Is There A Lack of Evidence for God?
The first problem with this line of arguing is simply that it is demonstrably false. Theists have any number, I can think of at least twenty of the top of my head, of arguments that prove the existence of God from various elements of the visible world1. If all arguments for God were of the "I feel God exists/ I want God to exist/ The Bible says God exists/ my parents said God exists" variety then the atheist would have a valid point. Unfortunately for the atheist, this isn't the case. Evidence for God can be found in the fact that the universe has a beginning2 (and nothing can cause itself to begin to exist), in the moral law3, in the beauty and goodness in the universe4, in the intelligibility of the universe5, in the contingency of everything we see around us6, in the history surrounding Jesus Christ7, in the universal testimony of mankind8, in miracles9, etc, etc, etc. The atheist may or may not have engaged some or all of these arguments (more often than not they haven't, at least in my experience) but to simply ignore them all and claim there is no evidence is shockingly ignorant. It would be like a fundamentalist simply saying "there is no evidence for the Big Bang" as a sweeping, and supposedly unanswerable, dismissal of one of the best supported scientific theories. Would this prove young Earth Creationism or would it rather prove the scientific illiteracy of the fundamentalist?
Is the Argument Logical?
Another, and worse, problem for the argument is the bad logic behind it. Even if we granted the atheist the truth of his statement, "there is no evidence for the existence of God," his conclusion, "there is no God," would still not be proven. This type of argument is a logical fallacy, argumentum ad ignorantiam, or "appeal to ignorance10." I usually respond to the atheist by asking if the lack of evidence for extraterrestrial life proves there are no aliens. The atheist typically agrees that this is a bad argument, aliens, after all, could be on a planet we haven't discovered yet. Absence of evidence, as we can clearly see in the alien example, doesn't equal evidence of absence. We can't argue from ignorance to any conclusion. The most the atheist argument, "there is no evidence for God therefore God doesn't exist," could rationally support is agnosticism, that we don't know whether or not God exists. This wouldn't however, justify a complacent or comfortable agnosticism, far less an absolute agnosticism that claims we can never know whether or not there is a God. At most, this argument would justify a burning agnosticism - one where the agnostic seeks, with all his power, enough evidence to make a decision on the God question, which is the most pressing question any of us are presented with, as it alone carries with it possible eternal consequences. To conclude that we don't know if there is a God and then to live as if there wasn't one is to make a rather poor "wager," as even the honest atheist will admit.11
Is Atheism Logical?
All of which shows the underlying illogic of atheism. To assert that there are no Gods anywhere, at anytime, inside or outside the universe would require knowledge of all times and all places. Such knowledge would, in principal, only be possible for an omniscient being - a God. Thus, only God could know there was no God, only God could be an atheist, which is immediately self-contradictory. Such an absurdity is the ultimate attraction of the "no evidence equals no God" argument, but, as demonstrated above, that route collapses under its own illogic quite rapidly.
__________________
1. For a great summary of the evidence see Kreeft, Peter and Tacelli, Ronald, Handbook of Christian Apologetics
2. The Kaalam Cosmological Argument - see more HERE
3. The Argument from Objective Morality - see more HERE
4. The Aesthetic Argument see more HERE
5. Pope Benedict XVI famously laid out this one. See more HERE.
6. Aquinas' "Third Way" see Summa Theologiae I, 2, 3
7. Lord, Liar, Lunatic - see Mere Christianity
8. Both the "sages" and the ordinary man reject atheism throughout history
9. See Lewis' masterful treatment in his book Miracles
10. From Kreeft's Socratic Logic
, "The 'appeal to ignorance' consists in arguing that an idea must be true because we do not know that it is not. It is a fallacy because ignorance can never be a premise or reason. Premises must express knowledge-claims. Nothing logically follow from nothing, i.e. from no-knowledge." (page 86) 11. For more see Pascal, Rene Pensees
"Have you ever encountered the claim that there is "no evidence for God?""
ReplyDelete"Even if we granted the atheist the truth of his statement, "there is no evidence for the existence of God," his conclusion, "there is no God," would still not be proven."
