There is no logical fallacy here (idk about fallacy of relevance), atheists really cannot prove absolutely that God doesn't exist but the argument could be turned around to say:

To know absolutely that God exists one must have infinite knowledge
To have infinite knowledge one would have to be a God
Theists are not God
Theists cannot prove God exists absolutely

I think it's just a red herring because it applies to both sides and so can't be used by one to critique the other

To know absolutely that God exists one must have infinite knowledge.

There is another force at play when you introduce God to this equation. Without God, you must have infinite knowledge to prove he doesn't exist. If God does exist, you don't need infinite knowledge to know that he exists. All you need is for him to communicate with you. When God is introduced into the equation you don't need infinite knowledge because God already has it.

Questionall

But you DO need infinite knowledge to know that you are not getting deceived and that it is not something or someone else communicating with you. Assuming you don't know whether or not God exists, you will need a certain amount of evidence to make a judgement either way in terms of his existence. There is always a probability that there is one piece of evidence you are missing that would prove to you that he exists/doesn't exist. So receiving a "vision" is not enough as you know your perception is limited, you will need to know everything to know for sure he exists (so that you'd know there is no piece of evidence you're missing that could lead to a different conclusion). Your conscious experience of a communication from God is doubtable and as a result, you still need infinite knowledge to confirm whether or not he exists

atheists cannot prove that god doesnt exists — 0cards0

True. :up: But the bit you're missing, which completes the sense of your statement, is:

Theists cannot prove that God does exist.

God's existence cannot be verified or falsified. It is a waste of anyone's time to even try. Believe if you believe; don't if you don't. :up:

Hail Eris!

There is no proof for negation of something. For example,

"Something doesn't exist."

=> If it is a something, then it must exist. If it doesn't exist, then it cannot be a something.

I think the problem arises with whether we define mental concepts as existences within the mind.

There is no logical fallacy here (idk about fallacy of relevance), atheists really cannot prove absolutely that God doesn't exist but the argument could be turned around to say:

To know absolutely that God exists one must have infinite knowledge
To have infinite knowledge one would have to be a God
Theists are not God
Theists cannot prove God exists absolutely

I think it's just a red herring because it applies to both sides and so can't be used by one to critique the other — khaled

This red herring is indeed why the discussion often stagnates. I think God needs to be better defined. Personally, I see God as the ultimate highest consciousness, all-aware and unattached. The discussion would then be about whether consciousness can exist independently of the flesh, or even if all consciousness is connected at a subconscious level, forming one supreme consciousness.

to know absolutely that there is no god one must have infinite knowledge.
but to have infinite knowledge one would have to be god.
it is impossible to be god & an atheist at the same time.
atheists cannot prove that god doesnt exists.

which fallacy of relevance it makes? — 0cards0

From my dealings with Atheists, when you pin them down, they will admit that they can only Believe there is no God. Proof to come later.

SteveKlinko

But neither can theists prove the existence of God, this is why this cannot be taken as a point for theism unless you make the argument from ignorance fallacy (You don't know therefore God/ Spaghetti monster/ Universe crapping unicorn, etc)

i only know of 2 basic arguments against the proposal that God is not. The first is a noseeum argument- if there was a God we would see Him, we don’t see Him, therefore He is not. The second is the argument from evil.

Skeptical theism answers both the same way. That there is no basis to believe that we have the tools to evaluate either proposal

Both the atheist and the theist base their respective beliefs on faith. One in a faith in man’s ability to reason, the other in God.

God is or is not, is not a matter of fact, and there are reasoned arguments for both- each positions ultimately believe is faith based.

Yeah I know dude, I wasn't arguing for either side. I was specifically pointing out that neither side has an absolute claim for truth HOWEVER the theists usually use the lack of an absolute claim for truth of the atheists to claim that God exists. I was saying THAT is a fallacy, because both sides have the same flaw and so it cannot be used by one to critique the other. It's like a slug making fun of a worm because it can't run (this was the best I could come up with lol)

SteveKlinko

But neither can theists prove the existence of God, this is why this cannot be taken as a point for theism unless you make the argument from ignorance fallacy (You don't know therefore God/ Spaghetti monster/ Universe crapping unicorn, etc) — khaled

I didn't say that what I said was any argument for Theism. You added that. The statement assumed that the Theists just Believe in things. I was only pointing out that the Atheists Believe in things too. The difference is that the Atheist rail against the Beliefs of the Theists even thought they have Beliefs themselves. Most people do not think of Atheists as having Beliefs.

Oh ok. I personally see theists railing against atheists a lot more and I never thought athiests didn't have beliefs

which fallacy of relevance it makes? — 0cards0

It's a bit of a card trick if that makes any sense. The issue isn't whether an atheist can prove or disprove something. The hidden issue is whether anyone can know anything "absolutely". To prove my point just select any two substitutes for "God doesn't exist" and atheist. In example:

to know absolutely elephants can't fly one must have infinite knowledge.
but to have infinite knowledge one would have to be god.
it is impossible to be god & a wizard at the same time.
wizards cannot prove that elephants can't fly . — 0cards0

Have I proven wizards can't disprove flying elephants. I submit that I have; And yet I feel it may just be the way the argument is arranged that makes the conclusion seem accurate. In order to illustrate that point here's the argument again without the "tag-a-longs'.

to know absolutely one must have infinite knowledge.

but to have infinite knowledge one would have to be god.

it is impossible to be god

[a subject] can not prove [a statement] . — 0cards0

So, essentially its not relevant whether anyone has infinite knowledge or why they don't, because absolute proof is generally considered an unreasonable standard. If the author was being honest they would include an

atheists cannot prove [absolutely] that god doesnt exists. — 0cards0

An atheist can prove to a reasonable degree of certitude that God doesn't exist. That is why there are so many atheists.




:All quotes where edited for illustrative purposes, these are not the actual statements made:

to know absolutely that there is no god one must have infinite knowledge.
but to have infinite knowledge one would have to be god.
it is impossible to be god & an atheist at the same time.
atheists cannot prove that god doesnt exists.

which fallacy of relevance it makes?
edit:
this is a question from a logic book i read, it says it makes a fallacy of relevance,
red herring
straw man
ad populum
ad hominem
missing the point
emotions — 0cards0

Missing the point? You don't need to know absolutely, just adequately.

Oh, Cheshire beat me to the punch. Nevermind. (Ironically, a lot of replies here missed the point of the opening post!) :lol:

Begging the question. Your second premise uses as a certitude the very thing you wish to prove is the case.