"If there's no evidence for the existence of something, there's no reason to believe it exists."

This is not the complete quote, but this is the part i want to try addressing... my intention for this topic is to try to show some problems with the thought that the atheistic worldview is inconsistant with itself-- much like the claim from non-believers that theism (esp. Christianity) is not logical.

I'm going to try to use the approach of positive apologetics... this is, i think, my first actual attempt at "playing offense".

I dont really have a plan of attack, so i'm just going to "wing it"... most likely i will concede early on, and try to learn from the experience.

Special Request to Lost Cause:

Please allow alittle extra lee-way. (not much though, this might not work at all).



God Bless,

johnny

P.S. the initial quote is from Martini, although it is not an attack to Martini. I've seen this statement many times over the years, and it's always bugged me, but i wasnt quite sure why. I'm just using the statement as an opener for the topic.

another ps

i'll only be up about another half hour tonight, but i'll try to work on it after work as long as i can, when i can.

That is the "scientific world view" everything is false unless proven otherwise. Works well in life seeing as how some awesome things are based on this (Presumption of innocence, FDA testing, Scientific peer review)

You wouldn't want your doctors to perscribe you Echinacea would you? You wouldn't want to be assumed guilty unless proven not guilty would you?

This worldview works well for practical purposes, albeit it deprives the person of self-deceiving but aesthetically pleasing fantasies.

Edit: This is not a "valid statement", but like I summed up it's a world view. That allows separation of truth from fantasy. I.E. According to this world view aliens don't exist, although they very well might do so. But what it does is prevent the person from blaming his blackouts on aliens kidnapping him and go to a doctor so he can find the testable and more likely reason.

[This message has been edited by Lamabot (edited 01-29-2007).]

quote:Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:

"If there's no evidence for the existence of something, there's no reason to believe it exists."



K well thats all you needed to say, good job on filling a long as post with pointless shit.

When associating atheist with that quote you have to change "something" with GOD, atheist is no god. Pretty simple

Wich is 100% true for the atheist,agnostic,humanist etc. view

Why do you refuse to believe the tooth ferry is real yet believe that god is real. I may be fucken hammerd but i can still see the simplisity of it all.



[This message has been edited by boozehound420 (edited 01-29-2007).]

quote:Originally posted by boozehound420:

K well thats all you needed to say, good job on filling a long as post with pointless shit.

When associating atheist with that quote you have to change "something" with GOD, atheist is no god. Pretty simple

Wich is 100% true for the atheist,agnostic,humanist etc. view

Why do you refuse to believe the tooth ferry is real yet believe that god is real. I may be fucken hammerd but i can still see the simplisity of it all.



1) Nobody wants to believe they die once, for ever and irreversibly.

2) Nobody wants to believe that the "natural beauty" is just a step in a long series of events.

3) Nobody wants to deprive himself of "faith" as society has glorified it. If you have faith you are a good person but if you say "i have no faith" what the fuck is wrong with you?

quote:Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:

"If there's no evidence for the existence of something, there's no reason to believe it exists."

This is not the complete quote, but this is the part i want to try addressing... my intention for this topic is to try to show some problems with the thought that the atheistic worldview is inconsistant with itself-- much like the claim from non-believers that theism (esp. Christianity) is not logical...

The quote pretty much sums it up. It is illogical to accept things as true without evidence.

There are a multitude of illogical beliefs within the Christian religion (as with other religions).

I'm curious to see what you consider inconsistant regarding the atheistic world view.

You are all getting it wrong. It is the SCIENTIFIC WORLD VIEW. Atheist believe in everything from acupuncture to ghost to aliens to homeopathic medicine. No this statement is not a fact, it is a process. Much like the scientific process - absolutely useless if you apply it to EVERY decision you make, but invaluable when trying to ascertain life-altering truth

quote:Originally posted by Lamabot:

That is the "scientific world view" everything is false unless proven otherwise. Works well in life seeing as how some awesome things are based on this (Presumption of innocence, FDA testing, Scientific peer review)

You wouldn't want your doctors to perscribe you Echinacea would you? You wouldn't want to be assumed guilty unless proven not guilty would you?

This worldview works well for practical purposes, albeit it deprives the person of self-deceiving but aesthetically pleasing fantasies.

Edit: This is not a "valid statement", but like I summed up it's a world view. That allows separation of truth from fantasy. I.E. According to this world view aliens don't exist, although they very well might do so. But what it does is prevent the person from blaming his blackouts on aliens kidnapping him and go to a doctor so he can find the testable and more likely reason.



Hi Lamabot,

I agree that there are practical uses, however, what if you were crossing the street and i yelled, "COME BACK!!, THERE'S A BUS COMING!!"... would your first reaction be to get off the road, or would you check to see if i was fibbing first (even if i were prone to such pranks)? Would you consider avoiding a bus without verification the same as "depriving the person of self-deceiving but aesthetically pleasing fantasies"?

I think the parallel is the beginning presuppositions... "buses do travel on roads" is the presupposition in that senerio. In the case of origins, i think there are only two possible presuppositions: 1)happen by chance 2)created

(actually, there is a third.. always existed.. but since i specified 'origins', then by definition, it is ruled out of this statement)

As far as your example of the guy w/ the blackouts blaming aliens, the key is your phrase, "a testable and more likely reason", which actually makes my point... science presupposes an accepted (or, acceptable) answer, based on what it knows up to that point in time... but it can not disprove the possibility of his "alien blackouts".... for the record, I personally do not believe in ET's, but that is based mostly on my presuppositions (and that too, is limited to my limited knowledge IN my presuppositions).

