The Pareto distribution is an exponential curve where the top 20% do better than the lower 80% and being exponential, this repeats fractally within the top 20%.
And it’s everywhere:
The tallest trees in the forest will get most of the light and grow disproportionately taller
The heaviest stars will have the greatest gravity and attract most of the other stars, thereby getting bigger
The biggest celebrities' will attract most of the fans and make most of the money
80% of revenue comes from just 20% of customers.
80% of the property was owned by just 20% of the property owners.
So inequality doesn't seem like a flaw in humans or human system. It seems to be baked into reality. So even if access to the means of production and their products were distributed equally, the Pareto Principle seems to indicate that there will eventually be inequality.
And if the supposed answer is the most productive 20% will just continue to have their productively distributed to the 80% then it's human nature that those 20% will simply stop being that productive, Which may seem like you've reached the goal of equality but if this happens in food production then there will be much less food and people starve. In health care, fewer people have access. Fewer goods are transported. And so on.
So, can things ever be equal? Probably not. Unless one counts "everyone is poor, miserable, and starving" as being equal which seems to be the only way communism ever "works"
Sunday, December 10, 2023
The atheist's burden of proof
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.
The Communist Conundrum
The Communist Manifesto was written 170+ years ago with the idea that creating one class of people would end the problem of continuous class struggles and cycles of revolution between the bourgeois and proletariat classes.
If one asks any communist where has this idea been played out and worked, the common answer is that it has not - there has never been a "true" communist state.
If one cites China, Cuba, Laos, North Korea, and Vietnam as current communist countries it would be easy to point out the economic and social problems that these states have and have failed to produce what communists say it communism will.
None of the past communist countries are immune to the above criticisms either.
Some will cite the [Mondragon](https://www.mondragon-corporation.com/en/about-us/ as a business run on communistic principles, but Noam Chomsky has criticized it by noting that while it’s worker-owned, it’s not worker managed, and they still exploit workers in South America, and they do things that are harmful to the society as a whole. If you’re in a system where you must make a profit in order to survive, you're compelled to ignore negative externalities, effects on others.
There can be many examples of the failed attempts at communism which has lead to massive starvations, mass murder, rule by a few via authoritarian or totalitarian methods, suppressing and killing political dissidents and social classes (i.e. "enemies of the people"), religious persecution, ethnic cleansing, forced collectivization and use of forced labor.
Ho Chi Minh promised the Vietnamese people a utopian communist future of rule by the people and a communal country. What they got was a nation ruled by corrupt Party officials, with no rights or civil liberty. It seems the theory of communism peddled by Ho Chi Minh was far removed from the practice of Communism. This is one of many other examples of how Communism has failed the very people it was supposed to help.
Communists say that Capitalism is bad in that it ignores peoples' needs and results in wealth inequality, but communism - in its practice - in almost every instance does the exact same thing but more often in a much more brutal manner.
So the conundrum is: why do communists think communism will work when 1) they cannot point to a single instance of it doing so in more than 170 years and 2) failures to attempt communism fail at an epic/brutal manner?
Edit
Possible pushbacks:
1) We need an alternative to capitalism because capitalism is inherently unstable
But this doesn't show that communism is stable or better [doing more good than harm] than capitalism.
2) It has worked up to point, you're not recognizing that success can be partial.
Almost anything can work for a short time, just look at ponzi schemes they are a success for a while.
3) Only failed due to foreign influence.
This objection seems to ignore that every country has to deal with foreign influence. Nor does it define what that influence is - was the influence proving food for the starving, helping those who are fleeing persecution,
4) Communist learn from our mistakes and never commit them again.
But this isn't true. Time and again communist's have come to power and the party leaders refuse to give up their power and use it to imprison/persecute any who dare call in question their position.
5) Communism has existed before, i.e. Primitive Communism
That was the traditional hunters and gatherers communities. There was no private ownership of property such as clothing and such similar items because they produced just enough to survive and there is almost no surplus. This may be doable on a short scale for a short time, but everybody was dirt poor. And this is why some say that yes communism will make everyone equal - equally poor, starving, and miserable.
6) Sure communism has always failed but these are like experiments on a massive scale in the field of society, polity and economy simultaneously but that doesn't render the Ideology or system meritless.
Well, what would show that communism cannot work? Is the only answer that we must try worldwide communism? And at what point is it said that it has failed? Who makes that decision? Who has the power to make that change?
