First off all, you provided us with an instance of a debunking kind, which oddly is (belief in) god, the very thing you say in your conclusion is necessary. Isn't that self-refuting? — Agent Smith
Coming to the fallacy of argument by example you commited, it's like this: If I say some Americans are presidents, I could prove it with n number of examples e.g. Washington, Roosevelt, etc. However, this doesn't imply that some Americans are not presidents. — Agent Smith
Likewise, yes, there are beliefs of the debunking kind (god :chin: ) but that doesn't mean the belief that there are reasons to believe is also one. You need a different argument for this. — Agent Smith
The other problem with your argument is that if there are no reasons to believe anything, why on earth are you trying to offer reasons to believe you? — Agent Smith
Don't get me wrong - I like the argument you're proposing, I'm a skeptic you see and nothing gets me stoked as much as an attack on reason, the be all and end all of epistemology. — Agent Smith
To reiterate your point, there are no reasons to believe there are reasons to believe. — Agent Smith
1. R →→ B
2. R
Ergo,
3. B (1, 2 MP) — Agent Smith
My issue is that an example supports but doesn't prove until and unless you want to reduce the scope of your argument to some beliefs are of the debunking kind rather than the vindicatory kind. — Agent Smith
The fallacy of argument by example you've committed is this : John, an American, is a good musician (the example); ergo (???) Adam, another American, is also a good musician — Agent Smith
One example (theism) of a debunking belief is sufficient to prove the claim that the belief there are reasons to believe is a debunking belief. — Agent Smith
Do you agree that if the correct explanation of a belief does not mention the actual existence of the belief's object, then that belief is discredited? — Bartricks
Je n'avais pas besoin de cette hypothèse-là (I had no need of that hypothesis). — Pierre-Simon Laplace
Carry on. — Agent Smith
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.