What if God is real but quiet to max out your free choices?

[Seth]

Of course I get it, nor do I disagree.

Well, that is really good.

What you don't get is that the rational response to blind assertions is not to use those blind assertions as a premise in your rebuttal argument.

WTF? Please link to posts where I used blind assertions in my rebuttal argument - or even just a rebuttal argument. In case you used the plural "you", please link to posts by others on this forum doing so. I suspect the closest you will come to one are expressions to the effect that Yaweh's existence is as probable as the existence of the flying spaghetti monster.

No thanks. I know what I've read.

So, another assertion you will not back up with evidence.

Yup, I've got better things to do than demonstrate common knowledge about Atheists. You want to look it up, you'll have no trouble doing so, though I will admit that things have gotten considerably less confrontational since rEv took off.

[Hermit]

I've got better things to do than demonstrate common knowledge about Atheists.

It's your assertion. You didn't back it up. Because you can't.

[Seth]

For those who scrolled past all this on the grounds of tl;dr, be assured that its just a longer way of saying that there are no good reasons, in fact no reasons at all, for the uncritical acceptance of blind assertions - and have a nice day.

I must admit that I have only read the first third of your post, skimmed the middle third and skipped the last one entirely. To me you nailed the central point very early on, when you wrote

The appearance of 'the argument against the existence' [of God] is, in point of fact, an argument against the argument for the existence [of God].

Trap sprung. The rest is elaboration.

You obviously had fun, though, so that is good. Seth won't get what you are driving at, and that isn't.

Of course I get it, nor do I disagree. What you don't get is that the rational response to blind assertions is not to use those blind assertions as a premise in your rebuttal argument.

If an objective claim for the existence of a thing fails to support evidentially then the simply fails, and the rebuttal entirely consists of pointing this out.

Does it? So the objective claim that the universe began with a big bang, before evidence was discovered which supported that theory simply failed? I don't think so. While an unevidenced objective claim may be ignored, the claim does not "fail" in the sense that the objective claim is not true because it's unevidenced. It is merely unevidenced and therefore the truth of the claim remains in question, but that fact has absolutely no effect on the actual truth or falsity of the claim.

If someone says "I make the claim that there are fairies at the bottom of my garden" the appropriate response is not to say "There are no fairies at the bottom of your garden because fairies are mythical supernatural creatures that do not exist"

Correct, if you want to be all formal about it. The better response is to say, "How do you know this? Show me the evidence." If the evidence does not support the claim then it is quite reasonable to say, "There are no fairies at the bottom of your garden," and perhaps follow that up with, "Fairies are mythical supernatural creatures common in European folklore and fiction. They do not exist outside of our imagination." But sometimes I'll grant we miss a step, or take it as read, because we've heard that kind of rubbish all too often. Cutting to the chase saves a lot of unnecessary arse-ache - but then again, it's not like atheist never put the work in to explicating their position or take it step-by-step is it?

"Cutting to the chase" in this case doesn't cut the mustard, said one aphorism to the other. Yes, it is true that atheistic argumentation takes as read lots of things, all of them entirely unsupported and/or unsubstantiated or inherently fallacious. What you call "rubbish" may indeed be rubbish and may not therefor support the claim made, but again, the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence and therefore cutting to the chase cuts out the most important step in a logical, rational argument, which is to draw all conclusions about a claim based on evidence, not the lack thereof. In other words, by cutting to the chase you are making assumptions about the question based on your own prejudices and preconceived notions, all of which are axiomatically based on...well...nothing whatever other than your own skepticism, and drawing a conclusion about anything only on one's skeptical attitudes is not a rational act.

It doesn't matter if the atheist explicates their position or takes it step by step if each step is built on a foundation of fallacies and irrational assumptions. One can build an enormous edifice of irrational assumptions based on flawed evidence or the absence thereof, but that doesn't make the argument rational or the conclusions valid.

Just look at Marxism, which is founded on the single slender reed of an unfounded assertion that return on investment is not legitimate labor and therefore is theft of the worker's labor. Which is of course asinine in the extreme, and yet entire cultures and nations have been founded on that single idiotic assertion and a hundred million people have been murdered in the name of that stupid idea.

And that is why I'm so critical of uncritical thinking and irrational claims. It's unbecoming of any intellectual and it's dangerous because too often the lumpen proletariat can be hornswoggled into believing such fallacious reasoning, to the detriment of everyone.

because by doing so you are irrationally (fallaciously) basing your rebuttal on the unsupported claim

If atheism conformed to, consisted of, or was validate by your strawman then yes, you'd have a point. As it stands though, you just don't.

that what is at the bottom of her garden are indeed "fairies" and further you are making specious and unfounded assumptions that the object which is claimed to be a "fairy" is a mythical supernatural creature that does not exist

An understanding of, and a reference to, the relevant literature, an awareness of the development of certain cultural concepts, and a comparison with the myths of other societies, can all, singularly or in the round, give us an entirely supportable means of telling the poor sod that a fairy is not real. Whether they choose to accept this is private matter for them alone.

