Atheists often say (I've seen numerous members of this forum do it) that atheism is merely a lack of belief in God, so atheists have no burden of proof. We make no positive statement about God's non-existence, it is argued. My problem with this is that it's unclear how this is different from agnosticism. Agnostics aren't sure whether God exists or not, but they lack belief in a god as much as they lack disbelief.
A few months ago, while debating some wishy-washy fence-sitters over at Agnostic Forums, I devised an argument to show that the default epistemic position is that there probably is no god. God's non-existence is more likely than his existence, a priori. It's a very simple argument, and I'm going to set it out for you in a few steps, like a formal logical argument in philosophy. See what y'all think.
1) The human mind can conceive of an infinite, or at least very large, number of things.
2) There is no necessary correspondence between these ideas and reality. We can easily demonstrate this, because I can imagine there being a giraffe on my desk, but there is not. Nor are there any skunks, perpetual motion machines, 12th century minstrels, or purple fairies called Gerald.
3) Only if there is evidence for a particular idea is its existence in reality probable.
4) Because there are so many things we can think of, none of which is necessarily real, what we think of is very unlikely to be real.
5) There is no evidence, or no good evidence, for God's existence (this, of course, could be disputed, but that's no doubt been done and dealt with elsewhere).
6) The concept of God is very unlikely to exist in reality.
7) Ergo.. there probably is no god.
I'd appreciate your comments on this argument. Any flaws that you can see, please tell me. Especially if you think it's a load of shit.
Omnissiunt One
A few months ago, while debating some wishy-washy fence-sitters over at Agnostic Forums, I devised an argument to show that the default epistemic position is that there probably is no god. God's non-existence is more likely than his existence, a priori. It's a very simple argument, and I'm going to set it out for you in a few steps, like a formal logical argument in philosophy. See what y'all think.
1) The human mind can conceive of an infinite, or at least very large, number of things.
2) There is no necessary correspondence between these ideas and reality. We can easily demonstrate this, because I can imagine there being a giraffe on my desk, but there is not. Nor are there any skunks, perpetual motion machines, 12th century minstrels, or purple fairies called Gerald.
3) Only if there is evidence for a particular idea is its existence in reality probable.
4) Because there are so many things we can think of, none of which is necessarily real, what we think of is very unlikely to be real.
5) There is no evidence, or no good evidence, for God's existence (this, of course, could be disputed, but that's no doubt been done and dealt with elsewhere).
6) The concept of God is very unlikely to exist in reality.
7) Ergo.. there probably is no god.
I'd appreciate your comments on this argument. Any flaws that you can see, please tell me. Especially if you think it's a load of shit.
Omnissiunt One
'We must respect the other fellow's religion, but only in the sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children smart.' H.L. Mencken
'False religion' is the ultimate tautology.
'It is just like man's vanity and impertinence to call an animal dumb because it is dumb to his dull perceptions.' Mark Twain
'I care not much for a man's religion whose dog and cat are not the better for it.' Abraham Lincoln
'False religion' is the ultimate tautology.
'It is just like man's vanity and impertinence to call an animal dumb because it is dumb to his dull perceptions.' Mark Twain
'I care not much for a man's religion whose dog and cat are not the better for it.' Abraham Lincoln
