As I have come to understand more about atheism I have noticed a common thread of most vocal atheists is that they lump all theistic or pantheistic worldviews into one category and deny there validity. All the while up holding there worldview as being the best because they don't make any positive claims not based on observable or provable evidence. I argue however that in the case of existence it is impossible to deny a positive claim of one group without asserting a positive claim of your own.
Example: Theists make the positive claim that existence is caused by a creator
Atheists say they are without belief because theists can not prove their positive claim
however in reality Atheists by denying the theist positive claim are making the positive claim that existence contains within itself it's own cause.
and the theists argue that the atheist must show evidence for their positive claim. To which we reply if God is intelligent then He could choose to reveal Himself to us in His own way by His own means: be it the Quran or the Bible or whatever and those things could contain the evidence for the theistic position.
If the atheist refuses to be objectivly be open to a world view that does not have a bias against God they are refusing to open to all the possible evidence.
josephpalazzo Resident
Joined: Aug 31, 2006
Posts: 313
Posted:
Sun Feb 03, 2008 8:08 am
romans120 wrote:
As I have come to understand more about atheism I have noticed a common thread of most vocal atheists is that they lump all theistic or pantheistic worldviews into one category and deny there validity. All the while up holding there worldview as being the best because they don't make any positive claims not based on observable or provable evidence. I argue however that in the case of existence it is impossible to deny a positive claim of one group without asserting a positive claim of your own.
Example: Theists make the positive claim that existence is caused by a creator
Atheists say they are without belief because theists can not prove their positive claim
however in reality Atheists by denying the theist positive claim are making the positive claim that existence contains within itself it's own cause.
and the theists argue that the atheist must show evidence for their positive claim. To which we reply if God is intelligent then He could choose to reveal Himself to us in His own way by His own means: be it the Quran or the Bible or whatever and those things could contain the evidence for the theistic position.
If the atheist refuses to be objectivly be open to a world view that does not have a bias against God they are refusing to open to all the possible evidence.
There is no evidence that god exists. Let god appear at the UN in front of all humanity and prove unequivocally that he is what he claims to be. Surely such a task is NOT beyond his capability...
I am an atheist, and I very much agree with you. In fact, I appeared on IG about two years ago to defend that very position. And my fellow atheists quite uniformly expressed pains that as an atheist, I would make such a claim. (Look up the show; my name is Kevin Currie, so use that for your search.)
I completely agree that atheists are in the wrong to say that ours is not a positive assertion by the very nature that if a negative assertion is made, at least SOME positive assertion has to the the flipside.
If I say that I do not believe Deluth to be the capital city of Michigan, is that, as most atheists would say, a negative claim?
Yes.
But is it, as I would and you would say, accompanied by a positive claim?
Yes.
The positive claim is that I BELIEVE the city of Deluth not to be the capital of Michigan, and that I believe the capital of Michigan to be a city that is not Deluth.
Same goes for:
NEGATIVE:
"I do not believe that I studied enough for the exam."
POSITIVE:
"I believe I didn't study enough for the exam." "I believe I should have studied more."
NEGATIVE:
"I disbelieve that the New York Giants have a chance in the Superbowl."
POSITIVE:
"I believe that the New York Giants do not have a chance in the Superbowl."
And last but not least:
NEGATIVE:
"I disbelieve in god." "I do not believe that there is a god."
POSITIVE:
"I believe that there is not a god."
The reason that a postive statement always accompanies a negative one, is owed to the dual nature of existential statements. Either I say that something is the case, or I say that it is not the case. If I say that it is not the case, I am saying that its not being the case IS the case.
Does that sound highfalutin? Look at the above examples.
If I say that I do not believe in God, what I am saying is that my worldview is one where there is no God. And saying that there is no God is a positive statement.
If I say that the New York Giants will not win the SuperBowl, then I am not only asserting what will not be the case (The NYG will not win), but I am asserting what will be the case (TheNYG will not win.)
Now, before my atheist friends wonder whether my redheaded christian girlfriend has turned me into a theist, let me be straight. JUST BECAUSE I MAKE A POSITIVE CLAIM WHEN I SAY THAT GOD DOES NOT EXIST DOES NOT MEAN THAT I HAVE THE BURDEN OF PROOF!
While atheists can certainly give evidentiary reasons why god is unlikely (showing that he does not appear where believers claim he should), the theists are the only one's asserting that a thing exists. So, just like a court case, if someone says that A exists, and the other person says that A does not, it is presumed easier for the believer in A to prove A's existence than the other party to prove its nonexistence. (It should be easier to prove that a thing exists, because you can point to it, or show evidence for it. It is less easy to show that a thing does not exist, as there is nothing to point to, and ver likely no evidence, because the thing probably doesn't exist.)