"To assert that there are no Gods anywhere, at anytime, inside or outside the universe would require knowledge of all times and all places. "
The only two possibilities here is that you are scraping the bottom of the barrel for the stupidest atheists, or you are intentionally creating a strawman that is easy to knock down.
Why don't you engage with atheist literature instead of engaging in armchair apologetics. Just a thought.
Hi Tjaart,
ReplyDeleteActually, this a reaction to several real arguments that real atheists have made to me online. I agree this is an incredibly stupid argument (which I believe I demonstrated above) and I'm glad to see that you (presumably an atheist) are willing to call a spade a spade.
Right. This means that your conclusion: "All of which shows the underlying illogic of atheism" is based on addressing the poorest atheist arguments, so you are misleading your readers by giving them the impression that all atheists argue that way. Do you recognize the negative effect that this can have?
DeleteI highly doubt that you would appreciate blog posts that generalise to the "underlying illogic of theism" by addressing the average theist, which I should hardly remind you is hardly known for making good philosophical arguments. We can either accept that there are misinformed people on both sides of the fold and rather address the best arguments we can find from the opposing position or we can just shoot cans at point blank and praise our own magnificent aim.
I've written about this very problem among atheists if you are interested.
http://massiveactivity.tjaartblignaut.co.za/2014/10/bad-atheist-arguments-pt-4-there-is-no.html
Hi Tjaart,
ReplyDeleteWrong. Try re-reading the article more carefully. The third point (under the heading "is atheism logical") is logically independent from the atheist argument examined under the first two headings.
I do agree, however, with you that "there are misinformed people on both sides of the fold," however I disagree that these people ought to simply be ignored. The argument I address here is one I've repeatedly encountered. I would find it absurd to castigate an atheist blogger for pointing out that the argument "the Bible says God exists therefore He does" is circular. I find it equally absurd here. It is only made more absurd by your own blog post pointing out poor atheist arguments. Do you have an internet monopoly on looking at bad, although often used, arguments or are you being hypocritical?
Nathan it is my experience that your analysis of the atheist position is always a caricature of the best arguments we have, instead of a serious consideration of the best arguments. I don't have a problem in principle with criticizing bad arguments but doing that exclusively with those who disagree with you and then claiming boldly that "All of which shows the underlying illogic of atheism" is not justified. Actually it shows nothing more than the fact that there are poor opposing arguments.
Delete"is logically independent from the atheist argument examined under the first two headings."
I'm sorry but I just don't buy it. Basically you are implying that the first sentence of a paragraph in your post is logically disconnected from the preceding paragraphs. What does "all" refer to in that context then?
I'm just trying to point out that by applying the least amount of charity to opposing positions you are doing yourself a disservice by picking only the worst arguments they present and assuming that as the entirety of their position. But it is worse because you have an audience that is entertaining this one sided view with you.
The intellectual failure of theists employing the assumption that I will make arguments like the ones you suggest here is so complete that it shakes their faith, because they realise that the story they have been told about atheists in blogs like yours is wholly false, and there is a lot more to the opposing arguments than blogs like yours would have them believe. When their bubbles pop they are left intellectually destitute, but that seems to be a position you find favourable.
Hi Tjaart,
ReplyDelete1) My "analysis of the atheist position" is, in fact, merely responses to various atheists that email me. It is entirely beyond my power to determine what arguments are repeatedly presented to me. In fact, if an argument only crops up once, I don't even bother addressing it. This blog, as you might know if you've read more than one or two posts, is not primarily concerned with refuting atheism.
2) The last paragraph is grammatically connected, but the argument isn't logically dependent upon anything above it.
3) Your final paragraph is a ridiculous joke. You have quite the opinion of yourself and your ability to craft arguments that "shake (the) faith" of theists. If blog posts like this one are such a great "set-up" for your amazing logical prowess to "bubble pop" theists, you might not complain so loudly.
Thanks for the comments! God bless.
1. If you are not serious about the discussion behind atheism/theism, I would suggest you abandon it, because you are just doing others a disservice. However if you choose to stick to the lowest common denominator, then that's your choice and you can continue to post poor apologetics. I would suggest that you abandon confident conclusions such as "All of which shows the underlying illogic of atheism."
