Most of these are my original arguments I made. The rest are versions I made of already existing arguments
Argument about God about justified true belief
P1: Logic is used for problem solving
P2: God is believed by Christians to be omniscient (having all knowledge) and therefore has no problems to solve
P3: Since God has no problems to solve, God wouldn't use logic
P4: Knowledge is justified true belief
P5: Epistemology is using logic to figure out what you believe you know is justified
P6: Since God wouldn't use logic, God has no epistemology
P7: Since God has no epistemology, God cannot justify what it thinks it believes is knowledge
P8: Since God cannot justify it's belief, God has no knowledge
C: There is no God
Argument against God about knowledge
P1: God is believed by Christians as being omniscient (having all knowledge)
P2: Experience is a form of knowledge
P3: Experience is sense data
P4: Senses are used to acquire sense data
P5: Since God is believed to lack senses, God would not acquire sense data
P6: Because God has no senses to use, God lacks sense data (experience)
P7: Since God lacks experience, God lacks some knowledge
C: There is no God
Argument against God about intelligence
P1: God is believed as being the most intelligent being and omniscient
P2: Intelligence is the the ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills
P3: Since God is believed to be omniscient, it would have no reason to acquire and apply knowledge and skills
P4: Since God is believed to be have no reason to apply knowledge and skills, God has no intelligence
C: There is no God
2 Hypotheticals concerning the relevence of believing in free will to reason
P1: Free will is true
P2: Free will is needed to reason
P3: Some people don't believe they have free will
P4: Those people would still have free will
C: Those people would still be able to reason
P1: Determinism is true
P2: Free will is needed to reason
P3: Some people believe they have free will
P4: Those people would not have free will
C: Those people still wouldn't be able to reason
Argument against Jesus being God and God's existence
P1: Christians believe Jesus is God manifested as a human
P2: Christians believe God is omniscient
P3: Humans have senses
P4: Senses are used to acquire sense data
P5: Sense data is experience
P6: Experience is a form of knowledge
P7: Since God is believed by Christians would be acquiring knowledge when manifested as a man (as Jesus), it means it lacked some knowledge.
P8: Since Christians believe God is omniscient, and since Jesus lacked some knowledge, Jesus cannot be God.
P9: Since Christians believe God is omniscient, and believe that their God lacked some knowledge, then it is a contradiction
C: The Christian God doesn't exist.
Argument against God about duration
P1: God is a being believed by monotheists that it always existed
P2: God is a being believed by monotheists that it is outside time
P3: The phrase "always existed" implies duration
P4: Duration implies time
P5: IF God exists where there is no time then God has no duration
P6: Since God has no duration, God has no time to exist
P7: Since God has no time to exist, it is a contradiction for God to always exist
Conclusion: There is no God
Argument against God about lacking space
P1: God is believed by monotheists to have no space
P2: To have space means to have spatial dimensions
P3: For a being to have locality, requires spatial dimensions
P4: To have locality is to be somewhere
P5: Since God has no spacial dimensions, God can't have locality
P6: Since God doesn't have locality, God is nowhere.
P7: To be nowhere is the same as not existing.
C: God doesn't exist.
Argument against God in the English Language
P1: The word "before" in English implies time
P2: Monotheists believe God existed before the universe and is atemporal
P3: In the Big Bang Theory time began to exist with the expansion of the universe
P4: If a monotheist accepts the Big Bang theory, then they believe that God exists BEFORE time
P5: To "exist" is a present tense verb in the English language and implies time
P6: To believe that an atemporal being "exists before" time means a being without time has time while time also exists before time which is incoherent.
C: God cannot exist if the Big Bang theory is true.
Argument against God giving people an objective moral code
P1: Subjective means existing in the mind; belonging to the thinking subject rather than to the object of thought (opposed to objective )
P2: God is defined by theists of having a mind
P3: Theists believe that God gives people moral codes
C: Whatever moral code God gives is subjective
Argument against God about causality
P1: God is believed to be a timeless (without time) being that caused the universe to exist.
