Seth wrote:Brian Peacock wrote:
If 'you' means Jim, then he isn't building an argument on supernaturalism, but characterising the object of certain types of claim made on the behalf of supernatural agents by theist (etc). If 'you' means atheists, then ditto.
Defining a claimed-for thing as 'supernatural', that is; 'beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature; beyond comprehension or perception', does not oblige the rational individual to withhold a conclusion about the claim, and if you think otherwise then you've simply failed to demonstrate exactly why unevidenced claims for supernatural agents or entities are essentially different to all other kinds of unevidenced claim, such that they carry the necessary rational burden of an evidenced dismissal.
You're confusing counterclaim with dismissal again...
You are conflating the dismissal of a specific claim with a claim in its own right.
Seth wrote:... If someone says that God is "beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature; beyond comprehension or perception" it is perfectly rational to dismiss the claim and move on. What is not rational is to argue (either explicitly or implicitly) that because (according to science) nothing is beyond scientific understanding, outside of the laws of nature or beyond comprehension, therefore a god so described cannot and does not exist. This is a tautological construct and therefore irrational.
The anatomy of this claim runs like this:
- God exists (as a supernatural entity of some sort or kind) beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature; beyond comprehension or perception.
- if the claim cannot be said to be true then it can be said to be false, under the logical principle that not-true = false.
- it is perfectly rational to dismiss the claim if it relies on a blind assertion (Brian Peacock) and/or relies on a circular definition (Seth).
- the claim relies on a blind assertion and a circular definition (3).
- The claim cannot be said to be true (4), therefore;
-
- Theist: maintains belief in the claim (by faith, or necessity, or social obligation or tradition, or whatever) negating (2)(3)(4)(5).
Atheist: disbelieves the claims because:
- (5), therefore;
- Conclusion: (to all intents and purposes) God does not exist.
No counter-claim is needed or has been issued. The atheist's conclusion is 'perfectly' rational an logical within the context of the claim, and only within that context. The conclusion does not touch on the actual-factual existence of God, but dismisses the claim in its own terms, which justifies opposing (dissenting/negating/rejecting) the claim. To divorce the conclusion from that context by declaration (semantic sleight-of-hand; strawmanning) or by simple misapprehension is a failure in reasoning which renders any and all subsequent, dependent arguments invalid.
Seth wrote:What is not rational is to argue (either explicitly or implicitly) that because (according to science) nothing is beyond scientific understanding, outside of the laws of nature or beyond comprehension, therefore a god so described cannot and does not exist. This is a tautological construct and therefore irrational.
This is not a specifically scientific definition of 'supernatural', just a general one taken from an online dictionary. Science does not generally maintain, as you suggest here, there are no things which are not beyond its understanding. In fact, science admits that there are many things beyond its understanding, either currently or potentially, but that does not render those things, as you again suggest here, necessarily 'supernatural'. What science and reasonable people do not admit is that a blind assertion for the existence of a thing, which is, by definition, "beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature; beyond comprehension or perception" is a good reason to proportion assent to a claim for that thing's existence.
Your position is epistemologically challenged. By your lights, we may grant the existence of a thing (provisionally) on the grounds that not being able to demonstrate the thing's existence does not mean the thing itself does not exist - does not touch on the actual-factual extant status of the the thing itself. But your argument goes further to propose a particular epistemic normativity, that is; you go beyond a plain admission that, in a particular realm of enquiry, 'we know what we do not know'. You maintain a global thesis that we cannot foreclose on any unevidenced claim to knowledge as the nature of the claim (unevidneced) says nothing about the extant status (the existence, or not) of the thing claimed-for
unless we can demonstrate evidentially that the thing which is claimed-for does not exist. This is called shifting the burden. And it is shifting the burden because it requires a level justification of dissentors which is not required of claimants. In this particular realm it acts an an injunction against atheists coming to a reasonable conclusion about god-claims on the grounds that 'atheists cannot even know what they do not know' in the face of assertions for something which is, by definition, beyond knowing. The upshot of this is that defining something as essentially unknowable is now no bar to knowledge, that is; defining something as essentially and fundamentally unknowable ('supernatural') can now act as a legitimate justification for a claim to knowledge - and the justification for this epistemic practice is the defined unknowable nature of the claimed-for thing. This is called Feathering one's nest. And it is nest feathering because it is a formulation that serves the claimant alone, immunising their justification against, and insulating it from, the reasonable, rational, logical challenges of others while foreclosing on any and all dismissal.
Seth wrote:Brian Peacock wrote:Seth wrote:
So, if atheists are to look at the issue, we can hardly be blamed for using the definition supplied by believers...
Of course you can be blamed. You're not supposed to be an idiot, you're supposed to be a rational being capable of making rational and logical arguments. That you would accept such a claim as a premise for any sort of argument is an insult to reason.
But generally atheists are not making a claim about God or gods ,whatever you say, they generally withhold proportioning assent to the claims of theism (etc) - which renders them 'atheist' by common convention.
We disagree. My long, long, loooong experience with "...therefore God does not exist" emerging from the mouths and keyboards of Atheists convinces me otherwise.