OK, time for bed.. i realise that i didnt show the illogical or inconsistency of atheism here, but only indicated a possible portion... i'll try to continue tomorrow.

God Bless,

johnny

quote:Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:

Hi Lamabot,

I agree that there are practical uses, however, what if you were crossing the street and i yelled, "COME BACK!!, THERE'S A BUS COMING!!"... would your first reaction be to get off the road, or would you check to see if i was fibbing first (even if i were prone to such pranks)? Would you consider avoiding a bus without verification the same as "depriving the person of self-deceiving but aesthetically pleasing fantasies"?



And Lamabot wrote:

...Much like the scientific process - absolutely useless if you apply it to EVERY decision you make, but invaluable when trying to ascertain life-altering truth

Answered your question before you asked it

Not to mention that if you yelled "COME BACK THERE'S A BUS COMING" I'd be dead already. That's too long of a warning. There is a difference between immediate reaction and well-thought out reasonings. Stop mixing the two.

quote:

I think the parallel is the beginning presuppositions... "buses do travel on roads" is the presupposition in that senerio. In the case of origins, i think there are only two possible presuppositions: 1)happen by chance 2)created

(actually, there is a third.. always existed.. but since i specified 'origins', then by definition, it is ruled out of this statement)

As far as your example of the guy w/ the blackouts blaming aliens, the key is your phrase, "a testable and more likely reason", which actually makes my point... science presupposes an accepted (or, acceptable) answer, based on what it knows up to that point in time... but it can not disprove the possibility of his "alien blackouts".... for the record, I personally do not believe in ET's, but that is based mostly on my presuppositions (and that too, is limited to my limited knowledge IN my presuppositions).



The only problem is that these presuppositions have been tested, retested, re fucking tested, researched on, been written books upon, tested again, calculated and tested again. They are pretty much bullet proof. I'd put my life in the hands of these "presuppositions". Also please stop making two wrong assumptions about evolution.

Assumption 1 - Evolution is chance

-No, we already went over that 203823 times, please stop calling it that.

Assumption 2 - Evolution tries to account for the origins of life.

-No, Evolution accounts for the origins of species (hence the book). The scientific consensus for the origins of life lies with abiogenesis, which really is kinda chance, but it was the chance of creating a single cell (well protobions are not technically cells) rather than modern world.

quote:

OK, time for bed.. i realise that i didnt show the illogical or inconsistency of atheism here, but only indicated a possible portion... i'll try to continue tomorrow.

God Bless,

johnny



How many times did I tell you that this is the scientific worldview not the atheistic worldview. Atheists often believe in stupid (or unprovable, unproven or disproven) things. Ghosts, Aliens, Conspiracies, Homeopathic medicine.

Being atheist only means not believing in the existence of god. The scientific world view is only an argument ab scientia against assuming existence of god.

So even if you prove that this is illogical (you won't you'll have a better shot at disproving the scientific method) you still said nothing about atheists.

[This message has been edited by Lamabot (edited 01-29-2007).]

quote:Originally posted by Lamabot:



How many times did I tell you that this is the scientific worldview not the atheistic worldview. Atheists often believe in stupid (or unprovable, unproven or disproven) things. Ghosts, Aliens, Conspiracies, Homeopathic medicine.

Being atheist only means not believing in the existence of god. The scientific world view is only an argument ab scientia against assuming existence of god.

So even if you prove that this is illogical (you won't you'll have a better shot at disproving the scientific method) you still said nothing about atheists.



The word skeptic might be a better choice.

Skeptics seem to have a bad rep with believers, but the opposite of skepticism is gullibility.

So nobody has mentioned why it is invalid/illogical. What is illogical or invalid about the statement?

So, what is illogical or invalid about the statement?

quote:Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:

P.S. the initial quote is from Martini, although it is not an attack to Martini. I've seen this statement many times over the years, and it's always bugged me, but i wasnt quite sure why.

Are you sure why now, or is that what you're trying to figure out?

quote:Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:

I agree that there are practical uses, however, what if you were crossing the street and i yelled, "COME BACK!!, THERE'S A BUS COMING!!"... would your first reaction be to get off the road, or would you check to see if i was fibbing first (even if i were prone to such pranks)?

If you were prone to pranks and I already looked both ways before crossing the street, not only would there be no good reason to believe you, there would be every reason not to. That doesn't mean the reward of jumping back doesn't outweigh the risk of ignoring you. It also doesn't mean I believed anything.



If not evidence- then what? Belief for what other reason? Pascal's wager? Belief because there may be a god or a bus coming? I couldn't will myself to believe in a god any way, could I? Just as I would react if you told me a bus was coming, I may check out someone's supposed evidence that God exists. Neither is the same as believing.

quote:Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:

"If there's no evidence for the existence of something, there's no reason to believe it exists."

Uh huh.

QUOTE Originally posted by boozehound420:

K well thats all you needed to say, good job on filling a long as post with pointless shit.



Hi boozehound,



When associating atheist with that quote you have to change "something" with GOD, atheist is no god. Pretty simple

Well, since i've heard this statement in TOTSE, i decided to use a statement from a TOTSE member. However, W.K. Clifford (19th century mathematician, in an essay "The Ethics of Belief") sums up the essence of evidentialism with these words: "It is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence."

Evidentialism is not restricted to atheism as there are theistic evidentialists (by atheism, i am meaning the naturalistic worldview, since atheistic outworkings means that there can only be naturalistic origins-- of the universe and of life). So basically, the arguements of the two sides of the fence go something like this:

(atheist evidentialist)

1) It's irrational to accept theistic belief in the absence of sufficient evidence.

2) There is insufficient evidence to support belief in God.

