The Atheistic Fallacy

Atheism is based on the fallacy "Argumentum ad ignorantiam".

"Argumentum ad ignorantiam means "argument from ignorance." The fallacy occurs when it's argued that something must be true, simply because it hasn't been proved false. Or, equivalently, when it is argued that something must be false because it hasn't been proved true."

If there is no proof that God doesn't exist, you cannot necessarily infer that He does not exist, because there is obviously a possibility that He exists. If it could be proven with 100% of certainty that God does not exist than the atheistic position could be valid. But this is not the case. It seems impossible to prove that God does not exist, which would make the atheistic argument unsound.

Certainly you cannot shift the burden of proof, but the issue here is whether you can be certain that God does exist or not. If you cannot be certain that God doesn't exist, to assume that He doesn't exist would be to commit a fallacy. Hence agnosticism as the only fully logical perspective. And possibly theism, if it is logically proven that God does exist.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

May a moderator please add this pool:

Is this argument against atheism sound?

• Yes
• No

Sorry about my usual problem with pools.... :-/

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

True, agnosticism is the most logical perspective. But the atheist argument, like the theist one, is based less on logic than intuition. We cannot prove that there are or aren't little green men living in a parallel universe who come at night to steal our socks, but the idea is obviously a human one, and exceedingly unlikely. Theists also argue using the same fallacy, that God must exist, because you can't prove he doesn't. I think the burden of proof lies with those who suggest the idea in the first place, and that would be the theists.

There is also an anthropological argument for atheism, that people have a built in bias to interpret events from a human perspective, falsely superimposing personality on the situation. You know, we say that an old car tries really hard to get us home before breaking down, even though it's just a simple mechanical device, or we call a ship "she". Therefore, the theist argument is all the more suspect.

A simple, scientific test would be- does prayer work? Is there anything more than a placebo effect to it?

There is also the idea that no one can define what God is, therefore, there is no argument there to prove or disprove.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

SPIDERGOAT: "A simple, scientific test would be- does prayer work? Is there anything more than a placebo effect to it?"

I pray everyday and it's usually for world peace and self improvement. Now, world peace is a long stretch because there too many variables involved because people still have freewill to make war. But it's been several times when I'm in a hole financially and pray on the problem. days later, sometimes a week later, here comes some new business just in time out of the blue. Now, that might be a coincidence but how can we prove that? we cant prove the prayer worked either?

 

Well, you could develop a scientific study, with a control group, etc... Have them pray for something like winning a random coin toss, then compare their results to those who didn't pray to win.

 

Now that sounds like an argument from ignorance.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Im sorry Alpha, so it has been proven? show me the evidence. I apologize, I must've missed that news flash.

 

Well that is just fixing the result.

God by definition, is not dependent on man's whims and therefore for Him to stoop that low would disqualify His Deity.

 

yeah and he wouldn't participate because he wants us to beleive without proof.
thats quite a pickel!

 

Moloch does exist, and demands that you sacrifice children to him!

 

1 - You missed the point. He's arguing from ignorance by claiming the proof doesn't exist without actually knowing that to be the case.
2 - Here ya go:
Proof God doesn't exist:

Definitions:
A1 - God: The creator of the Universe.
A2 - Time: Change(s) of state.
A3 - Universe: All of existence.
A4 - Causality: Law of cause and effect.
A5 - Creation: Change of state from nonexistence, to existence.

Deductions:
B1 - From A2 & A5: The creation of the Universe requires at least an instant of time.
B2 - From A3 & A1: Time & causality were created by God.
B3 - From A4 & A5: The creation of the Universe requires a cause.

Conclusions:
C1 - From B1 & A1: God required at least an instant of time to create the Universe.
C2 - From B2 & C1: God did not create time.
C3 - From B3 & A1: God required the power to cause the Universe to exist.
C4 - From B2 & C3: God did not create causality.
C5 - From C2 & C4: God did not create the Universe.

.: From C5 & A1 - Therefore A1 is false.

Explanation:
God is defined as "creator of the Universe". This necessitates definitions for "creation" and "Universe", which are: (1) a change of state from existence, to non-existence; and (2) all of existence.
Change(s) of state = time.
So, God requires at least an instant of time to create the Universe, but the act of creation requires time, therefore time could not have been created, and therefore God did not create the Universe.

 

The OP has a point, and for that reason I think there are a lot more agnostics and 'soft' atheists out there than 'hard' atheists.

On the other hand, given no evidence one way or the other, the principle of Occam's razor points in the direction of atheism, since that requires the smallest number of additional assumptions (zero, in fact).

