|Logical Fallacy of Proof by Atheism|
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
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.
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.
Last updated: Jun, 2015
Toons & Vids
Flat Earth Navigation Syndrome
Logical Fallacy of Chronological Snobbery
Logical Fallacy of Retrospective Determinism
Logical Fallacy of Presentism
Logical Fallacy of Proof by Appeal to Naturalism
Logical Fallacy of Proof by Appeal to Materialism
Logical Fallacy of Proof by Uniformitarianism
Logical Fallacy of Proof by Agnosticism
Logical Fallacy of Proof by Atheism
Logical Fallacy of Proof by Relativism / Escape to Relativism
Logical Fallacy of Appeal to Rationalism
"If God Exists" Fallacy
Logical Fallacy of Scientism
Finish the Job Fallacy
Concorde Fallacy / Sunk Cost Fallacy
Political Correctness Fallacy
Just World Hypothesis
Answer to Critic
Appeal to Possibility
Argument to the Future
Love Between a Man and Woman
Righteousness & Holiness
Proof by Atheism
Scriptures About Marriage
The Reason for Rejecting Truth
Witness on the Internet
Flaky Human Reasoning
How Do You Know?
The Real Purpose of the Church
The Real Purpose of Life
From Glory to Glory
REAL Faith--What it IS & IS NOT
REAL Love--What it IS & IS NOT
How to be Led by God
How to Witness
Wisdom: Righteousness & Reality
Holiness & Mind/Soul
Redemption: Free From Sin
Stories Versus Revelation
Circular Reasoning-Who is Guilty?
How Can We Know Anything?
Mind Designed to Relate to God
Answers for the Confused
Fossil Record Says: "Creation"
Avoid These Pitfalls
Public School's Religion
Public School Failures