A False Dilemma, in Atheism

As it is to push the religious agenda.

 

I called out a false claim you made concerning science.

Science does not posit a mysterious unobservable force involved with abiogenesis. It's religion that calls out unobservable forces, not science.

You already have your answer for abiogenesis - "God did it".

If you are asking me how first life started, the answer is "I don't know." There are scientists working on that problem, though.

And you KNOW you are WRONG about me ridiculing your religion. Over and over I have said I'm fine with you believing in your god.

So, why are you so upset? Let's figure that out, because this is getting ridiculous.

 

Definitely, you have given the definition of false dilemma. Logic only deals with true, or false (bivalence) values of propositions which exclude everything thing else between truth and false (process, or becoming). Therefore, logic has the rule of principium tertii exclusi, or the "Law of Excluded Middle."

The conditional statement is:

"~" means 'not':

"If ~Prove the X existence, then X is ~Exist."

or,

~Prove --> ~Exist

or

~P --> ~E (If deity cannot be proved to exist, then the deity does not exist).

Which is the same thing as saying: (logical rule of transposition)

E --> P (If a deity exists, then His existence can be proved.)

Does that seem true? Could it be possible a deity could exist and we are completely unable to know it? This could be a justification for agnosticism. Also the word "proof" is a big problem since it is likely to use the mechanical model of the cosmos which Newton gave up. So the antecedent (E) could be true and the consequence (P) false which means the conditional E --> P is false, and its logical equivalent expression ~P --> ~E would also be false.

However, it's a good argument in that it makes one think!

E --> P is actually the Fallacy of Argument from Ignorance. If X cannot be proved false, then one cannot conclude X is true--and the rule holds to the reverse.

But this fallacy is also a kind of false dilemma. We can convert E --> P to a either/or disjunctive proposition using material implication:

The wedge "V" symbol means "either/or" disjunction.

~E v P (Either the deity does not exist, or His existence can be proved) which sounds like hubris to me.

I am a non-theist so options 1 to 3 are circular arguments for me, but I like 4 and 5. Constructing these kinds of arguments is how you learn logic.

 

See what you did there?

 

"unable to know" as in "unknowable." Not that one does not know, but could know if X is true, if X is justified, and X is believed (Justified True Belief Theory of Knowledge, Plato).

 

So you're oblivious to the distinction between knowing something and being able to prove it. Got that about right, haven't I?

 

I have no "rationale for non existence". The term is a fallacious oxymoron.

I do have an understanding that god is not a necessary ingredient of the universe's energy cycle, though. Did he create that cycle? Beats the hell outta me. Frankly that was 14.6 billion years ago, so if your god did create it, he's been dining out on that parlor trick for far too long.

 

I just find the first four options, while technically possible, far far far less likely than option 5.

Also the major religious texts all describe a God that is active in the world. So even if one of the first four options were true, they still all disqualify the God of the Bible or Quran.

It's also a matter of the nature of belief. Lack of belief isn't an affirmative denial of existence. It can be, but it can also be a suspendment of judgement until there is better evidence.

I'm an Atheist, but I only don't believe in God the same way I don't believe in Alien visitation to earth. If Aliens showed up tomorrow, I would believe.

If God gave a weather forecast from the sky tomorrow morning, I'd believe. Until then I'm just a skeptic by default, so to speak.

I'd also like to add that if one of the first four options were true, they all leave a great deal of ambiguity about the nature of God and tell us nothing about the actual important question, the existence or non existence of an afterlife. I dont see that the existence of a God that doesn't interact with the world or even reveal himself to anybody (or only to a select few) to even be important at all. So what if such a thing existences? Literally everything else has more effect on my life, by definition.

 

I think you are oblivious to the fact I made the distinction between proof and knowing a number of times. Knowing is by definition (JTB) being able to give a justification otherwise it is a guess which is not knowledge. Also, "proof" based on the mechanical model of nature has failed even in physics (Newton). In post 280 I wrote, "Also the word "proof" is a big problem since it is likely to use the mechanical model of the cosmos which Newton gave up." So you have no coherent critique.

 

Lol. People on internet forums are obsessed with logical fallacies. Nobody else cares.

 

Good post. I was beginning to despair of anyone presenting logical progressions and arguments.

Thank you for renewing my faith in humanity!



The central point here, is that a lack of PERSONAL EVIDENCE, does not compel a conclusion of non existence.

Empirical evidence is lacking, in any 'God/no God' belief, so either position, as a premise, is a statement of belief, or faith.

