Definition of God: First cause, prime mover, objective source of human purpose (final cause) and resulting morality, source of free will; omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent inasmuch as principles of logic allow. I am not talking in particular about any specifically defined religious interpretation of god, such as the christian or islamic god.
Definition: Intellectual dishonesty occurs when (1)one deliberately mischaracterizes their position or view in order to avoid having to logically defend their actual views; and/or (2) when someone is arguing, or making statements against a position while remaining willfully ignorant about that position, and/or (3) when someone categorically and/or pejoratively dismisses all existent and/or potential evidence in favor of a conclusion they claim to be neutral about, whether they are familiar with that evidence or not.
The argument against weak atheism:
Weak, or negative atheism is the lack of any belief that a god exists, and the lack of belief that god probably exists, and is not the positive belief that gods do not exist.
The following is a brief summary of the evidence for a general finding that a god of some kind exists, even if variantly interpreted or culturally contextualized (one can generally look up these arguments and evidences using google or bing):
1) Anecdotal evidence for the apparently intelligently ordered anomalous, miraculous (defying expected natural processes and probabilities) events attributed to god, such as signs or answers to prayers to god, or the ability to manifest or positively affirm such events through free will intention;
2) Testimonial evidence (first-hand accounts) of experience of such phenomena
3) The various Cosmological Arguments for the existence of god
4) The Strong Anthropic (or Fine Tuning) argument
5) The empirical, scientific evidence assembled in the strong anthropic argument in #4;
6) The Moral Arguments for the existence of god.
7) Empirical and testimonial evidence of phenomena closely correlated to the existence of a god of some sort, such as the survival of consciousness after death, and the existence of an afterlife realm, and the apparent agreement of afterlife entities that a god and human purpose exist; the evidence for interactions with correlated entities such as angels and demons (which seem to act to influence our free will towards or away from our human purpose), etc.
While the various arguments listed (all of which, to some degree, begin with empirical evidence) have been subject to counter-arguments and rebuttals of varying strengths and weaknesses, one must not lose sight that while there is much evidence (as listed above) in favor of the existence of god; there is zero evidence (to my knowledge) or rational argument (to my knowledge) that no such god (as defined above) exists.
[Note: One may argue that the Christian god doesn’t exist because of certain contradictions contained in the expressed nature and actions of that entity (or of the Islamic god); and there are such arguments – but this thread is not about such gods, so please adhere to the stated premise.]
The rebuttals to these argument are simply attempting to show weaknesses or alternatives to the arguments themselves so that such arguments cannot be taken as convincing (that god exists); such counter-arguments do not make the case that god (as described above) in fact does not exist.
Also, the testimony of religious adherents of various specific gods can be counted as evidence of the god premised in this argument in the manner that various various cultures can vary widely in their description of certain phenomena or experiences, and come up with widely variant “explanations”; what is interesting as evidence here, though, is the widespread crediting of similar kinds of phenomena and experience to a “god” of some sort (which might be the case of blind or ignorant people touching different parts of an elephant and thus describing “what the elephant is” in various ways). Such testimonial evidence can be counted in favor of the premise here, but cannot be held against it where it varies, because it is not testimony that such a god doesn’t exist.
If a “weak atheist” claims to “lack of belief” because there is “no” evidence for god, they are necessarily being intellectually dishonest, because they certainly aren’t privy to all potential or available evidence. They cannot claim to not know of the evidence for god after having perused the above evidence.
If the “weak atheist” is not aware of any compelling evidence, then any categorical claim they make about the available evidence they are not privy to – that it is not credible or convincing – is again intellectually dishonest because they are making a categorical claim about something they have no knowledge of.
If we have a weak atheist who is aware of the existence of the above evidence and agrees that there might be more evidence they are not privy to; and who does not categorically assert problems with the evidence they have not yet seen; and who does not categorically dismiss the available evidence as “non-evidence” (such as: hypocritically accepting testimonial evidence as evidence when it supports what they already believe, but dismissing it when it supports the existence of god) but rather states that the available evidence they have seen is not compelling towards a conclusion that god exists; then one must ask the following:
In the face of such huge amounts of evidence – thousands of years of testimony and anecdotal stories; many sound arguments based on empirical evidence and apparently necessary logical premises and inferences; and the complete lack of any attempt to make a sound argument that god (as described above) in fact does not exist – one must ask: how can any intellectually honest person come to any conclusion other than that god probably exists, even if god is poorly and diversely defined, and even if the experience of god is open to interpretation and misunderstanding?
