Argument from incredulity and arguments against God's existence

[packermann]

Atheists use this argument from incredulity, a fallacious argument, to attack believers. For instance, the believer may not understand evolution and therefore find it incredulous, and so evolution does not exist. Although I have no problem with evolution, I think this is a straw man. There are a growing number of scientists who are very well-read on evolution and yet reject it for sound reason.
See Some of the Growing Number of Scientists Who Doubt the Darwinian Theory of Evolution Speak Out

But I find it ironic that atheists use the argument of incredulity against us believers, since most of the aruments the atheists use are based on the argument of incredulity.
This argument is defined as follows:

"The fallacy lies in the unstated premise. If a state of affairs is impossible to imagine, it doesn't follow that it is false; it may only mean that imagination is limited. Moreover, if no one has yet managed to imagine how a state of affairs is possible, it doesn't follow that no one will ever be able to."

Argument from incredulity - RationalWiki

Statements made by atheists that are to them incredulous/difficult to imagine/increditable/absurd and so must be false:

⦁ An all-loving and all-power God allowing suffering
⦁ An all-loving sending anyone to hell
⦁ God "needing" us to worship Him
⦁ God would send a person to hell for being a free-thinker demanding evidence for God's existence before "believing" in Him

All these are incredulous to the atheist, and so such a God cannot possibly exists. It is the same as some believers in God not understanding evolution and so find it incredulous to them and therefore evolution must not exist. But what is gravy for the goose is gravy for the gander. If believers can be accused with this fallacious argument so can atheists.

Many of the Christian beliefs are unimaginable to the atheists. But what is absurd to an atheist is creditable to the majority in society. It does not prove that the these beliefs are false only that it shows the limited imagination of the atheists. Also, as stated in the above quote, if no one has yet managed to imagine how a state of affairs is possible, it doesn't follow that no one will ever be able to.

Argument from incredulity, also known as argument from personal incredulity or appeal to common sense, is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition must be false because it contradicts one's personal expectations or beliefs, or is difficult to imagine.

Argument from incredulity - Wikipedia

The divine fallacy, or the argument from incredulity, is a species of non sequitur reasoning which goes something like this: I can't figure this out, so a god must have done it. Or, This is amazing; therefore, a god did it. Or, I can't think of any other explanation; therefore, a god did it. Or, this is just too weird; so, a god is behind it.

divine fallacy (argument from incredulity) - The Skeptic's Dictionary - Skepdic.com

Almost all the arguments I have read or heard from atheists are based on the argument from incredulity. An all-loving God who would send me to hell is preposterous; so that God must not exist! A God who is so "insecure" as to need me to worship is too increditable, so that God must not exist! It more tells us the limitation of the imaginations of atheists than whether God exists or no.

I am not arguing here that God must exist. I am just saying that most of the arguments against His existence are based on what atheists themselves would say is a fallacious argument.

 

[Ophiolite]

Statements made by atheists that are to them incredulous/difficult to imagine/increditable/absurd and so must be false:

⦁ An all-loving and all-power God allowing suffering
⦁ An all-loving sending anyone to hell
⦁ God "needing" us to worship Him
⦁ God would send a person to hell for being a free-thinker demanding evidence for God's existence before "believing" in Him

It seems,despite quoting the wiki article on Argument from Incredulity that you do not understand it.

The reason atheists reject the foregoing statements is that there is no substantive evidence to support them. Belief in these statements requires an act of faith. (Nothing wrong with faith if that forms a cornerstone of your worldview.) Disbelief does not require an instance of incredulity, merely a demand that undemonstrated assertions are best avoided.

I'll leave it to others to correct the errors and strawmen in the rest of your post.

 

[Dave G.]

God said He "created", I plain and simply need to know no more.

 

[Tinker Grey]

God said He "created", I plain and simply need to know no more.

God said that, did he? How do you know?

 

[HARK!]

Atheist Logic:


Description of atheist - American Heritage® Dictionary

One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.

Description of disbelieve - American Heritage® Dictionary

To refuse to believe in; reject. To withhold or reject belief.