Given the history of communism, the party elites would enforce communist ideology with brutal force, starvation, forced labor, and murders notwithstanding. They would never give up power.
7) failure is a very subjective term
Well, what would show that communism is a failure/succuss?
8) Multiple studies it has been shown that Socialism gives a better quality of life on equal levels of economic development because multiple dimensions of standard of living like literacy rate, infant mortality rate, life expectancy, calorie consumption etc.
That's Socialism; where are the studies that say the same for communism?
9) One of the most detailed papers one this subject has been discussed in this video and this video and while you're at it trythis one too Also the argument about deaths of millions and multiple other anti Communist arguments are debunked here and this one
There are arguments on the other side as well for instance Socialism: An Economic And Sociological Analysis
"Socialist" Scandinavian countries love capitalism as much as Americans, and have, for decades, been cutting back on the things Bernie loves the most. see here
Are most things free/fair under Socialism or will unelected state bureaucrats decide who gets what? See here
Also the Naked communist is a great read.
1) Also the argument about deaths of millions and multiple other anti Communist arguments are debunked
Not so see here
Philosophical Naturalism is logically self-refuting
Definition:
Objection: We live in a natural world. There is no supernatural. Deal with it
Determinism, a theory or doctrine that acts of the will, occurrences in nature, or social or psychological phenomena are causally determined by preceding events or natural laws
2) Language cannot carry meaning (If language cannot carry meaning, then what about this claim? Is it meaningful?)
3) Science is the only way to determine truth, or I only trust things I can determine through a scientific process (Can science determine if that statement [about science] is true or what scientific experiment provided that conclusion for you?)
The problem:
Philosophical Naturalism holds that any mental properties that exist are causally derived from, and ontologically dependent on, systems of non-mental properties, powers or things (i.e. all minds, and all the contents and powers and effects of minds, are entirely constructed from or caused by natural phenomena).
To do science one must only presume that the universe is orderly, i.e. disposed in some order or pattern, or governed by law.
J. P. Moreland in his book, “Scaling the Secular City: A Defense of Christianity" offers a perfect summary: “Physicalism cannot be offered as a rational theory because physicalism does away with the necessary preconditions for there to be such a thing as rationality.” If a naturalist wants to argue that rationality does not exist, they will be making two grave errors: 1- They would be claiming to be non-rational, and 2- they would be making a rational argument that rationality does not exist. It seems the rational decision one ought to come to is that naturalism is irrational, and therefore, false.
A self-refuting idea or self-defeating idea is an idea or statement whose falsehood is a logical consequence of the act or situation of holding them to be true.
Examples:
1) Truth cannot be known (If so, then how does one know this truth claim?)
2) Language cannot carry meaning (If language cannot carry meaning, then what about this claim? Is it meaningful?)
3) Science is the only way to determine truth, or I only trust things I can determine through a scientific process (Can science determine if that statement [about science] is true or what scientific experiment provided that conclusion for you?)
Justification [the action of showing something to be right or reasonable] requires some kind of "cognitive freedom" - you need to have control over your deliberations, over what you do [or don't accept] on the basis of evidence, reason, However, determinism [the belief that all actions and events result from other actions [i.e not you - so people cannot in fact choose what to do] makes this freedom impossible.
The Argument:
Michael Ruse an atheist and Philosopher of science in The Oxford Handbook of Atheism writes "It is usual to distinguish between "methodological naturalism" and "metaphysical naturalism" whereby the latter we need a complex denial of the supernatural - including atheism as understood in the context of this publication - and by the former a conscious decision to act in inquiry and understanding, especially scientific inquiry and understanding as if metaphysical naturalism were true. The intention is not to assume that metaphysical naturalism is true, but to act as if it were. [p383]
Therefore, the person who argues for determinism, or is tempted to accept it, is in a weird position: their conclusion apparently undermines the very reasoning process they're using to justify it.
The Argument:
Philosophical Naturalism is the belief that nature is all that exists, and that all things supernatural (including gods, spirits, souls and non-natural values) therefore do not exist. It is sometimes called Metaphysical Naturalism or Ontological Naturalism to distinguish it from Methodological Naturalism. Philosophical Naturalism entails physical determinism
Methodological Naturalism is the assumption of philosophical naturalism when working with the scientific method. Methodological naturalists limit their scientific research to the study of natural/physical causes for all events and phenomenon. From Rationalwiki - An online rationalist skeptical resource with is decidedly anti-religious, anti-theistic bent.That's methodological naturalism - assuming naturalism is true, or acting as if it were, in one's methodology.
