In order to have a proper discussion, we must first define atheism, agnosticism and theism.
- Atheism (noun) – Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.
- Agnosticism (noun) – The belief that the existence or nonexistence of a deity or deities cannot be known with certainty.
- Theism (noun) – Belief in the existence of a god or gods, especially belief in a personal God as creator and ruler of the world.
By definition, atheists hold the belief “There doesn’t exist a God.” Restated, by the Quantifier Negation Laws, “For all the Universe, there is no God.” To establish the veracity of this claim, the thinker must have observed and retained all data that has ever existed in the Universe up until that moment. This includes sensory information that is beyond the ken of human understanding. In other words, an atheist must believe, arrogantly, that they know everything. This is mandatory, or they’re illogical.
On the contrary, to establish the proof of a God, one needs to only observe one instance of proof. Again, this is the way that logic works. There exists an x requires only one instance of observation of x. So, the assumption of the atheist must also be that no one else could have observed a God either.
Since atheists must know everything, it is sufficient to show that they don’t know everything to prove their stance incorrect. Thus, one must simply query them by the Socratic method until they quickly concede that they don’t know everything.
What positions are logical? Agnosticism and theism are both logical positions. By case analysis, if a person has observed proof that is sufficient for themselves, there is at least one example of a God, then they may logically be a theist. If they have not, then they may logically be an agnostic. These are the only two logical positions.
All I can do when I see these discussions of logic(which is absolutely accurate in terms of actual logic) I think back to college with professors with thick foreign accents and everyone failing due to not understanding the basic premises you encapsulated here. It’s also funny because there is a strong correlation between people who understand such things and the belief in something greater. Not a new argument by any means but good to see from someone so well educated.
Thank you for your input. My goal was to make the argument as clear as possible. Thus, I included links to the dictionary where the terms were defined and also to the Wikipedia article on predicate logic.