” This brings me to my challenge. I challenge all theists and all their accommodationist friends to post their very best 21st century, sophisticated (or not), arguments for the existence of God. They can put them in the comments section of this posting, or on any of the other atheist blogs, or on their own blogs and websites. Just send me the link.Theists, it is asserted, have the burden of proof. As I have demonstrated before, burden of proof is a debating term referring to the party making an assertion at the start of a debate. That person makes the case for his point. Then the opposing side has the burden of rebuttal, being required to refute the case being presented using the same standards for acceptance and rejection as are used for the original case; then the rebuttor makes a counter case, the validity of which is, again, subject to the same standards for acceptance and rejection.
Try and make it concise and to the point. It would be nice if it's less than 100 years old. Keep in mind that there are over 1000 different gods so it would be helpful to explain just which gods the argument applies to.
I don't care where they post the argument, just get on with it. I'm not interested in any other details about theology. Those points only become relevant once you've convinced this atheist that you have a rational argument for the existence of God.”
What the Atheists at sandwalk demand (I read only half of the comments) is a theodicy that can pass scientific evidentiary standards, or if not a theodicy, then actual material evidence of God. While Moran made the challenge in terms of “proof”, there is no logical proof that would ever pass the Atheist ability to charge it with fallacy. This is because, minimally, the premises will be declared non-valid due to lack of actual evidence, meaning material evidence.
Also ironically rejected are theodicies which are based on scientific hypotheses, because the science can never be finalized (which is a characteristic of science). Yet it is scientific evidence, material in nature and experimental under the rules of empiricism which the band of Atheists resident at sandwalk demand of evidence for God.
Arguments of an experiential nature – experiencing the deity or a spiritual experience – are rejected as “brain farts” in the words of one Atheist. All experiences are explainable in terms of brain states and / or brain chemical imbalances. Correlation is causation it is presumed. Another claims that experiences cannot be trusted because the cause of the experience cannot be correlated with the content of the experience(!)
By labeling all intuitive knowledge as fallacious, chemically imbalanced, brain farts, the Atheists have Poisoned the Well, and have used that tactical fallacy to shut down any argumentation of personal experience as delusional.
So the demand is reductively focused on material evidence of a non-material being, one that would exist necessarily outside space-time and mass-energy, a being whose non-material characteristics we cannot even imagine, much less measure using devices that do not apply in any way, being designed to measure material things.
Thus the demand itself is self-contradictory, self-refuting, and Atheists who have any logic in them at all know this. A non-coherent demand, being irrational, does not merit a response, of course, in spite of some theists attempting to respond (with arguments which cannot possibly satisfy the non-coherents making the non-coherent demand). Because the demand is non-coherent, no answer can suffice, so there is the spectacle of theists being chewed up in their attempts to match rational arguments to an irrational question, and Atheists sneering at their failures. Rationally speaking there is no rationality involved.
But more to the point, Atheists must respond with a rebuttal that adheres to the same restrictions, same rules. And that is the Challenge to Atheists:
Prove that there is no God. Place your proof here or wherever you wish to post it. But make certain that your rebuttal follows your own rules: The proof must be coherent and material; after all material is all there is under your Materialist rules.
Nothing less is acceptable. Go ahead. Face the challenge.
Addendum: This post edited for comity.
51 comments:
I was with you up to the last couple paragraphs.
No need for the false dilemma.
I haven't read the challenge post, but in my mind the core of the problem with accommodationism is not that beliefs should be respected, but that abject nonsense should be taken seriously to the extent that non-believers must comply with religious silliness. For example, I read just today that there's a debate in Israel over whether government computers should be switched off on the sabbath. The "compromise" agreement was that the computers would stay turned on, and citizens can pay their bills online on the sabbath but the transaction won't be completed until the following day. Now that's just silly, but the decision also affects non-believers.
If atheists bear the burden of proof for the non-existence of god, and they are unable to prove that, is that a compelling reason to believe in god?
By the way, I'm the anonymous from a couple of posts back. I'm just a bit strapped for time at the moment, and can't read as thorougly as I would like to.
Atheists don't claim there is/are no god/gods.
They merely don't believe any god exists.
Hence your challenge is meaningless.
Try researching what atheism actually is before posting such drivel.
Sonic said,
"No need for the false dilemma."
You're right of course. I have fallen to their level. Still, I'm not inclined to remove it just yet. I probably will after I have recovered my composure. I sometimes develop an internal fury at the smugness of the ignorant. That's why I never read the comments at PZ's any more.
Ooooo Kay. I'm better now. It's gone.
Thanks for the honest assessment.
elronxenu, Hello!
Re: Accommodationism. There are two problems here.
First, some radicals are annoyed at any behavior that is not their own, and believe they are oppressed by the existence of that annoying behavior.
Second, there are radical behaviors that are violations of others' rights.
In each case, the key is perception of the offended. First, annoying behavior may be ignored. Second, are human rights really being violated?
The Israeli computer issue is case 2. Do non-Jews have a Right to expect service every day? Or can non-Jews accommodate the Jewish principles?
The anti-accommodationists have a point: there are behaviors that cannot be ignored (e.g. priest pedophilia).
But within the anti-accommodation group are people who declare a Right not to be offended by annoying behaviors, and thus, being easily annoyed, declare the necessity for attacking all behaviors that are not their own.
The Atheists thus have a moral issue, and subscribe to a set of sliding morals, extending from no moral qualms to hyper-sensitive self-righteousness.
The intellectual problem becomes this: can tolerance be demanded on the one hand, and revoked for certain demographics on the other hand? PZ demonstrates this paradox almost daily, denouncing the tolerance of demographics he pronounces evil on the one hand, and criticizing lack of tolerance for his chosen preferred demographics on the other hand.
The paradox is exacerbated by the fact that, for Atheists there either is no evil, or evil is in the eye of the beholder, not a real entity. So Atheist celebrities like PZ are in a position of first defining evil, and then attacking it, the same as any cult leader does.
Christians are faced with a similar issue, except that morality is pre-defined for them, and also, they are exhorted to present the word, not to attack.
elronxenu said,
"If atheists bear the burden of proof for the non-existence of god, and they are unable to prove that, is that a compelling reason to believe in god?"
Of course not, and I make no such claims. My purpose here is not to prove God exists, that is an exercise for the intellectually honest searcher to complete for himself. IFF there is a God, and IFF that God is a personal God, and IFF a searcher approaches with intellectual humility and honesty, these are the conditions required for any such validation - there is nothing that I or anyone else can do to prove any such thing to the ornery minded.
However, it can be shown that Atheism is non-coherent. That is the niche that this blog fits.
Another Anonymous said,
"Atheists don't claim there is/are no god/gods.
They merely don't believe any god exists.
Hence your challenge is meaningless.
Try researching what atheism actually is before posting such drivel."
Another Anon:
This is an example of argumentative word play. The phrase,
"don't believe any god exists."
is intended to assert an absence of God hypotheses rather than a positive assertion of belief that there is no deity. This is a common fallacy, devised to avoid the necessity for defending the Atheist belief. (The assertion above is a rather clumsy statement of the standard Atheist assertion of "having no God belief").
Stating a non-belief is incorrect. Assume that an assertion is made that X is true, or X exists. The correct statement of denial is:
I have a positive belief that X is not true, or does not exist.
To say that "I do not believe that X is true, or exists" does not refute the statement of positive belief.
So the original assertion, above, is false. You should search your intellectual reserves to see if you have a God hypothesis. If you have none, then you are ignorant of the world-wide theological argument, and you are entitled to claim that you have no God belief.
This is not the case for you. You are encumbered with a God hypothesis, to wit: "there is no God". This is true for virtually every modern Atheist, despite their protestations. Few, if any, can claim no opinion on the existence of God. You have an opinion. So your veiled claim not to have one is false.
This places you in a position of having a belief that you cannot prove, either logically or empirically. So your belief system is non-rational and non-Material; in other words it is self-refuting to claim a rational lack of God opinion, and therefore the claim is false.
You are welcome here; please comment at will, and ask any question you like.
I'll respond to this challenge.
First I'd like to comment on the burden of proof. Logically and coherently, the burden of proof must be on the one making the claim that 'X' exists.
If my assertion was that Zeus was the origin of lightning or that an invisible, incorporeal dragon lived in my garage, surely you would claim that the burden of proof is upon myself to provide a convincing argument or present physical evidence to back up my assertion?
The rejection of this claim does not, and should not require evidence. We have no evidence that there are no fairies, yet we (most of us) live our lives as if fairies do not exist. Surely you have heard this argument before?
"So the demand is reductively focused on material evidence of a non-material being, one that would exist necessarily outside space-time and mass-energy, a being whose non-material characteristics we cannot even imagine, much less measure using devices that do not apply in any way, being designed to measure material things."
I would like to point out that theists frequently make claims (even testable claims on occasion) regarding a being they are all to willing to term incomprehensible, immeasurable, and existing outside of our perception. To run and hide behind this argument while simultaneously claiming that you can communicate telepathically with the creator of the universe (who exists outside the universe and we have no way of measuring) seems the height of dishonesty.
