Transcending Proof

[Fundagelico]

I haven't posted here in a while, but for anyone interested, the Secular Web just published a paper of mine, a rebuttal to Richard Carrier's argument that the nonexistence of God can be easily proven:

http://infidels.org/library/modern/don_ ... proof.html

I realize that many atheists and skeptics do not believe theism to be falsifiable. For those who do believe theism to be falsifiable, I'll try to stick around and answer any serious or substantive counterarguments.

Questions for debate:

1. Do you believe that theism (particularly Christian theism) is falsifiable?

2. If yes, how would you propose to falsify it?

3. If no, why do you believe it to be false?

[Fundagelico]

Not really. God is self-existent by theological definition, and there is abundant evidence for theism. I offered a sampling of that evidence here:

http://infidels.org/library/modern/don_ ... oof.html#6

Given that there is evidence for God, theism does not depend entirely on imagination.

I read that paragraph, and I found it to be quite unconvincing. Would it be okay with you if I started a new thread where I list the points given in that note, along with the question, "Is this evidence for theism?" I expect there will be many people along with myself who will be happy to explain why this evidence is not really evidence at all.

Thanks for your interest, rookie.
�
Be my guest, though I probably won't participate.

I wouldn't mind discussing the strength and quality of the evidence cited. But for me a discussion of whether there is "really evidence at all" for theism is not really worth having. That dead horse has already been beaten to a pulp repeatedly on this board.

To me it's undeniably true that there is evidence for God. This only means that my belief in God is rationally justified; and atheists can take comfort in the fact that a rationally justified belief is not necessarily true. But it does suggest, as I mentioned earlier, that "theism does not depend entirely on imagination."

It seems that too often, skeptics attempt to strike down any and all evidentiary claims in support of theism in order to render theists completely irrational. For me, debating with a completely irrational person would be decidedly uninteresting – sort of like playing chess with my dog: She wouldn't even know what we're trying to do and I couldn’t begin to explain it to her.

[rookiebatman]

Be my guest, though I probably won't participate.

I wouldn't mind discussing the strength and quality of the evidence cited.

I'm not trying to be smart here, but I honestly don't understanding how these two statements go together (it is early in the morning). You won't participate in the thread, but you do want to discuss it?

Are you saying you wouldn't mind discussing it here in this current thread? The reason I was trying not to discuss it here was because I didn't want to stray away from the discussion currently going on, but if you want to discuss it here, it is your thread.

To me it's undeniably true that there is evidence for God. This only means that my belief in God is rationally justified; and atheists can take comfort in the fact that a rationally justified belief is not necessarily true. But it does suggest, as I mentioned earlier, that "theism does not depend entirely on imagination."

Couldn't it be possible, though, that imagination is precisely what makes those arguments (which some would say are easily refuted) appear to be evidence?

And furthermore, in order to make the claim that your belief is rationally justified, I assert that it's not enough for there to be evidence in favor. For it to be rationally justified, the evidence for has to be stronger than the evidence against.

It seems that too often, skeptics attempt to strike down any and all evidentiary claims in support of theism in order to render theists completely irrational. For me, debating with a completely irrational person would be decidedly uninteresting – sort of like playing chess with my dog: She wouldn't even know what we're trying to do and I couldn’t begin to explain it to her.

This seems like a strange line of reasoning to me. It seems like you're saying that if we refute all the theistic evidence, then theists won't be worth debating. But 1) it would require healthy debate with the theists making the claim to feel like we had "struck it down" in any fair-minded way, and 2) if the fact that all the theistic evidence isn't valid were (for the purpose of argument) true, it seems like what you're saying is, "you shouldn't try to find the truth because that wouldn't be any fun." Am I misunderstanding?

[Hatuey]

It is if the only reason you believe it's been proven to be the best model is because someone else tells you it's been proven to be the best model. And that is precisely why a considerable majority of university students believe evolution to be the best model.