3) Therefore, belief in God is irrational.

(theistic evidentialist)

1) It's irrational to accept theistic belief in the absence of sufficient evidence.

2) There is sufficient evidence to support belief in God.

3) Therefore, belief in God is rational.

So, the premise for both is the same, but different opinion of what is sufficient supporting evidence leads to different conclusions.

But isnt it an assumption that the premise is correct? In other words, where is the evidence to support the premise?

If Clifford was right that "It is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence." then it is wrong always, everywhere and by everyone to believe his statement... because there is no evidence for this statement... it's a self-refuting statement.

The other problem with this statement is that there are many things that are concidered rational to believe, by rational people... and by believing that the (Clifford) statement is valid is cutting off one's own rights to believe them, at the knees. i.e. belief in the outside world; belief in other minds; beliefs of past memories

Wich is 100% true for the atheist,agnostic,humanist etc. view

Why do you refuse to believe the tooth ferry is real yet believe that god is real. I may be fucken hammerd but i can still see the simplisity of it all.



I refuse to believe in the tooth fairy cuz i caught my mom "buying" the tooth.

Ok, time to move on to the next post on the list.

God Bless,

johnny

quote:Originally posted by Lamabot:

1) Nobody wants to believe they die once, for ever and irreversibly.

2) Nobody wants to believe that the "natural beauty" is just a step in a long series of events.

3) Nobody wants to deprive himself of "faith" as society has glorified it. If you have faith you are a good person but if you say "i have no faith" what the fuck is wrong with you?

Hi Lamabot,

Although i'm not sure how this follows from boozehound's post, i agree that these are significant points about most people.

As far as 1) and 2), is it possible that belief that there is no God is the outcome of the trade off between acceptance of the Sinful nature of man vs. the feeling of guiltlessness of one's actions?

I'm only responding to this post since i said to boozehound that it was time to move on to the next post. If i've missed your point in reference to the original topic, then please feel free to let me know.

God Bless,

johnny

quote:Originally posted by truckfixr:



I'm curious to see what you consider inconsistant regarding the atheistic world view.



Hi truckfixr,

Me too. LOL

As i said in the OP, i am winging it. i have a general direction in mind, but am not sure on how to get there. I might have opened up this attempt alittle too broad. So far, it seems to me, that i might have painted myself into a "defensive" corner, when i am trying to bring this around to playing offense.

Just for the sake of info, i have been listening in on a seminary class on apologetics (and reading the textbook), and since i'm not enrolled in the class, i dont get the benifit of homework or tests... so this is kinda my attempt at trying to put into action, some of the concepts that are being mentioned.

i'm guessing that you know that i'm not too afraid of negative apologetics, but i havent really done much here in the form of positive apologetics.

i'm also guessing that you know that this isnt just a game or hobby of mine, but i actually do believe God exists, and that it is commanded of Christians to share the Gospel.... so this is a way to exercise a weakness of mine, while still trying to "live my faith".

God Bless,

johnny

QUOTE Originally posted by Lamabot:

You are all getting it wrong. It is the SCIENTIFIC WORLD VIEW.

Hi Lamabot,

Nice insight... you get a gold star.

Atheist believe in everything from acupuncture to ghost to aliens to homeopathic medicine.

There are people that believe in the Judeo-Christian God, that also believe these things.

No this statement is not a fact, it is a process. Much like the scientific process - absolutely useless if you apply it to EVERY decision you make, but invaluable when trying to ascertain life-altering truth

Again, good insight.... up until the last part. It is rational to believe in God without evidence, but we havent gotten that far in this topic yet, to show that point.

God Bless,

johnny

Rational:

* consistent with or based on or using reason; "rational behavior"; "a process of rational inference"; "rational thought"

* intellectual: of or associated with or requiring the use of the mind; "intellectual problems"; "the triumph of the rational over the animal side of man"

* capable of being expressed as a quotient of integers; "rational numbers"

* rational number: an integer or a fraction

* having its source in or being guided by the intellect (distinguished from experience or emotion); "a rational analysis"

wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

I am sorry, but I cannot see how belief in god without evidence is based on using reason, intellectual or capable of being expressed in quotient of integers.

quote:Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:

Well, since i've heard this statement in TOTSE, i decided to use a statement from a TOTSE member. However, W.K. Clifford (19th century mathematician, in an essay "The Ethics of Belief") sums up the essence of evidentialism with these words: "It is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence."…

…So, the premise for both is the same, but different opinion of what is sufficient supporting evidence leads to different conclusions.

But isnt it an assumption that the premise is correct? In other words, where is the evidence to support the premise?

Sure it’s an assumption. But it is an assumption based on sound logic.

Consider this: In science, nothing is ever considered to be absolute truth. Science always allows for the possibility that new evidence may be found to disprove what was previously accepted as being correct. In order to prevent acceptance of incorrect information, sufficient evidence supporting it must exist. Likewise, any evidence which does not support it must be equally taken into account.



quote:If Clifford was right that "It is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence." then it is wrong always, everywhere and by everyone to believe his statement... because there is no evidence for this statement... it's a self-refuting statement.

I disagree that this statement is self–refuting. Self-evident would be a more accurate description. But as a process,not 100% applicable to every decision , as Lamabot stated.



quote:The other problem with this statement is that there are many things that are concidered rational to believe, by rational people... and by believing that the (Clifford) statement is valid is cutting off one's own rights to believe them, at the knees. i.e. belief in the outside world; belief in other minds; beliefs of past memories

Hardly the case at all, Johnny. There is a multitude of evidence to support the existence of the outside world, of other minds, and past memories.