Philosophical Naturalism holds that any mental properties that exist are causally derived from, and ontologically dependent on, systems of non-mental properties, powers or things (i.e. all minds, and all the contents and powers and effects of minds, are entirely constructed from or caused by natural phenomena).
Philosophical Naturalism entails physical determinism - all events are physically determined, including human thoughts.
1) Reason is the basis for all knowledge, since all epistemological theories or methods must employ it.
2) Every truth claim requires the laws of logic. It is impossible to deny the laws of logic without using them. Thus, logic reason, and critical thinking are an aspect of reality. In fact, everyone is using logic in this discussion, so it seems evident that all believe that logic is an aspect of reality.
3) All debates presuppose a reality that exists. Each debater is trying to show that their claims are closer to that reality or are best explained by that reality.
4) Critical thinking's definition is contested, but the competing definitions can be understood as differing conceptions of the same basic concept: careful thinking directed to a goal. [source] Critical thinking is purposeful, reasoned, and goal-directed; an intellectually disciplined process of actively and skillfully conceptualizing, applying, analyzing, synthesizing, and/or evaluating information gathered from, or generated by, observation, experience, reflection, reasoning, or communication, as a guide to belief and action.
5) Under Philosophical Naturalism all actions, including human thoughts, words and deeds, are the result of matter which must act in accordance with antecedent physical conditions and the physical laws without exceptions.
6) 4 above is incoherent under Philosophical Naturalism; logic, reason, and critical thinking are an aspect of reality that cannot be explained via Philosophical Naturalism, since no one has dominion over their thoughts - i.e. no one makes any molecule act in a manner inconsistent with the physical laws, as they must act only in accordance to the physical laws Note: Just saw this vid where William Lane Craig agrees with this point
7) The best explanation for the existence of logic is that there is an aspect of reality that is free from the constraints of the physical; i.e. not being caused to do something by causes other than oneself. It is up to me how I choose, and nothing determines my choice. One's decisions are differentiated from natural events by being done by the agent himself for reasons the agent has in mind.
2) Every truth claim requires the laws of logic. It is impossible to deny the laws of logic without using them. Thus, logic reason, and critical thinking are an aspect of reality. In fact, everyone is using logic in this discussion, so it seems evident that all believe that logic is an aspect of reality.
3) All debates presuppose a reality that exists. Each debater is trying to show that their claims are closer to that reality or are best explained by that reality.
4) Critical thinking's definition is contested, but the competing definitions can be understood as differing conceptions of the same basic concept: careful thinking directed to a goal. [source] Critical thinking is purposeful, reasoned, and goal-directed; an intellectually disciplined process of actively and skillfully conceptualizing, applying, analyzing, synthesizing, and/or evaluating information gathered from, or generated by, observation, experience, reflection, reasoning, or communication, as a guide to belief and action.
5) Under Philosophical Naturalism all actions, including human thoughts, words and deeds, are the result of matter which must act in accordance with antecedent physical conditions and the physical laws without exceptions.
6) 4 above is incoherent under Philosophical Naturalism; logic, reason, and critical thinking are an aspect of reality that cannot be explained via Philosophical Naturalism, since no one has dominion over their thoughts - i.e. no one makes any molecule act in a manner inconsistent with the physical laws, as they must act only in accordance to the physical laws Note: Just saw this vid where William Lane Craig agrees with this point
7) The best explanation for the existence of logic is that there is an aspect of reality that is free from the constraints of the physical; i.e. not being caused to do something by causes other than oneself. It is up to me how I choose, and nothing determines my choice. One's decisions are differentiated from natural events by being done by the agent himself for reasons the agent has in mind.
In Daniel O. Dhalstrom's Heidegger's concept of truth the author writes: There is, for example, a metaphysical sense of naturalism that Husserl deems self-refuting: the theoretical pretense that everything - including, preeminently, ideas and consciousness - is part of "nature", conceived as the ensemble of empirical facts governed by laws uncovered by natural science....The claim is self-refuting and a pretense because it cannot justify itself;
As Haldane once said, “It seems to me immensely unlikely that mind is a mere by-product of matter. For if my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true. They may be sound chemically, but that does not make them sound logically. And hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms.”
