Who's Afraid of the Squortlebleep?

Barry Goldberg, author of the "Common Sense Atheism" series of books, on Thursday 18.VII.2024 answered:

How can atheists deny that God exists, when the ability to even wonder about it , to even have a concept of God, proves beyond doubt that He does exist?
https://www.quora.com/How-can-atheists-deny-that-God-exists-when-the-ability-to-even-wonder-about-it-to-even-have-a-concept-of-God-proves-beyond-doubt-that-He-does-exist/answer/Barry-Goldberg-1

From his answer:

If you really want to go down that path, however, then you must then let me define Squortlebleep (the magical and invisible winged ferret) as “that which keeps our planet’s atmosphere from flying off into space” and then I can logically assert that the very fact that our planet’s atmosphere hasn’t flown off into space therefore proves beyond doubt that Squortlebleep exists.

In philosophical circles, btw, this is known as the “fallacy of equivocation,” which is when you use two different meanings of a particular word in the same argument and treat them as if they were the same. With regard to Squortlebleep, the fallacy occurs when I define him both as “a magical and invisible winged ferret” and as “that which keeps our planet’s atmosphere from flying off into space” and insist that if there is proof of the second meaning then there must also be proof of the first meaning.

Have I ever heard the fallacy of equivocation from Atheists?

Me

How could an explosion of compressed matter result in formation of atoms and star systems?

Sci teacher

It must have, otherwise we wouldn't be here.

Me

How could chemicals that weren't "alive" (that weren't parts of biology) come together to form life?

Sci teacher

If they couldn't have, we wouldn't be here.

Me

How could one life form develop into a radically different one?

Sci teacher

If it couldn't we wouldn't have the variety we have.

Not sure if all the examples I gave are genuine or if one is my addition.

I would say he was equivocating when defining "Big Bang" as both "rapid expansion from a highly condensed state" and as "actual origin of the universe."

I would say he was also equivocating when defining "Abiogenesis" as both "chemical reactions in the primitive atmosphere leading to amino acids further combining into primitive life" and as "actual origin of biological life."

And, if the last one isn't a parallel, false memory, he was defining "Evolution" as both "the interplay of mutations and natural selection" and as "actual origin of the diversity of life" ... in very different life forms with not just different but even incompatible solutions for diverse needs of biological life.

I have a hunch that Barry Goldberg would share the fallacies of equivocation with my Sci teacher. Most Atheist do ...

Seriously, a fallacy of equivocation doesn't exist just because so and so is identifying two concepts that many others do not identify. It only exists if the one doing so is unwilling to argue why he should do that.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
St. Bertin, Abbot
5.IX.2024