A Challenge To Believers And Non-Believers To Fess Up

[Augusta]

After reading this thread I was particularly struck in noticing that no Christians cited lack of objective evidence as a compelling reason.

That kind of fits what came to my mind. . . but I would word it as the lack of extraordinary objective evidence. In an acronym, ECREE.

[shunyadragon]

That kind of fits what came to my mind. . . but I would word it as the lack of extraordinary objective evidence. In an acronym, ECREE.

I disagree, the evidence need not be the extreme requirements of ECREE required by many skeptics. It need be only objective evidence that could be falsified. ECREE is also misrepresented to a certain degree as unreasonable. It would only be unreasonable in the extreme since.

When I evaluate the evidence, I find evidence for Christianity in a general since, but the evidence is almost completely lacking to support the exclusive traditional theology of Christianity when viewed from today's perpective.

[Cleombrotus]

.

What argument made by the other side do you find most compelling?

.

I have never heard an argument for the other side, compelling or otherwise, even though I have made attempts to elicit them from non-believers in TWeb and elsewhere.

When one considers that all such "arguments" are simply objections to what I believe, and not arguments on their own merits, they become evidence for what I believe.

There have been questions raised which I did not have the answer to, but I distinquish them from arguments for non-belief.


Regards,
Cleombrotus

[Doug Shaver]

When one considers that all such "arguments" are simply objections to what I believe, and not arguments on their own merits, they become evidence for what I believe.



Regards,
Cleombrotus

I don't understand. What is the difference between an objection to a belief and an argument against the belief?

[Cleombrotus]

I don't understand. What is the difference between an objection to a belief and an argument against the belief?

There is no difference.

However, I did not say "arguments against a belief". What I said was "arguments on their own merits".

You take it for granted that the idea of atheism is an argument against the idea of God, but when you hear a Christian making his case for Jesus Christ, for example, you do not take it for granted that he is making an argument against atheism, at least not in a direct way. He is usually engaged in presenting various evidences which he believes are compelling reasons for belief. These evidences are presented on their own merits. The listener can either regard them as compelling evidences or not as he sees fit, but the idea that the Christian is opposing anything besides unbelief does not enter into the picture unless he makes it the theme of his argument, as when he might be arguing for belief in Jesus as opposed to another belief, such as Islam. If you, for example, take away the idea of "no God" or "No Muhammad" from the presentation of his "arguments", his "arguments" suffer no loss of validity.

However, when one takes away the idea of "God" from the atheists "arguments", they immediately become invalid questions.

Take, for example, the problem of evil. The atheist likes to argue that if there is a God and if He is all good as some propose, then He cannot allow evil and therefore He cannot possibly exist, since evil quite obviousy exists. Putting aside for the moment that the argument is a childish one, consider what happens to the argument of the problem of evil if there is no God. If there is no God, there is no such thing as evil or good since they are simply human constructs, that is, names we have given certain ideas and practices. These things we call evil and good are simply the workings out of natural selection and survival but have no intrinsic value or morality. So the question of the problem of evil becomes an invalid question and the atheist has shot himslf in the foot, once again.

You see? He needs God to even argue against God.

Therefore, the only recourse the atheist has is in making objections to God. He cannot offer any compelling reason to believe there is no God on its own merits. At least, I have yet to hear one. If anyone has one, I will be delighted to hear it.

One cannot argue for "no God". One can only object to the ideas for God.

Does that help?

Cleombrotus

[Abhorsen]

There is no difference.

However, I did not say "arguments against a belief". What I said was "arguments on their own merits".

You take it for granted that the idea of atheism is an argument against the idea of God, but when you hear a Christian making his case for Jesus Christ, for example, you do not take it for granted that he is making an argument against atheism, at least not in a direct way. He is usually engaged in presenting various evidences which he believes are compelling reasons for belief. These evidences are presented on their own merits. The listener can either regard them as compelling evidences or not as he sees fit, but the idea that the Christian is opposing anything besides unbelief does not enter into the picture unless he makes it the theme of his argument, as when he might be arguing for belief in Jesus as opposed to another belief, such as Islam. If you, for example, take away the idea of "no God" or "No Muhammad" from the presentation of his "arguments", his "arguments" suffer no loss of validity.