How can these be tested? Consider this. If you believe that the entire universe doesn’t really exist , and that all of this is the construct of your mind, simply refuse to ever eat or drink anything again. If this is all a construct of your mind, you really don’t need nourishment . If it’s not, you will die.

If you don’t buy into that nonsense, you must assume that you and I and everyone do exist. If we exist, our minds exist. This very conversation is evidence supporting the existence of other minds.

It logically follows that if we exist, the world we perceive with our senses also exists. The accuracy of our perceptions is verified by those around us who share our perceptions.



The existence of past memories is easy to prove.

quote:Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:

Hi Lamabot,

[...]

is it possible that belief that there is no God is the outcome of the trade off between acceptance of the Sinful nature of man vs. the feeling of guiltlessness of one's actions?



Not in any way shape or form. People either believe in god or they don't. A person who believes in god doesn't decide to stop believing in him(it?) for the reason of personal freedom. He can only do so by evidence to the contrary, lack of evidence of support or general dissatisfaction of the belief (not as in "I want to rob banks lol" but as in "Why is it a sin to be homosexual? They aren't hurting anyone, they are expressing love in the way they feel, wasn't love what jesus was all about? This is bullshit").

What you are describing is rejecting god while still believing in him, which is not atheism.

On the flip side an atheist believes that there is no one to forgive him, so all actions he does that he considers wrong are his own burden. He can't go to church, repent and feel the illusion of forgiveness. He has to carry the moral ballast of his actions.

QUOTE Originally posted by Lamabot:

And Lamabot wrote:

...Much like the scientific process - absolutely useless if you apply it to EVERY decision you make, but invaluable when trying to ascertain life-altering truth

Answered your question before you asked it

Like i said Lamabot, "nice insight"... however, the syllogism that is used to show the Clifford statement is (atleast, i think it is) in the form of the fallacy of affirming the consequent, although it is intended to be a valid denying the consequent. But whether it's this or that, it does not mean the truthness or falseness of the statement... a valid statement can be false and a fallicious statement can be true.

Not to mention that if you yelled "COME BACK THERE'S A BUS COMING" I'd be dead already. That's too long of a warning. There is a difference between immediate reaction and well-thought out reasonings. Stop mixing the two.

of course.. but i was trying to make a point on a forum. If this had been an actual emergency, i probably would have tried to grab you and pull you back. http://www.totse.com/bbs/tongue.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/tongue.gif)



The only problem is that these presuppositions have been tested, retested, re fucking tested, researched on, been written books upon, tested again, calculated and tested again. They are pretty much bullet proof.

without going too far off my intended goal, evolution may have been tested and retested, but the presuppositions can not be... what you are describing, i think, is "reasoning to the best explaination"... but evolution that has been tested, is not the problem.. creationists do not deny evolution. What creation denies is origin by abiogenesis and YEC deny molecules-to-man evolution and billions of years.

They are far from bullet proof since both worldviews (natural origins and special creation) have answers that fit many of the questions and both worldviews have unanswered questions. (and both are working on answers to those)

Also please stop making two wrong assumptions about evolution.

Assumption 1 - Evolution is chance

-No, we already went over that 203823 times, please stop calling it that.

The outworkings are chance, random processes.

The only possible contradiction in the claim that i make, is if it were "theistic evolution" (guided by a higher power), which is contradictory to the plain reading of the Bible and requires a whole lot of theological hoop-jumping to make the whole Bible conform to that position.

Assumption 2 - Evolution tries to account for the origins of life.

-No, Evolution accounts for the origins of species (hence the book). The scientific consensus for the origins of life lies with abiogenesis, which really is kinda chance, but it was the chance of creating a single cell (well protobions are not technically cells) rather than modern world.

No, molecules-to-man evolution presumes a natural origin of everything. By stating a natural origin of species, it is implying a natural origin of the universe.

How many times did I tell you that this is the scientific worldview not the atheistic worldview.

Atheistic worldview is natural origins of life and the universe... by definition.

Atheism is belief that there is no God (gods).

theism 1)is the belief in one God, creator and ruler of the universe (distiguished from deism)

2) belief in the existence of a god or gods

atheism --> the 'a' is the negative, so 'a'theism is the negative of theism

if there is no god or gods that created, the only thing left is natural origin.

the 'scientific worldview' is what?

How 'bout a more basic question... what is the definition of a worldview?

Would you accept this definition of a worldview?....

{The sum total of answers that a person gives to the most important questions in life. You take all of the big questions of life; compile your answers and, however coherent the system that may result from these answers may be, that is that person's worldview}...

...and here are the 5 most important quest. of life (according to Nash)..

{God, ultimate reality, theory of knowledge, ethics, and human persons

Now, if that definition and those questions are acceptable to you, then i contend that "scientific worldview" does not fit as a worldview, as science says it can not answer questions about god. And if it can not answer questions about god, then the presuppositions that science takes to answer the questions that it does answer, is flawed due to limitation... that is to say, if it can not assume the possibility that God created, then the very possible answer(s) is/are overlooked [i]a priori.



Atheists often believe in stupid (or unprovable, unproven or disproven) things. Ghosts, Aliens, Conspiracies, Homeopathic medicine.

Again, this is a human thing, not exclusive of atheists or christians or anyone else.

But, the Christian worldview does give an answer for a reason of this, and that would be, 'a sin fallen world'.

Being atheist only means not believing in the existence of god. The scientific world view is only an argument ab scientia against assuming existence of god.

ab scientia ?? does that mean "without knowledge"? or something like that?