Either “reason” is merely an illusion of physics—in which case there is no justification for relying on it to produce truthful beliefs—or “reason” is something more than physical—in which case naturalism is false. If human reason is driven by mindless particle interactions, it does not necessarily correspond to truth. If we believe reason corresponds to truth, we cannot also believe reason is determined purely by physical means.
No belief is rationally inferred if it can be fully explained in terms of non-rational causes.
Conclusion: Philosophical Naturalism is not simply less likely to be correct, it is logically self-refuting and is necessarily false since it cannot account for reason - careful, purposeful, intellectually disciplined, goal directed thinking as a guide to belief and action. Under PN every thought action is physically determined. Thus, the existence of logic is best explained in a reality where more than the physical exists - something that is not bound by physical restraints - which allows one the freedom of not being caused to do something by causes other than oneself.
As Haldane once said, “It seems to me immensely unlikely that mind is a mere by-product of matter. For if my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true. They may be sound chemically, but that does not make them sound logically. And hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms.”
No belief is rationally inferred if it can be fully explained in terms of non-rational causes.
Reply: Yes, we live in a natural world, that's not the question. Which is, is reality encompassed by just the natural world? Given the above argument, that's not likely.
Scientific prayer studies are fatally flawed
Why Scientific prayer studies are fatally flawed
Scientific prayer studies are fatally flawed for the following reasons:
1) Science assumes naturalism in its methodology - only the physical exists and therefore only natural explanations suffice. source
Ask yourself a question, how many scientific studies seriously consider a supernatural causes to any phenomenon? Go to JSTOR or Google Scholar and look at 100 random scientific studies and see how many seriously consider anything but natural causes.
Michael Ruse an atheist and Philosopher of science writes in The Oxford Handbook of Atheism writes "It is usual to distinguish between "methodological naturalism" and "metaphysical naturalism" whereby the latter we need a complex denial of the supernatural - including atheism as understood in the context of this publication - and by the former a conscious decision to act in inquiry and understanding, especially scientific inquiry and understanding as if metaphysical naturalism were true. The intention is not to assume that metaphysical naturalism is true, but to act as if it were.
What I think Ruse means here is that a scientist can be a theist at home, but is the course of their work they must employ metaphysical naturalism. I'd ask what is the difference between assuming that metaphysical naturalism is true vs acting as if it were in the context of my essay here? I'd say None. My point above stands, even if I have to reword it to say that "Science assumes act as if naturalism in its methodology"
{As an aside, Philosophical naturalism - a physical only model of the world - is logically self-refuting}
2) Science works because the natural world is consistent; i.e. matter **must** act in accordance with the physical laws.
3) Prayer isn't a natural thing; God does **not** have to act in accordance with the physical laws. God is a person, not something bound by the laws of physics.
Example: Water heated to 100 degrees Celsius for X amount of time will boil [at sea level] Given the above, water will boil **every** single time since matter **must** act in accordance with the physical laws.
4) God's actions may take longer
5) God may say no, as God's purpose may not be what one expects.
6) Studies do not take all the Scriptural texts on prayer into account - they usually just consider the ones that say something along the lines of Matthew 7:7 - "Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you. Or cite no Scriptures at all.
The following are usually ignored:
A) Pray to the Heavenly Father (see Matthew 6:9). This condition to prayer might seem obvious, but it’s important. We don’t pray to false gods, to ourselves, to angels, to Buddha, or to the Virgin Mary. We pray to the God of the Bible, who revealed Himself in Jesus Christ and whose Spirit indwells us. Coming to Him as our “Father” implies that we are first His children—made so by faith in Christ (see John 1:12).
B) Pray for good things (see Matthew 7:11). We don’t always understand or recognize what is good, but God knows, and He is eager to give His children what is best for them. Paul prayed three times to be healed of an affliction, and each time God said, “No.” Why would a loving God refuse to heal Paul? Because God had something better for him, namely, a life lived by grace. Paul stopped praying for healing and began to rejoice in his weakness (2 Corinthians 12:7–10). Is this accounted for in any of the studies?
C) Pray for needful things (see Philippians 4:19). Placing a priority on God’s kingdom is one of the conditions to prayer (Matthew 6:33). The promise is that God will supply all our needs, not all our wants. There is a difference.