Brian37 Master of Logic
Joined: Oct 04, 2003
Posts: 9362
Posted:
Sun Feb 03, 2008 9:20 am
I dont think that makes us hypocrites. If I am to take your side in the OP that makes us pragmatic. So it is not that we are hypocrites, I think you are merely stuck on semantics.
"I can fart a Lamborgini out of my ass"
You, "No you cant"
It is easyer for the person making the claim to look for evidence first, than it would be for me to prove that you cant. If I am going by your model, strickly speaking.
I am saying that propositions are not 50/50 by default, like the example I gave above. I hold no hesitation nor will I lose any sleep discarding such an absurdity merely because it was uttered.
Demanding proof doesnt make one a hypocrite. It makes them wise.
Patheism is not "natural" in it's claims, it is supernatural. It is the idea that the universe is a giant brain. All one has to do to see the absurdity of this is to compare a Hubble space telliscope picture to a slice brian on a microscope slide. Juxitpose the two and any layman can see the absurdity of the universe being a cognitive entity.
Pantheism is in the same boat as theism because BOTH require suspension of reality to buy. To utter something about the unknown is futile. It is simply better to say, "I dont know" and work with the best data we have to date.
The best data we have to date is that the universe is NOT cognitive, just like there is no such thing as ghostsperm or zombie gods surviving rigor mortis after 3 days. When these types of claims are uttered, I put them in file 13 and have no doubt that I am not making a risky bet, anymore than you would say, "You are full of shit" if I claimed I could fart a Lamborgini out of my ass".
As I have come to understand more about atheism I have noticed a common thread of most vocal atheists is that they lump all theistic or pantheistic worldviews into one category and deny there validity. All the while up holding there worldview as being the best because they don't make any positive claims not based on observable or provable evidence. I argue however that in the case of existence it is impossible to deny a positive claim of one group without asserting a positive claim of your own.
Example: Theists make the positive claim that existence is caused by a creator
Atheists say they are without belief because theists can not prove their positive claim
however in reality Atheists by denying the theist positive claim are making the positive claim that existence contains within itself it's own cause.
Wrong. That is a separate argument. 'God' is not the only possible alternative position to the existence of God. Some ideas still involve something outside the Universe as its 'cause', but that 'cause' does not have anything like the attributes of a 'God'.
Some claims do imply a specific counter-claim, such as Kevin's example of claiming a particular city is NOT the capital of particular State, since that can be as easily verified as the positive side. In a sense such a claim is not so much a negative one, as much as particular assertion about the attributes of the city.
Quote:
and the theists argue that the atheist must show evidence for their positive claim. To which we reply if God is intelligent then He could choose to reveal Himself to us in His own way by His own means: be it the Quran or the Bible or whatever and those things could contain the evidence for the theistic position.
If the atheist refuses to be objectivly be open to a world view that does not have a bias against God they are refusing to open to all the possible evidence.
God is such an ill-defined concept that until someone presents some coherent positive arguments for a specific deity with at least some defined attributes, ie not the meaningless 'omni' crap, we have no obligation to respond.
EDIT: There is a common thread to the Theist/Pantheist positions, involving the existence of some entity, some awareness at least, beyond the observable natural realm, that can't be positively tested for. Supernatural claims are what is being rejected, so to that is why we tend to lump them together.
romans120 Newbie First Class
Joined: Feb 02, 2008
Posts: 44
Posted:
Sun Feb 03, 2008 9:46 am
BobSpence1 wrote:
romans120 wrote:
As I have come to understand more about atheism I have noticed a common thread of most vocal atheists is that they lump all theistic or pantheistic worldviews into one category and deny there validity. All the while up holding there worldview as being the best because they don't make any positive claims not based on observable or provable evidence. I argue however that in the case of existence it is impossible to deny a positive claim of one group without asserting a positive claim of your own.
Example: Theists make the positive claim that existence is caused by a creator
Atheists say they are without belief because theists can not prove their positive claim
however in reality Atheists by denying the theist positive claim are making the positive claim that existence contains within itself it's own cause.
Wrong. That is a separate argument. 'God' is not the only possible alternative position to the existence of God. Some ideas still involve something outside the Universe as its 'cause', but that 'cause' does not have anything like the attributes of a 'God'.
