Logical issue

[sIr-watermelon]

To any atheist more experienced with logic then my self I present the following two quotes for which I am formulating a reply to continue my, bad, habit of arguing with Christians as a means of keeping the proper level of frustration in my existence.

#1

"The kind of negation that is needed to be made in the case of denying the existence of God is a negation on a universal level and any such "universal negative" is extremely problimatic to prove. This kind of bold conjecture requires more "proof" than the theist b/c all the theist has to do is demonstrate (via an argument, religious expierence or any of the other ways one can "know God") that it is more probable that God exist. But you, with your bold claim, have to do a great deal more than that. All the theist needs is one thing, one cognitive evidential element to convince himself that God's existence is more probable than not but you have to demonstrate how the theist's reasons for belief are inadequate, but more than that, you have to give further reason why no such being could exist. But here you hit the universal negative again. How do you go about proving that something exists no where in the universe? If you can, please let me know."

#2

>there is no evidence nor convincing argument in favour of the existence of any god/s much less any specific deity.<

You're bringing forth the logical fallacy "appeal to ignorance". It can be summed up as thus:

"If we let A be what is originally posited and E be the evidence avaliable to support A then the lack of E does not lead to ~A but simply you don't know. Lack of evidence for A does not mean ~A is true."

Simply put, lack of evidence for God does not give one reasoning to believe that God does not exist. Lack of evidence also does not give you evidence against God's existence - it doesn't help prove God's non-existence. A friend of mine has explained:

"Even if I grant that there is not one shred of evidental reasons for God's existence, that would not epistemically justify believing in the negation of God's existence, but simply, the correct response would be - I don't know. Once again, if there is no evidence for the existence of God then you cannot jump to the conclusion "God doesn't exist" but simply "I do not know if God exist". The latter is a tenable position that is usually called agnosticism."

Let's say you have these two choices:

1. God exists.
2. God does not exist.

Even if I were to grant the atheist that no evidences exist for God's existence, it wouldn't verify (2). In order to verify (2), one must provide a ground for (2) - evidence for it. Since no evidence can be given for (2), the atheist must conclude that neither (1) or (2) can be proven. This is basically saying "I don't know", which isn't atheism... this is agnosticism.

[wiploc]

I put some possible responses below:

Originally posted by sIr-watermelon
#1

"The kind of negation that is needed to be made in the case of denying the existence of God is a negation on a universal level and any such "universal negative" is extremely problimatic to prove. This kind of bold conjecture requires more "proof" than the theist b/c all the theist has to do is demonstrate (via an argument, religious expierence or any of the other ways one can "know God") that it is more probable that God exist.


Hey, if you have a logcal reason to believe that god exists, I want to know about it. The world wants to know about it. Don't just say you've got it; tell us what it is!



But you, with your bold claim, have to do a great deal more than that. All the theist needs is one thing, one cognitive evidential element to convince himself that God's existence is more probable than not but you have to demonstrate how the theist's reasons for belief are inadequate, but more than that, you have to give further reason why no such being could exist.

Now there's a double standard. You didn't say you had to prove god exists; you just said you had to have one legitimate reason to believe he does. So I don't need to prove god doesn't exist; I just need one legitimate reason to believe he doesn't.

And in fact, that is my position, that it makes more sense to believe that he doesn't exist than to believe that he does. I never said I could prove that no gods exist anywhere or in any form.



But here you hit the universal negative again. How do you go about proving that something exists no where in the universe? If you can, please let me know."

Ah. I didn't realize you believed in a god who might be hidden in some remote corner of the universe. Maybe I'll have to admit to agnosticism about that kind of god. If you believed in a god that was here, that affected the lives of men, then we'd have something to talk about.





#2

>there is no evidence nor convincing argument in favour of the existence of any god/s much less any specific deity.<

You're bringing forth the logical fallacy "appeal to ignorance". It can be summed up as thus:

"If we let A be what is originally posited and E be the evidence avaliable to support A then the lack of E does not lead to ~A but simply you don't know. Lack of evidence for A does not mean ~A is true."

Simply put, lack of evidence for God does not give one reasoning to believe that God does not exist. Lack of evidence also does not give you evidence against God's existence - it doesn't help prove God's non-existence. A friend of mine has explained:

"Even if I grant that there is not one shred of evidental reasons for God's existence, that would not epistemically justify believing in the negation of God's existence, but simply, the correct response would be - I don't know. Once again, if there is no evidence for the existence of God then you cannot jump to the conclusion "God doesn't exist" but simply "I do not know if God exist". The latter is a tenable position that is usually called agnosticism."

