Subject:
|
Re: The God Game!
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 25 Apr 2006 15:47:02 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1496 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Timothy Gould wrote:
> They compare the burden of proof for the Loch Ness monster with that for the
> existence of God which, given that the LNM exists or does not within our sphere
> of discovery and God may not is quite patently absurd.
I got struck with a hit on that one as well:
"As long as there are no compelling arguments or evidence that show that God
does not exist, atheism is a matter of faith, not rationality."
"If, despite years of trying, no strong evidence or argument has been presented
to show that there is a Loch Ness monster, it is rational to believe that such a
monster does not exist."
I said "true" to both of these, using your logic above. That is, a lack of
physical evidence provides a rational basis for disbelief of a physical
phenomenon. The lack of evidence for a supernatural phenomenon provides no
rational input towards the belief in a supernatural phenomenon.
But furthermore, the wording is wrong.
The first one states that no evidence is provided for the NON-existance of God.
Further, it fails to specify whether or not evidence has been actively sought
after. Effectively, it says "If there is no rational support for atheism,
atheism is a matter of faith." Stating that it's not rational is already a
given, considering that they *lead* the question with a lack of evidence. Hence,
anyone answering "false" to the question is effectively already wrong, if their
disagreement is with it not being a rational conclusion.
The second states that no evidence exists to support the belief that the LNM
DOES exist. Hence, using the precedent of the former, to *beleive* in the LNM
would be *faith*, as no evidence exists to support it. However, this question
addresses rationality instead, as though somehow "rational" were the opposite of
"faith".
What they *should* have asked would be:
A) Is it rational to disbelieve the existance Loch Ness Monster?
B) Is it rational to disbelieve the existance of God?
-or-
C) Is it rational to believe in the existance of the Loch Ness Monster?
D) Is it rational to believe in the existance of God?
-or-
E) Is the existance of the Loch Ness Monster a matter of faith?
F) Is the existance of God a matter of faith?
-or-
G) Is the non-existance of the Loch Ness Monster a matter of faith?
H) Is the non-existance of God a matter of faith?
Instead, they asked C & H, which aren't mutually exclusive. But regardless, even
if they asked any of the above pairs, the fundamental argument still exists that
you're comparing apples to oranges. The existance of the LNM is a theory about
the physical world, the existance of God is a theory about the supernatural.
Best of all, they would have compared something like "is belief in voodoo
rational?" or "is belief in 13 being an unlucky number rational?" or something
similarly commonly accepted as false that is also unverifiable through lack of
physical evidence.
DaveE
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: The God Game!
|
| (...) Hmmm. Their is one notable flaws of logic in this test. They compare the burden of proof for the Loch Ness monster with that for the existence of God which, given that the LNM exists or does not within our sphere of discovery and God may not (...) (19 years ago, 25-Apr-06, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
17 Messages in This Thread:
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
