Strong-Atheism: A fallacy?

[Jayhawker Soule]

What "things", Jay? And in what way is your belief warranted? I would be very intereted to know, thanks.

At this writing, it is 4:49. I've been sitting here for about 7 minutes waiting for my wife to get dressed. (We're going out to dinner and the the Joffrey ballet.) I have a strong belief that my bedroom has been free of Unicorns for the duration. Why? I've never seen a Unicorn. I've never seen evidence of a Unicorn. I've never seen an event or complex of events that suggest Unicorn(s) as Inference to Best Explanation. I've never seen a credible report of an event or complex of events that suggest Unicorn(s) as Inference to Best Explanation. I feel my strong aunicorism to be fully warranted.

 

[Prometheus]

I feel my strong aunicorism to be fully warranted.

Your description would actually be better worded as "Aunicorn-in-my-bedroomism." "Aunicornism" would mean there are no unicorns anywhere. You haven't been everywhere, but you have been in your bedroom. So "Strong Aunicorn-in-my-bedroomism" is warranted. Simply "Aunicornism" is not.

I hope that made some sense through all of the made up words.

 

[des]

My feeling is is that instead of needing to prove a negative (for instance that there is no god), that theists are the ones that have to prove the positive (If that is the word) that there IS a god. I don't know that you can ever prove a negative. But I don't think that is the same thing as needing to prove there is no god to believe in an absolute atheist position.

For instance, I don't believe in the Pink Spaghetti Monster. I don't believe in it in any way shape or form, and am definitely a (aside from using lots of cliches) an absolute nonbeliever in the Pink Spaghetti Monster. Can I absolutely prove there is no Pink Spaghetti Monster? No, I can't. I think though that believers in the Pink Spaghetti monster are the ones who are under the obligation to provide the proof. Now
I am not really saying that they have to provide proof to believe. Not at all. I could believe in the unseen Pink Spaghetti Monster. I could also relate different theories perhaps as to why you would never see it. But all that does not really amt to proof.
It goes to belief. What I mean is that if you were trying to show to someone there is a Pink Spaghetti Monster, that you are the one needing the positive proof, vs a disbeliever like me.


In the same way you can believe that there is no god; that there *might* be a god; that you cannot know if there is a god; that there is a god that lives basically outside human reason; that there is a god that hears your prayers and knows you; and all sorts of other things. I think they are essentially all belief statements. (Even though I don't think you need to be an active "atheist" (or even theist), as in someone who is inclined to think there isn't a god. It's just a feeling perhaps.) If you want to tell someone there is a god, then you are the one that needs to do the explaining. Of course, my brother, who is a fundamentalist Christian feels a necessity to explain to me about the typical Christian god, a creator I do not even like the sounds of.



--des

 

[Tiberius]

No, "it is rather impossible to try and disprove God entirely" because there are no scientific protocols for dealing with the supernatural. From the standpoint of science, the existence of God is simply out of scope.

Correction - WE don't have the scientific protocols to deal with the supernatural YET.

We might develop them tomorrow. But we can't say that such protocols don't exist merely because we are unaware of them.

In fact, I would say that if there is anything at all that is supernatural that exists in this universe, there must be scientific data about them, as science is about things within the universe.

So I think it's safe to say that anything that actually exists within our universe can be described by science, because the universe operates on scientific laws.

Your description would actually be better worded as "Aunicorn-in-my-bedroomism." "Aunicornism" would mean there are no unicorns anywhere. You haven't been everywhere, but you have been in your bedroom. So "Strong Aunicorn-in-my-bedroomism" is warranted. Simply "Aunicornism" is not.

I hope that made some sense through all of the made up words.

I understand what you are saying, but you've gotta remember that for a unicorn to exist anywhere, a unicorn must not contradict the laws of the universe.

Thus, if a unicorn must have any properties that are contradictory with any of the established laws that govern the universe, such a unicorn can not exist. Given that unicorns are said to be magical creatures, and also given that magic requires the violation of the laws which we know govern the universe, unicorns are contradictory to the universe and therefore cannot exist in a universe where magic cannot exist.

