Evidentialism "Proves" Atheists Wrong.

[Robin]

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?

Yes, that is exactly right and this is the reason why the burden of proof cannot be on atheists.

Because what exactly would we be proving doesn't exist?

Say I came up with a brilliant argument for the non-existence of God, the theist can simply say "Oh, well I don't believe in that sort of a God".

 

[Lord Emsworth]

Yes, that is exactly right and this is the reason why the burden of proof cannot be on atheists.

Because what exactly would we be proving doesn't exist?

Say I came up with a brilliant argument for the non-existence of God, the theist can simply say "Oh, well I don't believe in that sort of a God".

But what have other people, in this case a theist, got to do with it? You have got to buy into your arguments/definitions/premises/etc. (And besides, I don't think you would get far, if you always waited for the 'other side' to sanction your terms.)

 

[HansMustermann]

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.

Umm, no.

For a start there is a reason why the Goldbach conjecture is still called a conjecture and not a theorem. It's unproven.So, yes, "it is possible that there is a counter example to the Goldbach conjecture" is actually included in its very name. Holding that idea just means you understand basic maths lexicon, not that you're conceding something to wooists.

Why we still don't discard it is that basically we empirically know it to be true at least for a given domain, which really includes numbers larger than anything you'll ever use. So there is some evidence behind it.

Which really isn't at all similar to God.

Also, more importantly, "an exception could exist" is not the same as an "an exception exists." That's an important thing. The latter not only isn't the same as the former, but whoever wants to claim that automatically gets the burden of proof. Because it's a statement of the kind "X exists". It may seem counter-intuitive for maths, but a positive claim is still a positive claim: if anyone claims to know an exception, they get to show it.

Also, yes, _because_ it's not fully proven, you don't get to apply it on the general case and base anything else on it. Here too "unknown" doesn't mean "true".

But really, at least the first two paragraphs I wrote are not unlike what we routinely do in science. Sure, a counter-example could be found for Newtonian gravity, and actually it has. That's why we have GR. Sure, a counter-example could be found for classic electromagnetism, and blimey, that's why we got QM. We're actually quite open to the possibility of being wrong, and we adjust our model to available evidence.

It's nothing like believing something _without_ evidence.

As for how they define God, that's their problem. They still get to present evidence. I'm quite used to all sorts of such arguments and really, they don't impress me much as they are. They all have bigger logic problems than the theoretical possibility of God existing, so it's not very hard to just address those. I still don't see why I should oppose their broken logic with an opposite and equally broken piece of logic.

 

[marplots]

But what have other people, in this case a theist, got to do with it? You have got to buy into your arguments/definitions/premises/etc. (And besides, I don't think you would get far, if you always waited for the 'other side' to sanction your terms.)

Because the term atheist doesn't have any meaning in a world without theists. If I were to assert, for instance, that golmandu do not exist and neither of us has any meaning for the term golmandu, then we have created a wee bit of nonsense, a small absurdity. There is nothing to discuss.

On the other hand, if you have some idea what the term means, we can argue whether there is evidence for it being an actual thing or just the idea of a thing. So, yes, it does depend on the assertions of another person, because, if I am an actual atheist, I have no God available to dismiss other than those which have been previously described to me.

For instance, suppose I asserted to a theist that I have a God in mind which is a rocky body orbiting too far out to view but which has (although unmeasurable with any current technology) an effect on all that we do and this is the God I deny when I claim the title of atheist. Surely, they would be an atheist in this light as well since they do not believe in this God-rock either.

The difference between our stances, and the difference that requires a word, is that I do not believe in the God they would describe, not this God-rock thing -- we agree there is no God-rock.

What makes the term general is that I do not believe in any God that has been described to me so far. If I did, I would be in another category -- Hindu, Muslim or something else. There is also the possibility that I might one day come across a God for which I feel I have good evidence. On that day I will no longer be an atheist. I consider this intellectual honesty. The ability to accept that my status may change. I do not find this trait in most of the religious people I talk to.

 

[Robin]

But what have other people, in this case a theist, got to do with it? You have got to buy into your arguments/definitions/premises/etc. (And besides, I don't think you would get far, if you always waited for the 'other side' to sanction your terms.)

But what would be the point of me making up my own imaginary being in order to not believe in it?

 

[Aepervius]

But what would be the point of me making up my own imaginary being in order to not believe in it?

maybe it would help in building an improbability engine ?

 

[Robin]

Umm, no.

Umm yes

For a start there is a reason why the Goldbach conjecture is still called a conjecture and not a theorem.

Well duh. That is the whole point of using it as an example.

It's unproven.So, yes, "it is possible that there is a counter example to the Goldbach conjecture" is actually included in its very name.