So even if you prove that this is illogical (you won't you'll have a better shot at disproving the scientific method) you still said nothing about atheists.

my intention is to try to build a cumlitive case... and like i said from the start, i'm not sure how this is going to work, this is the first time i've made an attempt like this for this particular purpose... there may have been a position of offense taken, but if it was, it was by accident.

God Bless,

johnny

quote:Originally posted by IanBoyd3:

The word skeptic might be a better choice.

Skeptics seem to have a bad rep with believers, but the opposite of skepticism is gullibility.

Hi IanBoyd3,

Skepticism...

1a) No proposition is true

b) No one can know anything.

Killer question to 1a)No proposition is true... Is that proposition true?

if the answer is 'yes', then it just violated the law of non-contradiction.

If the answer is 'no' then his answer is useless.

Killer question to 1b)No one can know anything.... Do you know that?

If he says 'yes', you gothim.

If he says 'no', you gothim.

Sorry, i was cheating... i used my notes for this one. http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif)

of course you probably guessed something like that, since the answer wasnt as long winded as i get. LOL



God Bless,

johnny

quote:Originally posted by KikoSanchez:

So nobody has mentioned why it is invalid/illogical. What is illogical or invalid about the statement?

Hi KikoSanchez,

It's self-defeating... where is the evidence for the statement?

Plus, it denies the right of the person that takes the statement as truth from believing in things such as memory beliefs, other minds, the world outside of that person's mind.

God Bless,

johnny

quote:Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:

...No, molecules-to-man evolution presumes a natural origin of everything. By stating a natural origin of species, it is implying a natural origin of the universe...

Sorry Johnny, but you are wrong. It doesn't matter how strongly Creationists feel the need to blend the ToE and Abiogenesis, the honest fact is that they are two completely separate theories and do not depend on one another, and neither considers (or negates) the possibility of a God/Creator. Obviously,though, they are both at odds with the Genesis account of creation.

The argument you use against skeptics is based on a definition which is not the one commonly used to describe a skeptic. The first definition best describes the common use if the term:

quote:American Heritage Dictionary: skep·tic also scep·tic (skěp'tĭk) Pronunciation Key

n.

1)One who instinctively or habitually doubts, questions, or disagrees with assertions or generally accepted conclusions.



2)One inclined to skepticism in religious matters.



Philosophy:

a) Skeptic An adherent of a school of skepticism.



b)Skeptic A member of an ancient Greek school of skepticism, especially that of Pyrrho of Elis (360?-272? B.C.).

quote:Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:

QUOTE Originally posted by Lamabot:

Like i said Lamabot, "nice insight"... however, the syllogism that is used to show the Clifford statement is (atleast, i think it is) in the form of the fallacy of affirming the consequent, although it is intended to be a valid denying the consequent. But whether it's this or that, it does not mean the truthness or falseness of the statement... a valid statement can be false and a fallicious statement can be true.



Clifford's statement is summarizing the scientific world view. It is a philosophy not a factual claim and should not be treated as such. Therefore it is not a fallacy because it does not have to carry the burden of proof. Similarly a statement "people should help each other" is a statement of philosophy and does not need to carry the burden of proof. "There is a god" is completely different, such statement a factual (or claiming to be factual in this case and requires proof.

quote:

[b]

of course.. but i was trying to make a point on a forum. If this had been an actual emergency, i probably would have tried to grab you and pull you back. http://www.totse.com/bbs/tongue.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/tongue.gif)



OMG THX BRO

quote:

without going too far off my intended goal, evolution may have been tested and retested, but the presuppositions can not be... what you are describing, i think, is "reasoning to the best explaination"... but evolution that has been tested, is not the problem.. creationists do not deny evolution. What creation denies is origin by abiogenesis and YEC deny molecules-to-man evolution and billions of years.

They are far from bullet proof since both worldviews (natural origins and special creation) have answers that fit many of the questions and both worldviews have unanswered questions. (and both are working on answers to those)



I forgot to put quotation marks around the word "presuppositions"

quote:

The outworkings are chance, random processes.

The only possible contradiction in the claim that i make, is if it were "theistic evolution" (guided by a higher power), which is contradictory to the plain reading of the Bible and requires a whole lot of theological hoop-jumping to make the whole Bible conform to that position.





Rolling a dice and losing is a chance. Casinos raking in money based on this "chance" is statistical probability law (law of large numbers in this case)

Genetic variation is chance. Genetic change in population due to natural selection is indisputable. Having a chance component does not make the whole thing a chance.

quote:



No, molecules-to-man evolution presumes a natural origin of everything. By stating a natural origin of species, it is implying a natural origin of the universe.

Yes it is implying that, but it is irrelevant. These are 2 different theories. If you assume god created the first cells and let earth be evolution would still fly. It is not dependent on abiogenesis.

quote:



Atheistic worldview is natural origins of life and the universe... by definition.

Atheism is belief that there is no God (gods).

theism 1)is the belief in one God, creator and ruler of the universe (distiguished from deism)

2) belief in the existence of a god or gods

atheism --> the 'a' is the negative, so 'a'theism is the negative of theism

if there is no god or gods that created, the only thing left is natural origin.

the 'scientific worldview' is what?

How 'bout a more basic question... what is the definition of a worldview?

Would you accept this definition of a worldview?....

{The sum total of answers that a person gives to the most important questions in life. You take all of the big questions of life; compile your answers and, however coherent the system that may result from these answers may be, that is that person's worldview}...

...and here are the 5 most important quest. of life (according to Nash)..