P2: Causality aka cause and effect, are 2 events.
P3: Time is defined as all events: past, present and future, seen as a whole.
P4: Without time, there are no events
P5: Without events, there is no causality
P6: To cause anything without time is a contradiction.
Conclusion: There is no God.
Argument against the Christian Trinity violating the Law of Identity
The Law of Identity is If A=B and B=C therefore A=C
P1: Jesus (A) = God (B)
P2: God (B) = Heavenly Father (C)
C: Jesus (A) = Father (C)
Demonstration of the infinite loop of meaninglessness that Christians call self when identifying with the "immaterial"
self=soul=immaterial=mind=self=soul=immaterial=mind=self=soul=immaterial=mind=self=soul=immaterial=mind=
Argument against the Trinity being monotheism
P1: A person is a being
P2: A being is something/someone that exists
P3: If God is 3 persons, then God is 3 beings
P4: In the trinity the 3 persons/beings of God are believed to also be different
P5: In the trinity each person/being is believed to be fully God
P6: Polytheism is the belief that there is more than one God
P7: To believe that each person/being in the trinity is fully God means there are 3 Gods in the trinity
C: The Trinity is Polytheism
Argument against the Trinity about contadiction
P1: A person is a being
P2: A being is something/someone that exists
P3: If God is 3 persons, then God is 3 beings
P4: In the Trinity the 3 beings of God are believed to be the same being
P5: In the Trinity the 3 beings of God are believed to also be different beings
P6: To believe that 3 beings are the same being but are also different beings is a contradiction
C: The Trinity is False
Using the premises that trinitarians accept, it would mean modalism is valid, but since trinitarians reject modalism and believe that Jesus is not the Father, they are left with a nonsequitur fallacy.
Also to continue it if B = The Holy Spirit, then A=B, which means Jesus = The Holy Spirit, which once again Christians reject even though it would be a valid inference using a premise that Trinitarians accept.
Also the mere fact that Christians, who are generally Trinitarians, believe that something can be distinct and the same which is a contradiction since they believe the Father, Son and Holy Spirit is God (the same) but also believe each is distinct (not the same)
Argument against people who agree God is unfalsifiable (cannot have any empirical evidence ever) while asking for empirical evidence to be persuaded that God is true or not.
P1: To be a member of the Cult of Variable X (CoVX) would mean the person tells a strong atheist (Someone who says there is no God) that to argue for strong atheism that the definition the atheist is using has to be empirically verified to be true
P2: In order for the definition to be empirically verified to be true, God would have to be empirically verified to be true.
P3: If God was empirically verified to be true then theism would empirically verified to be true
P4: So in order for the COVX member to accept an atheist argument against God, the atheist first would have to empirically verify theism is true
P5: To expect someone to empirically verify the idea they are arguing against is true is illogical
C: CoVX members are illogical
Argument against "anarcho"-"capitalism" being anarchism, capitalism or coherent
P1: Anarchism is the belief that non-hierarchical involuntary associations are preferable over heirachical involuntary associations
P2: Capitalism is based on property rights
P3: Property rights are legal claims (entitlements/privileges) created by governments
P4: Governments force people into heirachical involentary associations
C: Anarchism is incompatible with Capitalism
3 Arguments against Allah being merciful if Islam is true (Hypotheticals)
P1: God exists.
P2: Atheists are people who honestly are not convinced there is a God or honestly believe that God cannot exist.
P3: Because atheists are not convinced that God exists or think God cannot exist, they cannot repent to God.
P4: God will send unrepentent people to hell.
P5: God sends atheists to hell because they didn't repent.
C: God sends atheists to hell because they honestly have the wrong belief.
