Thomas Metcalf

Originally posted by Wackyboy:

"God can not be proven to exist. I am going to concede this point right from the get go. God also can not be disproved to exist."

Neither of these is obviously true in principle, although they might be true in practice. To prove God to exist would merely require a sound deductive argument with "God exists" as the conclusion. Similarly, to prove God not to exist would require a sound deductive argument with "God does not exist" as the conclusion.

Now, I believe there exist arguments of the latter form, in which case to prove God to exist is indeed impossible in principle. Deductive arguments for positive atheism usually take advantage of an incompatibility between God's attributes; it's as if God were a square circle or a married bachelor.

The atheist need not, however, prove God not to exist to justify her position. Atheism is about belief and agnosticism is about knowledge, and therefore, there are agnostic atheists and agnostic theists. Most atheists would say they simply unbelieve in most gods, and disbelieve in a few. For "atheism" only to refer to these disprovable gods would be a very limited conception of atheism.

Denis Giron

Some quick comments. First, there is a distinction (laid down by Michael Martin in his book Atheism: A Philosophical Justicication) between Negative Atheists (who disbelieve in any deity, hence there is an absence of theism) and Positive Atheists (who aside from commenting on the want of evidence for God, go a step further and confidently assert that there is no God). So, SOME Atheists positively assert that God does not exist, but not all do.

Now, with regard to positive claims, I think that if a positive atheist said "God does not exist," the burden of proof is on him. I don't think Dr. Martin achieved this, nor do I think it is possible. To do so would require an argument that God necessarily does not exist, but as absurd as the ideas of God is it, I still think it is at least possible that a deity could exist. Thus, I try to avoid being the positive claimaint.

Furthermore, with regard to being able to prove that God does not exist, as others have pointed out, we cannot prove that 300 pound mice do not exist; it is incumbent on those who positively assert the existence of such creatures to present evidence. That being conceded, it would still be a bit problematic to be a proverbial "Positive A-300lb-mouse-ist" who asserts that they certainly don't exist. What is your evidence to back up such an assertion?

Finally, I'd like to make one point that may at least imply that Positive Atheism is irrational (and maybe Atheist-Theist distinctions are as well). Has anyone seen the various ontological arguments translated into modal logic? Kurt Godel did one, but the most recent one is by Brian Leftow of Fordham University. I commented on Leftow's argument here...

<a href="http://www.geocities.com/combatart/leftow_unicorn.doc" target="_blank">http://www.geocities.com/combatart/leftow_unicorn.doc</a>

...showing that it could also be used to prove the existence of pink unicorns. Now, we may all laugh and say that rendering Anselm's argument into modal logic can prove pink unicorns as easily as it proves God, but what exactlty would be our objection? The objection that I feel is the most powerful (though some philosophers disagree) is still Kant's: existence is not a predicate.

However, if existence is not a predicate, we cannot deny this predicate to any thing (exempli gratia: 300 pound mice, deities, unicorns). All we can say is that the object is not present within a given domain of discourse, but then we get stuck with the sort of objections raised by Modal Realists like David K. Lewis:

So, in a nutshell, Positive Atheism is logically invalid, and debates between Atheists and Theists are problematic since we cannot argue positively for Atheism. Are going to say that because no Theist has presented a strong argument, we are justified in making an appeal ex-silentio on behalf of Atheism? I'm not so sure...

-Denis

Philosoft

The very concept of "positive" or "strong" atheism is usually an egregious strawman. There are no people who say, "God does not exist" before someone tells them "God is x, y and z." Strong atheists are not making the claim, "Any thing that can conceivably be called 'God' does not and cannot exist." Strong atheists are responding to an existential claim, not creating one from whole cloth about an entire class of not-yet-postulated definitions.

Sci_Fidelity

Wow. According to Wackyboy's assertion, only a tiny percentage of the population is thinking rationally. I don't know offhand how many people claim agnosticism- maybe someone else here does.

The problem with this assertion (and it has been presented here before), is it equates atheism with belief, as has been pointed out. Think of it this way, wacky, remember the old saying "there's no such thing as cold, only the absence of heat"?

ageofreason2000

Hmmm....

Perhaps I need to revise my profile, although I would call myself an atheist, I have chosen strict agnostic because it seemed to fit my "belief" system according to the II descriptions.

However the view that an Atheist is one who cannot "believe" (as in have faith without any proof) in any gods is EXACTLY how I would describe my position.
Perhaps to go further I don't "believe" in any non god worshipping religion either (such as buddism).
I don't "believe" in anything which has only belief as the reason to believe in it.

I think this view is what the large majority of Atheists would share, but the dictionary definitions do not say this.

Perhaps a new word needs to be created or more probably atheism needs to encompass the above as its description.

Oh Lament to the imperfections of the english language (and my grammar).

Age

[ December 04, 2002: Message edited by: ageofreason2000 ]</p>

Volestrangler

You cannot prove that Zeus does not exist. It is irrational to believe in that which cannot be proven. You don't believe that Zeus exists. Therefore you are irrational.

Oraclefornia

At what age did the atheists here, become atheists?

[ December 04, 2002: Message edited by: Oraclefornia ]</p>

Denis Giron

Muriel Volestrangler, let's take this in a different direction. While I don't think the original poster succeeded in demonstrating that Atheism is irrational, I think we can use some of what both you and him have written to at least insinuate that maybe Theist-Atheist debates are pointless, and Positive Atheism is problematic.

So, in the same vein as your analogy regarding Zeus, let me introduce the smiggles. Smiggles are creatures that live near Saturn's center. It cannot be proven that they don't exist, yet by the original poster's logic, if you don't believe in Smiggle's you're irrational.

Fine, the point is made. But what of people who actually debate whether Smiggles are there? How silly would such a debate be? Further, what would you think of a self-proclaimed Positive Asmigglist, one who positively and confidently asserts that no organisms live near Saturn's core?

I'm just testing the waters here... but sometimes I think these Theist-Atheist debates are in vain. I consider myself an Atheist, but I am ashamed to admit to such since it sort of concedes that the other position is a possibility... kinda like proclaiming yourself to be a person who does not believe the theory that the earth is a flat rock on the back of Rhino...

Philosoft

I don't think this case can be made. It is incorrect to say that nothing ever changes as a result of theist-atheist debates. Anytime something changes, it is likely to favor one party or the other, or both. That is enough to refute any accusation of "pointlessness."

<strong> More so than "negative" atheism? Did you not read my previous post? Is there something you would like further explained?

Autonemesis

I can prove that God does not exist under my desk. Look - no God there!

In so doing, I also managed to prove that if any God exists, it is not omnipresent (due to its absense from under my desk). So I have proven the non-existence of any omnipresent God or gods.

If the God you're thinking of has this attribute -if "God is everywhere" is one of your beliefs - then I have disproven the existence of that God by looking under my desk. You must now accept the proof, or modify your definition of God to exclude the attribute of omnipresence, or be dismissed as unwilling to follow a rational discussion.

Which will it be?