Ojuice5001

Theists use a lot of analogies to convey their ideas; one of them is the analogy between a fiction writer and the world and characters of their stories. I think that if this analogy is fully appreciated, it no longer makes sense to object to the case for theism not being stronger.

Reese is a character on Malcolm in the Middle. His attributes and circumstances are determined by a staff of writers. Now, what would happen if Reese started speculating about whether he is a character in a work of comedic fiction?

This position is true, however he would not be able to produce any hard evidence for it. Anything that had happened to him, anything that he knew, could be either written into his life or a product of a naturalistic, factual universe.

Take it a step farther. Say that the writers of MITM wanted Reese to know that he is a fictional character. They could easily cause him to believe it, but they could not make his belief justifiable by the standards that this board's kind of atheist sets for theism.

The writers could give the characters a tendency to believe that they are sitcom characters. They could allow events to unfold in a way typical of a sitcom. And the gods have done both of these things; humans have a tendency to belive that the gods exist, and many see certain events as being clearly guided by higher powers. Most atheists agree with both of these facts, but deny that they come close to being compelling arguments for theism. And yet, if theism were true, you couldn't necessarily expect any more evidence.

But the writers of Malcolm in the Middle could produce miracles to prove their existence, someone might say. But that isn't as good a means as is usually supposed, for at least three reasons:

1. Because of the dearth of plausible miracles, I suspect that this is a disanalogy, that the gods' powers have little extent in the miraculous dimension, and focus instead on directed chance.
2. If miracles are rare, the skeptic can write them off as mere isolated oddities. If they are common, they cease to be remarkable. Either way, miracles aren't the ace in the hole that you might think.
3. If the writers of a show regularly introduce miracles, the show becomes a fantasy show. Not every show is best off being fantasy. A similar consideration may well keep the gods from wanting miracles. Maybe the writers/gods want a show that breaks the fourth wall, but doesn't include violations of natural law.

Because of the nature of the writers' control of a show, it would be a category mistake for Reese to demand the same kind of evidence for the writers' existence as he demands before he believes that when Malcolm claims to be sick, he really is. And yet, many atheists make the same demand regarding the gods.

The sitcom character who unthinkingly breaks the fourth wall understands metaphysics better than the one who demands hard evidence for the fourth wall concept.

beyelzu

i have never read the sitcom proof for theism. however, i would meerly like to point out that if you make any sort of assertion than you should have some plausible reasons for them. and vague analogies really arent the way to go. just because you can make some sort of off the wall analogy that makes pseudosense about the existence of god does not in fact make god exist.

Philosoft

OJ,

If you want to argue for a polytheistic version of divine hiddenness, go ahead. I happen to think divine hiddenness is a big fat problem for Christianity.

Biff the unclean

The biggest problem I see with the sitcom analogy is that, although it is apt, you have it backwards.

Reese is a fictional character. Being fictional he is capable of doing anything in his fictional world. If next week MITM family moved to Smallville and exposed Reese to Kryptonite so that he could fly, then Reese would be able to fly. In his fiction world Reese could do anything the writers wrote.

But, in the real world, Reese has all the limitations that fictional characters have. No one can see him, or hear him, or feel him. No one can prove that he exists because…well; he doesn't really.
Fans might love Reese, some might even think that the actor who plays him actually is Reese. But, of course, he's just an actor. There is no Reese, no matter how real he might seem to his adoring fans. Reese is the product of the writers imaginations.

God is also a fictional character. He exists solely in a series of novels collectively called The Bible.

God, like Reese, can do anything the writers could think up. Since it is a novel the writers didn't even have to worry about the cost of special effects.
Make light by saying a magic word, turn a pile of dust into an adult man…hey, you got it! Making the beautiful girl out of a magic spare rib…that's funny stuff, write that down. He's got it all; super powers, a cool evil villain mastermind whose plots he foils. There was even a "The Son Of…" sequel.

Too bad there was no way to put John Williams style background music in a novel. Ta da da…da da, da da doooooo Let there be light!!! Woooosh!!!

But being fictional God has exactly the same limitations that fictional Reese has in the real world. No one can see God, or hear him, or feel him. No one can prove that he exists because…well; he doesn't. He's just a character. God, of course, doesn't choose these limitations any more than Reese does. They are strictly a consequence of being fictional.

If God only had a loveable wacky next door neighbor…say the Archangel Kramer…he might become popular again.

DMB

I don't demand evidence for the gods. Since I don't believe in them, I don't want to waste my time. I am happy being an atheist. If, however, someone wants me to stop being an atheist and believe in a particular god or pantheon, surely it is up to that person to produce convincing evidence or arguments in favour of this hypothetical being(s).

Arguments by analogy always break down somewhere, because the analogous position is never identical to the one it is being compared to. So argument by analogy can only illustrate a position, it can't act as proof.

If we can't expect evidence in favour of an hypothesis, why on earth should we accept it? It might be true, but so might zillions of fictions one could create. How about if I tell you that I am god? By your argument, you shouldn't demand evidence for my claim. Would you then accept it?