Yes, but you have to actually do so in a rational manner not simply take it as read, particularly when what you want to take as read is itself both fallacious and potentially wrong.

when in point of fact she could be referring to "fairy shrimp," which do happen to exist and are entirely natural.

In which case, when we refer to 'Faries" here we have to agree that we're talking about the same thing. As I put it before, the word-token "Faries" has to be mutually comprehensible to both questioner and respondent to give the question-answer binding proportionate and relevant semantic context.

Agreed, which means you have to show that the word-token is understood to mean at least roughly the same thing.

In you scenario, when we, in our role as respondents, say, "You do know that faries are mythical creatures don't you?" the questioner simply has to say, "Oh, I don't mean those kind of faireis, I mean the shrimp. We call them fairies round here," and we all have a good chuckle about the misunderstanding, and then we can reset and ask for evidence: "Show me your shrimp baby!"

Well, you are assuming sans evidence that fairies are in fact "mythical creatures" aren't you? Let me revert to the multiverse theory that says that merely by thinking of "fairies" as miniature bipedal beings with wings who fly around in gardens causes a universe to come into existence where fairies are not mythical creatures. Fact is that you believe fairies to be mythical creatures, but since your knowledge and understanding of the universe is neither complete nor perfect you cannot actually make an unevidenced claim that this is true, instead you must provide evidence that fairies are mythical creatures, not actual ones, for your claim to be other than irrational. So your rational response might be "Well, it's my understanding that fairies are mythical creatures, so I'm skeptical of your claim, but I'm not certain either way. Shall we go investigate and see if we can find evidence of the truth of your claim?"

The same thing is true of god claims.

Not it's not, because when theists talk about God we're all pretty clear about what they mean, not least because they tell us, earnestly and often. There is little confusion about what God represents, there is just no evidence of what God actually is.

And how exactly do theist's god claims, no matter how predictable you might think they are, affect the actual question at the bar? Again, you're resorting to the Atheist's Fallacy by taking as read the proposition that a theist's claim about God is accurate and factually representative of the actual existence and/or nature of God.

You cannot base a rational rebuttal on the description of a theist of the supernatural character of god because you have zero evidence that this "god" spoken of is either supernatural or that the "supernatural" is not actually the "natural" that you simply do not understand.

Correct, and in the absence of evidence for the existence of a thing it is quite reasonable to not only withhold proportioning assent to the claim, but also to point out that that lack of evidence gives us absolutely no reason to believe the claim.

Yes, I completely agree. But that is entirely different from stating a conclusion that God does not exist, or even a claim that God is as the theist describes used as the foundation for a critique of the putative actions or intentions of said god.

To all intents and purposes all objective claims are false until demonstrated otherwise even if a hedge or a bet on the claim feels more comfortable or more consistent with what we've been taught or led to expect. The clue is in the word 'objectivity'. Check it out in your nearest dictionary.

This is simply not the case. You are once again posting the fallacious argument that the absence of evidence is evidence of absence. You twist it to say that the absence of evidence causes an objective claim to be false, which is not necessarily the case, as I have tried very hard to get across to you. You may say that the absence of evidence supporting an objective claim is justification to ignore or reject the claim, but you cannot say that the claim is false merely because evidence has not yet been presented. Once again, the existence of evidence has absolutely nothing whatever to do with the objective truth of the claim. At worst all the absence of evidence does is render the objective truth inconclusive and/or indeterminate. In other words, you don't know anything about the actual truth-value of the claim in the absence of any evidence one way or the other, and your lack of knowledge does not change that objective truth-value.

This particular debate is not about what theists say or believe

Yes it is, because atheism is a direct response to what theists say, believe, do and insist.

If that is the case, then "atheism" is not actually atheism, it is in fact "anti-theism," which sounds very much like a religious belief to me. A "direct response" to what theists say, believe, do and insist is not "a lack of belief in gods," it is in fact a carefully considered position in direct opposition to such claims and therefore isn't "a" anything, it's a positive assertion of denial of theistic claims, and that ain't atheism.

In short, you cannot make a rational counter-claim about something you have absolutely no evidence about.

But a counter-claim is not necessary. Do keep up. What you insist on calling a counter-claim is just a conclusion about the claims and assertions of others.

