The logical fallacy of atheism

[Sonofason]

I disagree! First, are we discussing the possibility of god's existence, or the possibility of mortal existance after death?

Second! Argument form ignorance is the argument that something IS true, because it HAS NOT BEEN PROVEN FALSE. It may be difficult for you, but it is the theist argument that is the argument from ignorance.

The belief that god exists, because his existence has not been disproven, IS THE ARGUMENT FROM IGNORANCE.

But the theist doesn't believe in God because he has not seen evidence for God's non-existence. The believer believes in God because God has shown them something of Himself for them to believe in. Those who believe in God have experienced God. They have personal evidence that causes them to believe. No one believes in God as a result of not seeing evidence against the existence of God. Thus, it is your argument that is an argument from ignorance.

 

[Sonofason]

Atheism - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

^ definition of atheism. If you are accurate in your response then apparently most atheist don't know they are really agnostics

I agree with this completely. However they are so adamant to be called atheists, I think we and God should let them have that title.

 

[Sonofason]

Perhaps, but even the agnostic has to have a reason for making such a claim.

Sure, like a lack of sufficient evidence for make such a determination? Seems sufficiently honest and respectable to me?

But to say there is no God is completely dishonest and completely disrespectful.

 

[Bunyip]

Sure, like a lack of sufficient evidence for make such a determination? Seems sufficiently honest and respectable to me?

But to say there is no God is completely dishonest and completely disrespectful.

How so? There is no evidence for the existence of god, so to say that there is therefore no god is a perfectly honest and reasonable position.

 

[Sonofason]

How so? There is no evidence for the existence of god, so to say that there is therefore no god is a perfectly honest and reasonable position.

No, not so.
You say there is no evidence of God. I say there is.
I hear you saying that you have not seen any evidence of God, and that you have not experienced any evidence of God, and that somehow, as a result of your lack of experience and evidence, you jump to the conclusion that because you yourself haven't experienced God therefore no God exists. I cannot for the life of me understand how you consider that reasonable and honest. For one, you haven't experienced everything there is to experience, and you have not seen everything there is to see. There are people having experiences all the time that you yourself will never experience. Therefore, to say that you have not experienced God is really not saying very much at all; it's more like saying nothing at all. What I see is that you have not received, or at least you claim not to have received, any evidence to support a belief in God. And I believe you would be most justified, if your claim of not ever experiencing God is true, to say just that, that you do not believe in the existence of God. It is quite a leap of faith to turn that into, "therefore no god" exists. Who do you think you are to think that something's existence depends on whether or not you in particular experience it existing.

Many people experience God. I experience God.

In my mind, a lack of evidence is not evidence of anything at all; at best, if a lack of evidence is to be considered to be evidence, it is very poor evidence indeed. Some people, like you, like to think that a lack of evidence for existence is evidence for a lack of existence. That might be true to some extent for physical tangible objects. But God is Spirit. He's not an object subject to your scrutiny.

While a can say with great certainty that there is no pink elephant on my desk right now, I could not say with any certainty that no spirit entity is hovering over my desk right now. If I were to experience that spirit entity, I would likely believe it was there. If I did not experience it being there, I would have no reason to believe that it was there. If someone else told me that some spirit entity was hovering over my desk right now, and if I thought they were being sincere, I'd have a lot of questions. Like you, I'd want to have that experience. I wouldn't want to think that someone else was more capable of experiencing spirit entities than I was. I'd want to know why I'm being excluded from having this experience. I might even begin to feel so dejected that I accuse that guy of lying. "Nope, there's no spirit entity hovering over my desk, and you're either a liar or deluded. No way could it be my fault that I can't experience this spirit entity of yours. I'm perfect." (quoting myself hypothetically talking to the hypothetical guy who sees a hypothetical spirit entity hovering over my very real desk)


God is often defined as the creator and supreme being of the universe.
If we wanted to know if a creator God actually exists, we should first determine whether or not anything exists.
If something exists, that could be considered evidence that a creator God exists.
It just so happens that many things exist.
We might then look to see if anything in the universe had a beginning. After-all, if something is going to be said to have been created, there would have to be a point in time when that something did not exist.
Interestingly, the entire universe had a beginning, and before that, it did not exist.

 

[Bunyip]

No, not so.
You say there is no evidence of God. I say there is.
I hear you saying that you have not seen any evidence of God, and that you have not experienced any evidence of God, and that somehow, as a result of your lack of experience and evidence, you jump to the conclusion that because you yourself haven't experienced God therefore no God exists. I cannot for the life of me understand how you consider that reasonable and honest. For one, you haven't experienced everything there is to experience, and you have not seen everything there is to see. There are people having experiences all the time that you yourself will never experience. Therefore, to say that you have not experienced God is really not saying very much at all; it's more like saying nothing at all. What I see is that you have not received, or at least you claim not to have received, any evidence to support a belief in God. And I believe you would be most justified, if your claim of not ever experiencing God is true, to say just that, that you do not believe in the existence of God. It is quite a leap of faith to turn that into, "therefore no god" exists. Who do you think you are to think that something's existence depends on whether or not you in particular experience it existing.

Many people experience God. I experience God.

In my mind, a lack of evidence is not evidence of anything at all; at best, if a lack of evidence is to be considered to be evidence, it is very poor evidence indeed. Some people, like you, like to think that a lack of evidence for existence is evidence for a lack of existence. That might be true to some extent for physical tangible objects. But God is Spirit. He's not an object subject to your scrutiny.

