A False Dilemma, in Atheism

A false dilemma is a type of informal fallacy in which something is falsely claimed to be an "either/or" situation, when in fact there is at least one additional option. (from wiki)

The dilemma presented is usually like this:

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

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.

We do not have enough evidence, individually, to categorically declare one of these possibilities as 'truth!', and dismiss all others. Therefore, this argument is fallacious, based on a false dilemma.

 

I suppose the problem is that not being able to have an authoritative explanation allows so much money to be made on those who seek and need their belief/ non belief.

 

I would say that is the consequence of the issue, not the issue itself..

The possibilities remain, whether money is factored in, or not.

 

Fair enough. You might find that the contrarianism using the false dilemma are chafing against the profit motive though...

 

Sorry but you can take this list as far as your imagination will go:
6. god may have reasons, unknown to us, to not believe in the Easter Bunny

 

I suppose that is another fallacy, if 'profit motive' is suggested for the Only, Real reason for belief in God..

Basic possibility is all that is examined, here, not every specific imagination.

But your addition does not refute or nullify the above possibilities. There are more than 2 possibilities, for silence from God. It is not just,

'Unless God speaks to me, personally, He does not exist!'

That is the false dilemma. There can be other possibilities for God not speaking to someone, personally, or revealing Himself to them.

 

This is rather an educated line of reasoning which is fallacious. Humans never never never rely on evidence to get to a truth. Humans (in majority) rely on faith in credibility of testimonies to get to a truth. We know for a fact that black holes exist not because they are evident to us (99% humans). We know for a fact that black holes exist because our scientists are reliable and credible source of information (of science).

We trust that our media such CNN don't fake news (disregarding what Trump claimed). It's from their credibility that we get to know the current occurrences of this world. It's the reporters to dig up the evidence for the rest of 99% humans to believe with faith!

That's how this reality operates.

That said.

1) God has to hide behind because men have to be saved by faith, in accordance to the final covenant between God and men. When God is empirically evident, men have to live in hell forever (theologically so, not trying argue about this point).
2) If God doesn't show up at all to any humans, then humans don't even know that a hell is lying ahead and a salvation is available.
3) As a result, God has to show up to the chosen witnesses (God's CNN) for His truth to convey. This is the only way.

We humans don't have serious testimonies about a Easter bunny. However 10 out of the 11 direct disciples of Jesus martyred themselves as a testimony to testify the truth of Jesus.

 

Good points. I would present the 'black hole' example thusly:

"People believe black holes exist because of the trust in the credibility of experts, not because of experiential or empirical evidence."

'Science!' is not really a factor, in the belief of black holes. We have theories, based on assumptions, observations, and plausibility, but that is not empirical science. It is the 'credibility of experts', and the opinions of those we deem to be knowledgeable, that compels our conclusions, not anything empirical in science.

Perhaps this is a fine point, and relates more to general epistemology, than the topic.

 

And the credibility of our "experts" is diminishing over time.

 

There may be a god, who knows? One thing I am fairly certain about; anyone who claims to know for sure what god wants is a loon.

 

That may be a personal extrapolation, but it does not invalidate the claim. I do not follow how you can be 'certain!' of what is a subjective opinion about the perceptions of others.

Nobody is claiming anything about God, here, other than the possibility of His existence.

 

Here's one for you:

"Unless God reveals himself to me, I have no obligation to conform to the demands imposed by a God of a specific nature" That means not submitting to the god introduced to you by your parents or a man with an ancient tome.

 

While I'm sure there are atheists who think this, the main force behind atheism is not based on this assumption.

In practice, most atheists are not so concerned with the straight up question of "is there a god?" as with the question "are we justified in believing there is a god?" (after all, humans decide whether they believe in God, not whether there is a god). This is in essence because in practice, there are very few interesting ideas which actually rely on God not existing, they merely rely on the normally presented understandings to be unjustifiable. Not a lot of people are saying "God's existence has not been proven, so he does not exist", most are saying "God's existence has not been proven so we have no reason to believe that God exists".

The latter does not equate Christianity to something like 2+2=5, but it does put it on par with for instance all other religions.

 

Once you get into the "what-ifs," the list becomes endless.
Which is why I'm a comfortable agnostic. I don't know and am comfortable with the fact that I don't know. I don't need to rationalize not knowing. It is what it is.

 

And well you should be.

I do. Most likely you have that knowledge as well, but lost consciousness of it thanks to your early conditioning.

What's loony about claiming to know God wants everyone to obey the two Great Commandments?

 

I have only singled out this specific 'argument', that is commonly used, in the public discourse. It was not my intent, obviously, to 'prove!' the existence of God, or Christianity.

But the 'religious' belief of Atheism is not immune from fallacies, as many like to present it.

The BIG Question, "Is there a God?", grips all of humanity, not just atheists. 'Evidence!' for this question is often demanded, by those who conclude, 'No!', to the Question. Lacking personal evidence, as you presented it, they conclude, 'there is no God'.

But this still implies fallacious reasoning. If a person lacks personal information for something, how can they conclude something so dogmatically? When the majority of human beings, in every culture, era, and region have concluded, "God!", how can a personal lack compel a conclusion of, 'No God!'?

The evidence of human consensus, the possibility of a Creator, the claims of supernatural intervention throughout history.. how can these be dismissed, just because a person has not personally experienced it, themselves?

 

I was just exposing a common argument as a false dilemma. I completely respect other's beliefs.

But the point here is, silence from God does not indicate nonexistence. There may be other reasons that the Creator of the universe has shrouded Himself in mystery.

And, given the likely possibility of a Creator, knowledge of Him could impart significant benefit, for the Big Questions that plague mankind. The quest for God is something to take seriously, as all the Questions in the universe are answered, or at least put to rest, once you clear that spiritual hurdle.

 

Given that the human race has yet to adopt any one concept of "God" beyond the threshold of the efficacy of a placebo (about 18%) is it really a grand stretch of the imagination to conclude that God(s) might be a wishful fallacy?

You don't believe in a God(s) as described by 99% of the worlds religions - why do you think it such a gigantic stretch not to believe in 100%?

 

"Is Bigfoot real"?

I guess if you answer, "Yes", then is that a mystery solved? That's what you're advocating.

 

1. Disbelief in God might also be 'a wishful fallacy.'
2. The specific nature, definition, or description of 'God' is not the issue. 'God' vs 'No God', is the simple dichotomy.

 

• There are perhaps a few who ponder the existence of bigfoot, but not for all of human history, in every culture, region and era.
• The existence (and Nature) of God has obsessed humanity forever, and does not compare with 'bigfoot!' and other such deflections.
• The implications of a Creator have much more personal affectation, than 'bigfoot!'
• If 'bigfoot!' is a person's obsession and belief, why not? No better (or worse) than any other imaginary belief system, including agnosticism.

 

"I do not have enough information to know the answer," is not a belief system. Lol.

 

Thousands of years of no evidence from believers...

 

The OP is a STRAWMAN FALLACY that then spirals downhill into all of the other fallacies that theists always use to dupe themselves into believing something that they cannot substantiate.

Attacking atheists just exposes the weakness of theists and their superstitious beliefs.

 

Can you link me to someone on this forum for instance who have made the argument you address?