Either a god exists and we can,at the very least, observe the manner in which he interacts with the world, or he exists and we can make no comment on his nature, being totally immeasurable and alien to our way of knowing. You simply cannot have it both ways.
It seems to me that the dissonance is easily cleared up by assuming there is no god.
To directly answer your challenge; my proof that God does not exist:
After examining all the material evidence throughout history, every mystery ever solved has turned out to be Not Magic.
Andrew,
Logically and coherently, the burden of proof must be on the one making the claim that 'X' exists.
This is simply not true. It's egregious that this has become a meme among people who like to pat themselves on the back at how rational they are. The burden of proof is on the one says that a proposition is either true or false.
From Introduction to Logic by Harry Gensler: "When we criticize an opponent's argument, we try to show that it's unsound...But the conclusion still might be true - and our opponent might later discover a better argument for it. To show a view to be false, we must do more than just refute an argument for it; we must invent an argument of our own that shows the view to be false."
The reason you don't believe in fairies is because although you don't consciously think about it you already have arguments in place against their existence. The hierarchy of life on earth is a strong argument that there are not humans that small that have wings.
If you went to another planet and someone told you about a local animal called a purple-spotted schnoobaleptor, you would have no way of knowing whether they exist or not until you hear arguments against them one way or the other.
That is what Stan is asking for. What are your arguments that theism is false?
The argument you have presented makes no sense:
1. If every mystery ever solved has a naturalistic explanation, then God does not exist
2. Every mystery ever solved has a naturalistic explanation
3. Therefore, God does not exist
Premise #1 is clearly not true or supportable.
Stan thanks for putting pressure on atheists who try to use their special pleading garbage to get out of any intellectual responsibility. Common tactics involve: "Atheism is a default position", "Atheism is a lack of belief", "You cant prove a negative, only positive claims have the burden of proof". Its sad when they cant even get past this fallacy. I love quoting their own people they worship such as Hitchens "That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence". Since atheism is one big question begging fallacy that is asserted without any evidence, it can be dismissed without any evidence.
It's actually rather refreshing to have my concepts challenged. Thanks for the response.
We actually both have a burden of proof. I assert however that the theist side is responsible for the preponderance of the burden as they are the one making the claim which is unsupported by material evidence. This would be similar to the claim that fairies exist or that Zeus is responsible for lightning. Such claims are unsupported by physical evidence and thus the burden of proof is upon myself.
Alternatively, do all Roman Catholics not have the burden of proof to demonstrate that all the thousands of other deities in history are false? This seems an unreasonable and illogical method of assigning the burden of proof.
My "proof" that your argument is unsound is that there is simply no evidence or rational argument to support it. Apparently atheists everywhere are missing out on some bit of fact which is obvious to all theists, hence the original challenge to the theists..
"The reason you don't believe in fairies is because although you don't consciously think about it you already have arguments in place against their existence. The hierarchy of life on earth is a strong argument that there are not humans that small that have wings."
That's a fantastic point and helps make my argument for me. You are correct that I do not believe in a god because I have arguments I feel refute the claims of the theists, or feel their claims are unsupported by reality. You can go through every argument for the existence of god and point out how it fails logically. Does the hierarchy of life not in itself refute the bible? It seems fairly obvious it does. Again, I believe this is the point of the original challenge to theists.
I think you are skewing my argument actually Martin. I said;
"After examining all the material evidence throughout history, every mystery ever solved has turned out to be Not Magic."
1. Every mystery ever solved has a naturalistic explanation.
2. There are no physical evidence or rational explanations to suppose that a god (magic) does exist.
3. Therefore, it is rational to suppose that god does not exist.
I will readily admit that this is not proof that God does not exist, however I do feel it is incredibly strong evidence. (Proofs being restricted to mathematics and the like.)
And honestly, compared to the ontological, cosmological, morality, first cause, etc etc arguments, I think it makes a lot of sense :D
"So the demand is reductively focused on material evidence of a non-material being, one that would exist necessarily outside space-time and mass-energy, a being whose non-material characteristics we cannot even imagine, much less measure using devices that do not apply in any way, being designed to measure material things."
I would like to point out that theists frequently make claims (even testable claims on occasion) regarding a being they are all to willing to term incomprehensible, immeasurable, and existing outside of our perception. To run and hide behind this argument while simultaneously claiming that you can communicate telepathically with the creator of the universe (who exists outside the universe and we have no way of measuring) seems the height of dishonesty.
I was wondering if you might address this point? If the being exists outside of space and time, how can you have any knowledge of him? It would seem to claim that in your case, god sent a son to reveal his nature is the very definition of special pleading.
Example: I know the idea that ball lightning is caused by ghosts makes no sense to you, but that's only because you're human. Humans cannot understand supernatural phenomena.
I don't think I'm ducking any intellectual responsibility here, I thought I was responding to a challenge? The burden of proof was the first thing I mentioned, so yeah, I do think I 'got past that'.
To Anonymous, would you care to provide evidence that Zeus is not, in some way, responsible for lightning?
Whew! That's a lot of points, Andrew!
We actually both have a burden of proof. I assert however that the theist side is responsible for the preponderance of the burden as they are the one making the claim which is unsupported by material evidence.
God is non-physical, so asking for physical evidence is making a category error. It's like asking for physical evidence that the Nazis were morally wrong as opposed to morally right.
Alternatively, do all Roman Catholics not have the burden of proof to demonstrate that all the thousands of other deities in history are false? This seems an unreasonable and illogical method of assigning the burden of proof.
In the case of Catholicism, their teaching is that God is the only god and hence by definition there are no other gods.
My "proof" that your argument is unsound is that there is simply no evidence or rational argument to support it.
But again, that would be argument from ignorance. See the quote from Introduction to Logic above.
Apparently atheists everywhere are missing out on some bit of fact which is obvious to all theists, hence the original challenge to the theists..
Many lay atheists and theists alike are completely unaware of the theistic revolution happening in philosophy. What I observe are lay theists giving very, VERY bad arguments for God, atheists laughing at them (justifiably), and then concluding that theism is a position of ignorance.
You can go through every argument for the existence of god and point out how it fails logically. Does the hierarchy of life not in itself refute the bible? It seems fairly obvious it does. Again, I believe this is the point of the original challenge to theists.
The fundamentalists and Biblical literalists of which you are indirectly referring are the very ignorant theists I am talking about. They do untold damage to both Christianity and atheism. The latter by making them weaker. Practicing boxing against toddlers will make you a very bad boxer.
1. Every mystery ever solved has a Bnaturalistic explanation.
2. There are no physical evidence or rational explanations to suppose that a god (magic) does exist.
3. Therefore, it is rational to suppose that god does not exist.
This argument is not logically valid.
1. All A (so far as we know) are B
2. No C are D
3. Therefore, E does not exist
That conclusion does not follow from the premises and its not in any form I've ever seen. Check out this list of valid syllogisms and try to make an argument in proper form.
And honestly, compared to the ontological, cosmological, morality, first cause, etc etc arguments, I think it makes a lot of sense :D
These arguments have all been reformulated in recent years, and are quite difficult to refute. For example, there is a new ontological argument from Robert Maydole of which its been said that atheist philosopher Quentin Smith did not have a reply.
To run and hide behind this argument while simultaneously claiming that you can communicate telepathically with the creator of the universe (who exists outside the universe and we have no way of measuring) seems the height of dishonesty.
This gets into religion, which I am not an adherent of. The arguments for God are moderately strong, but become progressively weaker when trying to assign attributes or identify the being as that of any specific religion. Stan might have more on this.
To Anonymous, would you care to provide evidence that Zeus is not, in some way, responsible for lightning?
I can answer that. Zeus is a physical being who lives on Mt Olympus and causes lightning. Arguments against Zeus: no one lives on Mt Olympus, physical beings die eventually, and we know what causes lightning.
Andrew/Martin:
I’ll take this one:
”I would like to point out that theists frequently make claims (even testable claims on occasion) regarding a being they are all to willing to term incomprehensible, immeasurable, and existing outside of our perception. To run and hide behind this argument while simultaneously claiming that you can communicate telepathically with the creator of the universe (who exists outside the universe and we have no way of measuring) seems the height of dishonesty.”
The First Cause exists outside our dimensions, not excluded our universe as you suggest. Other dimensions exist coincidentally with our dimensions, overlapping in ways we have no way of appreciating…String theory and all that.
Few if any claim a telepathic connection with the deity. The experience is deeply personal and totally inexplicable. I shared your incredulity for the 40 years of my sincere Atheism. Denial of the experience which is claimed by 100’s of millions is an exercise in argument from ignorance, scientism, and ornery mindedness.
Atheists are quick to claim the necessity for material, physical evidence, and they are quick to shy away from providing same. There is neither proof nor falsification possible for these experiences, and referring to delusions or chemical imbalances or other excuses are all inferential, non-material, non-empirical attempts to disqualify something that is not subject to empiricism.
The demand for empirical proof is the real height of dishonesty.
Thanks Martin! If only the number of points was an argument unto itself I could count myself ahead :P
Although God is non-physical (I'll mention I'm not really sure what that means), does he not interact with the physical world? And thus could physical evidence not be provided?