Incorrect. Science provides predictive models that serve practical reasons. Since science (and evolutionary science) thrive on others continually testing it and refining it, (because there's quantifiable and testable data), and religious faith doesn't allow that because it can't because there's no quantifiable and testable data, there's a huge difference. You can keep saying that belief in evolution is similar to religious faith, and you can keep on believing it, but your position doesn't make it true. The proof is that evolutionary science would LOVE for you to show where it is false through a honest research because science would improve its understanding, and that process can't even be begun with religious faith regardless of how much the religious faith would hate it.

Okay, but that still leaves untold millions of irrational persons who agree that evolution represents the best model but refuse to even consider a better model because they already consider evolution a fact of science beyond rational dispute.

That's because those millions recognize that science is responsible for every electric device they've ever seen, and religious faith can't do anything practical. It's proven evidence versus pure philosophy. When believing a particular religious faith can produce real-world measureable results, there'll be a lot of people believing the unproven facets of that particular religion.

Perhaps, but an assertion that Christianity is "silly" is not itself evidence of silliness.

Yep. That's why I wrote that FACTS make the Christian assertion a silly one. Do try to read what I've actually written.

Right. Given that General Relativity is true, at one time General Relativity was true, even though there was no evidence for it. This implies that belief in unproven truth is not irrational.

Belief in something that has zero demonstrable proof is irrational. Before there was good reasons to believe in General Relativity, it would have been stupid to believe in it. It's not rational to believe that gravity is caused by an infinite number of invisible fairies pulling and pushing on matter, today, even though that theory isn't ruled out and one day might be proven to be true. Agreed? Same with general relativity or quantum theory, the fact that they have been proven true in recent years doesn't mean that it would have been sensible to have faith that they were true when there was zero evidence or reasoning for general relativity or quantum theory.

Correct. I am always respectful and civil. You're welcome.

I certainly didn't say you were always respectful and civil, but... I'll allow this.

You said you appreciated respectful and civil debate. I assumed you were recognizing my civil and respectful approach even though you neglected to put a "your" in the sentene. Why else would you have said that?

[Hatuey]

Thanks for your interest, rookie.
�
For me, debating with a completely irrational person would be decidedly uninteresting – sort of like playing chess with my dog: She wouldn't even know what we're trying to do and I couldn’t begin to explain it to her.

I always appreciate civil, reasonable debate; however, to the point above, if you thought that a being or "your dog" had the capability to move from an irrational position to a more rational position through a series of actions or discussions, you might give it a try. I suspect that atheists most often debate theists because they believe that eventually, they will see the illogic of their position and come to understand the irrationality of holding to it; so the atheist is RELYING UPON the rationality of the god-believer and providing arguments that will reach that rationality as they also expose the irrationality of the god belief in question.

So take heart, believers, if an atheist is debating with you; that atheist necessarily believes you to have more rationality than the belief you hold and that you posses the sensibility to recognize the insensibility of your chosen faith.

[rookiebatman]

So take heart, believers, if an atheist is debating with you; that atheist necessarily believes you to have more rationality than the belief you hold and that you posses the sensibility to recognize the insensibility of your chosen faith.

I personally do not espouse this position. I'm not debating believers because I want to de-convert them. I'm making myself available to opposing viewpoints and differing perspectives because I've seen firsthand the danger and damage of dogmatically assuming things without real critical examination (the damage to my own life and my own ability to think critically; I'm not making judgments on anyone else). So, now that I've disavowed my beliefs in those beliefs that I found to be lacking when I examined them critically, I don't want to just fall into the same trap of dogmatically accepting the conclusions I have now, allowing confirmation bias to give the illusion of validation, and close myself off from any possibility of hearing an argument that I can't handle.

I want my beliefs and my conclusions to constantly be tested and challenged (but that doesn't mean I won't challenge and test the opposition as well). If my own beliefs or arguments or evidence can't hold up to those challenges (in my judgment, not that of my opponent, natch), then maybe I need to believe something different. That's why I have these discussions, not because I want to de-convert people.

[Fundagelico]

Be my guest, though I probably won't participate.

I wouldn't mind discussing the strength and quality of the evidence cited.