Only if that is the case, which much of the time it's not. Most of the time it's "I don't believe in God because..." followed usually by a resort to the Atheist's Fallacy, and it is that following assertion that belies the definition of "atheism."

You may of course always refuse to give such claims further consideration, but that's entirely different from trying to say that the claim is false, because you do not know that it is false, you are assuming that it is false, which is not a rational thing to do.

But we know that the claim is not-true don't we?

We do? No we don't, and no you don't, and that's the point. You are assuming that it's not-true without evidence for that claim.

Eh? Please apply the logical faculties here you say you value and regard. We are entirely entitled to say that the objective claim is false until it can be supported evidentially, and we remain entitled to do so as long as a falsification for the claim remains regardless of its variations or dependant assertions until or unless that situation changes. This is the reasonable, rational thing to do.

I have explained many times that no, you cannot rationally say an objective claim is false merely because it is unevidenced. It may be indeterminate, but it is not necessarily false.

[Seth]

I've got better things to do than demonstrate common knowledge about Atheists.

It's your assertion. You didn't back it up. Because you can't.

One wonders how many thousands of posts I'd have to quote before you'd believe me. I think that number would need to closely approach infinity.

So, no thanks.

[Hermit]

I've got better things to do than demonstrate common knowledge about Atheists.

It's your assertion. You didn't back it up. Because you can't.

One wonders how many thousands of posts I'd have to quote before you'd believe me. I think that number would need to closely approach infinity.

Stop trying to weasel your way out. Just admit you don't have any evidence to back your assertion up with. I do not demand thousands of posts. Just enough to prove that at least some atheists on this forum respond to blind assertions regarding the existence of god with blind assertions as a premiss in their rebuttal argument.

[Seth]

So, Brian, I've been thinking about this while driving barfing clients around and I want to try a different approach.

Your basic argument is that if no objective evidence of the existence of God is available, then the claim that God exists is inherently false. To wit:

Not only that, but the claim 'God exists' falls into the category of objective claims, that is; claims that some-thing is a real and actual thing with unique and particular properties and attributes, some-thing every bit as real and actual as any other real thing that actually exists. If the objective existence of God can not be supported evidentially, which you say it will not and cannot ever be, then the claim 'God exists' cannot be said to be true, and under the most basic logical principle of all, that which we cannot say to be true we can say to be false, or, if you wish...

not-true == false
not-false == true

This is the basic logical expression of non-contradiction. Yet still, we can account for the middle-ground maybe-position here by charitably granting that this isn't necessarily a closed or settled matter, and allow that perhaps some or any evidence may be brought to the claim at some later point. In the meantime however we certainly cannot proportion assent to the claim 'God exists', and so it is quite reasonable, logical and rational not only to discount the claim but to declare its falsity. This is how claims work in general, and how objective claims work in particular.

I want to take out the loaded terms and consider your argument as a logical syllogism.

P1 Claimant 1 postulates that X exists
P2 Claimant 1 claims that X has characteristics A, B, and C
P3 Claimant 2 claims that characteristics A, B, and C are imaginary because they have not been shown to objectively exist
P4 Claimant 2 claims that because characteristics A, B, and C are imaginary, X does not exist
C1 X does not exist

This is false logic for a number of reasons.

Here's another set of syllogisms that will show why:

P1 It is postulated that X objectively exists
P2 For X to objectively exist it must have characteristics A, B, and C
P3 It is objectively demonstrated that X has characteristics A, B, and C
C1 X objectively exists

This is a valid logical construct.

P1 It is postulated that X objectively exists
P2 For X to objectively exist it must have characteristics A, B, and C
P3 It has not been objectively demonstrated that X has characteristics A, B, and C
C1 X does not objectively exist

This is an invalid logical construct because the fact that characteristics A, B, and C have not been demonstrated to be part of X does not show that X does not exist, it shows that either X does not have such characteristics (and therefore does not objectively exist) or that the required characteristics have not been demonstrated to be part of X, or that the characteristics describing X are themselves wrong. The fact that those characteristics have not been demonstrated to be part of X does not affect the objective existence of X, it may only show that the knowledge and understanding of X and its characteristics is faulty or incomplete. Therefore to conclude that X does not objectively exist based on the absence of objective evidence that it's required characteristics exist is false logic.

And that is what your statement above says. It says that if a thing is not objectively proven to be true, it must therefore be not-true, and by extension the claim of objective truth is false. But as we see above, while the proving of the existence of objective characteristics that define X can prove that X exists, the lack of proof of the existence of those same objective characteristics cannot prove that X does not exist. Therefore, your argument of "not-true == false" is incorrect.