Delete2. That seems like an ad hoc attempt to escape your bold conclusions that has no basis in reality.
3. "You have quite the opinion of yourself". No. It's no compliment to find the worst apologetics easy to object to.
"If blog posts like this one are such a great "set-up" for your amazing logical prowess to "bubble pop" theists, you might not complain so loudly."
This reflects a difference in the way we think. I think everyone should be equipped with the best knowledge of their position, and I don't take joy in the fact that people have actually asked me why there are still monkeys or why I hate god if I don't believe god exists. I feel embarrassed for people who say silly things like that and I help theists with their apologetic if they are representing it poorly. I don't want people to reject their beliefs because they had poor arguments that were easy to refute. I want them to have the best arguments and to realise why they don't work.
"Thanks for the comments! "
Don't insult me in point 3 and then say thank you, I don't buy the insincere kindness of those who insult me.
Tjaart, if you don't care for the blog, you can move along, such is what I do when I find blogs I don't like. Your inability to do so reminds me of Queen Gertrude's famous line "the lady doth protest too much, methinks." Thanks for the advice, but I'll continue to post whatever I please here, even with your opprobrium, which matter surprisingly little to me. I'll also continue to take apart the common atheist arguments that I, unsolicited, receive from your fellows, the value of which I entirely stand by. Complaining about and insulting the blog isn't really a form of intellectual conversation, is it? I'd actually say this entire back and forth has been rather "embarrassing" for you. If you prefer other theist blogs to this one, feel free to take your comments there, they won't be sorely missed, as you've had absolutely nothing to add to the conversation except for complaints. If you have something intelligent to say about the argument under discussion in this post, I'll continue on with you. If not, I'll once again thank you for your comments (yes, even despite your order not to) and move along to others who have more than complaints to offer. Good day and May God bless you on what will hopefully be your journey from atheism to the truth, beauty, and goodness of living in the real world.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
DeleteHow do you get god to "bless" people? Isn't it funny how you can get god to do what you want or wish?
DeleteAnd truth is backed up by facts, evidence, and proof....
And what is the Jesus Creed? To prefer 'belief and faith" instead of living in a real world or logic, reason, and evidence and fact-base reality? Is it to yet make up another "version" of Jesus and god, because the other version is to desperately delusional and silly to promote or believe in anymore? Is the Jesus Creed to once again deny "FACTS"...and to become morally and intellectually bankrupt and polluted?
The religious would like to NOT have to deal with facts....just have faith, meaning believe in religious magic, and the garbage that comes out of someone's imagination, who creates a self serving god to feed their failed personality and deficient ego....because they cannot exist as just a human being following all the natural laws of human behavior and reality.
Religion is the stuff of narcissism, it aggrandizes the individual into thinking there is a god who exists just for them, that hey are special, and they can even get an imaginary god to do things for them, and give them stuff they did not earn, work for, or deserve.
Then comes the imaginary Jesus...who forgives people "in advance" for any sin they might commit. Just get your spiritual ticket punched and believe in Jesus. So, what is the result of being "forgiven in advance" because an imaginary man-god committed suicide by cop (Roman soldier)? Christians are over represented in prison populations because they have an escape hatch that they believe that no matter what horrible crime they commit, including Jeffrey Dahmer "eating" people in acts of cannibalism...all it takes is to say you "love Jesus" and wallah! You are forgiven all your sins and go right on up to heaven to "sit on the right hand side of Jesus."
What religion does...is make people nuts, delusional, and worse...ignore FACTS...turning them into hideous immoral monsters who would sacrifice other human beings for a belief and faith in imaginary gods. There is not a hair's bit of difference between the murderous vagaries of Islam and Christianity. What stopped Christianity was the Functional Atheist Founders of the US who REMOVED all religious laws from the American justice system and did not allow Christians to kill people any more who did not "believe." The American justice system also demands FACTS before faith ...before someone is found guilty.
