Therefore, there is a god

[Speakpigeon]

Logic seems definitely to prove there is a god...

If there is no god, then it is not true that if I pray, my prayers will be answered. I don’t pray; therefore, there is a god

" therefore, there is a god " does not logically follow from "If there is no god, then it is not true that if I pray, my prayers will be answered. I don’t pray;" There is insufficient information to ascertain if gods really exist.

Possibly and I'm not going to say that your intuition is wrong but I'm looking for a convincing proof that your intuition is correct. Why don't you try that?

"If there are no cat-dogs, then it is not true that if I wish really hard for a cat-dog, I will have a cat-dog. I don't wish for a cat-dog; therefore there are cat-dogs"

The conclusion "there are no cat-dogs" does not follow from the conditions stated. There is insufficient information to ascertain if cat-dogs really exist.

Also, cat-dog is not defined. You and other people may be able to visualize what a cat-dog might look like, and may have your own personal preferences as to the properties of a cat-dog, but there is no consensus because nobody has ever seen a cat-dog.

Sorry, that's not convincing. That's reasoning by analogy. I don't care about that. I already got the point that most people think the OP's argument is completely zany. Read the OP again, it's obvious I was aware of that from the start. The source I lifted it from presented it just in this way, so I don't even think I would have any merit in that. Still, I think it's indeed obvious. So, you're barking at the wrong tree.

You probably understand all this and are out to pull someone's leg. Or maybe you actually think you are making a valid argument. Which would be quite sad. But then again, billions of people have imaginary friends they talk to on a regular basis. Who am I to judge?

I'm asking for both your intuition about the OP's argument and some convincing proof that your intuition is correct. You've provided your intuition but the convincing proof is still lacking.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

Which basic error? I'm still waiting for you to explain and thereby show you even know what you're talking about to begin with.
EB

The same basic error which has been pointed out multiple times.

"If there is no god, then it is not true that if I pray, my prayers will be answered. I don’t pray; therefore, there is a god "

is reworded as:

"If there is no gasoline in the gas can, then it is not true that if I fill my car's tank with it, my car will be able to drive. I don’t fill my car's tank with it; therefore, there is gasoline in the gas can".

You are essentially saying that any gas can which you do nothing with is proven to have gasoline in it. There may be a structure by which that is logically valid, but that just means it's a poor logic structure.

Again, yes "again", I said this multiple times already. I'm not interested in the argument itself. I posted it originally in the logic subforum. I couldn't care less about whether there is a god or not. I don't pray, anyway, not that I am aware of, anyway, although, possibly, what would be my prayers if I did are somehow answered. I do feel fulfilled.

I take it your intuition is that the OP's argument is wrong. Now, I'm asking you to explain why it's wrong. However, the OP's argument isn't about gas can and nobody needs the analogy of a gas can to have an intuition about the OP's argument. So analogy doesn't work on me. Try something more robust.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

No.

P1 and P2 can be both true and at the same time. That's what I meant here. So, it not true to say as you do here that if P2 is true, then P1 is false.
EB

Angra Mainyu is perfectly correct. I posted a proof in the other thread.

Yes, I still have to look at it. Your point needs more consideration on my part before I try to respond. Right now I need to answer the call of nature, eat something and do some shopping but I'll get back to you shortly.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

Right, I put Bomb#20's post here for ease of reference:
EB

Logic seems definitely to prove there is a god...

If there is no god, then it is not true that if I pray, my prayers will be answered. I don’t pray; therefore, there is a god

Is that simple enough as a logical truth for you? Is that not intuitive? Can you even tell it's a logical truth or explain why it would or wouldn't be one?

Me, I have a simple explanation. Do you have one?
EB

Piece of cake.

Definitions:

F: False
T: True
P: Any premise
C: Any conclusion
A: my prayers will be answered
G: there is a god
Q: I don't pray
R: if I pray, my prayers will be answered.
S: if (it is not true that (if I pray, my prayers will be answered)) then there is a god
U: if (there is no god) then (if I pray, my prayers will be answered)

Truth table for "if" :

P C (if P then C)
- - ---
F F : T
F T : T
T F : F
T T : T

Premise: Q

Inference 1:

Let P=!Q, C=A.
Q=T
P=F
A=?
C=?
So let's check both possibilities for C:
P=F, C=F, truth table says (if P then C)=T
P=F, C=T, truth table says (if P then C)=T
Therefore, (if P then C)=T
Therefore, (if !Q then A)=T

Therefore R=T.