I'm not trying to be smart here, but I honestly don't understanding how these two statements go together (it is early in the morning). You won't participate in the thread, but you do want to discuss it?

Context may help, since my last two statements from that paragraph were snipped: "But for me a discussion of whether there is 'really evidence at all' for theism is not really worth having. That dead horse has already been beaten to a pulp repeatedly on this board."

In other words, I much prefer to dialogue with those I believe to be seriously interested in the topic, willing to interpret my posts charitably, and generally prepared to argue in good faith. Are you one of those? Well, the fact that you ripped my statement out of context right off the bat, apparently to create the appearance of a contradiction, has left me somewhat skeptical.

Couldn't it be possible, though, that imagination is precisely what makes those arguments (which some would say are easily refuted) appear to be evidence?

Not really. The arguments may be faulty, but not the facts in evidence.

And furthermore, in order to make the claim that your belief is rationally justified, I assert that it's not enough for there to be evidence in favor. For it to be rationally justified, the evidence for has to be stronger than the evidence against.

That's a fair statement. My point was that there is evidence to suggest that theism, specifically Christian theism, is not a mere invention. It's a modest claim, really.

It seems like you're saying that if we refute all the theistic evidence, then theists won't be worth debating.

In a sense that's right. If there were absolutely nothing to rationally justify theism, debating theists would be a waste of time. But the evidence stands on its own merits.

Now if you want to argue that there is in fact no fine-tuning of life-permitting physical constants, no specified (or at least specifiable) complexity in nature, and no general human awareness of objective moral truths; and that the worldwide dispersion and physical restoration of the nation either was not described in the Old Testament or simply did not happen, etc., again I would not be interested.

But 1) it would require healthy debate with the theists making the claim to feel like we had "struck it down" in any fair-minded way, and 2) if the fact that all the theistic evidence isn't valid were (for the purpose of argument) true, it seems like what you're saying is, "you shouldn't try to find the truth because that wouldn't be any fun." Am I misunderstanding?

Yes. My take is that anyone who claims that "all the theistic evidence isn't valid" is not actually trying to find the truth – fun or no fun. It would be like me arguing that there is absolutely no evidence supporting macroevolution or universal common ancestry. I do not in fact believe in macroevolution or universal common ancestry, but to say that there is strictly no evidence for them would be disingenuous.

But let's suppose for a moment that you're right, and there is simply zero evidence to support Christian theism. I have argued that some truths recognized by atheists and theists alike can be neither proven logically nor evidentially supported. I have also argued that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Do you disagree?

[Hatuey]

So take heart, believers, if an atheist is debating with you; that atheist necessarily believes you to have more rationality than the belief you hold and that you posses the sensibility to recognize the insensibility of your chosen faith.

I personally do not espouse this position. I'm not debating believers because I want to de-convert them. I'm making myself available to opposing viewpoints and differing perspectives because I've seen firsthand the danger and damage of dogmatically assuming things without real critical examination (the damage to my own life and my own ability to think critically; I'm not making judgments on anyone else). So, now that I've disavowed my beliefs in those beliefs that I found to be lacking when I examined them critically, I don't want to just fall into the same trap of dogmatically accepting the conclusions I have now, allowing confirmation bias to give the illusion of validation, and close myself off from any possibility of hearing an argument that I can't handle.

I want my beliefs and my conclusions to constantly be tested and challenged (but that doesn't mean I won't challenge and test the opposition as well). If my own beliefs or arguments or evidence can't hold up to those challenges (in my judgment, not that of my opponent, natch), then maybe I need to believe something different. That's why I have these discussions, not because I want to de-convert people.

I wasn't discussing "deconverting" as a reason, I was saying that atheists don't usually discuss concepts with believers unles the atheist believes the believer has more capacity for rational thought than belief. I never mentioned deconversion; I mentioned the capacity for rational thought.

[rookiebatman]

I wasn't discussing "deconverting" as a reason, I was saying that atheists don't usually discuss concepts with believers unles the atheist believes the believer has more capacity for rational thought than belief. I never mentioned deconversion; I mentioned the capacity for rational thought.