Now can you just imagine a nutty Christian being tried in a court of law and put on trial for a crime they didn't commit...and a jury comes back and says..."we believe that the Chrsitiansis guilty." No we don't have any FACTS, in fact, we don't believe in FACTs...we just used our imagination and let god tell us if the Christian is guilty or not.
Of course, the Christian would be screaming bloody hell, demanding that the jury pay attention to the EVIDENCE AND FACTS of his innocense.
Christianity and religion is just simply stupid...promoted by con men, snake oil salesmen, stage hypnotists aka preachers, who tell people to close their eyes, don't think..and just believe in the imaginary gods...or go to hell to suffer for ever.
And the religious want me to believe in this garage and ignore FACTS why? Atheists are the only grown ups in this room.
Hi Judy,
DeleteThanks for taking the time to post a comment here. I'm not really going to be able to answer what is, in effect, a thousand ridiculous assertions that you've posted. If you want to give me your "five star" objection to Christianity (or Catholicism more particularly) I'll be glad to do my best to answer it.
I do thank you for making some arguments, though. Other comment leavers here have added nothing but complaints, which is rather weak IMHO.
I'll be watching for that "five star" objection. Thanks again for stopping by.
I noticed that you invented another god, and pretended that it's the god of the Bible, Nathan. Consider your sentence:
ReplyDelete"Evidence for God can be found in the fact that the universe has a beginning"
That beginning was found by science and is the CMB. Does this match the account of Genesis in the Bible? Obviously not. Thus you have the fallacy of creating a new god, making it so that it matches science and then claiming it's the god of the Jews and the god of the Christians.
Your next one is:
"and nothing can cause itself to begin to exist),"
is obviously contradicted by lack of causes in the Quantum realm and we know that the universe was quantum sized when it started from the singularity (a something).
Next:
" in the moral law"
We know that UN Human, Women's and Children's are better than the bronze age morality in the OT and NT. Thus this argument fails immediately. Christian morality is in the gutter compared to UN Human rights.
Then:
"in the beauty and goodness in the universe"
Argument from ignorance, dismissed. In case you're ignorance: Parasites, disease, starvation, thirst, meteor impacts, mass extinctions, etc.
Then:
"in the intelligibility of the universe"
Obviously falsified by the many religions which get even the number of gods wrong, let alone by science arriving relatively recently.
Then this word play:
"in the contingency of everything we see around us"
Just because you say it or write it, doesn't make it true. Argument from ignorance.
Next:
"in the history surrounding Jesus Christ"
Contradicted by Judaism which says that Jesus Christ was a failed messiah. Now if Jesus who is one of your gods, can't fulfil your god's own first holy book, then there's obviously something wrong, isn't there?
Then this argument from ignorance:
"in the universal testimony of mankind"
Falsified by the many cultures which have had no contact with either your invented god or the Abrahamic gods, or those cultures which were wiped out by your Abrahamic god's followers.
Then LOL:
"in miracles"
Obviously falsified by their rarity and by the fact that other religions have miracles too.
And even more falsified by the fact that they're not routine, which is demanded of a loving god.
All of those were actually arguments, often from ignorance. None of them was evidence.
As for the rest, consider, you've made the claim for a new god that you attach to the fictional, imaginary and incoherent Abrahamic god with their low morals. That means your god gets infected with being fictional, imaginary and incoherent too. It exists only in your mind and is fictional (only exists in your writings), and is incoherent as shown above.
So got any evidence for your god, apart from your imagination and fiction?
I usually refrain from responding to rants, especially rants generated by one atheist calling in other atheists to post rants, but in the off chance you are actually engaging the post instead of ranting on the bequest of Tjaart, I’ll give it a go:
Delete1) “I noticed that you invented another god, and pretended that it's the god of the Bible, Nathan. That beginning was found by science and is the CMB. Does this match the account of Genesis in the Bible? Obviously not. Thus you have the fallacy of creating a new god, making it so that it matches science and then claiming it's the god of the Jews and the god of the Christians.”
I’m simply critiquing atheism, not proving the God of the Bible. It would require further arguments to show the “God of the philosophers” and the “God of the Bible” are one and the same. Those arguments have been made many times elsewhere, but fall outside the scope of our present discourse.
