It is commonly argued within existence of God debates that the burden of proof remains entirely with the theist. The theist has to provide evidence for God in order to be rational, but the atheist does not have any burden of proof because they are not making a positive claim.
Most atheists now avoid statements like "it is true that God does not exist". However, they do state things like "there is no evidence that God exists". The atheist fails to realize that they too must provide evidence for God's nonexistence if that is a claim that they make. Thesis: The atheist must provide evidence for any claim they make about God's existence or nonexistence, whether it's positive or negative.
They argue their claim is negative, and negative claims require no justification. This is inaccurate. Negative claims are studied, analyzed and evaluated. Several scientific studies reach negative conclusions and they justify such using evidence. Many scientific papers are published solely to provide evidence for a negative conclusion that is against previously held conclusions and theories. Edited For instance, take the claim that Stana Claus does not exist - this negative claim can be proven; we have extensive knowledge of the North Pole and know that no one lives there with his wife making toys with elves. Nor do they have flying reindeer [and none with glowing noses] Nor is it possible for one to visit every home in the world within a 24-hour period, let alone crawling down chimneys. Thus, the best available evidence we have shows that Santa Claus does not exist.
If an atheist argues that negative claims require no justification, then they are in disagreement with much of the peer-reviewed academic literature, who all require evidence to substantiate negative conclusions. Yes, we can prove a negative All claims, whether positive or negative, are asserting something and thus require justification.
If the atheist ever says "there is no evidence for the existence of God" please insist on proof of that claim. If no proof for that claim is offered, then it can be rightly dismissed as a mere unsupported assertion.
Reverse the argument
Hypothetically, if a negative claim cannot be proved, then why can't the theist reasonably argue that "there is no evidence for God's nonexistence"? The next step in the atheist playbook would be for the theist to insist that the atheist prove that statement incorrect. The next time an atheist says:"It is not rational to believe that God does exist, because there is no evidence for God's existence". The theist should reply, "It is not rational to believe that God does not exist because there is no evidence for God's nonexistence". I'm not suggesting the discouragement of intellectual debate, but to show the atheist the hypocrisy of the atheist view, and deficiencies in their reasoning skills.
Non-belief [or agnosticism or agnostic atheist]
By now, most atheists realize that they are unable to provide evidence for God's nonexistence. So they make false propositions such as stating that they do not have a burden of proof in their claims, or they assert that they simply "lack" a belief in God and make no claims about God. They don't assert that God doesn't exist, but they instead just say they don't have belief in God or that they have "a dis-belief in God[s]". They don't know if God exists, but they lack the belief in God; they endorse atheism, but don't deny theism. Yes, it is true that an agnostic atheist who makes no claims do not require a burden of proof. But rare is the atheist that doesn't make any claims or not hold any positive or negative beliefs about God; they'll most likely make some sort of claim eventually.
It should be noted that this non-belief says nothing about its reasonableness. They have put themselves in the same category as the flat-earther who says they have a "non-belief" that the earth is spherical. Ask: "Why are you unsure"If they give reasons, then those reasons can be examined. If they have some sort of "I-don't-know-ism" [i.e. they don't know why they don't know] rest assured that their feet are planted in mid-air epistemologically speaking and can be dismissed as the prospect of a rational discourse is nil as they lack tangible evidence/arguments that supports holding a view of the nonexistence of God.
Claim 2: relying on a "lack" of belief in God without giving any reasons for that non-belief is intellectually meaningless.
Reverse the non-belief
The theist could also reverse the argument as well. The theist could reply that they simply "lack" the belief in the nonexistence of God. These arguments are relatively equivalent. Remember, a negative statement is just the jargon for a positive statement that affirms the nonexistence of something. Again, I'm not suggesting the discouragement of intellectual debate, but to show the atheist the hypocrisy of the atheist view, and deficiencies in their reasoning skills.
No comments:
Post a Comment