I like your shorthand, but fear many will gloss over it. But i could follow it, and it was very clear and logical. I wish i could express these things as easily.

Both,
'no empirical evidence of God' = 'no God'

And,
'No empirical evidence against God = 'God!'

..Are flawed conclusions, based on ignorance. A LACK of evidence cannot compel a conclusion... 'I don't know', is the only rational one, based on ignorance. To declare a conclusion of knowledge based only on ignorance is the height of hubris.

Now, going to PERSONAL evidence, which does not have the burden of empiricism, the arguments differ, in the positive conclusions.

Personal evidence of God = God!

..at least that is a possibility, to that person. There is another possibility:

Personal evidence = delusion

Wishful thinking, imagination, suggestion, or other factors may have deluded the individual into believing their personal evidence, whatever it is, was a Real Thing, when in fact, it was not. But who can make that determination? An ignorant 3rd party, with no personal evidence? Another 'personal evidence' claimant, who is possibly deluded themselves?

The flawed ASSUMPTION, that is made by the 'no evidence = no God' debaters, is that ALL personal evidence is a delusion. Any positive belief in God is automatically dismissed as a delusion. But this presumes knowledge of Reality, that these persons cannot have, and it is based on the flawed false conclusion that,

'no evidence = no God'

The only logical conclusion would be:

'I, personally, have no evidence of God, and cannot conclude anything. I cannot make conclusions on the nature of the universe based on ignorance.'

This would be rational. But instead, a great number of the more militant atheists dogmatically assert:

'no evidence = no God!'

..based ONLY on a lack of personal evidence. And further, they categorically dismiss ALL positive claims of personal evidence as delusions.. another assumption based only on ignorance, or worse, prejudice.

Regarding my list of 'other possibilities' for God's obscurity:

But, there are other possibilities, not just the 'either/or' of this dilemma.

1. God may have reasons, unknown to us, for not presenting a conspicuous presence.
2. God may reveal to some, but leave others wondering.
3. The Majesty and holiness of God may be too much for sinful man to observe, so God waits, to give opportunity to be reconciled.
4. Something has blinded the awareness of humans, so they are unable to grasp the obvious.
5. God does not reveal Himself, because He does not exist.

These are not arguments 'For God!', but only list other possibilities not considered in the false dilemma.

The dilemma presented is usually like this: 'If you cannot prove God's existence, then He does not exist!'

The obvious possibilities of other things exposes and invalidates this argument as a false dilemma.

 

Perhaps you misunderstood the point. These are not arguments, but possibilities to refute the false dilemma.

'If you cannot prove God's existence, then He does not exist!'

The other 4 are possibilities, so it is not an 'either/or' dilemma. There can be multiple other possibilities, including the ones iisted:

1. God may have reasons, unknown to us, for not presenting a conspicuous presence.
2. God may reveal to some, but leave others wondering.
3. The Majesty and holiness of God may be too much for sinful man to observe, so God waits, to give opportunity to be reconciled.
4. Something has blinded the awareness of humans, so they are unable to grasp the obvious.
5. God does not reveal Himself, because He does not exist.

 

Rtf

I think the problem with this is two fold. One, it gives a special privledge to the idea of God (or even the Judeo-Christian-Islamo God) with no real explanation as to why this idea should be given more credence than others.

Consider for a moment all the multitudes of things you don't believe in that could qualify under the same set of logic.

I don't want to do the usual internet atheist tripe of comparing God to something ridiculous, but I (and presumably you) don't believe in all kinds of things simply because there isn't enough evidence for them.

Also I think the idea that one can't conclude anything about the nature of the universe is false. There is one important conclusion that justifies atheism. The universe doesn't need a God to function. Humans have attained enough knowlege about the universe to conclude that it certain can function without God. Combine that with a physical lack of one and you arent making these conclusions based on ignorance at all.

I think that brings me to my second important point. The nature of belief. Let's take the tea kettle in space example. You and I both don't believe there is a tea kettle in space. But if someone took a video of it we would both believe.

Lack of belief In God is like that for me. Its not an active state. It's a state of waiting. I'm waiting for evidence. Which I think if God were real the evidence wouldn't be some sort of philosophical argument, but physical evidence. Like you'd have for an elephant at the least.

It just doesn't make sense to me that the most powerful being in the universe has the least evidence for its existence, when the trends for literally everything else is reverse of that.