In opposition to Catholicism, their claim that God is the only God refutes every other deity claim ever made. Seeing as atheists only remove one more god from the picture, why such a strong burden of proof on our shoulders? As well I could say that the definition of atheism is that there are no gods, hence by definition there are no gods?
I disagree that it is an argument from ignorance. We are refuting a theistic god correct? Not a deistic one?
As such you would, by definition, expect such a god to have interacted with the world and there should be evidence of such. In this case absence of evidence does seem to be evidence of absence.
I've heard many theists debate for the existence of god, and you are quite correct in saying that they appear as toddlers boxing against professionals compared to the arguments of their opponents.
Googled Robert Maydole's Ontological Argument. Now I readily admit I don't fully understand it (I also didn't fully read it) but he is just trying to will god into existence by defining him into existence. It's just not compelling, convincing or satisfying. Is this what you mean by non-physical evidence? Yes of course its quite difficult to refute, its difficult to make sense of! And should not the existence of god be obvious? Why is such meta-physical hand waving necessary to keep the debate going?
If you are disregarding the bible, perhaps it is important to describe the god you are asking me to provide evidence of his non-existence?
Hm, I thought the argument was very clear. Also, I did not say god does not exist. I said there was no reason to suppose he does.
I'll try and rephrase. I'm sure I'll make it logically valid eventually!
1. All A (mysteries) are B (naturally explainable)
2. No A (mysteries) are C (magic).
3. Therefore it is REASONABLE TO SUPPOSE that C (magic/god/supernatural) does not exist.
Closer? :)
Ah, you are not an adherent of religion? Well I certainly admit that the looser a definition you apply to god, the harder it gets to provide any evidence he doesn't exist. So if you could provide me a coherent definition of the god I'm suppose to be refuting that would help a lot!
I'll take that as a valid refutation of Zeus. However he could have moved .. maybe to some alternate dimension beyond space and time.
Stan:
I was referring to prayer as telepathic communication. The vast majority of theists I believe to indeed claim that god listens and perhaps responds to their prayers.
I was raised a Catholic myself, but quite honestly around the time I was 6 the god stories really started to fall apart for me.
Your using an argument from popularity. Eat shit! Billions of flies can't be wrong!
I've prayed and received no such personal experience. Maybe he just skipped me? Seems unfair although not out of character to the biblical god. I suppose he's just hardened my heart then?
The charge of ignorance, scientism and ornery mindedness is unfair and uncalled for. I'm here to challenge your ideas have have my own challenged in return.
I'm well aware that the majority of people have religious experiences. I've put forward my arguments in the spirit of honest debate. And if you provide compelling reasons for me to personally change my mind I will.
Theists are quick to claim that god is ever-present, all loving, all powerful, beyond space and time, an uncaused cause and sent his only son to earth to redeem us from our sins. Shocking that we'd expect there to be some evidence of this, I know. Must be the scientism talking.
I did point out that if you expect there to be physical evidence and there is none, that that would in a sense be physical evidence of non-existence.
Can you provide me physical evidence for the non-existence of everything you don't believe exists?
The demand for empirical proof is the real height of dishonesty.
I'm practically speechless. I should just take you at your word then? I have a bridge in Alaska I'll sell you for a buck. Oh you want evidence, well now you are just being dishonest.
Although God is non-physical (I'll mention I'm not really sure what that means), does he not interact with the physical world? And thus could physical evidence not be provided?
One way of thinking about this is whether this implies bad theology: "if it ain't a miracle, then God didn't do it." Why should only the breaking of natural laws be considered "God's interaction with the world"? The transcendental argument argues along these lines. That in a random universe, there is no reason the laws of physics would hold day after day or inductive reasoning would be possible. That this speaks to a sense of order.
I disagree that it is an argument from ignorance. We are refuting a theistic god correct? Not a deistic one?
Most of the arguments are compatible with deism and polytheism as well. The leap to any specific religion is called the "gap problem" and theistic philosophers are well aware that this area needs development.
I've heard many theists debate for the existence of god, and you are quite correct in saying that they appear as toddlers boxing against professionals compared to the arguments of their opponents.
If you are talking about lay folk, then yes. However, see professional theist philosophers. Some atheists begrudgingly admit that William Lane Craig has won all of his debates against atheists. I've listened to around 15 of them and indeed, the atheist side is often weak to non-existent. Pretty much the opposite of debates in the lay world.
Googled Robert Maydole's Ontological Argument. Now I readily admit I don't fully understand it (I also didn't fully read it) but he is just trying to will god into existence by defining him into existence. It's just not compelling, convincing or satisfying.
I don't have a handle on this one myself yet. But Maydole himself and in fact most theist philosophers fully admit that ontological arguments are not convincing. But there is a lot more depth there than meets the eye at first sight. Some atheist philosophers argue that a successful ontological argument is THE method that God would be proved by, if he existed, and that the lack of such an argument is proof of his non-existence. Go here and do a Ctrl-F for ontological.
If you are disregarding the bible, perhaps it is important to describe the god you are asking me to provide evidence of his non-existence?
The generic God of the Philosophers: God, Western Concepts of....
1. All A (mysteries) are B (naturally explainable)
2. No A (mysteries) are C (magic).
3. Therefore it is REASONABLE TO SUPPOSE that C (magic/god/supernatural) does not exist.
All right, an inductive argument. A little clearer. But here is one exception to your premise #1: the universe itself. It can't be naturally explainable as it is nature. This is where cosmological arguments come into play. The cause of the universe's existence had to be external to it. And so it could not have been part of space, time, matter, or the laws of physics. So it must have been spaceless, timeless, non-physical, and also "supranatural."
First off Martin, let me say that I am quite enjoying this interaction.
To my mind, a miracle is indeed a violation of natural laws. If it follows natural laws, than how is it miraculous?
You seem to imply that it is only through the will of a supreme being that there is reason and order? Surely we are multiplying our entities beyond necessity? Cannot order naturally arise from disorder?
I find most of the argument refer only to a deistic god. Apologists tend to spend an inordinate amount of time attempting to prove that god is logical coherent and could conceivably exist, and never really get around to demonstrating how their particular version of theism must be correct.
I was actually referring to professional apologetics such as Dinesh D'Sousa, Douglas Wilson and yes, WLC. I've never heard any of them really present a coherent reason for the existence of a deistic god, and only DW really makes any attempt during a debate to argue for his particular theology. WLC I find throws out a tremendous amount of information at the beginning of his debates which the atheist then tends to spend too much time attempting to refute and by the time the atheist side finishes,the debate is over.
WLC is an excellent debater, he has tremendous experience in this field and is in every sense a professional debater. I still find his arguments horrible though. They are the same any other apologists uses, they are just much more polished.
Yes some might say that the ontological argument is THE method by which god might be proven, but to me they just sound like they are trying to define god into existence. It just comes across as begging the question and attempting to use bastardized algebra to do it. Nice that we both agree its not compelling though.
Theism is the view that there is a God which is is the creator and sustainer of the universe and is unlimited with regard to knowledge (omniscience), power (omnipotence), extension (omnipresence), and moral perfection.
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is impotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Whence then is evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?
Such a god seems an unresolvable contradiction. I would also ask, how do you purport to know the mind of such a being who by definition is beyond human comprehension.
A little clearer? lol .. re:ontological argument. I'm as clear as crystal. :D
Ah yes, the universe. It's very true that I don't have a coherent concept of it's origin besides high school level science. However we have incontrovertible evidence of the existence of the universe. And more recently Stephen Hawkings claim of "Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist,"
Now this does not disprove god, but it does seem to eliminate him as a required candidate for the existence of .. existence. Adding a god at the beginning just begs an eternal regression does it not? Ie: What created god? If god does not require a creator, why does the universe. Perhaps god, being outside of time and space, can only be created by a being of space and time. As in, people made him up to explain the unexplained.
I should have been more clear, I see, rather than respond to your charge of dishonesty. It is a category error to demand a yellow solution for a completely blue problem. It is a category error to demand a physical proof for a nonphysical entity. I should have stated it that way.
"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is impotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Whence then is evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?"
These are forced conclusions based on an Atheist-derived morality, individually created and spread as a set of truths.
Take option #2: Able and not willing. Forced conclusion: Malevolent. The conclusion is forced upon us as the only possible conclusion.
This is false. "Able but not willing" is preferred because of free will (which is denied by most Atheists at this point, by using their free will to deny it, another subject). Without freewill, there is no moral choice because all those choices are removed. The debate about what a world without moral choice would look like gets complicated and dreary. But that is unnecessary because we do have moral choice.
This trichotomy is provided with previously determined answers so as to prejudice the mind of the reader. But the answers given (gratuitously) are not the only possibility. The leap to a malevolent deity is the preferred answer of the author, not necessarily a correct one. because of that the argument fails.
[I wrote a lot of stuff in answer to some of your other issues, but I think I should just address the following]
I should not have made the statement inclusive; I should have said "OR ornery mindedness".
