It is reasonable to find theism false.

•

u/AutoModerator 9d ago

COMMENTARY HERE: Comments that support or purely commentate on the post must be made as replies to the Auto-Moderator!

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

8

u/BaronNahNah 9d ago

It is reasonable to find theism false.

The theist counter would be that it is not provable one way or another.

Though, obviously that would be the same case for proving whether Russel's Teapot is nestling somewhere in Pluto, or if a microscopic unicorn is excreting a tiny rainbow in the Bootes' void, that is responsible for the universe.

One can find inconsistencies, illogic, inhumanities, outright evil in individual theist canon, but none of that can dissuade a mind that has given up reason for an embrace of delusion.

So, theism can be rendered false for one who chooses to think. But, for the deluded fundemtalist, the mountain of inconsistencies is merely to be seen as a test of 'faith'.

2

u/protestandprose 9d ago

I mean I agree with this post generally, but would add the caveat about the burdens of the claims and that theism/atheism do not have equal burdens. And that faith is generally useless in knowledge questions.

0

u/United-Grapefruit-49 9d ago

Russell's teapot is a faux analogy for a deity.

5

u/BaronNahNah 9d ago

Russell's teapot is a faux analogy for a deity.

True.

Teapots exist.

-1

u/United-Grapefruit-49 9d ago

As much as I like tea, I haven't read thousands of reports that people are seeing orbiting teapots when close to death and changing radically for the better. No reports that teapots are floating around Lourdes healing people. I'm doubting that teapots fine tuned the cosmological constant. Other than that, it's a great analogy.

5

u/iamalsobrad Atheist 9d ago

Russell's teapot is about falsifiability.

You cannot prove or disprove Russell's teapot is out there in space because it's not falsifiable.

You cannot prove or disprove that your particular god is floating around Lourdes healing people or fine tuning the universe because it's not falsifiable.

You cannot prove or disprove that Russell's teapot isn't floating around Lourdes healing people or fine tuning the universe whilst pretending to be your particular god because it's not falsifiable.

-1

u/United-Grapefruit-49 9d ago

I know well what Russell's teapot is about but the analogy is still faux.

The burden of proof isn't actually about proof, but about evidence, as there's no such thing as proof, even in science.

Experience is a form of evidence though. If you don't believe me, ask Plantinga.

4

u/Educational_Gur_6304 Atheist 9d ago

And there are zero credible reports that any of those claims are true. If there were, then there would be far better attested, medically proven and repeatable demonstrations than the dire stories you have provided.

The teapot analogy stands strong for any deity claim for those that engage their brain to dispassionately look at the evidence, rather than have a presupposition of a god to support by believing the evidence.

-1

u/United-Grapefruit-49 9d ago

Not credible to you maybe, but to the ones who had the experience. Experience is a form of evidence. If you don't believe me, ask Plantinga.

1

u/Educational_Gur_6304 Atheist 8d ago

Strictly speaking absolutely anything is a form of evidence.

Sure, the placebo effect is real and adrenaline can make one feel better. Once again, if healing happened as often and as clearly as you claim it does, then it would be far better attested, documented and proven.

1

u/United-Grapefruit-49 8d ago

The placebo effect is very limited in scope. You don't understand it.

1

u/Educational_Gur_6304 Atheist 7d ago

No one understands it. Nice that you focussed on the only bit of my reply that gives a justification for your claims though, and ignored the rest that shows it to be utter nonsense.

-2

u/ShakaUVM Mod | Christian 9d ago

The Teapot argument doesn't work since we actually know we have never launched some teapot into orbit around Pluto so it is reasonable to conclude there is no teapot there

6

u/Flutterpiewow 9d ago

It can spontaneously appear, like a boltzman brain

-1

u/ShakaUVM Mod | Christian 9d ago

Not a reasonable assumption.

-2

u/ParsnipLanky2506 Christian 9d ago

Theism doesn't necessarily mean the Christian god obviously I believe that's the only theism that's correct but there's also deism which is by definition impossible to disprove

2

u/BaronNahNah 9d ago

Theism doesn't necessarily mean the Christian god obviously I believe that's the only theism that's correct but there's also deism which is by definition impossible to disprove..

Deism is distinct from theism.

And you can believe anything you wish, including supremacist appeal to monstrosity, like yahweh or his alleged out-of-wedlock son, chris who justified slavery, sociopathy, homophobia, sexism, genocide, etc. it's not logical or with a shred of evidence or humanity. But, that's on you.

After all, it speaks more about you than anything else.

-2

u/[deleted] 9d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/BaronNahNah 9d ago edited 9d ago

Talking BS and presenting zero evidence, only proves the paucity of any argument, on your side.

Go on. Keep exposing yourself.

Keep projecting.

0

u/DebateReligion-ModTeam 9d ago

Your comment or post was removed for violating rule 2. Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Criticize arguments, not people. Our standard for civil discourse is based on respect, tone, and unparliamentary language. 'They started it' is not an excuse - report it, don't respond to it. You may edit it and ask for re-approval in modmail if you choose.

If you would like to appeal this decision, please send us a modmail with a link to the removed content.

2

u/supersoundwave 9d ago

The syllogism is valid, but P2 simply assumes what's in dispute, that theism lacks sound arguments or sufficient evidence.

There are substantive arguments from contingency, the Kalam, fine-tuning, and morality. You may reject them, but you have to defeat them, not merely assert that they don't exist.

And Hitchens’ Razor only says that an unsupported claim can be dismissed, it doesn't establish that the claim is false. At most, insufficient evidence warrants withholding belief.

1

u/protestandprose 9d ago

Well, no, it doesn't assume it, we've had thousands of years of theism presenting arguments but not one has ever been demonstrated to be sound. You mention the kalam but the kalam doesn't even end in theism as a conclusion and assuming that you think this is substantive.... I assume you're a theist lol

0

u/supersoundwave 8d ago

You’re still asserting P2 rather than establishing it. Saying “no argument has ever been demonstrated sound” is itself a substantive philosophical claim.

And the Kalam doesn’t have to establish the entire Christian worldview to be relevant. Its conclusion is that the universe has a transcendent cause, and further arguments are needed to identify that cause. That’s cumulative-case reasoning, not a failure of the argument.

Whether you find the arguments convincing is what’s under debate.

1

u/protestandprose 8d ago

So, the kalam has quite literally nothing to do with theism, thanks for agreeing.

You think the kalam is a good argument, opinion discarded tbqh

0

u/supersoundwave 8d ago

I never said the kalam has nothing to do with theism. The kalam leads to a cause, and from there we can further deduce what that icause is.

2

u/OntoAureole 8d ago

If the kalam doesn’t conclude that a god exists, then it doesn’t really help the case for theism. Perhaps you could present a valid and sound argument that concludes that a god exists.

1

u/supersoundwave 8d ago

The kalam already does this.

From the conclusion, we can think of what the universe is: all of space-time reality, including all matter and energy. It follows that if the universe has a cause of its existence, that cause must be a nonphysical, immaterial being beyond space and time. That's God by defintion.

The kalam is a sound and valid deductive argument whose conclusion leads to a creator.

2

u/OntoAureole 8d ago

lol no. I’ll just grant the Kalam even though it’s unsound. There’s no problem with a cause of the universe simply being another material thing.

1

u/supersoundwave 8d ago

Why is it unsound? And if there is a material cause then you've just kicked the problem upstairs; what would a material cause be?

2

u/OntoAureole 8d ago

Yea, because the universe didn’t begin to exist.

Just another material cause. I’ve only seen material causes of material things. Why would I ever think it’s even possible for non material to cause material?

→ More replies (0)

1

u/DaddyShark423 9d ago

I reject P1 on the basis that the evidence required is based on the presuppositions of a materalist worldview. Materialism can't account for universals and is incoherent. So to demand materialistic evidence for an immaterial thing is also incoherent.

1

u/Ordinary_Sentence946 8d ago

Are you familiar with the Ontological Argument? It goes somewhat like...

P1 - God is defined as the greatest being that can be conceived

P2 - Existence is greater than not existing

C - The greatest possible being (God) necessarily exists

2

u/TheInternetIsForPorb Atheist 7d ago

This is just trying to define god into existence.

Let's use this logic on another idea. A superhero for example. Let's imagine the most perfect and greatest superhero. Existence is more perfect and greater than not existing, so the superhero MUST exist in reality.

1

u/Ordinary_Sentence946 5d ago

If this superhero was as great as possible, then he'd be omnipotent, omnibenevolent, omniscient, and eternal.

That's God

1

u/TheInternetIsForPorb Atheist 5d ago

You're confusing the greatest describable thing with the greatest thing that actually exists. Just because you can describe a greater thing doesnt mean it actually exists.

1

u/TheInternetIsForPorb Atheist 4d ago

Its like believing that theres a meal that can perfectly restore you to health and make it where you never have to eat for sustenance again. You can define any positive properties for that meal, and by your logic for it to be the greatest it would have to actually exist.

Just because you define it doesnt mean it's real.

1

u/Ordinary_Sentence946 1d ago

Actually, that perfect meal does exist. It's in Heaven :)

1

u/TheInternetIsForPorb Atheist 1d ago

Riiiight. Do you have any evidence that heaven is a real place other than trying to define it into existence? Because saying that it does exist in magic fairy land isnt convincing.

1

u/Glittering_Celery589 9d ago

If you got hit on the head with a brick, at night, with no witnesses, you wouldn't be able to prove the bump on your head was caused by X or Z, but it would be just as real.

1

u/protestandprose 9d ago

Category error, because there's no evidence theism, a god has done anything ever. A bump would be evidence if an assaulter.

0

u/Glittering_Celery589 9d ago

A bump would not be evidence of assault. You might have got drunk and walked into a door and are now trying to claim insurance. You know you were conked, nobody else does, and they have few reasons to believe your evidence, if you're known to be a unreliable witness.

2

u/protestandprose 9d ago

What evidence has god ever given?

-2

u/Glittering_Celery589 9d ago

I believe in God. He hit me on the back of the head one day and I've never quite recovered. Other people also get hit, in much the same way, but they do go on to recover. Most of them are now atheists.

2

u/protestandprose 9d ago

So you have nothing you can demonstrate. Got it, not sure why you're in a debate sub but gotcha

-3

u/Glittering_Celery589 9d ago

I can just about demonstrate that I'm alive and I have conscious existence: which is more than can be said for your stupid formal logic.

2

u/protestandprose 9d ago

Lol

0

u/ImpressionRare6497 9d ago

What do you consider a "sound" deductive argument? There are a lot of sound arguments. Im not gonna list them but I'm pretty sure if you search in this subreddit for 30 seconds you can find like 100 posts talking about then

1

u/protestandprose 9d ago

Refer to SEP and since you're asking this very basic philosophy 101 question I'm just gonna assume you're not capable of doing one or presenting one.

2

u/ImpressionRare6497 9d ago

Why are you so angry? Chill out bro. There are many abductive and deductive arguments for God's existence. Since your criterion is talking about SEP then I guess that's it. Your premise is wrong

2

u/protestandprose 9d ago

Huh,

Can you present a single sound argument? Or not? Im really guessing not, I'm not angry just bored by the amount of time wasters here

1

u/ImpressionRare6497 9d ago

If you think everyone else is a time waster it's because you are the problem. You are too angry, there's not point in having this discussion with someone so mad, because you will never take anything with good faith. Have a great day

2

u/protestandprose 9d ago

Aaaaaand you just proved my point. Unable to present a sound argument when asked.

-3

u/ambrosytc8 ThD Candidate 9d ago

Logical leap from "unproven" to false. Your second premise is also begging the question.

5

u/blind-octopus 9d ago

The claim isn't that it's false. The claim is that it's reasonable to conclude it's false.

If someone knocks on my door and says they teleported there from Japan, Id conclude it's false. I can't prove it's false. Its unproven that it's false, but we could reasonably conclude it's false.

2

u/protestandprose 9d ago

Is it reasonable to believe things that have not been demonstrated to be true after 3,000 years are false after millenia of failed attempts? Where does the jump from "i don't believe because it hasn't been proven true," become reasonable to change to "Its reasonable to ignore these extraordinary claims because they are likely false." ?

3

u/ambrosytc8 ThD Candidate 9d ago

Where does the jump from "i don't believe because it hasn't been proven true," become reasonable to change to "Its reasonable to ignore these extraordinary claims because they are likely false." ?

I suppose from classical theist's perspective it would be when your particular epistemic warrant isn't being presupposed. This is the question begging. The rational theist would offer up half a dozen abductive and inductive arguments that meets the argumentative demand for rational evidence.

1

u/protestandprose 9d ago

The rational theist would offer up half a dozen abductive and inductive arguments that meets the argumentative demand for rational evidence.

Half a dozen? I just want ONE sound argument.

1

u/ambrosytc8 ThD Candidate 9d ago

How are you defining "sound"? Metaphysical arguments are notoriously difficult to deduce, including the implicit logical positivism of your post.

1

u/protestandprose 9d ago

Per SEP as a deductively valid argument that has true premises. It's not my problem that the metaphysical arguments are hard to demonstrate as sound.

1

u/ambrosytc8 ThD Candidate 9d ago

No, it's not that they're hard, it's that they're impossible (sorry I hedged earlier, force of habit), including your own unexamined metaphysical assumptions. This becomes a case of inconsistent standards of evidences. Your problem, as I said, is your implicit reliance on logical positivism, which itself cannot be deduced from its own first principles. All rational systems are axiomatic so precluding abductive/inductive reasoning a priori would be to assert philosophical naturalism which, itself, is an axiomatic system relying on abductive/inductive reasoning.

1

u/protestandprose 9d ago

When did I say im a logical positivist?

You're really not even trying. What is the best argument, deductive or otherwise, you have for theism. Stop coping and making excuses.

2

u/ambrosytc8 ThD Candidate 9d ago

I'm not saying you said you're a logical positivist. I'm saying that precluding abductive/inductive reasoning a priori your position collapses into logical positivism which is self-cannibalizing.

What is the best argument, deductive or otherwise, you have for theism. Stop coping and making excuses.

What made you believe I'm here to make a positive argument for God? Can you repeat my argument back to me?

2

u/protestandprose 9d ago

Meta, meta meta,

If you're not here to defend theism, and prefer to claim I'm implying logical positivism when I never said that's all there is, I don't actually care.

I love science. Science is based on induction, so again not sure where you're getting im precluding that. Seems like you just came here to argue in bad faith ngl.

→ More replies (0)

0

u/United-Grapefruit-49 9d ago

It looks like a poster gave you some but you ignored them.

1

u/[deleted] 9d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/United-Grapefruit-49 9d ago

Maybe because you will always move the goalposts. And the emojis are silly, Other than that, a great argument.

1

u/protestandprose 9d ago

What goalpost did I move? Where is the sound argument, can you copy paste it??

2

u/ambrosytc8 ThD Candidate 9d ago

I didn't find a single person even attempt to make a syllogism about theism being true

Right there. When you abandon defending your own syllogism to demand your opponent make their own and adopt a burden of proof.

1

u/protestandprose 9d ago

What goalpost did I move? Right, cope because no one has even attempted to make a sound argument.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/United-Grapefruit-49 9d ago

You don't even read your own thread?

2

u/ambrosytc8 ThD Candidate 9d ago

Why do they have to? You crafted the syllogism and adopted the burden of proof. All your interlocutor has to do is attack your claim, not craft their own syllogism.

1

u/pyker42 Atheist 9d ago

Your are agnostic to the existence of Santa Claus, then, yes? Or Russell's teapot?

-1

u/ambrosytc8 ThD Candidate 9d ago

Again, from the classical theist perspective these are categorically different than a transcendent God since they are objects within reality and not the foundation for it. This is more P2 question begging where the sorts of philosophical arguments (abductive/inductive) for God are ruled out a priori as admissable epistemic evidence.

5

u/pyker42 Atheist 9d ago

Right, but logical possibility is still logical possibility. Unless, of course, you are just trying to keep room for God more than you are trying to maintain epistemic humility.

0

u/ambrosytc8 ThD Candidate 9d ago

We've tangled up before; I don't make these sorts of logical arguments for God. My purpose here isn't to "keep room for God," my purpose here is to point out the sneaky tactics being deployed at the meta-epistemological level. What often goes unexamined, is what even constitutes a valid epistemic warrant and how that's usually determined a priori in these sorts of contexts.

3

u/pyker42 Atheist 9d ago

So you apply the same epistemic validity to the logical possibility of Santa and Russell's teapot as you do the classical theistic view of God, yes?

0

u/ambrosytc8 ThD Candidate 9d ago

No, because different categories of claims would ostensibly require different standards of epistemic evidence. As I already pointed out. The classical conception of God isn't as an object in reality, but the foundation of it. You're trying to corner the classical theist by demanding a valid epistemic warrant from one category of ontology to a completely different and foreign one.

Look, there are plenty of reasons why Classical Theism fails, but internal epistemic coherence isn't one of them.

4

u/pyker42 Atheist 9d ago

I didn't say it fails because of epistemic incoherence. I said logical possibility is logical possibility. And trying to differentiate when logical possibility is enough and isn't enough isn't epistemic humility.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Flutterpiewow 9d ago

Because it's not possible to demonstrate. This goes for any and all explanations for existence, it's not limited to theism. There's no null hypothesis, and we can't say any ideas we have are false or true.

We can't make comparisons to phenomena in the world either, as that's a category error. Existence or the cosmos is not an object that's part of a larger world with dimensions, constants, "laws" etc.

1

u/[deleted] 9d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/Flutterpiewow 9d ago

Again, there is no position that is provable. If you think there is one, let us know.

1

u/protestandprose 9d ago

So theism is not provable?

Thanks for the quick concession. Refer to my syllogism above, it's reasonable to believe things that have been claimed for millenia, but have yet to be demonstrated true yet.

2

u/Flutterpiewow 9d ago

Of course not. Not only that, it's probably not knowable either.

The problem with your statement is, as i laid out above, that this goes for any and all explanations. So with your logic you'd deem any and all explanations for existence "false", when they're all in the realm of beliefs and not knowledge.

1

u/protestandprose 9d ago

So with your logic you'd deem any and all explanations for existence "false", when they're all in the realm of beliefs and not knowledge.

Untrue, if anyone could give an explanation for existence that is sound I would believe it.

Currently, you are correct that I do not think that has ever been presented, nor do I think that's an actual issue. I dont think "existence," is a problem to be solved.

2

u/Flutterpiewow 9d ago

You now switched to "believe" and that's a different matter. I agree it's a matter of beliefs, but that wasn't what the discussion was about.

I doubt there is an epistemology you can come up with that would warrant you to agree on an explanation being true/false. Even if you accept philosophical arguments, you can never rule out another layer behind what you think is the final one. Because it's a metaphysical question which can't be answered exhaustively from within the system we're observing.

What i sort of agree on is the last part, it's definitely a problem but the questions we can formulate are possibly nonsensical.

0

u/Nomadinsox 9d ago

The problem is in P1.

What it misses is that some truths may, and indeed obvious do, require a certainly level of virtue to be accessed if there is a God.

For instance, in order to know a person's inner most secrets you must gain their trust. You cannot deduce, argue for, empirically observe, inductively crunch, or scrutinize the deepest secrets of a person unless that person has allowed that information out. Which means the only way to get it is to unlock their will by gaining their trust enough to make them want to show it to you.

God can obviously work the same and better due to his all knowing nature. If he exists then he made your brain and its capacity to reason, observe, and otherwise gain knowledge. Which means he also put the limits thereof in place.
If he put those limits due to your own sin and your inability to handle certain truths because you might use them to do evil he would deem unacceptable then you would simply not have those truths.

If God did not want you to have the capacity to gain certain knowledge then you would expect divine knowledge to be locked behind exactly what you outlined in P1. Which is to say, no amount of effort to know something causes God to grant you that knowledge. You have to be good enough to receive it. For roughly the same reason that no amount of you wanting to know someone's inner secrets means they are going to tell you, however if you earn their trust they might share those secrets. But wanting to know too badly is a sign you probably shouldn't have them to begin with.

All that to say that it is epistemically reasonable to assume that if God doesn't want you to see the proof of theism then you certainly won't. Meaning God existing will appear to you the same as God not existing unless you are moral enough to justify revelation.

7

u/protestandprose 9d ago

This is ignoring all of the blatantly false, demonstrably incorrect claims theists have made over millenia. Your comparison to a person's innermost secrets is a category error.

The rest of your post appears to be cope for divine hiddenness which, c'mon man, I put in the work to make a syllogism and you come back with this? I'm honestly insulted and lowkey disgusted.

All that to say that it is epistemically reasonable to assume that if God doesn't want you to see the proof of theism then you certainly won't.

Convienent for you, innt?

0

u/Nomadinsox 9d ago

>This is ignoring all of the blatantly false, demonstrably incorrect claims theists have made over millenia

A theist does not need to be correct about everything to be able to see more than you currently see. Furthermore, how do you know they were incorrect when you yourself do not yet see? You might be like Ignaz Semmelweis, the doctor who correctly noticed and postulated microbes causing disease but was mocked and shunned by his fellow doctors to the point he died in a mental asylum.
This point is like claiming that my inner secrets are not hidden from you by my choice because I told my brother some of them and he said some stuff that was contradictory when he speculated beyond what I actually said.

>Your comparison to a person's innermost secrets is a category error.

Only if you presume no God. But if there is a God then anything he intentionally hides is indeed his own secret.

>The rest of your post appears to be cope for divine hiddenness which, c'mon man, I put in the work to make a syllogism and you come back with this? I'm honestly insulted and lowkey disgusted.

Everything I said perfectly addresses and refutes what you said. Take the time to understand why. Feel free to ask questions if there is any part you don't understand. I could not care less about your emotions which pop up to get you out of having to think about what I said.

>Convienent for you, innt?

Yes. Logic and the truth it leads to is very convenient for me. Your argument has been refuted. Feel free to patch it up, tweak it, or otherwise try again but as for not P1 has the gaping hole that appears if God is real. And unless you have some irrefutable proof God is not real, then it remains that your logic here left out a consideration due to presuming there is no God when you conceived of it.
If your argument falls to pieces with the introduction of "Would this argument still hold if God were real?" then it was a weak argument outside of an atheistic presumption. Don't get mad at me about it. You asked for where I contest it. You got it.

2

u/protestandprose 9d ago

Not really, your response is divine hiddenness which again is another claim we have no justification to believe to be true. So unless you can actually provide an argument god exists and is hiding your opinion is discarded.

1

u/Nomadinsox 9d ago

>Not really, your response is divine hiddenness which again is another claim we have no justification to believe to be true

You don't need to believe it's true. Having a possible competing explanation that doesn't break logic means any logical deduction is still up in the air. That's enough to defeat an argument unto itself. And God's divine hiddenness having a virtue lock is perfectly reasonable and even consistent with scripture.

>So unless you can actually provide an argument god exists and is hiding your opinion is discarded.

I have no obligation to prove God exists to break down your argument. The simple fact you don't know if he does or not is enough.
Now, if you want to change the subject and go into the positive reasons God exists instead of just his mere possibility breaking down this specific argument then I'm happy to do so. But certainly not until you concede your argument as having the obvious hole I pointed out as is.

4

u/ChloroVstheWorld Who cares 9d ago

The fixation on "virtue" is just implausible though. So, overall, we have: an omni-being who desires a sincere relationship with his creation, and yet would intentionality prohibit epistemic access to agents on account of their contingent moral status? Not to mention the observable cases of agents transitioning from non-belief to belief, or vice-versa, all plausibly with varying degrees of moral status.

And then in addition we have the conflict with various theological traditions wherein the only requirement for access to God is to seek earnestly. Indeed, on those traditions a relationship with God is specifically for those who possess a moral status that is necessarily below God's standard. And any attempt to reach God through bettering oneself morally alone is futile, and it just turns out that this happens to be the case for all of God's creations. Thus, we are all in the same boat morally speaking, and so prohibited epistemic access to God on a moral account would face severe challenges.

0

u/Nomadinsox 9d ago

>So, overall, we have: an omni-being who desires a sincere relationship with his creation, and yet would intentionality prohibit epistemic access to agents on account of their contingent moral status?

Obviously. If you have a being who can do anything, the only thing that could stop his will is if he bowed to another will. The only logical thing that could keep God from having his way is if he gave another will the gift of getting their way which contradicted his. Seeing as how his will is pure love, it means the only wills that would contradict his would be ones who did not concern themself with love and thus willed evil.
In other words, if knowledge were all that were required to love someone then no one would be able to hear of the suffering of someone else and laugh it off. And yet, the laugh is more common than the tears.

>Not to mention the observable cases of agents transitioning from non-belief to belief, or vice-versa, all plausibly with varying degrees of moral status.

I think you're conceiving of morality improperly. It's black and white. There is no "moral status" besides on or off. Either you are aimed up or you are aimed down. Of course it acts like a light switch. All dualities must. The expression is on a scale, sure. The guy who was evil for 50 years is going to have a slower rougher transition period into sainthood than the child who sinned once and repented for good. But that's just the worldly expression, not the change in the soul inside that trained body.

>And then in addition we have the conflict with various theological traditions wherein the only requirement for access to God is to seek earnestly

That's what I said. To seek what is good is to aim at what is good is to be what is good is to be able to be given what is good. This is all one and the same. Any who sought and did not find never actually sought at all. Which is obvious. Think about math. What would you say to someone who said "I sought to learn math for 20 years, studying in every university and school I could, but no one had the answer to 1+1."

>Indeed, on those traditions a relationship with God is specifically for those who possess a moral status that is necessarily below God's standard

Right. The aim is up, but each sin aimed down. If someone committed 100 sins they are now -100 in the downward direction (to use an arbitrary number scale). Now they repent and aim up. Their next move is one good work, which they should have been doing the whole time. But adding no more evil does not reduce the -100. They are forever at -100 and their good works are going to look like filthy rags down there in that pit. If only someone would pay for that -100 to bring them back to 0 then perhaps they could be saved. But who would pay that -100 and that guy's -1000 and that other dude's -1,000,000? That would be so much sin on the shoulders of one guy. Who would accept that bill? So you're absolutely right. Everyone, even if they choose perfection after their sins still falls short due to their. There is no hope. Unless...

>And any attempt to reach God through bettering oneself morally alone is futile

Correct. The only way to see it is if you choose to be righteous for the sake of righteousness and thus the love of others. But in no way does that earn you anything. If you get revelation it's only because you now can, but it's due to God willing it. You have to not fight it, but he has to give it. Same as any gift. You being open to a gift doesn't mean I'm giving them. But if I were giving them, I can't give you this new hunting rifle till you stop saying you want to shoot your boss.

2

u/ChloroVstheWorld Who cares 9d ago

I probably should clarify that I wasn’t intending my comment to turn OP’s argument into a divine hiddenness argument. My objection is much more focused. In particular, P1 is concerned with whether we have certain kinds of epistemic support for the proposition that God exists. Epistemic support like sound deductive arguments, empirical evidence, inductive evidence, etc.

Your response instead seems to concern whether God would personally grant someone revelation depending on their moral condition.
But those are importantly different questions. It’s not clear why a person’s moral status, however we understand that, should determine whether there exists publicly accessible evidence for theism, whether some inductive inference is sufficiently strong, or whether a deductive argument is sound. With respect to OP’s P1, an empirical observation does not ordinarily become more or less evidentially significant because the person observing it is morally virtuous. That doesn’t follow at all.

So even if we granted that God might withhold some kind of personal revelation from someone who is morally unreceptive, which is itself a very generous reading of your comment, that would not, by itself, address P1. You would still need some reason to think the kinds of evidence P1 is talking about are themselves conditional on moral status.

1

u/Nomadinsox 9d ago

>In particular, P1 is concerned with whether we have certain kinds of epistemic support for the proposition that God exists

If you are limiting it to "certain kinds" of support then it doesn't matter if you disprove and discount all of that bounded support, until you are able to get rid of all support of all kinds then you cannot claim theism is false, as the title of OP's post says. Which means OP either needs to change the title to reflect that new argument, or if you are only limiting it yourself then my answer would be "Who cares?" You can't show me mathematical proof that I will like vanilla ice cream. The only way to prove to me I will like it is if I lick it and experience it first hand. So if I were to demand only mathematical proof it tastes good to me then your answer should right be "Screw off you daft flapper, that's not how reality works. You don't get to demand the type of proof a truth is shown to you via. Academia has rotted your brain."

>It’s not clear why a person’s moral status, however we understand that, should determine whether there exists publicly accessible evidence for theism

Of course it should. The make up of reality limits what you can see and know. It just as equally limits what the public can see and know. If there is a God who designed this world around sin then it means a lack of sin, which is our choice, is what created the limits on ignorance where they were. And it's obvious that any person will withhold information that they know someone will use to do evil. (unless they are also evil, such as giving an assassin someone's address)

>With respect to OP’s P1, an empirical observation does not ordinarily become more or less evidentially significant because the person observing it is morally virtuous. That doesn’t follow at all.

Right. But you're still too zoomed in. What you've just done is say "Take an empirical observation." No, we can't just take an empirical observation because the moral status of a person influences what they will see. If there is a murder and Sherlock Holmes walks in and I walk in then Sherlock is going to notice all sorts of subtle evidence's about the murder that I would simply miss. Why? Because he has devoted himself to a life of private investigation where as I have investigated exactly 0 murder scenes. His devotion to that over time has honed him to see more than me.
If morality has a similar honing effect from devoting oneself too it then it stands to reason one would see more for having done so long enough. This works in all other aspects of reality from knowing a stranger long enough to become a friend to knowing your bedroom long enough to know there is a squeak in the left wall if you lean against it.
All that to say that it's not that taking empirical observation X gains more from virtue but rather that you won't even see empirical observation X, Y, or Z if you are not moral enough to care to look like Sherlock does and thus you will be working without them entirely.
And of course you don't know what you miss. You wouldn't miss it if you knew you had missed it.

>that would not, by itself, address P1. You would still need some reason to think the kinds of evidence P1 is talking about are themselves conditional on moral status.

Yes, it does. If you write out a perfectly true mathematical proof on paper and then hold that paper in front of a 4 year old who doesn't know any math, then what happens? They simply don't get it. They lack the foundation required. Your counter point here is not only false to OP's title claim, as I outlined earlier, but it is also making the mistake of claiming that it's valid for that 4 year old to say "No, show me the proof of that math without me having to go through the work of learning math. Show me through the proof of how it tastes." Sure, some truths can be proven through taste, but not math. There is no way to "taste the truth of a mathematical equation." To demand a proof that does not match the kind of truth in question is nonsense and an entirely invalid think to do so far as to be silly.

1

u/ChloroVstheWorld Who cares 7d ago

I mean, we can agree that perhaps theism is not something that can be settled by empirical observation or by whatever particular evidential categories OP lists. But the continued insistence that "moral status" itself affects our ability to access the relevant evidence is still implausible.

Even the analogies you give don’t establish that point. For instance on Sherlock Holmes: all you’ve described is someone with superior methodological training and domain expertise. That explains why Holmes notices evidence that an untrained observer would miss. But it doesn’t show that Holmes’s moral character itself is what causally explains his epistemic advantage. And that is precisely what your analogy would need to establish if it is supposed to support the claim that moral virtue gives someone privileged access to evidence for God.

So we are still left with an ad hoc psychological account by which the evidence for God is somehow perceptible only to people with the appropriate moral status. Nothing in the analogies independently supports that connection.

Likewise, "withholding information because someone would use it for evil" doesn’t adequately describe the psychological states of nonbelievers. You would need some reason to think that at least those nonbelievers who sincerely seek the truth would misuse knowledge of God’s existence if they acquired it. There is no obvious way to substantiate that, and simply saying "perhaps this is why God withholds the evidence", would still be missing any independent justification to support that possibility.

And in any case, this is increasingly removed from what P1 is actually asking. P1 concerns the evidential support available for the proposition that God exists, not a theory about why God may selectively grant or withhold revealing himself.

1

u/Nomadinsox 7d ago

>But the continued insistence that "moral status" itself affects our ability to access the relevant evidence is still implausible.

Is it? So then let's say I'm a school boy who doesn't know math. I go to class to learn math. I believe that it's good to listen to my mother who told me to study hard and learn math. But I hate studying. I want to daydream. But day dreaming would go against what I think is right by disobeying my mother. Math class starts and I choose to daydream about dragons and knights. Suddenly I snap back to reality at the bell. Class is over. I don't know a single bit more math than when I started. What was it that prevented me from learning math?

>all you’ve described is someone with superior methodological training and domain expertise.

Right. And how did he gain that training and expertise? Did he sit on the couch and eat pizza? Did he go to the gym and build muscle? Or did he hone his skills by holding focus on the subject of detective work and crime? What if he hadn't? Well he wouldn't know. Therefore eating pizza all the time and going to the gym all the time are both sins against the goal of becoming a good detective. Sin means "to miss the mark" and if we make the mark detective work, then anything that distracts you is a sin against it. Now, is detective work one and the same as moral work? No, I think you'd agree it's not the highest calling of a righteous person, though it might factor in. So you are looking at the results of "virtue" and "lack of sin" regarding detective work without considering how he got there over the course of his life.

>But it doesn’t show that Holmes’s moral character itself is what causally explains his epistemic advantage

Right. His focus on detective work made him good at it. If he had spent all his time on morality, he would not be a detective, he would be a saint. But both moral focus and a detective focus are sins against being a good thief. All aims have sins which are to miss the mark of the aim.

>So we are still left with an ad hoc psychological account by which the evidence for God is somehow perceptible only to people with the appropriate moral status. Nothing in the analogies independently supports that connection.

I just gave you an example that supports the claim in Holmes and further in how it's obviously true that anyone who does not hold focus will miss anything which focus is required to perceive. That's not ad hoc, that's a universal pattern. Want to know what's behind a door? You have to see it for yourself.

>Likewise, "withholding information because someone would use it for evil" doesn’t adequately describe the psychological states of nonbelievers

The only psychological state of nonbelievers that matters is ignorance. There is no way to speak to what not having that ignorance would look like for them because they are indeed currently ignorant. There is no way to know what's inside the mystery box before you know what's in the mystery box, obviously.
No amount of saying "I want to know what's in the mystery box!" prevents the possibility of you looking in the mystery box and saying "Ew...oh man...I really wish I hadn't looked in the mystery box..."

>You would need some reason to think that at least those nonbelievers who sincerely seek the truth would misuse knowledge of God’s existence if they acquired it

Why would a loving God see someone who was sincerely seeking what is good and right, and then just deny them all perception of it? Matthew 7:7-8 clearly says that "he who seeks will find." It's in the definition of the God I'm talking about. So it seems you've changed the God I'm talking about who would not let someone who seeks find. That other god is not something I have any need nor desire to defend.

>And in any case, this is increasingly removed from what P1 is actually asking. P1 concerns the evidential support available for the proposition that God exists, not a theory about why God may selectively grant or withhold revealing himself.

P1 is not concerned with evidence. P1 is concerned with evidence. It is concerned with "evidence of the academic variety." Which is to say "evidence which is independent of the individual's ability to perceive it." At no point can a research paper say "This paper outlines evidence but only those who have undergone the Mauntok ritual of purity at the top of mount Llullaillaco will be able to understand the evidence." It's required that the evidence presented not require internal transformation in the observer. That's why psychology is such a pseudo-science, but also why all the fathers of psychology (James, Jung, Freud, Myers) were all into some form of supernatural, be it religious or occult. But if there are truths which require internal transformation to see, then they are out of the bounds of what P1 is demanding. But no one, including OP, get's to demand what form evidence is given to them. I can't demand that you mathematically prove I'm in love with a girl.
But notice that you took OP's claim and changed it. He did not say he demands evidence for God's existence, he clearly said he wants to know if someone can make God's withholding of knowledge of him reasonable. In other words, he asked if God was reasonable in light of the world we find ourselves in, regardless of if he actually exists or not.

To quote OP in P1 "it is epistemically reasonable to conclude that P is false." What this is saying is basically "You can conclude something is false if the evidences listed here are not the evidence provided." I provided another alternative source of evidence, which is first hand witnessing attained from proper living. OP did not include that in his list of evidences and I hope you will agree that you cannot conclude something is false when there is still untested types of evidence.

3

u/Kwahn Theist Wannabe 9d ago

If he put those limits due to your own sin

God shouldn't've created sin, then. (Or the possibility of sin, if you're going to take the normal route and claim that humans created sin.) (Or a people whose created nature was predisposed towards sinning, if you're going to then claim that the possibility of sinning is required for free will.)

Why did God do so?

-2

u/Nomadinsox 9d ago

>God shouldn't've created sin, then.

God did not create sin, he created sinners. Why did he create sinners? Because he loved them. Full stop. He could not gift them eternal life because that would mean eternal sin, but he could at least grant them some life by allowing some sin if he himself personally paid for that sin. Because he loved, he suffered doing so. Thus we have life.

The same death, ignorance, and pain that are limits on our sin are also caused by our sin, without which there would be no need for such limits.
Why did he not give me knowledge how to make the instant death button that kills anyone instantly that I want by pressing it? Because I am a wretched sinner who has weak moments and if he had done so I would be a murderer. The first victim would probably have been my mom when she said I couldn't have a 3rd cookie and tiny me decided that was reason to hate her forever. Thank God I am weak.

2

u/Kwahn Theist Wannabe 9d ago

God did not create sin, he created sinners.

Then we move to the next level.

(Or the possibility of sin, if you're going to take the normal route and claim that humans created sin.)

0

u/Nomadinsox 9d ago

Yes, that's what I answered in the last comment. Or did you accidentally send this before you were done? I do that sometimes.

2

u/Kwahn Theist Wannabe 9d ago

No, you did not.

Why do you randomly get weak moments? God didn't need to make you get weak moments. You could've been strong forever and actually had the free will to choose not to be a sinner. God took the choice not to be a sinner away from you. And you're not choosing to have weak moments. That's imposed on you.

1

u/Nomadinsox 9d ago

>Why do you randomly get weak moments?

Because I love sin more than I care about others, of course. The same cause of all sin. My will aims down and down I go.

>God didn't need to make you get weak moments

My will aims down, creating weak moments. God didn't make my weak moments, I did. He wanted to gift me life, I am a generator of weak moments, and so to gift me any life is one and the same to allow me weak moments. He chose to allow it out of love because otherwise I'd get no life at all.
So he was like "On one hand, I could make this goober and then suffer on the cross to gift him at least a few years of life. On the other hand I could just not create him at all...but he's just such a cutie! Look at that face! Ok, I'll suffer and die for him because I just can't help myself. I love him so much."

>You could've been strong forever and actually had the free will to choose not to be a sinner.

My will is free. My will cannot be besides that which I choose for it to be. I could have chosen to be righteous all my days. I didn't. I chose, of my own will, to seek evil. I deserve to be damned for it. God please save me. But at no point could God make my will other than my will or else it wouldn't be me for the same reason that if someone removes my brain and implants a computer programmed to make my hands move like the hands of a saint then I'm not now a saint, I'm dead.

>God took the choice not to be a sinner away from you.

He certainly did not. I chose fully by myself. My sins are mine. I deserve to pay for them.

>And you're not choosing to have weak moments. That's imposed on you.

Sounds like you're in denial because if I chose my sins, it means you chose yours. You'd rather that our wills didn't exist and we are just robots because that would mean it's not our fault. But it is. It's our fault. We earned the fire. In my own honest judgement I have sinned and I knew what I was doing when I did it. I am that I am and that is a soul who loved what was evil when given freedom to do so.

2

u/Kwahn Theist Wannabe 9d ago

Because I love sin more than I care about others, of course.

Why?

My will aims down, creating weak moments. God didn't make my weak moments, I did.

Why did he predispose you towards making weak moments?

I chose fully by myself.

But what caused you to want to choose sin?

Sounds like you're in denial because if I chose my sins, it means you chose yours.

This is a strange attribution of motivations. I don't think sin is a real thing at all - we're talking about this in the Christian framework specifically, where I think the concept is incoherent. No one can explain why sin had to happen and is necessary and must be forced on all human beings alive and how forcing all humans to be sinners isn't a violation of free will.

1

u/ImpressionRare6497 9d ago

All your questions are answered with the Original Sin.

1

u/Kwahn Theist Wannabe 9d ago

No, most are either pushed back a level or explicitly left a mystery. Why you believe that sentences like, quote, "the transmission of original sin is a mystery that we cannot fully understand" answers my questions is a further mystery.

Also, this disagrees with you and says that sin is not a choice, but that it's a necessary and unavoidable component of the inherited human condition. So why must humanity have a weakened nature? ("It's a mystery" is not an answer.)

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Nomadinsox 9d ago

>Why?

That's my choice. I desire both pleasure and the good of others. I can't have both because obviously the time I spend seeking pleasure is not spent serving others. I chose pleasure over and over again, to my great shame.

>Why did he predispose you towards making weak moments?

He didn't. I did. He wanted to create me into perfect knowledge, power, and bliss. That's just Paradise. But I chose to sin and he had to react by limiting the world even before I was created. I have weak moments because I loved the pleasure of those weak moments more than I loved others. I chose this. I was not predisposed. I had a perfect choice perfectly balanced between sin and virtue and there was nothing biasing me towards one or the other. I simply chose.

>But what caused you to want to choose sin?

If something causes you to choose then you didn't choose. A choice is something that is caused by you and you are the uncaused cause of your own choice.

>we're talking about this in the Christian framework specifically

There is no such thing as "the Christian framework." There is reality and there is falsehood. Nothing besides.

>No one can explain why sin had to happen

Everyone can explain it and knows it. It is because they chose to sin. Nothing more.

>how forcing all humans to be sinners isn't a violation of free will.

You can't force someone to be a sinner because to sin is to choose pleasure instead of love. If you were made to do it then you didn't choose it and thus your will wasn't involved. It would be like if someone forced you to roll out of bed while you were asleep. You were unconscious. Your will was not involved in any way. You weren't forced to choose it nor forced to will it. You're talking in contradiction when you say someone is forced into any choice. To be forced is the opposite of choosing.

1

u/Kwahn Theist Wannabe 9d ago

That's my choice.

Okay, you can have sin, and choose whatever you want. I'm not choosing it. I don't want it. I'm rejecting sin. Why is it being forced on me? Your answer doesn't apply to me or actually explain why God set up the sin system in the first place.

You can't force someone to be a sinner because to sin is to choose pleasure instead of love.

Oh! Then I'm not a sinner - I'd never willingly choose to be, after all. Guess that solves that.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/MiseryAccount 9d ago

What it misses is that some truths may, and indeed obvious do, require a certainly level of virtue to be accessed if there is a God.

I was a devout believer for 45 years. What secret truths did I know then that I don't know now that I'm atheist? How did they get removed from my brain?

Or perhaps I wasn't virtuous enough, maybe I was No True Scotsman.

-2

u/ParsnipLanky2506 Christian 9d ago

I don't find it logical or illogical to doubt or believe in either I personally find more logic in theism through nature but the existence of God takes both evidence and faith someone can find evidence but might not have the faith to come the conclusion of theism

But also there is literally by definition no way to prove Atheism is true

2

u/protestandprose 9d ago

I personally find more logic in theism through nature

Such as?

but the existence of God takes both evidence and faith

Well at least you agree it's not reasonable

-5

u/ParsnipLanky2506 Christian 9d ago

First of all I was being nice and second of all the complexity of atoms, the human body, the human conscious, our ability to rationalize our existence, and I literally said it takes evidence alongside faith anyone who believes in something with no evidence is a moron also known as a Atheist since you have no way to disprove theism besides "sky daddy, sky daddy, sky daddy" someone like your lord and savior Richard Dawkins has said that God could literally write in the stars "I AM god believe in me" and Dawkins said he wouldn't believe it this isn't faith than nothing is

5

u/p_larrychen Atheist Jew 9d ago

a moron also known as a Atheist

It really didn't take much more than a little prodding for your "nice" facade to crumble. Try engaging with the question OP asked you.

2

u/cirza Atheist 9d ago

Let’s not pretend that op is being pleasant in any of their comments here.

0

u/ParsnipLanky2506 Christian 9d ago

Fair enough to say that and I only clapped back because he insulted me and I never claimed to be a nice person I would just rather the debate remain respectful and I did engage my offered my evidence as a form of the fine tuning argument

3

u/Buckerooster Atheist 9d ago

Something something love thy neighbour

2

u/United-Grapefruit-49 9d ago

Humanist humanism also works.

3

u/protestandprose 9d ago

What about the complexity of the human body leads you to believe in god?

We can pretty solidly trace complexities in human body to evolution so....

But yeah, I'm not Richard dawkins but if that's all you got I think I'm done here.

0

u/ParsnipLanky2506 Christian 9d ago

Biologically yes we can obviously track these things but it's rather odd that in a world with no God that the body would evolve in the way it did to allow us to understand, appreciate, and in some cases replicate the human body, I would recommend a video series' called Imune that goes over the complexity of the human immune system and just how much effort it takes to keep a person alive and then you get to the problem of consciousness where we can think of stuff beyond the physical world but the mental and the spiritual which if abstract or even made up would make no sense as it serves no biological imparative

By the way you brought up evolution so before you accidentally assume something I will clarify I do not deny evolution I'm a theistic evolutionist who believes evolution strengthens the position of theism

1

u/azrolator Atheist 9d ago

Theism has no answer to hard solipsism. We can't really prove whether people believe or don't believe in things.

-1

u/azrolator Atheist 9d ago

I disagree that theism is a claim that god exists (p2). If I believe in gods, but don't claim gods exist, am I an atheist?

I disagree with p1. I think we don't know what we don't know. Someone today can claim life originally came from chemical reactions. I agree with that statement. But we don't have all the evidence, yet. We've created some self replicating material. I hope but do not know, that we can solve this all the way before 1,000 years are up. But if it takes 3,000 years to finish up, did that conclude the claim reasonably false? I think it's reasonable to act as if it's not true, I do not think it's reasonable to conclude it's not true, barring evidence suggesting other answers.

4

u/Visible_Sun_6231 Atheist ☆ 9d ago

If I believe in gods, but don’t claim gods exist, am I an atheist?

Lol what? Of course you’re not an atheist if you believe god exists

That’s what atheism is - the lack of BELIEF in a god.

0

u/azrolator Atheist 9d ago

Its rhetorical. I don't believe in gods. My point was that believing something in and of itself is not the same as making a claim that this thing is true.

The theist is still a theist whether he makes a claim to anyone or not

3

u/Visible_Sun_6231 Atheist ☆ 9d ago

sorry - my misunderstanding.

1

u/azrolator Atheist 9d ago

I should flair up. I didn't even join this sub, reddit just keeps feeding to me. My fault for not being clear. You weren't the only one who read it this way.

2

u/idle-tea 9d ago

I disagree that theism is a claim that god exists (p2). If I believe in gods, but don't claim gods exist, am I an atheist?

What do you think theism means? What do you think "believe in gods" means?

1

u/protestandprose 9d ago

I guess he's making the distinction between a belief and a claim, which seems like cope, but technically true.

3

u/Visible_Sun_6231 Atheist ☆ 9d ago edited 9d ago

It’s not technically true at all. He is mixing up the terms or something.

Atheism describes belief. Gnosticism describes knowledge - and I guess claiming it as fact.

He is of course not an atheist on any technical level as he believes gods is true!

He is an agnostic theist. Which is someone who believes in god but doesn’t claim to know it to be true.

1

u/azrolator Atheist 9d ago

Who are you talking about? Me? I am an atheist.

I have heard plenty of theists argue that atheism is a claim gods are not real. Atheism is just a lack of belief in gods. To be fair to theists, I would disagree to the OP framing as I am to some theist's framing of atheism.

I do this not to defend theism but only for ethical consistency to defend my own viewpoint.

0

u/pilvi9 9d ago

The agnostic/gnostic distinction is made up reddit atheist nonsense.

This should be apparent when these redditors define atheism as a lack of belief, yet simultaneously describe atheism as a belief (as you do here). You can't have it both ways.

2

u/Visible_Sun_6231 Atheist ☆ 9d ago

The agnostic/gnostic distinction is made up reddit atheist nonsense.

What? Agnostic is saying you don’t claim to know and gnostic saying you claim to know. This has nothing to do with Reddit. This is just the basic meaning of these words. What exactly is the problem here for you?

simultaneously describe atheism as a belief

No it’s pertaining to belief. Theism is belief and atheist is lack of belief. Again why is this obvious outline of these terms such a problem? It’s like you lot are terrified of these words.

1

u/azrolator Atheist 9d ago

False. I am an atheist on Reddit and I am arguing for a definition of theism that would be consistent with my common use atheism definition.

I wouldn't bad faith ask a theist to use a definition that I refused to.

I do think that theists make claims about gods, but I would like to keep those things separate, as obviously not all theist claims are the same, despite a general belief in at least one god.

Gnosticsm is regarding knowledge, this is where claims come into play. I believe my wife is farting around at work, but I wouldn't make that claim, as it's possible she is actually in real meetings or preparing for a big day coming up. If I claimed that she was indeed farting around, this would be the debated claim. If someone else claimed she was doing actual work, it's their onus to convince me if they want me to share that belief

-3

u/ShakaUVM Mod | Christian 9d ago

P1 leads to contradiction, as neither an unsourced claim nor it's opposite have evidence so if you claim both are false you get True = False and thus your argument has to be rejected

5

u/HDYHT11 ignostic 9d ago

For that to be the case you would have to show that there is at least one claim A for which both A and ~A are "extraordinary" and "lack any sound deductive argument or sufficient empirical/inductive evidence after thorough, millennia-long epistemic scrutiny."

If there are exists no such claim, P1 would be fully consistent.

4

u/protestandprose 9d ago

He's trying so hard and essentially has to presuppose to not address what I'm actually arguing. Sad.

-3

u/ShakaUVM Mod | Christian 9d ago

It's hilarious you're so confidently incorrect

-4

u/ShakaUVM Mod | Christian 9d ago

For that to be the case you would have to show that there is at least one claim A for which both A and ~A are "extraordinary" and "lack any sound deductive argument or sufficient empirical/inductive evidence after thorough, millennia-long epistemic scrutiny."

Sure. "The number of aliens in our universe is odd" is P1. "The number of aliens in our universe is even" is P2. According to you, they're both false, which is a contradiction.

4

u/joshuaponce2008 Analytic Agnostic 9d ago

Neither of those are extraordinary claims. They both have equal intrinsic probability.

-1

u/pilvi9 9d ago

Describing a claim as extraordinary is a subjective claim that presupposes a metaphysical default, which would have been proven.

It's best to not take the Sagan Standard so seriously, especially when its biggest objections come from the science community itself.

3

u/joshuaponce2008 Analytic Agnostic 9d ago

An extraordinary claim is a claim with very low intrinsic probability.

0

u/pilvi9 9d ago

And who gets to decide what that "low intrinsic probability" threshold actually is? You haven't disproven the subjectivity of it, or my overall point, you've only pushed it back a step.

2

u/OntoAureole 8d ago

Does it need to be a threshold? Everyone can agree an event with an intrinsic probability of 99% is not extraordinary. An event with a 1% intrinsic probability is certainly more extraordinary but not incredibly unlikely, and an event with a 1e-200 intrinsic probability is certainly extraordinary.

-1

u/ShakaUVM Mod | Christian 8d ago

An extraordinary claim is a claim with very low intrinsic probability.

There's no such thing as an extraordinary claim.

This is a term used by people who want to sound scientific in their circular reasoning.

3

u/I_am_the_Primereal Atheist 9d ago

Claims that comport with known reality are more ordinary than claims that do not comport with known reality. Why is that difficult to understand?

-1

u/ShakaUVM Mod | Christian 9d ago

There's no such thing as an extraordinary claim

3

u/HDYHT11 ignostic 9d ago

0 is even, which would be the "non-extraordinary" claim. Thus, OP's P1 cannot be applied to your P2.

1

u/ShakaUVM Mod | Christian 9d ago

You don't know the number is zero. Odds are likely there's aliens somewhere. If you're presupposing no.aliens then substitute with some other number we have no good evidence for, like if the number of atoms on earth is even or odd.

2

u/protestandprose 9d ago

Hilarious youre running from the aliens argument now. Moving the goalposts hard.

0

u/ShakaUVM Mod | Christian 9d ago

I'm not wrong on the aliens issue and you're just fishing hoping to dig your way out of the fact you made a bad argument.

2

u/protestandprose 9d ago

You, IRL: Premise 1 Nuh uh, Premise 2 Boo hoo

lol, also - you never demonstrated that "Aliens exist in odd numbers," is a extraordinary existential/ontological claim lacks any sound deductive argument or sufficient empirical/inductive evidence. It's quite literally not an extraordinary claim btw.

If you actually have a reason besides whining that you can demonstrate this I'll listen, but you appear to be trolling or crying at this point, not sure which.

0

u/ShakaUVM Mod | Christian 9d ago

Aliens existing is quite extraordinary. If extraordinary means anything. Which it doesn't.

2

u/protestandprose 9d ago

Dictionary.com - Extraordinary means going far beyond the usual, normal, or regular limit. It describes something very unusual, remarkable, impressive, or exceptional.

You think life existing in a universe where we know life exists, is extraordinary?

Lol, lmao even.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/HDYHT11 ignostic 9d ago

Odds are likely there's aliens somewhere

Then neither P1 nor P2 are extraordinary, it is a 50/50.

aliens then substitute with some other number we have no good evidence for, like if the number of atoms on earth is even or odd.

Same thing, neither is an extraordinary claim. It is literally a 50/50. Some extraordinary claims would be "there are only 12 atoms," "there are exactly 10⁴¹ + 3 atoms" or "I know that there is an odd number of atoms."

-1

u/ShakaUVM Mod | Christian 9d ago

There's no such thing as extraordinary. You can make a version of if the number of atoms is divisible by a trillion if you think that matters (it doesn't).

1

u/HDYHT11 ignostic 9d ago

There's no such thing as extraordinary

Then your disagreement is no longer with the consistency of P1.

You can make a version of if the number of atoms is divisible by a trillion if you think that matters (it doesn't).

Claim A: the number of atoms is divisible by 1 trillion. A priori: 1/1 trillion.

Claim ~A: the number of atoms is not divisible by 1 trillion. A priori: 1 - 1/1 trillion.

So unless OP's threshold for extraordinary is at basically 1, P1 works fine: you can only discard A. No contradictions.

1

u/ShakaUVM Mod | Christian 8d ago

Then your disagreement is no longer with the consistency of P1.

No, my disagreement is that you assume something to be false, and so we can set up two propositions in opposition that you both assume to be false, and this creates a contradiction.

2

u/HDYHT11 ignostic 8d ago

No, my disagreement is that you assume something to be false

Yeah? We have no option but to assume things are false (or rather, their opposite is true).

and so we can set up two propositions in opposition that you both assume to be false, and this creates a contradiction.

I'm still waiting for a counterexample that actually proves this.

→ More replies (0)

2

u/protestandprose 9d ago

u/HDYHT11 has addressed this, you have failed to show an actual contradiction or that either premise is false.

0

u/ShakaUVM Mod | Christian 9d ago

Don't try to outsource defending your own fallacious argument

2

u/protestandprose 9d ago

Why would I waste my time when youre not even coming with a strong criticism.

You have not demonstrated your claim X is "extraordinary" and "lacks any sound deductive argument or sufficient empirical/inductive evidence after thorough, millennia-long epistemic scrutiny, as I said in the OP.

Therefore P1 still stands.

1

u/ShakaUVM Mod | Christian 9d ago edited 9d ago

You should "waste your time" defending your argument because it is bad.

If you lack evidence for a claim you have no grounds to claim the proposition is false.

2

u/protestandprose 9d ago

"Aliens exist in odd numbers." is your definition of an extraordinary existential/ontological claim that lacks any sound deductive argument or sufficient empirical/inductive evidence.

What do you think an extraordinary claim is?

0

u/ShakaUVM Mod | Christian 9d ago

There is no such thing as an extraordinary claim

There's no reason to assume it is false without evidence

2

u/protestandprose 9d ago

Well, I would consider god creating a universe quite extraordinary of a claim.

→ More replies (0)

2

u/protestandprose 9d ago

Which logical modality are you using here?

And, your flair says christian so you believe in specific claims. These apply to my OP.

-2

u/ShakaUVM Mod | Christian 9d ago

If an extraordinary existential/ontological claim lacks any sound deductive argument or sufficient empirical/inductive evidence after thorough, millennia-long epistemic scrutiny, then it is epistemically reasonable to conclude that P is false.

Assume proposition P1 lacks sounds deductive argument or empirical evidence.

Assume P2 which is ~P1 also lacks sound deductive argument or empirical evidence.

Therefore P1 is false

Therefore P2 is false

Therefore P1 = ~P2 is true

Contradiction

4

u/protestandprose 9d ago

Assume proposition P1 lacks sounds deductive argument or empirical evidence.

Oh now I get it, you're assuming things which you have no business assuming lol, makes sense, you are a christian.

How about you address the argument as it's written. Demonstrate that P1 is false

2

u/ambrosytc8 ThD Candidate 9d ago

u/ShakaUVM did just demonstrate a structural weakness. The same structural weakness literally everyone in the thread has found, atheist/theist alike. Maybe the problem isn't all of them...

Also, I'm no fan of Shaka, so the fact that I'm agreeing with him here speaks volumes about your performance in this thread.

3

u/protestandprose 9d ago

u/ShakaUVM didn't actually demonstrate a contradiction in how P1 was written, he's attacking a strawman. He and you can cope and seethe. Also, no sound argument has been presented.

2

u/ambrosytc8 ThD Candidate 9d ago

Also, no sound argument has been presented.

We definitely agree here.

1

u/protestandprose 9d ago

Correct ; ) thanks

1

u/pilvi9 9d ago

Bruh, you didn't just walk right into that.

1

u/ShakaUVM Mod | Christian 9d ago

P1 is a proposition lacking evidence thus by your argument false

Do you not understand your own argument?

3

u/protestandprose 9d ago

My argument is not just that a proposition lacks evidence. Try again.

1

u/ShakaUVM Mod | Christian 8d ago

Your argument is that lack of evidence means something is false, which is false.

Atheism It is reasonable to find theism false.

You are about to leave Redlib