Let's say you have these two choices:

1. God exists.
2. God does not exist.

Even if I were to grant the atheist that no evidences exist for God's existence, it wouldn't verify (2). In order to verify (2), one must provide a ground for (2) - evidence for it. Since no evidence can be given for (2), the atheist must conclude that neither (1) or (2) can be proven. This is basically saying "I don't know", which isn't atheism... this is agnosticism.


If you believe in a god who doesn't make any difference, then I agree that the lack of evidence isn't evidence of lack. But if you believed in a different kind of god, one who took a major part in the affairs of men, then it would be a different case. That's the god that I believe doesn't exist.

crc

[The_Unknown_Banana]

Isn't it back to the whole "weak atheist" vs. "strong atheist" thing? (re. the last part) ie. you can be an atheist but believe that you can't prove God's non-existance. You just have to not have any belief in God to be atheist, and agnosticism is believing that it cannot be proven or disproven.... right? Well, that's my stance anyway. (hence me being an agnostic atheist)

[Keith Russell]

Good morning.

I don't think it's rational to claim ignorance, when one has a degree of knowledge. 'God' has been described to me numerous times, and those descriptions all involve outrageous contradictions. I think that for me to claim to be an 'agnostic' would be dishonest.

I am not omniscient, but I know a great deal, and based solely on that knowledge, 'God' (as 'God' has been described to me thus far) is not possible.

But, could there be something 'out there' in the universe that might fit a possible concept of 'God'? Sure--but no theist has any more information about such a 'hidden' 'God' than I do. When a thiest says 'God', such a distant, well-hidden, utterly unknown entity is not what he or she has in mind.

So, while I can't say that there isn't something 'out there' that could be seen as, or called, 'God', I think I can say with a great degree of certainty that the concepts of 'God' which have been described to me so far, cannot exist.

K

[fishbulb]

Originally posted by sIr-watermelon

Simply put, lack of evidence for God does not give one reasoning to believe that God does not exist. Lack of evidence also does not give you evidence against God's existence - it doesn't help prove God's non-existence.

You do not need to prove that something does not exist in order to justify a belief that it does not exist anymore than you need to prove that something does exist in order to justify a belief that it does. It is enough to show that the evidence--or lack thereof--suggests that it is probable that the thing does or does not exist.

Suppose you told me that I had a twin brother but we were separated at birth. Strictly speaking, I cannot prove that this is false. Even if I ran DNA tests on every person and corpse in the world, you could argue that the tests are flawed, my brother was killed and cremated, or give any number of other explanations for how I could have a twin brother and be unable to find any evidence. But if I investigate the matter, check hospital and medical records and talk to friends, family, doctors, and anyone else who might have witnessed the events surrounding my birth, and find no evidence to suggest I ever had a twin brother, then I am perfectly justified in believing that your story is untrue. I can never prove it beyond any doubt, but I can prove it beyond any reasonable doubt. Moreover, I can make the prima facia case that twins separated at birth is an unusual occurrence and if it had by chance happened to me, I would most likely have learned about it by now. Therefore, if you cannot provide any evidence that I do or did have a twin brother, I am fully justified in believing the claim to be false, without making any additional effort to debunk your claim.

Lastly, I should point out that the fact that it is possible to strictly prove a positive claim in no way implies that your friend's particular claim has been so proved. If your friend insists that you should call yourself an agnostic because you cannot prove beyond a doubt that god does not exist, you can reply that he must also call himself an agnostic unless he can prove beyond any doubt that god does exist. If your friend can positively prove that god exists, then he has no reason to waste his time arguing that you can't disprove god; all he needs to do is show you the proof.

(Edited to fix a typo and add the last sentence.)

[Drew J]

This kind of bold conjecture requires more "proof" than the theist b/c all the theist has to do is demonstrate (via an argument, religious expierence or any of the other ways one can "know God") that it is more probable that God exist. But you, with your bold claim, have to do a great deal more than that. All the theist needs is one thing, one cognitive evidential element to convince himself that God's existence is more probable than not but you have to demonstrate how the theist's reasons for belief are inadequate, but more than that, you have to give further reason why no such being could exist.
I don't agree with this. While all the theist needs, as this guy says, is one cognitive evidential element, all the atheist needs is to find a flaw in the theist's argument. In one of William Lane Craig's debates, he said about his opponent,
"He gave refutations of my arguments but he didn't provide us with any arguments as to why God does not exist."
Either God exists or he does not. So, if the atheist shows a flaw in the theist's argument, then he is justified for being an atheist.
If someone said to me that A was true but he could not prove it, then I would have a good reason to doubt him.