So your argument is your say-so. But that does not, and did not, address the point...
Seth wrote:The only time the vast, vast majority of Atheists qualify their above statement is when they are directly challenged regarding their logic and reason, as I am doing here. And my take on that is that it's a convenient "who? Me? Not ME!" evasion when someone gets caught making such claims, pretty much just exactly like you are doing right now.
Again, your say-so is not an argument.
Atheists qualify their justification for not proportioning assent to the claims of theists (etc) all the time. What you have slipped into is divorcing what they offer by way of justification from the context of the claim, in an effort to make a conclusion about the claims of others stand as a claims in their own rights. Your 'challenges' regarding the logic and reason of withholding assent to god-claims are therefore invalid, because they address the conclusion as a claim rather than addressing the reasons for arriving at that conclusion - the justification of the claim itself. As I have already said...
First comes the claim; then the deliberation thereof; then the conclusion thereon. If the claim cannot be said to be true it can be said to be false, under the logical principle that not-true = false, until or unless something else is brought to the claim's justification.
The context of the conclusion is the claim itself. By all means challenge the reasons for atheist arriving at that conclusion, as that will invariably focus on the robustness of the justification for the claim itself, but to declare the atheists conclusion errant ('illogical and irrational) simply because it does not proportion assent to the claim, or to declare that conclusion an unjustified claim itself, or to assert that such a conclusion is not and cannot be rationally justified, is a failure in reasoning which renders any subsequent, dependent arguments invalid
Seth wrote:"There are no deities" is not a position in itself, for it first requires some claim or claims for a deity or deities.
Don't be ridiculous, it is exactly and precisely a "position" and a positive claim about the non-existence of deities.
Show how such a declaration as "There are no deities" can ever stand as a claim in its own right in the absence of any claim to the effect that "Deities exist" and you might have a point.
Again, you are divorcing a conclusion about a claim from the context of the claim itself (as well as divorcing the sentence above from the general point!). After all, it is not a conclusion plucked from thin air is it(?). It is a "position" (as you put) with reference to a particular claim made within a particular realm of enquiry. I fear you must address this head on if you wish to progress your argument.
Seth wrote:
Similarly, "There are no supernatural agents" is not a proposition that can be rationally taken to stand alone, divorced from the context of claims for supernatural agents.
Incorrect. See above.
Again, your say-so is not an adequate justification.
Seth wrote:But, presuming arguendo that "there are no deities" and "there are no supernatural agents" are responses to a claim that deities or supernatural agents exist, you're still wrong because the positive assertion "there are no..." is a counterclaim which necessarily demands critically robust evidence to support it. Without such evidence in support, it becomes just as irrational a statement as the original claim.
You are divorcing the conclusion from the context of the claim, and relying on a semantic sleight-of-hand (strawmanning) to support your case. It is absolutely implicit, in referencing the conclusion on a claim, that "there are no..." does not entail a positive assertion but a dismissal/negation/rejection of a particular claim within a particular realm.
Seth wrote:
You're implementation of another double-standard sees you regularly applying a rhetorical wedge between statements made with reference to a particular realm of discourse (context), and the context itself.
It's not a double standard, it's a single, unified and widely accepted standard of logic and reason. If I call you on imprecise use of language when you meant something different, it's up to you to make the correction to your rhetoric. My duty is to analyze your statements for logical and rational strength and consistency and be critical when you fail to achieve the basic standards of rational discourse.
It is a double-standard precisely because you drive a wedge between a claim and the conclusion thereon.
If your are to maintain your claim to be engaging in rational discourse, it is your duty to meet the challenges of others also, not to simply declare them errant by dint of a failure to accept your self-asserted position as the sole arbiter of reason and logic. Please address the points as made rather than recasting them to suit your argument alone. This is called intellectual honesty, and without it rational discourse cannot proceed.
You maintain that the atheist's conclusion on the claims of theists (etc) is a stand-alone claim that requires specific and particular justification.
I challenge that by maintaining that the atheist conclusion about the claims of theists (etc) is:
- only 'rational and logical' in the context of that specific types of claim, and
- cannot therefore be considered an independent claim itself - as without the claims of theists (etc) no atheistic conclusion would be forthcoming, or required and, more generally, any declaration to the effect that some un-claimed-for thing did not exist would have no 'rational and logical' basis; it would be incoherent, effectively meaningless.
Seth wrote:
Now while this, along with the erection of spurious discursive conditions, may be techniques expounded in various tracts on the art of always being right, employing them is neither rational nor logical, or even concerned with those concepts as applied to honest discourse, and does neither you or your argument any favours.
It's not my fault if you cannot form a rational argument, and I am under no obligation to overlook that faulty reasoning. Look upon it as a favor to you and your rhetorical skills. If you can formulate an argument that I cannot find a flaw in, you're doing things correctly. If you can't, then take the opportunity to examine your own arguments and discover how they might be strengthened and improved.
I do not hold you responsible for my failings, only for your own, and we might even cover some ground on this basis if it wasn't apparent that your chief concern is being seen to be correct on all matters.