Fair point; I kinda read the "deconverting" into it, but it was based on my interpretation of your statement, "that you posses the sensibility to recognize the insensibility of your chosen faith." I feel like that statement implies a scenario where they eventually admit their faith doesn't make sense, and so I was trying to make the point that I'm completely happy to debate with religious people who don't or won't ever recognize that their faith seems insensible to me. A lot of religious people are convinced their faith is very sensible, and won't ever see it any other way; I'm still interested in talking with them, as long as they can explain their viewpoint rationally.

But, it may be that we're both just saying the same thing in different ways.

[rookiebatman]

In other words, I much prefer to dialogue with those I believe to be seriously interested in the topic, willing to interpret my posts charitably, and generally prepared to argue in good faith. Are you one of those? Well, the fact that you ripped my statement out of context right off the bat, apparently to create the appearance of a contradiction, has left me somewhat skeptical.

Huh. At the risk of engaging in the "tu quoque" fallacy I've called other people on, it would in turn make me skeptical of you that you interpret my actions that way. I snipped the context so that the statements I was unclear about would be placed in more direct relief, not to create a "gotcha" effect, but so that it would be more clear to you why the combination of the two statements didn't make sense to me. What part of "I'm not trying to be smart here, but I honestly don't understanding how these two statements go together (it is early in the morning)" leads you to believe that I was trying to take your words out of context to make you look bad, rather than sincerely asking for a clarification? Is there a better way I could've phrased it?

(Feel free to answer by PM if you don't want this to impede the progress of the thread.)

Not really. The arguments may be faulty, but not the facts in evidence.

For those evidences from the paragraph in question, which parts would you consider facts, and which parts argument?

In a sense that's right. If there were absolutely nothing to rationally justify theism, debating theists would be a waste of time.

I would say that if there were absolutely nothing to rationally justify theism, debating theists would not be a waste of time, because a non-believer could still seek clarification on why the theist thinks their beliefs were rationally justified.

And, of course, there's the matter that nothing of this can be convincingly proven in either direction. I could believe there's absolutely nothing to rationally justify theism all day long, but it's not like theists are gonna care that I, personally, think that. So that very point of disagreement is, in itself, worth debating.

Now if you want to argue that there is in fact no fine-tuning of life-permitting physical constants, no specified (or at least specifiable) complexity in nature, and no general human awareness of objective moral truths; and that the worldwide dispersion and physical restoration of the nation either was not described in the Old Testament or simply did not happen, etc., again I would not be interested.

So, if I understand correctly, are you saying that you consider (what appears to be) the Anthropic Principle, the Argument from Design, and the Moral Argument beyond reproach, or that you've already debated them enough times that it wouldn't be worth rehashing the same discussion again?

And bear in mind, I'm not saying I do want to debate those arguments; my interest was in specifically discussing the evidences raised in the footnote paragraph of the linked article. I'm just trying to understand your statement.

Yes. My take is that anyone who claims that "all the theistic evidence isn't valid" is not actually trying to find the truth – fun or no fun.

Even if that person could logically demonstrate that each point of theistic evidence is based on a logical fallacy (circular reasoning, false or unsupported premises, etc.)?

It would be like me arguing that there is absolutely no evidence supporting macroevolution or universal common ancestry. I do not in fact believe in macroevolution or universal common ancestry, but to say that there is strictly no evidence for them would be disingenuous.

Wow. I must say (as a compliment to you and not as a criticism of anyone else) that you're the first person I personally have ever heard say that.

But let's suppose for a moment that you're right, and there is simply zero evidence to support Christian theism.

I don't want to sound like I'm splitting hairs, but I would clarify that my position is not that there's no evidence for Christian theism, only that I personally have never encountered any that wasn't easily refutable. That doesn't mean there isn't any; I may just have not looked far enough, or may be misunderstanding some of the evidence I have seen.

I have argued that some truths recognized by atheists and theists alike can be neither proven logically nor evidentially supported.

