List of common fallacies of Atheists

[Watchman]

Frankly, yeah it would be easy, since it wouldn’t be much of a transition for me (in terms of personal behavior). Indeed, given the fact I rarely drink (and the few times I do it’s always responsibly), don’t smoke, don’t sleep around or put myself at risk through irresponsible sex, and sustain a highly productive tempo in life would give me far more license to take on a holier than vow attitude compared to most theists I’ve encountered.

However, I don’t take a holier than thou attitude (while most theists, who are by most standards screwed up in terms of their personal behavior, are the most judgmental nit wits I’ve ever come across). So not only do I behave myself better than most Christians, but I also don’t harshly judge lapses in personal behavior by others (obviously within reason). In other words I’m naturally more Christian than Christians, even though I don’t believe in ancient mythological tales of rising dead men.

Again, I’m not sure why you are responding to me about “holier than thou” attitudes. But it’s good to hear you say how easy it would be for you to convert. I’ll keep praying.

 

[reggieM]

that’s absurd logic?

No, it’s correct logic.

how old are you? This sounds too absurd to be coming from an adult (at least a rational, educated adult).

Well, let’s just say that you have no familiarity with philosophical argumentation so perhaps it’s unfair for me to try to teach you.

But we can try again – please explain the “absurdity” of the logical proof that I provided. Thus far, you’ve provided no response. How could you refute it when you don’t even know what it means? So, that does seem unfair.

To be more fair, I’ll help you a little bit with how to analyze a logical proof.

First, you should read the proof carefully.
Then, you should try to understand what it means. (You can ask me to explain anything you don’t understand – which in this case means the entire proof).
Then, you could attempt to find a flaw in the argument, if possible.
If yoiu find one, then you could let me know about that.

Asking me my age merely proves that you are way over your head in this discussion and you’re seeking some kind of personal insult in order to feel like you’ve got something to contribute.

So again – the logical position I offered stands unless you can refute it.

Quickly again –

If the existence of God is possible, then God must necessarily exist.

The property we call “possible to exist” is something, that if applied to God – logically and necessarily means that God must exist.

So, if you propose that it is possible for God to exist, it would be illogical to refuse to accept that God then necessarily exists.

It is in the nature of God to be a necessary being – all-knowing, all-powerful and the maximum perfection of all greatness.

Are you claiming that it is impossible for God to exist?

If so, what proof do you offer?

 

[yankee_doodle]

If the existence of God is possible, then God must necessarily exist.

The property we call “possible to exist” is something, that if applied to God – logically and necessarily means that God must exist.

So, if you propose that it is possible for God to exist, it would be illogical to refuse to accept that God then necessarily exists.

no, because they’re two distinct assertions. A) a god might exist; or B) god necessarily exists.

It is not true that someone who asserts A cannot logically object to someone who asserts B.

I might say I’ve heard some metaphysical arguments (i.e. causation arguments) that at least cannot be proven wrong. Therefore, there’s a hypothetical possibility (even if remote) a creator of some sort may exist. However, I can at the same time point to numerous inconsistencies, historical patterns, arguments from incredulity, etc. that create serious credibility problems for theistic claims.

It is in the nature of God to be a necessary being – all-knowing, all-powerful and the maximum perfection of all greatness.

Are you claiming that it is impossible for God to exist?

I stand by my assertion … your logic is absurd (pseudo-philosophy).

 

[Charles_Darwin]

You accuse others of being silly and then you produce one of the silliest arguments I have ever come across in my life!
You equate getting “the biggest charge out of the food source” with intelligence!!!

Did you even bother to read the article?

 

[Charles_Darwin]

Hi Bryan,

I don’t question the evolution of intelligence per se, I question the origins of intelligence in that how does non-matter become suddenly conscious? I believe like the robots we were initially programmed and thus from that point on our intelligence evolved.

God bless.

That is also i very interesting question, though it is not one that that experiment seeked to answer.

 

[reggieM]

no, because they’re two distinct assertions. A) a god might exist; or B) god necessarily exists.

No, there is one assertion: It is possible that God exists.
That God therefore necessarily exists is not an assertion, but a conclusion arrived at through logical deduction.

Again – you offer nothing by means of refutation of this logical proposition. I’m very sure that you don’t even understand it.
At the same time, you dismiss the evidence without comprehending it.