2) “obviously contradicted by lack of causes in the Quantum realm and we know that the universe was quantum sized when it started from the singularity (a something”
Showing your knowledge of science matches your knowledge of religion and philosophy. Contemporary Big Bang Cosmology shows us that any possible universe that has an average Hubble expansion rate greater than zero (as our universe does) MUST have an absolute beginning (that is a beginning from nothing, not from something, including quantum fields). In fact, this basic rule, proven elegantly by the Borde-Vilenken-Guth (BVG) Theorem) would apply to any possible “pre-Big Bang” state of the universe and to any multiverse. However, we can know the universe must have an absolute beginning (i.e. from nothing) through philosophy as well as through science as demonstrated in this conversation: http://adoroergosum.blogspot.com/2014/12/why-infinite-regress-into-past-isnt.html
3) “We know that UN Human, Women's and Children's are better than the bronze age morality in the OT and NT. Thus this argument fails immediately. Christian morality is in the gutter compared to UN Human rights.”
If modern morality is better than the morality of the Bible there must be some standard by which you are comparing them. It won’t do, as an argument against Christianity, to say you subjectively like “UN Human, Women’s and Children’s” morality better - your subjective preferences are no more important than the subjective preferences of those who prefer Biblical morality. However, if you have an external standard to compare modern and Biblical morality against, you have objective morality. An objective moral law requires an objective moral law giver, this law giver is what men have traditionally called God. In other words, you either have subjective morality and no argument at all, or objective morality and God. Either way you’ve failed to provide support for atheism.
4) “Argument from ignorance, dismissed. In case you're ignorance: Parasites, disease, starvation, thirst, meteor impacts, mass extinctions, etc.”
This point is unintelligible. If you’d like to restate it, I’ll respond.
5) “Obviously falsified by the many religions which get even the number of gods wrong, let alone by science arriving relatively recently.”
How on Earth would the existence of many religions “obviously falsify” the intelligibility of the universe? Do you even understand what we are talking about? This point makes absolutely no sense.
6)”in the contingency of everything we see around us"
Just because you say it or write it, doesn't make it true. Argument from ignorance.”
I’m starting to think you think any argument you don’t understand is an “argument from ignorance.” Please look up “argument from ignorance” and “contingency” and provide a meaningful critique of my argument so I can respond to you.
7) “Contradicted by Judaism which says that Jesus Christ was a failed messiah. Now if Jesus who is one of your gods, can't fulfil your god's own first holy book, then there's obviously something wrong, isn't there?”
DeleteBecause Judaism is infallible? Your arguments are getting progressively worse.
8) T”hen this argument from ignorance:
"in the universal testimony of mankind"
Falsified by the many cultures which have had no contact with either your invented god or the Abrahamic gods, or those cultures which were wiped out by your Abrahamic god's followers.”
Again, look up “argument from ignorance.” You don’t know what that means.
9) “Then LOL:
"in miracles"
Obviously falsified by their rarity and by the fact that other religions have miracles too.”
So miracles are “obviously falsified” because “other religions” have miracles? Okay. Again, we are only looking at the existence of God (or gods) in this post, other arguments would lead us to either accept or reject the claim that this God is the God who reveals Himself in the history of the Jewish people and later in the person of Jesus Christ. You’re getting ahead of the argument here.
10) “And even more falsified by the fact that they're not routine, which is demanded of a loving god.”
Why would a “loving god (sic)” be under the “demand” to “routinely” perform miracles? I see no such command. Miracles, by definition, are not “routine”. Besides, even ONE miracle is enough to refute atheism. They need not be common to accomplish the task at hand.
11) “All of those were actually arguments, often from ignorance. None of them was evidence.
As for the rest, consider, you've made the claim for a new god that you attach to the fictional, imaginary and incoherent Abrahamic god with their low morals. That means your god gets infected with being fictional, imaginary and incoherent too. It exists only in your mind and is fictional (only exists in your writings), and is incoherent as shown above.
So got any evidence for your god, apart from your imagination and fiction?”
