Guest guest Posted January 28, 2006 Report Share Posted January 28, 2006 > Pamho, agtSP! > > Some feedback please! > > Is God a self-deception? > > Quite a few times in my debates with atheists I have encountered the > following answer to my question about whether or not the atheist can prove > that there are no good reasons to believe in God. > > -------- > - > Theist: Can you prove that there's no good reason to believe in God? > > Atheist: Yes, because it's impossible to prove or disprove a > self-deception Yes, it is irrational because it rests on an unproven assumption. The whole statement is an unproven assumption. It is not an argument, really. And as you explain the atheist doesn't know if it is impossible to prove or disprove a self deception. Why should it be impossible? ys, jdd > -------- > - > > Even though this is a wierd kind of answer I have seen it quite a few > times. Therefore I want to show why it's irrational. > > The atheistic argument can be standardized in the following way: > > 1. It's impossible to prove or disprove a self-deception > 2. The statement ”God exist” is a self-deception > 3. Therefore, it's impossible to prove or disprove the statement ”God > exist” (follows from 1 and 2) > 4. If a given statement is impossible to prove or disprove then there's no > good reason to believe it > 5. It's impossible to prove or disprove the statement ”God exist” (see 3) > 6. Therefore, there is no reason to believe the statement "God exist" and > therefore there's good reasons to be an atheist (from 4 and 5) > > Why the argument fails > > The first premise in this atheistic argument is self-contradictory, > because if you know that God is a self-deception, then you must also know > that God doesn't exist. Otherwise how could the claim that He exist be a > self-deception? Further, if you know that God doesn't exist, then there > must also exist a disproof for His existence, otherwise how could you know > that he doesn't exist? So, premis 1 is a self-contradiction. Therefore > there's a logical contradiction between the first two premises (1 and 2) > and the first conclusion (3). Consequently the whole argument falls to > pieces. > > But to make things worse for the atheist we can also argue that to > postulate ”God is a self-deception” (premise 2) is to postulate that God > is unreal, and therefore that God doesn't exist. To know that God doesn't > exist one has to have knowledge of everything. Otherwise it's impossible > to see whether or not there's no proofs at all for Him. Thus, to say that > God is a self-deception one has to be omniscient. In other words, one has > to be God to disprove God, which is self-contradictory. > > The atheistic argument is simply totally useless. > > Ys, AKD Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.