This argument seems to be the old "Can't prove a universal negative" argument, which is baloney. I can prove there are no even prime numbers greater than 2. If that isn't a universal negative, I don't know what is.

 

[Willamena]

Correction - WE don't have the scientific protocols to deal with the supernatural YET.

We might develop them tomorrow. But we can't say that such protocols don't exist merely because we are unaware of them.

If we did develop protocol to "deal with the supernatural," it would no longer be the supernatural we would be dealing with. It would be natural. We cannot "deal" with something unless it has characteristics.

In fact, I would say that if there is anything at all that is supernatural that exists in this universe, there must be scientific data about them, as science is about things within the universe.

So I think it's safe to say that anything that actually exists within our universe can be described by science, because the universe operates on scientific laws.

Just so. There is nothing that is supernatural that exists in this universe. The supernatural is generally regarded as being of an "other" world.

 

[Slightly Perfect]

Personally, I have been convinced by what I think is sound logic that the position of Strong-Atheism is a fallacy. I think the most reasonable position to hold is to be a Weak-Atheist/Agnostic.

If there are any Strong-Atheists here I'd be interested in changing your mind.

I really don't like that title at all. I don't think you can have varying levels of nonbelief. But for the purposes of this board, I'd consider myself a "strong atheist." Outside this board, I say I'm just "an atheist."

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

In fact, I would say that if there is anything at all that is supernatural that exists in this universe, there must be scientific data about them, as science is about things within the universe.

You would be wrong.

 

[Slightly Perfect]

My feeling is is that instead of needing to prove a negative (for instance that there is no god), that theists are the ones that have to prove the positive (If that is the word) that there IS a god. I don't know that you can ever prove a negative. But I don't think that is the same thing as needing to prove there is no god to believe in an absolute atheist position.

I think you said it very well. You can "prove a negative" to a specific, legal extent, like "You were at the mall at 5 pm!" "No, I wasn't! I was at the doctor's office! See, they have me on their security video." As long as you have video evidence and strong witnesses' statements, you can "prove a negative" like the one I described, but it will still be debatable. They could always say the video was fabricated. It's all about reasonable evidence. In any event, the burden of proof is still on the person claiming you were at the mall.

For instance, I don't believe in the Pink Spaghetti Monster. I don't believe in it in any way shape or form, and am definitely a (aside from using lots of cliches) an absolute nonbeliever in the Pink Spaghetti Monster. Can I absolutely prove there is no Pink Spaghetti Monster? No, I can't. I think though that believers in the Pink Spaghetti monster are the ones who are under the obligation to provide the proof.

So many theists claim Thor, Zeus, Allah, Yhwh, et al are nonexistant. Atheists go one step further using that same line of logic.

In the same way you can believe that there is no god; that there *might* be a god; that you cannot know if there is a god; that there is a god that lives basically outside human reason;

And this is how the theists "get around it"; by claiming there is a deity outside of human reason, then they somehow think employing "faith" (i.e., belief without reason) is reason enough. What a circle!

 

[linwood]

I can't say your premise is false with absolute certainty.

You most certainly can.
Don`t you see the madness this line of thought leads to?

Still, if we are going to use logic to debate people, we can't be caught using a fallacy ourselves.

This is where the problem lies.

It`s highly unlikely you use this "logic" to help you get through your life on a daily basis.
Why use it in this case then?
What makes the subject of god so special?
Why are you treating it differently ?

Logic is useless when discussing the "supernatural".
"Rational"logic is what is needed to discuss the supernatural.



I could use logic to build a very strong case that god does exist.
All that would be necessary to be thought correct is for some irrational person to believe my false premises.

Logic is a tool that can be used with rationality or without rationality.
Using it without renders it useless.

So as much as either of us may dislike it, to say there is no God because there's no evidence that there is a God is a fallacy.

It is only a fallacy if the premise is incorrect.
The premise is not incorrect.

Absence of evidence is indeed evidence of absence when the claim is irrational, extraordinary, or supernatural.

 

[linwood]

Correction - WE don't have the scientific protocols to deal with the supernatural YET.

We might develop them tomorrow. But we can't say that such protocols don't exist merely because we are unaware of them.

