This is a total red herring, and your conclusion does not follow at all.

And there are many people that would completely disagree with you. But you believing that you are right does not make it so.

You think this because you already came to your own conclusion of which you think is right.

Using your logic I can say that there are no logical reasons to believe atheism is true. This statement would be no more or less debatable than your statement.

If you are actually interested I will also pull out what else you are assuming that you have no basis for.

This is really bad. Logic cannot prove its own assumptions (and its own structures), and without assumptions there are no logical inferences. (Try to prove the law of the excluded middle, for example.)

You're just challenging the premises at this point. I don't know why you think you need 2-11 if you are going to assert 1, 12, and 13.

It might be helpful to separate out the assertions from the implications. This will help clear up what's going on.

I'm not sure this is true.

Correct, although I have yet to come across someone proficient in logic who found those arguments convincing. If say someone awesome at logic like Madnak, Subfallen, LuckyMe, Tame Deuces or Vhawk found one of those arguments persuasive then I might given it some attention.


Sure I reached some conclusions in my life but they're all tentative. I don't take my beliefs that seriously. I've burned too many times in the past to be that foolish any more. I always keep an open mind.


I'm not sure this makes sense. Atheism = nonbelief in a God(s). What does truth have to do with it? I would think nonbelief is the only logical position since AFAIK there is no logical proof of the existence of God. The fact that many gullible people think there is doesn't sway me.


Yes I'm interested.

from a formal logic standpoint, this is pretty bad.

6 and 7 need to be argued for, they're not givens.

also, 8 doesnt follow. just because god created logic, doesnt mean he wants you to follow logic. got created satan afterall. and your proof kinda hinges on 8, along with an admission that there are no logical proofs for god. but believers will not grant you that.

its like the Reverse Pascals Wager I invented a while ago. you owe me $10 Madnak

Part of the reason you think those guys are awesome is that they reject arguments for the existence of God. Just sayin'.

a better logical proof of why theists should proceed with extreme caution:

1. God has a plan for everyone.
.:. a) God had a plan for every person who lived an awful life.
.:. b) God had a plan for every person that died a horrible death.

2. More people have lived awful lives and died horrible deaths than otherwise. (assumption of mine, which I think is a safe bet)

3. God has a plan for you! (follows from 1.)
.:. God's plan for you is more likely than not to live an awful life/die a horrible death.

I have no idea why people are comforted by the idea that God has a plan for them.

Ha! I'd like to believe you're wrong.

Seriously though, I've seen all those guys demonstrate a high aptitude in logic on various other topics that had nothing to do with God. Which is why if any of them were to find one of the existence of God arguments plausible, my eyebrows would rise in interest.

+1

Sort of similar to how I've always found the lyrics to "All You Need Is Love" incredibly sinister and depressing. Though I've had better luck persuading people on that score than on this.

Ha! I love this!

Dragon I would be interested in hearing your "Reverse Pascals Wager" argument if it's easy for you to replicate.

Please elaborate!

How are the lyrics sinister and depressing?

*This, IMO, is the lyric that got John Lennon killed. Witness the motif throughout Catcher in the Rye of 'phonies' who just 'play the game' - when he shot Lennon, Chapman was carrying a copy of the novel and read excerpts from it at his trial. He felt that Lennon was 'a phony'.

End of sidetrack, anyway. Proceed, all.

According to your own personal definition of atheism. I guess that I should have clarified. "there is no logical reason to believe that God does not exist"

As far as the rest, as I pointed out before, just because you do not find something convincing does not mean that it is not logical or incorrect. And the amount of people that are convinced by a logical argument does not effect the logical/illogical nature of the argument.

Aaron W pointed this out. I am not sure why it is here at all. You set it up as a premise, then try and refute it in your conclusion. I would just get rid of it.

I am not sure what this has to do with anything. You seem to have just stuck that in there as it really does not have any bearing on your point. This seems more like a second argument. Maybe I am just missing the point though.

You showed no real support for this. Who said that Logic is God's order in the world? Or that it is the only order that can exist? I can easily say that part of God's order is the law of love, and that it superceeds the law of logic. You also seem to define what you say God's order is after you make the statement that going against God's order goes against his will. If anything you should flip these as they both seem to be premises anyway.

Nice analysis! I definitely see the connection to "Catcher in the Rye" that you pointed out. You've convinced me these lyrics are sinister and depressing. If someone disagrees I'd like to hear their rebuttal.

I agree, but that statement is not the same as "There is no logically valid reason to believe in a God(s). I do not believe that God does not exist because that would be irrational. I am agnostic to that claim.

I agree, that's why a healthy dose of skepticism is important for all.

Yes I agree with this too.

No, the whole point of the logical parody is I must start from God exists. And no where did I try to refute the existence of God.

The goal I'm trying to achieve is to get from "God created logic" to "being illogical will piss God off" to "God is more likely to punish those who piss him off" I failed miserably at accomplishing this goal. I think Madnak's rendition is the best answer so far.

Madnak will have to address these issues since they apply to his version.

yes there is.

we have no evidence. nonbelief in the face of no evidence is the most logical course of action sir.

its not really an argument, its more of a joke. but its something like...

first take pascals wager. now we can apply it equally to any religion, as the rewards for belief in any god outweigh the small price of believing falsely. but consider that there have been thousands of religions, and tens of thousands of sects. the odds of you hitting the right religion are virtually nil. and the punishment for worshipping a false god in the face of the true god are probably significantly worse than simply nonbelief. therefor you shouldnt believe.

You would have to make an argument that "God's plan" is what actually happened in their lives. This goes back to a free will and God's will type of discussion.

Calvinists will follow you that way, but you'll have a hard time getting others to go with you.

lol

im simply assuming an all powerful god can get his way. i realize thats a huge leap.

if im wrong, your god is impotent

besides, if its perfectly plausible for gods plan to go to shreds, and for his plan to fail for you, again, why would you be comforted by the thought that god has a plan for you?

Ha! Sounds good to me!

Either God is "impotent", or we are. In order for man to have free will, God must restrict the imposition of his own will.

If the coach gives the team a winning game plan, but the team fails to execute it properly and loses, does this automatically imply the coach had a bad game plan?

possibly, you cant rule that out. also, it certainly implies this coach isnt all powerful and all knowing.

ya, according to you. but i think an all powerful god could both give us free will, and have his plans come to fruition.

But your argument would need to be structured differently:

Having a plan and seeing the plan to fruition are two different steps in the chain of inference.

youre just being a nit. i admittedly took it for granted that an all powerful god could have his plans work out the way he wants them to.

Here is some logic for you.



Q. Christian: Do you believe Jesus Christ existed? A. Muslim: Yes

Q. Christian: Do you believe Jesus Christ was a great prophet? A. Muslim: Yes

Q. Christian: I have geard that a prophet speaks the truth and for God isn't that true? A. Muslim: Yes

Q. Christian: Then why do you not believe what Jesus Christ who you agree was a great prophet has said. He said he was the son of God and that God was his Father and that the only way to get to God is by way of him (Jesus Christ)? A. Muslim: Ummmm Ummm, then his head explodes, because he is trapped by his own beliefs that contradict simple plain logic.

Pletho