Tooth Fairy Bullshit

[Neo-Scholastic]

In propositions taking the form of ‘X exists’, the various entities or agents filling the role of X may fall into different categories of being. Here are some examples:

P1: The Tooth Fairy exists.
P2: Time exists.
P3: Numbers exist.
P4: Truth exists.
P5: Possibilities exist.

---

In P1, if a tooth fairy exists, it would be a particular concrete substance. Now when some skeptics insist with complete certainty that there is no evidence for X they are specifically asking for a sample of or an isolated observable effect of X. To the extent that any of P2-P5 might exist, not one of them could exist in the same way P1 could. By that skeptic’s criteria for proof, no one could justify belief in any of the subjects of P2-P5. And yet serious scholars regularly debate the ontological status of time, numbers, truth, and possibilities. Moreover, some of those propositions are arguably properly basic, meaning someone is justified in believing they are true in the absence of defeaters.

IF god exists, then he exists in ways similar those kinds of things found in P2-P5 and it is complete nonsense to insist that he exist in the same way as P1. As such it is unreasonable and obnoxious to demand that theists produce such evidence or to make that comparison during a debate with a theist to suggest that belief in God is ridiculous. I could quote example after example of AF members doing just that. And it is dishonest for anyone to pretend that that doesn’t regularly happen on AF.

---

Thank you for taking the time to repost the info.

I see, this is like the WoW comparison.  The claim that God exists outside our reality, but interracts with it in undetectable ways.
Well, I normally do NOT debate theists, as I really have no interest in (de)converting you, but as you went to this trouble, it seems only polite to respond.

Here are a list of my counter arguments, in no particular order.

• I'm sure you have heard it, but extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.  Numbers are not an extraordanary claim, for instance.
  
• Why do you say the tooth fairy is concrete substance? If god can interact with humans without a detectable trace, then why not other things? Truth does not interact with humans on it's own, we create the idea of truth.  The way humans wish to define God seems more like the Tooth Fairy to me than Truth, for example.
  
• "By our own criteria of "proof""....we don't ask for proof, but evidence.  I'm sure a resident scientist can explain better than I , but there is evidence for time, for instance.  There is literally no evidence whatsoever for God.
  
• Truth and possibilities and numbers are human created concepts. Are you saying God is a human created concept? If so, I fully agree.  There are many human created concepts that we have discarded because of inadequate evidence. The Id, super-ego concepts from Freud, for instance, have been discarded by modern psychologists.  Free-will is another you will see hotly debated, with many great modern thinkers discarding it (or redefining it to mean something entirely different than it used to).
  
• We still demand some evidence for the existence of concepts.  Mathematical formulas must have proofs, the passage of time can be demonstrated with a decaying apple, etc.
  
• My point is just because a humans thought it up, and even if most humans assume it exists (like free-will), if there is still no evidence whatsoever or any good demonstration of it, then the idea should be discarded. We do this with other human created concepts, the idea of God doesn't get a special pass.
  

Ok, I hope you can see I'm not trying to be insulting.  Peace.

Thank you. My point was not debate my examples; but rather, to show that “God exists,” is a philosophical proposition that has been debated throughout the centuries with the same seriousness as questions about time, numbers, etc. Suppose you are at a dinner party (forum) sitting at a table (thread) of five and two people are having discussion about Plantinga’s ontological argument, specifically his use of modal logic. Of course everyone at the table is welcome to join the conversation; it’s a party after all. But if another guest’s contribution is “You can’t logic your skydaddy, zombie-Jew into existence,” then he is just being a douche. It’s not even an argument. It’s an unwelcome quip. Go sit the loud and obnoxious table (a thread for just mocking). The point is that I have no problem when the atheist members want to mock religion among themselves. But if you’re directing that kind of comment at a Christian on a Philosophy thread, well, that’s just rude.

FWIW here are my stances with respect to the examples:

P2: Time exists. –I’m agnostic on the issue. I lean towards presentism, but eternalism seems just as plausible. In either case, I think time is based on related states and not any kind of extention.

P3: Numbers exist. –I’m a moderate realist. I feel that resolves the tension between Platonic forms and Aristotelian imminence and provides a satisfactory solution to the Problem of Universals.

P4: Truth exists. –I don’t really have a complete theory of truth, but I strongly favor those that have a place for the idea that some truths are proscriptive.

P5: Possibilities exist. –To me possibilities are not simply epistemological uncertainties; but rather, part of the nature of things, e.g. glass has within it a disposition to shatter regardless of whether or not it ever does.