Internet atheist Matt Dillahunty made this claim in our recent debate. Regrettably, it looks doubtful that Dillahunty and I will debate again.
The argument boils down to this: if God exists, He would make atheists believe in Him. By this logic, atheists could make God exist by agreeing to believe in Him, and they could make Him go into and out of existence on alternate days if they believed and disbelieved in unison. Their argument is that it is difficult to prove a negative. Ordinarily, both sides in a debate have an obligation to present evidence and logic to support their views. As I noted earlier, if evidence for God is lacking, the more logical conclusion to draw would be agnosticism.
After all, it is possible that God exists even if evidence for God were nowhere to be found. In this case, we should suspend belief, which would amount to mere un belief, but, as we have seen, that is different from dis belief i. Why think we are obligated to disbelieve? Some Christian philosophers like Alvin Plantinga and Nicholas Wolterstorff have argued that we commonly believe many things without evidence or arguments—for example, that other minds exist or that the universe is older than fifteen minutes.
Now, we could claim that belief in other minds or a universe older than fifteen minutes is just part of our commonsense, everyday experience and thus is itself evidence. So such basic experiences serve as evidence, even if this evidence has not been produced through rock-solid formal arguments. But if these Reformed epistemologists are correct, then we can speak of a warranted belief in God without argument or evidence. Fifth, to claim God and Santa Claus are on the same level is a flawed comparison.
We have strong evidence that Santa Claus does not exist. We know where Christmas gifts come from. We know that humans—let alone, elves—do not live at the North Pole. We can be pretty confident that a human Santa, if he existed, would be mortal rather than ageless and undying. This is evidence against Santa. The evidence for God is on a different level altogether. In light of these points, we should bring in another important distinction.
Notice that the militant agnostic is also making a knowledge claim. While this brand of agnostic may not know God exists, why insist that no one else can know? What if God reveals himself in a powerful, though private, way to someone—say, at a burning bush or in a vision in her bedroom?
What is more, the biblical faith—unlike other traditional religions—is checkable; it opens itself up to public scrutiny. If, for example, Christ has not been raised from the dead, the Christian faith would be false, Paul argues in 1 Corinthians Indeed, the Scriptures routinely emphasize the role of eyewitnesses, the importance of public signs and wonders to prompt belief Jn.
While we can have rational reasons for belief in God, let us not forget ample practical or existential reasons for considering God. That is, the fulfillment of our deepest human longings is found in God. This is a theistic support the skeptic frequently overlooks. Our longing for identity, security, and significance, our desire for immortality and hope beyond the grave, our seeking forgiveness of our guilt and the removal of shame, or our longing for cosmic justice—all of these yearnings are fulfilled by God in Christ, who has placed eternity in our hearts Ecc.
If we are made for a filial relationship with God, why should such longings be discounted? What is wrong with significance and security or overcoming the fear of death? Where then does this leave the ordinary agnostic? Here we must make further distinctions. You have to do more than say the arguments for God do not work to be an atheist.
You have to show why God cannot exist. You see, the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. The person who claims to be an atheist but simply lacks belief in God is blurring the historic distinction between agnostic and atheist.
Fourth, distinguish between the two types of agnostics - ordinary and ornery. You have seen the bumper sticker: "Militant agnostic: I don't know and you can't know either. He is not simply confessing, "I just don't know if God exists" and perhaps he would like to know. This is the ordinary agnostic position. No, he is taking the ornery agnostic position.
He is confidently claiming to know something after all - that no one can know if God exists. But how can you say that no one else can truly know that God exists? That just sounds presumptuous to me. But how can he support the claim to know this? Like that atheist, the militant agnostic must justify his claim as well.
Fifth, distinguish between "proof" and "good reasons. To many, however, this suggests percent, absolute, mathematical certainty - with absolutely no wiggle room for other explanations or alternatives. I have met plenty of people who claim that, even if an alternative to a "God-answer" is logically possible, then they do not have to take God seriously. Just because something is possible does not mean it is even remotely plausible.
I have talked to skeptics, agnostics, and atheists who seem willing to risk everything based on the remotest logical possibilities - a very thin thread to hang everything on. It is logically possible that the universe is just an illusion too, but so utterly counterintuitive and implausible.
Clearly, plenty of alternative possibilities need not detain us from taking seriously more substantive explanations.
