Want to get notified of all questions as they are asked? Update your mail preferences and turn on "Instant Notification."
Many of our ideas about the world are based more on feelings than facts, sensibilities than science, and rage than reality. We gravitate toward ideas that make us feel comfortable in areas such as religion, politics, philosophy, social justice, love and sex, humanity, and morality. We avoid ideas that make us feel uncomfortable. This avoidance is a largely unconscious process that affects our judgment and gets in the way of our ability to reach rational and reasonable conclusions. By understanding how our mind works in this area, we can start embracing uncomfortable ideas and be better informed, be more understanding of others, and make better decisions in all areas of life.
* This is for the author's bookstore only. Applies to autographed hardcover, audiobook, and ebook.
|
The argument doesn't appear to have any formal fallacies, but it is extremely unsound because all of the premises are unsupported and rather questionable.
??? Atheism is simply the lack of belief in God. It doesn't imply anything about...ontology.
This is alleged certainty because the premise isn't supported, it's just asserted as "certain". |
|||
answered on Sunday, Jul 25, 2021 11:11:11 AM by TrappedPrior (RotE) | ||||
TrappedPrior (RotE) Suggested These Categories |
||||
Comments |
||||
|
|
This should be more clear. To most atheists, atheism is the lack of belief in any gods. This premise is conflating epistemology with ontology. I am not even sure what the premise is meant to claim. I wouldn't want to say simply "if there is no God" because God can be defined in too many ways. What properties of this god is required to make this premise true? I don't know how anyone can possibly know this or claim it with enough confidence to take seriously in an argument.
This is getting too specialized in physics (i.e., I could be talking out of my ass). Does quantum randomness exist? If it does, this is compatible with materialism and would mean the determinism is not true, would it not? Now we bring the concept of "free will" in that has not been properly defined. I would quit there. |
||||||||||
answered on Saturday, Jul 24, 2021 06:32:52 AM by Bo Bennett, PhD | |||||||||||
Bo Bennett, PhD Suggested These Categories |
|||||||||||
Comments |
|||||||||||
|
|
There is no fallacy, the conclusion follows logically from the premises by the rule of hypothetical syllogism and modus tollens: 1. If A then M |
answered on Monday, Jul 26, 2021 11:49:43 AM by Kuda | |
Kuda Suggested These Categories |
|
Comments |
|
|