Ron Singh

Greetings. I constructed the following inference after pondering of Tercel's deviation of Thomas Reid's argument of God <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=50&t=000315" target="_blank">here</a>. I find that this debunks naturalism as well.

Lack of believing a belief argument. - PEEDNAR Singh

1. Atheists do not acknowledge the actual existence of a deity.
2. As stated by the atheist, there is no proof of God.
3. Any sort of proof, regardless of its validity or quality, is the precursor to acknowledgement of actual existence.
4. There is no empirical proof of any existence outside of the mind.
5. Ergo Atheists should be solipsist, and should not acknowledge the belief of anything outside of the mind.

~Your friendly neighborhood 15yr old Sikh theologian.

HRG

I can produce lots of invalid proofs which state -wrongly - the existence of an object with certain property. This does not mean that I acknowledge its existence.
True. There is no empirical proof either that Last Thursdayism is false. But both existence outside my mind and the negation of Last Thursdayism are excellent working assumptions.

Regards,
HRG.

Scrambles

Not that I'm an expert, but as far as I know empiricism assumes the existence of something outside the mind. Thus the statement that there is no empirical proof of any existence outside the mind is irrelevant.

You seem to be saying that since naturalists/atheists base their world-view on empiricism that they shouldn't acknowledge belief in anything outside the mind. But empiricism assumes the existence of something outside of the mind.

Scrambles

Ted Hoffman

Premises 1 and 2 are fine
Acknowledgement by who? This is a fallacy of missing arguments.
Since the argument is about atheists, we are forced to presume that the "acknowledgement" is by atheists. This is a false premise because examination of "proof" in itself is not tantamount to admission of the factuality of the existence of whatever is meant to be proven.
This is a maxim for solipsism, NOT for atheism.
Atheism can not be conflated with Silipsism.
Premise 3 was weak.
Premise 4 failed.

The whole argument collapses to ash. Look for another one kid.

Ron Singh

Well thanks for your feedback.
inference #1 - failure.

~Your broken Sikh

Ted Hoffman

In retrospect:
This statement is fallacious. Its equivalent to stating that atheists deny the actual existence of a deity. The statement presumes existence of a deity, then states that atheists refuse to acknowledge this existence.
The word "actual" is also a statement of quality and is a form of fallacy of true natures.
There is no such a phrase as "actual existence".

In summary, atheists are people who lack belief in the existence God.
Its about lack of belief in existence. Not existence.

Automaton

sikh, atheists generally treat the existence claim of God in the same way you would (presumably) treat an existence claim of a purple dragon behind Jupiter.

Vorkosigan

WHAT! My goddamn dragon is loose again?

Vorkosigan

Ron Singh

I prefer the pink unicorn, mutton, I'll keep that in mind. You'll see me up there with Descartes and Aquina soon enough. Till next time.

~Your friendly neighborhood 15yr old Sikh