A good case against God

[The Grand Nudger]

Easy, when they started blathering on about god, that's the point at which it became apparent that they were wrong.

[Jeffonthenet]

If the absence of demonstrable evidence for god fails to justify atheism, then that very absence continues to fail to justify theism. Agnostics belong to one of those camps by virtue of the excluded middle and the value of the term, "agnostic." Therefore, that absence would seem to fail to justify agnosticism, and the only way past the issue is to dispense entirely with the discussion of religion.

Please explain, I don't understand what you are saying. I know what the law of the excluded middle is, but I am not sure how it applies here.

---

Certianly there are threads on the internet where theists can present evidence for the existence of God. This is not one of them. This is the atheist's chance to do likewise, and I have tried to defend with reason that even if there is no demonstrable evidence for God it does not justify atheism. Go ahead and be agnostic if you want, but if you refuse to give any argument against God or belief in God that can stand up to scrutiny, I contend that your atheism is unjustified.

So really in this thread I am not arguing that God exists.

I am arguing that the absence of demonstrable evidence for God doesn't justify atheism.

I am also asking atheists to give good reasons to think there is no God, and I can't say that I think I have seen any.

And that one shouldn't rule out God simply because of the apparent absence of evidence.

If there are any agnostics here I would invite you to join me.

Well, I'm not an atheist, but I can think of a reason that absence of evidence for God justifies (weak) atheism.

First, methods of drawing inference rely on evidence. There is a difference between absence of evidence and evidence of absence (looking in a cage and seeing empty air is evidence of the absence of a polar bear; not looking into the cage at all is absence of evidence), and in the absence of evidence, we cannot draw valid inferences.

For suppose we could. Suppose we were to assume a principle whereby a hypothesis would be answered in the affirmative (or in the negative) in the absence of evidence, with confidence 0 < c < 1. In order to be consistent, c must be constant across all hypothesis tests (if we ask the same question again and again, each time with no evidence, we shouldn't become more or less confident in our answer).

So suppose we are asking whether some hypothesis H is true, but we have an absence of evidence. We then affirm H with confidence equal to c. Now, let us ask another question--whether ~H is true. We will also assign this c.

However, P(H) = 1 - P(~H), since P(H or ~H) = 1, and H and ~H are mutually exclusive, hence P(H or ~H) = P(H) + P(~H) = 1.

Thus c = 1 - c, hence c = 0.5

Now, any argument used to justify believing H on the basis of our confidence that H is true applies equally to ~H. Thus there is no way to probabilistically distinguish them; we must either arbitrarily draw an inference (which negates the whole point of having a method of inference), or decline to draw an inference.




This argument could be further developed using utility theory; choosing between H and ~H could be done based on both the confidence we have in them and the expected utility of each.

Hello Clive, I appreciate the time you took to reply, but despite understanding symbolic logic a little, I am not sure here what you are claiming, or how you are backing this up. (for one, what does "c" refer to, and what does 0 < c < 1 mean?

Also, if you are defining "weak atheism" the same way as I define agnosticism--simply as not knowing if God exists, we may not disagree here on anything but terminology.

I would also say in an ultimate sense that there is evidence for God, it is just non-verbal--experiential or intuitive. I believe if one seeks God from a pure heart, one will find out at some point in their life if God exists.

I would also say that the absence of evidence is evidence of absence only in a case in which we should expect to have more evidence than we do

[Taqiyya Mockingbird]

[LastPoet]

Hello Clive, I appreciate the time you took to reply, but despite understanding symbolic logic a little, I am not sure here what you are claiming, or how you are backing this up. (for one, what does "c" refer to, and what does 0 < c < 1 mean?

If you can't answer that, I'd advise an algebra course, In the real number set, its an order function that means c is a number between 0 and 1, but different from them.

Also, if you are defining "weak atheism" the same way as I define agnosticism--simply as not knowing if God exists, we may not disagree here on anything but terminology.

Many people said this: atheist is a person that lacks the belief in god, agnostic is about knowledge, it says we can't know if X can be believed. This makes you a gnostic theist, since you claim to know that god exists. Either you believe in a god, or you don't, is that hard to understand? The main point is that you claim that god exists, its your burden to show us that such exists, in a surefire way we all can know it. Since the dawn of man, its been a futile quest.

I would also say in an ultimate sense that there is evidence for God, it is just non-verbal--experiential or intuitive. I believe if one seeks God from a pure heart, one will find out at some point in their life if God exists.

I would also say that the absence of evidence is evidence of absence only in a case in which we should expect to have more evidence than we do

Well, your extraordinary god requires extraordinary evidence, or why is it hiding? Ah yes, people with pure heart, whatever that means. I guess you mean people that think exactly like you... typical. Your arrogance is showing.

[Opsnyder]

And if I won't give a good case against existence of God it means that he exists right? Stupid bullshit.

[Taqiyya Mockingbird]

[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.

[Cato]

Hello Clive, I appreciate the time you took to reply, but despite understanding symbolic logic a little, I am not sure here what you are claiming, or how you are backing this up. (for one, what does "c" refer to, and what does 0 < c < 1 mean?

Also, if you are defining "weak atheism" the same way as I define agnosticism--simply as not knowing if God exists, we may not disagree here on anything but terminology.

I would also say in an ultimate sense that there is evidence for God, it is just non-verbal--experiential or intuitive. I believe if one seeks God from a pure heart, one will find out at some point in their life if God exists.

I would also say that the absence of evidence is evidence of absence only in a case in which we should expect to have more evidence than we do

Thought experiment time....

If I took a baby tomorrow and fed it intravanously (no taste input), strapped it down (no touch input) in a perfectly dark (no sight input), oderless (no smell input) and soundproof room (no hearing); how would this person discover your God? Imagine that we could let loose this being as an adult into the world with no human knowledge history. This being could conceivably re-discover all the laws of nature, but could never discover your God without a Bible or someone to indoctrinate him/her.

[Epimethean]

Ah, Play-doh's allegory of the sensory deprivation chamber! You scoundrel!

The counter will come in the form of the effect of nutrient input. Deus ex machina in venas!

[NickB]

the burden of proof is rubbish! perhaps you are assuming that theists have the burden of proof just because you are atheist. this is just assuming from a theological standpoint, you could twist that logic e.g. a person from the flat earth society might say ' i don't need to present evidence that the world is flat but you must give evidence of the world being round'. your logic is lazy. in order to prove the non-existance of god you must present your own arguments. otherwise its looks like you are just trying to cop out of an argument. come on people!