What follows is my response to Richard Bushey's post from http://thereforegodexists.com/2012/06/can-one-disconfirm-a-universal-negative/#comment-480
Richard,
You can't ask a person to prove a position that he doesn't hold. If you're talking about people who actually say "no gods of any kind exist", you can ask them to prove it. Let me try to explain this.
There are really three classes of people who call themselves atheists. Note that I'm using my own labels (though not only my own) but it's not the labels that matter; it's the positions.
1. "Weak agnostic atheists" - those who simply lack belief that a god exists. They need to prove nothing. You have the burden when it comes to them.
2. "Strong agnostic atheists" - those who say that it's unlikely that a god exists but who don't claim to be certain. You can ask them to prove their position. You can't ask them to EXCLUDE THE POSSIBILITY that a god exists because that's not their position. But you can certainly ask them to prove that a god probably doesn't exist. I'm one of these people. You can certainly ask me to prove that it's unlikely that a god exists. And I'll try to prove it to you. You can find my proof here: http://tnij.org/provenogod
3. "Strong gnostic atheists" - these are the people (there's very, very, very few of these) who will categorically claim that they know that there's no god. You can, by all means, ask them to prove their position. What's more, they have to disprove any version of a god, and they have to disprove them beyond any doubt.
Now, let me move on to proving a negative. Just tell me what type of evidence you could expect to see if there's no god. Let's stick to it in the deistic sense in this case. How could anyone ever prove that the Universe wasn't created by some intelligent entity who then moved on to other things and does nothing to show its existence? You claim that such a proof is possible (and I disagree with you on this). Please show how, in principle, that could be done.
Regards
Marty
@Allocutus
what type of evidence you could expect to see if there's no god."
ReplyDeleteIf Creator God did not exist, there were not be any material universe that came into being out of literally nothing, let alone a mathematically precise, life-supporting, moral universe.
In other words, you're claiming that God is the only explanation for the universe that exists. You seem to have some data that I've never heard of. Please do share.
ReplyDelete1) What evidence exists to support your claim that the universe came from nothing?
2) What evidence exists to support your claim that the only way a universe can come from nothing is if there's a god?
3) If the existence of a mathematically precise entity requires a creator then the creator himself/herself/itself must be mathematically precise. How then do you explain THIS ENTITY (the creator)? Does it also require a creator? If you propose that it does, we fall into infinite regress. If you propose it doesn't, you go against your own premise.
4) What evidence exists to demonstrate that the Universe is a moral Universe? I agree that humans are moral beings but that's not what you are positing.
5) What evidence exists to support your claim that the only way a life-supporting Universe can come into existence is if there exists a god?
Thanks in advance
Allocutus
I reject the notion that theism is irrational, but it could be argued that it is not logical. At the same time I would argue that atheism, which you call gnostic atheism, is illogical.
ReplyDeleteThis is a simple burden of proof argument best demonstrated by Bertrand Russell with his teapot analogy. This argument states that the person making the scientifically unfalsifiable claim holds the burden of proof. This means that if one is to argue there is a god, the burden of proof falls on them. If one argues there is not a god, the burden of proof falls on them.
The biggest issue that arises, mostly with the atheists, is the logical fallacy argument from ignorance. The argument from ignorance is a type of false dichotomy that assumes there are only two options and excludes a third or fourth, such as, we do not know, or we cannot know. Many atheists incorrectly assume that an absence of evidence is evidence of absence. This is a logical fallacy. But as stated, an agnostic is not making a truth claim that there is no god. If they are, the burden of proof falls on them.
I would argue that theism is not irrational, though it may be illogical. At the same time atheism, or as you call it, gnostic atheism, is just as illogical.
ReplyDeleteThis is a simple burden of proof argument best demonstrated by Bertrand Russell with his teapot analogy. This argument states that the person making the scientifically unfalsifiable claim holds the burden of proof. This means that if one is to argue there is a god, the burden of proof falls on them. If one argues there is not a god, the burden of proof falls on them.
The biggest issue that arises, mostly with the atheists, is the logical fallacy argument from ignorance. The argument from ignorance is a type of false dichotomy that assumes there are only two options and excludes a third or fourth, such as, we do not know, or we cannot know. Many atheists incorrectly assume that an absence of evidence is evidence of absence. This is a logical fallacy. But as stated, an agnostic is not making a truth claim that there is no god. If they are, the burden of proof falls on them.