Here is the point: We do not need percent certainty to truly know. After all, we cannot show with percent certainty that our knowledge must have percent certainty. We believe lots of things with confidence even though we do not have absolute certainty. In fact, if most people followed the " percent rule" for knowledge, we would know precious little.
But no one really believes that. Now, if our only options were either percent certainty or skepticism, then we would not be able to differentiate between views that are highly plausible, on the one hand, and completely ridiculous, on the other. They would both fall short of the percent certainty standard and so both should be readily dismissed. But that is clearly silly.
We know the difference. And what about those who seem to know with percent certainty that we cannot know with percent certainty. Interestingly, skeptics about knowledge typically seem quite convinced - absolutely convinced - that we cannot know. And here's why: to know that a X does not exist would require a perfect knowledge of all things omniscience.
To attain this knowledge would require simultaneous access to all parts of the world and beyond omnipresence. Therefore, to be certain of the claim that X does not exist one would have to possess abilities that are non-existent. Obviously, mankind's limited nature precludes these special abilities. The claim that X does not exist is therefore unjustifiable.
As logician Mortimer Adler has pointed out, the attempt to prove a universal negative is a self- defeating proposition. These claims are "worldwide existential negatives. From X, which is the assertion, is not yet disproved. Therefore, X. This is a Fallacy. X is unproven and remains unproven. Has anyone ever proven otherwise? We don't see them because they blend in. Can you prove otherwise? No one has ever proved, to my knowledge, that Santa Claus does not exist.
And if one were to fly to the North Pole and say: Well, look, there's no toy factory there. A believer could argue: Well, Santa Claus knew you were coming and moved his operations to the South Pole. So you fly down to the South Pole. No Santa Claus factory, toy factory there. So the believer would say: Oh, he moved it back up to the North Pole.
So you simply cannot prove general claims that are negative claims -- one cannot prove that ghosts do not exist; one cannot prove that leprechauns too do not exist. One simply cannot prove a negative and general claim. For instance, "there are no big green Martians" means "there are no big green Martians in this or any universe," and unlike your bathtub, it is not possible to look in every corner of every universe, thus we cannot completely test this proposition--we can just look around within the limits of our ability and our desire to expend time and resources on looking, and prove that, where we have looked so far, and within the limits of our knowing anything at all, there are no big green Martians.
In such a case we have proved a negative, just not the negative of the sweeping proposition in question. It is possible to prove rather specific negative claims that are made with rather well defined limits. If the area to be searched is well defined and of a reasonable size that permits searching then a negative claim might be capable of being proven.
For example, if one claims that there is no apple in the top desk drawer of a desk then all one needs to do is to open the top desk drawer indicated in the claim and examine it for its contents. Finding no apple therein would provide sufficient evidence under ordinary circumstances to verify or confirm the negative claim that there is no apple in the top desk drawer. You can prove a specific negative claim by providing contradictory evidence. An example of a proof of a rather specific negative claim by contradictory evidence would be if someone were to claim that the one and only watch that you own is in the top drawer of the desk.
You make the negative claim that it is not in the drawer and you see it clearly on your wrist. There is no need to look in the drawer. You can also prove specific negative claims when they involve known impossibilities. For example is someone were to claim that the one and only moon that normally orbits the planet earth was in the top desk drawer. You claim that the moon is not in the desk drawer.
There would be no need to look inside because the mass of the moon would not fit inside such a space and were its mass to be condensed its mass would be far greater than the desk could support were the desk made of ordinary earth substances. You can also prove specific negative claims that can be rephrased as a positive claim. If someone claims that the lights are not on in room that claim can be rephrased as claiming that the lights are off in room The claim that you can not prove a negative claim is itself a negative claim and would be a self defeating statement or a retortion were it not generally understood to be a limited claim.
What is usually meant by the assertion that "One can not prove a negative claim" is that it is not logical to insist on proof of claims or statements of the sort: " There is no such thing as X that exists anywhere at all and at any time at all.
Negative claims in the context of religion are very commonly of this form:. These claims are asserted by those holding belief in the existence of such phenomena. They do not usually assert such criticisms against those who claim that there are no phenomena such as those not believed in by the defenders of the existence of a deity or miracles.
For example believers in deity or miracles do not criticize those who claim that there are no tooth fairies or that there are no leprechauns. The theists appears to think that the critic of theism is claiming that there are no deities and that such a claim can be proven or has been proven.
0コメント