Evidentialism "Proves" Atheists Wrong.

[brenn]

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

I'll guess...because they are believed to be animals living on earth and subject to the same natural laws as anything else on earth? That would be true of what most believers think they are, but would not necessarily hold true with a god.

On the other hand, I guess that's more about liklihood of existing and, in that case, gods seem a lot less likely than undiscovered mammals.

 

[Beerina]

This was sent to me by someone on another list as something to convince me that God exists. It did not.



http://www.philosophynow.org/issue78/78antony.htm

Does it convince anyone here?

You should have quoted the next two sentences as well!

But what of the New Atheists’ atheism – their belief that there is no god or other divine reality? According to evidentialism, that belief (with whatever degree of confidence it is held) also requires evidence in order to be rational.

And there's the fail. I no more require evidence that there is not a finite spaghetti monster than I do a mountain god from the Middle East.

It is the duty of the claimant -- those saying a god exists -- to justify it.

 

[Robin]

But maybe I didn't explain that point clearly enough.

"It's possible that this program runs on this computer" or even "it's possible to run this program on this computer" does not mean "this program actually runs on this computer". That latter part is still unknown.

Which means that you are still not accepting the second definition and insisting that it can only have your usage. Because the second definition means that it does run on Windows.

It's actually the same difference as between "it's possible that God exists" and "God actually exists" in my example, so whether it's a different meaning or not, actually doesn't change anything. The _possibility_ of existence or of some program running does not translate in a certitude of it existing or respectively running. Even if you take the possibility for true or even proven, the fact that it actually exists or respectively runs is still unknown. That's the "unknown" I was talking about.

Which again means that you are not accepting of the second definition.

Under the second definition possibility converts to certitude under certain conditions and this is well established.

If I say "possibly there exists a number which is a counter example to the Goldbach conjecture" then under the definition I am talking about this translates into "there exists a number which is a counter example to the Goldbach conjecture". (Due to the fact that the Goldbach conjecture, if true, would be true in any possible world)

You may not accept that, but it is a widely accepted usage.

 

[brenn]

And there's the fail. I no more require evidence that there is not a finite spaghetti monster than I do a mountain god from the Middle East.

It is the duty of the claimant -- those saying a god exists -- to justify it.

I'm new here, but I keep seeing "New Atheists" in quotes and capitalized. Since I can't imagine a "new" version of not believing in something simply because there is no reason to believe in it, I have to assume these "New Atheists" have an idea that is somehow different from mere atheism.

Could that be where this whole discussion breaks down? Is it that these new atheists have decided it would be bold, rather than just silly, to express atheism as a positive claim and, therefore, one that could require proof? While that doesn't change what "atheism" is in reality, maybe this is just an idiot vs. lesser-idiot issue and not one that even concerns actual atheism?

 

[Mashuna]

I'm new here, but I keep seeing "New Atheists" in quotes and capitalized. Since I can't imagine a "new" version of not believing in something simply because there is no reason to believe in it, I have to assume these "New Atheists" have an idea that is somehow different from mere atheism.

Could that be where this whole discussion breaks down? Is it that these new atheists have decided it would be bold, rather than just silly, to express atheism as a positive claim and, therefore, one that could require proof? While that doesn't change what "atheism" is in reality, maybe this is just an idiot vs. lesser-idiot issue and not one that even concerns actual atheism?

When I've seen it used, it's been a label applied to atheists who have become more vocal about their. People like Richard Dawkins, Dan Dennett, Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris.

As far as I've read, none of these people have claimed to be strong atheists (i.e., atheism as a positive claim). I know that Dawkins, for example, admits the possibility of a God, but equates the likelihood with any other imaginary being, Santa, fairies, FSM etc.

 

[HansMustermann]

Which means that you are still not accepting the second definition and insisting that it can only have your usage. Because the second definition means that it does run on Windows.

Only via another equivocation, this time about "does run", which at least for software it can also be used to mean possibility, rather than "runs right now."

Which again means that you are not accepting of the second definition.

I'm not sure what that would be. Perhaps actually posting a definition would help. Before knowing if I accept such a definition or not, I should at least be able to first see what I'm accepting.

Under the second definition possibility converts to certitude under certain conditions and this is well established.

I still haven't seen such a definition, and your example is based on an equivocation of another term rather than that. So, really, go ahead and support that. You'll excuse me, I hope, if I don't simply take your word that something is well established.

If I say "possibly there exists a number which is a counter example to the Goldbach conjecture" then under the definition I am talking about this translates into "there exists a number which is a counter example to the Goldbach conjecture". (Due to the fact that the Goldbach conjecture, if true, would be true in any possible world)

Nope. Not only that's not equivalent, but that's frankly nonsense.

You may not accept that, but it is a widely accepted usage.

Well, again, before going into speculation about what I accept or not, it would be more useful to make a good logic case about it.

 

[brenn]

When I've seen it used, it's been a label applied to atheists who have become more vocal about their. People like Richard Dawkins, Dan Dennett, Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris.

As far as I've read, none of these people have claimed to be strong atheists (i.e., atheism as a positive claim). I know that Dawkins, for example, admits the possibility of a God, but equates the likelihood with any other imaginary being, Santa, fairies, FSM etc.

So, then, the argument is that "evidentilism disproves atheism, by redefining atheism as a positive belief that can be disproven?" Seems like kind of a silly argument.

Obviously, it also equally disproves those who don't believe in "santa, fairies, FSM, etc.," leading to a fairly absurd result that failing to believe in anything that doesn't exist is a false belief. I'm not sure that's worth debating.

 

[Robin]

Only via another equivocation, this time about "does run", which at least for software it can also be used to mean possibility, rather than "runs right now."

??? Do you mean that "does run" might mean "I don't know if it runs or not". I don't understand that at all. That is the second time you have accused me of equivocation and it hasn't made sense either time.

I'm not sure what that would be. Perhaps actually posting a definition would help.

Let me first find out that you genuinely don't know what I mean.

If someone said "Is it possible to port this app to Android", would you answer "yes" if you were unsure whether or not it could be ported to Android?

 

[HansMustermann]

"Runs" for software has several meanings. One of them is, as in, "the code is executing right now", and the other means "it is possible to run it on hardware/OS/whatever X". One is an action, the other a possibility.

So really, you haven't been offering any insight in more senses of "possible", but in more senses of "to run". It's only equivalent to possibility because a sense of "to run" is just possibility.

And since "to exist" doesn't have such a sense, the relevance of all that to the argument I was making about the possibility of God _existing_ is exactly zero.

Let me first find out that you genuinely don't know what I mean.

If someone said "Is it possible to port this app to Android", would you answer "yes" if you were unsure whether or not it could be ported to Android?

There you're just saying that "possible" is basically equivalent to "can be", which was never disputed. I.e., it's flat out irrelevant. You're not saying that it's equivalent to "IS ported" which would be relevant to the point I was _actually_ making.