Edit:
Oh. Atheist is being used in the 'strong' way. I see.

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Originally posted by sIr-watermelon

#1

"The kind of negation that is needed to be made in the case of denying the existence of God is a negation on a universal level and any such "universal negative" is extremely problimatic to prove.

Well, right off the bat you know this person's logic has been corrupted and his/her compas has been grossly skewed. Anyone professing to understand such an argument automatically betrays their indoctrination, since it is clear that they know the structure of the argument and the proper terminology of the argument as well as the fundamentals of the argument. What they don't know (or rather, are deliberately obfuscating) is the proper application of this argument.

I'll bold this so the incontrivertable nature of the argument will be highlighted: Only the theist makes any kind of positive claim.

That is a fact that can only be denied by the theist in this manner and the attempt is more despicable, IMO, than the obvious perversion of the structure and purpose of such an argument.

The authors of the bible claim what they write is the truth. Cult leaders and cult followers accept this claim without question.

The claim has never been substantiated. It is always and forever the responsibility of the claimant to prove the claim. It is irrelevant if cult members think they can weasel out of their responsibility through such pathetically childish attempts to pervert or shift the burden of proof standard in this way. In all possible worlds and in all possible minds, the one making the claim must provide the proof.

It is not a claim to hold no beliefs in a god or gods. It is only a claim to state, "God exists." That and only that is a claim that requires proof. Whoever presented you with these "arguments" knows this and disingenuously (at worst) is attempting to fallaciously shift the burden of proof (and not actually doing any such thing, of course, since the burden of proof cannot ever be shifted; it is resolute and immovable until and unless proof has been presented that contravenes or supports). This is the only claim of its kind that has ever been made throughout human history. Humans make this claim. Which means that the same humans must prove this claim.

Until it is proven, the statement "A god does not exist" is therefore not a claim of any kind at all. It is nothing more than a tautology; an unnecessary statement of extant fact contriverted in no way by cult claims to the contrary.

No one is allowed to state, "I don't have to prove my claim." Everybody making a claim must prove their claim or their claim is void. Until that claim is proved, nobody stating the obvious (that the claim has not been proved and is therefore void until proof is offered) is making any kind of like positive claim requiring a burden of proof.

If I claim that The Great and Powerful Too RAH Loo created all life in the universe, then I must prove that claim or it is void. It will never be a like positive claim on anyone's behalf to state the outcome of a void claim; e.g., that The Great and Powerful Too RAH Loo does not exist.

That is not a like positive claim requiring a burden of proof, because the initial claim is void absent proof. Anyone who chooses to may declare from the rooftops, "The Great and Powerful Too RAH Loo does not exist" and they will have made no claim whatsoever. What they will be doing is affirming that which is extant; that which is unproved; that which carries with it no burden of proof.

That people can't grasp this most basic element of the burden of proof condition and/or pervert it to such ends as to completely flip it on its ass merely demonstrates the horrors of cult conditioning as it applies to the human cognitive processing abilities.

Arguing this, however, almost always results in childish denial on behalf of the cult members, because, of course, they are incapable of proving their claim. They therefore must pervert that standard and deliberately misconstrue what a positive claim actually is and which one (cultist or freethinker) who first made the claim.

For another example, set your wayback machine to, let's say, one B.C.E. to make it clear. Absolutely no one (with some form of prescience) going around stating that "Jesus is not god" is making any kind of substantive claim, because the claim, "Jesus is God" was not yet made. In one B.C.E., the extant fact is that Jesus is not god. Indeed, Jesus did not yet exist (if you believe your history books). To therefore state, "Jesus does not exist" in one B.C.E. is not a claim as it is an observation of extant fact. It is only until some point after one B.C.E. that such a claim is made and the claimants are responsible for the proof of that claim.

If they provide no proof for that claim, then the claim is effectively void and the status quo prior to the claim is automatically reinstated. See what I mean? If the claim's burden of proof is not met, then the claim is effectively erased from existence as if it were never made and the "clock" of human expereince is automatically reset to a point prior to anyone making such a claim.