As an analogy: even if one has never personally experienced “love”; in the face of thousands of years of testimony and anecdotal stories that love exists, and empirical evidence supporting that certain physical states correspond to assertions of experiences of love, would it be intellectually honest to “lack belief” that love exists, or would it be intellectually honest to hold the view that even though one doesn’t experience love (or using the same argument, color, joy, dreams, etc.), that love probably exists – even if people are widely disparate in their explanation, description, or presentation of what love is?
That I am aware of, there is zero evidence, no argument, and no anecdotal or testimonial evidence that god does not exist (because lack of experience of a thing isn’t evidence the thing doesn’t exist), and there is a vast array of logical, anecdotal, testimonial and empirical evidence that god does exist.
Even if one doesn’t find that evidence compelling for for a final conclusion that god exists, it is at least, if one is intellectually honest, compelling to the point that when one weighs the balance of the evidence for and against, that one must admit that it is more probable that god exists that that god does not exist, which cannot be said to be an atheistic point of view at all.
The argument against strong atheism:
Strong atheism is defined as the assertion that no god or gods exist whatsoever.
First, it is obvious that strong atheism cannot be logically supported, simply because it is impossible to prove (not in the absolute sense, but in the “sufficient evidence” sense). There may be evidence that certain gods, or kinds of gods, do not exist; but there is certainly no evidence or argument (that I’m aware of, anyway) that no significant, meaningful god or gods whatsoever exist.
Instead, strong atheists usually attempt to shift the burden onto theist by essentially asking the theists to prove the atheist position wrong. However, that is not the theists’ burden.
Strong atheism is a sweeping, categorical, negative assertion that something does not exist at all, anywhere. However unlikely one fineds it, it might be true that a god of some sort exists, so the strong atheist position would be excluding a potentially true explanation from consideration unnecessarily.
What is the useful point of a metaphysical position that excludes a potentially true explanation from consideration? What does strong atheism bring to the table of debate other than the potential for intractable error and denial of potential truth for the sake of a sweeping, unsupportable, universally negative assertion?
Conclusion: atheism of any sort is an untenable position for any intellectually honest, rational, and informed person. The belief that god does not exist, or that it isn’t more likely that god exists than not, can only be a valid position based on ignorance of the available evidence and argument for god, or a pseudoskeptical, a priori dismissal of all of the evidence for god based on ideological bias.
(Reposted here from a post I previously made under another name, in another forum, with a few minor edits and additions.)
WJM: “If the “weak atheist” is not aware of any compelling evidence, then any categorical claim they make about the available evidence they are not privy to – that it is not credible or convincing – is again intellectually dishonest because they are making a categorical claim about something they have no knowledge of .”
and: “there is certainly no evidence or argument (that I’m aware of, anyway) that no significant, meaningful god or gods whatsoever exist.”
There goes your argument… or your intellectual honesty…
Meh, Your atheism isn’t the common one.
I suspect many atheists are fine with Spinozas ‘God’, which isn’t really a God in the common sense. I like that ‘nature’ fulfils your definition of God.
Also, having a title “is *ANY* form of atheism..” [emphasis mine] and then defining atheism very specifically and esoterically through a very unique concept of god, is intellectually dishonest.
As Madbat noted William, this completely destroys your own argument or your intellectual honesty. Counter arguments, rebuttals, et al are evidence for no such god existing by your own definition.
1, 2, and 7 are *evidence for the existence of a god* only in the way WJM defines evidence. They are not in the way scientists define evidence. So, from the scientific perspective: WJM has presented zero evidence for the existence of a god.
Your ‘definition of God’ is purely presuppositional.
Rebuttals against positive theistic arguments in and of themselves are not attempting to support a positive assertion that no such god exists; they are simply attempting to negate or undermine the value of the original theistic argument/evidence. As such, they are not (and do not read as) stand-alone arguments that no god or gods exist. I’m not aware of any formal, stand-alone argument that tries to make the case that “no god or gods exist”.
Most philosophers and even atheists agree (including Dawkins) that there is no case to be made against a deistic god, so even attempting such a “no god or gods exist” argument is widely held as a foolish thing to do.