Inference 2:

Let P=!R, C=G.
R=T
P=F
G=?
C=?
So let's check both possibilities for C:
P=F, C=F, truth table says (if P then C)=T
P=F, C=T, truth table says (if P then C)=T
Therefore, (if P then C)=T
Therefore, (if !R then G)=T

Therefore S=T

Inference 3:

Let P=!G, C=R
G=?
P=?
R=T
C=T
So let's check both possibilities for P:
P=F, C=T, truth table says (if P then C)=T
P=T, C=T, truth table says (if P then C)=T
Therefore, (if P then C)=T
Therefore, (if !G then R)=T

Therefore U=T

Which is to say, if there is no god then it is true that if you pray, your prayers will be answered. Your initial claim, "If there is no god, then it is not true that if I pray, my prayers will be answered.", was false. Q.E.D.

(Note: S and U are two ways of saying the same thing. P->C is equivalent to (!C)->(!P).)

The thing is, my intuition is so outstanding I'm impressed myself, thank you.

I'm so impressed it convinced me truth tables are crap.

Truth tables aren't crap. Your premises are crap. I derived the falseness of your first premise by starting from your second premise and applying truth tables. Therefore your two premises contradict each other. That is why you were able to derive "there is a god" from them. When you start out with contradictory premises you can derive anything.

The larger point here is that your argument and your intuition are based on an equivocation fallacy. You are equivocating on the word "if". You are using "if" to refer to both the "material conditional" and the "counterfactual conditional". The "if" used in truth tables and boolean algebra is the material conditional. You have an intuition that "If there is no god, then it is not true that if I pray, my prayers will be answered." because you are using the first "if" to refer to the material conditional and the second "if" to refer to the counterfactual conditional. When you derived "there is a god" from your premises you replaced the counterfactual conditional with a second material conditional.

What Angra Mainyu wrote in the other thread was correct.

 

[phands]

You are wrong. EOM.

 

[Speakpigeon]

You are wrong. EOM.

That may well be but what is clear is that you're unable to provide a convincing proof why. All you do is repeat "you are wrong" again and again. But you won't convince anyone, let alone me, that I'm wrong just by repeating "you are wrong". You are impotent.
EB

 

[phands]

You are wrong. EOM.

That may well be but what is clear is that you're unable to provide a convincing proof why. All you do is repeat "you are wrong" again and again. But you won't convince anyone, let alone me, that I'm wrong just by repeating "you are wrong". You are impotent.
EB

We provided proof that your conclusion doesn't follow from premise, but you willfully ignore it. You are ignorant, to paraphrase your words.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Which basic error? I'm still waiting for you to explain and thereby show you even know what you're talking about to begin with.
EB

The same basic error which has been pointed out multiple times.

"If there is no god, then it is not true that if I pray, my prayers will be answered. I don’t pray; therefore, there is a god "

is reworded as:

"If there is no gasoline in the gas can, then it is not true that if I fill my car's tank with it, my car will be able to drive. I don’t fill my car's tank with it; therefore, there is gasoline in the gas can".

You are essentially saying that any gas can which you do nothing with is proven to have gasoline in it. There may be a structure by which that is logically valid, but that just means it's a poor logic structure.

Again, yes "again", I said this multiple times already. I'm not interested in the argument itself. I posted it originally in the logic subforum. I couldn't care less about whether there is a god or not. I don't pray, anyway, not that I am aware of, anyway, although, possibly, what would be my prayers if I did are somehow answered. I do feel fulfilled.

I take it your intuition is that the OP's argument is wrong. Now, I'm asking you to explain why it's wrong. However, the OP's argument isn't about gas can and nobody needs the analogy of a gas can to have an intuition about the OP's argument. So analogy doesn't work on me. Try something more robust.
EB

But the OP IS about a gas can ... or a bag which may have tomatoes in it ... or a shoebox which might hold old tax receipts ... or anything else you slot into the variables. Sure, when you put "God" in there, it allows you to sound all mysterious and profound without going through all the hard work of trying to discover any kind of profound mystery, but it doesn't make it more sensible.

It's also not my "intuition" that the OP is wrong, it's my analysis. The value of logical systems is that they help us gain information about the real world. Therefore, if the results of your logic are false conclusions which conflict with the real world, you have bad logic - full stop. If it concludes that unused cans are always full of gasoline, that bags nobody eats from are always full of tomatoes and other conclusions which can be compared against the real world, then your system has bad logic.