Some claims do imply a specific counter-claim, such as Kevin's example of claiming a particular city is NOT the capital of particular State, since that can be as easily verified as the positive side. In a sense such a claim is not so much a negative one, as much as particular assertion about the attributes of the city.
Quote:
and the theists argue that the atheist must show evidence for their positive claim. To which we reply if God is intelligent then He could choose to reveal Himself to us in His own way by His own means: be it the Quran or the Bible or whatever and those things could contain the evidence for the theistic position.
If the atheist refuses to be objectivly be open to a world view that does not have a bias against God they are refusing to open to all the possible evidence.
God is such an ill-defined concept that until someone presents some coherent positive arguments for a specific deity with at least some defined attributes, ie not the meaningless 'omni' crap, we have no obligation to respond.
Your attempt at making my argument fall into an excluded middle is not going to work. I used the term existence not universe. Whatever you can come up with be branes, strings or singularities are all still somethings and can not ever be characterized as nothings - so they exist. I have no problem with a truly neutral position. But if you put the burden of proof on the theist to prove God exists before considering the possibility of revelation you would be holding the theist to higher standard than yourself i.e hypocrisy
corynski Newbie First Class
Joined: Feb 02, 2008
Posts: 28
Location: hills of east tennessee
Posted:
Mon Feb 04, 2008 6:17 am
Romans120 said:
Quote:
however in reality Atheists by denying the theist positive claim are making the positive claim that existence contains within itself it's own cause.
Perhaps, but there is another possibility, according to Nathaniel Brandon:
Quote:
All causality presupposes the existence of something that acts as a cause. To demand a cause for all of existence is to demand a contradiction; if the cause exists, it is part of existence; if it does not exist, it cannot be a cause.... Causality presupposes existence, existence does not presuppose causality..... Existence - not 'God' - is the First Cause.
Brandon concludes that the question "What caused the universe (existence)?" is an absurd question. From GH Smith, 'Atheism - The Case Against God', 1989
Could this be true? I'm not a philosopher, thank Zeus, so I'll let you tell me. Or if I say I assume the universe, the totality of matter and energy, always existed, I am not saying it is it's own cause, am I?
_________________ "All the propositions of logic say the same thing, that is, nothing." -- Ludwig Wittgenstein
"Philosophy is a battle against the bewitchment of our intelligence by means of language." -- Lugwig Wittgenstein
primemover Intern
Joined: Aug 14, 2003
Posts: 290
Posted:
Mon Feb 04, 2008 7:44 am
you are absolutely correct corynski.. I dunno why people always assume that existence has a cause without even entertaining the possibility that it always is/was.
If something caused existence, that something existed already thus you are right back where you started with something always existing!
Causality only makes sense within existence.
But its not hard to see the reasoning. At least for me. I have a hard time getting others to understand sometimes. Maybe its me explaining it poorly.
romans120 Newbie First Class
Joined: Feb 02, 2008
Posts: 44
Posted:
Mon Feb 04, 2008 10:42 pm
corynski wrote:
Romans120 said:
Quote:
however in reality Atheists by denying the theist positive claim are making the positive claim that existence contains within itself it's own cause.
Perhaps, but there is another possibility, according to Nathaniel Brandon:
Quote:
All causality presupposes the existence of something that acts as a cause. To demand a cause for all of existence is to demand a contradiction; if the cause exists, it is part of existence; if it does not exist, it cannot be a cause.... Causality presupposes existence, existence does not presuppose causality..... Existence - not 'God' - is the First Cause.
Brandon concludes that the question "What caused the universe (existence)?" is an absurd question. From GH Smith, 'Atheism - The Case Against God', 1989
Could this be true? I'm not a philosopher, thank Zeus, so I'll let you tell me. Or if I say I assume the universe, the totality of matter and energy, always existed, I am not saying it is it's own cause, am I?
I'm familiar with what Brandon had to say but I don't think he used the term universe because that obviously is not self sustaining which necessitates cause. I'm not sure cause it's been a while since I read it but think Brandon qualifies his term to mean more of a omni-verse to include other dimensions theoretical branes and the like. Actually, He is admitting my point. The only thing that can explain existence is that existence be sourced in something that is eternal (self-existent). This is the definition for God. This is how the God of the Bible describes Himself in the "I AM" statements. So we are not arguing if there is a God or not. We are arguing about God's composition. Brandon makes the positive claim that God exists as eternal physical objects invisible from our perspective in the universe. Theists make the positive claim that God exists as eternal intelligent object invisible from our perspective in the universe. Since both of us are making unprovable assertions because of our limited perspective what makes your logical arguments apply to the theist and not yourselves?