Argument from ornery mindedness: I had myself and PZ Meyers in mind when I wrote that. There is no reason for arrogance to merit an experiential response. And I know for a personal fact that arrogance, both personal and intellectual is difficult to recognize, and difficult to be rid of, especially intellectual arrogance that has all the pre-boxed answers against the possibility of X in the first place.
Intellectual honesty comes only with a humility that is difficult to describe, much less acheive. Even when acheived it is fleeting, and somewhat vaporous. But I can describe it as being totally willing to accept what ever the truth is, regardless of how nasty it might seem. I didn't just pray and get a telepathic response. I had to deny my own knowledge, opinions (and as a lifelong Atheist, I had a few), and the arguments of professional philosphical baiters and rabble rousers, and start from scratch: What is truth? How can I know anything? Am I just molecules and nothing more? Why is there anything (including the law of gravity), etc etc. Most of all "I had to learn how think in valid processes, using valid axioms, rejecting axiomatic failures, etc.". All new stuff.
It wasn't until I learned how to think and how to analyze axioms that are fundamental presuppositions that I came across - in studying philosophy - the first principles. Starting from there it was possible to build an all-fresh world view that I could be confident held no fallacy.
This blog doesn't promise to "prove" there's a first cause, a deity, a God. It does promise to show that Atheism and Philosophical Materialism are non-coherent, and by their own standards are false.
I feel strongly that there is no way for any human to prove to any other human either that there is a God or that there is no God. It is not a material question about a material being.
I also feel that, given an honest exercise of intellectual humility and a lot of intellectual study, a coherent world view can emerge.
Some of what I learned is contained in the right panel of the blog, called Compendium of Rational Principles.
You seem to imply that it is only through the will of a supreme being that there is reason and order? Surely we are multiplying our entities beyond necessity? Cannot order naturally arise from disorder?
I'm not an expert on the transcendental argument, but I think that it would probably argue that "order arising from disorder" would itself be a form of order, and in a random universe should not be possible.
I was actually referring to professional apologetics such as Dinesh D'Sousa, Douglas Wilson and yes, WLC. I've never heard any of them really present a coherent reason for the existence of a deistic god, and only DW really makes any attempt during a debate to argue for his particular theology.
I would not put Dinesh and WLC in the same category. I think Dinesh makes horrible arguments. I read a humorous review of a debate between Dinesh and Hitchens, laying out their arguments, and neither one made any kind of coherent argument at all. WLC on the other hand is a philosopher and so his case consists of valid syllogisms with carefully argued premises. He always presents a good case for deism, but as I said it gets a bit weaker when trying to argue specific attributes or specific religion. Still not bad, though. Compare with his atheist opponents, who don't seem to argue a case at all and rarely if ever present even valid syllogisms.
If your impression of his arguments is that they are weak, then it's probably because of time constraints; in his writings he goes into quite a bit of depth defending them and they are not easy to refute. I would say at most he only fails to make a case because the premises are controversial, not obviously wrong.
Yes some might say that the ontological argument is THE method by which god might be proven, but to me they just sound like they are trying to define god into existence.
Indeed, but if they present a valid syllogism with true premises, compelling or not, then what?
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is impotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Whence then is evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?
Very few atheist philosophers make use of the logical problem of evil anymore, conceding that Alvin Plantinga did away with it in the 1970s with his free will defense. However, the evidential problem of evil is still alive and well, although not without plenty of responses from theists.
And more recently Stephen Hawkings claim ...
I'm not sure how his argument works, seeing as the laws of physics run out at the singularity. How can the law of gravity cause the universe if the law of gravity didn't exist yet? Hawking is good for cosmology, but I would stay away from him for philosophy. Atheist philosopher Quentin Smith remarked that his "Brief History of Time" is one of the worst atheists books ever written.
What created god? If god does not require a creator, why does the universe. Perhaps god, being outside of time and space, can only be created by a being of space and time.
I don't have time to summarize this right now, but here is a short essay explaining why the universe must have a cause that itself doesn't require a cause. It's very well reasoned.
A couple points--
1) Science does not ordinarily deal with miracles because scientists want repeatability. That is to say if I run an experiment and get a result, the question is, "Can that result be obtained again?" If the answer is no, then it is not of interest. That is different than saying I didn't get that result in the first place. So the claim that all actions have been explained without referring to 'magic' (whatever that is) is not supportable by the factual evidence. (Numerous experiments have been run and the results not repeatable.)
2) Part of science that seems to allow for 'cosmic accidents' is the study of life. (How did life begin, how did a single cell become a multi-cell…)
Cosmology seems to be the other area where cosmic accidents occur (thankfully as otherwise we wouldn't be here).
The question is,
How would I know the difference between a cosmic accident and a miracle?
Stan,
If god is non-physical, his interactions with the world are not, and thus evidence could be provided. I do not see a category error here. Physical interaction creates physical proof.
Re: Epicurus. It's derived from a common human morality. If you see evil, and are able but not willing to prevent it, what are you but malevolent? Give me another conclusion. The only other that springs to mind is of course my personal conclusion of god being non-existent.
Free will is no escape from the problem of evil. A great amount of suffering occurs in the world that has not been derived from human actions. Life is suffering some has said, and it is hard to refute that when observing the natural world.
I think we have free will. Either we must, or we have the illusion of such so that it makes no difference.
Like many theists, you seem to be disregarding the argument and imply that its goal is to lead the reader away from god. It is not. The argument is a response to a claim of an all knowing, all powerful all loving god. If that is the claim then it seems apparent that this definition is a contradiction in terms.
I somehow doubt that giving me the options of 'scientism' (a bullshit word if I ever saw one. Science revises its conclusions based on new evidence. It is not an -ism the way you are attempting to strawman it), ignorance (I think I've demonstrated I'm hardly ignorant of basic theology and even the more 'sophisticated' arguments for god) OR ornery-minded, makes for a better case than saying I'm all three. I plead not guilty to all charges.
The very definition of an intelligent person is one who is aware of how little he knows. This para-quote is from Hitchens, a man oft unfairly derided for his arrogance.
As I have said, I started off being raised Catholic, so if I had predispositions, it would be to faith, not atheism. And yes, I had to go through that same search. How can I know anything? The options seemed to be: from revelation or from observation. Given that, it was easy. So much makes more sense.
I am just matter and that is enough for me. Why should there not be something? How does introducing a god not a matter of special pleading or begging the question?
It would seem ALL god-based arguments are a matter of special pleading. Where did everything come from? God. Where did God come from? Oh he always existed. And this is a valid argument?
I don't deal in 'proofs'. I'm just looking for a rational reason. More specifically one of these "very best 21st century, sophisticated (or not), arguments for the existence of God."
I feel strongly that there is no way for any human to prove to any other human either that there is a God or that there is no God. It is not a material question about a material being.
I rather agree and would apply the same to invisible pink unicorns, leprechauns, Santa Claus, etc etc.
I also feel that, given an honest exercise of intellectual humility and a lot of intellectual study, a coherent world view can emerge.
I agree with this as well. I'm not going to read your whole blog just to attempt to refute it though.
Martin,
I'm not understanding why order arising from disorder should not be possible. On both sides it appears an argument from ignorance.
On my end though, we do appear to have some order, surrounded by immense disorder.
I'm no theoretical physicist but I think this is where something like gravity comes into play. Bringing the chaos together and forging a semblance of order from it.
WLC is a professional debater. His style is very polished and he is very good at what he does. But what he does is presents rapid fire all the arguments for gods, while simultaneously shifting the burden of proof to the atheist side.
I'd like to see that review of DD vs CH. I don't thing DD makes very good arguments either, but many of them are the same arguments as WLC, DD just tries to be funnier while delivering them (and generally fails, sadly).
Using WLC arguments, you can make a good case for anything! "The odds of the universe forming are 3720 to 1! Therefore god had his hand on the knobs and made sure that flesh eating bacteria is here today! err, I mean cute puppies."
No, my impressions of his arguments as weak are b/c they are the same old arguments. Morality, fine tuning, first cause, etc etc.
They are not easy to refute because at first blush they actually do seem reasonable. But they all do fail logically. Obviously I'm not going to go through the list but if you wanted to point out which one you find most convincing I'd take a crack at it.
Yes if an ontological argument presented a valid syllogism with a true premise then of course I would accept it. I'm not refusing to believe in the obvious here, I'm refusing to believe in that for which there is neither evidence nor compelling reason. But ontological arguments present neither.
I don't know why atheist philosopher shy away from the problem of evil. It seems terribly relevant to me. To the two main arguments for its validity.
1) Eliminating evil eliminated the greater good: We have a theological model of of the greatest good without evil. Heaven. Thus this argument fails on the theologians own terms.
2) Free Will: It stands to reason that god could permit free will without having innocent people face the repercussions for the actions of the wicked. Furthermore it does not touch on the massive amount of suffering that is not caused by any human will.
re: Hawking. I don't know! :D
Hawking is good as cosmology, and I'm relying on his authority here. If he says that god is not required, then I believe him until presented with argument or evidence otherwise. Please note that I am entirely aware this does not disprove god. But it does provide a strong case for a universe able to exist without such a first cause.
