Evidentialism "Proves" Atheists Wrong.

[hgc]

So saying there is no Big foot would require evidence?
and what is with Dragons, what evidence do we have they don't exist?

it is total nonsense, it is religious whining ala " you cant disprove god"
and he knows it, thats why he attempts to shift the burden of proof.

He's invented another concept -- strong evidence vs weak evidence. So-called strong evidence is apparently enough to convince anyone, while weak evidence are the little things, none of which on their own make the case, but taken altogether can't be discounted.

So, it works like this:
1. "New atheists" say God doesn't exist, as a positive statement
2. They do this because there is no "strong" evidence for divine reality
3. But by that logic, then they would also claim that string theory is false
4. There is an accumulation of weak evidences for divine reality, such as "religious experience, the fine-tuning of physical laws and constants, the apparent contingency of the universe, etc."
5. So the claim of divine reality is on the same footing as other things for which there is no "strong" evidence
...
n. Profit!

Yes, you got it right there folks, in point 4: Religious experience is counted as evidence. But we don't have even "weak" evidence for dragons.

It's funny though. What's missing from this stream of drivel? Could it be something about contradictory evidence? Something about how religious experience is directly contradictory to physical reality?

 

[I Am The Scum]

So saying there is no Big foot would require evidence?
and what is with Dragons, what evidence do we have they don't exist?

Yes, these claims require evidence to be justified.

To be clear, when I say "evidence," I am not speaking strictly of empiricism. Logical proof is a form of evidence.

So what evidence do we have that there is no Bigfoot? Using a logical argument (modus tollens) we can conclude that there is no Bigfoot because of our lack of evidence in favor of Bigfoot. It works like this:

If Bigfoot existed, we would have conclusive evidence that he did.
We do not have this evidence.
Therefore, Bigfoot does not exist.

Here's a Youtube video I made a while back that goes into a lot more detail on it:



If you are going to argue that we do not require evidence to reach certain conclusions, then you are going to have to explain to me how you differentiate between claims that require evidence, and those that do not. If you want to argue that certain claims are "negative claims," then you can do that, but such a distinction is pure fantasy, and I am more than willing to illustrate that point.

 

[DC]

Yes, these claims require evidence to be justified.

To be clear, when I say "evidence," I am not speaking strictly of empiricism. Logical proof is a form of evidence.

So what evidence do we have that there is no Bigfoot? Using a logical argument (modus tollens) we can conclude that there is no Bigfoot because of our lack of evidence in favor of Bigfoot. It works like this:

If Bigfoot existed, we would have conclusive evidence that he did.
We do not have this evidence.
Therefore, Bigfoot does not exist.

Here's a Youtube video I made a while back that goes into a lot more detail on it:



If you are going to argue that we do not require evidence to reach certain conclusions, then you are going to have to explain to me how you differentiate between claims that require evidence, and those that do not. If you want to argue that certain claims are "negative claims," then you can do that, but such a distinction is pure fantasy, and I am more than willing to illustrate that point.

Chsristianity claims there is a dollar in your desk, their bible provides many stories of how this dollar came there. All those stories got proven wrong, and no new stories are provided, it is save to assume there is no dollar in your desk.

 

[I Am The Scum]

Chsristianity claims there is a dollar in your desk, their bible provides many stories of how this dollar came there. All those stories got proven wrong, and no new stories are provided, it is save to assume there is no dollar in your desk.

You're not making a whole lot of sense.

 

[DC]

You're not making a whole lot of sense.

its a response to your video that uses the dollar analogy.
i used that analogy on the christian god.

i dont know where you draw the line, because for big foot you said the absence of evidence is evidence of absence.
a creature like god should be over that line even more. as he is unrealistic, nothing the like has ever been seen or proven.
while Big foot itself doesn't sound extremely unrealistic, even unicorns sound a lot more realistic than a god.

 

[phantomb]

I think the important distinction is that most atheists, even the ones who believe there are no gods, don't claim to know that there are no gods. Most theists, on the other hand, do make that jump to a claim of knowledge.

 

[I Am The Scum]

its a response to your video that uses the dollar analogy.
i used that analogy on the christian god.

i dont know where you draw the line, because for big foot you said the absence of evidence is evidence of absence.
a creature like god should be over that line even more. as he is unrealistic, nothing the like has ever been seen or proven.
while Big foot itself doesn't sound extremely unrealistic, even unicorns sound a lot more realistic than a god.

It is simply a matter of what premises can be justified. Here, I'll use the same argument several times, changing only the object in question.

1. If the dollar in my hand exists, we would have evidence of it.
2. We do not have evidence of it.
C. Therefore, the dollar in my hand does not exist.

This argument is valid (modus tollens), and it is also sound (the premises supporting the conclusion are true). Premise 1 works because it is plainly obvious that if there is a dollar in my presented hand, you would see it. Dollar bills aren't invisible.

Now, let's change the object.

1. If the dollar in my desk drawer exists, we would have evidence of it.
2. We do not have evidence of it.
C. Therefore, the dollar in my desk drawer does not exist.

This argument fails, but why? It's because premise 1 is unjustified. Since you can't see my desk drawer, and have no access to it, you can't say whether or not there is a dollar bill present there, with any degree of certainty. You do lack evidence that there is a dollar there, but that doesn't mean there are no dollar bills present.

Let's change the object again.

1. If Bigfoot exists, we would have evidence of it.
2. We do not have evidence of it.
C. Therefore, Bigfoot does not exist.

I would argue that this is also a sound argument, because premise 1 is true. However, I'm not going to get involved in a Bigfoot discussion here.

Finally, one last change of the object.

1. If a god exists, we would have evidence of it.
2. We do not have evidence of it.
C. Therefore, a god does not exist.

This one is tricky, due to all the many definitions of "god." If the god in question is one that always grants prayers, then that god most certainly does not exist, and I am justified in stating this due to the lack of answered prayers. However, if "god" is watered down to a minimum of properties, such as a deistic god, then this argument doesn't work. According to that belief, it makes perfect sense that God can be both existent and undetected.

The common thread here is our first premise. Would the existence of an object necessitate our knowledge of its existence? If it would, and you can justify that stance and demonstrate our lack of knowledge, then you are "proving a negative."

 

[DC]

It is simply a matter of what premises can be justified. Here, I'll use the same argument several times, changing only the object in question.

1. If the dollar in my hand exists, we would have evidence of it.
2. We do not have evidence of it.
C. Therefore, the dollar in my hand does not exist.

This argument is valid (modus tollens), and it is also sound (the premises supporting the conclusion are true). Premise 1 works because it is plainly obvious that if there is a dollar in my presented hand, you would see it. Dollar bills aren't invisible.

Now, let's change the object.

1. If the dollar in my desk drawer exists, we would have evidence of it.
2. We do not have evidence of it.
C. Therefore, the dollar in my desk drawer does not exist.

This argument fails, but why? It's because premise 1 is unjustified. Since you can't see my desk drawer, and have no access to it, you can't say whether or not there is a dollar bill present there, with any degree of certainty. You do lack evidence that there is a dollar there, but that doesn't mean there are no dollar bills present.

Let's change the object again.

1. If Bigfoot exists, we would have evidence of it.
2. We do not have evidence of it.
C. Therefore, Bigfoot does not exist.

I would argue that this is also a sound argument, because premise 1 is true. However, I'm not going to get involved in a Bigfoot discussion here.

Finally, one last change of the object.

1. If a god exists, we would have evidence of it.
2. We do not have evidence of it.
C. Therefore, a god does not exist.

This one is tricky, due to all the many definitions of "god." If the god in question is one that always grants prayers, then that god most certainly does not exist, and I am justified in stating this due to the lack of answered prayers. However, if "god" is watered down to a minimum of properties, such as a deistic god, then this argument doesn't work. According to that belief, it makes perfect sense that God can be both existent and undetected.

The common thread here is our first premise. Would the existence of an object necessitate our knowledge of its existence? If it would, and you can justify that stance and demonstrate our lack of knowledge, then you are "proving a negative."

why doesn't that count for Big Foot and Yeti?

 

[I Am The Scum]

why doesn't that count for Big Foot and Yeti?

I would say it does apply. I'm not going to give you a list of all the conceivable objects known to man, and add a check mark to those whose existence would entail evidence.

I think I was very clear with my analogy of the dollar in my hand versus the dollar in my desk drawer. Apply it to other objects. You'll have to figure this stuff out on your own.

 

[Robin]

I would say it does apply. I'm not going to give you a list of all the conceivable objects known to man, and add a check mark to those whose existence would entail evidence.

I think I was very clear with my analogy of the dollar in my hand versus the dollar in my desk drawer. Apply it to other objects. You'll have to figure this stuff out on your own.

I think that what he is asking is, why couldn't Big Foot and Yeti exist undetected?

 

[Third Eye Open]

If something can't be detected then who cares if it exists or not.

 

[HansMustermann]

But merely being possible doesn't really count. The more important point is that you can only follow an "if X then Y" if X is known to be true. Both false and unknown make it useless.

Essentially, for all practical purposes, "unknown" is equivalent to "false". Not strictly speaking equivalent, but you can't base anything on an unknown either.

That's really where arguments of the kind "God could exist" fail. If they remained at the point of "God could exist", they'd actually be ok. Sure, he could exist, and so could the FSM, IPU, Odin or my invisible cat. The epic fail is when that is used as basically somehow "possible" became "true". E.g., as in, "therefore you should accept him in your life." Umm, no, there is no "therefore" until the precondition is supported as true.

Really, none of us have a problem with "possible". You don't really have to explain that. Skepticism or adjusting your mental model to available support doesn't mean denying something in the face of evidence or anything. We're perfectly ready to accept even dowsing, clairvoyance, reincarnation, bigfoot or, yes, Jesus as something that's theoretically imaginably possible. We're just not making that mental leap of faith from "possible" to using it as "true" in an inference.

The key is that we're ready to accept anything as "true" only after it's been supported. Otherwise just "possible" is wholly uninteresting. It's just one of the mutually exclusive millions of things that are possible and nobody has to take any of them seriously until supported.

 

[hgc]

If something can't be detected then who cares if it exists or not.

Case closed.

 

[DC]

I would say it does apply. I'm not going to give you a list of all the conceivable objects known to man, and add a check mark to those whose existence would entail evidence.

I think I was very clear with my analogy of the dollar in my hand versus the dollar in my desk drawer. Apply it to other objects. You'll have to figure this stuff out on your own.

so god gets a special role in this logic? Why?

 

[Robin]

But merely being possible doesn't really count. The more important point is that you can only follow an "if X then Y" if X is known to be true. Both false and unknown make it useless.

Essentially, for all practical purposes, "unknown" is equivalent to "false". Not strictly speaking equivalent, but you can't base anything on an unknown either.

That's really where arguments of the kind "God could exist" fail. If they remained at the point of "God could exist", they'd actually be ok. Sure, he could exist, and so could the FSM, IPU, Odin or my invisible cat. The epic fail is when that is used as basically somehow "possible" became "true". E.g., as in, "therefore you should accept him in your life." Umm, no, there is no "therefore" until the precondition is supported as true.

Really, none of us have a problem with "possible". You don't really have to explain that. Skepticism or adjusting your mental model to available support doesn't mean denying something in the face of evidence or anything. We're perfectly ready to accept even dowsing, clairvoyance, reincarnation, bigfoot or, yes, Jesus as something that's theoretically imaginably possible. We're just not making that mental leap of faith from "possible" to using it as "true" in an inference.