D) Pray from a righteous heart (see James 5:16). The Bible speaks of having a clean conscience as a condition to answered prayer (Hebrews 10:22). It is important that we keep our sins confessed to the Lord. “*If I regard wickedness in my heart, The Lord will not hear*” (Psalm 66:18, NAS).
E) Pray from a grateful heart (see Philippians 4:6). Part of prayer is an attitude of thanksgiving.
F) Pray according to the will of God (see 1 John 5:14). An important condition to prayer is that it is prayed within the will of God. Jesus prayed this way all the time, even in Gethsemane: “*Not my will, but yours be done*” (Luke 22:42). We can pray all we want, with great sincerity and faith, for XYZ, but, if God’s will is ABC, we pray wrongly.
G) Pray in the authority of Jesus Christ (see John 16:24). Jesus is the reason we are able to approach the throne of grace (Hebrews 10:19–22), and He is our mediator (1 Timothy 2:5). A condition to prayer is that we pray in His name.
H) Pray persistently (see Luke 18:1).
I) Pray unselfishly (see James 4:3). Our motives are important.'
J) Pray in faith (see James 1:6). Without faith, it is impossible to please God (Hebrews 11:6), who alone can do the impossible (Luke 1:37). Without faith, why pray?
Even scientists agree that some prayer studies are seriously flawed, but please note that even the ones that they think are good, there is no way to verify that conditions A-J were followed; and if they were not then they are flawed.
Conclusion: Given the parameters set forth in the Scriptures, and the methodology used, scientific prayer studies are
1) arbitrarily attempting to apply a certain set of parameters to a Person to whom they do not apply and
2) incorrectly using verses which seem to imply that God always answers prayers
3) failing to use all of what God has said concerning prayer.
This makes scientific prayer studies fatally flawed. The errors are both systematic and theoretical in nature.
Note:
Systematic Error in science - These errors in science are caused by the way in which the experiment is conducted; they are caused by the design of the system. Systematic errors can not be eliminated by averaging. In principle, they can always be eliminated by changing the way in which the experiment was done. In actual fact, though, you may not even know that the error exists.
Theoretical Error in science: When experimental procedures, a model system or equations for instance, create inaccurate results. How does one obtain the accurate equation for God answering prayers? Where is the proof that this equation is correct?
The response: You misread my argument, I said Science assumes naturalism in its methodology. - i.e. methodological naturalism; or as Michael Ruse puts it, science needs "to act as if methodological naturalism were true.
Atheism is a non-reasoned position/view
Thesis: Atheism is a non-reasoned position/view.
When I talk to atheists they usually define their position with four statements - your interactions may be different.
The statements are:
1) I have a disbelief [or no belief] in god[s];
2) There is no evidence for any god[s]
3) I make no claims and thus have no burden of proof
4) Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence; theism is an extraordinary claim thus the theists must provide extraordinary evidence.
Statement 1 - I have a disbelief [or no belief] in god[s]
This tells us nothing about reality, it doesn't give any reasons why any critical thinking person should accept it as true; it is unfalsifiable. But it's not meant to be an argument; it is just their opinion, their declaration. Fair enough but still it's not a reasoned statement in and of itself.
Statement 2 - There is no evidence for any god[s]
Ah, now we have a claim [I know, I know. statement 3, but just bear with me] This is apparently their reasons concluding statement 1 is true.
But when usually pressed, there is nothing forthcoming in any substantive way that would move a critical thinking person to conclude that statement 2 is true [They usually cite statement 3]. I had a conversation with an atheist recently and when asked about this they essentially said that, I could list the arguments for God, but I might miss a few; but they've all been refuted
But this is another claim. However, the argument or evidence for this is, well let's just say this is where the articulation and defense of atheism usually ends, in my experience.
So, statement 2 doesn't provide any foundation for statement 1
Statement 3 - I make no claims and thus have no burden of proof
Well, the atheist just made two claims [sometimes they only make one] thus this is an internal contradiction in atheism. If a two or more propositions or statements are made and that both cannot possibly be true then it's a logically fallacious statement
And yes, you can prove a negative argues famed atheist Richard Carrier.
So atheists do have a burden of proof and have failed to meet it.
Statement 4 - Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence; theism is an extraordinary claim, thus the theists must provide extraordinary evidence.
This is a strange statement. If one doesn't know what the nature of reality is, then how can one say what is an extraordinary claim? By what measuring stick are they using to determine what is extraordinary?