P1: God exists
P2: Atheists are people who honestly are not convinced there is a God or honestly believe that God cannot exist
P3: Because atheists are not convinced that God exists or think God cannot exist, they cannot repent to God
P4: God will send unrepentent people to hell
P5: God sends atheists to hell because they didn't repent
C: God sends atheists to hell because they honestly have the wrong beliefs
P1: Allah exists
P2: Allah is the true God
P3: Non-muslim theists, who honestly believe God seeks repentance can only seek forgiveness to the God they honestly believe is true which isn't Allah.
P4: Non-muslim theists repent to the wrong God.
P5: Allah only forgives those whom repent to it.
P6: Allah sends those who don't repent to it, to hell.
P7: Since non-muslim theists repent to the wrong God, non-muslim theists cannot repent to Allah.
C: Allah sends non-muslims theists to hell because they honestly have the wrong beliefs.
Argument that Christians are Witches via use of Witchcraft
P1: Magic is the power of apparently influencing events by using mysterious or supernatural forces. https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/magic
P2: Prayer is a solemn request for help or expression of thanks addressed to God or another deity. https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/prayer
P3: Telepathy is the supposed communication of thoughts or ideas by means other than the known senses. https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/telepathy
P4: Spell is a form of words used as a magical charm or incantation. https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/spell
P5: Christians believe that they can communicate with God via their thoughts (see P3), or words (See P2 and P4) in order for to ask God to perform a supernatural feat (see P1)
P6: Witchcraft is practice of magic, especially black magic; the use of spells.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/witchcraft
P7: A Witch is a woman thought to have magic powers, especially evil ones, popularly depicted as wearing a black cloak and pointed hat and flying on a broomstick. https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/witch
C: Since Christians admit to using spells via prayers (see P2 and P4) in the form of telepathy (see P3) to get God to perform feats (See P1), then by definition, Christians use witchcraft (see P5) and thus are witches (see P6)
Against fundy Christians that believe you need to be Christian in order to have knowledge
P1: Without being Christian, someone cannot have knowledge.
P2: In order to be a Christian you need to repent for your sins and ask Jesus to be your Lord and Savior.
P3: In order to repent for your sins you need action to show that you apologize for what you did to demonstrate you are sincere i.e. follow the Commandments of Jesus.
P4: Fundy Christians believe that only Jesus can follow the Commandments he gave because they believe he is God and that people are too weak to do the same.
P5: The fundy "Christian" has not repented for their sins.
P6: Because fundy christian has not repented for his sins, they are not a Christian.
C: Fundy "Christian" have no knowledge.
Argument that calling Jesus the "Truth" as well as the arbiter of "Truth" is circular reasoning
P1:Jesus is the truth.
P2: Jesus is the arbiter of truth (Jesus).
P3: An arbiter is a person who settles a dispute or has ultimate authority in a matter..
P4: Jesus (truth) is the arbiter of Jesus (truth) and Jesus (truth) is his own standard is a redundency.
P5: Redudency is circular reasoning.
C: Calling Jesus the truth and the arbiter of truth is circular reasoning.
Argument why monotheism is incompatible with Science
P1: "God (monotheism) did it" means that a processes or an occurance is directly or indirectly guided by God.
P2: God is believed by monotheists to be a supernatural entity.
P3: All scientific theories use methodological naturalism as an axiom and thus never uses God as an explanation for any fact, either directly or indirectly.
P4: If God (monotheism) exists, all scientific theories are wrong. See P3
P5: If someone believes "God did it" then they reject any scientific explanation. See P3
C: Monotheism is incompatible with science.
Argument why Capitalism is destructive.
Some companies can produce products that people want, but even then they have to undercut their competition by reducing costs to infrastructure and what they pay their employees and any other tactic to increase profits. Also what people buy is dictated what people can afford, not just by what they want (which is assuming they are even being rational when buying). So even if someone wants a better product, their finances can prevent them from having it.
