Let's cut to the chase. Do you have any evidence?

[no evidence no belief]

I feel like we've been beating around the bush for... 6000 years!

Can you please either provide some evidence for your supernatural beliefs, or admit that you have no evidence?

If you believe there once was a talking donkey (Numbers 22) could you please provide evidence?

If you believe there once was a zombie invasion in Jerusalem (Mat 27) could you please provide evidence?

If you believe in the flying horse (Islam) could you please provide evidence?

Walking on water, virgin births, radioactive spiders who give you superpowers, turning water into wine, turning iron into gold, demons, goblins, ghosts, hobbits, elves, angels, unicorns and Santa.

Can you PLEASE provide evidence?

[instantc]

This amounts, in effect, to the statement "If there is a reason why B exists, and B clearly does exist, then the reason why B exists also exists". You can't get much more circular than that.

No it doesn't amount to that, not at all, you are completely distorting it beyond recognition. In my argument (3) at least undeniably follows from (2) and (1).

Your suggestion, If there is a reason why B exists, and B clearly does exist, then the reason why B exists also exists is not similar to my argument, you changed my argument into following:

(1) There is a reason why B exists
(2) B exists
(3) There is a reason why B exists

Here (3) follows from (1) alone, and therefore your argument is both unsubstantiated and circular



Let me run a parallel argument (different configuration, but common premise (1))

(1) If the things, without which chairs cannot exist, then chairs don't exist
(2) Chairs do exist
(3) The thing, without which chairs cannot exist, does exist

Notice, how this argument is sound as such, including premise (1), and this time it can be verified in reality, as we know that chairs require chair legs. This would be true even if no chair leg ever existed, therefore no such implications you suggest can be drawn from (1).


In order not to get lost here, keep this in mind. Syllogism is only circular if (3) follows from (2) or (1) alone. If (3) follows from (2) and (1), and it doesn't follow from (2) or (1) alone, then the argument is valid.

How in my argument does the conclusion follow from one premise alone?

[Jax Agnesson]

[Replying to post 1030 by instantc]

If chairs exist, then 'whatever is necesary for chairs to exist" exists.
If 'everything' exists, then 'whatever is necessary for 'everything' to exist' exists.
This is circular, in the sense that it is nothing more than a long-assed tautology; and like all tautology it has the virtue of truth and the vice of conataining no information.
Such tautological arguments continue to be circular until some attribute other than self-defined necessity is attached to the entity whose existence is in question. So if we could accept that legs are necessary for chairs, then the claim 'If chairs, then legs.' would be both valid and sound. This makes non-circular sense because 'legs' have some attributes other than 'what is necessary for chairs to exist.'

[instantc]

[Replying to post 1030 by instantc]

If chairs exist, then 'whatever is necesary for chairs to exist" exists.
If 'everything' exists, then 'whatever is necessary for 'everything' to exist' exists.

Notice that my argument doesn't merely claim the existence of 'whatever is necessary for A to exist', but rather a being, without which A cannot exist. It does have content. Nor does using a loaded term in a premise render it invalid, since the premise as such doesn't imply its existence.


I think that the actual reason why the argument fails is because premises (1) and (2) use different definitions of 'exist', so (2) doesn't confirm the conditional of (1).

[Jax Agnesson]

[Replying to post 1032 by instantc]
I see what you mean, (I think!). The argument appears circular because it assumes that the existence of 'everything' must be dependent on some entity or other, then proposses that this 'being' must be the necessary entity upon which the existence of 'everything' depends, and concludes that this 'being' must exist because 'everything' exists.
It is this double conditional, the IFF, with one of the two conditions written into the definition of the entity, that makes it look circular, when in fact it might not be circular as such; merely contentless.

[Goat]

I'm confused by your concession that your argument is not sound, but that somehow it is still valid.

I said that if not sound, it is at least valid. There is a difference between validity and soundness. Validity means that the conclusion logically follows from the premises. Soundness means that in addition to that, all the premises are correct.

This version claims the nonexistence of a being 'without which anything at all cannot exist and therefore nothing exists. Again this is circular.

Please be more clear whether you attack validity of the argument, or the correctness of one or more of the premises.

It's not circular, it's a valid deduction. It is true, dictated by logic, that if the being, without which A cannot exist, does not exist, then A does not exist. Is it not? Do you suggest that this as such is circular, or only when combined with the second premise?

If you add to that premise (2) such a being does not exist, then it logically follows that A does not exist. So if the premises were true, then the conclusion follows. That means that the argument is at least valid. At this point we are past your accusation of circularity, since a circular argument is not valid. Now, the only thing left in order to refute the soundness of the argument is to attack the correctness of one or both of the premises.

I'll try to restate your argument with simpler language:

1. If there does not exist a being necessary to existence, then nothing exists.
2. There is no such being.
3. Therefore nothing exists.

