Is it Reasonable to Compare Gods with Bigfoot, Fairies, Unicorns, and Leprechauns?

[libre]

Believe it or not, there are atheists here that compare gods to Bigfoot, fairies, unicorns, leprechauns, Nessie, etc. Shocking, I know.

Now that you've overcome the shock of this news and are settled back down in front of your screen, I have a question...

Personally, I find this to be a logical fallacy: a false analogy, because while there is no objective evidence of their existence, the purposes of these concepts are entirely different. One, in making the analogy, is also applying form to something that doesn't necessarily have form. I also find the comparison rather insulting to those who have had an experience of a god.

So I put it to you. Do you think it's reasonable to compare gods to these creatures? Why or why not?

From my perspective the comparison is entirely fair, while I can understand many would find it insulting.
Unfortunately, comparing a supernatural thing that only children believe in with a supernatural thing that large groups believe in, will always cause offense.

At risk of sounding like an edgy atheist 'there's simply no polite way to tell people they've dedicated their lives to an illusion.' - Daniel Dennet.

So while these comparisons are impolite, I think it would be less respectful for me to nod along silently to someone who was looking for my approval.

 

[Trailblazer]

A god belief is not reasonable. Reason cannot justify it. There is no sound argument that ends, "therefore, God," meaning that if you hold that belief, you didn't come to it using reason, making the belief unjustified and faith-based - the opposite of reasonable.

There is no sound argument that ends, "therefore, God," because a logical argument cannot be used to prove that God exists.

That however does not mean that if you hold that belief you didn't come to it using reason, making the belief unjustified and faith-based.
One might have come to belief in God because of the evidence, which makes it reasonable, justified and evidence-based.

 

[SalixIncendium]

From my perspective the comparison is entirely fair, while I can understand many would find it insulting.
Unfortunately, comparing a supernatural thing that only children believe in with a supernatural thing that large groups believe in, will always cause offense.

I think it’s important to note that some don’t consider their personal gods supernatural.

At risk of sounding like an edgy atheist 'there's simply no polite way to tell people they've dedicated their lives to an illusion.' - Daniel Dennet.

Given my own views, I find this quote to be nothing short of ironic.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

There is no sound argument that ends, "therefore, God," because a logical argument cannot be used to prove that God exists.

That however does not mean that if you hold that belief you didn't come to it using reason, making the belief unjustified and faith-based.
One might have come to belief in God because of the evidence, which makes it reasonable, justified and evidence-based.

I don't know how to respond to this except to paraphrase it: "There is no fallacy-free argument connecting any evidence or shared premise to a conclusion that gods exist, but if one concludes that a god exists using evidence, then the belief is justified by reason and therefore reasonable." My first clause precludes the possibility of the second being possible. You first say that it can't be done, then say that it can.

 

[Trailblazer]

I don't know how to respond to this except to paraphrase it: "There is no fallacy-free argument connecting any evidence or shared premise to a conclusion that gods exist, but if one concludes that a god exists using evidence, then the belief is justified by reason and therefore reasonable." My first clause precludes the possibility of the second being possible. You first say that it can't be done, then say that it can.

That is much too vague. What are the logical fallacies?

But just for the sake of argument let's say that there is no fallacy-free argument connecting any evidence or shared premise to a conclusion that God exists. That does not mean that God does not exist since the existence of logical fallacies does not mean that God does not exist.

I already told you that there is no logical argument that ends, "therefore, God," because a logical argument cannot be used to prove that God exists.
What that means is that there is no logical argument connecting any evidence or shared premise to a conclusion that God exists.

But that does not mean that there is no evidence. Some people can connect the evidence to God. If a person believes that God exists using evidence, then the belief is justified by reason and therefore reasonable for that person.

Moreover, just because a person x cannot connect the evidence to God, that does not mean that the evidence is not connected to God.
It only means that person x cannot connect the evidence to God.

 

[Valjean]

That is much too vague. What are the logical fallacies?

Different fallacies with different arguments.
Give me an argument for God, and I'll point out the fallacies.