Alpha: You could make the same argument replacing 'God' with 'physical laws' and prove that the laws of physics don't exist. What your argument demonstrates is that our definitions of time and causality break down at the creation of the universe as we know it. The very idea of 'creating causality' is circular (which is the basis for your argument), and that is true for both theists and atheists.

We can't say anything about what happens at a physical singularity (e.g., the creation of the universe), where the consistencies that we have used to construct our model of the universe break down. But I don't think that can be adduced as evidence against God.

 

No atheism just simply means "without" theism, god is not even in the picture! :bugeye:

Atheism is not preaching that; "there is no god". We are just claiming we don't believe in the assertions of theists.
For someone to claim that XZ exists one has to know what XZ is, if one does not know what XZ means one can't assert that it exists or it does not.

Godless.

 

In the nineteenth century Francis Galton checked this out. The Church of England prays for the life of the monarch in its daily service- several million prayers a week. Galton checked the life expectancies of English monarchs since that prayer was introduced and found no significant difference.

 

Sounds like an interesting study, actually

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

but it's almost impossible to perform an experiment with a variable that neither reacts nor offers any tangible proof that it's even there. You can be asked to imagine a pumpkin on a scale and while you may be able to see the pumpkin clearly in your mind's eye, the scale is not going to tip. I don't have a strong opinion either way myself, but personally, I do find atheists hard to take seriously, mostly because ninety percent of the ones I've run into have been self-righteous, deliberately anti-social teenagers. Having your own beliefs is one thing-- adopting those beliefs because it makes you cool and/or counter-culture is another. I have yet to meet an atheist who can provide any sort of coherent reason *why* they think there isn't a god, and very few religious people who can make their argument without almost immediately resorting to "I dunno, it's just, it's *real*, okay, God doesn't have to prove himself to you, you should just *know*." That doesn't even hold water, let alone pack a punch.

 

Alpha, your argument seems sound, but it isn't actually as solid as you'd like to believe. Creation may be an eternal act, having neither beginning nor end. For that which experiences eternality, it may be that all things occur simultaneously, ceaselessly. Hence, no change takes place within the eternal existence. Time, however, according to its nature, surely did have beginning, and that beginning being identical to the beginning of the finite sphere. The difference is sequential movement versus holisticity. The infinite is holistic, and may be said to be eternal in the way that I have described, hence, a moment of time would not be necessary, nor possible, since even all moments of time are part of that holistic experience of the infinite.

Anyway, about Truthseeker's argument. The most logical conclusion isn't necessarily the agnostic one. Don't get me wrong, it has its strong points, but Statistics and Probability are branches associated with Logic. Hence, one may say that, statistically speaking, the most logical conclusion is x (theism or athiesm). For example, if you were to ask me whether I believed that life existed (in whatever form) elsewhere in the universe aside from Earth, I would answer that... yes, I believe so. And it would be considered the most logical, because, after completing a probability test, one may say with a certain certitude that there is life elsewhere. Simply because one doesn't have proof doesn't mean that setting aside judgement is the most logical conclusion. This is doubly manifest if one was to consider a situation which had real impact. For example, say you wanted to do some travelling to a certain are in your country, but didn't know the weather conditions for the time you wanted to go, say... 3 days from present. Would you set aside judgement, make no preparations, until the day arived and you could see the weather conditions yourself, have the proof on hand? Doubtful, you'd probably check the forecast, which is a probable measure of weather conditions of the future. Whatever weather conditions are forecasted are not known for certain, no proof is had, but the probability of correctness is strong. Hence, based upon the probability, you make your decision, and it is most logical for that time. If, when the time comes, the weather conditions were what was expected, you've either lost an opportunity, or you haven't. At that time you will have proof. However, the question of God isn't one of proof or not, since it has already been accepted by both sides that no proof has yet been found. Hence, it lies in the realm of possibility and probability. Now, it is unknown on either side whether a proof actually exists for God's existence, or otherwise, but one may examine what is meant by God, what is known about the universe, and draw a conclusion of probability, which may or may not be the most logical. However, that is entirely a matter of evidence had by each individual. Hence, for one person who has more evidence in support of God's existence, it may be more logical to conclude that God probably exists. While, for one who has less evidence in support of God's existence, and more in support of God's non-existence, it would be more logical to conclude that God does not exist. The only time agnosticism is most logical is when the individual asking the question feels that he/she hasn't enough evidence, or lack of evidence, to make a decision one way or the other, that the evidence in support of both is equal, or equally non-existent.

 

Beyond is on the right track here.

Questions of epistemology should deal with probability, not possibility. That is the main flaw in your argument.

 

For chrissake man, you've been around for a while. Haven't you been paying attention!?!?!

"Weak Atheism" is a "lack of belief". Thus, "atheists" do not necessarily think "there is no god", but rather what you label agnosticism.