I think your main problem with understanding theism, which is all this post is about, not about the God of the Bible, just theism, is your confusion surrounding what you call “arguments from ignorance.” An argument from ignorance is one that goes like this:
We don’t know why the sun rises (a claim of ignorance)
Therefore God must do it.
Arguing from contingency, for example, to an necessary being is not arguing from something we don’t know about the world (ignorance) but from something we do know about the world (evidence). An argument from ignorance is not an argument you happen to not be able to understand.
Thanks for taking the time to write a comment here. I appreciate it.
And I point out here the definition of atheism yet again:
ReplyDeleteAtheism the absence of theism.
It's not a position, it doesn't require evidence, it's simply lack or absence of theism.
The definition of atheism used here, on this post, is the classical philosophical position, held by Nietzsche, Sartre, and even Dawkins, Hitchens et al., that God does not exist. Atheism, as it is being used here, is a positive claim about the universe we live in - that it is one in which there is no God. You may use the term differently, but here we are examining atheism under the classical definition. You'll note, any claim can be reworded the way you've done with atheism.
DeleteTheism is just the lack of belief in an uncaused universe. It's not a position, it doesn't require evidence, it's simply the lack or absence of materialism (or naturalism, etc).
Such "rewording" is possible because, logically, affirming anything is identical to denying its contradictory. Thus, "atheism is the absence of theism" is, logically, identical to "atheism is the affirmation of claim that there is no God." Tis but semantics and doesn't get you off the hook for holding a position that has no evidence to support it.
Leaving that logical point aside, I'll reiterate that atheism is being used in it's classical sense, the sense Sartre or Epicurus would have recognized.
If by atheism you make no claim about God's objective existence and only make a claim about your subjective belief, then I have no argument with you. I'm sure you don't believe.
It's quite easy to demonstrate that "God" is a human invention.
DeleteAnd so, can't very well simultaneously be a fiction and real at the same time. Hence, by Occam's razor, it's not real.
Hi Andreas,
DeleteFirst of all, thanks for stopping by to leave a comment here.
To your argument, a few points. First, the argument that something can't be both fictional and real at the same time wouldn't be an application of Occam's Razor, but of the Law of Noncontradiction. Second, just asserting that God is a human invention isn't an argument at all. Quod gratis asseritur gratis negatur as the ancients would say. Basically, your comment is no different, and no more effective, than the following “argument”,
It’s quite easy to demonstrate that “atheism” is a human invention.
And so, can’t very well simultaneously be a fiction and real at the same time.
Hence, by the Law of Noncontradiction, it’s not real.
I trust you see why this just doesn’t work.
Thanks again for taking the time to comment.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteAngela, If you'd like to have a charitable discussion about atheism, I'm more than happy to do so. If you'd rather post snarky comments, I'm more than happy to delete them. Again, in the post above, I'm using the definition of atheism that asserts "there is no God/gods" not one that simply says "I personally don't happen to believe in a God/gods". You may prefer an alternate definition, but such simply isn't what I'm arguing against above. The word atheism comes into English (via French) from the Greek atheos which literally means "without (a-) God (theos)" and historically meant the opposite position of the theism. Just as theism asserts the existence of God, historically, atheism asserts the non-existence of God. When Nietzsche famously wrote,
Delete"Do we not hear anything yet of the noise of the gravediggers who are burying God? Do we not smell anything yet of God's decomposition? Gods too decompose. God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him."
He wasn't simply saying "I lack a belief in God" he was asserting the non-existence of God.
Likewise, when Sartre said, "That God does not exist, I cannot deny" he too was making a claim about the world.
Epicurus' famous argument argument against God also seeks not to prove his personal lack of belief, but that God actually doesn't exist.
Dawkins, in ch 4 of The God Delusion, also claims more than you are willing to, "Why there almost certainly is no God". Here, of course, we see a bit of a loophole, with Dawkins only being "almost certain" that there "is no God" nevertheless he isn't merely talking about his subjective belief/ lack of belief rather he is talking about the existence or non-existence of God.
All of these are claims about the objective world. These men are operating under the definition that I am using (and that matches the literal meaning of the word) that atheism is the assertion that there is no God, that it is the opposite of theism.
