If we can pause the semantic nonsense for a minute, atheism is simply a rejection of the completely bonkers claim that there's a recognisably intelligent, non-human entity responsible for creating the universe and for whom a minority of humans (pick the minority) have a special significance. Atheism as a response is just as valid as ajabberwockyism.
This debate underhandedly tries to debunk atheism through clever word play. It is, at best, the equivalent of saying your refusal to believe in invisible pink munchkins is illogical. Logically provable, but an utterly useless stand point.
Wait! We need to define and prove logic first.
Yes, we should. It seems like there is a lot of misunderstandings going around. The link below will bring you to a set of online materials for a logic class that I took at UCSD. The more salient lessons are: 2 (Arguments, statements, and recursion pg 4-5), and 13 (For appeal to ignorance, pg 1). Basically, the point is that Mahollinder is right. At its core, Atheism is illogical because it rests on the claim that God doesn't exist. The argument for Atheism goes like this: 1. There is no proof of God. 2. Therefore, God does not exist. 3. Therefore, Atheism is the logical religion. However, the statement "There is no proof of God" cannot be proven or disproven: it is an argument from ignorance. You cannot logically use it to argue a position, because more often than not, you can use that same fact to argue the opposite point. Example: The argument for God's Existence: 1. Nobody has proven that God doesn't exist. 2. Therefore, God must exist. The whole debate over "logical" is also won by Mahollinder. If you read the second lecture, there are two parts to a deductive argument: Validity and Soundness. Validity simply means that the argument makes logical sense. His example of "All birds have feathers. Penguins do not have feathers. Therefore penguins are not birds" is valid, since it makes logical sense. However, it fails the second test, which is soundness. Soundness means that all the premises (The statements you use to derive your conclusion) are all true. Obviously, penguins have feathers, so his argument, while valid, is not sound. A deductive argument must pass both tests of validity and soundness to be true, so his argument is overall false, although it does pass the test of validity. Hope this helps.
Mahollinder is not correct, you have not proved that atheism is illogical, only that the argument "There is no proof of God." is an argument from ignorance. That doesn't, ipso facto, make atheism illogical. You are falling into the assumption that because one possible argument is illogical that the subject must then also be illogical.
This debate is illogical. And very, very stupid.
Atheism is illogical in the sense that any denial of god, whether of the weak or strong variety inherently appeals to ignorance. So atheism is literally illogical. But atheism certainly is rational. If there is no evidence present for some "thing" existing, then it's rational to disbelieve in the existence of that thing.
What a load of rubbish. Logic is all about using correct and valid reasoning. Evidence, observation, and all logical conjuncture points to atheism as the most logical reasoning. "...any denial of god, whether of the weak or strong variety inherently appeals to ignorance" Not when you consider, as God is unprovable and undisprovable, that the concept of God occupies infinite space. If God can be anything and everything, the moment you define God, you pluck one of the infinite versions out of that infinite space and into the finite regions. With infinite Gods to choose from, when you define God, logic (and probability) states that you are most definately wrong. So, the only logical thing to do here is to pick the most probablistic and evidential stance, which is that of Atheism. That's just one single reason why you're wrong (One of many).
Posted 152 days ago | Tagged As: Atheism is the only logical position
"What a load of rubbish. Logic is all about using correct and valid reasoning." Yes and no. Not all logical arguments are valid, hence inductive arguments, which are sound or unsound and not valid or invalid. Validity only arises when we are considering deductive propositional logic. "If God can be anything and everything, the moment you define God, you pluck one of the infinite versions out of that infinite space and into the finite regions. With infinite Gods to choose from, when you define God, logic (and probability) states that you are most definately wrong." Unless you define god as everything existent, at which point you are definitely correct. The fact that one could hypothetically draw any definition of god into the semantic realm is ultimately a moot point to introduce here. "That's just one single reason why you're wrong (One of many)." Considering that I'm not, point them out.
I see what we're doing here really is squibling over the definition of logic. "Validity only arises when we are considering deductive propositional logic." You've taken what I said out of context. I talked about valid reasoning (which is different to a valid proof), which is exactly what an inductive argument is all about. I can use logical premises, evidence, observation, etc, to come to a logical conclusion about the existance of god. This is different to the validity of a formal proof which you appear to be talking about. The point I'm making would be that through inductive reasoning, Atheism is a far more logical approach to take than believing in a god. To say that Atheism is illogical due to the lack of absolute evidence to negate the existance of god is, quite frankly, missing the point. I've made an informed decision, not simply chosen to be an Athiest out of ignorance. "Unless you define god as everything existent, at which point you are definitely correct." Why? It's another pinpointed definition which has an equally probable chance of being as wrong as any other definition of god. Allowing your belief to embrace all possiblities keeps it in the infinite space. Like I said, once you define it, probability states you're wrong (non-zero, but highly highly probable). "Considering that I'm not, point them out." You're trying to make the point that being an atheist is as illogical as believing in a god, and you are on that count wrong. There is no evidence for a god... none at all. I'm sure you're aware of how inductive logic could take the specific proposition "there is no evidence for god" and form the general proposition "there is no god." Then there is fuzzy logic, which looks at approximation of truth values rather than absolute truth. But this is all unimportant, because we're talking about real world logic, which as I said is about having correct reasoning (not formal proof). Sure, you can say that by the standards of formal predicate logic, atheism is an invalid proof, but that's not how the world works. Logically, Atheism has FAR more going for it than belief in god.