It doesn't matter if that logic is internally consistent and the conclusions you get follow directly from the premises because you are not using it internally. You are taking that conclusion and applying it externally to the real world to say "I just proved there is a god in the real world" and your logic doesn't support doing that.

 

[ideologyhunter]

It's using extreme torque to demonstrate the limitations of language. God might as well be Santa Claus or Kung Fu Panda. This one sure has a lot of dying breaths to it.

 

[Grothendiecksbitch]

Deleted. See Bomb#20's more accurate post.

 

[phands]

Good grief...while his logic isn't...well, logical, he has proven that thread necromancy works, because his thesis was DoA.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Again, yes "again", I said this multiple times already. I'm not interested in the argument itself. I posted it originally in the logic subforum. I couldn't care less about whether there is a god or not. I don't pray, anyway, not that I am aware of, anyway, although, possibly, what would be my prayers if I did are somehow answered. I do feel fulfilled.

I take it your intuition is that the OP's argument is wrong. Now, I'm asking you to explain why it's wrong. However, the OP's argument isn't about gas can and nobody needs the analogy of a gas can to have an intuition about the OP's argument. So analogy doesn't work on me. Try something more robust.
EB

But the OP IS about a gas can ... or a bag which may have tomatoes in it ... or a shoebox which might hold old tax receipts ... or anything else you slot into the variables. Sure, when you put "God" in there, it allows you to sound all mysterious and profound without going through all the hard work of trying to discover any kind of profound mystery, but it doesn't make it more sensible.

No, it's much more simple than that. There's an argument proposed in the OP. Can you prove it's wrong?

Well, it's clear you at least can't.

It's also not my "intuition" that the OP is wrong, it's my analysis. The value of logical systems is that they help us gain information about the real world. Therefore, if the results of your logic are false conclusions which conflict with the real world, you have bad logic - full stop. If it concludes that unused cans are always full of gasoline, that bags nobody eats from are always full of tomatoes and other conclusions which can be compared against the real world, then your system has bad logic.

In other words, since you're incapable of proving the logic wrong, you go for second best and go into blah-blah-blah. Well, your blah-blah-blah isn't going to convinced me. I'm not sensitive to blah-blah-blah.

On the substance of what you say here, your claim that the conclusion of the argument conflicts with the real world is really just pathetic. It sure conflicts with your opinion about the existence or otherwise of any god. Your opinion about the real world. Sure, you think there isn't any god and from there you go on claiming that it's a fact of the real world that there is no god. Pretty bad rhetoric , I would say.

If it was true, I would agree, but it's not true. You don't know the fact of the matter, i.e. whether there is a god. From there, you should try to prove the argument not valid, somehow, but that's what you're incapable of doing. Hence our resort to a false claim about the real world. Not good.

It doesn't matter if that logic is internally consistent and the conclusions you get follow directly from the premises because you are not using it internally. You are taking that conclusion and applying it externally to the real world to say "I just proved there is a god in the real world" and your logic doesn't support doing that.

I said multiple times it's not my argument. I don't mean to prove there is a god. I don't have any issue here. I proposed an argument I lifted from the Internet and it's a logical truth, i.e. it's true in all logical cases. In effect, it's a shocking logical truth, hence it's value. I'm interested in your intuition as to the argument and your proof that your intuition is correct. All you can offer, clearly, is your intuition. Thanks anyway.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

You are wrong. EOM.

That may well be but what is clear is that you're unable to provide a convincing proof why. All you do is repeat "you are wrong" again and again. But you won't convince anyone, let alone me, that I'm wrong just by repeating "you are wrong". You are impotent.
EB

We provided proof that your conclusion doesn't follow from premise, but you willfully ignore it. You are ignorant, to paraphrase your words.

I certainly didn't ignore those who provided counter-arguments. I just disagree with their arguments. So, you're wrong here.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

If there is a God, God will answer prayers.
If I do not pray to this God, this God still exists.

The problem is, God does not answer prayers. Many children in pediatric cancer wards die despite fervent prayers from grieving parents for example. Despite assurances such as in Mark 16:15 prayer can cure illness. God's existence is called into question here.

Derail.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

Logic seems definitely to prove there is a god...

If there is no god, then it is not true that if I pray, my prayers will be answered. I don’t pray; therefore, there is a god

Is that simple enough as a logical truth for you? Is that not intuitive? Can you even tell it's a logical truth or explain why it would or wouldn't be one?

Me, I have a simple explanation. Do you have one?
EB

Piece of cake.

