RE: Why am I an agnostic atheist? I don't know!
January 4, 2011 at 10:09 am
(This post was last modified: January 4, 2011 at 10:13 am by Edwardo Piet.)
Ace:
Premise 1: Valid reasons to believe in God is valid evidence to believe in God.
Premise 2: Valid evidence to believe in God is valid reasons to believe in God.
Premise 3: You are convinced that God exists if you have reasons or evidence to believe that God exists.You are not convinced that God exists if you don't have reasons or evidence to believe that God exists.
Premise 4: If you are convinced you believe, if you are not convinced you don't believe.
Argument: If I ask the question "Why don't you know of a valid reason to believe in God?" and you answer with "Because I know of no valid evidence", and if I then ask the question "Why do you know of no valid evidence?" and you answer with "Because I know of no valid reasons to believe" you are succumbing to the circular reasoning fallacy. If you paraphrase "valid evidence" or "valid reason" with something else, you are committing the question begging fallacy.
So because can't answer either of those questions without committing a fallacy, you, according to the premises of my argument, therefore can't answer why you're not convinced, and therefore can't answer why you don't believe.
Conclusion: You don't know why you don't believe and nor do I.
Premise 1: Valid reasons to believe in God is valid evidence to believe in God.
Premise 2: Valid evidence to believe in God is valid reasons to believe in God.
Premise 3: You are convinced that God exists if you have reasons or evidence to believe that God exists.You are not convinced that God exists if you don't have reasons or evidence to believe that God exists.
Premise 4: If you are convinced you believe, if you are not convinced you don't believe.
Argument: If I ask the question "Why don't you know of a valid reason to believe in God?" and you answer with "Because I know of no valid evidence", and if I then ask the question "Why do you know of no valid evidence?" and you answer with "Because I know of no valid reasons to believe" you are succumbing to the circular reasoning fallacy. If you paraphrase "valid evidence" or "valid reason" with something else, you are committing the question begging fallacy.
So because can't answer either of those questions without committing a fallacy, you, according to the premises of my argument, therefore can't answer why you're not convinced, and therefore can't answer why you don't believe.
Conclusion: You don't know why you don't believe and nor do I.
