvious moves for the theist rejoinder would be to resort to special pleading for gods abilities or to beg the question by refuting 2 using god as an example, putting god to the heart of what it is you're trying to disprove. But I think it is a real problem for the omni god of the Kalam, there are of course many, many others.

[Ryft]

NOTE: All my critical responses assume the God of Christianity; even if this is the only God that withstands all arguments for atheism, no conclusions for the non-existence of deity can succeed (as confuted by at least this God).

1. There is no evidence for a deity.
2. There is no compelling argument for the existence of a deity.
3. Therefore, no deity exists.

Argumentum ad ignorantiam. The lack of evidence or compelling argument for P does not establish a conclusion for ¬P. (See my discussion with Eilonnwy about pink unicorns and invisible dragons in the Religion thread "Faith?": Eilonnwy, Msg. 22; Arcanus, Msg. 57; Eilonnwy, Msg. 58; Arcanus, Msg. 61; Eilonnwy, Msg. 62; Arcanus, Msg. 63; Eilonnwy, Msg. 64; Arcanus, Msg. 65; Eilonnwy, Msg. 66; Arcanus, Msg. 67; Eilonnwy, Msg. 75).

---

---

1. Nature encompasses all that exists.
2. [Some] deities are claimed to 'exist' outside of nature.
3. Therefore, these supposed deities do not exist.

Petitio principii. Given the second premise, the first premise begs the very question.

1. Nothing is not created.
2. Something is created (and Something cannot be self-creating).
3. Therefore, the uncreated creator is Nothing.

First, shouldn't the second premise assert that "everything is created" (given the first premise that "nothing is not created")? Second, this argument likewise commits the petitio principii fallacy; the first premise begs the very question.

---

---

1. If God exists, he is an immaterial being.
2. All beings are wholly material (as referenced by all of reality).
3. Therefore, God does not exist.

Petitio principii. Given the first premise, the second premise begs the question (and commits the Black Swan fallacy).

1. If God exists, he would want all humanity to come to believe in him and is capable of eliminating reasonable unbelief.
2. Reasonable unbelief exists amongst humanity.
3. Therefore, God does not exist.

This argument suffers from the same defeater that cripples the logical Problem of Evil argument; since no contradiction is incurred by the proposition "God has a morally sufficient reason for allowing the existence of reasonable unbelief," the logical form of your argument is defeated, leaving you with a probabilistic conclusion that fails to establish "God does not exist." (As noted by Plantinga, whether God actually does have such morally sufficient reason or not is irrelevant; the mere fact that it is logically possible defeats the logical form of this argument.)

1. If God exists, then he is capable and willing to eliminate evil.
2. Evil exists.
3. Therefore, God does not exist.

This is the logical form of the Problem of Evil argument, which suffers the aformentioned defeater (substitute with "morally sufficient reason for allowing the existence of evil").

1. If God exists, then he is just and merciful and judges us all on our death.
2. On judgement, hell is a destination for some humans, but as a punishment it's neither just nor merciful.
3. Therefore, God does not exist.

Petitio principii. Given the first premise, the second premise begs the question (demonstrated by any attempt at defending the view that no person deserves hell).

1. If God exists, then he allows us freewill and does not interfere with our decision making.
2. God commands us to beleive in him, and only him, else we will suffer consequences (OT) and as a consequence tries to interfere with our decison making
3. Therefore god does not exist

Non-sequitur. Informing a person of what his choices are and the consequences thereof does not negate his ability to freely choose according to his desires.

1. If God exists, then he is a purely immaterial being capable of changing events in the universe.
2. The universe requires a material cause-and-effect mechanism to change events in the universe (as referenced by all of reality).
3. Therefore, God does not exist.

The second premise commits the Black Swan fallacy.

1. If God exists, then he is the creator of the universe and wouldn't choose to create the universe from disorder, given the unpredictable results.
2. The universe started from disorder.
3. Therefore, God does not exist.

The first premise only applies to gods that are not sovereign, omniscient, and omnipotent over creation.

[Lethe]

I don't think I've ever encountered a syllogism that stood up to scrutiny, there much more fun to tear apart then they are to create.

Even the Wikipedia example:

Major premise: All men are mortal.
Minor premise: Socrates is a man.
Conclusion: Socrates is mortal.

Liar! Socrates is not alive, nor was his life/death proven without a shadow of a doubt. And mortality is really only proven with death.

Edited:

Major premise: All (living) men are (presumably) mortal.
Minor premise: Socrates (was) a man.
Conclusion: Socrates (was) (presumably) mortal.

His body was never found, his writings came from his students... how can we know with complete certainty he existed as a man and/or a mortal?

Edited again:

Major premise: All (living) men are (presumably) mortal.
Minor premise: (If) Socrates (was) a man.
Conclusion: Socrates (was) (presumably) mortal.

Herm, your qualifiers make it difficult to argue your point... well done. Though if I thought long and hard enough I could probably take it further.

[Captain Scarlet]

Hi Arcanus

Thanks for the comments. I accept that those suffereing black swan fallacy should contain a 'probably' there is no god. See earlier in this thread.

As for defeaters around the logical problem of evil and reasonable unbelief. I am not sure that they are as strong as you indicate. They largely rest upon adding a third premise which is consistent with both 1) a god being all good and 2) there being evil or hell etc etc. Plantingas free will defence being right up there with them. The problem with these "defeaters" is that they are themselves defeated see Ray Bradleys forensic rebuttal of both Platniga and Lane Craig.

As for the non-sequitor on freewill/divine commandments. I think that is wrong, there is a problem there for the theist; unless you want to redefine free will?

[Anomalocaris]

The unique and specific concept of god follows from nothing, and is necessary for nothing. It can be summarily dismissed for nothing.

[Minimalist]

NOTE: All my critical responses assume the God of Christianity

Naturally. You assume your fairy tales are true and all the others are false. You do know that Mormons, Scientologists and Muslims ( et al) think the same way?