Conclusion - So, upon examination atheism [as outlined in the 4 statements above] is a non-reasoned position/view because:
1) it doesn't tell us what the nature of reality is [it doesn't even attempt to] let alone make a reasoned argument for it. If one doesn't have an idea of what the nature of reality is and why they think it's correct then on what basis can they make any epistemological claims - relating to the theory of knowledge, especially with regard to its methods, validity, and scope, and the distinction between justified belief and opinion.
2) Claims that there is no evidence for God, yet fail to support this claim.
3) Sometimes it claim that all arguments for God have been refuted, but fail to support this claim as well.
4) Claims that they don't make claims, when they clearly do - i.e. their view is thus internally inconsistent, i.e. logically fallacious.
5) Claims that theist must provide "extraordinary evidence" but cannot [or do not] state what the nature of reality is [see above], and how they've determined it. Thus, they have no reasonable basis to say that theists must provide "extraordinary evidence".
God murders babies, God unjustly kills babies is a fallacious argument.
Thesis:" The God murders babies, God unjustly kills babies" argument is a fallacious argument.
For this argument "murder" and "unjust killing" are the same thing; but feel free to argue otherwise.
This argument attempts to juxtapose God's attributes of Love, Justice, Holiness, Mercy, Benevolence, Moral integrity, and etc against His actions, showing that there is an internal contradiction in Christianity. Hoping to conclude that the attributes that Christian's say God has are invalidated by God's actions and thus showing that either God doesn't have those attributes, God doesn't exist, or the Bible is wrong in its portrayal of who God is.
As to why I think this is a fallacious argument:
1) Because life is a gift from God, it is God who gives all humans - all living creatures in fact - life and breath and everything else (Gen 2:7; Isa 42:5: Acts 17:25; 1 Tim. 6:13)
2) Whether that life last for 1 second or 100+ years it is a gift and no one is entitled to it or to any amount of time on earth; this is due to the fact that God is sovereign [i.e. God is Lord or King] - He has the power, wisdom, and authority to bestow upon anyone any length of time on earth. If one is gifted a short life, there is nothing unjust about that since God is not obligated to gift anyone any amount of time.
For example: God grants person A, X amount of time on earth; person B, Y amount of time on earth; person C, Z amount of time on earth. If X is the least amount of time, what complaint can person A lay at God’s feet since He is under no obligation to grant anyone life, let alone a certain amount of time?
The person who poses this argument must show that humans somehow are entitled to a certain amount of time on earth. This cannot be merely assumed to be true; it must be argued for. But they would do well to read Luke 12 - no one knows when their "soul is required of you" nor is there anything one can do to add a single hour to his span of life.
Possible objection 1: God isn’t just granting people different lengths of time on earth, He is ending their lives.
From our perspective, yes. However, God is omniscient and thus knows exactly how much time one will have on earth and has known from eternity past. So when God grants Person A, B, and C life, He knows that it’s only for a certain amount of time.
Possible objection 2: you can't be an omnibenevolent entity while killing children
The problem with this is that it conflates omnibenevolent with "only-benevolent"; confusing a perfectly loving God [who has other attributes such as Holiness and Justice, and etc which come into play as well as our sins] with one who is constrained to “only love”, even in the face of evil God is constrained to only love – i.e. God’s standards of Holiness are meaningless since He cannot condemn any act as wrong [since that would be deemed as unloving] nor can He mete out a just punishment for wrong doing since that would be “unloving”. In such a world one would have unchecked, wanton evil perpetrated amongst all humans. An "only-benevolent" God isn't a Christian doctrine and this is a strawman argument [Substituting a person’s actual position with a distorted, exaggerated, or misrepresented version in order to refute it]
Possible objection 3: It’s not about being entitled to some amount of time on earth. The well-being of conscious creatures is a fundamental moral axiom. There can’t be any merit in any moral system which doesn’t value conscious well-being and strive to minimize conscious suffering.
This assumes that the well-being of conscious creatures must entail a long life. This also assumes that God doesn’t value conscious well-being and strive to minimize conscious suffering. It also seems to be conflating omnibenevolent with only-benevolent [see above]
The "God murders babies, God unjustly kills babies" "argument" that atheists and other assorted critics use is fallacious as it is based on the mistaken belief that humans are entitled to a certain amount of time on earth, but that idea isn't found in the Scriptures thus their attempt to show an internal contradiction is ill-founded.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)