Quentin Smith is correct. Hawking's line about "knowing the mind of God" has been used and abused by theists in debates since publication. It is well known that he was referring to the same god as Einstein when he said "God does not play dice". This pantheistic god is not even close to the anthropomorphic image of god the theists present.
Taylor's cosmological argument fails because again he is begging the question and arguing from ignorance. He doesn't know how the universe began and is attempting to fill the gap with god. It's a very similar argument in tone to what was once claimed about the complexity of life itself, before Darwin.
Instead of linking me to all these other people arguments, could you maybe just give me what you think is your strongest, most convincing argument?
Or further refute my original argument? I noticed that your claim that the universe sprang into existence as a magical event points only to a deistic god, not a theistic one. And really, a deist and a atheist are practically the same in terms of day-to-day beliefs and practices.
Sonic,
You need to reread my claim.
1) I did not say that all actions have been explained without referring to magic. I said no explanation which solved any mystery involved magic. There are still plenty of mysteries out there! But I betcha the answer to any of them won't be magic!
Science does not comment on the supernatural (typically) because science deals with reality, of which the supernatural holds no part.
2) You seem to imply that science allows for "magic/supernatural/god" to explain abiogenesis and other phenomenon. This is incorrect. Scientist are ever working on solving such problems and in no case has the scientific (or correct) answer ever been "we can't know this, it was the hand of god"
How would I know the difference between a cosmic accident and a miracle?
My guess is that you wouldn't? You'd assume it was a miracle rather than a chance occurrence.
The correct answer could perhaps be found however by observation and experimentation.
(continued from above)
”Like many theists, you seem to be disregarding the argument and imply that its goal is to lead the reader away from god. It is not. The argument is a response to a claim of an all knowing, all powerful all loving god. If that is the claim then it seems apparent that this definition is a contradiction in terms.”
You seem to have jumped to the trilemma here, I think. Responding to an unnecessary claim (O,Oand O), for a coherent, powerful, rational first cause is definitely attacking a false concept of the being. Those terms do not show up, even in the metaphors of the bible. You are fighting something that cannot exist, so your victory is meaningless. It has no bearing on the coherent, powerful, rational first cause. I have not claimed the three O’s, the bible doesn’t claim it, maybe somebody does claim it, but no matter who claims it, its falsity does not disprove diety, because these O’s are not necessary for the existence of a deity.
Scientism: ‘bullshit”; I think you should look the word up before passing such a judgment. Scientism is the unqualified belief system that it is certain that science can and will solve all issues, including moral positions, despite the stated limitations of the scientific method. As a worldview, scientism is a subset of Philosophical Materialism, aka Philosophical Naturalism. Scientism is not science. It is statements like this that leads me to think you are not widely read.
” The very definition of an intelligent person is one who is aware of how little he knows. This para-quote is from Hitchens, a man oft unfairly derided for his arrogance.”
If this is an argument for intellectual humility it certainly strikes me as odd… but OK, then, how little do you know? I think you answer this question here:
” I am just matter and that is enough for me. Why should there not be something? How does introducing a god not a matter of special pleading or begging the question?”
If that is good enough for you, then you are done and you need not waste any more time with us. As for special pleading, you obviously are locked out of trying to understand what I wrote: I can only tell you my experience, I cannot prove anything to you; what you want to believe, you will believe. If as you say, you are locked down to a dogma, so be it. The following demonstrates this quite well.
(continued again)
(from above)
” It would seem ALL god-based arguments are a matter of special pleading. Where did everything come from? God. Where did God come from? Oh he always existed. And this is a valid argument?”
I don't deal in 'proofs'. I'm just looking for a rational reason. More specifically one of these "very best 21st century, sophisticated (or not), arguments for the existence of God."
Again, you did not read what I wrote. Of course you are looking for “proof” – demanding a “rational reason” is just that. There is no proof of God on a piece of paper. There will be no evidence of miracles that is not denied. Denial is easy. Demanding proof is easy. That’s not how it is done.
Then,
” I rather agree and would apply the same to invisible pink unicorns, leprechauns, Santa Claus, etc etc.
Unnecessary Guilt by association; different criteria for belief; just sarcasm.
Stan: ”I also feel that, given an honest exercise of intellectual humility and a lot of intellectual study, a coherent world view can emerge.
I agree with this as well. I'm not going to read your whole blog just to attempt to refute it though.”
This seems to me not to make any sense. You agree, but want to refute it?
Then this:
” 1) Eliminating evil eliminated the greater good: We have a theological model of of the greatest good without evil. Heaven. Thus this argument fails on the theologians own terms.”
While I don’t usually take on theological arguments, your analysis of this one seems to ignore that the greater good on earth would not be comparable to the greater good outside the universe. If the greater good on earth is to stand up to evil and to develop moral robustness, then evil could well be justified in the eyes of a deity.
”2) Free Will: It stands to reason that god could permit free will without having innocent people face the repercussions for the actions of the wicked. Furthermore it does not touch on the massive amount of suffering that is not caused by any human will.”
If a person is to chose evil over good, how is he to do evil unless it is done to another person? That seems not to stand to reason. Natural suffering is covered above. Neither denial stands to disprove a deity.
Finally, “arguing the first cause is just arguing for deism”. This is true. However, deism is no more logical than Atheism, because the basic argument from deism is that (a) yes, there was a creating intelligence that was very powerful, but (b) no, I have not had any contact nor do I see any undeniable physical, experimental, replicable evidence for personal experience of said deity, so I deny that the creating being, powerful as it is, informs or cares about people.
This is an argument from ignorance, and does not disprove a personal deity. There is no other justification for deism that I am aware of. Proof of a deity, when acquired, skips right over deism, if logic is followed.
Andrew-
I am interested in what you mean by the word magic.
1) I used the word miracle because it means 'an event inexplicable by the laws of nature implying a supernatural origin or an act of god.' (or that's how I'm using it)
If miracles occur, then they are part of reality.
If a miracle occurred in a lab, then scientists would say- "The results are not repeatable." (after trying to get the same result) Sometimes they will find a reason (the earlier experiment was done poorly) sometimes they won't . (Perhaps they don't even try sometimes)
The point is that one shouldn't use the results of scientific experiments to claim that miracles don't happen. (which is not to say they do)
2) I suggest that 'cosmic accident' is used as an explanation in those fields--
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20727796.300-cosmic-accidents-inventing-language-the-easy-way.html
3) How would you determine the difference between a cosmic accident and a miracle?
Sonic,
1) I'm using the word magic as a catch all for any phenomenon that violates the laws of nature. Miracles, ghosts and gods primarily.
My claim is that miracles have never been demonstrated to be the cause of something.
Yes this is an argument from ignorance in a sense, because I cannot be aware of every happening in existence. However my conclusion is not that miracles do not occur, rather that given no evidence for their existence, it is reasonable to assume that miracles do not occur.
If a miracle occurs in a lab, it would at least be documented, commented on and the experiment would be run until options would exhausted, ideally. But this doesn't happen. Using the same formula and methodology, science is repeatable. The laws of nature are not violated.
2) I agree a "cosmic accident", what I would term a chance occurrence, is indeed the explanation for the beginnings of life.
3) "Cosmic accidents" do not violate the laws of nature.
Stan,
I am responding to Martins claim that god, the god of the philosophers, is the god I am attempting to disprove.
http://www.iep.utm.edu/god-west/
This god is indeed described as being O/O/O. I jump to nothing and responded directly to the claim. I do not attack a false concept.
You are correct, the bible has multiple instances where god demonstrates how fallible, unknowing and impotent he is. However the god of the bible is even more demonstrably false. It is statements like this that make me think you are merely baiting and have no interest in truth. Provide a definition for god as Martin did and I will respond in kind.
Scientism is a pejorative that theists level at anyone who accepts the scientific method and rejects the notion that theism deliver reliable results. It is an attempt to conflate science and religion. It is a strawman attack.
I know that there are billions of galaxies with billions of stars each. I know I have a very minor understanding of the forces involved. What I do know however, I believe I can back up with rationed logic and physical evidence. I do not have to resort to claiming such knowledge is beyond others.
Stan, you've told me nothing about your experience that would lead me to believe a personal god exists. You have not even provided a description of such. Saying you were an atheist for 40 years is not an argument.
What is truth? How can I know anything? Am I just molecules and nothing more? Why is there anything (including the law of gravity), etc etc.
This is what I was responding to when I said "I am just matter and that is enough for me. Why should there not be something? How does introducing a god not a matter of special pleading or begging the question?"
I'm responding in the same tone which you asked.
I can only tell you my experience, I cannot prove anything to you; what you want to believe, you will believe.
Classic theist response. I want to believe in an all powerful all loving god. Oh wait, I still don't. Damn. :(
No Stan. As I have said multiple times now, I am looking for evidence and/or reasoned logic. Proof is in mathematics alone.
Yes demanding evidence is easy, and
providing it should be as well if the thing you are attempting to prove does indeed exist in reality.
Re: Guilt by Association. You have not demonstrated how the claims of gods vs other imaginary beings are distinct. So a very necessary guilt by association or another charge of special pleading.
