4 random arguements for atheism.

[Dotard]

FOUR ARGUMENTS FOR ATHEISM (Non-Existence of God)

1. Failure of Revelation

Dotard argues first that divine revelation "is the basis for a myriad of competing scriptures, all of which contain inherently contradictory material. Hence, it is clear that most revelation—if not all revelation—from God or gods must be false" (emphasis added). If this is an argument for atheism,

He argues third that the diverse pattern and spread of so-called revelation suggests that "religious revelation always arises from the imagination of individuals." First, this argument holds only if all religious texts are false .......... it does not follow that God does not exist. Therefore, this fails as an argument for atheism.

Failure of revelation was not offered as proof of God's non-existance. Sure, it's a logical possibility a God exists. It's also a logical possibility ravenous bug-blatter beasts from the planet Trol created life on earth. There just exists not enough evidence to warrant such a belief in either. Failure of revelation merely points out revelation fails as a proof of a God's existance and supports the not enough evidence to warrant belief therefore supports the atheistic contention.

2. God as a Bad Explanation

Dotard argues that as gaps in our knowledge about the natural world close, it becomes increasingly unreasonable to affirm supernatural explanations. ......it does not follow that God does not exist.

I offered this not as proof of God's non-existance but as a reason why the God of the gaps does not offer a reason to warrant a belief in the logical possibility of a God existing. It is a logical possibility that the vacuum that poster claims is God, is God. I offered this NOT as proof it is not, but as an arguement God as an explaination fails, increasingly so as our knowledge increases, and supports the atheistic contention.

3. Divine Silence

It is difficult to determine how Dotard proposes 'divine silence' as an argument for atheism. Perhaps he is again making a modus tollens argument: (i) If God exists, he would enable everyone to believe in him. (ii) God has not enabled everyone to believe in him. (iii) Therefore, God does not exist.
..... it is logically possible that God exists and does not enable everyone to believe in him.

Logical possibility yes. The divine silence was offered not as proof of God's non existance. It supports the atheistic contention of not enough proof to warrant such a belief.

Disembodied Brainless Thinkers

This argument fails in and of itself, as Dotard tries to use an argument for cause to reach a conclusion for identity. Specifically, an argument that brain states cause mental states does not somehow prove that mental states are identical to, the same thing as, brain states; q.v. ontological reduction (e.g., an argument that fire causes smoke does not somehow prove that smoke is the same thing as fire). Also, argument from personal incredulity is fallacious; it is a species of the ad ignorantiam fallacy. Just because a person finds a premise unlikely or unbelievable, it does not allow him to assume that the premise is false (e.g., Dotard finds it "extremely unlikely" that mental states could exist independent of brain states). Likewise, it does not follow from Dotard's inability to find any "reason why a thinking being should exist without a body to nurture and protect" that therefore a thinking being cannot exist without a body.

Sure, it's a logical possibility, but is there any reasons to warrant such a belief? Fire cause smoke, it is logically possible smoke can exist without fire, but is there reason to warrant such a belief?
Is there reason to warrant a belief thought, mind states, brain states, whatever, cease to exist when the body does? EVERYTHING is logically possible, my arguements, I believe, give atheism more logical plausibility than the logical possibility theism offers.


Quite an effort you put into attempting to turn all my arguements into proof of God's non-existance arguements so you could easily knock them down.