Padreko Posted April 27, 2006 Share Posted April 27, 2006 My friend gave me this argument and since i'm not good with logic I was unsure of how to respond. A. Athiesm Is Right B. If Athiesm is Right, Then It is Possible to Know God Doesn't Exist. C. It is not possible to know the God Doesn't Exists Con: Athiesm is Wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted April 27, 2006 Share Posted April 27, 2006 B. If Athiesm is Right, Then It is Possible to Know God Doesn't Exist. Doesn't follow. Why does it have to be possible to know it. There could be truths that are right, but we can't know it (or at least not yet). C. It is not possible to know the God Doesn't Exists As of now. It could be true that it is possible to know God exists or not, but not today. As of now we can't prove either. But atheism could be true anyway. Going back to flat earth theory. 2000 years ago they couldn't prove either. But the earth was round anyway. So the truth was there, but it couldn't be proven at that point in time. 2000 year ago: P1) Earth is round P2) If Earth is round, then it is possible to know if the earth is round P3) It is impossible (1 CE) to know if earth is round C) Earth is not round Or put in the theory of atoms (more than 2000 year old concept, but wasn't proven until recently) Or turn the argument around: A. Theism Is Right B. If Theism is Right, Then It is Possible to Know God Does Exist. C. It is not possible to know that God Does Exists Con: Theism is Wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asimov Posted April 27, 2006 Share Posted April 27, 2006 My friend gave me this argument and since i'm not good with logic I was unsure of how to respond. A. Athiesm Is Right B. If Athiesm is Right, Then It is Possible to Know God Doesn't Exist. C. It is not possible to know the God Doesn't Exists Con: Athiesm is Wrong. Well...aside from the unsupported first premise. It's not a reductio ad absurdum because If Atheism is right, then God does not exist, it has nothing to do with possibilities. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted April 27, 2006 Share Posted April 27, 2006 B. If Athiesm is Right, Then It is Possible to Know God Doesn't Exist. To fill up the bucket a bit more: It's also called Non Sequitur (like I said, "Does not follow"). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur_%28logic%29 It is not necessary that it is possible to know that God exists or not, only because there is a God that exists or not. It's assumed that something being right includes the ability to know (or prove) the same. It also assumes that we have the capacity to understand what God is. Our ability to "know" might be too limited to really "know" if God exists or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thurisaz Posted April 28, 2006 Share Posted April 28, 2006 A. Athiesm Is Right Unsupported assertion, but I'll ignore that for the moment because it's (here) just used as a starting point. B. If Athiesm is Right, Then It is Possible to Know God Doesn't Exist. Non sequitur. Pretty obviously a "conclusion" from the propaganda bullshit circulating among the fundie numbnuts, like "evolution teaches that you can become gawd!!1!!!". C. It is not possible to know the God Doesn't Exists True. At least for the Divine in general. The logically impossible judeo-christian monster, however, is another thing altogether. Con: Athiesm is Wrong. Conclusion based on bullshit, hence worthless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueGiant Posted April 28, 2006 Share Posted April 28, 2006 This guy contradicts his own stuff with a slightly different take on the second line. Let Atheism be true. By definition, if Atheism (the belief there is no god) is true, then it would follow that there is no god. The third point then becomes invalid, as if god is a non-existant quantity, then it is not possible to know that it exists, as there would be no existance to know. There is no support in their statements, really not a proof. That third point would be a contradiction, if it had any backing whatsoever, which it doesn't. Oh, and non-sequiturs all over the place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amethyst Posted April 28, 2006 Share Posted April 28, 2006 My friend gave me this argument and since i'm not good with logic I was unsure of how to respond. A. Athiesm Is Right B. If Athiesm is Right, Then It is Possible to Know God Doesn't Exist. C. It is not possible to know the God Doesn't Exists Con: Athiesm is Wrong. My answer would be, why are you using the words right and wrong? Do you mean morally right and morally wrong? If so, why would you assume that any one path is more right or wrong for every single human being? Is it because your pastor told you to or you read it in a 2,000 year-old book that was written before the dawn of science and has things like talking snakes and claims that the earth is only 6,000 years old? Not all paths work for everyone, including Christianity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted April 28, 2006 Share Posted April 28, 2006 To answer Amethyst, the argument is using "hidden" or implied meanings of the word. The right and wrong in the sense of being "true" or "false" etc. Like factual being correct. But it also imply a common definition of God, which can't be established, and not everyone would agree to. Then it implies "possible to know" in step B a knowledge in time of current and future time. While the point C is implying a temporal truth to now only. So the biggest fault in this postulate is that it implies way too many things without real definition. The right/wrong is one of them, temporal truth is one, and definition of God and Atheism is one. Since not even Atheism is just one definition. P1. Carrots are good P2. If Carrots are good, then vegetables are good P3. Some vegetables are not good C. Carrots are not good Must be that carrots don't exists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amethyst Posted April 28, 2006 Share Posted April 28, 2006 To answer Amethyst, the argument is using "hidden" or implied meanings of the word. The right and wrong in the sense of being "true" or "false" etc. Like factual being correct. But it also imply a common definition of God, which can't be established, and not everyone would agree to. Then it implies "possible to know" in step B a knowledge in time of current and future time. While the point C is implying a temporal truth to now only. So the biggest fault in this postulate is that it implies way too many things without real definition. The right/wrong is one of them, temporal truth is one, and definition of God and Atheism is one. Since not even Atheism is just one definition. P1. Carrots are good P2. If Carrots are good, then vegetables are good P3. Some vegetables are not good C. Carrots are not good Must be that carrots don't exists. /me nods. That's what I thought. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caretaker Posted April 28, 2006 Share Posted April 28, 2006 Or turn the argument around: A. Theism Is Right B. If Theism is Right, Then It is Possible to Know God Does Exist. C. It is not possible to know that God Does Exists Con: Theism is Wrong. I was just about to do that..... Well, except put Christianity in place of Theism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted April 28, 2006 Share Posted April 28, 2006 haha, I got faster fingers than Khan! hehe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts