Atheism - based on faith?

[pmprcv]

So this is something I have been thinking for quite some time, and I'd like to know what you think about this.

I'll start with saying that the proposition "God exists" can only be either true or false. The two other optionsare obviously excluded: that "God exists" is both true and false and that "God exists" is neither true nor false. So we are left with two positions, that can be translated as 1) God exists and 2) God doesn't exist. They are mutually-exclusive.

Regarding any argumentative position (called X), one can either a) assert X, b) deny X or c) be neutral. Being neutral doesn't mean that one both asserts and denies X; it merely means one does not commit either way or doesn't want to pursue any of the options. So applying this to the initial 2 positions, the only options one has are:

1) Assert that "God exists" is true and "God doesn't exist" is false.
2) Assert that "God exists" is false and "God doesn't exist" is true.
3) Neither assert nor deny either one.

3) is not a position; it is "empty" of arguments, opinions and assertions. 3) is the lack of position regarding the issue. Because one makes no assertions, one needs not justify his "position".

1) Is a position based on faith.

How about 2)? Well, the way I see it, one can justify an intellectual position (one that makes assertions about the objective reality) by 3 ways: logic, evidence (or the "scientific method") or faith. So if position 2) isn't justified with logic or evidence, then it is based on faith.

Logic is out of the question. Logic cannot be used to make assertions about a subject that, by definition, transcends logic - which means that He isn't necessarily bound by the laws of logic. Logic is a human construct, and God is by definition above humanity and above our capacity to understand. This means that logic produces incertain conclusions regarding God. Some conclusions about God that rely on logic may be true, while others may not.

Evidence has never been found to prove the non-existence of God. In fact, most people that assert the position 2) admit that finding evidence for the non-existence of something is impossible - which is mostly true, and is definitely true in the case of God. So as far as I'm concerned, there is no evidence or scientific proof that positively proves the non-existence of God.

Please note that the non-existence of positive evidence for X doesn't necessarily mean that X isn't true. Basically, lack of evidence for X doesn't mean X is false, and lack of evidence against X doesn't mean that X is true.

So, position 2) can only base itself on faith. Since there is no logic that can, with certainty, prove the necessity for the non-existence of God, nor is there any positive scientifical evidence for the non-existence of God, isn't it true that this position is based on faith just as much as position 1)?

It is important to define "faith" in this context as "subjective personal experience".

As in, I believe in God because, in my subjective personal experience, I have learnt to find Him in signs around me, and built a personal and intimate relation with Him, etc. But John doesn't believe in God because his subjective personal experience gives him no signs of God.

Is this wrong? How and why? Do you stand on position 2) and base it on evidence or logic rather than faith? What evidence or what logic is that?

Please not that the point is not to validate the legitimacy of faith in its use to discover the truth, but to show that both positions 1) and 2) are based on faith.

[Artie]

The prosecution says guilt (God) exists. It's a positive assertion. The burden of proof is on the prosecution. The defense says guilt (God) doesn't exist. It's a negative assertion. If those had been equal a person would have been innocent until proven guilty or guilty until proven innocent. You can't prove a negative so the prosecution will never say guilt/God doesn't exist. The defense will never say guilt/God exists. Your scenario is irrational.

That's just how you put it. You're arguing semantics. How about if the crime is inexistence? The prosecution claims God is inexistence. The burden of proof is on the prosecution. You can't prove a negative so the prosecution will never say guit/God exists.

That's just semantics.

The prosecution claims guilt (existence) which is a positive claim so the burden of proof is on the prosecution. The defense claims no guilt (inexistence) which is a negative claim so they don't have the burden of proof. If the prosecution has no evidence for guilt (existence) the defense doesn't need to present evidence for no guilt (inexistence). If you can direct me to a recognized court of law where the defense has the burden of proof I will concede the point.

[pmprcv]

The prosecution claims guilt (existence) which is a positive claim so the burden of proof is on the prosecution. The defense claims no guilt (inexistence) which is a negative claim so they don't have the burden of proof. If the prosecution has no evidence for guilt (existence) the defense doesn't need to present evidence for no guilt (inexistence). If you can direct me to a recognized court of law where the defense has the burden of proof I will concede the point.

Yeah, you just posted that. I have already made it clear you're arguing semantics. In the tribunal case where God is accused of the crime of existing, the prosecution has to provide evidence. We already agreed.

In the case where God is accused of inexistence, the prosecution has the burden of proof. Inexistence is not a negative claim. It is the same as saying "God is strictly fictional" or "God is exclusively imaginary". So, if these help you think better, try putting it like this:

God is accused of being merely fiction. The prosecution must present evidence, otherwise He is not guilty. But, we both already agreed that there is none.

[Artie]

In the case where God is accused of inexistence, the prosecution has the burden of proof.

There can be no case where the prosecution accuses the defendant of being not guilty. There can be no case where the prosecution accuses God of not existing. Proving a negative is a logical fallacy. Your scenario is irrational.

[Artie]

Why some people are atheists:

Trial scenario 1:

1. The prosecution claims the defendant is guilty but has no evidence.
2. The defense needn't say anything.
3. I am a member of the jury and we have to find the defendant not guilty because of lack of evidence to the contrary.

Trial scenario 2:

1. The prosecution claims God is guilty of existing but has no evidence only faith in His existence.
2. The defense needn't say anything.
3. I am a member of the jury and we have to find God not guilty of existing because of lack of evidence to the contrary.

In both cases faith is completely and utterly irrelevant to the members of the jury. In both cases there shouldn't even be a trial in the first place. There's no possibility of a trial where the prosecution claims the defendant is not guilty. There's no possibility of a trial where the prosecution claims God is not guilty of existing. Since there can be no trial where the prosecution aims to prove non-existence of God any speculation on any tactics the prosecution might have applied is irrelevant.

[ReligionSlayer]

God is accused of being merely fiction. The prosecution must present evidence, otherwise He is not guilty. But, we both already agreed that there is none.

NO NO.
I can say anything about this god, it is you that need to provide falsifiable evidence for the claim that god exists as not merely fictional.

And even if you want I can say: God existence is merely fiction.
My Falsifiable evidence is your vacuum of evidence that he is not merely fiction. I would win the case.

If you think I would not win, then provide me your falsifiable evidence that god is not merely fiction.

I will even define this 'merely fiction' for you:
If we all know that god or gods do exist as abstract objects, concepts, linguistic placeholders, not as real concrete objects in the supernatural, or a being doing something super in the natural, then they are merely fiction.
Exampled:
The number 3
The word G
The character spider-man.
Linguistic placeholder 'ignorant' for 'Lacking knowledge or awareness in general'


How is that. Now present you case, as you STILL have the burden of proof.

It is really simple. You made the claim that the god exists.
When you offer no back-up for your claim, I can say anything about your claim content as you have not met your burden of proof. I can say your claim is green, and have no burden of proof to show it is green, other than you have not met your burden for your original claim.

If you are not stupid, then you would recognize that you are merely appealing to ignorance when trying to shift your burden.

You make a claim, so YOU need to provide sufficient warrant for YOUR position. You make an extraordinary claim, so you need to give extraordinary evidence in convincing the skeptic community, with regard to YOUR context of the claim in question.

[Artie]

God is accused of being merely fiction. The prosecution must present evidence, otherwise He is not guilty. But, we both already agreed that there is none.

I didn't write that pmprcv did.

[Ooberman]

God is accused of being merely fiction. The prosecution must present evidence, otherwise He is not guilty. But, we both already agreed that there is none.

Does this apply to all things that don't exist, but have no evidence of their non-existence!?

Everything exist unless proven to not exist? Is this really how the mind of the theist works?

[olavisjo]

The burden of proof is always on the claim that X exists rather than on the claim that X does not exist. It is a fallacy to claim that X exists unless you prove that there is no X."

http://www.qcc.cuny.edu/socialsciences/ ... -Proof.htm

[pmprcv]

NO NO.
I can say anything about this god, it is you that need to provide falsifiable evidence for the claim that god exists as not merely fictional.

Why is that? Burden of proof means that the one who makes a ponsitive, assertive claim must substanciate it with evidence. Therefore, if you assert that God is fictional, you must prove your claim, because the burden of proof falls on you.

And even if you want I can say: God existence is merely fiction.
My Falsifiable evidence is your vacuum of evidence that he is not merely fiction. I would win the case.

So is the absence of evidence evidence of absence now? You do realise that's a fallacy, right? If you make a claim ("God's existence is merely fiction"), you must provide falsifiable evidence. Lack of evidence that denies a claim does not equate to evidence that supports a claim. By your logic, since there is no evidence to disprove that the 5 cm3 at the core of the planet contain a magical fairy dust, then such a claim must be true.

If you think I would not win, then provide me your falsifiable evidence that god is not merely fiction.

As previously said, burden of proof means you have to provide evidence for your claim; otherwise, you are basing it on faith alone.

I will even define this 'merely fiction' for you:
If we all know that god or gods do exist as abstract objects, concepts, linguistic placeholders, not as real concrete objects in the supernatural, or a being doing something super in the natural, then they are merely fiction.
Exampled:
The number 3
The word G
The character spider-man.
Linguistic placeholder 'ignorant' for 'Lacking knowledge or awareness in general'

You are missing the whole point of this topic. I'll remind you: it's to discuss whether there is actual any evidence for the positive, assertive claim that God is only fiction; and the "corolary" that, is there is no evidence, then such a potiion must be based on faith. I already said in the OP that the claim that God exists in reality is based on faith.

If you are not stupid, then you would recognize that you are merely appealing to ignorance when trying to shift your burden.

Ad hominem will not get you far. Please, read the OP and reply on the topic at hand - do not derail the discussion again.

Does this apply to all things that don't exist, but have no evidence of their non-existence!?

Everything exist unless proven to not exist? Is this really how the mind of the theist works?

Not at all. You'll notice I never claimed that. Furthermore, I explicitly stated that my position is based on faith, and not, as you imply, based on the lack of evidence against it.

[OneHouse]

[Replying to post 1 by pmprcv]
I agree with you that atheism, like theism is faith based. No one can prove, or disprove the existence of god, but people still gravitate towards one side; without evidence. That means neither side is right or wrong.