Play "Cards Against Atheist Forums" online now!
Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: 27th June 2017, 04:52

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Is the statement "Claims demand evidence" always true?
#21
RE: Is the statement "Claims demand evidence" always true?
So how would you respond to a WLC argument, that the God idea is a rational one? Not with appeals for evidence that God is real?
Reply
#22
RE: Is the statement "Claims demand evidence" always true?
No, I wasn't clear enough. When dealing with the concrete, evidence is necessary but not sufficient for understanding the phenomenon in question. Evidence will demonstrate its existence, but understanding only comes when evidence is analyzed using reasoning.

So yes, there is some overlap.

(11th December 2016, 00:10)bennyboy Wrote: So how would you respond to a WLC argument, that the God idea is a rational one? Not with appeals for evidence that God is real?

I'd point out that reason cannot bring something to be in reality, that it can only explain that thing's relationship with reality and its environment.
On goal, baby.
Reply
#23
RE: Is the statement "Claims demand evidence" always true?
(11th December 2016, 00:10)bennyboy Wrote: So how would you respond to a WLC argument, that the God idea is a rational one?  Not with appeals for evidence that God is real?
I'm glad you asked because that brings me to the next point that I had wished to make.

Atheists who respond to theistic arguments that seek to demonstrate the existence of God through rational terms with the statement "Claims demand evidence" are, I think, simply mistaken.  Of course, if the claim about God involves propositions that are evidential or factual (in the common sense usage of the word), such as in claims about miracles or the order of events at creation, then one is not irrational to demand evidence -- and in this way many if not most religious claims fit the bill.  But if the theist makes a claim about one of the many more generic versions of God, as the ultimate source of being or truth or morality, or something that qualifies as a "first principle" or "metaphysical necessity", then the rebuttal will likely need to deal with the argument on its own terms if it is all to be a serious reply; terms which, as I said, are strictly rational (at least in their attempt, not necessarily in their premises or the conclusion they reach).  One should respond to theists such as WLC in precisely this manner, by engaging with the premises and showing where they go wrong, and/or fail to logically validate the conclusion; rather than just assert that the theist has a burden of proof which involves a certain display of evidence, and that nothing they say can be accepted as true (even probabilistically) unless said evidence is produced.  The atheist who engages like this isn't refuting any arguments, but redefining the requirements by which claims ought to be accepted in a way that is essentially question-begging and as equally unsubstantiated as the theist's claim about his or her (generic) God.
He who loves God cannot endeavour that God should love him in return - Baruch Spinoza
Reply
#24
RE: Is the statement "Claims demand evidence" always true?
(11th December 2016, 02:12)Mudhammam Wrote: Atheists who respond to theistic arguments that seek to demonstrate the existence of God through rational terms with the statement "Claims demand evidence" are, I think, simply mistaken.  

Not so. If this were the case, then there would be no distinction between what can be imagined and what is. The idea of 'justified true belief' can't be so easily dismissed.
Reply
#25
RE: Is the statement "Claims demand evidence" always true?
(10th December 2016, 23:47)Mudhammam Wrote:  "Claims demand evidence" would apply exclusively to the first group, while "claims demand reasons" (that is, right or good reasons) would seem to apply to *all* claims.  
I might modify this to avoid an infinite regress of reasons by making a similar pragmatic appeal as rob mentioned, namely, an appeal to the utility of right reasons in actual experience; but then it seems that, on the one hand, evidence, to even get off the ground, requires reasons that are accepted as true by definition; and reasons, on the other hand, which we justify as true by definition, are only worth as much as our experience shows them to be rationally required.  It is as if reasons and evidences must support each other for either to do work, though the former still have greater reach in that they can take us to new heights and depths of knowledge of which evidence has yet to corroborate; but I don't think the same is true vice versa.  Evidence presumes some rational context from which to derive a meaningful interpretation.

(11th December 2016, 02:20)Cato Wrote: Not so. If this were the case, then there would be no distinction between what can be imagined and what is. The idea of 'justified true belief' can't be so easily dismissed.
The distinction between what we can imagine and what we are justified in believing as true would remain; as well, so would the distinction between what we are justified in believing as true and what is actually true.  I believe that we can be justified in a belief given our current reasons or evidence, and still be ultimately wrong about that belief.
He who loves God cannot endeavour that God should love him in return - Baruch Spinoza
Reply
#26
RE: Is the statement "Claims demand evidence" always true?
(11th December 2016, 02:25)Mudhammam Wrote: The distinction between what we can imagine and what we are justified in believing as true would remain; as well, so would the distinction between what we are justified in believing as true and what is actually true.  I believe that we can be justified in a belief given our current reasons or evidence, and still be ultimately wrong about that belief.

