Fair to Challenge Claims?

[JoeyKnothead]

In another thread there is much complaining about atheists challenging theist claims. I find it a bit weird, what with this being a debate site and all, but there we go.

For debate:

Is it fair for atheists to challenge theist claims on this, a debate site?

Is it fair for atheists to challenge theist claims outside of debate?

What are the real and possible ramifications of challenging theist claims?

What are the real and possible ramifications of allowing theist claims to go unchallenged?

[Jester]

if the atheist refuses to produce any evidence until you make a claim you do not support it is not because you do not care or wish to get to the truth that you protest, it is the dishonest tactic of him constructing a strawman argument for you to adopt, trying to get you to make an equally unsupportable argument.

This is an excellent summation of the "argument" requiring alternative position.

If you were interested in discussing, then I offered a response above.
As for a more specific response to that - if you feel that all claims on the subject of God's existence are equally unsupportable, why debate the matter?
In addition, is there a reason to live as if one ("God doesn't exist") is more likely to be true than the others?

[Flail]

Jester wrote:

It is not a claim on the topic of does God exist, but the topic of is Gods existence or non-existence meaningful.

My claim is: God's existence or non- exitence cannot begin to be ascertained until and unless we know what we are looking for, and the place we must start looking is from a viable definition, supportable by verifiable evidence. The thing that I contend is meaningless is debating such proposed existence or non- existence without first a definition and supportive evidence.
Jester wrote:

Also, I note that you move from claiming that a definition is evidence for existence or non-existence, then move from requiring a definition and evidence, why mention the latter if the former is evidence as you claim here?
Or, more to the point, how is a definition evidence? You have stated this position several times, but have not yet given me a reason to believe that it is true.

A definition is evidence of what we are looking for; a beginning factual basis for a debatable premise. Typically a definition gives us an indication of whether we are discussing mythical, imaginary things; hypothetical things; theories, or objectifiable things etc. Once we have identified what we are looking for we need supportive evidence to prove our claim that it exists if such is our claim. The general definition of 'God' not only ignores specifics as to what we are looking for, but typically avoids any indication of where we might find it or how. We are then expected to move toward a debate as to claims of existence where again we can find no verifiable evidence.
Flail wrote:

I do understand the claim, but take the position that any claim posited without a viable definition that is verified and objectified with credible evidence is meaningless to debate as to truth claims of actual existence or non-existence.

Jester responded:

I have absolutely no objection. In fact, this seems almost exactly my position. Ive been arguing that the group in question hasnt been debating the existence or non-existence of God. If you claim that your position is that it is meaningless to do so, that is certainly within your rights, but seems to be an agreement that you do not debate the existence of God.

You may characterize my offerings as debate or avoidance I suppose, but it seems you are engaged in making exactly the type of response you abhor; ie, refusing to make a counter to my claim.(at least under your idea of debate requiring specific counter claims).
Flail wrote:

I am not an atheist. I agree that if an atheist posits a claim that a 'god' does not exist, that they should be required to produce a viable definition of 'gods' and verifiable, credible evidence to support their truth claim that such beings do not exist. Debating theists or atheists as to such 'god' truth claims is meaningless.

Jester responded:

Very well, I will be careful not to refer to you as an atheist. I also note that you seem again to claim that you do not debate the matter of Gods existence.
As I am interested in debating it myself, I dont see why I should be expected to change my opinion on that topic based on a lack of a case being made for any other position on it.

I often engage in meaningless acts as I suppose you do as well. Perhaps you find debating me a meaningless act, but I do appreciate your efforts to do so. I find it somewhat disheartening however, that despite my repeated statements explaining my case on these matters you continue to contend that I have taken no position or stated no case.
Jester wrote:

We definitely have a definition for God.
We definitely have evidence, whether or not you personally consider it verified, I think, is irrelevant to how convincing this argument will be to someone who doesn't accept your position on that point.

Please explain how any truth claim can be supported in debate without verifiable evidence. Please provide your proposed definition of 'God' and what evidence you claim exists to support your contention that such a creature actually exists. In addition, please provide what non-evidentiary methods of supporting your claim you intend to rely upon.

Flail wrote:

My defined 'schnorb' and your defined 'god' can be debated as hypothetical beings, but debating claims as to their actual existence or non-existence is meaningless without a viable definition and verifiable evidence to support the initial claim. We can and do debate such truth claims, but I contend that doing so is a meaningless endeavor.

Jester responded:

Is this to say that you personally debate these claims " or simply that others do so?
If the former, what case have you made that Gods existence is true or false? How have you supported that position?
If the latter, then I dont see that we are in disagreement.

At various times in my life I have taken positions on the issue of Gods existence. I now find that my positions were untenable and my supportive arguments on either side meaningless.
Jester wrote:

Let me write what I read in your argument above as a syllogism:
Premise 1: There is no evidence for Gods existence
Premise 2: One cant make a case without evidence
Premise 3: It is meaningless to debate without making a case
Conclusion: Debating God is meaningless.

