Belief

[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.