Nonsense: Prove/Disprove existence of a god or gods

Believers seem compelled to believe that nonbelievers believe.

<>

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Dywyddyr,

1. If there is a God, he is perfectly loving.
2. If a perfectly loving God exists, reasonable nonbelief does not occur.
3. Reasonable nonbelief occurs.
4. No perfectly loving God exists (from 2 and 3).
5. Hence, there is no God (from 1 and 4).

This is an argument from non belef, which requires beliefs to be concluded.

Jan.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I think I'll just start with the premise:

If there is a God, he is not necessarily perfectly loving.

Hmmm... If I start with that, none of the rest follows.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

We don't have to be compelled, it's nothing short of obvious.

Why would you use that as your premise?

Jan.

 

Can you justify this assumption?

 

What is obvious is that you are compelled to say that.

<>.

 

I'm not compelled to say anything of the sort, and you know that.
Your conclusions are littered with ideas which must be believed.

jan.

 

It's not my assumption, it is
that of an atheist.

Jan.

 

...

 

If there is an Easter Bunny he hides candy eggs.

Do you believe (secretly) in the Easter Bunny?

 

I've witnessed candy eggs.

Some were even hidden. (A cupboard counts as hidden, right?)

 

I know there is a period of time called Easter, and is characterised, in some parts to a character known as the Easter Bunny.

Is that regarded as belief?
Not sure about the secrecy thing though.

Jan.

 

That's not an argument; it's just a sting of non sequiturs.

 

Still waiting for a reply to this.

 

I wouldn't call that a belief. It's just repeating a story that you've heard and have no reason to regard as true.

 

This is no different to the arguments for the non-existence of God that rely on the incompatibility of evil with an all-loving God.
It's a flawed argument for a number of reasons - not least of which is the formulation of the nature of God in 1, and the apparent non-sequituur in 2 (why would the absence of nonbelief stem from the mere existence of a perfectly loving God)?

If anything, this argument might only be convincing to someone that already believes the first premise and can accept the second - i.e. certain (but not all) theists.
Certainly not to an atheist who merely has non-belief.
I.e. it is not a good argument for a "weak" atheist to move to "strong" atheism, any more than the apparent existence of evil is.

So to use it as a means of suggesting that all non-belief atheists are actually in the "believe in the non-existence of God" camp, and that atheism is more than "non-belief" but "belief in the non-existence of God", is fallacious.

 

Yes, of course. ;-)

Bunnies do not breed during the winter, but start breeding at spring. Thus, newborn bunnies appear at spring. Birds also do not breed during the winter, but in spring. Thus, to look for hidden eggs does not make sense during the winter, but makes sense during spring. Thus, to look for hidden eggs starts to make sense once one can see the first newborn bunnies.
Above things are likely to be known to children - once people see a newborn bunny, they are likely to tell this to nearby children too, and these children are likely to observe a correlation between seeing bunnies during springtime and starting search for hidden eggs in Nature. To mingle correlation with causation is a common error even among adults, so it is quite likely that children will develop similar explanations for the observed correlation.
Many adults like to make jokes with stupid children, so, once they observe such a funny theory, they can, with some probability, support it by hiding even more eggs to have more fun about that stupid kid which believes such nonsense. And, then, this can easily become a "running joke" which will be traditionally repeated every year.
So, I do not believe in the particular claim about the behaviour of Easter Bunnies. But, once I believe that young bunnies in nature will be visible with much higher probability during Easter time than during the winter, one can, with some simplification, say that I believe in the "Easter Bunny".

 

They do. They must. Have you ever seen a cop testify in court? Testimony relies on eye witnesses accounts which are certainly believed and then certified with facts. You don't merely believe.

 

No they aren't certainly believed.

Bias creeps into memory without our knowledge, without our awareness. While confidence and accuracy are generally correlated, when misleading information is given, witness confidence is often higher for the incorrect information than for the correct information. This leads many to question the competence of the average person to determine credibility issues. Juries are the fact-finders, and credibility issues are to be determined by juries. The issue then arises whether juries are equipped to make these determinations. Expert testimony may not be helpful. Indeed, since the very act of forming a memory creates distortion, how can anyone uncover the "truth" behind a person’s statements? Perhaps it is the terrible truth that in many cases we are simply not capable of determining what happened, yet are duty-bound to so determine.

The Problem with Eyewitness Testimony

 

@SG

You don't merely believe. There is a certain level of trust involved in a investigation where someone makes a claim and you are obligated to analyze it. An investigation is based off of belief, judgement is empirical.