Let me write one to correct yours.
Premise 1: There is no viable definition of 'God'.
Premise 2: One can't make a case or logical inferences without a credibly defined starting point.
Premise 3: Debating a truth claim requires an initial factual premise and verifiable evidence in support.
Conclusion: 'God exists' has neither and nothing, is an empty claim which is meaningless to debate.
Jester wrote:

I see very little value in consistently attempting to debate a point without making a case on that point.

Then I will honorably withdraw while stating that I have found our debate to be meaningful. The fact that you have not is your perogative of course, and I recoginze your right to now claim victory as well. Although IMO, such a claim would be meaningless.

[Flail]

if the atheist refuses to produce any evidence until you make a claim you do not support it is not because you do not care or wish to get to the truth that you protest, it is the dishonest tactic of him constructing a strawman argument for you to adopt, trying to get you to make an equally unsupportable argument.

This is an excellent summation of the "argument" requiring alternative position.

If you were interested in discussing, then I offered a response above.
As for a more specific response to that - if you feel that all claims on the subject of God's existence are equally unsupportable, why debate the matter?
In addition, is there a reason to live as if one ("God doesn't exist") is more likely to be true than the others?

Debate can include pointing out to others what one feels is meaningless and why.
I personally see no reason to live as if a 'God' does or does not exist. Doing so would be as meaningless as debating the issue, and much more time consuming on the one hand and much more divisive on both.

Imagine living your life as if one particular 'God' exists only to discover that another and more powerful particular 'God' took offense that you had concocted and believed in a false and dangerous version.

[Jester]

My claim is: God's existence or non- exitence cannot begin to be ascertained until and unless we know what we are looking for, and the place we must start looking is from a viable definition, supportable by verifiable evidence. The thing that I contend is meaningless is debating such proposed existence or non- existence without first a definition and supportive evidence.

I am aware, and if you have no issue in being involved with debates you consider to be meaningless, then I have no further comment on that particular point.

A definition is evidence of what we are looking for;

I suppose one could put it in those terms. I wouldn't ever do so personally, but won't begrudge you your right to do so, so long as you aren't claiming that a definition is, in itself, evidence that a thing exists.

You may characterize my offerings as debate or avoidance I suppose, but it seems you are engaged in making exactly the type of response you abhor; ie, refusing to make a counter to my claim.(at least under your idea of debate requiring specific counter claims).

I'm not sure which claim I am refusing to counter. If you would point it out, I agree that I should make a counter or agree to drop any challenges.
In case you were referring to your basic claim above, I agree that a definition is required for meaningful debate. I don't agree that evidence is required before a debate can begin. Logic can be non-evidential support, as can comparison to competing claims.
Also, I see no reason why a challenger should be unable to make a counter-claim before evidence is supplied for the initial claim. Indeed, the nature of the counter-claim often determines which evidence should be presented.

I often engage in meaningless acts as I suppose you do as well. Perhaps you find debating me a meaningless act, but I do appreciate your efforts to do so. I find it somewhat disheartening however, that despite my repeated statements explaining my case on these matters you continue to contend that I have taken no position or stated no case.

I am sorry to dishearten you. I you have explained your position many times. I don't remember ever receiving any support - or evidence, to use your terms - in favor of it.
To be more clear, let me state the points of your claim:

1. There is no evidence in favor of God's existence (I disagree - that is off topic, but I don't see why I should be expected to accept this when it has not been established, or, in my personal view, well argued)

2. Without evidence, meaningful debate cannot occur (I disagree with your understanding of the term "evidence", I think. But do agree with the idea that meaningful debate requires support).

3. Hence, debating God is meaningless (If I agreed with your premises above, I would agree with this. The logic is sound. Even if I did, however, this is not an answer to the question "does God exist". The closest it comes is to say "asking that question is meaningless". That's a fair enough stance, but not an answer to the question. If you disagree, you are free to support the idea that it is an answer to the question. Thus far, I don't remember seeing that case having been attempted.)

Please explain how any truth claim can be supported in debate without verifiable evidence.

Much of a debate is over whether or not evidence is verified. That's largely what we debate to find out. Demanding that the case be made fully before the debate starts seems odd to me. Rather, it is the job of the opponent of a claim to show that evidence is not verifiable.

Please provide your proposed definition of 'God' and what evidence you claim exists to support your contention that such a creature actually exists.

We are not on that topic here.

Jester responded:

Is this to say that you personally debate these claims " or simply that others do so?
If the former, what case have you made that Gods existence is true or false? How have you supported that position?
If the latter, then I dont see that we are in disagreement.

At various times in my life I have taken positions on the issue of Gods existence. I now find that my positions were untenable and my supportive arguments on either side meaningless.

That is perfectly acceptable to me, but seems to be a non-stance on the issue. As such, I don't see any reason to consider it a position in the debate over God's existence.
Also, I personally feel that any line of reasoning which discredits both the proponency and the opponency equally well to be unhelpful in debate or in reasoning over the subject.

Okay, responding to your position.

Let me write one to correct yours.
Premise 1: There is no viable definition of 'God'.

If you claim not to understand the term 'God', I don't see how you can ever effectively debate a topic centered on it.