"You've taken what I said out of context. I talked about valid reasoning (which is different to a valid proof), which is exactly what an inductive argument is all about." The reasoning wouldn't be valid. It would be sound. I'm not taking it out of context. "I can use logical premises, evidence, observation, etc, to come to a logical conclusion about the existance of god." Logic itself is the rhetorical movement from premise(s) to conclusion. There is no such thing as a logical premise or logical evidence, or logical observation that can help you come to a logical conclusion. There are simply premises that have to necessarily support a conclusion in order for the argument to be logical. "The point I'm making would be that through inductive reasoning, Atheism is a far more logical approach to take than believing in a god." Put it to the test. Try to make a logical argument with the conclusion that god does not exist and I bet you I will be able to point out specifically where the non-sequitur occurs. "It's another pinpointed definition which has an equally probable chance of being as wrong as any other definition of god." Whether there can be an infinite set of definitions of "god" is a completely moot point. It has absolutely no value to this debate as to whether atheism is illogical or not. "You're trying to make the point that being an atheist is as illogical as believing in a god, and you are on that count wrong." They both are equally illogical, yes. "I'm sure you're aware of how inductive logic could take the specific proposition "there is no evidence for god" and form the general proposition "there is no god."" No, actually. Since we're making an existential claim and not one of temporal locality, the only conclusion we could come to is that since there is no evidence that supports the existence of god, x has no reason to believe in or accept the existence of god. You could not logically move from, since there is no evidence for the existence of god, god does not exist. That is logically impossible. "Then there is fuzzy logic, which looks at approximation of truth values rather than absolute truth." No, there isn't fuzzy logic. Not with the linguistics atheism and theism deal with. If you were running an engineering program, sure, fuzzy logic all the way. "Logically, Atheism has FAR more going for it than belief in god." Test it. Juxtapose two arguments, one that affirms the existence of god and one that denies the existence of god. One might be more rational or reasonable than the other, but it wouldn't be any more logical or any less illogical.
So, like I said, we're just bickering over what logic is. You keep taking what I'm saying and applying it to formal proofs. "The reasoning wouldn't be valid. It would be sound. I'm not taking it out of context." Once again, you're talking about formal proofs. I'm saying my reasoning is valid, not that I have a valid formal proof. "There are simply premises that have to necessarily support a conclusion in order for the argument to be logical." We're agreed on that point then. "Try to make a logical argument with the conclusion that god does not exist and I bet you I will be able to point out specifically where the non-sequitur occurs." ...formal proof again. I'm not talking about absolute proof, as God has become such a wishy-washy concept these days that you can't do that. You moment you define god, he becomes disprovable. But when we talk about "well, anything can be god," we can only make rational decisions about the existance of god through past evidence and observation, not formal logical proofs. To say they are equally illogical, whilst maybe true in formal logic theories, isn't true in the real world. Every time I touch ice, it's cold. I can take that premise and be reasonable in assuming that ice is always cold. I might not have a valid proof for it, but I'm working from past evidence, observation, etc. "No, there isn't fuzzy logic. Not with the linguistics atheism and theism deal with. If you were running an engineering program, sure, fuzzy logic all the way." I was using the example of fuzzy logic just to say that you don't always have to be either true or false to be logical. We can be more certain of some things than others. We're obviously just bickering over the use of the world logic, so I won't argue this point any further. Formally, atheism is illogical as there is no formal proof against god because he exists in an infinate space. Define god, and he can be logically disproved. But in the real world, my reasoning is more "sound" than that of a believer in god. I'm taking a far more logical approach.
Formally, atheism is illogical as there is no formal proof against god because he exists in an infinite space Formally, if every possible definition for god can exist, no god must also exist. Therefore god!=god, a tautology, and therefore false. Formal proof there is no god?