Definitions:

F: False
T: True
P: Any premise
C: Any conclusion
A: my prayers will be answered
G: there is a god
Q: I don't pray
R: if I pray, my prayers will be answered.
S: if (it is not true that (if I pray, my prayers will be answered)) then there is a god
U: if (there is no god) then (if I pray, my prayers will be answered)

Truth table for "if" :

P C (if P then C)
- - ---
F F : T
F T : T
T F : F
T T : T

Premise: Q

Inference 1:

Let P=!Q, C=A.
Q=T
P=F
A=?
C=?
So let's check both possibilities for C:
P=F, C=F, truth table says (if P then C)=T
P=F, C=T, truth table says (if P then C)=T
Therefore, (if P then C)=T
Therefore, (if !Q then A)=T

Therefore R=T.

Inference 2:

Let P=!R, C=G.
R=T
P=F
G=?
C=?
So let's check both possibilities for C:
P=F, C=F, truth table says (if P then C)=T
P=F, C=T, truth table says (if P then C)=T
Therefore, (if P then C)=T
Therefore, (if !R then G)=T

Therefore S=T

Inference 3:

Let P=!G, C=R
G=?
P=?
R=T
C=T
So let's check both possibilities for P:
P=F, C=T, truth table says (if P then C)=T
P=T, C=T, truth table says (if P then C)=T
Therefore, (if P then C)=T
Therefore, (if !G then R)=T

Therefore U=T

Which is to say, if there is no god then it is true that if you pray, your prayers will be answered. Your initial claim, "If there is no god, then it is not true that if I pray, my prayers will be answered.", was false. Q.E.D.

(Note: S and U are two ways of saying the same thing. P->C is equivalent to (!C)->(!P).)

Sorry, I tried to make sense of your argument but failed. I checked the logic of the OP's argument, again, and it's impeccable. I'm sure you can check for yourself that the premises imply the conclusion.

I also don't want to go into discussing another argument, namely the one you chose to discuss here, i.e. "if there is no god then it is true that if you pray, your prayers will be answered". I'm sure it's interesting but maybe you could start another thread.

So, my request is that you address the OP's argument as it is. Using standard logic. That's what I did and the implication is true in all logical cases. That's what I call a logical truth. There is no possible case where the argument would be false.

Also, if it was a piece of cake, I fail to see why you don't just produce the relevant proof. My claim is that according to standard logic, the OP's argument is true in all logical cases. Can you prove otherwise?

The thing is, my intuition is so outstanding I'm impressed myself, thank you.

I'm so impressed it convinced me truth tables are crap.

Truth tables aren't crap. Your premises are crap. I derived the falseness of your first premise by starting from your second premise and applying truth tables. Therefore your two premises contradict each other. That is why you were able to derive "there is a god" from them. When you start out with contradictory premises you can derive anything.

It seems you made a serious mistake here somewhere.

In the OP's argument, if there is a god and I don't pray then both premises are true so the two premises are definitely not contradictory to each other and in fact they are not contradictory in the case where the conclusion that there is a god is true, which is why the argument is valid.

The larger point here is that your argument and your intuition are based on an equivocation fallacy. You are equivocating on the word "if". You are using "if" to refer to both the "material conditional" and the "counterfactual conditional". The "if" used in truth tables and boolean algebra is the material conditional. You have an intuition that "If there is no god, then it is not true that if I pray, my prayers will be answered." because you are using the first "if" to refer to the material conditional and the second "if" to refer to the counterfactual conditional. When you derived "there is a god" from your premises you replaced the counterfactual conditional with a second material conditional.

Sorry, I just used truth tables. So, I'll take that as good enough unless you can explain why truth tables shouldn't be used in this case.

Again, the truth table of the argument says that if there is a god and if I don't pray then both premises are true so they are not contradictory to each other contrary to your claim.

Anyway, thanks for trying. I guess we don't have the expert logician here who could clarify the issue. It should be said that the truth table of the argument is quite simple and straightforward. Unfortunately, it says that there is a god. We have to live with that. Personally, it's not a problem. I know the answer. Those who should worry are those who can't stomach that logic should prove that there is a god but are unable to explain why that's not true. If I was in your position, I would worry.
EB

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Again, the truth table of the argument says that if there is a god and if I don't pray then both premises are true so they are not contradictory to each other contrary to your claim.

Then, please take a look at my answers, in which I address just that. My latest reply is: https://talkfreethought.org/showthr...there-is-a-god&p=583212&viewfull=1#post583212

Briefly, and again, if you are not equivocating on the type of conditional (material vs. counterfactual), but you are using always the material conditional, then given that you clearly do not pray, I very obviously see no good reason whatsoever to even remotely suspect that "If there is no god, it is not true that if Speakpigeon prays, then Speakpigeon prayers will be answered" is a true statement..