However, when one takes away the idea of "God" from the atheists "arguments", they immediately become invalid questions.

Take, for example, the problem of evil. The atheist likes to argue that if there is a God and if He is all good as some propose, then He cannot allow evil and therefore He cannot possibly exist, since evil quite obviousy exists. Putting aside for the moment that the argument is a childish one, consider what happens to the argument of the problem of evil if there is no God. If there is no God, there is no such thing as evil or good since they are simply human constructs, that is, names we have given certain ideas and practices. These things we call evil and good are simply the workings out of natural selection and survival but have no intrinsic value or morality. So the question of the problem of evil becomes an invalid question and the atheist has shot himslf in the foot, once again.

You see? He needs God to even argue against God.

Therefore, the only recourse the atheist has is in making objections to God. He cannot offer any compelling reason to believe there is no God on its own merits. At least, I have yet to hear one. If anyone has one, I will be delighted to hear it.

One cannot argue for "no God". One can only object to the ideas for God.

Does that help?

Cleombrotus

Yes. That helps to confuse me further. There does not need to be any proof of no God. If I am not wearing shoes--I don't have to prove I'm not wearing shoes. I do have to prove it to you if I am wearing shoes (by letting you look at my feet). If I am not wearing shoes and you don't believe me then you are welcome to look for yourself at my feet. If you are trying to tell me there are shoes--then of course you need to show me the shoes. The theists are the ones that need to do the proving. Until it is proven there is nothing. And of course nothing doesn't need to be proven. It is just the absence of anything. I hate writing sentences like that. It just makes my head hurt.

[Abhorsen]

.

What argument made by the other side do you find most compelling?

.

Let's start by saying that I am closer to an atheist than any other catagory with a title. But I would say that I am just continually questioning. I personally have never heard a really good argument for the existence of God. But at the same time I cannot completely count it out. Here is my reasoning. The human mind is a finite structure. It can process a whole lot of info but there is a limit. For instance, the human mind cannot really understand infinite amounts of time. Even if there was a sudden beginning to our universe there still existed at least time before that beginning of the universe as we know it. I understand time to be infinite. But I cannot really understand infinity. It is just beyond the capablilities of my brain. I understand what the word means but I can't understand what it is like or what it takes to be infinite. I have ruled out a God that has a hand in our lives or even our creation. To me that just doesn't seem likely. However, admitting that my brain just simply cannot conceive certain things (like infinity) I must admit that there could possbly be other things that my brain cannot comprehend (nor can anyones in my opinion). Does anyone else share similar ideas?

[Abhorsen]

In metaphysics, one does not speak of "proof"; one speaks of "credibilty".

If your head hurts, perhaps it's a sign that you're not all the way gone yet and it's trying to tell you something.

Disputation and rebuttal are not the only way that ideas are propounded.

Try again, Socrates. Keep in mind the OP.

What you basically said (if I understood you correctly) is that a person cannot argue against God without refer to God in the argument. Therefore accepting God--at least long enough to try to disprove God. Is that right?

[Cleombrotus]

What you basically said (if I understood you correctly) is that a person cannot argue against God without refer to God in the argument. Therefore accepting God--at least long enough to try to disprove God. Is that right?

No. Not necessarily.

Keep in mind that my argument is that all arguments put forth by atheists, thus far, have to do with raising objections to ideas already proposed by Theists. However, unlike your hypothesis that the burden of proof lies with the Theist, untill the question of God's existence is answered satisfactorily (not necessarily conclusively) the only burden required is that of the question.

The atheist who argues, as you just have, that the burden of proof lies with the Theist is only on solid ground when the Theist has been the first to put forth his idea as the conclusive answer to the question.

Now, supposing that two neutral observers were trying to decide the answer to the question, with neither one proposing a position as defintive but allowing that, since there are only two possible answers to the question each one of them would take a position and would independently of the other, come up with credible evidences for his position with the resulting position with the most credible evidences being the one they would give their allegiance to.

