Logical Fallacy of Proof by Atheism

Proof by atheism is one of the many smokescreens that are used to cover the fact that the reasoning is based on one of the three fallacies of Agrippa's trilemma. Whenever a logical fallacy is committed, the fallacy has its roots in Agrippa's trilemma. All human thought (without Divine revelation) is based on one of three unhappy possibilities. These three possibilities are infinite regress, circular reasoning, or axiomatic thinking. This problem is known as Agrippa's trilemma. Some have claimed that only logic and math can be known without Divine revelation; however, that is not true. There is no reason to trust either logic or math without Divine revelation. Science is also limited to the pragmatic because of the weakness on human reasoning, which is known as Agrippa's trilemma.

The Logical Fallacy of Proof by Atheism occurs when atheism, the unfounded belief that there is no God, is used as a base assumption or axiom and treated as if it were a known fact. This is a type of hysteron proteron. We are using the traditional definition of Atheism, the claim that God doesn't exist. The new Atheists have tried to redefine the term to be the same definition of agnosticism. The reason for this is that Atheism is, in itself, a universal negative fallacy. Universal negatives can only be established by Divine revelation or they are fallacies.

Proof by Atheism is an example of problem known as Agrippa's Trilemma. Without Divine revelation, every person is totally lost and in a mental fog. By using rationalism, a person who is in total mental fog can feel as if they are very wise and knowing. In reality, they know nothing. Some of the things they view as true are true, but they have no way to tell the difference between what they are making up and what is real. They can't discern between reality and make-believe. They cannot know anything. It would be impossible for them to know anything without Divine revelation. They have cut off the only source of knowledge, wisdom, understanding, love, and peace.

Examples of the Logical Fallacy of Proof by Atheism

The transcendental argument against God from an Atheist website: "God doesn’t exist. If God doesn’t exist, then if reason exists, then God doesn’t exist. Reason exists. Therefore, God doesn’t exist."

Here, the first premise is an assertion contrary to fact. Proof must be shown that "God doesn't exist." Without Divine revelation, Agrippa's Trilemma is in effect. The premise can be shown to be true by infinite regress, circular reasoning, or arbitrary assumption. Secularists of all denominations have the problem of never being able to have a true premise. Premises must be true or logic isn't sound. Unsound logic is irrational. Irrational thinking isn't sane. We are not given the writer's proof for his/her proof, so we don't know which of these three the writer used or the way the writer established, to himself/herself, that "God doesn't exist." We do know that all three of the options available outside of Divine revelation have zero soundness. So we can be assured that this syllogism is unsound.

The cosmological argument against God from and Atheist website: "If I say something doesn’t have a cause, it doesn’t have a cause. I say the universe doesn’t have a cause. Therefore, the universe doesn’t have a cause. Therefore, God doesn’t exist."

This website has 100 of these bogus argument. The sad thing is that those who cannot have sound reasoning because of their worldviews will tend to go to these websites and blindly accept what they are reading. The first premise is an amazing assertion. If this assertion were true, this person would be capable of making you cease to exist simply by asserting that you don't exist. Proof must be shown that "the universe doesn’t have a cause," or it is an unsupported assertion fallacy. What has happen is that the train has left the tracks of sanity. Without Divine revelation, Agrippa's Trilemma is in effect. Any premise can be shown to be true by infinite regress, circular reasoning, or arbitrary assumption. How does the writer know that "If I say something doesn’t have a cause, it doesn’t have a cause?" We are not given the writer's proof for his/her proof, so we don't know whether the writer used infinite regress, circular reasoning, or arbitrary assumption to establish this premise. We know that he/she used one or more of these three. We know that all three of the options available outside of Divine revelation have zero soundness. So we can be assured that this syllogism is unsound.