While a can say with great certainty that there is no pink elephant on my desk right now, I could not say with any certainty that no spirit entity is hovering over my desk right now. If I were to experience that spirit entity, I would likely believe it was there. If I did not experience it being there, I would have no reason to believe that it was there. If someone else told me that some spirit entity was hovering over my desk right now, and if I thought they were being sincere, I'd have a lot of questions. Like you, I'd want to have that experience. I wouldn't want to think that someone else was more capable of experiencing spirit entities than I was. I'd want to know why I'm being excluded from having this experience. I might even begin to feel so dejected that I accuse that guy of lying. "Nope, there's no spirit entity hovering over my desk, and you're either a liar or deluded. No way could it be my fault that I can't experience this spirit entity of yours. I'm perfect." (quoting myself hypothetically talking to the hypothetical guy who sees a hypothetical spirit entity hovering over my very real desk)


God is often defined as the creator and supreme being of the universe.
If we wanted to know if a creator God actually exists, we should first determine whether or not anything exists.
If something exists, that could be considered evidence that a creator God exists.
It just so happens that many things exist.
We might then look to see if anything in the universe had a beginning. After-all, if something is going to be said to have been created, there would have to be a point in time when that something did not exist.
Interestingly, the entire universe had a beginning, and before that, it did not exist.

It is much simpler than that.

Does your god have any effect on the physical universe?
If so, then it will be detectable and measurable - so please specify.
If not, then there is no difference between a god that exists and one that does not.

 

[Sonofason]

It is much simpler than that.

Does your god have any effect on the physical universe?
If so, then it will be detectable and measurable - so please specify.
If not, then there is no difference between a god that exists and one that does not.

Of course, measure anything, and you will see God's effect on the physical universe.
Look at anything, and you can detect God's effect on it.

 

[Bunyip]

Of course, measure anything, and you will see God's effect on the physical universe.
Look at anything, and you can detect God's effect on it.

Wonderful, an example please?

 

[Sonofason]

Wonderful, an example please?

Okay, God created matter with various measurable properties. One of these properties is gravity, God created matter with gravity. We can and often do measure gravitational forces. Do you need an example of us measuring that sort of phenomena? We measure such things all the time. It is a direct and ongoing measurable influence that God has had on the universe.

 

[Bunyip]

Okay, God created matter with various measurable properties. One of these properties is gravity, God created matter with gravity. We can and often do measure gravitational forces. Do you need an example of us measuring that sort of phenomena? We measure such things all the time. It is a direct and ongoing measurable influence that God has had on the universe.

Gravity on earth accelerates a mass towards the center of gravity at 9.8m/sec2 - what would the measurement be without the god effect? Please show your math.

 

[Sonofason]

Gravity on earth accelerates a mass towards the center of gravity at 9.8m/sec2 - what would the measurement be without the god effect? Please show your math.

I'm sorry, you're wrong. The gravitational force between the earth and objects on the earth is 9,8m/sec2, but the gravitational force between my coffee cup and my glasses is not 9.8msec2, yet both of these objects are on earth.
Without God's influence the gravitational force between my non-existent coffee cup and my non-existent glasses would be zero. And the gravitational force between the non-existent earth and all of the non-existent things near and on this non-existent earth would also be zero.

 

[Bunyip]

I'm sorry, you're wrong.

How so? What measurable effect does god have on gravity?

 

[Sonofason]

How so? What measurable effect does god have on gravity?

All measurable effects.

 

[Bunyip]

All measurable effects.

LOL You got nothing have ya bud?

 

[Sonofason]

LOL You got nothing have ya bud?

I've answered your questions. It seems you've got nothing. Try grasping for a few more straws.

 

[Bunyip]

I've answered your questions. It seems you've got nothing. Try grasping for a few more straws.

So what would be the difference if you took the god effect from gravity?

 

[Willamena]

Really?

Keep count!

Yes, really.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

But the theist doesn't believe in God because he has not seen evidence for God's non-existence. The believer believes in God because God has shown them something of Himself for them to believe in. Those who believe in God have experienced God. They have personal evidence that causes them to believe. No one believes in God as a result of not seeing evidence against the existence of God. Thus, it is your argument that is an argument from ignorance.

If this is valid at all - which it isn't, but just assuming it is for argument's sake - then it's just as much a condemnation of monotheism (or polytheism with only a limited pantheon of gods) as it is a condemnation of atheism. You and all other monotheists reject most "god experiences" too. If it's an argument from ignorance when we do it, it's an argument from ignorance for you, too.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I'm sorry, you're wrong. The gravitational force between the earth and objects on the earth is 9,8m/sec2, but the gravitational force between my coffee cup and my glasses is not 9.8msec2, yet both of these objects are on earth.
Without God's influence the gravitational force between my non-existent coffee cup and my non-existent glasses would be zero. And the gravitational force between the non-existent earth and all of the non-existent things near and on this non-existent earth would also be zero.

Intelligent falling? Really?

Evangelical Scientists Refute Gravity With New 'Intelligent Falling' Theory | The Onion - America's Finest News Source

Is this another one of your attempts at humour?

 

[McBell]

I'm sorry, you're wrong. The gravitational force between the earth and objects on the earth is 9,8m/sec2, but the gravitational force between my coffee cup and my glasses is not 9.8msec2, yet both of these objects are on earth.
Without God's influence the gravitational force between my non-existent coffee cup and my non-existent glasses would be zero. And the gravitational force between the non-existent earth and all of the non-existent things near and on this non-existent earth would also be zero.

One wonders why you would change up the goal posts in the middle of your own explanation?