First, I'm not your dictionary:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuum_fallacy
And "herp what? that's ridiculous! derp," is not a valid contention:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divine_fallacy (The name of which is ironically an example of a reduction fallacy. Its unbiased name is Argument from Incredulity.)
Note: "Rejecting" a premise is a statement about how you feel, and is thus irrelevant. Assessment of soundness necessitates a -claim- of plausibility if it is to be relevant, else premises' antecedents could be questioned ad infinitum, their soundness dictated only by how "obvious" they are to the reader, ultimately arriving at whichever conclusion they wish.
tl;dr Screeching "Prove it!" isn't a valid contention to the soundness of premises.
1
1. If God doesn't exist, nothing actually, objectively matters.
2. Things actually, objectively matter.
3. Therefore, God exists. (modus tollens from 1)
2
1. If God were not to exist, the only thing that could create consciousness would be some interaction between any or all of the four fundamental forces of the universe.
2. To assume the brain is evidence that this happens is a fallacy of the single cause, i.e. it is to assume fallaciously that because the brain causes consciousness, it is sufficient for consciousness.
3. There is no evidence, empirical, mathematical, or otherwise, that any interaction between any of the four fundamental forces of the universe could possibly create consciousness.
4. Therefore, to believe consciousness is only a product of the universe is irrational.
3
1. Subjective morality has no bearing on objective morality, including and up to ideas like "Whatever is most advantegeous for the survival of the species is what is objectively moral," as such an idea is itself only subjective.
2. If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist.
3. Objective moral values and duties do exist.
4. Therefore, God exists.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuum_fallacy
And "herp what? that's ridiculous! derp," is not a valid contention:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divine_fallacy (The name of which is ironically an example of a reduction fallacy. Its unbiased name is Argument from Incredulity.)
Note: "Rejecting" a premise is a statement about how you feel, and is thus irrelevant. Assessment of soundness necessitates a -claim- of plausibility if it is to be relevant, else premises' antecedents could be questioned ad infinitum, their soundness dictated only by how "obvious" they are to the reader, ultimately arriving at whichever conclusion they wish.
tl;dr Screeching "Prove it!" isn't a valid contention to the soundness of premises.
1
1. If God doesn't exist, nothing actually, objectively matters.
2. Things actually, objectively matter.
3. Therefore, God exists. (modus tollens from 1)
2
1. If God were not to exist, the only thing that could create consciousness would be some interaction between any or all of the four fundamental forces of the universe.
2. To assume the brain is evidence that this happens is a fallacy of the single cause, i.e. it is to assume fallaciously that because the brain causes consciousness, it is sufficient for consciousness.
3. There is no evidence, empirical, mathematical, or otherwise, that any interaction between any of the four fundamental forces of the universe could possibly create consciousness.
4. Therefore, to believe consciousness is only a product of the universe is irrational.
3
1. Subjective morality has no bearing on objective morality, including and up to ideas like "Whatever is most advantegeous for the survival of the species is what is objectively moral," as such an idea is itself only subjective.
2. If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist.
3. Objective moral values and duties do exist.
4. Therefore, God exists.