Again, no. If the Goldbach conjecture is true then there is no possibility of ever finding a counter example.

So we don't really know if it is possible

Also, more importantly, "an exception could exist" is not the same as an "an exception exists." That's an important thing. The latter not only isn't the same as the former, but whoever wants to claim that automatically gets the burden of proof.

Again you are missing the point in that it all depends upon what you mean by "possible".

If there are two boxes and at random, without our seeing, a million dollars is placed in one of the boxes and both are sealed up. Informally we might say "It is possible that there is a million dollars in box A.

That is "possible" as a statement about lack of knowledge (the way you are using it).

But either it is in box A or it isn't. If there is no million dollars in box A then it is not possible that there is a million dollars in box A. That is a statement about what is actually possible in the real world. And that is just two of the possible meanings.

But you appear to think that the first meaning is the only one it has.

It's nothing like believing something _without_ evidence.

I never even remotely implied that it it was. You are steaming full ahead without even trying to understand what I am saying and therefore not actually addressing what I am saying.

 

[Robin]

maybe it would help in building an improbability engine ?

That might be cancelled out by my electric monk.

 

[Mashuna]

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.

I could have a dollar in my desk, but it's no use to me unless I go to a place where it's usable currency. So I'm not even going to bother thinking about it any more.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

But what would be the point of me making up my own imaginary being in order to not believe in it?

There don't has to be a point. Just as there don't has to be a point in making up fictional or mythological creatures, persons and the likes.

And it won't be your "own imaginary being" either. As I said, you need to be convinced about your terms, and if that involves looking at what you feel is a, or the, commonly understood concept of God, so be it. It is just not true, but I am sure you know, that individual or smaller groups of theists are the sole arbiters of what is and what is not a God. And you don't have to cater to any kind of whim.

 

[HansMustermann]

Dunno, Robin, then maybe you could start by explaining exactly what _are_ you saying.

 

[grayman]

If a person sees a sign that says "Wet Paint", they will touch the objct to see if indeed the paint is wet.

Tell them there is an invisible being that sees all, knows all, and controls all (with the exception of free will); who so loves you that he will cast you into a lake of fire for eternal damnation should you show him disrespect, and the person will say, "I believe".

 

[Lord Emsworth]

Because the term atheist doesn't have any meaning in a world without theists. If I were to assert, for instance, that golmandu do not exist and neither of us has any meaning for the term golmandu, then we have created a wee bit of nonsense, a small absurdity. There is nothing to discuss.

On the other hand, if you have some idea what the term means, we can argue whether there is evidence for it being an actual thing or just the idea of a thing. So, yes, it does depend on the assertions of another person, because, if I am an actual atheist, I have no God available to dismiss other than those which have been previously described to me.

For instance, suppose I asserted to a theist that I have a God in mind which is a rocky body orbiting too far out to view but which has (although unmeasurable with any current technology) an effect on all that we do and this is the God I deny when I claim the title of atheist. Surely, they would be an atheist in this light as well since they do not believe in this God-rock either.

Just as an aside, how would you be proven wrong? I mean, if you held such a concept of God which is a "rocky body orbiting too far out ...".

The difference between our stances, and the difference that requires a word, is that I do not believe in the God they would describe, not this God-rock thing -- we agree there is no God-rock.

What makes the term general is that I do not believe in any God that has been described to me so far. If I did, I would be in another category -- Hindu, Muslim or something else. There is also the possibility that I might one day come across a God for which I feel I have good evidence. On that day I will no longer be an atheist.

I don't believe that you don't believe in any kind of God that has been described to you so far. I at least have run into plenty of people who are pantheists, or deists with a jolly watered down version of God. Sometimes there is just the attempt at selling a cause, any cause, for the universe as God. Heck, there are even people who seem to think that metaphors make the cut. For instance, science, money, power, or anything greater than man are Gods.

Your call.

I consider this intellectual honesty. The ability to accept that my status may change. I do not find this trait in most of the religious people I talk to.

On the surface this sounds good. But in the end, if there is just no way your status might change, at least not change in any meaningful way, then I would rather think it as intellectually honest to accept that there is just no way your (or my) status might change.

 

[Robin]

Dunno, Robin, then maybe you could start by explaining exactly what _are_ you saying.

I am not sure that it would be worth my while. You are very stubborn about ignoring my points before even considering them.

Are you even willing to consider that "possible" might have different usages than the one you have for it?

That it doesn't just mean that we don't know?

When I say "It is possible to run this game on Windows" that I don't just mean that I don't know whether it runs on Windows or not?

I don't think that is a particularly abstruse point or anything.