_________________ Romans 1:20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.
Raskolnikov Confident Learner
Joined: Jan 14, 2008
Posts: 85
Location: Las Vegas
Posted:
Tue Feb 05, 2008 12:44 am
romans120 wrote:
As I have come to understand more about atheism I have noticed a common thread of most vocal atheists is that they lump all theistic or pantheistic worldviews into one category and deny there validity. All the while up holding there worldview as being the best because they don't make any positive claims not based on observable or provable evidence. I argue however that in the case of existence it is impossible to deny a positive claim of one group without asserting a positive claim of your own.
Example: Theists make the positive claim that existence is caused by a creator
Atheists say they are without belief because theists can not prove their positive claim
however in reality Atheists by denying the theist positive claim are making the positive claim that existence contains within itself it's own cause.
and the theists argue that the atheist must show evidence for their positive claim. To which we reply if God is intelligent then He could choose to reveal Himself to us in His own way by His own means: be it the Quran or the Bible or whatever and those things could contain the evidence for the theistic position.
If the atheist refuses to be objectivly be open to a world view that does not have a bias against God they are refusing to open to all the possible evidence.
I deny a theists positive claim about God existing just as much as a child's positive claim about the tooth fairy existing. Just because I say the tooth fairy doesnt exist, does that mean I have to supply evidence to disprove it? No. That's like me asking you to prove that Darth Vader does not exist.
Here's something to help you romans:
Participant A: There is an invisible dragon in my garage.
Participant B: Prove it.
Participant A: No! Give me evidence to show that it doesn't exist!
Participant B: But there is no evidence...
Participant A: Then it must exist!
Seem a bit familiar romans?
Last edited by Raskolnikov on Tue Feb 05, 2008 12:50 am; edited 1 time in total
Raskolnikov Confident Learner
Joined: Jan 14, 2008
Posts: 85
Location: Las Vegas
Posted:
Tue Feb 05, 2008 12:48 am
romans120 wrote:
BobSpence1 wrote:
romans120 wrote:
As I have come to understand more about atheism I have noticed a common thread of most vocal atheists is that they lump all theistic or pantheistic worldviews into one category and deny there validity. All the while up holding there worldview as being the best because they don't make any positive claims not based on observable or provable evidence. I argue however that in the case of existence it is impossible to deny a positive claim of one group without asserting a positive claim of your own.
Example: Theists make the positive claim that existence is caused by a creator
Atheists say they are without belief because theists can not prove their positive claim
however in reality Atheists by denying the theist positive claim are making the positive claim that existence contains within itself it's own cause.
Wrong. That is a separate argument. 'God' is not the only possible alternative position to the existence of God. Some ideas still involve something outside the Universe as its 'cause', but that 'cause' does not have anything like the attributes of a 'God'.
Some claims do imply a specific counter-claim, such as Kevin's example of claiming a particular city is NOT the capital of particular State, since that can be as easily verified as the positive side. In a sense such a claim is not so much a negative one, as much as particular assertion about the attributes of the city.
Quote:
and the theists argue that the atheist must show evidence for their positive claim. To which we reply if God is intelligent then He could choose to reveal Himself to us in His own way by His own means: be it the Quran or the Bible or whatever and those things could contain the evidence for the theistic position.
If the atheist refuses to be objectivly be open to a world view that does not have a bias against God they are refusing to open to all the possible evidence.
God is such an ill-defined concept that until someone presents some coherent positive arguments for a specific deity with at least some defined attributes, ie not the meaningless 'omni' crap, we have no obligation to respond.
Your attempt at making my argument fall into an excluded middle is not going to work. I used the term existence not universe. Whatever you can come up with be branes, strings or singularities are all still somethings and can not ever be characterized as nothings - so they exist. I have no problem with a truly neutral position. But if you put the burden of proof on the theist to prove God exists before considering the possibility of revelation you would be holding the theist to higher standard than yourself i.e hypocrisy
Where is your proof that existence has meaning apart from the universe?
romans120 Newbie First Class
Joined: Feb 02, 2008
Posts: 44
Posted:
Tue Feb 05, 2008 1:31 am
Raskolnikov wrote:
romans120 wrote:
As I have come to understand more about atheism I have noticed a common thread of most vocal atheists is that they lump all theistic or pantheistic worldviews into one category and deny there validity. All the while up holding there worldview as being the best because they don't make any positive claims not based on observable or provable evidence. I argue however that in the case of existence it is impossible to deny a positive claim of one group without asserting a positive claim of your own.