It is not true that someone who asserts A cannot logically object to someone who asserts B.

I hope I’ve helped you to understand the difference between the assertion and the conclusion that follows from the logical reasoning.

Therefore, there’s a hypothetical possibility (even if remote) a creator of some sort may exist.

That is very good to hear. Because otherwise, you would have to say that it is impossible for God to exist. Now the premise is that God, as understood in Catholic terms, is possible. Not “some kind of creator” but God as understood as the first cause, omniscient, perfect, creator. By definition, God is the maximal greatness that can be conceived.

However, I can at the same time point to numerous inconsistencies, historical patterns, arguments from incredulity, etc. that create serious credibility problems for theistic claims.

By pointing to these things, you’re not dealing with the argument as given.

Again, if it is possible that God, who is the maximal excellence possible (by definition) does exist – then God necessarily exists.

If it is possible that God exists, then there is a possible world where God exists. You might say that it is not our world, but some other world.
But if God exists in some possible world, then – since God is the maximal greatness that can be conceived – God must exist in all possible worlds (since if God was limited to just one of many possible worlds, that would be a limitation).

If God was not perfect, then God would be lacking a perfection that could only be provided by something other than God. Thus, God would be a contingent being (and thus, not God).

There could be no conditions under which God could be “merely possible” that would not absolutely yeild to the necessity of God’s existence?

For example, if it was said – “God’s existence would only be possible if there was a specific collection of neutrons existing on a planet” – obviously, any statement like that would be absurd because it would mean that God’s existence would be dependent on some features of nature – and thus, God would be contingent on nature, and thus imperfect and dependent (and therefore not God at all).

I stand by my assertion … your logic is absurd (pseudo-philosophy).

Your assertion is what it is – an assertion offered without any logical support or evidence.
Again, you’re dismissing evidence that you haven’t taken the time to understand.

I hope that your bias is not so strong that you would reject matters that you haven’t really thought about deeply enough.

 

[yankee_doodle]

No, there is one assertion: It is possible that God exists.
That God therefore necessarily exists is not an assertion, but a conclusion arrived at through logical deduction.

Again – you offer nothing by means of refutation of this logical proposition.

In logic every argument is composed of two basic elements, or two different type of statements: The “premise” and “conclusion” statement. I earlier commented on these two statements:

A) god might exist;
B) god necessarily exists

Both can be premise statements. For instance, we cannot prove god doesn’t exist therefore god might exist. However, you’re saying:

God might exist therefore god necessarily exists.

The obvious problem is very simply the structure of your argument. B does not follow from A. Here’s an analogy of your argument:

Flying unicorns might have existed in the past therefore flying unicorns necessarily existed in the past.

In fact unicorns are a mythological figure (even mentioned in the bible, see Numbers 23:22, 24:8, etc.). So you can’t refute the premise (unicorns may have existed in the past). You might call it an absurd argument (since we’ve never recovered any unicorn fossils or anything else to indicate they ever existed). However, this is no more a reductio ad absurdum (reduction to the absurd) than your argument. Your conclusion is self-contradictory, or logically absurd. If god necessarily exists then it’s false to say god might exist. The term “might” expresses possibility or contingency. It negates certitude.

I’m very sure that you don’t even understand it.
At the same time, you dismiss the evidence without comprehending it.

OK

I hope I’ve helped you to understand the difference between the assertion and the conclusion that follows from the logical reasoning.

no, you’ve helped me realize that I’m probably talking to a child who just found dad’s old logic book

 

[reggieM]

no, you’ve helped me realize that I’m probably talking to a child who just found dad’s old logic book

Four posts later and not even a feeble attempt to refute the logic. Instead, while clearly lacking any understanding of the matter – you prefer to use personal insults and attempt to give me lessons in logic.

This exchange should be helpful to anyone who mistakenly thinks that it is worthwhile trying to discuss serious issues with you.

For myself – I’m done. The point stands, remarkably well, unchallenged and thus far, with zero indication that you understand what the argument says.

 

[yankee_doodle]

Four posts later and not even a feeble attempt to refute the logic. Instead, while clearly lacking any understanding of the matter – you prefer to use personal insults and attempt to give me lessons in logic.

This exchange should be helpful to anyone who mistakenly thinks that it is worthwhile trying to discuss serious issues with you.

For myself – I’m done. The point stands, remarkably well, unchallenged and thus far, with zero indication that you understand what the argument says.

