29 May 06
Originally posted by bbarrDoesn't a universal negative assume omniscience to remain tenable?
If atheism is self-contradictory then you ought to be able to present an argument of following form:
1) Atheism is committed to P (some proposition).
2) Atheism is also committed to Q1,...Qn (some other proposition(s))
3) Q1,...Qn entails ~P (where a member of the set of propositions Q1,...Qn may itself be ~P)
4) Hence, atheism is committed to P and ~P. ...[text shortened]... ct being with that available to be offered in support of the existence of invisible unicorns.
29 May 06
Originally posted by bbarrNoted.
Well, since you were talking about the content of claims, it would seem perverse to set semantics aside.
The negation of some proposition P is simply ~P, which can be read "is is not the case that P" or (redundantly) as "it is true that it is not the case that P" NOTE: The fact that the predicate 'true' above adds nothing to the claim "it is not the cas ...[text shortened]... ept 'God' (or term 'God'😉 isn't instantiated (or has no referent) in the world.
29 May 06
Originally posted by bbarrI don't think atheism is self-contradictory, only that in its propositional form (i.e. there is no God) it assumes a level of omniscience -- just like I would be in claiming there were no invisible unicorns.
No:
(x)~(Px & ~Px).
Which reads in English: Nothing both has and does not have property P.
Does our justification for believing this claim require us to be omniscient?
29 May 06
Originally posted by HalitoseAtheism does not necessarily make the claim that there is no god. Many atheists, like myself, actively avoid this claim. I do not know if there are any gods. But I see no reason to believe the claim. Therefore, I do not believe in any gods, and am an atheist.
I don't think atheism is self-contradictory, only that in its propositional form (i.e. there is no God) it assumes a level of omniscience -- just like I would be in claiming there were no invisible unicorns.
29 May 06
Originally posted by rwingettRight - strong and weak atheism. My comment was directed at the strong variant.
Atheism does not necessarily make the claim that there is no god. Many atheists, like myself, actively avoid this claim. I do not know if there are any gods. But I see no reason to believe the claim. Therefore, I do not believe in any gods, and am an atheist.
29 May 06
2 edits
Originally posted by HalitoseO.K. here are two things you could mean by that:
I don't think atheism is self-contradictory, only that in its propositional form (i.e. there is no God) it assumes a level of omniscience -- just like I would be in claiming there were no invisible unicorns.
1) If I claim that ~Ex(Gx), then I'm committed to Ex(Ox). But there is no valid deduction from the first proposition to the second. Perhaps there are some ancillary premises you think I'm committed to such that their conjunction with the first proposition entails the second. If so, what are those propositions?
2) It is a necessary condition for being epistemically justified in believing that ~Ex(Gx) that I am justified in believing of myself that I am omniscient. But this is absurd, because it presupposes that justification requires certainty. The implication would be that nobody is ever justified in believing anything, because nobody can be absolutely certain that any particular one of their beliefs is true.
29 May 06
3 edits
Originally posted by bbarrI guess it's 1) that applies here:
O.K. here are two things you could mean by that:
1) If I claim that ~Ex(Gx), then I'm committed to Ex(Ox). But there is no valid deduction from the first proposition to the second. Perhaps there are some ancillary premises you think I'm committed to such that their conjunction with the first proposition entails the second. If so, what are those propositio ...[text shortened]... ng, because nobody can be absolutely certain that any particular one of their beliefs is true.
Firstly, absence of proof does not entail proof of absence, so even if the theist could not muster good arguments for God’s existence, atheism would not be true by default. Even if all the proofs of God’s existence were to fail, it may still be the case that God exists.
Secondly, in the absence of proof either way, would this not constitute a "rigging of the rules" of debate in order to play into the hands of the atheist, who himself makes a truth claim. "God exists" and "God does not exist" should be treated in the same manner. If there is no proof for God, the atheist assumes that one is obligated to believe that God does not exist. What I'm arguing is that atheism is just as much a claim to know something ("God does not exist" ) as theism ("God exists" ). Therefore, the atheist’s denial of God’s existence needs just as much substantiation as does the theist’s claim.
Third, in the absence of evidence for God’s existence, agnosticism, not atheism, is the logical presumption. Even if arguments for God’s existence do not persuade, atheism should not be presumed because atheism is not neutral; pure agnosticism is. Atheism is justified only if there is sufficient evidence against God’s existence.
Fourthly, given proposed evidence (GAFE, supposed contradictions, etc.) the atheist’s claim would need to be a qualified one (e.g. there is no omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent God) rather than a universal rejection of the concept in all possible manifestations. It is this universal negation of God which I submit presumes omniscience – how else can one know the non-existence of so broad a subject.
29 May 06
1 edit
Originally posted by rwingettI had assumed the proposition that "there is no God" denotes the strong form of atheism. Edit: as opposed to the weak version: "I don't believe in God".
Why do you think strong atheism is to be assumed when you attempt a critique of atheism? As if it went without saying, or something.
Was I wrong?
29 May 06
1 edit
Originally posted by HalitoseFirstly, absence of proof does not entail proof of absence, so even if the theist could not muster good arguments for God’s existence, atheism would not be true by default. Even if all the proofs of God’s existence were to fail, it may still be the case that God exists.
I guess it's 1) that applies here:
Firstly, absence of proof does not entail proof of absence, so even if the theist could not muster good arguments for God’s existence, atheism would not be true by default. Even if all the proofs of God’s existence were to fail, it may still be the case that God exists.