Precisely, which is why your assertion that those asking for evidence of claims of existence are mistaken is, well, mistaken.
Reply
#27
RE: Is the statement "Claims demand evidence" always true?
(11th December 2016, 02:47)Cato Wrote: Precisely, which is why your assertion that those asking for evidence of claims of existence are mistaken is, well, mistaken.
Well, that's granting that a claim can only be justified by evidence. But that itself is a claim that I don't think meets its own criteria, which is the point of this whole thread.  Unless I am misunderstanding what you mean by justification or evidence.
He who loves God cannot endeavour that God should love him in return - Baruch Spinoza
Reply
#28
RE: Is the statement "Claims demand evidence" always true?
(11th December 2016, 02:47)Cato Wrote:
(11th December 2016, 02:25)Mudhammam Wrote: The distinction between what we can imagine and what we are justified in believing as true would remain; as well, so would the distinction between what we are justified in believing as true and what is actually true.  I believe that we can be justified in a belief given our current reasons or evidence, and still be ultimately wrong about that belief.

Precisely, which is why your assertion that those asking for evidence of claims of existence are mistaken is, well, mistaken.

That's right. It's very rare that more information occludes the issue. Evidence is information.

Evidence is to justification as bricks are to buildings.

(11th December 2016, 02:54)Mudhammam Wrote:
(11th December 2016, 02:47)Cato Wrote: Precisely, which is why your assertion that those asking for evidence of claims of existence are mistaken is, well, mistaken.
Well, that's granting that a claim can only be justified by evidence. But that itself is a claim that I don't think meets its own criteria, which is the point of this whole thread.  Unless I am misunderstanding what you mean by justification or evidence.

But the thing is, one claim is abstract, and the other posits a claim about reality. When we're talking about the existence of a being in reality, it is not an abstraction, and cannot be evidenced by simple words.
On goal, baby.
Reply
#29
RE: Is the statement "Claims demand evidence" always true?
If I claimed to see a fish at the lake at the end of my road it can be accepted without evidence.
If I claimed to see a dinosaur lurking behind some bushes on my way home from work you'd probably want to know more.
If I told you I saw a Trump supporter make a valid point you'd be "like steady on there now your just lying".
Opinions are like arseholes.
Once somethings firmly in there its very hard to dislodge.





 








Reply
#30
RE: Is the statement "Claims demand evidence" always true?
(11th December 2016, 02:54)Mudhammam Wrote:
(11th December 2016, 02:47)Cato Wrote: Precisely, which is why your assertion that those asking for evidence of claims of existence are mistaken is, well, mistaken.
Well, that's granting that a claim can only be justified by evidence. But that itself is a claim that I don't think meets its own criteria, which is the point of this whole thread.  Unless I am misunderstanding what you mean by justification or evidence.

Yep.

What if I do not believe the senses can arrive at any kind of existential truth-- that they can be known to be true only in their own context?  What if I ask for evidence, as per your OP, that experiences CAN be used to validate metaphysical truth claims at all?

In short, what if I ask for evidence that evidence is the right way to go about proving philosophical or metaphysical truths? Since said cannot be provided without caveat ("Oh it's the best we have so far, of course we can revise it later because science. . . "), then does it negate itself in paradox and disappear in a puff of smoke called "pragmatic assumption"?
Reply


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
Video Do we live in a universe where theism is likely true? (video) Jörmungandr 36 945 28th May 2017, 01:53
Last Post: bennyboy
  Is it true that there is no absolute morality? WisdomOfTheTrees 260 4631 23rd March 2017, 18:12
Last Post: Hammy
  Anecdotal Evidence RoadRunner79 395 11704 14th December 2016, 14:53
Last Post: downbeatplumb
  What philosophical evidence is there against believing in non-physical entities? joseph_ 150 5116 3rd September 2016, 11:26
Last Post: downbeatplumb
  Afterlife, I'd be happy if it were true..... maestroanth 35 2122 12th June 2016, 03:13
Last Post: Little lunch
  The nature of evidence Wryetui 150 5982 6th May 2016, 06:21
Last Post: ignoramus
  Witness Evidence RoadRunner79 248 18687 17th December 2015, 19:23
Last Post: bennyboy
  Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence RoadRunner79 184 12227 13th November 2015, 12:17
Last Post: Khemikal
  Does a "True Self" Exist? Salacious B. Crumb 68 7858 17th July 2015, 06:11
Last Post: chasbanner
  Miracles are useless as evidence Pizza 0 632 15th March 2015, 19:37
Last Post: Pizza



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)