There is No Case Against God

Borrowed from http://adamantforchrist.blogspot.com/2012/06/atheism-irrational-unknowable-and.html

Until I return next week with some more material, here are some quick and easy destructive arguments against atheism’s supposed case against God.
Enjoy :)

-h.

I.

All propositions that are contradictory are false,

and the proposition “This existent thing does not exist” is contradictory,

and the proposition “God does not exist” is a species of the above contradictory proposition,

and so is the proposition “It is highly unlikely that God exists,”

and so is the proposition “There is no God”

and so is the proposition “It is not likely that there is a God;”

therefore, the proposition “God does not exist,”

as well as the proposition “It is not likely that God exists,”

as well as the proposition “There is no God,”

and the proposition “It is not likely that there is a God”

are contradictory and, ipso facto, false.

 II.

All arguments that involve a confusion of categories are fallacious,

and all evidentiary arguments against the reality of God involve a confusion of categories;

therefore, all evidentiary arguments against the reality of God are fallacious.

Therefore, the deductive argument from evil,

as well as the inductive argument from evil,

as well as the big-bang argument,

as well as the mind-brain dependence argument,

as well as the argument from divine hiddenness,

as well as the the argument from ethical and religious confusion

are all fallacious.

Advertisements

7 thoughts on “There is No Case Against God

  1. thegreatantagonizer says:

    You said:
    “the proposition “This existent thing does not exist” is contradictory,

    and the proposition “God does not exist” is a species of the above contradictory proposition”

    This is not correct. It assumes that ‘God’ is an existent thing.

    Like

  2. hiram says:

    Existence is the copula between a logical subject and its attendant predicates.

    Now, if you could define the word “exists” in a way that does not present this logical dilemma, then I’m all ears – or eyes as it were ;)

    But until then, (to use a random name) to say “John does not exist” is to contradict oneself.

    Perhaps John is a fictional character, in that case we can say “John is not real” or “John is a literary creation.” However, to say “John does not exist” is to speak absurdly.

    It’s similar to the absurdity in listing attributes and functions of “Nothingness.” If there is really something we can call “nothingness” then it is not “Nothing”!

    I want atheists to clearly indicate what they disbelieve :)

    Like

    • thegreatantagonizer says:

      “John does not exist” is self-contradictory. Correct.
      “God does not exist” is self-contradictory. Correct.
      I don’t think you’re catching what I’m saying here.
      You are claiming that an atheist would claim that “An existent thing does not exist.” They would not.
      I’m not sure if you’re not following or if you’re purposely trying to deceive people, but this is what the argument should look like:
      “The idea that people associate with the word God does not exist in any way aside from a concept.”
      Normally, humans do not have to communicate so precisely. It is also the responsibility of the listener to fill in the gaps.

      Like

      • hiram says:

        I understand what you’re saying :) Here’s the issue:

        “You are claiming that an atheist would claim that “An existent thing does not exist.” They would not.”

        I’m not claiming that an atheist would explicitly affirm the contradiction “an existent thing does not exist.” I am pointing out that the word “existence” is not a proper predicate.

        Take the proposition, “I exist.”

        The word “exist” in that statement does not add anything to the word “I” that is not already contained in the word “I.” Immanuel Kant pointed this out when he addressed the so-called Ontological Argument for God’s Existence.

        So, I follow what you’re saying, and I’m not trying to deceive anyone.

        But regarding your revision, viz. “The idea that people associate with the word God does not exist in any way aside from a concept.”

        Would it not be clearer to say “God is a myth” or “God is not real” or something along those lines?

        I believe it would be beneficial to the Christian and the atheist to speak clearly. Otherwise we will be speaking past one another.

        The Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy has a great little article on the problems of “existence.” Here is a relevant quotation that helps clarify the problems involved in saying “x does not exist.”

        “There is a long and distinguished line of philosophers, including David Hume, Immanuel Kant, Gottlob Frege, and Bertrand Russell, who followed Aristotle in denying that existence is a property of individuals, even as they rejected other aspects of Aristotle’s views.

        Hume argued (in A Treatise of Human Nature 1.2.6) that there is no impression of existence distinct from the impression of an object, which is ultimately on Hume’s view a bundle of qualities. As all of our contentful ideas derive from impressions, Hume concluded that existence is not a separate property of an object.

        Kant’s criticism of the ontological arguments for the existence of God rested on a rejection of the claim that existence is a property of an object. Proponents of the ontological argument argue that the concept of God as an entity with all perfections or a being of which no greater can be conceived entails God’s existence, as existence is a perfection and a being that exists is greater than a being that does not exist. Kant objected (in his Critique of Pure Reason, A596/B624-A602/B630) that existence is not a property.

        “Thus when I think a thing, through whichever and however many predicates I like (even in its thoroughgoing determination), not the least bit gets added to the thing when I posit in addition that this thing is.

        For otherwise what would exist would not be the same as what I had thought in my concept, but more than that, and I could not say that the very object of my concept exists” (A600/B628).”

        Here’s the link: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/existence/

        Like

        • thegreatantagonizer says:

          Right, I’ve studied the problem of existence before. I really don’t want to go back and reread it because it’s a little tedious for me.
          But, in short, your actual problem here is not with the concept that is trying to be conveyed by the atheist, but with the word “exist”. I get that. But as I said, there are many necessary assumptions we make in reading and listening all the time. You don’t need to be taught these kind of assumptions. Yes, it is great that philosophy exists to allow us to delve into what these assumptions are, whether they create confusion and how we should avoid them; however, I really don’t think that this applies in this case. We both know what someone is conveying when they say, “God doesn’t exist.”
          They are not saying the concept of God doesn’t exist. Of course not. Anything I can conceive of can exist. That’s straightforward. However, as I said before, I don’t think we need to speak in cumbersome sentences to get our points across. The listener/reader has just as much of a responsibility as the speaker/writer. This is, in my opinion, the equivalent of dwelling on a typo. It doesn’t focus on the real issue.

          Like

  3. hiram says:

    No offense, you two but you are sidestepping the issue: The word “existence” is not a predicate.

    What does it mean for something to exist?

    I’m not playing with words, I’m really asking for a clear understanding of what you guys mean when you use that word.

    And trust me, I have the same beef with those who argue for the existence of God. Theists typically don’t explain themselves either.

    Until an atheist can explain what he/she means by saying God does not exist, I can only understand it to mean either (a.)the contradiction I’ve noted in my argument or (b.)that the atheist means something like “God is not real” – i.e. God is not physical/God is not an entity comprised of matter and energy, in which case the proposition “God does not exist” is logically incoherent as it involves a confusion of categories (as per my second argument).

    Defining our terminology is vastly important.

    Like

involve yourself

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s