Secondly, in the absence of proof either way, w resumes omniscience – how else can one know the non-existence of so broad a subject.
Right. I’ve never claimed that it is logically impossible that God exists. But it would be a mistake to think that the absence of proof has no evidential relation to the proposition that God exists. The absence of proof for the existence of invisible unicorns doesn’t entail that they don’t exist, but it certainly is evidence for the claim that they don’t exist.
Secondly, in the absence of proof either way, would this not constitute a "rigging of the rules" of debate in order to play into the hands of the atheist, who himself makes a truth claim.
First, if I claim that P then I’m claiming that P is true. All claims are truth claims, in this regard. Second, in the absence of evidence either way for some claim P or its negation, the proper epistemic attitude is the withholding of judgment. Third, it is false that there is no evidence for the negation of the claim that God exists (if God is construed theistically, and taken to have the properties Christians commonly ascribe to Him). Indeed, I’ve provided any number of arguments in these forums concerning this very matter.
"God exists" and "God does not exist" should be treated in the same manner. If there is no proof for God, the atheist assumes that one is obligated to believe that God does not exist.
No, that is not correct. In the absence of evidence for the existence of God, one should not have the belief that God exists. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, one should not have the belief that God does not exist. However, I think there is no good evidence for the existence of God and good evidence that God does not exist.
What I'm arguing is that atheism is just as much a claim to know something ("God does not exist" ) as theism ("God exists" ). Therefore, the atheist’s denial of God’s existence needs just as much substantiation as does the theist’s claim.
I agree. Knowing P requires being justified in believing that P.
Third, in the absence of evidence for God’s existence, agnosticism, not atheism, is the logical presumption. Even if arguments for God’s existence do not persuade, atheism should not be presumed because atheism is not neutral; pure agnosticism is. Atheism is justified only if there is sufficient evidence against God’s existence.
You’re preaching to the choir here, so to speak.
Fourthly, given proposed evidence (GAFE, supposed contradictions, etc.) the atheist’s claim would need to be a qualified one (e.g. there is no omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent God) rather than a universal rejection of the concept in all possible manifestations.
Yep, my arguments are against any view which takes God to either be an agent with the three O’s or an agent that putatively provides the foundations for morality. If you’ve got some other conception of God, then I’d need to hear the details before I present arguments.
It is this universal negation of God which I submit presumes omniscience – how else can one know the non-existence of so broad a subject.
Presumably, there are some necessary conditions that a concept must have it is to be a concept of God at all. If I have an argument that shows that that condition can’t be instantiated in the world, or that that condition contradicts other things that are known, then I have a de facto argument against the claim that any conception of God is instantiated in the world. No omniscience required.
29 May 06
Originally posted by HalitoseAdmitting it is logically possible that a certain God exists, then there would never be any evidence of the non-existence of God apart from the absence of evidence for its existence.
Third, in the absence of evidence for God’s existence, agnosticism, not atheism, is the logical presumption. Even if arguments for God’s existence do not persuade, atheism should not be presumed because atheism is not neutral; pure agnosticism is. Atheism is justified only if there is sufficient evidence against God’s existence.
Therefore, in the absence of evidence for its existence, a rational belief is believing that it doesn't exist. If you claim this is irrational or unfounded, then you must also abstain from claiming that I am not God.
30 May 06
Originally posted by HalitoseThat is correct. So why do christians always want to pick fights with the strong atheists and ignore the weak atheists? I have a few suspicions of my own, but I want to hear what you think.
I had assumed the proposition that "there is no God" denotes the strong form of atheism. Edit: as opposed to the weak version: "I don't believe in God".
Was I wrong?
30 May 06
Originally posted by HalitoseAtheism can never be 'true.' It asserts nothing. The only relevant question is whether christianity (or some other religion) is true. If all the proofs of god's existance were to fail then the christian claim would not merit belief. One could not logically believe in the existance of a god.
I guess it's 1) that applies here:
Firstly, absence of proof does not entail proof of absence, so even if the theist could not muster good arguments for God’s existence, atheism would not be true by default. Even if all the proofs of God’s existence were to fail, it may still be the case that God exists.
Secondly, in the absence of proof either way, w ...[text shortened]... resumes omniscience – how else can one know the non-existence of so broad a subject.
Only some atheists (like Bbarr) will go so far as to make the claim "god does not exist." Most will not. Most atheists will say that it cannot be known whether a god exists, but they have seen no reason to believe one does. So they will assume that god does not exist. The atheist never needs to prove anything. The entire burden of proof lies with the christian to substantiate his claim. If he cannot, then atheism is the logical alternative. But even when someone like Bbarr makes the claim "god does not exist", he is using it in relation to a very specific god, i.e. the christian god, and bases his argument on things such as the "argument from evil."
Atheism is the logical recourse to the absence of evidence for god's existence, not agnosticism. In my opinion, agnosticism is not even a valid category. It is often presumed that agnosticism is some kind of "middle ground" between theism and atheism, but this is false. In truth, all so-called agnostics are either agnostic theists or agnostic atheists. In other words, there is only theism and atheism. The absence of one entails the other. Only because so many people incorrectly assume that atheism is synonymous with strong athesim does a term like agnosticism even become necessary.
The atheist has no claim to qualify. Unless the theist can present some credible evidence for the existence of his particular god, there is no reason to believe in it's existence. It may very well be that there are any number of gods lurking beyond our perception, but there is no reason to believe that it is true. The result, therefore, is atheism.