Thursday

MULTIPLE PROBLEMS WITH ATHEISM: Part 1 Category Error & Straw Man Fallacy


A category error is a semantic or ontological error in which things of one kind are presented as if they belonged to another, or, alternatively, a property is ascribed to a thing that could not possibly have that property.

It is a category error to demand empirical evidence of a non-empirical God. Non-empirical items do not exist in time and space and cannot be measured by any empirical unit.  One cannot give a 1 mg or 1 mm or 1 degree C or 1 volt of a non-empirical God.  It is a nonsensical, irrational an illogical request for atheists to demand empirical evidence for a non-empirical God.

The Christian trinity of Father God, the Christ of Faith and the Holy Spirit are all non-empirical. ( The historical Jesus of Nazareth is empirical.) The Jewish God Hashem and the Muslim God Al-Lah are also both non-empirical.

Atheists apparently know for certain that there is no God but don't know the definition of the God whom they are against.   How can you validly be against that which you do not know and do not comprehend? How is such abject ignorance using reason?

Atheists are guilty of The Straw Man fallacy.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This sort of "reasoning" has the following pattern:

Person A has position X.
Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
Person B attacks position Y.
Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.
This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because attacking a distorted version of a position simply does not constitute an attack on the position itself.

from http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Dumbing it down for atheists ....

Person A has position X - a non-theistic non-empirical God as the Ground of All Being (that which makes all existence possible) and thus not an existent empirical God.

Atheist B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X based upon atheist mantras and dogmas - gods don't exist / "There is probably no God" and thus an existent empirical God).

Atheist B attacks position Y.

Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.