God Yahweh Allah was a volcano.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

Because it doesn't ring true.

Oh for fuck sake! This is getting really tedious

What on earth has THAT go to do with anything? You really have not grasped the basic principles of rational thought have you.


Won't go through your entire thesis; wouldn't know where to start:poor reasoning or poor scholarship,hard to tell which is more serious.

This one example is a logical fallacy called :'argument from incredulity IE " I don't believe because it's too fantastic/absurd/stupid". OR "I believe because it's obvious/makes sense".Each position may be mistaken when confronted with the evidence.

0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000Related

Argument from incredulity/Lack of imagination

Arguments from incredulity take the form:

P is too incredible (or I cannot imagine how P could possibly be true); therefore P must be false.
It is obvious that P (or I cannot imagine how P could possibly be false) therefore P must be true.

These arguments are similar to arguments from ignorance in that they too ignore and do not properly eliminate the possibility that something can be both incredible and still be true, or appear to be obvious and yet still be false.

Argument from incredulity is a form of argument from ignorance, the logical basis of your entire thesis.

Argument from ignorance, also known as argumentum ad ignorantiam or "appeal to ignorance", is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not been proven false (or vice versa). This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option, which is that there is insufficient investigation and therefore insufficient information to satisfactorily prove the proposition to be either true or false. Nor does it allow the admission that the choices may in fact not be two (true or false), but may be as many as four, (1) true, (2) false, (3) unknown between true or false, and (4) being unknowable (among the first three).[1] In debates, appeals to ignorance are sometimes used to shift the burden of proof.

Argument from ignorance may be used as a rationalization by a person who realizes that he has no reason for holding the belief that he does.

The fallaciousness of arguments from ignorance does not mean that one can never possess good reasons for thinking that something does not exist, an idea captured by philosopher Bertrand Russell's teapot, a hypothetical china teapot revolving about the sun between Earth and Mars; however this would fall more duly under the arena of pragmatism, wherein a position must be demonstrated or proven in order to be upheld, and therefore the burden of proof is on the argument's proponent.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_incredulity