But just for the sake of argument let's say that there is no fallacy-free argument connecting any evidence or shared premise to a conclusion that God exists. That does not mean that God does not exist since the existence of logical fallacies does not mean that God does not exist.

But it means the claimant has not met his burden of proof, and the claim can be logically dismissed.
The lack of evidence for pink unicorns and the Flying Spaghetti Monster doesn't mean they don't exist, either, just that the burden has not been met.
The reasonable approach is to believe what you have evidence for, and defer belief in unevidenced claims -- pending discovery of evidence.

Argument from Ignorance

The assumption of a conclusion or fact based primarily on lack of evidence to the contrary. Usually best described by, “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.”

www.logicallyfallacious.com

I already told you that there is no logical argument that ends, "therefore, God," because a logical argument cannot be used to prove that God exists.
What that means is that there is no logical argument connecting any evidence or shared premise to a conclusion that God exists.

But that does not mean that there is no evidence. Some people can connect the evidence to God. If a person believes that God exists using evidence, then the belief is justified by reason and therefore reasonable for that person.

OK... What is that evidence? Is it empirical, objective evidence, or implied evidence, or subjective, "gut feeling" evidence?

Moreover, just because a person x cannot connect the evidence to God, that does not mean that the evidence is not connected to God.
It only means that person x cannot connect the evidence to God.

So it would be unreasonable to accept the evidence. It is invalid.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

One might have come to belief in God because of the evidence, which makes it reasonable, justified and evidence-based.

Then let me ask you a clarifying question:

If you were a juror, in a murder case with capital punishment as a possible punishment, would you accept the kind of "evidence, which makes it reasonable, justified and evidence-based" as sufficient to condemn another human being to death? Or might you ask for something just a little more concrete, more epistemically JTB ("justified, true belief")? Remember, in such a jury trial, you -- all by yourself -- might well have another person's life within your hands.

 

[F1fan]

From my perspective the comparison is entirely fair, while I can understand many would find it insulting.
Unfortunately, comparing a supernatural thing that only children believe in with a supernatural thing that large groups believe in, will always cause offense.

At risk of sounding like an edgy atheist 'there's simply no polite way to tell people they've dedicated their lives to an illusion.' - Daniel Dennet.

So while these comparisons are impolite, I think it would be less respectful for me to nod along silently to someone who was looking for my approval.

I see some believers claim being insulted, and that no skeptic can know what they have experienced. But believers also fail to explain that their experiences were not derived from hearing others describe their experiences, and are remarkably similar to those they have been exposed to, but not the experiences of believers from different religions. This is how skeptics think, they don't accept the superficial, and look for more reasonable explanations. I suggest the religious experience relies heavily on the superficial experience.

I find it odd that believers will join and engage in debate forums that have diverse members, and where criticism is allowed. There does seem to be an assumption that religious belief is protected and even assumed correct by default. How dare anyone say otherwise. In law there is a principle that you can't sue others for consequences due to self-harm, like jumping in front of a car and claiming they hit you.

 

[libre]

I think it’s important to note that some don’t consider their personal gods supernatural.

My cheeky riposte would be that there are those who don't consider Bigfoot supernatural either.

 

[F1fan]

There is no sound argument that ends, "therefore, God," because a logical argument cannot be used to prove that God exists.

So there is no evidence, because logical arguments thrive on evidence.

I read a post of yours a day ago and you claimed that you knew God exists, so how did you come to knowledge when there's no way to prove a God exists via logic and evidence? That is contradictory.

That however does not mean that if you hold that belief you didn't come to it using reason, making the belief unjustified and faith-based.

Reason is a fairly simple but strict process. If a person believes some idea and they can't explain how they arrived at the conclusions in a way that others recognize as evidenced and reasoned, it isn't reasonable to believe. There's no wiggle room, and no exceptions for faith.

One might have come to belief in God because of the evidence, which makes it reasonable, justified and evidence-based.

Then the evidence has to be adequate to convince other rational minds. Thus far believers fail consistantly at this. There is no evidence.

 

[Trailblazer]

Different fallacies with different arguments.
Give me an argument for God, and I'll point out the fallacies.