I’ve refuted your logic (there was never any “logic” to begin with). You can march away stamping your feet; but it doesn’t help make your argument any less absurd. It was by it’s structure technically absurd (that’s how your form of argument is actually termed in formal logic. Sorry I didn’t invent logic ).

**although I should say that the term might “inferentially” negates certitude, since the general usually encompasses the particular.

 

[reggieM]

If god necessarily exists then it’s false to say god might exist.

The premise was that God might exist – not that God necessarily exists.
A being of maximal greatness, because it has the maxium greatness and perfection, must exist in all possible worlds.
If it is possible for God to exist, then there is a possible world where God exists.
If God exists in one possible world, then God must exist in all possible worlds – since that is required by a being of maximal greatness (God cannot be limited to one of many worlds).

Your mention of “unicorns” merely proves that you don’t understand the argument. A unicorn is not a being of maximal greatness and perfection and therefore cannot be God.

 

[yankee_doodle]

The premise was that God might exist – not that God necessarily exists.
A being of maximal greatness, because it has the maxium greatness and perfection, must exist in all possible worlds.
If it is possible for God to exist, then there is a possible world where God exists.
If God exists in one possible world, then God must exist in all possible worlds – since that is required by a being of maximal greatness (God cannot be limited to one of many worlds).

Your mention of “unicorns” merely proves that you don’t understand the argument. A unicorn is not a being of maximal greatness and perfection and therefore cannot be God.

OK but this isn’t formal logic. You initially made the following statement:

God might exist therefore god necessarily exists.

Of course in this context the statement god might exist is the premise, and god necessarily exists the conclusion. My point is in formal logic your conclusion is self-contradictory and absurd (B doesn’t follow from A, in fact B negates A).

But if I understand you correctly your not applying the rules of formal logic, your using some other system? My contention is (if in fact you’re using some other valid system, and not just playing word games because you don’t like non-theists) the system you’re relying on is so structurally flawed that the only rational response is to define its fallacy.

 

[DavidHume]

Except a God that exists is logically no greater than a God that does not exist.

If I have four real apples and four imaginary oranges, is the “four” that applies to my real apples somehow greater than the “four” imaginary oranges? No; they are equal.

Existence is not a property.

 

[DavidHume]

But if I understand you correctly your not applying the rules of formal logic, your using some other system? My contention is (if in fact you’re using some other valid system, and not just playing word games because you don’t like non-theists) the system you’re relying on is so structurally flawed that the only rational response is to define its fallacy.

He’s rehashing a discredited thousand-year-old musing of Anselm.

Pro tip: when Aquinas and Hume both think your argument is bogus, your argument is probably bogus.

 

[reggieM]

Except a God that exists is logically no greater than a God that does not exist.

A God that does not exist cannot possess the property of maximal greatness – in fact, it cannot possess any properties.

Maximal greatness is a property.

Are your four imaginary oranges greater than the four real apples?

 

[yankee_doodle]

He’s rehashing a discredited thousand-year-old musing of Anselm.

Pro tip: when Aquinas and Hume both think your argument is bogus, your argument is probably bogus.

I just looked it up, I think Immanuel Kant dealt with this argument as well.

 

[reggieM]

a … thousand-year-old musing of Anselm.

He had never seen or heard of it before and claimed it was “absurd” without even understanding it.

Again, are you proposing that four imaginary oranges possess the same greatness as four real apples?

If so, I have 4 imaginary diamonds I will sell you for the price of four real ones.

 

[reggieM]

I just looked it up, I think Immanuel Kant dealt with this absurd argument as well.

Maybe you should consult your Dad’s logic book and learn about it.

 

[yankee_doodle]

Maybe you should consult your Dad’s logic book and learn about it.

dude, stop trying to play philosopher

 

[yankee_doodle]

He had never seen or heard of it before and claimed it was “absurd” without even understanding it.

just because I never studied the musing of Anselm doesn’t mean I didn’t understand the absurdity of your argument.

 

[DavidHume]

He had never seen or heard of it before and claimed it was “absurd” without even understanding it.

Again, are you proposing that four imaginary oranges possess the same greatness as four real apples?

Correct. There are four of each.

If so, I have 4 imaginary diamonds I will sell you for the price of four real ones.

No thanks, I don’t need any imaginary things.