The key is that we're ready to accept anything as "true" only after it's been supported. Otherwise just "possible" is wholly uninteresting. It's just one of the mutually exclusive millions of things that are possible and nobody has to take any of them seriously until supported.

But of course you have to be careful what you mean by "possible" because there is a whole branch of wibbling which holds that if God is possible then God necessarily exists.

 

[HansMustermann]

Also, just to address the dollar in the drawer point. I feel that it's been best explained by Vince Ebert, a physicist turned comedian: "The Scientific Method is, simply put, just a way to test suppositions. If I supposed for example 'there might be beer in the fridge' and go look in the fridge, I'm already doing science. Big difference from Theology. There they don't usually test suppositions. If I just assume 'There is beer in the fridge' then I'm a theologian. If I go look, I'm a scientist. And if I go look, find nothing inside, and still insist that there's beer in the fridge, that's esoteric."

Essentially that you just could possibly have a dollar in the drawer doesn't count for anything. You can't, for example, plan to buy the bus ticket to an important exam or job interview with a dollar that may not be there. Or rather it would be stupid to.

You can only make (non-retarded) plans for or based on that dollar if you have evidence that it's actually there. Otherwise the sane approach is to assume that it's not.

In other words, I don't know if I'm going to inherit a million dollars next month. I also don't know that I won't. But the safe and sane assumption is to act based on the assumption that I won't. I don't go buy a Ferrari based on just that it's not disproven that I could possibly inherit a million to pay for the car with.

And at any rate, if you go look and see if there's actually a dollar, then you're a scientist or a skeptic. Or what the quoted text in the OP calls "evidentist". If you just assume that there's a dollar there, even though you don't have the faintest reason to, you're doing theology. And it's stupid. And if you follow inferences like "if I had an extra dollar, then..." without first having some evidence that that extra dollar is actually real, then you have a problem with logic.

 

[HansMustermann]

But of course you have to be careful what you mean by "possible" because there is a whole branch of wibbling which holds that if God is possible then God necessarily exists.

Which is exactly the part I called an epic fail in the text you quoted, no?

But, yes, that's the real problem with apologies that start from "it's possible" or "it's not been disproven". But personally I'd rather point out the logic problem than start calling things impossible just to oppose broken logic with an opposite and equally broken logic.

 

[Robin]

The trouble is that they define God as non-contingent - ie would exist in any possible world. So either God exists in all possible worlds or in no possible world.

So, if you accept the definition it is a bit like saying "It is possible that there is a counter example to the Goldbach conjecture". But if it were possible that there were such a counter example then the Goldbach conjecture would be false.

So saying "it is possible that there is a counter example to the Goldbach conjecture" is technically the same as saying "the Goldbach conjecture is false".

So I would say that if God is defined as non-contingent then I am unable to determine if it is possible or not.

 

[Robin]

If something can't be detected then who cares if it exists or not.

We would care if it were something that we might be able to detect in the future - like an asteroid on collision course with Earth.

 

[marplots]

The problem isn't so much that God exists or doesn't exist, but what are the properties of this God thing you are talking about?

If you want to propose a God so invisible and so disconnected from my concept of the world that He has no impact whatsoever, then the argument might hold. But that's not what is on offer. People use the word "God" and they use it with baggage attached. It's that baggage which is testable. So, even as an atheist, I would have to agree that someone who kept God entirely conceptual, did indeed, have a real concept and if I used their definition, I would have to say that their spin did exist in the same sense that some esoteric mathematics exists. But this isn't what they mean at all.

To say I am an atheist is to say I do not agree with any of the evidences presented for the Gods I have heard claims about. And I'll go further to say it isn't a rational belief at all. It is pre-rational, arational. I am not denying all Gods that may be imagined, just the ones I've heard described. I am making a comment about myself and how I perceive the world around me. The only evidence I need to make a truthful comment is introspection. It is the same way I would answer the question, "Do you like potatoes?" There is no rational argument to be made here, no evidence to present and Hume is still dead.