Why?

Obviously, because "If there is no god, it is not true that if Speakpigeon prays, then Speakpigeon prayers will be answered" is a conditional with a false consequent, so it is not true unless the antecedent is false, and I have no good reason at all to suspect that the antecedent is false.

 

[Wiploc]

If there is no god, then it is not true that if I pray, my prayers will be answered. I don’t pray; therefore, there is a god

Syllogism 1
P1: If there is no god, then it is not true that if I pray, my prayers will be answered.
P2: I don't pray.
C: Therefore, there is a god.

Your first thread didn't get traction because you came across as a troll or a joker, someone who saw how stupid the argument was but shared it anyway for the humor, the same as you would share a video of a cat leaping away from a cucumber. You didn't come across as someone who believed your patently false argument, so nobody saw need to show you the flaw.

The argument is obviously invalid to most of us here, maybe to everyone but you. But P1 is convoluted and full of negatives, which makes it hard for those of us who read just a little bit of formal logic some decades ago to render P1 into formal logic.

The fact that you insult everyone who tries to help makes us disinclined to help. But you've calmed down some, so I'm going to attempt this.

Here's a valid syllogism:

Syllogism 2
P1: If A then B.
P2: A.
C: Therefore B.

Now here's an invalid syllogism, the fallacy of affirming the consequent:

Syllogism 3
P1: If A then B.
P2: B.
C: Therefore A.

You can see why it's invalid. P1 says what happens if A; it doesn't say anything about what happens if B. If P1 doesn't say what happens if B, then we can't logically draw any conclusions about what happens if B.

In syllogism 1, it doesn't say anything about what happens if you don't pray. Therefore you cannot logically draw a conclusion about what happens if you don't pray. We have been given no information on that topic.

Syllogism 4
P1: If I don't pray, there is a god.
P2: I don't pray.
C: Therefore, there is a god.

That's valid, but we need to make two points about P1: First, that information isn't in P1 of syllogism 1. Second, we don't have any reason to believe that P1 is true. Syllogism 4 doesn't look sound; it just looks like it's based on a random unsupported premise. The reason that P1 of syllogism 1 seems somewhat plausible is that it doesn't include the information in P1 of syllogism 4.

But, just guessing here, you think you can somehow get from P1 of syllogism 1 to P1 of syllogism 4?

Maybe you've got some unstated premises in your head that you are projecting on syllogism 1? Let's posit some premises and see if they help.

Syllogism 5
P1: If there is a god, then if people pray, prayers will be answered. (Premise)
P2: Nothing else will answer prayers. (Premise)
C1: Therefore, if prayers are answered, there is a god. (From P1 and P2)
C2: If people pray, and if prayers are not answered, there is no god. (From P1 via the logical fallacy of affirming the consequent)
P3: Nobody prays; there are no prayers. (Premise)
P4: If there are no prayers, then prayers will not be answered. (Premise, self evident)
C3: Therefore, prayers are not answered. (From P3 and P4)
C4: Therefore ...

What are we supposed to put for C4? We can't put, "Therefore a god exists," because we still haven't set that up logically. There's no, (from ___ and ___) that we could use to justify it.

But we're closer to that conclusion than we were in syllogism 1. We got there by adding more and clearer premises, many of which are patently suspect. That is, the way to the desired conclusion is to make more and more suspicious assumptions. But, though that path may lead eventually to validity, it simply doesn't lead to soundness. We are making no progress at all toward the claim that you have proved the existence of a god.

Syllogism 6
P1: If prayer doesn't happen, then god exists.
P2: Prayer doesn't happen.
C: Therefore god exists.

Okay, that's a duplicate, the same as syllogism 4. Do you see anything in P1 of syllogism 1 that would lead you logically to P1 of syllogisms 4 or 6?

Here's syllogism 1 again so I won't have to scroll back up:

Syllogism 1
P1: If there is no god, then it is not true that if I pray, my prayers will be answered.
P2: I don't pray.
C: Therefore, there is a god.

P1 could be rendered this way: "If there is a god, he will answer prayers." Thus, syllogism 7:

Syllogism 7
P1: If there is a god, he will answer prayers. (Premise, based on an interpretation of P1 of syllogism 1)
P2: There are no prayers. (Premise, functional equivalent of P2 in syllogism 1 given that I changed the phrasing of P1)
C: Therefore there is a god. (This makes no sense. It doesn't follow from P1 and P2. We still haven't achieved validity.)

