That is also a definite claim, and thus, needs to be substantiated. Some people have difficulty grasping this concept, though.
Unfortunately, your typicaly Joe Schmoe on the street would say something like “There is no evidence that God exists. I say that because I don’t know of any.” It’s enough to make a philosopher cry.
Stating “There is no evidence” is also an absolutist claim. As I said eariler, if somebody makes that assertion, then he is beholden to back it up – just as somebody who states that God exists should provide reason for that belief.
OK. Go through and try to think of how exactly we can prove something never happened. Go on, do it. What is your cite? The entire history of the universe as we know it?
Come on, this isn’t rocket surgery. Proving a negative is impossible.
Yes, it depends on whether the atheist is trying to convert the theist, or justify his own (lack of) belief.
If the atheist is trying to convert or convince the theist that there is no God, it’s not enough to say, “My position is the default, and you have no right to believe what you do unless you show me some evidence that I will accept.” But if the atheist is just trying to defend his own position, it’s perfectly valid to say, “I don’t believe in God because I see no good reason to believe in God.”
For a lot of people, no metaphor at all.
No. One more time. It’s the job of people claiming that there is evidence to provide it; lacking that, their claims should be dismissed. That’s how everything but religion is treated, or should be ( bigots and such often ignore this rule ). If I accused you of murder, without even showing anyone a dead body, a missing person, or even evidence of violence against somebody, wouldn’t you expect my claim to be regarded as false ? Not “Let’s keep an open mind”, but false ? I would.
You confuse God with religion. I don’t know why people do. Some Muslims or Jews might say that the God they worship isn’t the same one that Christians do but they wouldn’t be speaking from the position of their own religion but for themselves. Like I said before religion is a way of celebrating God - different birthday parties, same guest of honour.
But there is an ssumption you’re making here. That is, IF there is a god, a Creator, that we would necessarily have direct evidence of him and the fact that he created all this. That is not necessarily the case.
And many posters continue to mistakenly see the flip side of atheism as religion, a few particular religions at that. No. The flip side of atheism is merely theism: belief in god or gods. One may believe that a Creator willed the world into existence and that no religious beleif is required. Even if he wanted to be worshiped, it could very well be that no religion in the history of man has come close to getting it right yet.
So if you want to look down upon religious beliefs as fanciful and fantastical, knock yourself out. But that does nothing to make atheism a more logical position than pure theism. In fact, I maintain (for reasons offered numerous times elsewhere), that theism is the more logical position.
Not according to standard Christian theology. The Son is begotten of the Father, but both are God. This is quite different from the Muslim view that Jesus was merely a prophet created by God.
Believing that the Son/Father relationship is merely a metaphor is heresy. Wars have been fought for less.
That’s your problem, not mine. If you can’t prove it, then perhaps you shouldn’t be quick to make such a bold claim.
Proving a negative is impossible? That’s a negative statement, in and of itself. In other words, you’re using one unprovable statement to defend another unprovable.
It’s also self-refuting and incorrect. As modern philosopher Stephen D. Hales says,
But there is one big, fat problem with all this. Among professional
logicians, guess how many think that you can’t prove a negative? That’s right: zero. Yes, Virginia, you can prove a negative, and it’s easy, too. For one thing, a real, actual law of logic is a negative, namely the law of non-contradiction. This law states that that a proposition cannot be both true and not true. Nothing is both true and false. Furthermore, you can prove this law. It can be formally derived from the empty set using provably valid rules of inference. (I’ll spare you the boring details). One of the laws of logic is a provable negative. Wait… this means we’ve just proven that it is not the case that one of the laws of logic is that you can’t prove a negative. So we’ve proven yet another negative! In fact, ‘you can’t prove a negative’ is a negative so if you could prove it true, it wouldn’t be true! Uh-oh.