It may in fact be that the lack of proof that those characteristics objectively exist is related only to human understanding and not objective fact, and therefore the correct answer to the final syllogism is:

P1 It is postulated that X objectively exists
P2 For X to objectively exist it must have characteristics A, B, and C
P3 It has not been demonstrated that X has characteristics A, B, and C
C1 The objective existence of X is indeterminate

I hope this shortens the discussion somewhat by examining the situation in an abstract logical manner.

[JimC]

Seth wrote:

Your basic argument is that if no objective evidence of the existence of God is available, then the claim that God exists is inherently false.

That is a mis-statement of Brian's position (and the position of most atheists on this forum)

There is certainly no objective evidence for the existence of a god in general, and even less evidence (if that is possible) for the existence of gods specific to each religion (many aspects of which would differ from specific god to specific god...)

This implies neither that there is definitely no god, nor that claims that he exists are absolutely false (which amount to the same thing). Rather, it suggests that there is no compelling reason to believe, and no compelling reason to take on board all the baggage associated with any given religion. Instead, it is a perfectly reasonable position to live one's life with no reference to gods, religion or supernatural belief. Simple, really...

[Seth]

Seth wrote:

Your basic argument is that if no objective evidence of the existence of God is available, then the claim that God exists is inherently false.

That is a mis-statement of Brian's position (and the position of most atheists on this forum)

I don't think so, I quoted him saying just that.

There is certainly no objective evidence for the existence of a god in general,

...that you personally are aware of and understand.

and even less evidence (if that is possible) for the existence of gods specific to each religion (many aspects of which would differ from specific god to specific god...)

...that you are personally aware of and understand.

This implies neither that there is definitely no god, nor that claims that he exists are absolutely false (which amount to the same thing). Rather, it suggests that there is no compelling reason to believe, and no compelling reason to take on board all the baggage associated with any given religion. Instead, it is a perfectly reasonable position to live one's life with no reference to gods, religion or supernatural belief. Simple, really...

Non sequitur. We're not discussing whether one is obliged to "take on board" anything, we are discussing the logic involved. Nobody's asking you to believe anything you don't believe.

[JimC]

There is no evidence that is available for anyone to examine and check, which is all that counts.
"Private" evidence is meaningless.

[Svartalf]

Is Seth implying that evidence of god (or gods) existing exists but is not widespread because only initiates with advanced minds can grasp it and act accordingly?

[Seth]

There is no evidence that is available for anyone to examine and check, which is all that counts.

What is your critically robust scientific evidence that there is no evidence that is available for anyone to examine and check?

And no, even if true, that is not "all that counts," at least not to any rational person.

[Seth]

Is Seth implying that evidence of god (or gods) existing exists but is not widespread because only initiates with advanced minds can grasp it and act accordingly?

That's one possibility. Another is that human science and understanding is simply not advanced enough to detect, inspect and quantify what evidence is out there to be studied, much as the technology and knowledge to detect, inspect and quantify the existence of sub-atomic particles was not available in Newton's time.

Again, the absence of (identifiable, understandable) evidence is not evidence of the absence of evidence.

[Svartalf]

and what is yours in the opposite way? I sure have not personally witnessed any such evidence, nor seen any believable and credible accounts that there is/are god/s in the universe, I best I have had hearsay that could not be properly corroborated, at worst piles of absurdity upon self contradiction...

[JimC]

There is no evidence that is available for anyone to examine and check, which is all that counts.

What is your critically robust scientific evidence that there is no evidence that is available for anyone to examine and check?

And no, even if true, that is not "all that counts," at least not to any rational person.

If such robust objective evidence existed, it would be trumpeted by believers, and would be an obvious, major component of the entire intellectual history of mankind.

Simply, it's not there.

And yes, to a rational person, objective evidence indeed "all that counts", when a claim with such huge significance is made. If not objective evidence, then what? "God speaks to me in my mind"?

Which god?

[Svartalf]

Is Seth implying that evidence of god (or gods) existing exists but is not widespread because only initiates with advanced minds can grasp it and act accordingly?

That's one possibility. Another is that human science and understanding is simply not advanced enough to detect, inspect and quantify what evidence is out there to be studied, much as the technology and knowledge to detect, inspect and quantify the existence of sub-atomic particles was not available in Newton's time.

Again, the absence of (identifiable, understandable) evidence is not evidence of the absence of evidence.

It may not (quite) be, but, in the absence of admissible evidence, it is a logical course to act as if there was no such being around. to do otherwise is to take Pascal's wager, and we all know how silly that is.