If you believe in god, you have to believe in leprechauns.

It is my contention that accepting the existence of a deity logically forces the believer, if they are consistent, to also believe in myriad other fanciful imaginings. I provide my argument below, with leprechauns being used where any conceivable, unprovable proposition could be substituted.1. Any proposition must be provable or unprovable.2. Unprovability is an absolute quality. I.e. one thing cannot be more or less unprovable then another.3. The existence of a divine being or beings is unprovable.4. The existence of leprechauns is unprovable.a. Therefore, the existence a divine being or beings and the existence of leprechauns are equally unprovable.b. It is illogical and inconsistent to accept one while dismissing the other when both are equally unprovable.I invite any who disagree with me to show my error, if they can. I can provide definitions for any of my terms or defenses of any of my propositions upon request.

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

Mike,I think it's a good thread topic, but... why are you trying to force the use of logic on what is irrational? That should be premise #0: faith is irrational.In that case, premise "0" and your "4b" clearly do not warrant the conclusion that "you must believe in leprechauns if you believe in God." You're trying to force rationality in exactly what is governed by irrationality; that's your mistake, not the mistake of those who believe.Your argument doesn't even have to be about another mythological being. It can be about anything--if you beleive in God, you must believe that there's video cameras all around the world videotaping your experiences, and that everybody else, when out of sight, runs to the closest TV screen to watch your every move. Or that under the ground of the earth there's a really huge pit of rattlesnakes that drink the runoff rain water and use it to power their ability to glow. In other words, they must believe ANYTHING and EVERYTHING that is irrational.Belief in God, at its very core, is irrational. Period.Ben

While I agree with you, faith is irrational, the point I was making is that it is inconsistent to accept one unprovable thing (a deity) but not others (leprechauns, pink unicorns, etc.). I suppose one may say that it would be a corollary to my proposition that belief in a deity and belief in Leprechauns is of equal value. I'll think about that.I was hoping that some more reasonable theists would try to demonstrate otherwise and in engaging them, get them to admit their inconsistency. Of course, I may be wrong and some very clever theist could show how I am incorrect and that no such inconsistency exists.Thank you for your comments and I hopefully await the comments of any theists.

Gladly admitted.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Then my follow up question would be why do you choose your particular inconsistent belief over all the others? Is it, for you, somehow superior and if so, why?

During the Renaissance, a philosopher/logician used logic to prove the existence of God (yes, capital "G"!). Unfortunately, I can't remember his name right now and the book I have that gives his logical proof is at home. I'll try to find something in the library later on.Anyway, although later logicians found some flaws in his proof, it is still a very convincing piece of work. I'm surprised I haven't seen many theists use it for their argument.

---

Hate world.Revenge soon!

Lam,
I've read all the commonly cited attempted proofs for a deity and I would be thrilled to see one I haven't read before. Please post it here or in another thread if you would be so kind. Thank you in advance.

quote:

---

Then my follow up question would be why do you choose your particular inconsistent belief over all the others? Is it, for you, somehow superior and if so, why?

---

I think it is a silly question, asking why people aren't consistently inconsistent. If one is already inconsistent, what is the damage of continuing in one's own inconsistency by picking and choosing which deities or supernatural creatures to believe in? As an analogy, it is like asking a UFO expert why he believes in gray UFO's instead of pink UFO's.My understanding, as an agnostic (or an atheist according to crashfrog) and former christian, is that one is not logically able to differentiate between the existence of little green irishmen and Yahweh. This is why christianity is based on faith, not on evidence, logic, or proofs. I think this is why Jar gladly admits that it is inconsitent, since his faith is an important factor that allows him to be inconsistent.

Well, I think over time I've laid out a pretty complete summary of my beliefs. For some reason a few of them seem to have struck nerves here and so are listed in the POTM threads. Feel free to look them over and I'll be glad to discuss any specifics but the answer really is more than what could be covered in a post or even one thread.But to answer the question in your OP, religious and belief systems are not subject to the same logic or analysis we use in science daily. They are, at heart, irrational. Since they are irrational, consistency is simply not something likely or even desirable. That is not all that different than many more prosaic parts of our lives, such as my personal preference for dark beers and BLT sandwiches.Growing up we had a family tradition, that on a child's birthday (and we had a bunch of them) the child could have his favorite food for dinner. I loved tomato sandwiches (with or without bacon). Unfortunately, I was also born in January and way back when I was a child (long time ago. I remember helping Moses first learn how to carve letters in stone), you could not get tomatoes in January, so each year, we would celebrate my birthday dinner in July instead of January.Now there is no logical or scientific reason why I would prefer tomatoes over steak, but I do. It is not reasonable, rational or subject to examination, it is a personal preference. My brother Cecil, fool that he is, always wanted boiled chicken.Why should other personal preferences be different?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

I have to disagree. Unprovability is not an absolute. There is, more often than not, some evidence for, or against, any proposition. It is the weight that we assign to this evidence combined with the ease of its validation that determines the provability of the proposition. Therefore, (un)provability is a fuzzy quality, to be measured in degrees of (un)certainty, rather than a boolean value.Even in the case of the existence of a deity, there is some evidence that lends the proposition a degree of provability, albeit pathetically weak.This message has been edited by Legend, 12-02-2004 07:05 PM

---

"In life, you have to face that some days you'll be the pigeon and some days you'll be the statue."

It's been a long time since I read the argument, but it basically goes like this. Please note that this is an oversimplification of it. I'll post a better version when I find the book.1) The greatest thing in the universe must exist.
2) God is the greatest thing in the universe.3) Therefore, God must exist. From your tone, it sounds like you don't know that I'm an atheists

---

Hate world.Revenge soon!

{edited: double post}This message has been edited by Lam, 12-02-2004 07:11 PM

---

Hate world.Revenge soon!

Technically speaking, its also impossible for you to prove to me that YOU exist.

---

If you say there no absolutes, I ask you, are you absolutely sure?

Bah I don't like these ontological proofs (I think thats what they are called)It seems like you could just as well say that the most numerous thing in the universe must exist, invisible green elves are the most numerous thing in the universe, therefore invisible green elves must exist.

---

If you say there no absolutes, I ask you, are you absolutely sure?