I am not going to give you a logical argument for God since a logical argument cannot be used to prove that God exists.
Asking for proof of God's existence is in itself illogical.
Any logical person who also knows anything about God would know that the existence of God is not subject to proof.

But in means the claimant has not met his burden of proof, and the claim can be logically dismissed.

I am not making any claims so there is nothing to dismiss.

The lack of evidence for pink unicorns and the Flying Spaghetti Monster doesn't mean they don't exist, either, just that the burden has not been met.
The reasonable approach is to believe what you have evidence for, and defer belief in unevidenced claims -- pending discovery of evidence.

Argument from Ignorance

The assumption of a conclusion or fact based primarily on lack of evidence to the contrary. Usually best described by, “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.”

www.logicallyfallacious.com

OK... What is that evidence? Is it empirical, objective evidence, or implied evidence, or subjective, "gut feeling" evidence?

The reasonable approach is to believe what you have evidence for, and defer belief in unevidenced claims.
The reasonable approach is to accept the evidence that God provides, since you ain't getting anything else.

There is no empirical, objective evidence for God. Any such evidence would be proof, but there is no proof that God exists.
To say that 'God exists' is false because it has not yet been proven true is an argument from ignorance.

Argument from ignorance asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false or proposition is false because it has not yet been proven true. This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option, which is that there may have been an insufficient investigation, and therefore there is insufficient information to prove the proposition be either true or false. Nor does it allow the admission that the choices may in fact not be two (true or false), but may be as many as four,

1. true
2. false
3. unknown between true or false
4. being unknowable (among the first three).[1]

Argument from ignorance - Wikipedia

So it would be unreasonable to accept the evidence. It is invalid.

The evidence is not invalid just because a person x cannot connect the evidence to God, since that does not mean that the evidence is not connected to God.

 

[Valjean]

My cheeky riposte would be that there are those who don't consider Bigfoot supernatural either.

Nobody's claiming Bigfoot's supernatural. It's believed to be an actual, substantial creature, like a bear or moose -- or bluejay.

 

[Trailblazer]

Then let me ask you a clarifying question:

If you were a juror, in a murder case with capital punishment as a possible punishment, would you accept the kind of "evidence, which makes it reasonable, justified and evidence-based" as sufficient to condemn another human being to death? Or might you ask for something just a little more concrete, more epestemically JTB ("justified, true belief")? Remember, in such a jury trial, you -- all by yourself -- might well have another person's life within your hands.

You can ask for any kind of evidence you want to ask for but that doesn't mean you are going to get it.
God only provides the evidence that He chooses to provide, and it is not any more concrete than the Messengers.

 

[Trailblazer]

So there is no evidence, because logical arguments thrive on evidence.

I did not say there is no evidence, I said there is no proof. Evidence is not proof.

Evidence: the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid: https://www.google.com/search

Evidence is anything that you see, experience, read, or are told that causes you to believe that something is true or has really happened.
Objective evidence definition and meaning | Collins English Dictionary

Proof: evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement: https://www.google.com/search

There are many kinds of evidence, and not all evidence is verifiable. Verifiable evidence is proof because it establishes something as a fact.

Fact: something that is known to have happened or to exist, especially something for which proof exists, or about which there is information:
fact

I read a post of yours a day ago and you claimed that you knew God exists, so how did you come to knowledge when there's no way to prove a God exists via logic and evidence? That is contradictory.

I do not need proof because I have evidence.

Reason is a fairly simple but strict process. If a person believes some idea and they can't explain how they arrived at the conclusions in a way that others recognize as evidenced and reasoned, it isn't reasonable to believe. There's no wiggle room, and no exceptions for faith.

I can explain how I arrived at my conclusions, but that doesn't mean that others will recognize what I say as evidenced and reasoned, since all human beings reason in their own particular way, with what is contained in their own mind.

Just because others do not recognize it as evidenced and reasoned doesn't mean it isn't.

Then the evidence has to be adequate to convince other rational minds. Thus far believers fail consistantly at this. There is no evidence.

There is nothing logical about what you are saying. Everyone reasons differently, and I cannot make you reason the way I do since you do not think with my mind. What is in my mind is wholly different from what is in your mind since I have had a different education and different life experiences. Why would other people think like me? Even other Baha'is do not think like me, although we believe some of the same things.

