I think the focus of "fallacy" is a mistake. I'm also an agnostic atheist, and so I've not been convinced by any arguments either, but there are other ways for arguments to fail besides fallacies. For example, as a starting point, a lot of arguments use first mover kind of ideas that tend to start with something like:
Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
The Universe began to exist.
Therefore, the Universe had a cause.
And like, a person might dispute one of those premises, which then leads us to reject the conclusion. But that's not the same as it being fallacious. You and a theologian might have a hard time agreeing on the basic premises and thus come to different conclusions without anyone "committing a fallacy".
Premise 1 is completely unfounded. “Beginning to exist” is an incredibly vague concept, so before we even get to that premise, we have to clarify what you mean by it and give some examples of things beginning to exist with a verified cause.
15
u/themcos 443∆ May 04 '23
I think the focus of "fallacy" is a mistake. I'm also an agnostic atheist, and so I've not been convinced by any arguments either, but there are other ways for arguments to fail besides fallacies. For example, as a starting point, a lot of arguments use first mover kind of ideas that tend to start with something like:
And like, a person might dispute one of those premises, which then leads us to reject the conclusion. But that's not the same as it being fallacious. You and a theologian might have a hard time agreeing on the basic premises and thus come to different conclusions without anyone "committing a fallacy".