Not only that, but any claim can be expressed as a negative, thanks to the rule of double negation. This rule states that any proposition P is logically equivalent to not-not-P. So pick anything you think you can prove. Think you can prove your own existence? At least to your own satisfaction? Then, using the exact same reasoning, plus the little step of double negation, you can prove that you aren’t nonexistent. Congratulations, you’ve just proven a negative. The beautiful part is that can do this trick with absolutely any proposition whatsoever. Prove P is true and you can prove that P is not false.Any mathematician can tell you the same thing. For example, even a freshman math major can use the principle of reductio ad absurdum to prove that there are no even prime numbers greater than 2. They can use the same principle to prove that there are no triangles in Euclidean space that have more than one right angle. In both cases, a “negative” can be proven in a straightforward fashion.
Even the infidels.org website – which is decidedly hostile toward theists, especially Christians – admits this! As Richard Carrier said on that very site, “I know the myth of “you can’t prove a negative” circulates throughout the nontheist community, and it is good to dispel myths whenever we can.” (I disagree with his conclusions regarding theism, but on this particular matter, he is absolutely correct.)
So no, it’s NOT true that you cannot prove a negative. Any logician can tell you that.
Unfortunately, people often do apply a double standard when it comes to theistic belief. They say, “If you say that there’s a God, you should provide proof!” while simultaneously refusing to proven their own claim that there is no God. The more careful skeptics don’t make such reckless statements; instead, they say they see no reason to believe in a god, or utter other milder claims. (I personally disagree with their assessment of the evidence, but I do commend them for avoiding the aforementioned double standard.)
It’s the job of ANYONE making a claim to substantiate that claim. You insist on applying a double standard, for reasons that I think we all know.
Old thread that I think was good-- I come in with a crisis of faith in post #173
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=6880606
JHC on a pogo stick, I get tired of this .
Why the hell, when you are asked over and over and over and over again for evidence of your god’s existence, you come right back with the false claim that we will only accept proof of it. These words are spelled differently, they are pronounced differently, and they have two entirely different meanings. What ticks me off most of all is that I know that you have been told this repeatedly, and yet you continue to do this.
I don’t think so. I claim that you have not provided objective evidence of your god’s existence. This is a claim that can only be proven(or disproven) by you.
No, that disbelief in gods is the rational choice if there is no evidence. Without evidence, it’s more rational to disbelieve even if there are gods.
And you are wrong, like the believers always are.
Because asserting something’s existence and asserting it’s nonexistence are two different things. And asserting something’s existence always takes a higher standard of proof, except when it comes to religion; then it requires a lower standard.
Logical fallacies: Appeal to Ignorance
(my emph)
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/ignorant.html
So why do you insist that it is?
What are you talking about? My claim wasn’t that there was no evidence, my claim was that no objective evidence has yet to be provided.
Besides, a lack of positive evidence when positive evidence is expected is itself evidence. If I see a red apple, I can’t claim that all apples are red because we have no evidence otherwise. But I can claim that that apple is not green.
Not true. In principle, you can cite a complete list of my writings, for example, and demonstrate your claim to be true. Ergo, you can substantiate your own claim.
BTW, I hope you’re not taking me to task for not defending God’s existence in this thread. As various posters and I have pointed out, that’s a worthy topic of discussion, but it’s not the issue that the OP presented.
I agree with that. I don’t agree that this is accurately represents the situation with regard to theism; however, I do agree with your statement above.
Both are claims that need to be substantiated. Whether you say that something exists or does not exist, you had better provide good, thorough reasons for making that claim.
It seems to me that you just want to set the bar lower when it comes to atheism. More cautious thinkers reject your stance, which is why they offer milder claims (e.g. “I don’t believe there’s enough reason to accept that God exists.”).
Yes, you’re awfully fond of baldly asserting that, aren’t you?
Fair enough. My own position with regards to gods in this context is that generally, gods in religions do and are expected to interact on the physical plane. Thus, lack of evidence of this interaction would indicate a lack of those gods.
Of course, that all depends on whether or not you think your god does interact, whether you think the interaction would be obvious, and so on. I’d say that while it is not a blanket argument against theism (since obviously lack of evidence of a god that isn’t supposed to provide it wouldn’t mean anything), but a reasonable one against particular kinds of theism.