Thus far, there is no evidence that will convince you, but that doesn't mean there is no evidence. You would have to think about the evidence differently than you do now in order to accept it as evidence.

 

[Valjean]

I am not going to give you a logical argument for God since a logical argument cannot be used to prove that God exists.
Asking for proof of God's existence is in itself illogical.

Asking for "proof" of a non-mathematical claim may be senseless, but is there a logical error in it?
Asking for evidence for so fervent, widespread and influential a claim, on the other hand, is perfectly justifiable.

And noöne's asking for or expecting proof, just objective evidence. We have no proof that germs cause disease or that the Earth's round, either, but we do have evidence sufficient to accept the claims.
So where's the objective, 'examinable' evidence for God?

Any logical person who also knows anything about God would know that the existence of God is not subject to proof.

I am not making any claims so there is nothing to dismiss.

The claim in question is that there's a God, and you just conceded that there is no objective evidence.

Claims supported only by subjective evidence -- like leprechauns, gods, or pink unicorns, carry equal truth-value, inasmuch as there is equal evidence for each.
Do you see the point?

The reasonable approach is to believe what you have evidence for, and defer belief in unevidenced claims.
The reasonable approach is to accept the evidence that God provides, since you ain't getting anything else.

There is no empirical, objective evidence for God. Any such evidence would be proof, but there is no proof that God exists.
To say that 'God exists' is false because it has not yet been proven true, is an argument from ignorance.

Argument from ignorance asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false or proposition is false because it has not yet been proven true. This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option, which is that there may have been an insufficient investigation, and therefore there is insufficient information to prove the proposition be either true or false. Nor does it allow the admission that the choices may in fact not be two (true or false), but may be as many as four,

1. true
2. false
3. unknown between true or false
4. being unknowable (among the first three).[1]

Argument from ignorance - Wikipedia

The evidence is not invalid just because a person x cannot connect the evidence to God, since that does not mean that the evidence is not connected to God.

What evidence?
The only evidence you cite is subjective, which is not epistemically useful. It can't be seen, measured or tested. It's not productive or consistently reproducible.

 

[Valjean]

You can ask for any kind of evidence you want to ask for but that doesn't mean you are going to get it.
God only provides the evidence that He chooses to provide, and it is not any more concrete than the Messengers.

Huh?
If there's no concrete evidence for something, or if God chooses to provides none -- as He apparently does -- then how is this unevidenced belief reasonable?

You make this claim based on only hoped-for evidence. Why would any reasonable person believe it?

 

[Trailblazer]

Asking for "proof" of a non-mathematical claim may be senseless, but is there a logical error in it?
Asking for evidence for so fervent, widespread and influential a claim, on the other hand, is perfectly justifiable.

Yes, asking for evidence is perfectly justifiable.

And noöne's asking for or expecting proof, just objective evidence. We have no proof that germs cause disease or that the Earth's round, either, but we do have evidence sufficient to accept the claims.
So where's the objective, 'examinable' evidence for God?

The only evidence for God is the Messenger of God.

The claim in question is that there's a God, and you just conceded that there is no objective evidence.

The kind of objective evidence you want, evidence that can be seen, measured or tested, does not exist.
That is because the entity called God can never be seen, measured or tested.

Claims supported only by subjective evidence -- like leprechauns, gods, or pink unicorns, carry equal truth-value, inasmuch as there is equal evidence for each.
Do you see the point?

What evidence?
The only evidence you cite is subjective, which is not epistemically useful. It can't be seen, measured or tested. It's not productive or consistently reproducible.

Subjective evidence is evidence that we cannot evaluate. In fact, we have two choices; to accept what somebody says or reject it. ...
Objective evidence is evidence that we can examine and evaluate for ourselves.
Objective evidence - definition and meaning - Market ...

Subjective evidence is subjective evidence because it is personal and we cannot evaluate it for ourselves,.

Messengers of God are objective evidence since we can examine and evaluate the Messengers for ourselves.

For example, we can examine and evaluate the evidence for Baha'u'llah for ourselves because there are actual facts surrounding the Person, the Life, and the Mission of Baha'u'llah.

