RE: A good case against God
July 10, 2012 at 2:47 am
(This post was last modified: July 10, 2012 at 2:55 am by Skepsis.)
To make the concept abundantly clear to Clive, lack of evidence is an indisputable hallmark in those who reject a claim as unfounded.
In the case for God you are trying to shift the burden of proof onto the skeptic, a decidedly vacuous and elementary mistake. Or, perhaps it wasn't a mistake, in which case you are simply goading atheists for the sake of the action.
Being versed in your ABC logic course, I'm sure you'll tell me why Mr. X disagrees- this won't, however, change fundamental rules of logic in argumentation.
Here we have an unfounded claim, namely God. Beside the pathetic attempts at contemporary apologetics (which are rarely any more than a rehash of Aquinas' incongruous burble) we are left with not a single piece of attempted evidence to support the claim. Now, what do you do when there isn't evidence for a claim? You can either refuse to believe the claim as unfounded or downright reject the claim, if it is practical to do so. You cannot, however, accept the claim if it lacks evidence.
The things one would be driven to accept if they could simply cherry-pick reality like they do their cherished (insert holy text here) would be numerous. The problem with saying atheists are wrong to disbelieve an unfounded claim is that you are saying that anyone who disbelieves anything on the basis that the claim lacks evidence is wrong to do so.
Clearly you wouldn't actually assert such a thing, though; I wouldn't want to strawman your position.
In the case for God you are trying to shift the burden of proof onto the skeptic, a decidedly vacuous and elementary mistake. Or, perhaps it wasn't a mistake, in which case you are simply goading atheists for the sake of the action.
Being versed in your ABC logic course, I'm sure you'll tell me why Mr. X disagrees- this won't, however, change fundamental rules of logic in argumentation.
Here we have an unfounded claim, namely God. Beside the pathetic attempts at contemporary apologetics (which are rarely any more than a rehash of Aquinas' incongruous burble) we are left with not a single piece of attempted evidence to support the claim. Now, what do you do when there isn't evidence for a claim? You can either refuse to believe the claim as unfounded or downright reject the claim, if it is practical to do so. You cannot, however, accept the claim if it lacks evidence.
The things one would be driven to accept if they could simply cherry-pick reality like they do their cherished (insert holy text here) would be numerous. The problem with saying atheists are wrong to disbelieve an unfounded claim is that you are saying that anyone who disbelieves anything on the basis that the claim lacks evidence is wrong to do so.
Clearly you wouldn't actually assert such a thing, though; I wouldn't want to strawman your position.
My conclusion is that there is no reason to believe any of the dogmas of traditional theology and, further, that there is no reason to wish that they were true.
Man, in so far as he is not subject to natural forces, is free to work out his own destiny. The responsibility is his, and so is the opportunity.
-Bertrand Russell
Man, in so far as he is not subject to natural forces, is free to work out his own destiny. The responsibility is his, and so is the opportunity.
-Bertrand Russell