Marketing is ultimately propaganda. It's not about giving people facts about a product. Marketing is designed to have people feel a certain way about a product, even if it goes against the person's best interest. Marketing is public relations to make people think irrationally when spending their money. Marketing/public relations was started by Edward Bernays, who knew that people were primarily driven by their emotions, and he knew that companies can take advantage of that. Companies do anything to exploit this fact. Which goes back to people buying things which assuming they are even being rational when buying. You have a society now where people are buying things which they CAN"T afford. This is why most people are borrowing constantly, because they are being emotionally exploited. This is why, and I will mention this later, it is no different from religion.
Externalities in creating a new product or service is not taken into account. It's just about selling for profits. It doesn't matter if the product, or the making of the product destroys the environment, causes their customers long or short term harm or harm is caused when customers use their product like CO2 emissions in cars. Cigarettes is a easy example of this. People are aware of the damaging effects of cigarettes but they buy it anyway due to the addiction it is created, and the companies are not only aware of the addiction, but do what they can to make their product more addictive. This is true for the food we eat, the games we play, so on and so forth. Get your customers hooked so they will believe they need what you are offering them.
Also the known planned obsolescence of a product. Take light bulbs as an example. Companies can easily make a superior product that lasts longer which would not increase the expense of the product, or if so, it would be a negligible increase, but if they did, people would buy less lights or tires, etc etc. Product wears out, the customer needs to buy more. Now I am not saying products will last forever, but planned measures are made so that product longevity is meant to be much shorter than what they could be for more profits.
As for the few who aren't, the free market belief is as superstitious as any other belief that organized religion has produced. Just like religion, Capitalism is primarily used to exploit people's emotions to do things they wouldn't if they were thinking rationally. It is faith that very rich people, when given freedom have our interests at heart via corporate self governance and the desire to please people and produce products and services so people get what they want, as you already mentioned at the very beginning. Capitalism is about gaining as much capital goods as possible regardless of anything else. If a company happens to please customers, that is a side benefit, but that is not the goal.
More so that with the additional faith of the free market, that if a product/service harms someone, that people will be rational to stop buying said product/service, and the best products/services will be the most popular, and make those who produce them the most money. That is a complete fairy tale. No different than believing Jesus rose from the dead. As I already explained, planned obsolescence, marketing, externalities, cost cutting, and creating any addictions all prevent this fairy tale being true. Also the following:
All corporations are created via government. The idea of private property is based on government and the legal protections for it. To deregulate corporations while those same corporations are benefiting from government as legal entities, as well as the cronyism about paying politicians off, or even having the money to legally out spend anyone who sues the company, and the laws that are passed that benefits owners of companies rather than employees such as being able to have write offs as business expenses.
Paying your bills first and being taxed later is a huge advantage compared to the opposite. A huge legal advantage that owners have over employees. If your response is that they are taking risks to start up companies, well that is just saying that people gamble, and because they gamble with their money, they should be given benefits for gambling, and that is assuming the person didn't inherit the company to begin with.
This is why the free market is impossible and a pipe dream. If companies were completely deregulated to have a free market, not only would corporations not exist, since it is a legal entity, but protecting private property rights would be impossible also, which capitalism is based on. It is cutting the proverbial branch they are sitting on. Also it would be like having all the benefits of government without any of the restrictions - which is completely imaginary.
Finally, just in case you think I believe owners are "evil", I am not. But once again people are emotionally driven, including the owners. Lets say an owner starts out with truly altruistic motivations, He has an idea to start a company, to give the best product/service he can give all while desiring to make enough money so that he/she can provide for themselves and for their family.
1. The owners I am referring to are not the mom/pops with small companies which may or may not be incorporated, and may be self-employed.
2. I am talking about those who are rich enough to effect a "free market" or have the capital to get politicians to create laws to deregulate businesses so they will reach that goal.
3. If some mom/pop shop owner eventually gets rich enough to become an owner that has the capital to actually effect society, they are now in a situation where temptation will most likely do things they may not intended when first running a business
If you ever heard of Phillip Zimbardo, psychologist, and former head of the Science of America, he talks about the power of the situation. That because of emotional factors, and what situations people are in, that can lead them to be a villian or hero. His words not mine. Anyway, being extremely rich is more likely going to motivate people to use their wealth to influence society now that they have the means to do so. Just like anyone, people want to reach their goals. If making profits is your goal, you will do what you can to make more profits.