Given that scenario, try to think of a credible answer to the idea that there is no God, that has not yet heard any arguments for the idea of the existence of a God.

Good luck.

Cleombrotus

[Cleombrotus]

Yes. That helps to confuse me further. There does not need to be any proof of no God. If I am not wearing shoes--I don't have to prove I'm not wearing shoes. I do have to prove it to you if I am wearing shoes (by letting you look at my feet). If I am not wearing shoes and you don't believe me then you are welcome to look for yourself at my feet. If you are trying to tell me there are shoes--then of course you need to show me the shoes. The theists are the ones that need to do the proving. Until it is proven there is nothing. And of course nothing doesn't need to be proven. It is just the absence of anything. I hate writing sentences like that. It just makes my head hurt.

In metaphysics one does not speak of "proof"; one speaks of "credibilty".

If your head hurts perhaps it's a sign that you're not all the way gone yet and it's trying to tell you something.

Disputation and rebuttal are not the only way that ideas are propounded.

Try again, Socrates. Keep in mind the OP.

[Abhorsen]

No. Not necessarily.

Keep in mind that my argument is that all arguments put forth by atheists, thus far, have to do with raising objections to ideas already proposed by Theists. However, unlike your hypothesis that the burden of proof lies with the Theist, untill the question of God's existence is answered satisfactorily (not necessarily conclusively) the only burden required is that of the question.

The atheist who argues, as you just have, that the burden of proof lies with the Theist is only on solid ground when the Theist has been the first to put forth his idea as the conclusive answer to the question.

Now, supposing that two neutral observers were trying to decide the answer to the question, with neither one proposing a position as defintive but allowing that, since there are only two possible answers to the question each one of them would take a position and would independently of the other, come up with credible evidences for his position with the resulting position with the most credible evidences being the one they would give their allegiance to.

Given that scenario, try to think of a credible answer to the idea that there is no God, that has not yet heard any arguments for the idea of the existence of a God.

Good luck.

Cleombrotus

OK. How about if we take your scenario and pretend the two individuals are trying to either prove or disprove the existance of unicorns. They have 1 week (just to avoid the idea of spending eternity looking) to come to their conclusion. So person number one decides to look for unicorn evidence and number two decides to look for evidence disproving unicorns. Number one buys a plane ticket to Madagascar and number two finds a nice shade tree and enjoys the nice fall day. After one week they meet again and number one says "where's your evidence that unicorns don't exist"? Number two says "man I haven't found squat that says they didn't exist. Therefore--I have no choice but to claim that they don't exist". Number one says "that's funny I haven't found squat that says they do exist". Therefore--I should claim that they don't exist. But man--I really want unicorns to exist. You know what? I'm just gonna say they exist anyway."

[Cleombrotus]

OK. How about if we take your scenario and pretend the two individuals are trying to either prove or disprove the existance of unicorns. They have 1 week (just to avoid the idea of spending eternity looking) to come to their conclusion. So person number one decides to look for unicorn evidence and number two decides to look for evidence disproving unicorns. Number one buys a plane ticket to Madagascar and number two finds a nice shade tree and enjoys the nice fall day. After one week they meet again and number one says "where's your evidence that unicorns don't exist"? Number two says "man I haven't found squat that says they didn't exist. Therefore--I have no choice but to claim that they don't exist". Number one says "that's funny I haven't found squat that says they do exist". Therefore--I should claim that they don't exist. But man--I really want unicorns to exist. You know what? I'm just gonna say they exist anyway."

Do you know what a false analogy is? And what causes it to be classifed as false?

But more to the point: do you notice that you took my example, which was clearly given as an illustration clarifying a point and not as an argument, and turned it into an argument instead ?

Ask yourself, what is the motivation for doing that, since there was no need?

[Eyeheart Pumpkin]

The most compelling argument I've encountered has come from the atheists, that being that science has already provided suitable explanations for natural cause and process behind many of the phenomena that were previously attributed only supernatural explanations, and that although there is still much that science hasn't answered, we are constantly learning new things, so we can't say with certainty that we won't have some of those answers tomorrow, or next week, or in the next hundred years, and so on.

