Atheist begins with the conclusion that “if something has no evidence you should assume it doesnt exist”

atheist atheism blindfold.jpg

I engaged in the following discussion based on my video AronRa claims to know that God does not exist.

I, Ken Ammi, noted:
Ironically, in order to positively assert God’s non-existence one would have to possess omniscience and since omniscience is, traditionally, an attribute of God then one must be God in order to positively assert God’s non-existence. This means that, in this case, AronRa has proved the existence of god even if that god is AronRa…may God help us all.


I engaged in the following discussion based on my video AronRa claims to know that God does not exist.

I, Ken Ammi, noted:
Ironically, in order to positively assert God’s non-existence one would have to possess omniscience and since omniscience is, traditionally, an attribute of God then one must be God in order to positively assert God’s non-existence. This means that, in this case, AronRa has proved the existence of god even if that god is AronRa…may God help us all.

A certain Pedantic Peripatetic Philosophy replied
i think his logic (like mine) is that if something has no evidence you should assume it doesnt exist. would you say you lack a belief in santa or you believe he doesnt exist? because i would say he doesnt exist because of no convincing evidence. its the same thing for god

Ken Ammi
Agreed, “if something has no evidence you should assume it doesnt exist” so what does that have to do with God? Also, note your movement from “evidence” to “convincing evidence.” Correlations to Santa are a category error. Yet, the first issue is actually that you began with a conclusion based on hidden assumptions so first back up and tell us how does your worldview 1) provide a premise for truth, logic, and ethics, 2) for adhering to them, and 3) for demanding that others do likewise?

Pedantic Peripatetic Philosophy
i didnt start with a conclusion, i started neutral. also if using santa doesnt apply then how bout i use zeus? there is no evidence for him (also sorry for saying convincing evidence, mistake on my part) so therefore i should assume he doesnt exist. i am not basing my conclusion of hidden assumptions, there is no evidence for the positive, therefore we can assume the negative. my worldview has nothing to do with the topic of (a)theism, thats a completely different can of worms

Ken Ammi
Well friend, of course you started with a conclusion since you started with “i think his logic (like mine)” so that you began by merely implying the existence of logic, that adherence to it is an imperative, that you are to adhere to it, that others should as well, that you accurately conform to it, etc., etc., etc.
Thus, the hidden assumptions are those upon which you came to such conclusions, those upon which you implied such things.
In other words, how does your worldview 1) provide a premise for truth, logic, and ethics, 2) for adhering to them, and 3) for demanding that others do likewise?
Without these answers then you can go on about Santa and Zeus and how you actually claim to know “there is no evidence for the positive” and it will merely be you expressing subjective emotions that are impotent. Thus, your worldview has everything to do with any topic.

Pedantic Peripatetic Philosophy
Ken Ammi “implying the existance of logic” thank you for making it clear we can not have a good faith argument as you have shown yourself to be a backpeddling solipsist

Ken Ammi
Non sequitur. You began with a conclusion such as implying the existence and now seem only interested in avoiding such a fact and calling me names as a distraction tactic.

Pedantic Peripatetic Philosophy
Ken Ammi “calling me names” youre questioning truth and existance when you start to lose an argument which is just like what a solipsist does. i dont need to explain existance or proof for this because we both agreed on it until you didnt want to answer my point, exactly like a solipsist

Ken Ammi
You may recall that I asked “how does your worldview 1) provide a premise for truth, logic, and ethics, 2) for adhering to them, and 3) for demanding that others do likewise?” which you conveniently side stepped.
That had nothing to do with when I start losing an argument since I elucidated, “Without these answers then you…will merely be you expressing subjective emotions that are impotent” which is what is happening still.
And no, it is not a case of “because we both agreed on it” since to you truth, logic, and ethics are accidents and to you there is no universal imperative to adhere to them. I realize that your ultimate answer to anything and everything will be that it just is, it just happened, it just happens to have happened, etc. but such is the bed you made when you chose your worldview.

