Belief

[downbeatplumb]

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).

It is so unlikely that there is such a thing as a god that the idea can be dismissed, especially as the notion is unsupported by anything like reasonable evidence.

If there is some evidence that does not depend on anecdotal reports then I'll look at it.

Until then.

[LastPoet]

The god of christianity is the one that can really be proven impossible, by an *RA argument. Not quite as a deistic god. Anyway, all these logic assertions will never make up for the fact that there is no tangible evidence for god or gods, but alot of people seem to go in the bandwagon of their geographical religion.

[theVOID]

My take.

1. There is no evidence indicating the existence of a deity
2. There is no sound and valid argument necessitating the existence of a deity
3. Therefore belief in a deity is irrational

[Welsh cake]

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).

There you go, you presuppose a god exists and by shifting the burden of proof you've succeeded in proving god exists within your own mind, congratulations.

Now, here's the actual challenge, demonstrate its existence to everyone else epistemologically, logically and ontologically.

I eagerly await your "nuh-uh" counterargument.

[theVOID]

That's not at all what he said... he was responding to the arguments against God from a Christian theological perspective.

Saying that if God x survives argument against the existence of God then the argument fails to disprove all Gods is perfectly true.

Arcanus, do you want to articulate your concept specifically? Then we can poke holes in that

[Anomalocaris]

My take.

1. There is no evidence indicating the existence of a deity
2. There is no sound and valid argument necessitating the existence of a deity
3. Therefore belief in a deity is irrational

Those like arcanus who would believe in such a deity could at least improve their intellectual equanimity by believing every one of the infinite set of muturally non-contradicting things for which positive disproof is just as hard to obtain as for this deity.

[Ryft]

I don't think I've ever encountered a syllogism that stood up to scrutiny.

There are an indefinite number of syllogisms that withstand scrutiny, actually. It is actually not that hard at all, if one has learned the rules and principles of logic. But for that very reason it is hard for most people because they are not taught that, by others or themselves. (One of my chief complaints about the education system is that it teaches students what to think but never how to think.) Unless one's post-secondary education calls for it, one has to learn it autodidactically.

Take the Wikipedia example you referenced:

1. All men are mortal.
2. Socrates is a man.
3. Socrates is mortal.

That is a perfectly valid argument. But you raised a (presumably) hypothetical objection to it: "Socrates is not alive, nor was his life or death proven without a shadow of a doubt. And mortality is really only proven with death." With this objection you highlight an important categorical distinction. While the argument is perfectly valid, the question remains whether or not it is sound. Those are two different things. An argument is valid if the conclusion logically follows from the premises, that is, the truth of the premises logically guarantees the truth of the conclusion. But are the premises actually true? That speaks to the soundness issue, a more difficult test. An argument is sound if it is both valid and the premises are actually true. (It is worth noting that a valid argument can be unsound, but a sound argument cannot be invalid; e.g., if the premises are actually true yet the argument is invalid, then it is unsound.)

The problem with the arguments presented in this thread is that they did not even pass the validity test, never mind the soundness test. But then again, that was the very point I was making to Paul the Human; all arguments whose conclusion is "Therefore, God does not exist" fail the validity test (which may be why there are so few strong atheists).

---

---

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 a god being all good and there being evil or hell, etc.

If you would like to try, I am willing to show you why that fails to rescue such arguments. At this point I am unable to envision what sort of argument you are thinking of.

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

Saying that it is wrong and a problem remains for the theist does not help me see it. Furthermore, there is no such thing as "redefining" free-will; such a statement presupposes a universal and objective definition of free-will from which others deviate and shoulders an enormous burden of proof. I do not redefine free-will; I have a definition that competes with others.

Having said that, I struggle to think of any definition of free-will under which my statement fails. Whether libertarianism, determinism, or compatibilism, my statement holds. Can you show me otherwise? In pursuit of accuracy, my statement again was, "Informing a person of what his choices are and the consequences thereof does not negate his ability to freely choose according to his desires."

---

---

It is so unlikely that there is such a thing as a God that ...

"It is so unlikely that any deity exists" and "no deity exists" are two different things. The former is not what your conclusion was.

---

---

That's not at all what he said. He was responding to the arguments against God from a Christian theological perspective.

I find it incredible that you were the only one who understood the logical context of "assume." Everyone else should be embarrassed.

Do you want to articulate your concept [of God] specifically? Then we can poke holes in that!

Most people should already know that. I have never been coy about it. There are pages upon pages of my writings in these forums indicating clearly the God at the center of my worldview, and my every post contains a link to my web site where it is made even clearer.

[theVOID]

Your posts contain links Arcanus? I don't see them.

[Ryft]

Your posts contain links Arcanus? I don't see them.

At bottom of my posts, below the signature, are some icons, one of which says "WWW." That links to my web site. (Don't worry, I remember Adrian had to have that explained to him, too.)

[theVOID]

Cheeky fucker