Do you now see how your argument is circular, both unsound, and invalid?

Now you have obscured my argument beyond recognition. The premise (1) is easier to handle if you put it in a general form, if the being, without which A cannot exist, does not exist, then A does not exist. This as such is not circular, and the addition (2) there is no being without which A couldn't exist doesn't make it anymore circular.

When you deal with logical arguments, you have to be precise as to what you are challenging, one of the premises or the validity.

You have yet to respond to the point 'Arguments are not evidence'. this thread is specifically asking for evidence... all you have given is an argument that you can not show is sound. For that matter, you don't seem to see your premise includes your conclusion.

[Philbert]

In my experience, the usual approach in academia is the so called null hypothesis, which means that claims may be accepted only if they are backed up by sufficient evidence/reasoning.

Where is the sufficient evidence to back up the claim that human reasoning would be relevant and qualified to analyze a supernatural being, which by definition would be not be bound by logic?

If such a being did exist, all attempts to hold such a being to any standard of logical consistency goes out the window, because a supernatural entity would be by definition outside of the logical rules being used to conduct the analysis.

So before you can have any confidence that all your wonderful logical calculations are at all relevant to the topic, you first have to assume there is no supernatural entity.

There is no God, therefore there is no God.

The whole problem with your thesis is that you (ie. forum atheists) adamantly refuse to follow your own system. If you were to respect the following system in an intellectually honest manner....

In my experience, the usual approach in academia is the so called null hypothesis, which means that claims may be accepted only if they are backed up by sufficient evidence/reasoning.

...you would see there is no compelling evidence that human reason would be qualified to analyze supernatural beings, should they exist.

According to this epistemological approach the atheist is justified in rejecting the God claim merely on grounds of insufficient evidence.

You would also BE REQUIRED to reject your own fantasy knowings, your own assertion of fantasy ability in regards to the question of analyzing supernatural beings.

But you will do no such thing.

Because you aren't people of reason, but rather committed atheist ideologues. You have a favorite conclusion you are determined to reach, and you will do any rhetorical semantic dance you have to do to get there.

You have every right to do this.

But you don't have a right to call it reason, because what it really is is a form of faith based religion, the very thing you are complaining about.

Just call it what it is, faith, and I withdraw all my complaints. Everybody is entitled to their faith.

[Danmark]

In my experience, the usual approach in academia is the so called null hypothesis, which means that claims may be accepted only if they are backed up by sufficient evidence/reasoning.

Where is the sufficient evidence to back up the claim that human reasoning would be relevant and qualified to analyze a supernatural being, which by definition would be not be bound by logic?

If such a being did exist, all attempts to hold such a being to any standard of logical consistency goes out the window, because a supernatural entity would be by definition outside of the logical rules being used to conduct the analysis.

The problem with this approach is that it tries to analyze something that, as far as we can tell, exists only in the imagination. Anyone can posit a supernatural being and define it as beyond knowing, beyond understanding. Hence, this is a supposition that by definition is beyond debate. One can neither argue for nor against a proposition that is by definition beyond analysis.

Therefore the 'You can't analyze this' argument adds nothing to the debate.

[Philbert]

The problem with this approach is that it tries to analyze something that, as far as we can tell, exists only in the imagination.

It seems that way to you, because you are still suffering from the illusion that you can rely on your logic in regards to this question.

One can neither argue for nor against a proposition that is by definition beyond analysis.

Bingo, there it is. Now all you have left to do is believe your own words yourself.

Please do try to understand the word "supernatural".

[Goat]

The problem with this approach is that it tries to analyze something that, as far as we can tell, exists only in the imagination.

It seems that way to you, because you are still suffering from the illusion that you can rely on your logic in regards to this question.

One can neither argue for nor against a proposition that is by definition beyond analysis.

Bingo, there it is. Now all you have left to do is believe your own words yourself.

Please do try to understand the word "supernatural".

Please, define 'natural', while you are at it. Then, please give EVIDENCE for the supernatural. Or just admit you are making arguments, which have no evidence for them.

Arguments are not evidence. If you can't show your premise has anything to do with reality, then, what you are doing is playing word games.

[Jax Agnesson]

Where is the sufficient evidence to back up the claim that human reasoning would be relevant and qualified to analyze a supernatural being, which by definition would be not be bound by logic?

The evidence, such as it is, lies in the claims of the believers in this or that deity. Some believers claim that their deity is understandable through reason, or at least that their deity's commands and requirements are understandable through reason. Such claims can be examined through reason.
Some other theists claim that their deity cannot be so understood, and by definition those claims cannot be discussed by reason.

Do you, Philbert, claim that there actually is a God, but that those theists who believe that He can be apprehended through reason are wrong?. If so, then why do you frequent a site dedicated specifically to reasoned debate about religion?
If, on the other hand, you believe that only an unknowable God could possibly exist, well, how could you possibly know that?