Hi McCuloch,
You ask
I'm trying to work through the implications here. If Atheism is unfalsifiable, then there cannot be, even conceptually, evidence that could prove the existence of God. Therefore, would not agnosticism be the only logically sound position to take?
It depends on the area of the debate your looking at. I think Creationism cannot be falsified in Popper's sense, but is quite clearly false and has the intellectual merit of astrology. Even an agnostic about astrology, if they are rigorous in their thinking should come to see that Astrology is bogus. Same for Creationism too.
Now as we go up the scale, I think the arguments get tougher to kick in to touch. Ok I reject the resurrection and my atheism is a motivation, but I'm also wedded to intellectual self honesty and rigour as best I can be rigorous. Forget about Atheism, my intellectual tool kit leads me to reject the resurrection.
I have already said that everything I know about the form of logic tells me logical arguments like Plantinga's or Metacrock's for (and against) God are always crook!
But when we get to the top of the scale. Is there a God? (I've already kicked the Christian God into touch at this point) then I suggest this is where reasoning leaves off. The question is floating at a higher altitude than the mountain (OK maybe a small mound) of reason upon which I stand.
For me it gets worse, I sign up to a viewpoint that puts anything metaphysical into the realm of illogical nonsense. The metaphysical statement - "There is a God!" cannot be true or false because their is no definable logical object God. "There is a God!" is meaningless., viz', it cannot be true or false. However there is a whole realm of discourse, and story etc that give the word God a sense. But none of all that has ever been written or said can turn a meaningless sentence into a meaningful one. Moreover all that has been written and said about metaphysical entities, realms or beings is illogical nonsense because they rely for their sense on their metaphysical propositions being meaningful. So the sentence, if it is meant to be a metaphysical proposition, has no meaning and no sense and is illogical.
So the metaphysical question Is there God? though grammatically correct, and appears to make sense, really does not. You might as well ask is there a %&^*?
Thus when I stand under a night sky full of stars and get all those funny feelings that come with trying to take in the magnitude. I get a sense of %&^*?. Now a religious person will say Ah! that's God. I'd say what you talking about Willis? That's just the universe and me being %&^*?. Nothing metaphysical about it at all. And every single piece of evidence or argument or experience I bump into is going to get the same response. Thus for this atheist there is no God because the concept is illogical nonsense. And I cannot be an agnostic because that requires accepting an illogical sentence as a proper proposition.
Ok. There is room in that argument to say maybe God is beyond thought and logic and words. Maybe so. But then you come down to how you feel about it. And I don't feel there is a God. And that feeling is not open for proofs and disproofs.
Where you go with this and what side of the fence you want to fall will depend on what theory of logic and language you sign up to. So before you can make sesne of the debate you need to get a clear view for yourself as to how language works, and where its limits lie.