In fact, I would say that if there is anything at all that is supernatural that exists in this universe, there must be scientific data about them, as science is about things within the universe.

This is my point.

This is where the logic Prometheus speaks of leads us.

The supernatural cannot exist due to its own inherent properties.
Once what we consider to be supernatural is evidenced it is no loner supernatural.

It is instead natural.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Logic is useless when discussing the "supernatural".
"Rational"logic is what is needed to discuss the supernatural.

One can't be sure, but this sounds like an introduction to a circular argument.

 

[linwood]

One can't be sure, but this sounds like an introduction to a circular argument.

Isn`t every argument about the supernatural eventually a circular argument?

Thats evidence itself I believe.
Not much but evidence none the less.

Edit:

Actually I disagree it`s circular in this case Jay.

I find it funny that it`s you I`m debating against with this point.
You the man who taught me the Razor is useless when discussing the supernatural.

Logic itself is less than "correct" when discussing the supernatural as there can be no quantifiable premise to lay a conclusion upon.

Logic is only "right" when a premise can be evidenced.

Without an evidenced premise logic is nothing more than charades really.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Isn`t every argument about the supernatural eventually a circular argument?

< -- snip -- >​

Actually I disagree it`s circular in this case Jay.

OK

Now, tell me the attributes of Rational"logic that (a) distinguish it from logic, and (b) render it more credible in dealing with appeals to supernatural agency.

 

[linwood]

OK

Now, tell me the attributes of Rational"logic that (a) distinguish it from logic, and (b) render it more credible in dealing with appeals to supernatural agency.

"Rational" or empirical logic is logic based upon rational premises.
Observable, evidenced premises.

It differs from logic because simple logic can be based upon anything and still be "logical".

This is the logic we all use all day every day.

Just because a logical construct is correct does not necessarily mean it is "true".
It is not "right" just because it is logical.

Logic itself is not empirical.
The premises one bases their logical construct on may or may not be empirical.

Where they are logic is "true".
Where they aren`t logic may or may not be "true".

As far as using logic in dealing with appeals to the supernatural.
It is useless and you yourself know this.

The supernatural requires nothing more than faith.
Logic can neither support it or weaken it because any premise used in it`s defense or in opposition of it must lack evidence due to the inherent nature of the supernatural.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

"Rational" or empirical logic is logic based upon rational premises.
Observable, evidenced premises.

And your "rational premises" about the supernatural would be what?

 

[Tiberius]

You would be wrong.

Please back up this claim. Preferably by demonstrating the existence of something supernatural that has indisputable proof that science cannot explain.

 

[linwood]

And your "rational premises" about the supernatural would be what?

There are none nor can there be any.

Thats the point.

Without a rational premise logic cannot lead to truth.

It can however lead to circular argument and often does.

Attempting discernment of the supernatural is a fools game.

My worldview and beliefs are not based upon simple logic.

They are based upon the rational.

Logical thought based upon a premise that cannot be evidenced is called "daydreaming".
It`s fun but ultimately holds no material value.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

In fact, I would say that if there is anything at all that is supernatural that exists in this universe, there must be scientific data about them, as science is about things within the universe.

You would be wrong.

Please back up this claim.

Your claim

• science is about things within the universe
• therefore there must be scientific data about all things

is simply and laughably incoherent, not to mention demonstrably false. There are vast quantities of things for which there is no scientific data.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

There are none nor can there be any. Thats the point.

Just outstanding! So here we have the wisdom of linwood ...

Logic is useless when discussing the "supernatural".
"Rational"logic is what is needed to discuss the supernatural.

One can't be sure, but this sounds like an introduction to a circular argument.

Isn`t every argument about the supernatural eventually a circular argument?

< -- snip -- >​

Actually I disagree it`s circular in this case Jay.

Now, tell me the attributes of Rational"logic that (a) distinguish it from logic, and (b) render it more credible in dealing with appeals to supernatural agency.

There are none nor can there be any. Thats the point.

Congratulations. You've managed to promote a circular argument to a mobius muddle. Thanks for sharing.

 

[Aqualung]

Mobius muddle. Rofl. Is that a word you made up? It's a good one, if you did.