Re: Literal Bible reading vs making up whatever you wish
wavy said:
There is no scientific evidence for 'a-unicornism' either. All that ties into whether or not the burden of proof is upon those who are erroneously pressured to prove negatives.
Eric,
Thanks for your reply.
I would posit that there is a big difference between whether God exists or not and "unicorns". The later is scientifically verifiable. The former is not... Thus, they are not in the same category of proof.
wavy said:
If I believe there is no God, it is because I believe this God should act in a certain way and He hasn't, to me - thus, He can't exist.
That which is highlighted in red font is a poor representation of atheists, a caricature. Not believing in god/s does not require 'evidence' anymore than not believing in unicorns requires 'evidence'. Unless you can show that a god exists within a reasonable degree of probablity based on general standards of evidence, then I have no reason to provide anything for my unbelief.
I respectfully disagree. No one claims unicorns exist. Numerous sensible people believe God exists, and with little personal empirical evidence, measurable by science. Whether we speak of theism or atheism, the adherent must have reasons for his ACTIVE beliefs. We aren't speaking of agnosticism, where I doubt or am not sure or don't care one way or the other. Atheism is the ACTIVE belief that there is no God/gods. It is a "positive" belief, an assured set of principles that any belief in God is false.
Your standards of evidence are for your own self, they are not objective. I have already hinted at this, Eric. We all have a set of paradigms and hold onto them with a relatively strong emotion. After doing "apologetics" for years, I have found that logical arguments will VERY RARELY convince someone that my Catholic stance is correct and their Protestant stance is wrong. Why? Because they have an emotional investment in their current position, and logical arguments rarely touch that realm, at least over the short term. I believe it takes an experience of transcendent mystery for one (atheist/agnostic) to become convinced of God's existence (coupled with the openness to a Creator as the means of our existence). I know this from my own experience and the experience of others who have converted. While logical arguments prepare the "field", Eric, I strongly believe it takes something more.
As such, providing proofs (for either of us) is probably not going to do any convincing. Would you agree with this?
wavy said:
Furthermore, any meaningful dialogue would require that we agreed on what 'general standards of evidence' are. If we can't do that, we're talking past each other and there is no burden of proof to impose or shift.
True, but I have found that even when these standards are defined, people remain in denial when their paradigm collapses due to logic.
wavy said:
In each case, our beliefs are based upon some sort of "evidence" that is fitting and convincing to our own minds. Thus, atheists, as well, are not beyond showing the "reason why I believe". How is it irrational to ask "why"?
It's not irrational to ask 'why?',
per se. It's irrational to demand
proof.
I agree that proof will not convince very many people who hold to the theistic or atheistic point of view, but for an open agnostic willing to listen to either point, "proof" can be of use. At least I think so from my own experience. "Proof" can be useful for solidifying one's own point of view. Thus, if a theistic person reads Thomas Aquinas' 5 "proofs of the existence of God", he will be more secure in his already-held belief. However, an atheist reading Aquinas will not necessarily be convinced. That's the way these things go, Eric. Logic is more useful for the "fence-sitter" or for justifying one's own already-held position. Would you agree?
wavy said:
The existence of something and the prediction of something based on experience of it having been known to occur in the past are two entirely different things. They're unjustifiably equated here.
Cause and effect are not "unjustifiably equated". In each case, there is a cause and effect. Part of our knowledge is inferential, whether we realize it or not. Our existence points to a cause and effect Creator. Doesn't "prove" it for the atheist, but the argument is similar to any other inferential cause and effect situation. God's existence MUST be based upon inference and cause and effect, because He is beyond our senses and thus, empirical measurements.
wavy said:
Again, you cannot prove a universal or infinite negative. 'God' (at least the immaterial, autonomous Christian variety) is nowhere to be detected by the five senses. At best he exists in our heads as an idea. You can't disprove the existence of an idea.
Well, first, I would say that phenomena called "miracles" are a strong inferential point of a Transcendenat Being's existence. I would say God is more than an idea, since we have a strong cause and effect here.
However, what you point out shows why the classical atheistic position has nothing to stand upon, except perhaps the existence of evil... One cannot make the statement "God does not exist", since one cannot prove that statement except by inference (If God existed, there would be no evil, et. al). Atheists know that theists claim God is unknown to the senses. Making the comparisons with unicorns really misses that point.
Regards