You’re missing the point, William – rebuttals against positive theistic arguments remove those arguments as evidence, which in turn falsifies the hypothesis. In other words, if all the supposed “evidence” you claim exists for some god has been rebutted, that is the same thing as evidence for no god.
And I’m not offering such an argument. I’m merely pointing out that if you were truly being consistent and intellectually honest, you’d admit that all those rebuttals against positive “evidence” for god amount to no evidence of god, which is a falsification of the hypothesis. Hence the reason that the existence of any given “god” is taken on “faith”.
William,
You wrote:
. . .
5) The empirical, scientific evidence assembled in the strong anthropic argument in #4;
. . .
7) Empirical and testimonial evidence of phenomena closely correlated to the existence of a god of some sort, such as the survival of consciousness after death, and the existence of an afterlife realm, and the apparent agreement of afterlife entities that a god and human purpose exist; the evidence for interactions with correlated entities such as angels and demons (which seem to act to influence our free will towards or away from our human purpose), etc.
. . . .
I would like to add one more definition to those you present:
Empirical Evidence: Data obtained via objective, replicable observations based on the physical senses.
Given that, what empirical evidence do you have for your points 5 and 7?
“As such, they are not (and do not read as) stand-alone arguments that no god or gods exist.”
Robin said nothing about *stand-alone*. You said nothing about *stand-alone* in your OP. As far as I can see, there is no logical requirement that and argument needs to be *stand-alone* (as opposed to being counter-arguments to something else) in order to be successful, and thus be viewed as evidence for the counter-position.
More importantly, my personal analysis of the failure of your argument did not depend upon any counter-arguments to theism. It simply points out that your case rests on making a categorical claim about something (“there is no argument or evidence that no god exists”) you have no knowledge of (“that I am aware of”), while simultaneously claiming that that is what the counter-position is doing, and calling this behavior intellectually dishonest.
Is that “definition” rationally justifiable? Why does there need to be a first cause? Why does there need to be a prime mover? Why does human purpose require an external source?
To me, your entire post comes across as an exercise in intellectual dishonesty.
Weak evidence that lends itself to extreme bias (carefully selecting which anecdotes to count).
Weak evidence that is even more prone to extreme bias.
LOL. That’s just “evidence” that is derived from intellectually dishonest arguments.
I won’t bother with the rest of your “evidence.” You have no persuasive evidence.
But what about a person who lives his/her life without regard to whether there is a God? I don’t see the relevance of evidence to such a person.
By “stand-alone”, I mean one that puts forth a positive argument that no god or gods exist. I have yet to see anyone make such an assertion or attempt to support it via argument or evidence. The rebuttals to the arguments I’ve listed do not attempt to support a position that no god or gods exist.
Why would anyone make such an assertion or attempt to support such if the premise hasn’t been firmly established in the first place? As an example, there’s no reason to present evidence against obniloq unless and until someone actually firmly establishes that obniloq exists. Since by your own exercise above you freely note that this “god” thing’s existence has yet to be firmly established, there’s no reason to prove it doesn’t; that’s the default position until otherwise noted.
Rebuttals do not “remove” the original argument as evidence, they simply offer a counter-argument or explanation (that can have various degrees of legitimate valeu). It is up to the individual to arbit how effective or convincing either side has been.
If there is a rebuttal to the rebuttal, does that remove the value of the first rebuttal? Of course not. Does calling a rebuttal witness remove the first witness’ testimony from consideration? Of course not.
Theistic rebuttal arguments do not individually make the positive case that “no gods exist”, and so those rebuttals do not count as evidence in that regard, where the original arguments for god do count (even if lessened by good rebuttals) in favor of a finding of theism.
Thus you have agreed that the strong atheist position is unwarranted, since nobody has proven (or has even attempted to prove) that no gods exist, which leaves only the weak atheist position – which I’ve also covered as being a rationally unsupportable position for anyone who has been apprised of the evidence available.
I think I follow this argument. The “evidence” for any god amounts to “I claim there are gods, and you can’t prove me wrong.” The argument that “you can’t prove me wrong” is not positive support for anything whatsoever, is dismissed as intellectual dishonesty. A clear case of “heads I win, tails you lose.”
And I would counter all of this self-serving dishonesty by asserting that gods are invariably imaginary, and you can’t prove me wrong. So there!
As a matter of fact, I think the strongest case available can be made that NO belief in imaginary sky-daddies is rationally justifiable. It is pure delusion in every case. A matter of selective, compartmentalized insanity.