Now, I certainly admit that another definition is increasingly popular with atheists, the definition that atheism is merely the lack of belief in God. As I pointed out above, this, logically, is the same as asserting God doesn't exist, unless the atheist is merely speaking of their subjective (lack of) belief without also asserting that their (lack of) belief matches up with reality. If no such assertion is made, as I said above, then I have no argument with you. If however this assertion is made, then we can discuss whether or not your (lack of) belief matches the real world or not.
If you'd like to have a charitable conversation about this, then let's please continue. If not, let's please not. Thanks.
Dictionary.com defines atheist as follows:
Deletenoun
1.
a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.
Which is precisely how I'm using the term. Whether you happen to have a "pet" definition to evade having to have evidence to support your worldview is really beside the point.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/atheist
You can't get good definitions in dictionaries.
Delete"The term “atheist” describes a person who does not believe that God or a divine being exists. "
http://www.iep.utm.edu/atheism/
Since you are now resorting to deleting comments, I will excuse myself from this discussion. If you want to write about atheists without expecting responses I suggest you disable comments entirely.
ReplyDeleteAs a reminder to all who happen to post here, any and all ad hominem attacks (whether directed at me or any commenter) will be immediately deleted. As will any comments that contain profanity. The comments on this blog are meant to be a forum for intelligent (and civil) discussion. If anyone finds themselves unable to meet these minimum requirements, please don't waste your time posting here. May God bless all those who read here.
ReplyDeleteArguments are not evidence. You have at least 20 arguments from ignorance then off the top of your head.
ReplyDeleteAs I mentioned to another commenter above, an "argument from ignorance" (argumentum ad ignorantiam) is an argument from something we don't know about the universe to a conclusion, these are always fallacious. The arguments I mentioned above are all from things we DO know about the universe, thus they are arguments from evidence (and valid), not arguments from ignorance (and invalid). This simple example might help clarify the difference for you,
DeleteHere's an Invalid Argument from Ignorance:
I don't know why an apple falls to the ground. (appeal to ignorance)
Anything I don't have an explanation for is caused by God
Therefore God must exists.
Here is an example of an argument from evidence:
An objective moral law exists (appeal to evidence, not ignorance)
Any objective law must have a law-giver
Therefore an objective moral law-giver must exist (men commonly call this moral law-giver "God").
Now, you may or may not think there is an objective moral law (and we could argue about that), but in no way is this second syllogism arguing from ignorance.
You'll note replying thus:
An objective moral law exists
We don't know why, but science will someday tell us (appeal to ignorance)
Therefore, we can't conclude God exists
IS an "argument from ignorance" (this would be a "science of the gaps" argument that would be just as fallacious as "God of the gaps" arguments sometimes made by theists).
You could, of course, replace the evidence from the moral law with any other evidence for God in these examples. I just choose one at random.
To learn more about logic (which has a lot more to it than just the popular fallacies you come across online) I highly recommend "Socratic Logic" by Dr. Peter Kreeft. It is a textbook (and thus can be rather dry), but it has very precise explanations of many topics and includes many, many "problems" and "exercises" to work through. IMHO, EVERYONE should study logic to avoid the kind of sloppy thinking that can lead to very erroneous positions.
Thanks for stopping by to comment! Have a great day.
You seem to misunderstand that arguments aren't evidence. They merely rearrange the premises, like jokes.
DeleteSo got any evidence for your god? Evidently not as you use tired and debunked arguments and philosophers who themselves have been debunked publicly.
Angela, I highly recommend checking out either a "logic 101" course or purchasing "Socratic Logic" by Dr Peter Kreeft from Amazon. An argument provides "evidence" when it validly demonstrates its conclusion. I'll consider writing a "primer on philosophy, reason, and logic" post at some future date here for you. Thanks for reading! God bless.
ReplyDeleteNB: "An argument provides "evidence" when it validly demonstrates its conclusion."
ReplyDeleteFalse it doesn't. It merely re-arranges it's premises and can't be used to discover. It's like a joke.
It's amazing to me that you can't see this. It means you're deceiving. Let me know because if you ban me, that means I'm right.