Argument from ignorance, also known as argumentum ad ignorantiam or "appeal to ignorance" (where "ignorance" stands for: "lack of evidence to the contrary"), is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false, it is "generally accepted" (or vice versa). This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option, which is that there is insufficient investigation and therefore insufficient information to prove the proposition satisfactorily to be either true or false. Nor does it allow the admission that the choices may in fact not be two (true or false), but may be as many as four, (1) true, (2) false, (3) unknown between true or false, and (4) being unknowable (among the first three).[1] In debates, appeals to ignorance are sometimes used to shift the burden of proof.

Argument from ignorance - Wikipedia

 

[Occams Barber]

Statements made by atheists that are to them incredulous/difficult to imagine/increditable/absurd and so must be false:

⦁ An all-loving and all-power God allowing suffering
⦁ An all-loving sending anyone to hell
⦁ God "needing" us to worship Him
⦁ God would send a person to hell for being a free-thinker demanding evidence for God's existence before "believing" in Him

Your above points may have some use as subsidiary arguments against the existence of God but the real issue is the absence of reasonable evidence for the existence of God. In the absence of this evidence the above arguments are interesting but unnecessary. This is essentially the same point made by @Ophiolite in his post above (#2)

However, looking at these statements in isolation; the first, second and fourth points are essentially the same, i.e., an all-loving God allows or causes suffering. The problem with these statements is not their incredulity; it's their internal contradiction. Being 'all-loving' and, at the same time, allowing or causing suffering, are, arguably, contradictory qualities. Your third point is also contradictory in that an all-powerful God would not need to be worshipped. Such a God would, by definition, have no needs or wants. These arguments demonstrate a common problem, where God is depicted as an all-powerful, all-knowing etc. being who, at the same time, has a set of all-too-human characteristics.

OB

 

[Yttrium]

I don't consider myself to be an atheist, and I dislike arguments from incredulity, but I just wanted to poke at these.

⦁ An all-loving and all-power God allowing suffering

I actually have no problem with allowing suffering during life. Any suffering during a human lifetime is finite, and so inconsequential compared to an eternal existence. Suffering provides a contrast for enjoyment.

⦁ An all-loving sending anyone to hell

This one I have a problem with, if we're talking about eternal suffering. It's not a matter of incredulity, it's simply a logical contradiction. If Hell is temporary or not a place of eternal suffering, then no problem.

⦁ God "needing" us to worship Him

I don't consider this to be an issue.

⦁ God would send a person to hell for being a free-thinker demanding evidence for God's existence before "believing" in Him

If Hell is temporary, or not a place of eternal suffering, or God is not all-loving, then there's no real problem here.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

Description of disbelieve - American Heritage® Dictionary
To refuse to believe in; reject. To withhold or reject belief.

DISBELIEVE | definition in the Cambridge English Dictionary
Meaning of disbelieve in English
to not believe someone or something

Simple, really.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

There are a growing number of scientists who are very well-read on evolution and yet reject it for sound reason.
See Some of the Growing Number of Scientists Who Doubt the Darwinian Theory of Evolution Speak Out

Ah yes, the Discovery Institute's famous List of Scientists. More than a thousand people, eh? But how many Steves do they have on it? Here's a list of over one thousand four hundred scientists called Steve who have affirmed the following statement:

"Evolution is a vital, well-supported, unifying principle of the biological sciences, and the scientific evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the idea that all living things share a common ancestry. Although there are legitimate debates about the patterns and processes of evolution, there is no serious scientific doubt that evolution occurred or that natural selection is a major mechanism in its occurrence. It is scientifically inappropriate and pedagogically irresponsible for creationist pseudoscience, including but not limited to "intelligent design," to be introduced into the science curricula of our nation's public schools."

I understand that you yourself accept evolution, but when you say that "there are a growing number of scientists who reject it," you are, to say the least, being misleading.

(Updated)
Ah, here we are - I found the list.
It's got eighteen Steves on it. Eighteen Steves against one thousand, four hundred and forty-eight.

 

[HARK!]

DISBELIEVE | definition in the Cambridge English Dictionary
Meaning of disbelieve in English
to not believe someone or something

Simple, really.

ATHEIST | definition in the Cambridge English Dictionary
Meaning of atheist in English
someone who believes that God does not exist

Yes, simple.

