Logically refuting atheism in favor of agnosticism

[BobJoeJim]

[ QUOTE ]
Yes, you can replace leprechauns and unicorns. That doesn't change the strength of the argument as it relates to God/gods.

Almost anything you can think up is logically possible. 2+2 = 10 is not logically possible though.

[/ QUOTE ]
It depends on your underlying postulates. If you use the standard mathematical definitions of numbers, and addition, then no, 2 + 2 =/= 10. The problem, in my opinion, with all formal logic is that it requires a base of postulates, which by definition aren't proven. In this case you postulate that "Humans are not omnipresent or omniscent," which sounds likely to me, but isn't proven.

[guesswest]

Okay, I don't actually disagree with that. I believe there are two ways of establishing atheism as valid:

1. Demonstrate that god is in fact impossible.
2. Claim that our default position should be to reject the existence of things we don't have positive evidence for, instead of accepting the possibility of all things we haven't disproved.

[ojc02]

You can't say that the existence of a god is impossible, but you can say that it is an arbitrary claim and not worthy of thought or investigation given there has been no evidence ever for the existence of a God.

[Falcon1511]

Notice how I didn't say God, I said God/Gods. You may or may not be able to prove the mono-theistic God of judeaism, christianiy and islam to be false or true based upon internal evidence of their holy books, however, as my premesis state it is impossible to know whether God/Gods exist or not as a human mind.

You can also not reject the existance of things we don't have positive evidence for. That is not logically valid. And how positive do you have to be in order for you to say its ok to accept it? You basically throw inductive and abductive reasoning out the window.

[guesswest]

[ QUOTE ]
You can't say that the existence of a god is impossible, but you can say that it is an arbitrary claim and not worthy of thought or investigation given there has been no evidence ever for the existence of a God.

[/ QUOTE ]

Which, strictly speaking, is an agnostic claim.

[Falcon1511]

My real claim behind this is that being an atheist takes as much faith as being a theist.

[valenzuela]

I believe in a God that loves all humans the same AND prefers black ppl over white ppl. This God is logically impossible because two of his characteristics bump into each other. You dont need to be omniscent to realize that the God that has logical contradictions doesnt exist.

[Falcon1511]

First, strictly logically speaking, it would not be impossible for God to love everyone and still have favorites.

You will notice I didn't say GOD in the premesis, I said God/Gods. Therefore you do not get to use the God arguments.

[kurto]

[ QUOTE ]
1. Humans are not omnipresent or omniscent

2. Without omnipresence or omniscence, one cannot know with absolute certainty whether or not there is or is not a Flying spagheti monster that rules all of us

3. Humans cannot know with absolute certainty whether there is a Flying spagheti monster that rules all of us or not.

4. If one cannot be certain of there being or not being a
Flying spagheti monster that rules all of us, then one cannot logically be an atheist

5. Therefore it's logically invalid for one to claim they are an atheist.

[/ QUOTE ]

We know there is a flying spaghetti monster--
[image]http://www.repubblica.it/2003/e/gallerie/scienzaetecnologia/flyingspaghetti/esterne081336430809133729[/image]

[kurto]

[ QUOTE ]
My real claim behind this is that being an atheist takes as much faith as being a theist.

[/ QUOTE ]

But I can make up anything and say that its real. And then argue that anyone that doesn't believe its real is illogical and is relying on faith.

I'm not really sure what the value of what you're saying is since you can replace 'god(s)' with anything I choose to makeup on the spot and it will have equal value.