Example: Theists make the positive claim that existence is caused by a creator
Atheists say they are without belief because theists can not prove their positive claim
however in reality Atheists by denying the theist positive claim are making the positive claim that existence contains within itself it's own cause.
and the theists argue that the atheist must show evidence for their positive claim. To which we reply if God is intelligent then He could choose to reveal Himself to us in His own way by His own means: be it the Quran or the Bible or whatever and those things could contain the evidence for the theistic position.
If the atheist refuses to be objectivly be open to a world view that does not have a bias against God they are refusing to open to all the possible evidence.
I deny a theists positive claim about God existing just as much as a child's positive claim about the tooth fairy existing. Just because I say the tooth fairy doesnt exist, does that mean I have to supply evidence to disprove it? No. That's like me asking you to prove that Darth Vader does not exist.
Here's something to help you romans:
Participant A: There is an invisible dragon in my garage.
Participant B: Prove it.
Participant A: No! Give me evidence to show that it doesn't exist!
Participant B: But there is no evidence...
Participant A: Then it must exist!
Seem a bit familiar romans?
I don't really see what this has to do with my argument. My argument was we both claim invisible things exist in the omni-versal garage of existence. If you can form or find an argument that dismantles my argument that that is the case.
Code:
Where is your proof that existence has meaning apart from the universe?
Because the visible universe does not posses the atribute of eternality or self-existence so it must have derived it's cause from out side of itself (you and I agree on this one though you might not realize it)
_________________ Romans 1:20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.
kmisho Grand Poster
Joined: Dec 06, 2005
Posts: 1677
Location: Richmond, Virginia USA
Posted:
Tue Feb 05, 2008 3:11 am
Romans never makes himself very clear, and this is an example.
Quote:
Theists make the positive claim that existence is caused by a creator
If god "exists" he cannot be responsible for creating "existence", since his own "existence" implies there was nothing to create.
romans120 Newbie First Class
Joined: Feb 02, 2008
Posts: 44
Posted:
Tue Feb 05, 2008 3:21 am
kmisho wrote:
Romans never makes himself very clear, and this is an example.
Quote:
Theists make the positive claim that existence is caused by a creator
If god "exists" he cannot be responsible for creating "existence", since his own "existence" implies there was nothing to create.
how do you come to that conclusion? and how does the who created God argument not apply to the eternal and self-existent thing that caused our universe or caused the thing that caused our universe and so on
_________________ Romans 1:20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.
Raskolnikov Confident Learner
Joined: Jan 14, 2008
Posts: 85
Location: Las Vegas
Posted:
Tue Feb 05, 2008 6:18 am
romans120 wrote:
Raskolnikov wrote:
romans120 wrote:
As I have come to understand more about atheism I have noticed a common thread of most vocal atheists is that they lump all theistic or pantheistic worldviews into one category and deny there validity. All the while up holding there worldview as being the best because they don't make any positive claims not based on observable or provable evidence. I argue however that in the case of existence it is impossible to deny a positive claim of one group without asserting a positive claim of your own.
Example: Theists make the positive claim that existence is caused by a creator
Atheists say they are without belief because theists can not prove their positive claim
however in reality Atheists by denying the theist positive claim are making the positive claim that existence contains within itself it's own cause.
and the theists argue that the atheist must show evidence for their positive claim. To which we reply if God is intelligent then He could choose to reveal Himself to us in His own way by His own means: be it the Quran or the Bible or whatever and those things could contain the evidence for the theistic position.
If the atheist refuses to be objectivly be open to a world view that does not have a bias against God they are refusing to open to all the possible evidence.
I deny a theists positive claim about God existing just as much as a child's positive claim about the tooth fairy existing. Just because I say the tooth fairy doesnt exist, does that mean I have to supply evidence to disprove it? No. That's like me asking you to prove that Darth Vader does not exist.
Here's something to help you romans:
Participant A: There is an invisible dragon in my garage.
Participant B: Prove it.
Participant A: No! Give me evidence to show that it doesn't exist!
Participant B: But there is no evidence...
Participant A: Then it must exist!
Seem a bit familiar romans?
I don't really see what this has to do with my argument. My argument was we both claim invisible things exist in the omni-versal garage of existence. If you can form or find an argument that dismantles my argument that that is the case.
I dont claim invisible things =P I claim to not know how the universe began. Unlike theists.
romans120 wrote:
Because the visible universe does not posses the atribute of eternality or self-existence so it must have derived it's cause from out side of itself (you and I agree on this one though you might not realize it)
View next topic View previous topic
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
* You can syndicate our news and blog using the file