Arguing Against Atheism is Silly

[Falvlun]

Not to put too many words in @ArtieE 's mouth, but I think he was getting at the case where many candidates clear the same low bar in terms of support (and all don't clear the next higher bar), but a person accepts only one and rejects the rest.

Why would potentially being wrong about a thousand gods be more logical than being wrong about only one God? And obviously most people think their God has cleared a higher bar than all the others, hence the reason they believe in that one.

Plus, the God that most people believe in (and that Paarsurrey is advocating) is defined as being the one and only. I think it'd be a much more glaring logical snafu to believe in the One and Only God and a bunch of others too.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Why would potentially being wrong about a thousand gods be more logical than being wrong about only one God?

It's hard to tell exactly how illogical the person is being, because the situation suggests that there's more going on than what's apparent. If many candidates meet the person's stated criteria but he accepts only one, this indicates that there's a disconnect between what he says his criteria are and what they really are. Whether his actual criteria are reasonable or not is unknown; we don't know what they are.

If the person is being sincere, then this disconnect demonstrates that there's a non sequitur in his decision-making process somewhere: a leap of logic that's unsupported.

And obviously most people think their God has cleared a higher bar than all the others, hence the reason they believe in that one.

They may think that, but if they haven't done the investigation to see if this really is the case, is their conclusion justified?

Plus, the God that most people believe in (and that Paarsurrey is advocating) is defined as being the one and only. I think it'd be a much more glaring logical snafu to believe in the One and Only God and a bunch of others too.

There are many ways to irrationally conclude that some god or set of gods exist. The fact that one alternative approach is also irrational doesn't make the original approach any more defensible.

 

[Falvlun]

It's hard to tell exactly how illogical the person is being, because the situation suggests that there's more going on than what's apparent. If many candidates meet the person's stated criteria but he accepts only one, this indicates that there's a disconnect between what he says his criteria are and what they really are. Whether his actual criteria are reasonable or not is unknown; we don't know what they are.

If the person is being sincere, then this disconnect demonstrates that there's a non sequitur in his decision-making process somewhere: a leap of logic that's unsupported.

I still don't get why being potentially wrong a thousand iterations is more logical than being wrong on just one.

Just because a bunch of things meet a criteria, it doesn't follow that all such things must be believed if you believe in one of them, especially if it would involve contradiction and if it would be unnecessary. (E.g. Believing in multiple gods plus the One God, or if you only need to a god, any god, to exist as your First Cause.)

You also are assuming that all the gods are on a level playing field, that they all, to this person, have met the same criteria. That's unlikely to be true.

They may think that, but if they haven't done the investigation to see if this really is the case, is their conclusion justified?

From the outside looking in, probably not.

But it would be internally consistent.

There are many ways to irrationally conclude that some god or set of gods exist. The fact that one alternative approach is also irrational doesn't make the original approach any more defensible.

How is it irrational to define God as being a unique being, with there being only one?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I still don't get why being potentially wrong a thousand iterations is more logical than being wrong on just one.

You're assuming that the standard is wrong, or that the bar is too low. If that's a given, then the logical course of action isn't to keep the standard and arbitrarily filter the results; the logical course of action is to recognize that the standard is wrong and try to come up with a better one.

Just because a bunch of things meet a criteria, it doesn't follow that all such things must be believed if you believe in one of them, especially if it would involve contradiction and if it would be unnecessary. (E.g. Believing in multiple gods plus the One God, or if you only need to a god, any god, to exist as your First Cause.)

If I ask someone why they believe in their god and they give their justification, I would expect them to accept every single thing that fulfills that justification. If they're unaware of something that fulfills it, I would expect them to accept it as soon as they learn about it. If they don't do this, then their stated justification isn't their actual justification.

You also are assuming that all the gods are on a level playing field, that they all, to this person, have met the same criteria. That's unlikely to be true.

All I'm assuming is that the person I'm talking to has laid all their cards on the table. I'm assuming that they've accurately described the justification they used and haven't left any criteria out.

The problem of someone being dishonest or cagey is a separate issue to what we're talking about.

From the outside looking in, probably not.

But it would be internally consistent.

Lots of false ideas are internally consistent. Internal consistency is necessary for a belief to be justified, but it isn't sufficient.

How is it irrational to define God as being a unique being, with there being only one?

It's begging the question. It's an attempt to define a particular God into existence.

Or, in another way of looking at it: it suffers from one of the problems with the ontological argument: existence isn't an attribute; it's a claim. Defining God as "a unique being" is really a backhanded way of making the claim that no other gods exist, which is a claim that needs to be justified on its own merits, not just implicitly accepted as part of a definition.

 

[Falvlun]

You're assuming that the standard is wrong, or that the bar is too low. If that's a given, then the logical course of action isn't to keep the standard and arbitrarily filter the results; the logical course of action is to recognize that the standard is wrong and try to come up with a better one.


If I ask someone why they believe in their god and they give their justification, I would expect them to accept every single thing that fulfills that justification. If they're unaware of something that fulfills it, I would expect them to accept it as soon as they learn about it. If they don't do this, then their stated justification isn't their actual justification.

All I'm assuming is that the person I'm talking to has laid all their cards on the table. I'm assuming that they've accurately described the justification they used and haven't left any criteria out.

The problem of someone being dishonest or cagey is a separate issue to what we're talking about.

I think you are setting up a circumstance that doesn't exist.

People have a reason for believing in a specific god, otherwise they wouldn't believe in that specific god as opposed to others. For the most part, the justification will be personal experience. It's this experience that they believe they've had with this specific god that sets it apart from all the others.

The other option is that they call a god by a specific name, due to cultural influence, but they don't think the name particularly matters as all god-concepts simply stem from the God that exists, which is what they worship.

Lots of false ideas are internally consistent. Internal consistency is necessary for a belief to be justified, but it isn't sufficient.

I'm not arguing that their belief isn't false. I'm arguing that it isn't internally inconsistent to believe that only one god exists.

It's begging the question. It's an attempt to define a particular God into existence.

Or, in another way of looking at it: it suffers from one of the problems with the ontological argument: existence isn't an attribute; it's a claim. Defining God as "a unique being" is really a backhanded way of making the claim that no other gods exist, which is a claim that needs to be justified on its own merits, not just implicitly accepted as part of a definition.

Its not defining a god into existence. It's just defining what a god is.

Sure, it's another claim that ought to be justified.

But it's a valid response to why someone who believes in one god can't just be expected to believe in all the others too