The logical fallacy of atheism

[religion99]

Now in terms of here he is, there he is.... there is no tangible evidence for the existence of God as it would be understood in the most basic definition. However, to say that God does not exist because of a lack of evidence is a fallacy. That fallacy is called argument from ignorance. Therefore, the die-hard atheist is practicing a belief system because they believe there is nothing after death. A truly scientific mind would question both view points & contemplate how to test the theory. Just saying....

There is evidence "beyond reasonable doubt" of non-existence of OMNIPOTENT God ( Christan God , Islamic God and Hindu God ) viz "Problem of Evil".

There is no evidence of non-existence of OMNISCIENT God ( Jainism ).

Hence , I don't see any contradiction in Atheist Saying: "I believe there is no God". By God , they actually mean "Omnipotent God".

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

There is evidence "beyond reasonable doubt" of non-existence of OMNIPOTENT God ( Christan God , Islamic God and Hindu God ) viz "Problem of Evil".

There is no evidence of non-existence of OMNISCIENT God ( Jainism ).

Hence , I don't see any contradiction in Atheist Saying: "I believe there is no God". By God , they actually mean "Omnipotent God".

This atheist doesn't believe in your god either.

 

[Willamena]

For anyone who hasn't defined "god," it's impossible to actually believe. We use the word "believe" loosely in many ways, but in this sense it requires a mark of truth.

 

[Sunstone]

I believe we can solve this whole issue with just one good naked leg wrestlin' contest between me and a Hollywood starlet. I therefore suggest you all direct your energies to making that happen.

 

[religion99]

This atheist doesn't believe in your god either.

Only in that case , it is a logical fallacy.

If they don't believe in Omniscient God , they are Omniscient God ; because without examining entire Universe along with its Past and Future , you cannot positively say that Omniscient exists. But If you succeed in examine entire Universe along with Past and Future , you yourself are Omniscient , by definition.

Omnipotence , on the other hand , can be positively discarded just by the "Problem of Evil".

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Only in that case , it is a logical fallacy.

If they don't believe in Omniscient God , they are Omniscient God ; because without examining entire Universe along with its Past and Future , you cannot positively say that Omniscient exists. But If you succeed in examine entire Universe along with Past and Future , you yourself are Omniscient , by definition.

No, I'm just an empiricist. I don't believe that it's justified to accept a belief without evidence.

BTW: which god are you talking about? I thought Jains were generally non-theists.

Omnipotence , on the other hand , can be positively discarded just by the "Problem of Evil".

Actually, it can't. The problem of evil has nothing to say about the existence of a god who is omnipotent and omniscient but not perfectly good.

 

[Sha'irullah]

I believe we can solve this whole issue with just one good naked leg wrestlin' contest between me and a Hollywood starlet. I therefore suggest you all direct your energies to making that happen.

GREAT ISHTAR MAN! Control your hormones!
Don't they have pretty lionesses where you live?

 

[Sunstone]

GREAT ISHTAR MAN! Control your hormones!
Don't they have pretty lionesses where you live?

I am interested only in scientifically resolving this dispute.

 

[religion99]

No, I'm just an empiricist. I don't believe that it's justified to accept a belief without evidence.

Please define empiricist.

BTW: which god are you talking about? I thought Jains were generally non-theists.

We believe in multiple Omniscient Gods , all of them have neither ability nor willingness to change the course of the Universe.

Actually, it can't. The problem of evil has nothing to say about the existence of a god who is omnipotent and omniscient but not perfectly good.

You are right. Let me think more about this and get back to you.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Please define empiricist.

Short version: we are only justified in accepting factual claims if they're supported by evidence.

We believe in multiple Omniscient Gods , all of them have neither ability nor willingness to change the course of the Universe.

If they don't "change the course of the universe", then how could anyone ever have found out about them?

You are right. Let me think more about this and get back to you.

Sure.

 

[religion99]

Short version: we are only justified in accepting factual claims if they're supported by evidence.

Please define Evidence.

If they don't "change the course of the universe", then how could anyone ever have found out about them?

Because , once upon a time , they were normal Men with limited knowledge and were living amongst us. They worked very hard to gain the perfect knowledge. After attending Omniscience , some of them were able to answer any question asked to them for some time. That's how we found about them.

 

[Sapiens]

I agree with the last sentence. Religion does give direction, sense of purpose, and moral guidelines. For an example of life without moral guidelines I recommend most of modern San Fransisco & many other major metropolitan areas. America has become more secular & murder, child molestation, etc. has increased.

My understanding is that that simply is not the case. If you want that statement to stand, I suggest you back it up with data. If you can't back it up an apology to the inhabitants of modern San Fransisco & many other major metropolitan areas is in order.

God: I Am that I Am.

says Popeye the Sailor Man. Toot, toot.

 

[religion99]

The problem of evil has nothing to say about the existence of a god who is omnipotent and omniscient but not perfectly good.

Omnipotency requires ability to create everything out of nothing.
Evidently , you can't create anything without raw material.
Omnipotency requires ability to create everything without Raw Material.
This proves Omnipotency doesn't exist.

Now the Only Omni remaining to be disproved is Omniscience and It cannot be disproved. Hence , all Atheists , if they are to be logically consistent , should accept that they are actually Jain Agnostics.

 

[columbus]

Please define Evidence. [\quote]
Evidence is information that can be shared and examined by anybody.

It may or may not be conclusive, but if you can show it to others it is not an illusion. If you can't it might be. In fact, it probably is.

Because , once upon a time , they were normal Men with limited knowledge and were living amongst us. They worked very hard to gain the perfect knowledge. After attending Omniscience , some of them were able to answer any question asked to them for some time. That's how we found about them.

Who is "they"? What is perfect knowledge?

Tom

 

[Ouroboros]

America has become more secular & murder, child molestation, etc. has increased.

The bottom line of the two reports is that violent and property crime are still at record lows for the country and, generally speaking, have been decreasing for the last two decades except for recent years.

From here: Crime Rates and Totals--United States--Crime in America

In general, crime has decreased overall in America the last decades. It has grown slightly the last couple of years, but the overall picture is not the "end-of-the-world crime-rate" that you're hinting at above.

 

[religion99]

Please define Evidence. [\quote]
Who is "they"?

Those how are currently Omniscient , but were not Omniscient earlier.

What is perfect knowledge?

Omniscience

 

[religion99]

Evidence is information that can be shared and examined by anybody.

It may or may not be conclusive, but if you can show it to others it is not an illusion. If you can't it might be. In fact, it probably is.

If an even occurred in the past , It cannot be shown directly.
In that case , what will suffice as the evidence of that event? Photograph , Video , Witness , Rock Inscription , "Historian's Record"?

 

[McBell]

Those how are currently Omniscient , but were not Omniscient earlier.

name some.

 

[Willamena]

Please define Evidence.

Empiricism counts as knowledge what is attainable through the senses. Evidence is what appears to the senses. Evidence indicates truth.

 

[Willamena]

If an even occurred in the past , It cannot be shown directly.
In that case , what will suffice as the evidence of that event? Photograph , Video , Witness , Rock Inscription , "Historian's Record"?

Those would count tentatively as evidence. The past, being no longer existent, can only be evidenced indirectly.