By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Sqrl on 08 April 2009
Edit Thread

@Donathos,

Ok you honestly missed some of the most crucial points so I'm going to take a new approach and start from the very basics (which should also help keep the length more reasonable).  Tell me which of these you disagree with and briefly why. Lets see if we can work from here because the other approach was extremely cluttered.

  1. Trusting our senses: Society as a whole trusts its senses because we find overwhelming agreement in our preception and utilizing the results of our perception proves itself beneficial on a daily basis.  So at the basis of our reason and logic is this agreement that people need to be able to percieve something to agree on it and accept it.  We can base a discussion of dissimilar views on our senses because we trust our own senses and expect others to present a case that convinces our senses of their point.
  2. Logic and Evidence: Logic and evidence are the medium used to present our point of view to others for their assessment.
  3. Belief or Disbelief in God: Belief/Disbelief can be based in faith, evidence, or logic.  These terms have a heiarchy though.  An argument that utilizes all three is a faith argument because its weakest argument is based on faith.  An argument of logic and evidence is a logical argument because a logical argument is its weakest argument.  In this way Evidence > Logic > Faith.  Note that it is very hard to make an argument using ONLY evidence...usually logic comes into play because humans rely on motive to complete a picture of events.  The hiearchy is this order because a faith argument is supported only by the mind but without a system for isolating errors, then logic because it is based on the mind but has a system for isolating errors, and finally evidence because its existance is independant of the mind.
  4. Proof: Proof is an argument that, relying on logic and evidence (as the only mediums capable), addresses all relevant points of an issue and shows conclusively where the truth of the issue lies.  A proof, in order to be accepted, must also be open to independent assessment and review by any interested party.
  5. Proof for and against God:  Proof for and against god is not special.  It must be a logical and/or evidential argument and must address all relevant points while presenting a conclusive truth that is open to independent assessment and review by any interested party.
  6. Logical argument for and against God: A logical argument for the existence of god can consist of both evidence and logic.  The logic and evidence being used must start from an agreeable premise to both parties (the presenter and every listener) and take logical steps towards proving/disproving god until they reach the conclusion.  From there the proof should be reviewed and any skipped step, false premise, or faulty logic that can be demonstrated will corrupt the proof and require them to start from the premise again and work forward from there.
  7. Evidence for and against God: Such evidence flatly does not exist either way. 
  8. Lack of evidence is not always evidence: A lack of evidence is not evidence unless evidence is expected.  Or to put it another way, if you expect something to leave evidence when an action occurs and that evidence is missing you have evidence to suggest the event did not happen...but if no evidence is known to be left by an action, and you indeed find no evidence of an action, you still do not have evidence that something did or did not happen.
  9. The problem with incomplete proofs: To say that you have "logically" concluded god does not exist without following the rigorous standards of a logical proof actually violates the very first point. Specifically that our ability to reach any agreement is founded on the idea that we can present an argument for the assessment of others.  The discussion of god lacks evidence and thus the strongest possible argument is ruled out.  The only remaining option is logic and failing to present the logic for the assessment of others while claiming that your position is still logical is either ignorance of the terms, abuse of terms, or intellectual dishonesty.
  10. Conclusion:  In the absence of proof the only logical position is to be skeptical.  Agnosticism is the default skeptic position because it is the only choice amongst Atheism, Theism, and Agnosticism that does not advocate a position of certainty.  

Note that in this debate there are three types of positions like you mentioned in your post:

  • Faith Views: Atheism and Theism
  • Logical Views: Agnosticism
  • Evidential Views: N/A
To Each Man, Responsibility