Does any of this help? Are we making progress? Is there anything about this you'd like to discuss further?

Do you just want me to go away again? I can do that, no insults required.

Incidentally, I believe you misread Tom Sawyer in post 108. You wrote, "On the substance of what you say here, your claim that the conclusion of the argument conflicts with the real world is really just pathetic. It sure conflicts with your opinion about the existence or otherwise of any god." But when he wrote, "Therefore, if the results of your logic are false conclusions which conflict with the real world, you have bad logic - full stop," he wasn't talking--in my understanding--about whether gods exist. He was talking about whether the conclusion of syllogism 1 follows from the premises of syllogism 1.

In the real world, it doesn't, which people keep trying to point out to you in various ways.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Speakpigeon,

I will try once more, with further details. Could you please address my reply?

First, I will assume for the sake of the argument that you are not equivocating, and so, all of the conditionals in your argument are material conditionals (if you meant to use a different kind of conditional all throughout your argument, I don't think that's going to make sense, but please let me know).

Second, I will assume for the sake of the argument that the word "god" has a meaning, even though I do not know what that meaning is (your answer that a god is "whatever answers prayers and that we call "god"." does not succeed, but I'll leave the reasons for that aside, since I'm trying to focus on a different reason for rejecting the argument).

That said, I will proceed to consider the argument.

If there is no god, then it is not true that if I pray, my prayers will be answered. I don’t pray; therefore, there is a god.

The "I" in the argument complicates matters (who's "I"? You, or I, or another reader or poster?), so I will use "Speakpigeon" instead. If you have any objection to that, please explain.
So, the argument is:

Premise 1: If there is no god, then it is not true that if Speakpigeon prays, then Speakpigeon's prayers will be answered.
Premise 2: Speakpigeon does not pray.
Conclusion: There is a god.
​

Should I accept Premise 2?
Given the information available to me, I reckon it is true. So, I accept premise 2. Speakpigeon does not pray.

How about Premise 1?

Premise 1 is a conditional. The antecedent is 'There is no god'. and the consequent is 'It is not true that if Speakpigeon prays, Speakpigeon's prayers will be answered.'
It is apparent to me that the consequent of Premise 2 is false. In fact, the statement 'If Speakpigeon prays, then Speakpigeon's prayers will be answered.' is clearly true. Why? It is true because the statement in question is a conditional (again, by 'conditional' I mean material conditional here), and the antecedent 'Speakpigeon prays' is false. Any conditional with a false antecedent is true. Therefore, 'If Speakpigeon prays, then Speakpigeon's prayers will be answered.' is true. Please, take into consideration that this does not tell us anything about entities that answer prayers. For that matter, the statement 'If Speakpigeon prays, then aliens from another planet invaded the Earth and exterminated humans in the year 1944' is true, in virtue of the fact that Speakpigeon does not pray.

So, in short, I reckon the statement 'If Speakpigeon prays, then Speakpigeon's prayers will be answered.' is clearly true. Therefore, the statement 'It is not true that if Speakpigeon prays, Speakpigeon's prayers will be answered.' is false. In other words, Premise 1 has a false consequent.

Should I believe that Premise 1 is true?

Well, at this point, I know that Premise 1 is a conditional with a false consequent. Any conditional with a false consequent is true if and only if the antecedent is false. So, is the antecedent false?

I have no good reason to even suspect so. Now, granted, I don't know what 'god' means, so I don't know what the antecedent means (I'm just assuming for the sake of the argument that it means something at all), so I am in no position to reckon that the antecedent is true. However, I have no good reason to think that it is false, either. Moreover, if I consider hypothetical entities usually called 'god' in the context of discussing religion or philosophy, I still have no good reason to suspect that the antecedent of Premise 1 (namely, 'There is no god') is false.

So, I reckon I have no good reason to suspect that Premise 1 is true. On the basis of that, I rationally reject Premise 1.

 

[Wiploc]

If there is no god, then (it is not true that (if I pray, (my prayers will be answered))).
I don’t pray;
therefore, there is a god.

I added parentheses on the chance that that will help someone scan the sentence.

 

[Wiploc]

So, I reckon I have no good reason to suspect that Premise 1 is true. On the basis of that, I rationally reject Premise 1.

My approach is different. I'd be happy to stipulate P1 for the sake of argument.

What I hope to get across is this: The conclusion does not follow from the premises. Even if we stipulate to the premises, the conclusion does not follow.