 

[Tinker Grey]

ATHEIST | definition in the Cambridge English Dictionary
Meaning of atheist in English
someone who believes that God does not exist

Yes, simple.

Why did you omit the 2nd and 3rd definitions on that page?

 

[HARK!]

Why did you omit the 2nd and 3rd definitions on that page?

Why redefine the definition of the word?

Atheist
A'THEIST, noun [Gr. of a priv. and God.]

One who disbelieves the existence of a God, or Supreme intelligent Being.

A'THEIST, adjective Atheistical; disbelieving or denying the being of a Supreme God.


Websters Dictionary 1828 - Webster's Dictionary 1828 - atheist

 

[InterestedAtheist]

Why redefine the definition of the word?

Atheist
A'THEIST, noun [Gr. of a priv. and God.]

One who disbelieves the existence of a God, or Supreme intelligent Being.

A'THEIST, adjective Atheistical; disbelieving or denying the being of a Supreme God.


Websters Dictionary 1828 - Webster's Dictionary 1828 - atheist

You didn't answer @Tinker Grey 's question.

 

[HARK!]

You didn't answer @Tinker Grey 's question.

Just because you didn't understand the answer; doesn't negate that the answer was given.

Tell me; what is your motive to persist in your attempts to re-frame my argument, by introducing a straw man argument?

 

[Occams Barber]

Just because you didn't understand the answer; doesn't negate that the answer was given.

Tell me; what is your motive to persist in your attempts to re-frame my argument, by introducing a straw man argument?

Your answer totally avoided @Tinker Grey 's question. You did not explain why you omitted two additional definitions of atheist in the Cambridge entry. You then substituted a definition from the 1828 edition of Webster's Dictionary.

In other words your post did not answer the question and it created the impression of an attempt to confound and confuse the issue.
OB

 

[HARK!]

Your answer totally avoided @Tinker Grey 's question. You did not explain why you omitted two additional definitions of atheist in the Cambridge entry. You then substituted a definition from the 1828 edition of Webster's Dictionary.

In other words your post did not answer the question and it created the impression of an attempt to confound and confuse the issue.
OB

I presented the definitions of my argument within my argument. I would now argue that those who attempt to redefine the definitions of the argument; are those who attempt to confound and confuse the issue.

In addition I would make the argument that in the 1828 edition of Webster's Dictionary, there was a single definition for Atheist. Some modern dictionaries have multiple definitions; which blur the lines of the original intended meaning of the word. One could further make the argument that this liberal use of the word is intended to confound and confuse the understanding of the position of the person that the word was intended to describe.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

Just because you didn't understand the answer; doesn't negate that the answer was given.
Tell me; what is your motive to persist in your attempts to re-frame my argument, by introducing a straw man argument?

You're funny.

 

[MrsFoundit]

The reason atheists reject the foregoing statements is that there is no substantive evidence to support them.

"The argument from incredulity is a logical fallacy that occurs when someone decides that something did not happen, because they cannot personally understand how it could happen."

If "no substantive evidence" is why they do not personally understand how any of these could happen,

⦁ An all-loving and all-power God allowing suffering
⦁ An all-loving sending anyone to hell
⦁ God "needing" us to worship Him
⦁ God would send a person to hell for being a free-thinker demanding evidence for God's existence before "believing" in Him

That fits the description perfectly. It is argument from incredulity.

Belief in these statements requires an act of faith. (Nothing wrong with faith if that forms a cornerstone of your worldview.) Disbelief does not require an instance of incredulity, merely a demand that undemonstrated assertions are best avoided.

"The fallacy lies in the unstated premise. If a state of affairs is impossible to imagine, it doesn't follow that it is false; it may only mean that imagination is limited. "

So if atheists find a state of having faith impossible to imagine, it may mean their imagination is limited regarding faith. It is still argument from incredulity.

Argument from incredulity - RationalWiki

 

[Ophiolite]

Ah yes, the Discovery Institute's famous List of Scientists. More than a thousand people, eh? But how many Steves do they have on it? Here's a list of over one thousand four hundred scientists called Steve who have affirmed the following statement:

"Evolution is a vital, well-supported, unifying principle of the biological sciences, and the scientific evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the idea that all living things share a common ancestry. Although there are legitimate debates about the patterns and processes of evolution, there is no serious scientific doubt that evolution occurred or that natural selection is a major mechanism in its occurrence. It is scientifically inappropriate and pedagogically irresponsible for creationist pseudoscience, including but not limited to "intelligent design," to be introduced into the science curricula of our nation's public schools."