{God, ultimate reality, theory of knowledge, ethics, and human persons

Now, if that definition and those questions are acceptable to you, then i contend that "scientific worldview" does not fit as a worldview, as science says it can not answer questions about god. And if it can not answer questions about god, then the presuppositions that science takes to answer the questions that it does answer, is flawed due to limitation... that is to say, if it can not assume the possibility that God created, then the very possible answer(s) is/are overlooked [i]a priori.



Atheism requires lack of belief in god, not belief in a natural origin. Hence "atheism" not "abiogenesism". Look up raelians - no god, but not natural origins. I do admit I use the word worldview in the sense of "outlook on life, philosophy of life conduct". Not necessarely the textbook definition, but pretty colloquial.

quote:



Again, this is a human thing, not exclusive of atheists or christians or anyone else.

But, the Christian world view does give an answer for a reason of this, and that would be, 'a sin fallen world'.



I was making an example of how being an atheist does not require scientific world view

quote:



ab scientia ?? does that mean "without knowledge"? or something like that?



argumentum ab scientia - arguement from/connected to science (Latin)

quote:



my intention is to try to build a cumlitive case... and like i said from the start, i'm not sure how this is going to work, this is the first time i've made an attempt like this for this particular purpose... there may have been a position of offense taken, but if it was, it was by accident.



Well since you didn't present your case, my statement still stands

QUOTE Originally posted by Martini:

Are you sure why now, or is that what you're trying to figure out?

Because i knew there was a problem with the statement, but i couldnt put my finger on it... now, someone has shown me why it bugged me.

It also doesn't mean I believed anything.

fair enough.



If not evidence- then what?

Only that the statement is falicious. It is perfectly rational for somethings to be believed without evidence... the statement itself was self-refuting.

Back to the theistic syllogism of that statement:

1) It's irrational to accept theistic belief in the absence of sufficient evidence.

2) There is sufficient evidence to support belief in God.

3) Therefore, belief in God is rational.



I agree with 3) and i agree w/ 2), but even though there may be reasons that support belief in God, those reasons are not necessary for to make the belief rational.

Belief for what other reason? Pascal's wager? Belief because there may be a god or a bus coming?

No, just that it is not irrational to believe in God without evidence.

I couldn't will myself to believe in a god any way, could I?

No, atleast not according to the Christian worldview. Faith is a gift given by God... but the decision to accept that gift is basically an agreement between the person and God... same-same the gift of forgiveness (of Sins)... it's there for all who are willing to take that gift.

Just as I would react if you told me a bus was coming, I may check out someone's supposed evidence that God exists. Neither is the same as believing.

Hopefully this thread will move in that direction... this post is the closest to leading that way, but there are some other things i hope to deal with first... and before that, this part (the Clifford statement) has to be dealt with more, i think.

God Bless,

johnny

quote:Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:



2) There is sufficient evidence to support belief in God.



Just out of curiosity, what do you consider sufficient evidence to support belief in god?

quote:Originally posted by Viraljimmy:

Uh huh.

Hi Viraljimmy,

Nuh uh

God Bless,

johnny

http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif) didnt want you to feel that i ignored you

quote:If Clifford was right that "It is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence." then it is wrong always, everywhere and by everyone to believe his statement... because there is no evidence for this statement... it's a self-refuting statement.

I think there's a lot of evidence for that statement. There are millions of things you could believe in - if you don't need evidence to believe in them, then why don't you? Some of them are contradictory, too.

It's somewhat akin to Occam's Razor - do not needlessly multiply entities. Assuming that the world is more or less as we observe it through our senses, we can observe that Occam's Razor always works. That books are made of paper and not alien life-forms, for instance... you can form a long and complex theory on this, but in the end you can go visit a printing press and realize - whoops! it was simply ink and paper all along.

Dunno how clear I'm being, so excuse me if this makes no sense. 2 AM and I'm zonked on pills to help me sleep... which is what I think I'll do right now. http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

quote:Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:

...1) It's irrational to accept theistic belief in the absence of sufficient evidence.

2) There is sufficient evidence to support belief in God.

3) Therefore, belief in God is rational.



I agree with 3) and i agree w/ 2), but even though there may be reasons that support belief in God, those reasons are not necessary for to make the belief rational...

It may not be entirely irrational to believe in a god of some sort or fashion. But to believe in the Christian God, you must ignore the preponderance of emperical evidence which contradicts the Bible.

It is irrational to believe in something in spite of damning evidence.

ok all, it's after 1. i read a few of the rest of the posts, and now it's time for bed...

God willing, see ya'll tomorrow.

johnny

quote:Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:

"If there's no evidence for the existence of something, there's no reason to believe it exists."

This is not the complete quote, but this is the part i want to try addressing... my intention for this topic is to try to show some problems with the thought that the atheistic worldview is inconsistant with itself-- much like the claim from non-believers that theism (esp. Christianity) is not logical.

I'm going to try to use the approach of positive apologetics... this is, i think, my first actual attempt at "playing offense".

I dont really have a plan of attack, so i'm just going to "wing it"... most likely i will concede early on, and try to learn from the experience.

Special Request to Lost Cause:

Please allow alittle extra lee-way. (not much though, this might not work at all).



God Bless,

johnny

P.S. the initial quote is from Martini, although it is not an attack to Martini. I've seen this statement many times over the years, and it's always bugged me, but i wasnt quite sure why. I'm just using the statement as an opener for the topic.

Grow a set of balls and if you're going to attack something, attack it and hold to your convictions. make some statements explaining why you believe what you believe....dont just post a quote, then use the other 9/10 of your post apologizing how weak it is....

you suck at totse.

quote:Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:

"If there's no evidence for the existence of something, there's no reason to believe it exists."

Yes, that is true.

