Atheism proves the existence of God.
57 comments
A) you haven't, even by that faulty logic, proved the existence of god, only the non-existence of atheism;
B) 'There is no god' != 'god is nothing'.
Boromir, all language is circular reasoning.
Where "have to" is a euphemism for I'd rather not see you [unsaved............]
Gaytopia, doesn't have bad odours or mortuaries or feral children.
See Reynardine - language doesn't need to mention nasty words with any relationship to unavoidable realities.
and to the medical community are you a customer or patient.http://www.healtoronto.com/10reasons.html
P1 If the Randi Challenge exists, then nothing has ever been produced as evidence of supernatural abilities.
P1 If the Randi Challenge doesn't exist, then nothing is in the supposed account which holds a million dollars for the winner of the challenge.
The power of Tercon's syllogism is so overwhelming it has apparently destroyed reason itself.
At least nothing would be something.
Many Atheists will stop before the idea of no omnipresent being, they just won't accept the personal God who concerns himself with every person and blade of grass or a God that one can influence with prayer, ritual or obedience to a book obviously culled from older myths.
YOUR God doesn't exist, your book is plagarized myth and your religion is a profitable con-game.
P1 Bible is infalliblesays it's infallible
See how that works? Perfect circle. Only people actually believe the one I posted.
Phillip-George(c)2013: Back off. Reynardine has never posted anything like your frothing, incoherent ramblings. Quite the contrary. If you can't stand profanity perhaps you need to go elsewhere. This forum is for adults and open to the use of profanity. Live with it.
Also, as someone whose aunt died of AIDS she acquired via heterosexual contact with her cheating husband (who acquired it via a woman he cheated with), go screw yourself. Save your pseudoscience for your similarly unenlightened fundy friends.
I've been hearing that there is no correlation between HIV and AIDS bullshit for years. The only people who actually believe it are fuckwitted fundies and people with no understanding of science.
P1 is a non sequitur: If "atheism exists", which it does, then there exist people who do not believe in the existence of gods. Maybe he meant to type, 'If atheists are correct, gods likely do not exist'...
P2 hinges on eqivocatory use of the word 'nothing'.
C is another non sequitur. And none of the above comes close to demonstrating that "Atheism proves the existence of God". In fact, "Atheism proves the existence of God" and "atheism doesn’t exist" cancel due to contradiction.
If anyone has access to the CARM site, they can torture themselves by watching Tercon build a house of cards upon his nonsense.
Here is a more coherent argument.
P1 If Durango Fango tango; then hoopla Ghaddafi.
Let's help this poor guy and write out his argument the way he meant it to read.
P1: If there was no god, nothing would exist.
The argument is just as unconvincing when it is written coherently. Nobody has proven that god is necessary for things to exist. It is a matter of faith, not a matter of evidence. Either you believe or you do not believe.
your major premise is fucked
sure, it's not a proper syllogism, but neither is yours.
B->¬A(X); ¬X : ¬B
There's just one problem: X|=B (X semantically entails B), or put into set terms X{B, C, D,
}. Therefor it is impossible that B -> ¬A(X), ergo B->A(X) v ¬B->¬A(X) v ¬B->A(X) (because if ¬B then B, see first example) are all true. Put much simpler and without logic hieroglyphs, any other combination of ¬ (not) markers is possible, except the one the OP chose.
The actual way how he wrote it down B->¬A(G); ¬X : ¬B, simply doesn't make any sense. It is without connection to B and therefor a non sequitur. Unless you define G=X, which would be pantheism, but as we don't know that T (G=X) (unconiditional truth) and any definition of G=X would entail G->B (as (G=X){B, C, D,
}), ergo (X=G)->B (with (T B)->¬X and ¬X->¬B). So, the only definition which would make this entire thing a valid argument disporves the first premise, therefor making the truth value of the entire argument for all other possible substitutions false . Because an implication would be B<->¬B, which means we would have arrived at the "absurdum" stage from "reductio ad absurdum".
I'm sorry folks for geeking out so hard, but I have never seen such a mess in formal logic.
"Nothing doesn't exist".
WRONG!
If atheism exists, there are people who believe that there is no God.
Just about every form of belief under the sun is held by somebody, and there is no way to control or regulate what people think in their own minds. Therefore somebody, somewhere, inevitably believes that there is no God... therefore atheism exists.
I think what this person meant to say was probably something more like "if atheists are correct", but that's not what they said at all! Also, "nothing doesn't exist" is a very ambiguous statement, as it could be taken to mean "everything exists", which would mean that this person believes in unicorns and dragons. Which honestly wouldn't surprise me that much.
I'm pretty sure that sneaky tricks like this are why formal logic notation was invented. That said...
UHM, thanks for that, even though I have trouble reading the notation. Does it take into account the author's equivocation of two different definitions of "nothing"?
P1 If atheism exists; then nothing is God. P2. Nothing doesn’t exist.
a) You win, but nonetheless...
Awww did the fundie take an introductory logic class?
How cute.
Did the teacher not get to the fact that modus tollens is a valid argument but validity says nothing about the truth value of an argument.
Also atheism is simply a lack of belief in gods. IT is not a belief in nothing.
His argument is actually valid. It is a classic form of modus tollens.
P --> q
Its valid but not true.
Now please go smack yourself repeatedly.
@BrianX: Sorry for the weird annotations, FSTDT doesn't allow Unicode, so I had to resort to basic sign and combinations of those.
A->B - if A, then B (I think it's important to tell this apart from A=>B, which would be "if A, and only if A, then B" - this is a wider discussion in logic and has been for many years)
I actually skipped the two definitions of nothing and thought it was bad grammar.
Fallacy of equivocation, nothing is treated as an object in premise 2, but not in premise 1. (Premise 2 only, makes logical sense if it is refering to an object called nothing). Unless, of course the poster thinks atheist think God is an object called nothing, which is even more retarded.
I took two years of formal logic, reading crap like this has an effect on me not unlike nails on a chalkboard.
“Atheism proves the existence of God.”
“P1 If atheism exists; then nothing is God.”
“P2. Nothing doesn’t exist.”
“C: Therefore atheism doesn’t exist.”
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