Five thousand years ago, someone claimed that Yahweh existed. Since they never proved that claim, the claim is effectively void and the cognitive "clock" is automatically reset to five thousand and one years ago. Five thousand and one years ago, it would therefore not have been any kind of claim at all to state, "Yahweh does not exist." At best, it would be meaningless gibberish (much like it is five thousand and one years later).

So, for me to state, "God does not exist" is nothing more than confirming the fact that no proof has ever been presented in human history for the initial claim, "God exists."

It is nothing more than a childish game of semantics employed by cultists to avoid the incontrivertable fact that they (and only they) have the effective burden of proof for their claims.

All of that aside, even if they choose to childishly and fallaciously state, "But yours is a positive claim, too, and requires a burden of proof, too" it is irrelevant to the fact that they must still fulfill their own burden of proof. That others may or may not also have a burden of proof in no way dismisses one's own burden of proof.

MORE: This kind of bold conjecture requires more "proof" than the theist b/c all the theist has to do is demonstrate (via an argument, religious expierence or any of the other ways one can "know God") that it is more probable that God exist.

First of all, false. A burden of proof is not subject to standards of probability. Secondly, by all means, have them go ahead and try to make the argument.

Here, I'll start. Which is more probable? That a mystical fairy god king-like being magically willed the entire universe into existence or that the universe evolved from simpler systems into more complex systems? We have ample evidence of the latter and zero evidence of the former.

MORE: But you, with your bold claim, have to do a great deal more than that. All the theist needs is one thing, one cognitive evidential element to convince himself

False. Proof does not mean to one's self. Proof, by definition, is for someone else to corroborate, analyze and either accept or disprove (or deny). The way it is supposed to work is more than one person verifies and confirms or disproves the evidence and presents a logical case for why the evidence is either sufficient or insufficient. These are objective qualities that are not supposed to be denied. When an argument or piece of evidence has been effectively demonstrated to be insufficient to prove a claim, then what is supposed to happen is everyone involved acts like adults and admits that the claim is baseless; never to be brought up again in all of human history from that point forward.

Unfortunately for our species, this rarely happens (outside of scientific circles and even then, claims die hard).

The most frequently used excuse for avoiding this absolute by cult members is to make an even worse claim for their own purposes; a claim that, ironically only further demonstrates the baseless of their own claim, namely that expereince is subjective and one can't ever know "absolutely" what is or is not the truth, never realizing, of course, that to claim a god exists is to axiomatically claim that experience is not subjective and that objective reality incontrivertably exists.

That's why I always enjoy watching cult members dig their own graves this way. :D

MORE: that God's existence is more probable than not but you have to demonstrate how the theist's reasons for belief are inadequate,

Why? What someone wishes to believe in is their business. It only becomes an issue when they impose their beliefs onto others or act upon their beliefs in a way that adversely effects others.

You can believe little gremlins cause your erections, but teach that to my son and I'll have you vivisected. :D

MORE: but more than that, you have to give further reason why no such being could exist.

No more so than anyone needs to give reason why The Great and Powerful Too RAH Loo exists. :rolleyes:

Five thousand years ago someone made a claim and never proved it since. It therefore remains a baseless claim; effectively equivalent to no claim at all.

MORE: But here you hit the universal negative again. How do you go about proving that something exists no where in the universe? If you can, please let me know."

Nothing pisses me off more than this kind of deliberate perversion of the truth to serve one's own desperate needs. The fact that such fallacies are deliberately made with full understanding of the fallacy employed is, IMO, the best testimony to the inherent falseness of cult mentality. If I were a diagnostician, I would conclude cancer.

MORE: #2

>there is no evidence nor convincing argument in favour of the existence of any god/s much less any specific deity.<

You're bringing forth the logical fallacy "appeal to ignorance".

See? They know that they are the ones who are making the positive claim and it is they who shoulder the burden of proof to support that claim and yet employ everything they fully understand to avoid ever having to meet this most basic of burdens. It is nauseating, to say the least, and, again, all the evidence needed to indict the entirety of cult mentality as the fraud it so obviously is to all but the indoctrinated.

MORE: It can be summed up as thus:

"If we let A be what is originally posited and E be the evidence avaliable to support A then the lack of E does not lead to ~A but simply you don't know. Lack of evidence for A does not mean ~A is true."