I understand that you yourself accept evolution, but when you say that "there are a growing number of scientists who reject it," you are, to say the least, being misleading.

(Updated)
Ah, here we are - I found the list.
It's got eighteen Steves on it. Eighteen Steves against one thousand, four hundred and forty-eight.

I was hoping someone would do the legwork on this. Thank you. I should really keep a note of the link on hand to use whenever this happens. "This" being someone who has not been paying any attention to the last few decades of debate between mainstream science and YEC/ID promoters who goes ahead and trots out the same, tired old, long refuted nonsense, in the hope it will impress someone who lacks analytical skills or a relevant education.

Now, that said, I wouldn't find it difficult to sign the same declaration that @HARK! thinks does such damage to the case for evolution. Let's look at that declaration more closely.

We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.
[Source: A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism]

• Of course I am skeptical of the claims. I trained as a scientist. I am skeptical of all claims. That's part of the methodology of science.
• I've never felt, since my undergraduate days, that random mutation and natural selection alone could account entirely for the complexity of life. Possible, but not convincingly demonstrated.
• Several developments eased my suspicions somewhat.
  • T.N.George, department head at my alma mater in the late 60's had, for twenty years, been toying with the notion of a rate gene that controlled the pace of evolution to account for the observed 'explosions" in the fossil record. A couple of years later Gould & Eldredge published a superior analysis they called punctuated equilibrium.
  • Hox genes helped explain some aspects of macro evolution.
  • Evo-Devo has added subtlety to the rough cudgel of natural selection
  • Niche creation through behavioural changes adds another layer
• But the skeptic in me says "I don't think we've got it all pinned down yet". And the scientist in me says, "I'm glad we don't . Just think what a world of wonders we have yet to discover, investigate and document".
• "Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged." Well, duh! Careful examination of evidence for any theory should always be encouraged. That's like saying "We should always test a hypothesis", but thinking the statement is radical and outside of mainstream science.
• Aside: Darwinian evolution, sensuo stricto, has long been abandoned. Darwin knew nothing of genetics and in some editions of On the Origin of Species allowed Lamarkism to intrude into his explanations.

So, I would find no difficulty in honestly signing the declaration as reflecting my views. I would not find it in conflict with my understanding that the diversity of life on this planet most likely arose through descent from a common ancestor via mutations mediated by natural selection and other mechanisms, yet to be clearly defined. That, in my opinion, renders the value of the declaration as an assault on evolution, as valuable as a pimple on the foreleg of a pregnant aardvark with poor eyesight.

 

[Ophiolite]

"The argument from incredulity is a logical fallacy that occurs when someone decides that something did not happen, because they cannot personally understand how it could happen."

If "no substantive evidence" is why they do not personally understand how any of these could happen,

⦁ An all-loving and all-power God allowing suffering
⦁ An all-loving sending anyone to hell
⦁ God "needing" us to worship Him
⦁ God would send a person to hell for being a free-thinker demanding evidence for God's existence before "believing" in Him

That fits the description perfectly. It is argument from incredulity.

Utter balderdash.

I accept as real many things that I have no understanding of how they might happen. Ignorance of mechanism rarely troubles me. I offer you two examples for comparison.

1. I inclined to the view that the continents moved before we had a mechanism to explain how they moved. Why did I do so? Because the evidence strongly suggested that such was the case. In the absence of that evidence I would not have suspected movement. Why would I?

2. I do not incline to the view that "An all-loving and all-powerful God allows suffering". Why not? Well, if he is all-powerful he could certainly act in that way. I see nothing incredible about that. What of the supposed contradiction that an all-loving entity would allow suffering? I don't see that as an issue. Even humans say things like "You have to be cruel to be kind". So, again I find no difficulty in accepting, in principle, that an all-loving and all-powerful God could allow suffering. Why then do not incline to this view? Simple: I see no meaningful evidence that supports the existence of such an entity.

There is no incredulity here, on my part. End of.