I am sure the trick in the question lies in an illegitimate leap from metaphysics to epistemology. What I mean by that is there could be something that exists that we are unaware of because we lack the evidence, but that is not evidence that faith is a valid form of knowledge. Our modern knowledge of germs does not redefine reason for ancient people.

The fallacy of making those illigit leaps from reality to knowing and back again abound in the “proofs” and “arguments” for the existence of God. Things are only “possible” or “probable” in an epistemological sense. We have some evidence of something, but not enough to prove it, so we consider the fact possible or probable but not proven. That is how valid human reason works; with complete or incomplete evidence. In reality that fact is not probable or possible; it either is or it is not.

What makes a fact possible in the epistemic realm is the existence of known evidence. While germs existed prior to humans having evidence of them, the concept of germs was not possible to humans prior to that evidence. That does not mean they did not exist, and saying it did mean that applies the term of “possible” to the realm of reality where it cannot apply. Nothing is possible in reality, it either is or it is not. Possible is strictly an epistemic term.

The assumption that theists make when they make challenges like in the quote above is the “possible existence of unknown evidence”. There is no such thing as “possible existence”; things are or they are not. If we have incomplete or inconclusive evidence we may consider the conclusion possible from an intellectual standpoint, but in reality there is no possible.

The above quote makes an epistemic challenge of belief or knowledge, then it attempt to divorce our conclusions from our ability to draw conclusions (reason or evidence), while threatening to use an epistemic concept in an illegitimate way to create invalid doubt.

Human consciousness works how it works. We start with sensory perception and go from there. We can conceptualize and reason to form deeper concepts, but they all start from the basics, from reason, from evidence. That does not mean we know everything or that things we do not know don’t exist, but it does mean that we cannot know anything we don’t have evidence of and we cannot short circuit our only means of knowledge without contradicting and invalidating the very source of all our knowledge.

quote:Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:

"If there's no evidence for the existence of something, there's no reason to believe it exists."

Of course that challenge is, is the lack of evidence proof that something does not exist? No, the lack of evidence is a lack of reason to believe it.

To a nihilus that is a valid statement.

Notice, he moved from quoting a statement regarding "no evidence" to arguing over "sufficient evidence". Please pick one or the other to argue on and do not attempt redefinition fallacy again.

quote:Originally posted by chickenpoop:



you suck at totse.

At least he's not a dick like you, chickenpoop.

quote:Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:

They are far from bullet proof since both worldviews (natural origins and special creation) have answers that fit many of the questions and both worldviews have unanswered questions. (and both are working on answers to those)

Creationism is based on personal religious belief, not on evidence. There is mounds of evidence that evolution happens and that the Earth is much, much older than 6,000 years. It is the creationists who start with the presupposition that their Bible is correct and work from there, while never accepting new evidence that proves them wrong, not scientists.

quote:Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:

It is perfectly rational for somethings to be believed without evidence

You're not giving us the whats and whys.



quote:Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:

the statement itself was self-refuting.

No, it's not. As truckfixr already mentioned, it's self-evident.

quote:Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:

Back to the theistic syllogism of that statement:

1) It's irrational to accept theistic belief in the absence of sufficient evidence.

2) There is sufficient evidence to support belief in God.

3) Therefore, belief in God is rational.

I agree with 3) and i agree w/ 2), but even though there may be reasons that support belief in God, those reasons are not necessary for to make the belief rational.

If there is sufficient evidence that something exists, then belief in that thing is rational by definition.

Belief for what other reason? Pascal's wager? Belief because there may be a god or a bus coming?

quote:Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:

No, just that it is not irrational to believe in God without evidence.

You keep making statements in this thread without backing them up. Why is it not irrational to believe in God without evidence?

How low will you creationists go? Attempting to prove that belief without evidence is equal to belief with evidence is pretty lame, don't you think?

I asked you, "If not evidence- then what?", and you didn't answer. You merely claimed that the statement is fallacious. Are you going to raise your kids to believe that it's okay to believe in things without evidence? It'll be okay to believe anything their friends tell them?

You didn't answer Lamabot when he asked you, "You wouldn't want your doctors to prescribe you Echinacea would you?". I have a feeling you appreciate that the medical community requires evidence before believing that a medicine should be given to your children, but you somehow are able to make a complete U-turn regarding that paradigm when it comes to religion.

I probably won't continue to post in this thread because I'm pretty fed up with bullshit philosophical arguments trying to prove belief without evidence is okay, or as someone kept claiming in a recent thread, evidence can't exist without absolute proof. If this type of logic gets you to bring in new converts to Christianity, you deserve each other.

ok now, i didn't want to read all of that, so its totally possible that its been said before but i believe the statement

"If there's no evidence for the existence of something, there's no reason to believe it exists."

is not correct. I believe moreso the statement should be

"If no evidence is present, then why should i believe."

This is mainly because in my view i should have a choice weather i believe in god or not and not have to give my life to something that i in no see any logic in.

The point i am trying to get across is,

logic can exist without proof and even in many cases act as proof or evidence. However i seen no reason to give my life to something that seems not only to have no proof but, no logic.

^ You basically just took the statement (which you say you don't agree with) and turned it into a question (which you now somehow do agree with). That doesn't make sense.

You never explained why the original statement is not correct.

quote:Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:

"If there's no evidence for the existence of something, there's no reason to believe it exists."

quote:Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:

I've seen this statement many times over the years, and it's always bugged me, but i wasnt quite sure why.

I think it's pretty obvious. You never found anything incorrect about it. If you did, it wouldn't have bugged you.

You are now trying desperately to prove that rational beliefs can be had with zero evidence backing those beliefs. It ain't gonna happen.