 

[marplots]

Just as an aside, how would you be proven wrong? I mean, if you held such a concept of God which is a "rocky body orbiting too far out ...".

Good point, but see below...

I don't believe that you don't believe in any kind of God that has been described to you so far. I at least have run into plenty of people who are pantheists, or deists with a jolly watered down version of God. Sometimes there is just the attempt at selling a cause, any cause, for the universe as God. Heck, there are even people who seem to think that metaphors make the cut. For instance, science, money, power, or anything greater than man are Gods.

Your call.

You're right. I have heard of Gods that aren't as distasteful to me. But they fail in the same ways when they are explored in any depth. I find explanations that satisfy me without the woo, and names for the same things they are talking about -- nouns that fit better than God.

But your point about proof is where it is really interesting. The philosophical question is whether or not my satisfaction with some understanding (or bias, if you will) -- my internal 'knowing' -- should generate a proof that can be communicated to another person, or even whether that has meaning.

First, I'd like to point out that the notion of 'evidence' does not help as much as we would like. Facts do not come with evidential meanings attached. Significance and meaning are imposed.

For instance, the fact is that you have a gun under your seat in your car. To me, this is evidence that you had criminal intent. Your story is that you put the gun under there last year and simply forgot about it -- it is unrelated to the current crime, and knowing your car was liable to being searched, having the gun there actually supports your contention.

Same fact -- the gun. Different interpretations of the evidential value, or meaning.

With that as a background, proving something to another person is an exercise in getting them to agree that the facts you propose mean what you say they mean. If they do, and the person agrees, you can say you have proven your point. If the person disagrees as to either the significance or the meaning of those facts (provided they even agree the facts exist) then the evidence doesn't serve its purpose -- from their point of view, it is no evidence at all.

You will notice this going on all the time here in JREF.

My real point here is that "proving" this or that is really something that happens in my own head. If I have considered something and come to a conclusion, it has been proved. So, when I honestly proclaim my belief or non-belief, I am only stating something about how I view the world. It is not a comment about the world so much as a comment about me.

This is why I dismiss the argument in the OP. What is being asked of me is a step removed from what is really going on. I am asked to logically and rationally lay out a chain of reasoning and evidences that will convince someone else I have made a reasonable choice between two beliefs. But this isn't what I did. What I did was believe first and then, through introspection, discover my belief, and only after all that would I take a shot at making it fit a logical and rational framework. Hence my claim that it is arational or pre-rational.

On the surface this sounds good. But in the end, if there is just no way your status might change, at least not change in any meaningful way, then I would rather think it as intellectually honest to accept that there is just no way your (or my) status might change.

I think it might, actually. I base this on how I remember changing over the course of my lifetime and the examples of others who have 'switched teams'. I can think of the very first time I had the experience, when I realized that the Bohr atom was just a teaching model and that 'atoms aren't really like that'.

I will agree that I have had several experiences that might have changed my views on God and the supernatural and have not changed so far. I have mellowed out a bit on the whole subject though.

 

[bozman]

Yeah. I really get tired of how believers constantly employ this type of mental masturbation to somehow "prove" god exists.

 

[HansMustermann]

I am not sure that it would be worth my while. You are very stubborn about ignoring my points before even considering them.

Try me.

Are you even willing to consider that "possible" might have different usages than the one you have for it?

That it doesn't just mean that we don't know?

When I say "It is possible to run this game on Windows" that I don't just mean that I don't know whether it runs on Windows or not?

I don't think that is a particularly abstruse point or anything.

So basically you were just doing an equivocation?

 

[Robin]

Try me.

I am not hopeful...

So basically you were just doing an equivocation?

How is that an equivocation? How on earth is that an equivocation?

Do you accept that there is more than one thing that "possible" might mean? Why is it so hard to answer that question.

 

[Robin]

I can see that "equivocation" is another term I have to clarify for you.

It is not equivocation when someone is explicitly (and repeatedly) drawing attention to the distinction in meaning.

It is only equivocation when you gloss over the distinction in meaning.

I can count 4 times that I drew attention to the distinction in meaning.

Not equivocation by any remote stretch of the imagination.

 

[HansMustermann]

Right. So you were just drawing my attention to the fact that someone could substitute a different meaning of the word in there, which is the very definition of an Equivocation. When you told me that a different meaning can be used in there, you just told me "equivocation" by any known definition of that. Umm, ok, thanks for the warning. I knew already that it happens, but the intention is very much appreciated.

Incidentally, that is if I go along with the idea of it being a different meaning. But truth be told, it's actually not different enough to mean much for the argument I was actually making.

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. Trivial example, I could even give you in writing that it's possible to run Windows on this computer, but as it happens, I'm actually writing this under Linux.

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.