30 May 06
Originally posted by bbarrWell, it appears that this is what the entire argument hangs upon:
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.
Right. I’ve never claimed that it is logically impossible that God exists. But it ...[text shortened]... im that any conception of God is instantiated in the world. No omniscience required.[/b]
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.
While you may have provided any number of arguments in these forums, those offerings would have to be accepted as true, prior to here holding them out as proof of negation. That has not been accomplished.
30 May 06
Originally posted by AThousandYoungNo. The Satanic Verses is a complex exploration of colonialism (among other things) by a gifted writer; The Da Vinci Code is not only cheesy genre fiction, but also one of those rare books inferior to the movie version.
By Salman Rushdie. One Catholic scandal, one Muslim. Yes or no?
30 May 06
Originally posted by rwingettWeak atheism does not posit a truth claim merely a shrugging of the shoulders that given the "lack of evidence" God shall be assumed nonexistent -- it doesn't make for the rigorous debate that two positions of polar opposites would.
That 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.
What were your suspicions?
30 May 06
Originally posted by FreakyKBHFortunately for us philosophers and natural scientists, the strength of arguments don't at all depend on whether theists find them persuasive.
Well, it appears that this is what the entire argument hangs upon:
[b]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 matte ...[text shortened]... d as true, prior to here holding them out as proof of negation. That has not been accomplished.
30 May 06
Originally posted by rwingettWe've had this discussion before and you remain inconsistent and/or wrong. IF an atheist asserts that the "entire burden of proof" on the existence or non-existence of God rests on the theist, then his position is not compatible with agnosticism. An agnostic places no such extreme and one sided burden.
Atheism 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.
Only some atheists (like Bbarr) will go so far as to make the c ...[text shortened]... t there is no reason to believe that it is true. The result, therefore, is atheism.
30 May 06
1 edit
Originally posted by HalitoseMy suspicions are that christians only want to argue against so-called "strong" atheists so they can try to avoid having to shoulder the entire burden of proof themselves. This task is made far easier if they can paint all atheists as believing in the non-existence of god, or claiming to know that god does not exist. Some atheists will allow themselves to be painted into such a corner, but most knowledgable atheists will not.
Weak atheism does not posit a truth claim merely a shrugging of the shoulders that given the "lack of evidence" God shall be assumed nonexistent -- it doesn't make for the rigorous debate that two positions of polar opposites would.
What were your suspicions?
But you're right, there is no debate between two opposing claims. The theist's claim is the only one in play, and the debate centers on whether that solitary claim merits belief or not.
30 May 06
1 edit
Originally posted by HalitoseThis was exactly the point of my last posts. The only evidence for non-existence of a logically possible God is the absence of evidence for its existence.
I think the crucial question here is whether absence of proof constitutes proof of absence. This may well be true for corporeal claims where the stringency of the scientific method can be brought to bear. How does it function epistemically with supernatural/transcendental claims?
Therefore, the claim that the atheist is being somehow unfair by demanding evidence is incorrect, since the absence of evidence is, in fact, evidence supporting his position.
So the atheist is already in a position where evidence is in favour of his position and this is why the theist is required to present evidence in favour of his claim.
Edit: Changing proof for evidence in the second sentence.
30 May 06
Originally posted by HalitoseAbsence of proof does not constitute proof of absence. Proof of absence is not required to warrant atheism. Absence of proof is sufficient.
I think the crucial question here is whether absence of proof constitutes proof of absence. This may well be true for corporeal claims where the stringency of the scientific method can be brought to bear. How does it function epistemically with supernatural/transcendental claims?