I agree that with honest inquiry a coherent world view can emerge. I am not going to read your whole blog in an attempt to refute "Compendium of Rational Principles". Sorry I got a little sloppy with my pronouns there.
While I don’t usually take on theological arguments
What are you talking about? This whole discussion is a theological argument!?
Yes a deity can do whatever he likes and determine whatever criteria for good vs evil he likes. So can we.
You are saying evil happens in this universe for the greater good outside the universe? Are you serious? He's serious. Oh, sarcasm is back. Sorry. But seriously? This is your claim. Unbelievable doesn't begin to cover it. I suppose you'll charge me with being philosophically uniformed about the nature of other universes now...
If god justifies evil done to me for the good it does another, than on the face of it, god is an unjust asshole. I mean, he could have at least asked first.
2) Well, if I was god, I might have a system where that people are free to make their own choices, but if for example they chose to rape someone, the victim would feel no pain, have no trauma afterwards and feel nothing but pity for their attacker. This is just an off the cuff example but would be an good start for an all powerful deity. Maybe murder victims get resurrected the next day for seconds? Just takes a little imagination really ..
Natural suffering is covered above? Ah would that be the "evil happens in this universe for the greater good outside the universe"? Well I if that is intellectually fulfilling for you, I suppose you can believe whatever you like..
I agree deism isn't very logical. As there is no evidence of a first cause. But it is a matter of shifting the goal posts. The claim is for a theistic god. First cause is at best a deistic god.
Define god. Dammit. I can't believe I argued this long without insisting on a definition of god! Ah classic lay-atheist debating blunder.
Having read quickly through the comments to this point I feel no need to waste much time in formulating a response. I will simply say to Stan that I'm surprised you consider those to be strong arguments.
Andrew-
How is it possible to demonstrate that a miracle was the cause of something?
Lab results almost never agree exactly with the laws of nature being tested or demonstrated (mathematical formulae give exact answers that the experimental evidence is close to.) Further, even in experiments that are deemed successful often there are a number of runs that are tossed out as 'outliers'. (I'm suggesting that if a miracle were to occur in a lab setting, then it might take the form that is observed and more or less ignored on a regular basis. Note the words if and might in the last sentence.)
As far as I know, all actual evidence indicates that 'life comes from life'. The first life could be determined to be a cosmic accident (one that violates every known instance of actual observed reality), or one might consider that a miracle occurred.
Based on actual, factual scientific evidence, it seems doubt would be a reasonable position- and that, based only on fact one might conclude there was a miracle, and based on faith (albeit reasonable faith) that 'someday we will know how life begins de-novo'.
What am I missing?
Sonic,
That's a really good question. I suppose it would depends on the nature of the miracle. I would at least go about eliminating all naturalistic explanations to start.
I think if lab results are not agreeing 100% with the laws of nature it would be because all of the variables are not being properly controlled or accounted for. Not because the laws of nature are being violated.
I think as well that if a couple of statistical blips in a lab constitute a godly miracle, it is a rather paltry example of a theistic gods interaction with the material world. I mean you'd expect something more along the lines of the star rearranging themselves, arms re-growing on amputees or people coming back from the dead after three days buried. Y'know, the types of miracles theists claim really did or do occur.
Modern chemistry has demonstrated that life is actually chemistry. Life does come from non-life, no miracles required.
Doubt is always a reasonable starting position in my books :)
But mysteries are not solved, and information is not gained, by postulating the occurrence of a miracle.
Furthermore, if your reasons for theism are wrapped in an inability to understand a natural occurrence, what happens when a natural explanation is discovered?
It’s time to be more blunt. The challenge is for the Atheist to prove his belief system. You have not done so. But you have done your best to force the conversation back to proving the existence of God.
You deny this that and the other thing, but you provide no proof, evidence or undeniable argument that Atheism is valid. This is not about satisfying your need to argue. It is about validating the belief system of Atheism.
”I am not going to read your whole blog in an attempt to refute "Compendium of Rational Principles".”
Of course you won’t. You have already made up your mind as to its material nature. There is no reason to read further, it will waste your time.
I'll respond bluntly then.
You've failed to provide any definition of god to refute. Now you choose to end the conversation. Some might point out that this is entirely too convenient on your part.
Your challenge would be derided as incoherent to most atheists, (see above) but I responded in the spirit of honest debate.
The response to all refutation until this point have been to shift the goal posts, declare non-existent logical errors and generally deride me for my (also non-existent) snarky attitude.
Sorry for not reading your whole blog Stan. Frankly, you are not that interesting.
There is no evidence, material or otherwise, to indicate the existence of a being one would term god. As we would expect to see both physical and non-physical evidence of such a god (according to his nature as described by the preponderance of theists), the absence of evidence is indeed evidence of absence. This is logical, materialistic evidence and is essentially the same point I opened with.
Martin & Sonic, I appreciate the honest debate, I'd love to continue it if you feel the same.
A said,
” You are saying evil happens in this universe for the greater good outside the universe?”
That’s not what I said. Let me rephrase; The greatest good obviously doesn’t exist in this universe, IFF heaven is defined as the greatest good (assuming that heaven is a place of peace, harmony, love, and joy, which is not necessarily a given).
Let’s forget for a moment that God might intend good to emerge from earthly calamities.
1. Since heaven-on-earth does not exist, then calamity is either random and without meaning, or it has meaning.
2. If calamity is random and without meaning, then it is not evil, it just is.
3. If calamity has meaning, how does it receive it?
4. Two possibilities: God defines calamity as evil; or Man defines calamity as evil.
5. If God defines calamity as evil, then God would deal with it in God’s way and in God’s time. How God would deal with it cannot be known for certain. His motives are not known for certain. His timing would not be known for certain.
6. If Humans have defined calamity as evil, then that is arbitrary and not necessarily true.
7. However, if God defines calamity as beneficial and good, and if simultaneously humans define calamity as evil, a moral chasm develops.
8. If a moral chasm develops, which morality would more likely be valid? God’s morality or Man’s morality?
Of course, none of this pertains if God does not exist. Under this assumption the following pertains:
1. Calamity has no meaning other than to Man; Man defines it either as random and without meaning, or as evil.
2. Atheists claim that the universe just is, without meaning. So changes in the universe, including calamities, are without meaning. But when addressing Deists or Theists, the calamities are given meaning: they become evil. Deists and Theists have not taken this position, it is attributed to the deity by Atheists. The only reason to attribute evil to calamities is to create a false castle to storm, i.e. a straw man. The position attacked is not held by either Atheists, Deists or Theists, yet it is declared to be a refutation of something.
This is directly akin to arguing that a logical case for a first cause is the same as arguing for a teapot in orbit. That is ignoring category differences, which are that the teapot is a creation in the mind of Bertrand Russell which is known in advance to be false and created for the purpose of sullying a rational argument with reductionist absurdity, and a concept of a first cause that is derived from first principles of logic.
In the case of If Evil Calamity, Then malevolent God, the premise is created from thin air, from positions not taken EXCEPT FOR purposes of debate.
And A said,
” Well, if I was god…”
Exactly. You demand that God behave the way you want, if he wants your vote.
” I agree deism isn't very logical. As there is no evidence of a first cause. But it is a matter of shifting the goal posts. The claim is for a theistic god. First cause is at best a deistic god.
Define god. Dammit. I can't believe I argued this long without insisting on a definition of god! Ah classic lay-atheist debating blunder.”
More to the point, the post is about proving there is no God. Defining God to make it easy:
"Coherent Rational First Cause, powerful enough to create a universe. Theistic or otherwise. Rational argument or material evidence.
And contra attempts to defy logic by Andrew, absence of evidence is NOT evidence of absence, as the evolutionists love to say.
Andrew said,
”The response to all refutation until this point have been to shift the goal posts, declare non-existent logical errors and generally deride me for my (also non-existent) snarky attitude.
Sorry for not reading your whole blog Stan. Frankly, you are not that interesting."
Let's see. We need to take your positions very carefully.
1. First, your assertion concerning the testimony of 100’s of millions of Christians concerning a non-material experience with a deity: “eat shit”, and implied that Christians are like flies.
2. Your only defense of your own position:
"My "proof" that your argument is unsound is that there is simply no evidence or rational argument to support it. "
The request of course was for a sound argument or evidence for your own Atheist position. What you provided was the Argument From Ignorance, a known fallacy.
( http://www.skepdic.com/ignorance.html ).
When this is pointed out you refused to accept it. Instead you claimed that the assertion of the witnesses was “running and hiding” behind an argument, and asserted the “height of dishonesty” Ad Hominem.
3. Then you repeat the same Argument From Ignorance Fallacy in these words:
”To directly answer your challenge; my proof that God does not exist:
After examining all the material evidence throughout history, every mystery ever solved has turned out to be Not Magic.”
4. In a reply to Martin you repeat it again:
”My "proof" that your argument is unsound is that there is simply no evidence or rational argument to support it. Apparently atheists everywhere are missing out on some bit of fact which is obvious to all theists, hence the original challenge to the theists..”