If you are willing to make more profits via exploitation, then you will further use exploitative tactics to do so. Even if you didn't start out with such desires, the temptation to be richer and more powerful, is too great for most people, and whatever altruistic purposes they started out with, is most likely to change. I am not claiming this is an absolute, but this tends to happen more likely than not. The odds are stacked against the individual to resist such temptation.
But more to the point, if a business owner becomes so rich:
1. They are probably not dealing with their customers directly anymore. People now become stats. This causes people to be desensatized by figures. Zimbardo mentions that in tribal societies, when people are masked, or see other people as "non-human", in this case numbers on a screen, they are less likely to be concerned with those other people.
2. They cannot account for externalities, nor at this point do they probably care. They will either assume their employees are doing the job to get rid of waste, assuming they paid people to deal with it, and are also probably accountable to their stock holders, that don't give a crap about externalities, if they bothered thinking about it at all. They are now in a situation to care more about the stock holder than the employees or customers, or what their product/service does to the environment.
3. Also the sheer fact that because of competition, assuming they have any, they will use what means they have to reduce it. Buying other companies in the same market, merging with their competitors, buying the stock of other companies, and/or manipulating the stock of their own company not only is now more possible, but the temptation to do it is greater.
4. Their employees who are also to compete with each other, are motivated to cut corners to get up the corporate ladder. Business becomes more cut throat for the ever increasing pressure to be the best.
I can go on and on. I know this has been an extremely long read for a youtube comment. But you were claiming I am ignorant, and I am showing I am not. There is overwhelming evidence that a free market is not only not true but not possible either.
3. If some mom/pop shop owner eventually gets rich enough to become an owner that has the capital to actually effect society, they are now in a situation where temptation will most likely do things they may not intended when first running a business
If you ever heard of Phillip Zimbardo, former head of the Sciences of America, talks about the power of the situation. That because of emotional factors, and what situations people are in, that can lead them to be a villian or hero. His words not mine. Anyway, being extremely rich is more likely going to motivate people to use their wealth to influence society now that they have the means to do so. Just like anyone, people want to reach their goals. If making profits is your goal, you will do what you can to make more profits.
If you are willing to make more profits via exploitation, then you will further use exploitative tactics to do so. Even if you didn't start out with such desires, the temptation to be richer and more powerful, is too great for most people, and whatever altruistic purposes they started out with, is most likely to change. I am not claiming this is an absolute, but this tends to happen more likely than not. The odds are stacked against the individual to resist such temptation.
But more to the point, if a business owner becomes so rich:
1. They are probably not dealing with their customers directly anymore. People now become stats. This causes people to be desensatized by figures. Zimbardo mentions that in tribal societies, when people are masked, or see other people as "non-human", in this case numbers on a screen, they are less likely to be concerned with those other people.
2. They cannot account for externalities, nor at this point do they probably care. They will either assume their employees are doing the job to get rid of waste, assuming they paid people to deal with it, and are also probably accountable to their stock holders, that don't give a crap about externalities, if they bothered thinking about it at all. They are now in a situation to care more about the stock holder than the employees or customers, or what their product/service does to the environment.
3. Also the sheer fact that because of competition, assuming they have any, they will use what means they have to reduce it. Buying other companies in the same market, merging with their competitors, buying the stock of other companies, and/or manipulating the stock of their own company not only is now more possible, but the temptation to do it is greater.
4. Their employees who are also to compete with each other, are motivated to cut corners to get up the corporate ladder. Business becomes more cut throat for the ever increasing pressure to be the best.
Knock knock
"Who is it?"
"It is me, Jesus. Let me in"
"Why do you want to come in?"
"I want to save you."
"Save me from what?"
"Save you from what I will do to you if you don't let me in."