I agree about the burden of proof, but since One Brow is fond of saying logic/reason is a human construct the question remains: which method of logic and reason do I use?
Is the answer: "whichever method you both agree to use?"
John, if I were to put our two objections together an ensuing conversation might look like this:
- I think God exists. - Prove it. - Why? - Because claims require proof. - There are no requirements under atheism. - Rational people have rational reasons for believing. - I have rational reasons. - What are they? - They’re my rational reasons but they may not be yours if you think rationally in a different way than I do.
If atheists abided by their convictions this would suffice as a satisfactory response and they’d go happily on their way.
The modal ontological argument is relevant here. I think Plantinga's is the best form, partially because it's not trying to prove that God exists (this takes away my primary motive for rejecting ontological arguments). What the modal ontological argument proves is that God either exists necessarily or does not exist necessarily: he either can't exist or he can't not exist. The relevance is that in order to say that God exists, the atheist has to show that God's existence is logically impossible, while the theist merely has to show that God's existence is possible, because if it's possible that he exists, he exists. That's the argument anyway. So then the atheist is the one making the claim, viz., that God is logically impossible, and they must shoulder the burden of proof. I'm not sure if this argument is successful, but it's certainly very interesting.
John Mitchel said... If i tell you that i like cheese, am i morally obligated to somehow prove it?
Of course not. However, if you tell me that cheese is the One True Food and the sole need for a body to eat, and that I will suffer greatly if I don't listen, I'm going to expect some proof before take your advice.
"The relevance is that in order to say that God exists, the atheist has to show that God's existence is logically impossible"
I think the atheist has to show that God is metaphysically impossible, unless you want to argue that God exists by logical necessity, instead of metaphysical necessity. I know that some people hold to this but i am under the impression that Plantinga holds God to be metaphysically necessary, not logically necessary.
Other than that, i fully agree with you. The MOA is quite strong.
>>> "I'm going to expect some proof before take your advice."
Proof 1: cheese comes in yellow. Proof 2: cheese melts easily.
These are all proofs because as noted above they all are the result of rational reasons formed by my logic and reasoning. They may not fit into your logic, but they are proofs nonetheless. Because all proofs are human constructs.
John Mitchel said... I think the atheist has to show that God is metaphysically impossible, unless you want to argue that God exists by logical necessity, instead of metaphysical necessity.
Unless I'm trying to persuade you, I don't see why that's necessary in either case.
Other than that, i fully agree with you. The MOA is quite strong.
The modal argument depends on the conflation of two different notions of "possible".
SteveK said... These are all proofs because as noted above they all are the result of rational reasons formed by my logic and reasoning. They may not fit into your logic, but they are proofs nonetheless. Because all proofs are human constructs.
Now, how do you get me to accept this as a rational construction?
This is atheism.
Atheism is a lack of belief. What does that argument have to do with a lack of belief?
>> "Now, how do you get me to accept this as a rational construction?"
You'd have to somehow be culturally conditioned into accepting my way of thinking. That's what human constructs are all about. It's your worldview so you should already know the answer.
SteveK said... You'd have to somehow be culturally conditioned into accepting my way of thinking. That's what human constructs are all about. It's your worldview so you should already know the answer.
So, you think human constructs are made to serve the needs of SteveK specifically?
As you put it in the first post, "whichever method you both agree to use".
Of course, there’s no requirement that I convince you or anyone else about anything. You asked for proof and I supplied it. Disagreement only means we think differently.
I agree about the burden of proof, but since One Brow is fond of saying logic/reason is a human construct the question remains: which method of logic and reason do I use?
ReplyDeleteIs the answer: "whichever method you both agree to use?"
Atheists often come up with this 'burden of proof' nonsense, as if it was some morally binding eternal law.
ReplyDeleteIf i tell you that i like cheese, am i morally obligated to somehow prove it?
John, if I were to put our two objections together an ensuing conversation might look like this:
ReplyDelete- I think God exists.
- Prove it.
- Why?
- Because claims require proof.
- There are no requirements under atheism.
- Rational people have rational reasons for believing.
- I have rational reasons.
- What are they?
- They’re my rational reasons but they may not be yours if you think rationally in a different way than I do.
If atheists abided by their convictions this would suffice as a satisfactory response and they’d go happily on their way.
The modal ontological argument is relevant here. I think Plantinga's is the best form, partially because it's not trying to prove that God exists (this takes away my primary motive for rejecting ontological arguments). What the modal ontological argument proves is that God either exists necessarily or does not exist necessarily: he either can't exist or he can't not exist. The relevance is that in order to say that God exists, the atheist has to show that God's existence is logically impossible, while the theist merely has to show that God's existence is possible, because if it's possible that he exists, he exists. That's the argument anyway. So then the atheist is the one making the claim, viz., that God is logically impossible, and they must shoulder the burden of proof. I'm not sure if this argument is successful, but it's certainly very interesting.
ReplyDeleteOof. "...in order to say that God doesn't exist, the atheist has to show that God's existence is logically impossible."
ReplyDeleteJohn Mitchel said...
ReplyDeleteIf i tell you that i like cheese, am i morally obligated to somehow prove it?
Of course not. However, if you tell me that cheese is the One True Food and the sole need for a body to eat, and that I will suffer greatly if I don't listen, I'm going to expect some proof before take your advice.
"The relevance is that in order to say that God exists, the atheist has to show that God's existence is logically impossible"
ReplyDeleteI think the atheist has to show that God is metaphysically impossible, unless you want to argue that God exists by logical necessity, instead of metaphysical necessity.
I know that some people hold to this but i am under the impression that Plantinga holds God to be metaphysically necessary, not logically necessary.
Other than that, i fully agree with you. The MOA is quite strong.
>>> "I'm going to expect some proof before take your advice."
ReplyDeleteProof 1: cheese comes in yellow. Proof 2: cheese melts easily.
These are all proofs because as noted above they all are the result of rational reasons formed by my logic and reasoning. They may not fit into your logic, but they are proofs nonetheless. Because all proofs are human constructs.
This is atheism.
John Mitchel said...
ReplyDeleteI think the atheist has to show that God is metaphysically impossible, unless you want to argue that God exists by logical necessity, instead of metaphysical necessity.
Unless I'm trying to persuade you, I don't see why that's necessary in either case.
Other than that, i fully agree with you. The MOA is quite strong.
The modal argument depends on the conflation of two different notions of "possible".
SteveK said...
ReplyDeleteThese are all proofs because as noted above they all are the result of rational reasons formed by my logic and reasoning. They may not fit into your logic, but they are proofs nonetheless. Because all proofs are human constructs.
Now, how do you get me to accept this as a rational construction?
This is atheism.
Atheism is a lack of belief. What does that argument have to do with a lack of belief?
>> "Now, how do you get me to accept this as a rational construction?"
ReplyDeleteYou'd have to somehow be culturally conditioned into accepting my way of thinking. That's what human constructs are all about. It's your worldview so you should already know the answer.
SteveK said...
ReplyDeleteYou'd have to somehow be culturally conditioned into accepting my way of thinking. That's what human constructs are all about. It's your worldview so you should already know the answer.
So, you think human constructs are made to serve the needs of SteveK specifically?
As you put it in the first post, "whichever method you both agree to use".
You asked how I would get you to accept it. You put me in charge.
ReplyDeleteOf course, there’s no requirement that I convince you or anyone else about anything. You asked for proof and I supplied it. Disagreement only means we think differently.
ReplyDelete