For the weak atheist, one only needs to consider the preponderance of the evidence (as listed). Since there appears to be no evidence gathered and/or used to support any “no gods exist” argument or claim for strong atheism, then it is obvious that the preponderance of the evidence tilts the balance to the theistic side.
No evidence on one side, and tons of evidence on the other. Even if one holds the evidence for god (as described in the O.P.) as being very unreliable, thin, and slight, it is still more evidence than exists for any claim that “no gods exist”.
The only rational position, then, is that it is more likely that god (of some sort, as described in the O.P.) exists than does not exist, which clearly cannot be an atheistic position.
What a tragic, misinformed points-scoring exercise this is. William Lane Craig Junior is very keen to point out that atheist’s (per his definition) non belief in god (per his definition) are intellectually dishonest (per his definition). The selfsame cat has said its okay that his special magical epistemic and ontological world is not revealable or shareable, that he’s fine with us not subscribing to the batshit insanity / inanity contained therein and he has no warrant for it other than ‘it works for him and he’s been lucky’
I can actually feel myself getting stupider as I read WJM’s posts.
I’d say it depends on the rebuttal and the original “evidence”.
Uhh…actually, in a number of cases a rebuttal does indeed remove a witnesses testimony. Again, it depends on the rebuttal and the “evidence”.
See above. Unless and until said “god” is firmly established, there’s no reason for anyone to disprove it as a hypothesis. Let’s look at this another way: until someone can show that the hypothesis “god” (as you define it) adds anything to…anything conceptual, practical, or otherwise, it’s existence is irrelevant. Can this “god” hypothesis start my car on a cold morning and have it warm before I have to use it? Can it map the human genome? Can it provide a cure for kidney disease more reliable than transplantation? If the answer is no, what effect does disproving the hypothesis get me?
<blockquote>Thus you have agreed that the strong atheist position is unwarranted, since nobody has proven (or has even attempted to prove) that no gods exist, which leaves only the weak atheist position – which I’ve also covered as being a rationally unsupportable position for anyone who has been apprised of the evidence available.</blockquote>
There is strong evidence from pure logic that the thousands of gods purported to exist cannot simultaneously exist.
I assume the cosmological argument is the one involving a necessary first cause. That argument is the poster child for intellectual dishonesty. Everything requires a cause except my personal sky fairy. He/she/it requires no cause because I say so. that is either dishonest or insane, If an entity can exist without cause or beginning, than one cannot assert that everything requires a cause or beginning. This is simple logic.
For the weak afairyist, one only needs to consider the preponderance of the evidence (pictures of fairies at the bottom of the garden and claims of three young girls). Since there appears to be no evidence gathered and/or used to support any “no fairies exist” argument or claim for strong afairyism, then it is obvious that the preponderance of the evidence tilts the balance to the fairyist side.
William J Murray,
But you could make the same argument for the Sasquatch or Yeti.
People have claimed to see it, and even though some “evidence” has been rebutted, there is no positive evidence that the Yeti does not exist.
Your evidence for god is no more moving than that for the Yeti.
Here you go: “All gods are Imaginary”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raven_paradox
Enjoy.
“See above. Unless and until said “god” is firmly established, there’s no reason for anyone to disprove it as a hypothesis”
Indeed – see also, burden of proof.
Exactly, but for some reason, the logic in this is not apparent to WJM or the ID crowd.
Indeed. So?
Toronto – those disbelieving in Yeti are intellectually dishonest, especally if you use my special arbitratry definition of “Yeti””.
entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem
More generally, there is an infinity of things that do not exist. Now, imagine asserting that any of them DOES exist, and challenging everyone to prove you’re wrong. After all, your bogus claim constitutes “evidence”, because you SAID so. And since they have no evidence you’re wrong, and CANNOT have such evidence since you ARE wrong (it doesn’t exist, so there can’t be evidence of it), this proves you’re right!
What an amazing contortion to go through, to convinced yourself that your delusions are “real”. No wonder WJM is so sensitive about intellectual dishonesty – his god consists of NOTHING ELSE.
My bad!!!
I stand corrected!! 🙂
Because they do not assert that everything has a cause or a beginning. They assert that everything that has a beginning was caused. They do not claim god had a beginning; so god requires no cause.
An uncaused cause is necessary to avoid infinite regression.