Posted 130 days ago | Tagged As: Atheism is the only logical position
"Once again, you're talking about formal proofs. I'm saying my reasoning is valid, not that I have a valid formal proof. " If you cannot present a formal proof, or even a proof at all, then you have no grounds on which your claim "my reasoning is valid" stands. Point: valid reasoning only exists in formal predicate logic. "we can only make rational decisions about the existance of god through past evidence and observation, not formal logical proofs. To say they are equally illogical, whilst maybe true in formal logic theories, isn't true in the real world." Here is where you concede. Maybe knowingly or unknowingly. We can only make rational decisions about the existence of god as atheists - and the real world that is all we are doing: making rational decisions about god, not logical ones. "Formally, atheism is illogical as there is no formal proof against god... But in the real world, my reasoning is more "sound" than that of a believer in god. I'm taking a far more logical approach." QED, I suppose. Atheism is illogical, but rational. That's all I've ever argued. I can't believe I got down points just to eventually be agreed with.
logic != formal logic You were agreed with with regards to what you keep saying (which is formal logic) but your assumption that rational decisions aren't equal to logic is, in regards to how I define the use of logic in the real world, in my opinion, wrong. That is the point I was arguing.
Whether there can be an infinite set of definitions of "god" is a completely moot point. It has absolutely no value to this debate as to whether atheism is illogical or not. No it's not, if you can prove everything you have proved nothing. If there is an infinite set of definitions of god, that set must also include that god is nothing, e.g. that set must also include the "no god" definition, therefore god!=god, which is a tautology, and therefore false. Atheism is logical, rational and reasonable.
Posted 130 days ago | Tagged As: Atheism is the only logical position
How does not believing in a god appeal to ignorance, any more then believing in a god appeals to ignorance? Also, logical and rational are synonyms.
Logic and reason are not the same. They are similar but different. Though I do agree that the statement and reasoning presented here are flawed.
I agree that logic and reason are not the same thing, but for the sake of (this) argument, I would argue that they are synonymous enough that it does not make sense to deem something as being one, but not the other. Should've clarified that in the original post.
You're obfuscating the issue. We're not making any comparisons here. The issue at hand is whether we accept that atheism is illogical or not. But when we have a consideration: x, such that x is any issue for which there is neither affirmative or negative evidence, any claim about x must necessarily be an appeal to ignorance by virtue of the consideration: x. An appeal to ignorance arises when any claim refers to any phenomenon with evidence of that phenomenon in absentia. Hence, any claim about god or gods, or goddesses - whether affirmative or negative - are appeals to ignorance. Atheism is illogical because it appeals to ignorance.
I'll give you that. I still don't see how you're deciding that it is both illogical and rational, though. My dictionary lists "rational" as being "based on or in accordance with logic or reason". If we've already decided that atheism is not based on or in accordance with logic, that leaves reason. And my dictionary, again, lists "reason" as being "the power of the mind to think, understand, and form judgments by a process of logic". Also "what is right, practical, common sense". I'm still not seeing how you could manage to come to an illogical conclusion based on reason.
Can't believe I'm getting down points for being right. God must hate my createdebate credibility. But please don't introduce dictionaries. Dictionaries provide normative uses of words and depending on the skill and knowledge of the dictionary's lexicographers might not provide accurate uses. Moreover, I am positive that there is more than the one lexical definition in "your" dictionary for both "rational" and "reason". However, that or-operator that "your" dictionary provides is rather important. The or-operator signifies that the term "rational" appears in accordance with logic or reason or both logic and reason. It also signifies that it is not necessarily the case that both reason and logic accompany rationality simultaneously. On the other hand an illogical argument can be rational; and we have immediate examples in Anselm's ontological argument and Aquinas' Five Ways. We also have logical arguments that defy reason: all birds have feathers. Penguins don't have feathers, therefore penguins aren't birds. This is demonstrably wrong and betrays reason, but it's a logical argument. If you're "...still not seeing how you could manage to come to an illogical conclusion based on reason." I will explicate further. Logic necessarily entails rationality or reason. But rationality does not always entail logic. A position can be reasonable or rational without being logical. And because we are dealing with supernatural claims, atheism can be a rational position in that denying the existence of something that has no evidence for its existence is reasonable (denial in the absence of reason to affirm) while also being illogical because we cannot make any necessary connection between our conclusion and our premises; we will always encounter a non-sequitur in the form of an appeal to ignorance. That's just the result of the claims we are making about this supernatural issue. Atheism is illogical and rational.
Firstly, penguins do have feathers, so that argument's not exactly the best example. Not to mention the fact that if there were birds without feathers, then saying that "all birds have feathers" would be a completely false argument. It would not be logical to state that all birds had feathers, if some birds did not. But thank you, because I'd never before gotten to post a link anywhere relating to penguin biology. To me, you're essentially making the argument that any stance on a god or gods' existence cannot be built on solid logic, being as there is no solid evidence, which I agree with. But I tend to view "illogical" as meaning going against logic and/or reason, and being as there is no solid logic and/or reason on the side of believing in god/gods either, it doesn't seem to work.
|