 

[Trailblazer]

Huh?
If there's no concrete evidence for something, or if God chooses to provides none -- as He apparently does -- then how is this unevidenced belief reasonable?

You make this claim based on only hoped-for evidence. Why would any reasonable person believe it?

There is evidence since God chose to provide evidence...
The evidence is the Messenger of God. He is as concrete as you are going to get.

 

[The Hammer]

The evidence is the Messenger of God. He is as concrete as you are going to get.

No messenger required. I got the message right from the tap so to speak. Look harder and you'll hear too.

 

[Valjean]

I did not say there is no evidence, I said there is no proof. Evidence is not proof.

Evidence: the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid: https://www.google.com/searchevidence definition - Google Search

Evidence is anything that you see, experience, read, or are told that causes you to believe that something is true or has really happened.
Objective evidence definition and meaning | Collins English Dictionary

Now give us the technical definition. This is a technical discussion of epistemology, after all.

Proof: evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement: https://www.google.com/search

In philosophy, "proof" is a technical, mathematical term. Only mathematicians attempt to prove anything.
This isn't a casual, offhand discussion. It's a serious, apologetic debate, and we need to use technical words in their strict, technical sense, if we're to avoid talking past each other or strawmanning.

We're not looking for proof. we're seeking the best evidenced conclusions, based on the strongest empirical evidence, logically analysed.

There are many kinds of evidence, and not all evidence is verifiable. Verifiable evidence is proof because it establishes something as a fact.

Verifiable evidence is not "proof."

None of the evidence for God that I'm aware of is tangible, testable, repeatable, or productive. This is what's meant by empirical, objective evidence. Such evidence is epistemically valid.
Subjective evidence; perceptible only to an individual and not tangible, measurable or testable, is empirically iseless, is it not?

Fact: something that is known to have happened or to exist, especially something for which proof exists, or about which there is information:

Again, a colloquial definition, too vague, broad and ambiguous to be useful in serious discussion.
So... how is God "known to exist?" Are you using an unevidenced conclusion as a premise?

I do not need proof because I have evidence.

Quite reasonable. Evidence is all any of us have, but there are degrees of evidence, as you know, plus, if your evidence is subjective, it's apologetically useless. It's evidence persuasive to you alone.

I can explain how I arrived at my conclusions, but that doesn't mean that others will recognize what I say as evidenced and reasoned, since all human beings reason in their own particular way, with what is contained in their own mind.

Yet logic is mathematically inflexible. It's a branch of algebra. A conclusion is either valid or not. People may reason in their own way, but only one way is correct and productive of valid conclusions. That's why we heretics are constantly objecting to theistic "proofs," claims, and evidence. We're pointing out real mathematical errors, as well as erroneous or unsupported facts.

Just because others do not recognize it as evidenced and reasoned doesn't mean it isn't.

There is nothing logical about what you are saying. Everyone reasons differently, and I cannot make you reason the way I do since you do not think with my mind. What is in my mind is wholly different from what is in your mind since I have had a different education and different life experiences. Why would other people think like me? Even other Baha'is do not think like me, although we believe some of the same things.

Yes, but algebraic equations are not subjective. Logic is the same for everyone, everywhere.

Evidence, of couse, varies, and may also be subjective or objective. Bad objective evidence often yields erroneous conclusions, so it's important that evidence be well supported, empirically.

Reasoned conclusions don't vary by individual. Given the same input, logic and reason yield consistent output if used correctly. What's in "individual minds" doesn't alter the equations.
A hundred different calculators, working the same equation, would all yeld the same result.

Subjective evidence has been used in apologetics for millennia, but, being subjective, has never yielded consistent or robust conclusions. It's led to a million different opinions, conclusions and religions. Subjective evidence is neither demonstrable nor reliable.

Thus far, there is no evidence that will convince you, but that doesn't mean there is no evidence. You would have to think about the evidence differently than you do now in order to accept it as evidence.

Epistemically acceptable evidence is never subjective. Only concrete, tangible evidence will yield consistent, reliable conclusions, accepted universally.