Oh this should be good
Some of the arguments are completely lame and presumptive.
Really: "I think God exists, therefore God exists"
So if we kill the thinker and he stops thinking, God stops existing, yes?
What if I think God does NOT exist, doesn't my thinking counteract his thinking?
Quote:
A) If God exists, i should believe in him
B)I believe in God
C)Therefore, GOD EXISTS
|
Totally presumes the reader will go along with the original premise of "If God exists". This is the same faulty arguing style that Erich von Däniken used in "Chariots of the Gods?".
- He would start with a premise which could be a fact or not.
- Then he would place an assumption based on the premise. You would be expected to agree with where and how he leads you.
- He could then base an assumption off of the first assumption which itself was based on a premise (faulty or not).
- He'd repeat this until he came to the conclusion that he wanted you to come to.
This is flawed reasoning and some of these same statements reflect the same flaw.
I'll let others more senior to me weigh in on this but to me this provides no proof. It just assumes you cannot think for yourself and then provides conclusions for you.