Pedantic Peripatetic Philosophy
1. Truth que truth, which follows there can be no contradictions. 2. Because if you don’t follow truth then that’s a dumb thing to do and its not useful to you 3. why would anyone want to do something wrong?
i would hope we all want to do truthful things and so I wish to help people get to that goal. also dont call my wordview “accidents”, its not accidents, accidents imply one thing was meant to happen and a different thing did. physics works one way, it is never an accident unless human desire is involved. there is no universal imperative to adhere to them because we’re humans, is it a universal imperative as a human that we should adhere to them? yes i would think so, but only because not would not being truthful. when i said “we both agree on it” i just wanted to get on with what we were talking about.
its like if some communists were discussing communist theory and a capitalist asks why they havent justified their view against capitalism (this isnt a full analogy dont get your knickers in a twist). my point was that its a waste of time to talk about our fundamental beliefs because were arguing about something else. heck, we werent even arguing in the first place. i was trying to explain to you what his actual view is: that he doesnt assert gods non existance first, he sees there is no evidence for him and follows that to its logical conclusion that we should assume it doesnt exist.
I thought of a better version of my analogy, its like 2 people arguing over what actions are morally better. the fact theyve agreed to argue about this shows they know that each other already thinks morals exist so both of them going on record to talk about why they believe in morals is a waste of time. or its like in high end physics papers if they wrote what every symbol meant and the laws of physics, they dont need to do that so they dont do it.

Ken Ammi
Friend, you are merely begging questions. “Truth que truth” seems to mean “I dunno, it just is” which is my point.
But why “there can be no contradictions” when there are?
And we see that all your worldview has to offer is subjective emotive assertions “if you don’t follow truth then that’s a dumb thing to do and its not useful to you.” So, why avoid being dumb if we are just accidentally and temporarily existing apes?
“why would anyone want to do something wrong?” for many, many, many reasons: how is that even a question?
You may subjectively “hope we all want to do truthful things” but your hope goes ignored by many people and you are getting ahead of yourself: why, on your worldview, should accidentally and temporarily existing apes do truthful things when truth would be based on a reflection or reality which is accidental and there is no imperative to adhere to it?
And if the universe and everything it contains, including your haphazardly evolved brain, were not meant to happen then all of it is accidental: and yes, you can move the goalpost by picking on semantics that will only expose your desperation to avoid the implications of your worldview.
Moreover, you say “physics works one way” but, again, they work one way by accident.
So, sure, your subjective assertion is that “there is no universal imperative to adhere to” physics but we can subjectively have a personal preference adhere to them (which is incoherent, of course, since you do not chose to allow your neural reactions to occur as they do, they do adhere to physics regardless of your personal preference).
But you are back to the same ol’ problem, you think we should adhere to physics “only because not would not being truthful” but truth is accidental, as is your supposed ability to discern it, and there is no imperative to do so—you are building a bottomless pit of assertions stacked one atop another so that it is assertions all the way down.
Indeed, you think “its a waste of time to talk about our fundamental beliefs because were arguing about something else” but fail to note that the argument about something else is based on, founded upon, premised upon our fundamental beliefs. I realize that Atheists are used to showing up, saying “Jump” and expecting people like me to reply, “How high?” but my reply is “Why?”
So you offered a perfect example, “he sees there is no evidence for him” which is utterly subjective “and follows that to its [il]logical conclusion that we should assume it doesnt exist” so that the conclusion is based on the premise—and the premise is faulty so we need not bother with the conclusion.
Thus, your better analogy runs into the same ol’ problem. Sure, perhaps the 2 people already think morals exist but the one believes they are derived from God’s very ontology and front loaded into us so there is an imperative to adhere to them but the other person thinks we are temporarily and accidentally existing apes so that morality is just a Darwinian survival mechanism and that the desire to survive is accidental, as is life, as is the ape’s ability to come to such conclusions, and there is no imperative to be moral plus, no ultimate accountability if the ape is not.
You analogy to high end physics papers is that they do not write what every symbol means and the laws of physics because such as been established already and yet, the conclusions derived from them are up for challenge.
So, since your worldview is that the entire universe is accidental—or call is by whatever consolingly delusional term you subjectively prefer—is utterly destroys all that which follows.

Well, that ended it since the Pedantic Peripatetic Philosophy was not Pedantic enough to continue.

See my books on Atheism for details on these issues.

atheist atheism blindfold.jpg

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

A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby. If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help out. Here is my donate/paypal page.

Due to robo-spaming, I had to close the comment sections. However, you can comment on my Twitter page, on my Facebook page, or any of my other social network sites listed on the left hand menu and/or on the “Share/Save” button below the tags.