5. And here you admit it:
”You are correct that I do not believe in a god because I have arguments I feel refute the claims of the theists, or feel their claims are unsupported by reality. You can go through every argument for the existence of god and point out how it fails logically. Does the hierarchy of life not in itself refute the bible? It seems fairly obvious it does. Again, I believe this is the point of the original challenge to theists.”
Evolution is an admitted mountain of inference, which you pit against the bible, but you do not provide a refutation of the existence of a deity.
7. Then you demand evidence for Zeus, a red herring, and not pertinent to your providing proof and / or evidence for your beliefs.
8. In a reply to Martin you say,
”I disagree that it is an argument from ignorance. We are refuting a theistic god correct? Not a deistic one?
As such you would, by definition, expect such a god to have interacted with the world and there should be evidence of such. In this case absence of evidence does seem to be evidence of absence.”
Repeating the demand for evidence, based on a presupposition which is not supportable.
9. And then,
”Can you provide me physical evidence for the non-existence of everything you don't believe exists?
10. "The demand for empirical proof is the real height of dishonesty.
I'm practically speechless. I should just take you at your word then? I have a bridge in Alaska I'll sell you for a buck. Oh you want evidence, well now you are just being dishonest.”
You took that one completely out of context in order to register your sarcasm.
11. Next,
”I do not see a category error here. Physical interaction creates physical proof.”
Still demanding proof. Still refusing to accept that an experience is not a material thing, excisable by surgery.
(continued)
(from above)
12. Then it is the evil malevolent god argument. This is not evidence. As proof it fails straight out.
13. On the tail of that is the O,O,O strawman argument.
14. Then you define your personal worldview:
”I am just matter and that is enough for me.”
15. Then you call bullshit my use of the term Scientism:
”Scientism is a scientific worldview that encompasses natural explanations for all phenomena, eschews supernatural and paranormal speculations, and embraces empiricism and reason as the twin pillars of a philosophy of life appropriate for an Age of Science (Shermer 2002). “
http://www.skepdic.com/scientism.html
16. Then,
”You are correct, the bible has multiple instances where god demonstrates how fallible, unknowing and impotent he is.”
Examples? No, just nasty talk.
17. And,
”I can only tell you my experience, I cannot prove anything to you; what you want to believe, you will believe."
Classic theist response. I want to believe in an all powerful all loving god. Oh wait, I still don't. Damn. :(“
You apparently do not recognize your own sarcastic, non-meaningful statements.
And you apparently have no intention of accepting your responsibility of providing either evidence or proof of your worldview.
I’ll take this one last:
18. ”"Your challenge would be derided as incoherent to most atheists, (see above) but I responded in the spirit of honest debate."
Actually you did not. You make the same argument over and over, an argument that is glaringly fallacious and does not address the challenge posed. Your pique is quixotic. And yes I’m annoyed at having to deal with such trivial argumentation, especially from one who cannot deign to read the foundations for positions laid in front of him. Note that I did not say "eat shit" and compare Atheists with flies.
You have never attempted to argue a rational case for positive support of your worldview, nor present any positive material evidence, other than to assert repeatedly that you don't see it: I am ignorant of God, I demand proof; else there is no God - this is my proof.
This is not acceptable proof of the non-existence of God (or even a First Cause). Demanding material proof of a non-material being, I repeat, is a category error, no matter how often you say it and no matter how often you deny the logic error.
Your presuppositions are in place; they inform your worldview, which should enable you to defend your argument with rational proof (not absence of evidence). That is the point of this post. Can you comply?
Andrew-
1) You seem to claim abiogenesis has been proven by modern chemistry. I'm quite certain that you could get a nobel prize for revealing this discovery.
2) If small miracles occur on a regular basis (the 'fine-tuning envisioned by Sir Isaac Newton, for example) then wouldn't it be reasonable to think that big ones could happen too? Certainly you have heard of spontaneous remission of disease and other such things---
3) My position is falsifiable. You seem to want to hold one that is not. That's fine with me, but please recognize the situation for what it is.
Stan,
While I don’t usually take on theological arguments, your analysis of this one seems to ignore that the greater good on earth would not be comparable to the greater good outside the universe.
That is what you said and what I responded to. Yes I want god to act according to my morality. I think that would at least be more honest than assuming he's the one inside my head dictating my morality.
2. Atheists claim that the universe just is, without meaning. So changes in the universe, including calamities, are without meaning. But when addressing Deists or Theists, the calamities are given meaning: they become evil. Deists and Theists have not taken this position, it is attributed to the deity by Atheists. The only reason to attribute evil to calamities is to create a false castle to storm, i.e. a straw man. The position attacked is not held by either Atheists, Deists or Theists, yet it is declared to be a refutation of something.
Yes its a refutation of the theists position. If god causes calamaties they are given intention. If a hurricane intends (has internal motivation or was directed by an intelligent force) and people die because of it, yes it is evil. Of course I don't think this way. It is not a strawman, it is a refutation of the theist position that an all powerful god acts in this world.
It is also not a category difference. You can neither prove nor disprove the existence of both Russels Teapot or god. That is the point of the argument. We may as well act as if the teapot does not exist as there is no indication it does.
And A said,
” Well, if I was god…”
Exactly. You demand that God behave the way you want, if he wants your vote.
If a person is to chose evil over good, how is he to do evil unless it is done to another person? That seems not to stand to reason. Natural suffering is covered above. Neither denial stands to disprove a deity.
YOU ASKED. Don't get snippy with me because I'm smarter than your god.
Coherent Rational First Cause, powerful enough to create a universe. Theistic or otherwise. Rational argument or material evidence.
I choose the theistic model. By definition a theistic god interacts with the world. No empirical evidence suggests that a deity interacts with the world. We would expect by definition a theistic god to interact with the world. Since he does not, it does indicate that no such being exists. Absence of evidence is evidence of absence where evidence is to be expected. Material and rational.
I choose the deistic first cause model. The greatest physicist alive has asserted that the laws of nature alone are enough to cause the creation of the universe. This does not disprove god, but eliminates him as a requirement for a first cause. At best, he is superfluous. This is of course ignoring the obvious eternal regress created by the First Cause Argument.
And contra attempts to defy logic by Andrew, absence of evidence is NOT evidence of absence, as the evolutionists love to say.
You don't believe in evolution? Oh my..
Andrew said,
”YOU ASKED. Don't get snippy with me because I'm smarter than your god.”
This is the kind of juvenile response that shows you are not interested in any real discussion.
”By definition a theistic god interacts with the world. No empirical evidence suggests that a deity interacts with the world. We would expect by definition a theistic god to interact with the world. Since he does not, it does indicate that no such being exists.”
1). You cannot presume to define with any amount of accuracy, a deity which is much greater than you in every way.
2). But even under your definition, your argument continues to fail just as it has failed since the first time you made it. Here are the consequences of your definition:
(a) The deity interfaces with physical entities. I must be there to see it or I will deny it. No quantity of real, post facto evidence will satisfy me; in other words, no historical claims can be valid, because I wasn’t there to observe the event. I demand that the deity perform for me.
(b) The deity interfaces with human minds. This is denied outright until the deity does as I command, and either talks straight to my brain, or my ears; even then I will likely deny it as a delusion, hallucination, day dream, etc.
(c ) Empirical evidence is required, meaning that I should be able to create an experiment that will exert a physical cause (force the deity) to produce an effect (perform to my demand and specification), exactly as I demand. And the deity will be forced to produce this effect on command whenever I desire. By making the deity jump through my hoops on my demand, I can claim two things:
1. the deity exists;
2. the deity does what I tell him to do, when I tell him to do it.
” Absence of evidence is evidence of absence where evidence is to be expected. Material and rational.”
Your expectation that the deity will perform to your specifications upon your demand is not only unrealistic, it is logically absurd: false.
”I choose the deistic first cause model. The greatest physicist alive has asserted that the laws of nature alone are enough to cause the creation of the universe. This does not disprove god, but eliminates him as a requirement for a first cause. At best, he is superfluous. This is of course ignoring the obvious eternal regress created by the First Cause Argument.”
1. Logic Fallacy: Appeal To Authority.
2. Authority made the conjecture based on no data, no experiment, no evidence; it is not peer reviewed, nor in any respected journals; it is in a popular book, only.
3. A bevy of physicists has called him out on this.
4. He is using this controversial, unproven, non-empirical statement to sell a book; follow the money.
5. Infinite Regress (not eternal: there is no time outside the universe – according to your own source of authority). Infinite regress is not required in an existence that has no time, where there is no prior, no cause and effect.
You accept non-empirical statements from a popular book but you do not accept non-empirical statements in other places as you choose at whim.
(continued from above)
Evolution and belief: Evolution is a process. The process of developing new organs and environmentally advantageous mechanisms for competition for selection. No-one was available during the Pre-Cambrian and Cambrian ages (for example), to observe the process – so it is not observed, it is inferred, without benefit of empirical experiment. Belief without benefit of empirical experiment for verification fails your criteria for belief.