I've never encountered a compelling argument from a theist of any stripe, including pagan theists (my own kind). The reason for that is that when you strip down even the very best of their arguments to their most basic root, accepting that root as more than just a theory, an idea or a myth requires faith. Now, I have no problem with faith, I have plenty of it ... with regard to certain things. But for me to accept your presuppositions would require me to have faith in the same things as you, and no theist (Christian or otherwise) has been able to provide a convincing argument for why their presuppositions should replace my own.

[Abhorsen]

Do you know what a false analogy is? And what causes it to be classifed as false?

But more to the point: do you notice that you took my example, which was clearly given as an illustration clarifying a point and not as an argument, and turned it into an argument instead ?

Ask yourself, what is the motivation for doing that, since there was no need?

OK Cleombrotus. I do know what a false analogy is, but I wasn't trying to make a direct analogy as much an analogy to the argument. I suppose what you are saying is that I don't have an argument on my own. I only have an argument when you present your theist stance. I totally agree with you about that. I would not try to argue that God doesn't exist if there wasn't someone out there saying he/she/it did. I still fail to see how this solidifies your belief in God (just because someone is willing to argue against it). The main ingredient missing which made my analogy false was the blind faith required to believe in God. Something you seem to have plenty of and I am lacking. I would be curious to know where your blind faith comes from. I hope it isn't derived entirely from people arguing against the existence of God. I truley believe that a person should use anything he/she can wrap their hands/mind/heart around to make their life as fulfilling and happy as possible. Even if it is a false faith or a misconception. It really doesn't matter in the end. If you live a happy and content life blindly following the words of other men/women telling you what you need to do to find everlasting bliss you should do it eagerly. Look at it this way. If you are right about God and religion then you are all set. If I am right then you are just as well off as me in the end. The only way I will fair better than you is if some other intolerant religion happens to be correct. Some wacked out God that says all other theists and pegans are damned but athiests are cool even though they don't believe in me.
Peace of mind to you,
Abhorsen

[Doug Shaver]

One cannot argue for "no God". One can only object to the ideas for God.

Does that help?

You have made your position clearer. I appreciate your patience.

You take it for granted that the idea of atheism is an argument against the idea of God

Some atheists might do that. I do not. To me, the idea of atheism is not an argument against anything. To me, atheism is the absence of theism, nothing more and nothing less. As it happens, I do happen to have some arguments rebutting all the arguments that I have so far heard in favor of theism, but atheism itself is not an argument. It's just the default position in the absence of a good justification for theism.

when you hear a Christian making his case for Jesus Christ, for example, you do not take it for granted that he is making an argument against atheism, at least not in a direct way. He is usually engaged in presenting various evidences which he believes are compelling reasons for belief.

I agree.

The atheist likes to argue that . . .

You seem to suppose that all atheists think alike. That is not a valid supposition.

. . . if there is a God and if He is all good as some propose, then He cannot allow evil and therefore He cannot possibly exist, since evil quite obviousy exists.

That is a common argument against a particular conception of God, yes. And, it is a popular conception. It is not the only one, though.

Putting aside for the moment that the argument is a childish one

I don't see what makes it so. However, if you're willing to debate the argument's overall merits, we don't need to go off on that tangent.

If there is no God, there is no such thing as evil or good since they are simply human constructs

Either that is a non sequitur or you're begging a question. That they are human constructs does not imply their nonexistence. It could, just possibly, imply that they have no objective existence, but that does not mean they are not real. Beauty is a human construct, too, but I don't know many people who argue for the nonexistence of beauty.

that is, names we have given certain ideas and practices.

Yes, but we have not given them arbitrarily. Capriciously, maybe, but not arbitrarily. We have reasons for assigning moral values to certain ideas and practices. People differ in the reasons they rely on, but they all have their reasons.

So the question of the problem of evil becomes an invalid question and the atheist has shot himslf in the foot, once again.

Oh, my foot is still in fine shape, thank you very much.