I feel like this is kinda getting into existential territory. Like, we can't really prove that we ourselves exist, kind of thing. Am I wrong about that? Perhaps it might help if you provided examples of what you were specifically referring to (with apologies if you've already done so earlier in the thread).

I have also argued that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Do you disagree?

That is more or less why I stated the clarification that I don't claim there's absolutely no evidence for Christianity. However, if I'm faced with the absence of evidence in favor, combined with the presence of evidence against, then my conclusion (until such time as further evidence is provided) must be clear.

[Fundagelico]

In other words, I much prefer to dialogue with those I believe to be seriously interested in the topic, willing to interpret my posts charitably, and generally prepared to argue in good faith. Are you one of those? Well, the fact that you ripped my statement out of context right off the bat, apparently to create the appearance of a contradiction, has left me somewhat skeptical.

Huh. At the risk of engaging in the "tu quoque" fallacy I've called other people on, it would in turn make me skeptical of you that you interpret my actions that way. I snipped the context so that the statements I was unclear about would be placed in more direct relief, not to create a "gotcha" effect, but so that it would be more clear to you why the combination of the two statements didn't make sense to me.

Fair enough. But bear in mind a couple of factors that may affect my interpretation: First, I don’t know you well enough (yet) to trust you to any great degree. Second, message boards like this are notorious for baiting, bitter sarcasm and general time-wasting mischief in the guise of honest or respectful debate.

What part of "I'm not trying to be smart here, but I honestly don't understanding how these two statements go together (it is early in the morning)" leads you to believe that I was trying to take your words out of context to make you look bad, rather than sincerely asking for a clarification? Is there a better way I could've phrased it?

No, I suppose not. But it would have helped had you kept the paragraph in question intact, especially given that you didn't understand what I was trying to say.

The basic idea is that there is an important distinction to be made between perceived weak or insufficient evidence and "no evidence at all."

For those evidences from the paragraph in question, which parts would you consider facts, and which parts argument?

Each item on the list consists of a fact which makes the "hypothesis" of Christian theism more likely than it would be otherwise. Collectively these facts constitute evidence for Christian theism.

I would say that if there were absolutely nothing to rationally justify theism, debating theists would not be a waste of time, because a non-believer could still seek clarification on why the theist thinks their beliefs were rationally justified.

But for anyone lacking rational justification, there is no "why" in the first place. Hence there's nothing for them to debate.

So, if I understand correctly, are you saying that you consider (what appears to be) the Anthropic Principle, the Argument from Design, and the Moral Argument beyond reproach, or that you've already debated them enough times that it wouldn't be worth rehashing the same discussion again?

No, I'm saying that the facts underlying those arguments are relatively uncontroversial. Now I suppose in principle one could argue that there is no fine-tuning of observable physical constants in the universe, no specifiable complexity in the natural world, and that the Bible nowhere speaks of Israel's dispersion, persecution and subsequent restoration to the land of Palestine, etc. Alternatively one could argue that none of these facts are relevant to the truth of Christian theism.

Either way, I perceive that it would be a waste of time to argue with anyone who maintains that there are precisely zero facts in evidence which increase the probability that Christian theism is true. And with limited time and resources on my hands I have to choose my battles wisely.

Yes. My take is that anyone who claims that "all the theistic evidence isn't valid" is not actually trying to find the truth – fun or no fun.

Even if that person could logically demonstrate that each point of theistic evidence is based on a logical fallacy (circular reasoning, false or unsupported premises, etc.)?

That's the rub. I do not believe anyone could provide such a demonstration. For me to argue that point would be like arguing with someone telling me that my daughter lives in Australia (she's living with me now, and there are vast oceans between us and Australia); or with someone who insists that what appears to be a real world around us is actually "The Matrix."

How about this: You give it your best shot. If I regard your arguments worthy of a reply, I'll reply. If I don't reply you can always argue that I was simply unable to answer them.

That's all for now. Thanks for the thoughtful post, and I'm sorry if I misread your intentions.