However, Martin turned up one example of natural selection of a positive characteristic (not an organ or limb, etc): there is a bacteria the incurs frequent mutations, and one of the mutations (a single shift mutation) allowed the bacteria to digest nylon, a feature that it did not previously exhibit. Whether this really is a new feature is subject to debate. It could be a relief from “nylon intolerance”, i.e. a de-evolution.
The usual argument for evolution is based on “deep time”, the concept being that we should have FAITH that in deep time, anything can happen. However, time was not so “deep” between the pre-Cambrian era and the Cambrian era, when life jumped from algae/sponges to a body design with many of the elements of our own, including symmetry, flexible spine with internal cord, front legs on each shoulder with elbows and wrists, back legs on each side of the pelvis with knees and ankles. All this goes against “gradual”, “accidental”, and “deep time”.
Back to theory of evidence. Under your theory of acceptable evidence, evolution fails due to lack of empirical experiments to show new organs, etc. formed by demand under laboratory forcing functions.
You are not applying the same evidence requirements on your chosen beliefs that you place on your chosen dis-beliefs. In order to be consistent and not prejudicial, one set or the other must change, so that each subject receives the same treatment.
The same thing goes for your treatment of non-physical interaction between a deity and the human mind. The human mind has not been empirically shown to contain any physical substance call “a thought”. A thought cannot be removed or excised from the human in order to study it using physical instruments. Thoughts are not necessarily transients floating through the brain – a person can think of a red car for a fairly significant time. Thoughts, the intellect, abstractions, experiences, are not transient electrochemical discharges , although those facilitate thought, like gasoline through an engine facilitates motion: gasoline is not motion; an engine is not motion (a physical example of essence separation).
There is no empirical, experimental evidence that thoughts are, in fact, physical and only physical. If you believe that they are, then you believe something that has no scientific validation and no promise of ever getting it.
Yet that is a necessary presupposition of your argument, which is that if a deity interfaces, it must produce empirical evidence.
I hope you will think seriously about evidential requirements, the known limits of science, and what is actually known to science and knowable by science.
Sonic,
1) I did not mean to imply that the mystery had been solved. Just that the building blocks of life are common elements found throughout the known universe. There are many hypotheses regarding the process and none have been conclusively proven. The gaps in our knowledge are getting progressively smaller though.
2) To my knowledge, small miracles do not occur on a regular basis. Every proposed miracle to my knowledge has been revealed to have naturalistic causes.
Disease do spontaneously go into remission, just as they seem to spontaneously arise in the first place. Is the onset of disease a miracle?
3) I think my position would be falsified by an a lot of things. Any sort of empirical evidence for the existence of a god or even the supernatural. Now Stan will say I am making a category error here because I am dividing the world up into physical (real) and non-physical (not real). However I see no reason to do this as there seems to be no practical reason to suppose otherwise. I've said a few times I'm not offering proof, only a rational reason to suppose the non-existence of a god.
I'm not assuming what your position is .. care to fill me in? And how it would be falsified?
Andrew,
Before making an argument for atheism, get clear on the contingency argument I linked to above.
You said,
Taylor's cosmological argument fails because again he is begging the question and arguing from ignorance. He doesn't know how the universe began and is attempting to fill the gap with god.
This is simply not true at all, and makes me think you did not read the article. The argument is not god-of-the-gaps.
The points made are as follows:
* Every truth is either contingent (depends on something else for its existence, such as rocks and people) or necessary (exists by the necessity of its own nature, such as the number 3).
* Answering how old something is (even if that age is infinite) does not answer the above question
* Answering that something is the only thing that exists (such as the universe) does not answer the above question
* The universe does not fit the characteristics of a necessary thing (it's logically possible for another universe to exist in place of ours, for example).
* Therefore, the universe is contingent, and hence requires an explanation outside itself for its existence
* If that explanation is also contingent, and has a cause outside itself, and so on ad infinitum, then nothing has been explained because answering how old something is does not explain its existence (see above)
* Hence, at some point you need a terminator of explanations, and since a contingent thing by definition is not a terminator of explanations, then the only thing that can terminate the explanations is something that exists necessarily
* Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence that exists necessarily
Hey Martin,
I didn't read it in depth, just glossed over it. I did just re-read it and I think I'm correct still.
I'll sum it up in my own words, let me know if I'm missing something crucial.
***
* Everything needs a reason for existing, including the universe.
* Said reason can be necessary (self caused) or contingent (caused by something else)
* The world is contingent (unverified - how can he claim this?)
* Therefore God who's existence is necessary and the cause of the universe.
***
It does seem to be a god-of-the-gaps argument/ignorance argument. "I think the universe is contingent, therefore god is the contingency"
I don't see why the universe cannot be necessary or contingent upon something no one would recognize as god. Quantum foam or dark energy or something else we as of yet do not understand. Check out Lawrence Krauss' "A Universe From Nothing"
To get around the infinite regress caused by his original premise he postulates god as the gap filler and declares god a necessity. This is special pleading.
Why can't the universe have always existed or come into existence without the contingency of an intelligent being?
Andrew,
You need to forget the word "God" or even "intelligent being." Taylor mentions the name "God" only in passing and in his wrap up paragraph (which isn't included on that website) he says that someone could with justification challenge the name "God" that he has attached to it.
But you still got some things wrong.
The world is contingent (unverified - how can he claim this?)
"Necessary" existence means that it is logically absurd for that thing to not exist. The number 3 for example. You can easily conceive of a different universe in place of ours. Read paragraphs 14 - 18.
You got the rest wrong too. If there is a good case that the universe is contingent, then it is contingent upon something. That something must itself be either contingent or necessary.
But it can't be contingent forever because answering "the universe is infinte" is not an explanation for the existence of the universe. That's an answer for "how old is the universe" but not "what is the explanation for the existence of the universe."
Yes?
Martin,
I wrote the following response, who's lines I'm totally fine continuing the conversation with. But if we are forgetting the words "God" and "Intelligent Being" then I feel I have to point out I don't need to dispute the argument at all.
***
It's hard to forget "God" or even "intelligent being" when what we are discussing is the cosmological proof for the existence of God.
My point was that although I can indeed imagine an different universe, I can also imagine a universe arising uncaused by an all powerful being. I am disputing that the universe is indeed necessarily contingent upon a source outside itself. I can imagine a different god than the one proposed, this does not mean that God would be contingent.
It is sort of logically absurd for existence to not exist, no?
So it is the original premise (the contingency of the universe - especially contingent on an uncaused cause recognizable as god) that I am disputing.
Furthermore, the cosmological argument solves no problems but merely creates a host of its own.
What caused the First Cause? If it is logically possible to conceive of a different god, or for god to not exist (the same argument proposed for the existence of the universe) then following the rules of the argument god is thus contingent, not necessary. Thus special pleading.
Additionally, it is argued that Occam's razor can be used against the argument, showing how the argument fails using both the efficient and conserving types of causality.
If the existence of every member of a set is explained, the existence of that set is thereby explained. (Hume/Edwards)
Physicist Michio Kaku directly addresses the cosmological argument in his book Hyperspace, saying that it is easily dismissed by the law of conservation of energy and the laws governing molecular physics.
The Big Bang theory states that it is the point in which all dimensions came into existence, the start of both space and time. Then, the question "What was there before the Universe?" makes no sense; the concept of "before" becomes meaningless when considering a situation without time.
Asking what occurred before the Big Bang is like asking what is north of the North Pole.
Lastly I am very comfortable substituting "the unknown", "theoretical membranes" or even a deistic god concept (I don't find it convincing, but no matter to me). What I am arguing is the atheistic position and so it is merely the theistic position I need to point out as being invalid. And you must agree that it is a massive leap from the cosmological argument to God, The Son and the Holy Ghost. Or any incarnation of theism.
Yes?
"The Big Bang theory states that it is the point in which all dimensions came into existence, the start of both space and time. Then, the question "What was there before the Universe?" makes no sense; the concept of "before" becomes meaningless when considering a situation without time.
"Asking what occurred before the Big Bang is like asking what is north of the North Pole"
There isn't a need for the analogy thing as something doesn’t need to be north of the north pole to create the north pole as the north pole is part of the universe. But something had to be before the universe (the creation of time/ big bang) to initiate the universe because the universe had a beginning
I think it is quite logical to say that what ever begins to exist has a cause. If you don’t agree with that statement then you’re not being consistent to what you witness on a day to day basis.
The universe began to exist (as strongly evidenced by science) there must be some transcendent cause outside the universe at the very least to initiate that beginning.
The very nature of that first cause would have to be spaceless, causeless, beginningless and immaterial. If that cause wasn’t those things then it would practically be living in another universe outside ours and we would be back to square one explaining where that universe came from.
Very interesting comments anyway. I think stan is being more logically consistent when it comes to you and him but interesting none the less!
Ben
...and to the surprise of absolutely no one, the atheists fail to deliver.
Protip: If you want to uphold your image as rational people, actually *engange* in rational debate. Don't try to run away by changing the question, employing logical fallacies, or through transparent dodges.
That's just the intellectual dishonesty, irrationality and ideological cowardice that typifies your ilk.
Then again, if it looks like a duck and sounds like a duck...
Post a Comment