Premise 2: One can't make a case or logical inferences without a credibly defined starting point.

Agreed.

Premise 3: Debating a truth claim requires an initial factual premise and verifiable evidence in support.

Debating it effectively does.
And effective rebutting does as well.

Premise 4: 'God exists' has neither and nothing, is an empty claim which is meaningless to debate.

I don't disagree with your logic, but merely the premises as noted above.

I see very little value in consistently attempting to debate a point without making a case on that point.

Then I will honorably withdraw while stating that I have found our debate to be meaningful. The fact that you have not is your perogative of course, and I recoginze your right to now claim victory as well. Although IMO, such a claim would be meaningless.

I don't have any intention of claiming victory - that has never been my practice in any case.
Nor did I mean to say that this debate was meaningless. I was arguing that a debate "about God's existence" in which my opponent's fail to offer an answer to the question "Does God exist" is not a debate.

[Crazy Ivan]

I've been considering what my next step should be. Obviously, I still take exception to the presumption that just by addressing the arguments made by those that offer them to prove a god's existence, without committing to any personal convictions on the matter, I would not be making a case regarding that god's existence, or debating the topic, as I or anyone else might be concerned. As far as I'm concerned it does indeed constitute making a case regarding some god's existence and debating the matter, and it might also be the case regarding someone else, but that is just my opinion. Since I know that Jester has shared nothing but his own opinion on the matter, regardless of how he thinks he "argued" for it, and disappointed as I may be that these opinions come from a moderator, I will have to let them stand for what they are, and remove myself from this thread.

On a final note, I invite Jester to have the courage of his convictions, and thoroughly admonish members that aren't "debating the topic" or "making a case" whenever claims are challenged without being offered "alternatives" or without committing to personal convinctions on the topic. I'm inclined to just report myself on every post I make, since I will never present "alternatives" or commit to any personal convictions when addressing theistic claims. If Jester doesn't think all he has is opinion, then I believe he is mandated to act upon it. And we'll see how that goes...

[Flail]

Jester wrote:

Nor did I mean to say that this debate was meaningless. I was arguing that a debate "about God's existence" in which my opponent's fail to offer an answer to the question "Does God exist" is not a debate.

I cannot honorably or honestly take a position on the actual exitence or non-exitence of something that has no evidence and no meaning. How can you expect me to make a case for or against the factual existence of a 'being' that has never before been seen, detected, identified, pointed to, discerned or detected in any verifiably credible manner? I leave that to others.

[olavisjo]

How can you expect me to make a case for or against the factual existence of a 'being' that has never before been seen, detected, identified, pointed to, discerned or detected in any verifiably credible manner? I leave that to others.

I would be interested in how you would make a case for the position that God has never before been seen, detected, identified, pointed to, discerned or detected in any verifiably credible manner.

[Zzyzx]

.

I would be interested in how you would make a case for the position that God has never before been seen, detected, identified, pointed to, discerned or detected in any verifiably credible manner.

I would make the case that many of the thousands of proposed "gods" have been CLAIMED to have been "seen, detected, identified, pointed to, discerned or detected" in TESTIMONIALS.

Testimonials are nothing more than a statement of personal opinion -- a CLAIM of experience -- which can be neither verified nor refuted. Therefore, they are basically worthless as "evidence" (other than evidence of what someone THOUGHT they experienced -- and perhaps "evidence" to those who want or need to believe).

"Prove it didn't happen" or "prove the testimonials are false" or "prove god's don't exist" is a fool's errand.

Those who ask that testimonials and opinions be believed are expected to provide REASON to believe.

[olavisjo]

.

I would be interested in how you would make a case for the position that God has never before been seen, detected, identified, pointed to, discerned or detected in any verifiably credible manner.

I would make the case that many of the thousands of proposed "gods" have been CLAIMED to have been "seen, detected, identified, pointed to, discerned or detected" in TESTIMONIALS.

Testimonials are nothing more than a statement of personal opinion -- a CLAIM of experience -- which can be neither verified nor refuted. Therefore, they are basically worthless as "evidence" (other than evidence of what someone THOUGHT they experienced -- and perhaps "evidence" to those who want or need to believe).

"Prove it didn't happen" or "prove the testimonials are false" or "prove god's don't exist" is a fool's errand.

Those who ask that testimonials and opinions be believed are expected to provide REASON to believe.

Argumentum ad ignorantiam anyone?

[WinePusher]

I cannot honorably or honestly take a position on the actual exitence or non-exitence of something that has no evidence and no meaning.

It is dishonest to say that God has no evidence and has no meaning. Proofs and arguments for God have existed throughout have been refined throughout the centuries, and although you may not think these are convincing proofs, they falsify the claim there is "no evidence." As for "no meaning" (since this is a site for debating christianity) maybe we should us the abrahamic definition of God.

How can you expect me to make a case for or against the factual existence of a 'being' that has never before been seen, detected, identified, pointed to, discerned or detected in any verifiably credible manner? I leave that to others.

The same way prominent atheists debate, such as Peter Singer, Dan Barker and Christopher Hitchens. They make a case for the utility of atheism and they try to falsify christian claims.