Except that this is not the syllogism of the cult claim that the atheist is responding to. The syllogism would be:

A claim is made that a God exists.
There is no evidence provided to support this claim.
Therefore, the claim is vacated.

MORE: Simply put, lack of evidence for God does not give one reasoning to believe that God does not exist.

Fallacy. Simply put, no evidence to back one's claim means that the claim is effectively void and therefore equivalent to no claim ever having been made.

If you can't prove your claim, then the claim is without support and effectively void.

It is not up to anyone else to do anything at all regarding such a baseless claim in any way.

Prove your claim or shut up. Period. If you don't prove your claim, then your claim is vacated and stating as much constitutes nothing more than an affirmation of this fact.

"A god does not exist," is therefore no claim at all. It is nothing more than an awkward way of affirming, "Your claim is baseless." Anyone who understands the rules of logic as much as this person does, who is using them to pathetically attempt to shift their own burden in this manner, only demonstrates why cult mentality should be erradicated everywhere it rears its ugly head.

MORE: Lack of evidence also does not give you evidence against God's existence - it doesn't help prove God's non-existence.

If you claim that a god exists and provide no evidence to support your claim, then pointing out the obvious is all that remains. Atheism merely reinforces this incontrivertable fact.

MORE: A friend of mine has explained:

"Even if I grant that there is not one shred of evidental reasons for God's existence, that would not epistemically justify believing in the negation of God's existence, but simply, the correct response would be - I don't know.

False, since this assumes the question. Until such time as anyone can prove their claim, their claim is baseless and one reverts to a status equivalent to no claim being made. Period. To pretend that this isn't at the heart of the atheist position is to engage deliberately in childish, semantically fallacious evasion tactics and, again, demonstrates the inherent fraud being disengenuously apologized for.

If I point out this fact by stating the obvious, then I am making no claim, other than in the poor choice of my words.

MORE: Once again, if there is no evidence for the existence of God then you cannot jump to the conclusion "God doesn't exist" but simply "I do not know if God exist".

False. If there is no evidence to support a claim, then the claim is effectively vacated. If I claim that I have a black hole in my pocket and provide no evidence to support that claim, then for anyone else to state, "You have no black hole in your pocket" is already sufficiently established and supported by my lack of evidence.

Only in a trivial and pointless semantics shuffle could it be argued that others are making like positive claims, thus for me to counter with, "Lack of evidence for my having a black hole in my pocket is not proof that I do not have a black hole in my pocket," is little more than a trivially true evasion tactic. It is childish petulance and should be summarily dismissed as such by all involved in a perfect world.

Unfortunately, the very existence of cult mentality and cult propaganda is proof that we do not live in a perfect world, so ranting against it the way I am doing here does no good. And yet, it must be restated ten billion times for every generation who falls victim to cult indoctrination.

MORE: Let's say you have these two choices:

1. God exists.
2. God does not exist.

But those aren't "choices." The first is a claim that requires a burden of proof. The second is an observation based on the fact that the initial claim's burden of proof has never been met.

MORE: Even if I were to grant the atheist that no evidences exist for God's existence, it wouldn't verify (2).

2 does not need to be verified if 1 is not proved. Until such time as 1 is proved, 2 will always be true.

No one is allowed to just make a claim and then demand someone else prove they are wrong. It doesn't work that way. Cult members deny this fact, however, and that's where the problem lies; directly in the preverted cognitive processing induced by cult indoctrination.

MORE: In order to verify (2), one must provide a ground for (2) - evidence for it.

False. 2 requires no verification, since 1 is the initial claim. See above.

MORE: Since no evidence can be given for (2), the atheist must conclude that neither (1) or (2) can be proven. This is basically saying "I don't know", which isn't atheism... this is agnosticism.

False for all of the reasons provided.

"God exists" is a positive claim that requires proof. If no proof is provided that will support the claim, then the claim is void; dismissed as baseless.

"God does not exist" is not a like positive claim in any other sense than a trivial, poorly worded, semantics quibble. Until the initial positive claim is proved, then we are to automatically revert back to the status quo of five thousand and one years ago, which is, "God does not exist."

No one can just make any stupid claim they want to and demand that others prove their claim false. The burden is always and forever on the one making the initial positive claim. This is basic and incontrivertable and anyone who professes to use and understand the terms of logic to pervert this fundamental element to argumentation should immediately recognize that they have been cognitively f*cked by a fraudulent belief system and immediately discard it as poisonous to their beings.