Agnosticism is about epistemology ("the nature of knowing"). It does not directly address the question of god, but the question of knowing. If you choose an agnostic stance, "belief" regarding god(s) must fall then into weak atheism. It's apples and oranges. The terms "theist" and "atheist" are defined regarding the question of god, whereas the subject of the term "agnosticism" as defined by Huxley is knowledge.

I for instance, am an "agnostic athiest". That means I think that the nature of knowledge is subjective and I lack belief in god(s). If I'm not mistaken you might consider me a "consequent athiest". (who I haven't seen post in forever it seems). I wonder if that's basically how he arrived at his handle.

As is typical, Nelson doesn't know what the shit he's talking about. As you basically mention, the same argument he applies mistakenly to atheism, (which is really only applicable to strong atheism) is applicable to theists.

At all times in the past when this same argument has been presented to him against theism, he has spewed unrelenting gibberish to avoid accepting the same logic he now presents as valid. I would wager that even now if you apply this argument to theism instead of strong atheism, he would squirm like the worm he is.

I understand that for practical purposes claiming "I'm agnostic" answers the question "do you believe in god" in an easy way that most people understand. However, it does not work well if you are seriously trying to present arguments claiming one position or another is based on fallacy.

And regarding BTS's comments, the problem with that is that you cannot directly calculate the probability of life existing elsewhere in the universe. The calculation accepted in science right now as far as I know, is ultimately at best an 'educated guess'. The problem with applying that same logic to the concept of god is well, tenfold and definitions of what god is, etc. complicate the matter to the point of absolute ridiculousness. You simply cannot calculate the probability of god because there is nothing upon which to based the probability function besides at best, educated guesses. That might yeild something, but it's really a placebo.

My argument "against" theism is really pretty simple, but can get complicated to explain depending on with whom I'm conversing.

Ultimately, if god is defined using the terms "omniscient, omnipotent and/or omnipresent", it's fairly easy to show (IMO) that any attempts to discern the existence of such an entity are necessarily indeterminant. That's basically because under such pretense, you could not methodologically discern the reality of one who claimed to be god from illusion thereof.

Thus, the question of god is moot.

(at least to me)

 

Well BTS I see that you've been enlightened to what extent an atheist can go, no one can prove the assertions of a god either way, however most atheist I know are atheist because they "reject" religious dogmas.

I'm an atheist, if I were to claim that god does not exist, I would be emplying that I have knowledge of what god is, and that he/it/ does not exist. However since no one knows what god is, or if it/she exists or not no one can claim either way. Thus to my knowledge though, I don't find enough evidence as yet to prove an "all good, benevolent, omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent" god, by simply using logic on all those terms to describe god, one can discredit such an entity of existence.
All good:
a god that supposedly is all good, but bad things happen to good people is a contradiction. there's no god.
benevolent:
another way of say "all good" if evil exists, and it does in the world than there's no benevolent god.
omniscient:
Sentient beings realize that without verification from other beings than itself or science it cannot know if it is correct in it's world view. It doesn't matter how intelligent or knowledgeable a being is - if that being wants to verify it's knowledge to make sure that it is correct then it needs to look to something more intelligent than itself, or to science. But what if you are the creator of science? You couldn't then use your own construct to test if your own construct was true, it would be an invalid test. So;
If a God was to sit down and ponder the problem of epistemology and wonder whether it does not everything or not, it would realize that it has no way to verify that this is true. How does it know it knows everything? It merely thinks it does. The God has no test, method or possibility of finding out if it does indeed know everything. In short, it does not and cannot know if this is true. God does not know if itself is omniscient or not. God therefore does not know everything and is not omniscient.
Omnipotent:
If god exists, and it's said to be omnipotent "all powerfull" then his power is beyond limits, thus if god can create a rock that he himself cannot lift, then god is not all powerfull, for he cannot create the rock, nor can he lift the rock if he did create it. "I know this one is been debated and rehashed many times however it's the quick one I could think off"

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Omnipresent:
This one here is real simple, if god is said to be present in every situation, then he is a criminal. If there's a horible crime like incest with a child happening and it does not intervene he's witness & culpable of aiding and abbeting the rape, god can't possibly be omnipresent; so there's no god.

Godless.

 

If you follow Webster's reconstructionist defintion (who out of his christian bias hacked the true meaning of the word) then atheism could be a contradiction. The problem is that atheism does not mean having faith that there is no God. Webster defines atheist as: "One who believes there is no god".

Yet atheism in it's true koine greek meant: A=away from Theos: god or, Theist: believer in God. Hence, an atheist is actually the state of lack of faith, lack of believe when it comes to deity. In it's root defintion, atheism is not a faith, and that is the definition atheists adhere to, it is the theist that puts atheism in the context of faith.