Argument for the existence of God, from the rationality of agents considering the propositionSo I find myself once more drawn into an internet argument over things which quite frankly I find frustrating and silly. Here we go..
1. Agents reason over their total set of propositions.
2. Rational agents have no contradictions among their set of propositions.
3. Irrational agents can be spotted by contradictions in propositions they claim to hold with other propositions they claim to hold.
4. If given some proposition X, More Irrational agents than rational agents hold X to be true, then it is more likely that X is false.
5. More irrational agents hold that the proposition "God does not exist" is true.
C. God does exist.
----- EDIT : given 3. and 4. it is likely there is actually a logical contradiction in X, therefore ¬X is implied as a proof by contradiction.
----- EDIT2 : Evidence for 5. The vast majority of atheists claim they don't believe in the proposition God does not exist. In so being confused, not only are they unintelligible, but also clearly begin on an irrational foundation :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_thought
1.Agents reason over their total set of propositions.
While I don't really have a problem with this opening premise, I'd argue that 'agents' can only ever reason over a limited set of propositions, humans aren't yet omniscient and to the best of my knowledge do not know everything.
The one part which mitigates this, is the use of the word 'their' but again, even this does not break the fact that currently, I know what I know right now... I've forgotten a lot of stuff, and I'm sure in the future I'll know more than I know now, and will most likely have forgotten even more things.
Thus I find that our inability to span time limits our ability to reason on a 'total' set of propositions, but more precisely a current set of propositions at a given time.
2. Rational agents have no contradictions among their set of propositions.
Again, I have no real issue with this, other than it is a generalisation without citation to support the fact that it claims. Are we to assume that an agent of confirmed rationality in turn confers a state of mental stability in which we would never observe contradiction? I digress... this one is generally quite sound. So I'll leave it at that.
3. Irrational agents can be spotted by contradictions in propositions they claim to hold with other propositions they claim to hold.
I find this statement to be false.
First let's look at the state of being irrational as the dictionary would want to put it:
1. inconsistent with reason or logic; illogical; absurdObservation of an agent undertaking an irrational or contradictory claim does not confirm their status of irrational in total. nor does it confirm that an agent is irrational, the agent may simply be without adequate information to properly address a given proposition, referred to as 'false dichotomy'.
2. not controlled or governed by reason
Further to that, it generates a conclusion that a single occurrence of an irrational event affirms that the agent by which that occurrence is brought about would be equally irrational when considering other events, commonly referred to as 'confusion of correlation'.
In closing, I find this entire premise to be flawed, fallacious and misleading.
4. If given some proposition X, More Irrational agents than rational agents hold X to be true, then it is more likely that X is false.
Generally, this statement holds some validity as is highlighted by the 1st edit addendum:
----- EDIT : given 3. and 4. it is likely there is actually a logical contradiction in X, therefore ¬X is implied as a proof by contradiction.
However, at it's roots this premise relies on the fallacy: 'argumentum ad populum' (for purpose of this section: a summary of this fallacy -- 'a group of people all agree on X being true // therefore X is true')
While the logic of the 'proof by contradiction' is essentially valid, this entire premise rests on the shoulders of point 3 (see above) and being that I cannot agree that point 3 is valid. Point 4, by extension, is also not valid.
to continue...
5. More irrational agents hold that the proposition "God does not exist" is true.
There is a lot wrong with this premise, please bear with me on this one...
- it opens an argument that the non belief of god is irrational without citation to the fact.
- it invokes an unknown quantity 'more' which again enters the 'argumentum ad populum'
- it states, without citation that the unknown quantity of 'more' hold a given position of disbelief of deity which is contrary to commonly known detail :
- Christianity 2.1 billion
- Islam 1.5 billion
- Secular*/Nonreligious*/Agnostic/Atheist ≤ 1.1 billion
- this equates to 3.6 billion deistic believers against 1.1 billion non believers.
- source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_religious_populations
To open:
"The vast majority of atheists"
how about some citation of 'vast majority' at best I would assume that this is an inference made from a bias position.
Continuing on, Immediately I see a double negative being deployed :
"claim they don't believe in the proposition God does not exist"
This only obfuscates the detail of this 'proof' and at worst is misleading.
"don't believe // god does not exist"
I'm pretty sure If you ask most atheists they would confirm that they do not believe in a god. From Wiki about the use of double negative: In most logics and some languages, double negatives cancel one another and produce an affirmative sense (source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_negative )
That would mean that the sentence when written with accurate grammar would read something like this:
"believe that god exists"
The linguistic trickery further deepens if we look at the use of the word 'proposition' but again only further confirms the use of double negative.
Statement being made:
"don't believe in the proposition"
Subject of proposition
"God does not exist."
I'll continue onward...
"In so being confused"
Well.. that's what happens when you set out deliberately misleading and maliciously fallacious premises... {Ahem} Enough jokes. but really, this is nothing more than a simple 'ad hominem' to pile into the already confused idea that this is somehow proof of anything.
"not only are they unintelligible"
A little more 'ad hominem' in case the first use didn't strike home. Also, a proposal of detail without citation.
"but also clearly begin on an irrational foundation :"
If it is so very apparent that 'atheists' began on irrational foundation, I must be missing something. As I would see things the foundation of an atheistic view is the refuting stance against the claim that there is a god, an atheist has nor makes no affirmative claim.
An irrational foundation is a claim without substantiation. At this point we could ask:
"Well if theists claim there is a god, and atheists refute that claim but cannot prove their position to be correct, they are then making a claim without substantiation"
This is shifting the burden of proof, which is simply malicious and a little intellectually dishonest, some light reading about this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic_burden_of_proof also it enters into some realms which are referred to as 'absence of evidence' or even as far down that road as to call the 'argumentum ad ignorantiam' or 'appeal to ignorance' which is essentially the defining factor of any argument about supernatural or unsubstantiated belief.
so, the Evidence for number 5, is fallacious and obfuscatory and point number 5 itself is basically personal subjective inference made without any citation to fact.
Oh, I almost forgot one line...
"C. God does exist."