 

Simply put, God Exists in the minds of many but not in the minds of many others. The logical path in this is to accept your own belief and disregard the other. Thing is only one of these choices directs you to push the other for conversion.....this is where conflict comes from because most people do not want the imposition into belief. Then Christians (as it ALWAYS is) get defensive when someone types back, and calls them militant.

 

I understand. But having other possibilities doesn't refute anything.

You believe in tea kettles.

1. Tea kettles may be the product of demonic influence clouding our mind.

2. God may be tricking man kind into thinking they exisit for some unknown purpose

3. Alien holographic technology too advanced for us to understand is tricking us I to believing in tea kettles

4. Tea kettles exist

The simply fact that other options may exist doesn't mean we should live in a perpetual state of agnosticism about God, tea kettles or anything else. It's perfectly valid to make up ones mind about things, even if other possibilities exist.

So I can look at the different possibilities and say 'this one seems most likely to me, based on my personal knowledge and how I view the universe'

 

It seems to me that if this god is unknowable, not interacting with his alleged creations, showing zero interest in humanity, why bother with it? If real, a waste of time. If not real, not worth discussing.

 

Kinda like death....who knows when or how it happens so why spend your life stressing about it. The difference being we all know death is real.

 

I agree mostly. Not that its necessarily a waste of time, but that it really isn't an important question. People talk so much of God only because they've tied the existence of God to the truly important question, the moratality of the self.

For some reason people use the discussion of God as some sort of proxy to the question: do we exisit forever or is death final. Its a far more important question when it comes to how we should live a life.

 

I disagree!

Death is inevitable for all of us.

No one knows if there is anything after death.

If this is all we have them being the best person you can be is all there is so make the most of being a good person.

If there is an afterlife then you have no regrets about the life you have lived and if there isn't you have left a legacy of the good that you did for others.

However if you spent your life in the expectation that there was another and there is none then you have wasted the only life you had.

The former makes more sense to me than the latter.

 

Oh I agree completely with that. Thats why the mortality or immortality of the self after death is far more relevant to how we should live then the exisistence of some hypothetical God that doesn't interact with thw universe in anyway that I can tell.

Edit: but that doesn't mean that there is zero relevance to the exisitence of God or not. If we discovered a God that would be an incredible discovery. I'd immediately want to know a bunch of things about such a being.

 

Something every Person should know when arguing with the alleged Religious:

 

You and I both!

No one has ever been born knowing about having some prior existence on this earth or another planet or even another dimension for that matter.

The odds are if there is an afterlife we will arrive there with no knowledge of whatever we just did in this life.

That makes the exercise of speculating about an afterlife pointless IMO.

 

No special privilege. How do you conclude that?

There ARE people who claim a personal encounter with the supernatural. They claim personal knowledge of this mystery. And it is widespread, in the history of humanity. The specifics may vary, or the perspective given, but they all point to a distinct possibility of a supernatural dimension.

The 'no God' believers have only 'non-experience' as the basis for their conclusion.

IOW, the 'evidence', such as it is, overwhelmingly favors a 'God' belief, over a 'no God' one. It is not empirical, but it is there.

This ASSUMES that the evidence that the believers in the supernatural have are all delusions. How can one make that universal assessment? Presumption of delusion? Based on personal ignorance, incredulity, or prejudice?

I would not say, 'Anything!', but the Big Question, 'Is there a Creator/God?' cannot be concluded by empirical evidence. So asserting, 'There is no God!', is a conclusion based on belief, or prejudice. It is not an evidentiary based conclusion.

Your statement, 'Humans have attained enough knowlege about the universe to conclude that it certain can function without God.' is a belief, not an empirical fact. We certainly DON'T KNOW enough about the universe to assume that.

This goes back to the difference between empirical and personal 'evidence'.

You could also use the teapot analogy with black holes. Have you seen one? Can they be analyzed by scientific methodology? Are they not real, then?

This is a rational position, imo. Personal evidence SHOULD be required for something so significant to our lives, with so many implications for our existence. The flaw in this thread, is concluding, 'No God!', based only on incredulity and/or ignorance.

Looking for, and waiting on better and more information is a rational, intelligent strategy, for someone seeking Truth.

There can be many reasons that God has not presented a conspicuous presence. A conclusion of, 'No God!' is a fallacy.

 

Exactly. We all know of non-existence. It was what it was like before we were born. Everything seems to have a beginning and an end. What hubris does man have to think that we are going to this being without end? It makes no sense to me.

 

Cicero is one of favorite philosophers.

https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/78...s-making-century-after-century-believing-that

The last is mistake is one that theists seem to make more often than others in my experience.