I can respect a religious person much more if he can just admit that his belief is based on irrational faith, rather than try to prove that there are beliefs that have zero evidence backing them, and yet think they can be defined as rational.



[This message has been edited by xray (edited 01-30-2007).]

quote:Originally posted by xray:

^ You basically just took the statement (which you say you don't agree with) and turned it into a question (which you now somehow do agree with). That doesn't make sense.

You never explained why the original statement is not correct.

Thats true, I guess i didn't explain it very well. I guess part of it (not all but part) is that this allows for logic(but not proof) to be put forth, thus giving the possibility of change. Dont quite think that will make sense to anyone but its all i can do at the moment.

quote:Originally posted by Martini:

I probably won't continue to post in this thread because I'm pretty fed up with bullshit philosophical arguments trying to prove belief without evidence is okay, or as someone kept claiming in a recent thread, evidence can't exist without absolute proof. If this type of logic gets you to bring in new converts to Christianity, you deserve each other.

Actually, I'm not Christian. Not to mention that you were unable to defeat said philosophical arguments in said thread.

quote:Originally posted by fallinghouse:

Actually, I'm not Christian. Not to mention that you were unable to defeat said philosophical arguments in said thread.

No one said you were Christian, and how do you claim that you weren't defeated? Because you kept posting the same bullshit over and over?

You and Martini were the ones committing fallacy after fallacy after fallacy.

quote:Originally posted by fallinghouse:

You and Martini were the ones committing fallacy after fallacy after fallacy.

I didn't see any fallacy here.

I am not referring to this thread.

I've never seen Martini commit a fallacy.

Hi all,

As i said in my OP,

quote:I dont really have a plan of attack, so i'm just going to "wing it"... most likely i will concede early on, and try to learn from the experience.

This is that point.

One thing i think i learned is that without a plan of attack (as opposed to a general goal), it is very easy to have to put out too many "small fires" and get too side-tracked... although i do like the side-tracked path, i think it does not go well with positive apologetics.

Just to be fair to all who participated in helping me get some hands on understanding of the class, i'd like to share the general goal that i had in mind.. (i'm also posting this as a form of critiqueing my poor attempt, to help me see some of the problems and maybe do better next time)

it was meant to be a sort of 3 step "attack"..

Step 1) I had wanted to use the Clifford statement as a means to show that one of the major attacks on the rationality of Christianity was, in itself, irrational... step 1 would have been a defensive play.

Step 2) Show that Christianity was rational(atleast to the point of the exercise)... this step would have been a transition from defense toward offense.

Step 3) Give a propositional proof of God that would confirm step 1 and 2.

And then i thought that i would try to show Scripture that would confirm all 3 steps.



Unfortunately, the apologetics class does not show how to go about doing positive apologetics. In fact, i'm not sure that there is or could be a formula or formal way to go about it. I do know of a Biblical method, but it seems to me that it is more for evangelism, once some "stumbling blocks" are removed.

Sorry for the disappointment. But thank you all for your help.

God Bless,

johnny



P.S. i guess i do suck at Totse... like that's something to hurt a guy's feelings LOL

quote:Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:



I think the parallel is the beginning presuppositions... "buses do travel on roads" is the presupposition in that senerio. In the case of origins, i think there are only two possible presuppositions: 1)happen by chance 2)created

I have evidence that buses exist. I have evidence that they travel on roads. I do not have evidence that a god exists, much less that the Christian god (which is what you're claiming is rational to believe in) exists.

If you shout that "COME BACK!!, THERE'S A BUS COMING!!" it would be perfectly reasonable to come back, because I know that buses exist, and that they travel on roads. If you said " the Christian god exists" I would have absolutely no reason to believe you since you have absolutely no evidence to substantiate that belief. I do not have evidence that a god exists.

The two are not comparable scenarios in the least.

quote:Originally posted by Lamabot:

1) Nobody wants to believe they die once, for ever and irreversibly.

2) Nobody wants to believe that the "natural beauty" is just a step in a long series of events.

3) Nobody wants to deprive himself of "faith" as society has glorified it. If you have faith you are a good person but if you say "i have no faith" what the fuck is wrong with you?

Since when are you capable of knowing what everyone else in the world thinks and/or feels?

quote:Originally posted by Lamabot:

Not in any way shape or form. People either believe in god or they don't.



The fact that you can actually utter something so ridiculous, meanwhile expecting to be taken seriously, is astounding.

I personally think atheism is silly, I think agnosticism makes more sense. Just because we don't know aliens exist, doesn't mean they don't exist - same with everything. Nothing is certain.

Yes, but then it would seem you would have to stay consistent and admit you don't reject the possibility that a magical dog lives on the other side of the moon. Why hold any sort of belief of things you can't rationalize either way and simply disbelief in such a notion completely?

I was agnostic for quite awhile too, until I realized that I was only holding onto it because I rationalized believing in a creator made more sense than not, since it is familiar to our experiences. Yet, trying to answer this sort of problem of regress with 'god' really doesn't get you to a final answer anyway. It doesn't make any more sense to say that god created himself than the universe created itself, it is all irrational within our logical system.

quote:Originally posted by Lord. Better Than You:

I personally think atheism is silly, I think agnosticism makes more sense. Just because we don't know aliens exist, doesn't mean they don't exist - same with everything. Nothing is certain.



Atheism does not mean "claiming that no god exists" or "being certain that no god exists"; it's simply lacking a belief in god(s). You can lack that belief without claiming any certainty in the non-existence of a god. In other words, you can admit the possibility of a god existing and still be an atheist (still lack a belief in god(s)).



One can be an agnostic atheist, or an agnostic theist.