Baffles me why religious types seem to want to demonize anyone who expresses an atheistic viewpoint. I don’t give a fig what William wants to believe, so long it (or the consequences of acting on those beliefs) does not adversely affect the rights of others. I consider myself very lucky to live in a secular environment where one is allowed a private life and one’s religious views or lack of them are nobody else’s business. I sincerely hope that secularism will prevail in the US but I do fear for the future if the religious right starts to get a real foothold in politics. I think William’s ability to appreciate the rights of others to form their own view about the existence of gods suggests what may lie in store.
William, do you think people should be able to think what they want and express their own views (within the limits of laws relating to racial hatred, incitement to violence etc) without being labelled intellectually dishonest?
Would it shock you if you discovered that WJM’s activity here is one long Poe? Would it make you feel like you’ve been wasting your time?
It means you’ve claimed that the evidence for god is no better than that for a Sasquatch!
Tell StephenB this.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8EQDhtVl_50&feature=related
Please note that the outcome of my argument isn’t that one is required to believe that god exists, any more than one would be required to believe that Yetis exist. Also, the “likelihood” that something exists must be weighed in accordance with the amount and quality of positive evidence supporting such claims.
William, this amounts to a false dichotomy. There’s at least one more possible position that my argument supports – that the concept of “god” is unnecessary for practical purposes. This not any kind of atheistic position, but rather an apatheistic one.
Now, you really haven’t yet demonstrated that the weak atheistic position is rationally unsupportable – you’ve merely claimed such without substantiation. In fact, both you and Kent have made similar assertions on this without substantiation and I’d really like to read your rationale with a little support.
But aside from that, you haven’t even considered the apatheistic position. I’m interested in your take on that.
Yes, this is the serious side of this culture war.
If the WJM’s of the world get their way, the freedom to hold your own opinions will be gone.
Again:
Here you go: “All gods are Imaginary”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raven_paradox
Enjoy.
That depends on whether or not they are being intellectually dishonest.
So you’re fine with us calling you intellectually dishonest?
William, this isn’t how science, law, or logic work. A whole ton of circumstantial evidence on one side need not be countered with opposing direct evidence; one need only test the circumstantial evidence and determine whether it’s remotely valid. If it isn’t, the hypothesis is falsified in science and the case is dismissed in court. It’s that simple.
Nobody here is obligated to disprove your supposed god. See Rich’s post on Burden of Proof.
For the sake of argument, presume they are not. Would you grant to anyone else the same rights of intellectual freedom that you enjoy, had you the power to decide?
My position is that if one is truly apatheistic, they don’t engage in theistic arguments because such arguments do not interest them.
<blockquote>Because they do not assert that everything has a cause or a beginning. They assert that everything that has a beginning was caused. </blockquote>
Please respond to what I said rather than what you would like for me to have said.
Here’s what I said:
” If an entity can exist without cause or beginning, than one cannot assert that everything requires a cause or beginning.”
If an entity can exist without a beginning then it is possible for entities to exist without a beginning. There is no evidence one way or another that that any actual entities exist without a beginning, but if at least one does, then “beginningness” is not necessary to existence.
<blockquote>My position is that if one is truly apatheistic, they don’t engage in theistic arguments because such arguments do not interest them.</blockquote>
I have no interest in driving drunk, but I have an interest in avoiding the consequences set in motion by those who do. I have no interest in theology, but I have an interest in keeping theism out of laws and politics.
Exactly!
It’s interesting that you think that your “free” will is dependent on someone else’s. As your description of your god doesn’t include anything about wanting us to believe in him or worship him, why are you bothering to try to make the case against atheism? Is it, perhaps, for political reasons? Do you fear that highly theistic “third world” countries will end up like Sweden? If so, why?
Again you miss the logic.
If I agree with you that god requires no cause, there is a logical conclusion that MUST be drawn in order for that premise, ( that god has no cause ), to be logically valid.
That conclusion, is that not everything that exists, NEEDS a cause.
And what evidence do we have that this is true?
Your claim that god does not require a cause is evidence, “accepted by you”, that something can exist without a cause.
Now, after accepting that something, (god for example), can exist without a cause, what evidence do you have, that something, (god for example), CANNOT exist without a cause?
IF “one thing” can exist without a “cause”, why can’t two, or three, or seventy things, or the entire universe, exist without a cause?