Presumptions & InferencesSince I’ll be revisiting the following four concepts in various epistemological arguments in the future, especially those pertaining to alleged miracles, I thought it would be good to introduce them now.
Consistent With The Hypothesis OfThough occasional use is inevitable, I generally try to avoid the words proof and disproof, especially in discussions of epistemology and empiricism. I don’t know how many of you have met him yet, but Peter Hurford is a new commenter around here with a blog of his own, and from what I’ve seen so far, I would highly recommend dialoging with him on behalf of his aptitude and courtesy. He also asks good questions, the kind that get you thinking, as opposed to, say, the kind that piss you off. Recently on another blog, Peter made a remark that I felt compelled to reply to, and I wanted to repost a slight modification of that short reply here, just to see what people here might think of it.
3 Questions From LeahI recently discovered a blog called Unequally Yoked, maintained by Leah, a Yale student. In her post Your Faith Is Vain; Ye Are Yet In Your Sins, Leah invites believers to answer a few questions regarding their faith. Here are my initial offerings:
1. What earthly evidence could cause you to reject your faith (if any)?
I was just thinking about this [yet again] the other day, and while I'm hesitant to say any of the following would cause me to reject my faith, each would certainly cause me to have stronger doubts:
1.1 If recorded history could be reliably proven to extend back hundreds of thousands of years, as opposed to 6,000;
1.2 If scientists could prove that the universe always existed;
1.3 If there were no such thing as entropy;
1.4 If we had an absence of spiritual accounts instead of a consistent abundance of them spanning across multiple cultures in all times;
1.5 If the Jewish race had been exterminated or otherwise died off;
1.6 If humans lived to be significantly older than 120 years without the aid of science.
2. Have you researched these possible disproofs yourself/read the work of scholars in the field?
You bet.
3. Does your faith make any empirical predictions about the earthly world? What are they?
I believe the Bible makes quite a few empirical statements about the future of the earthly world. Here are a few off the top of my head:
3.1 The writer of Hebrews states that the cosmos will "wear out like a garment." That's certainly an empirical statement, in fact, one that seems empirically verified [hence my 3 above];
3.2 The Bible states that the Jewish race would be extant up until the final hour;
3.3 In Revelation, John of Patmos describes a state of affairs where nobody will be able to buy or sell goods without the "mark of the beast."
False Argument #33: Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary EvidenceIs there anybody out there who hasn't heard some debater quip, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence?"
I'm betting not.
How many people actually stop and consider the rhetorical device they're using?
I'm betting not that many, else we'd hear it much less!
At any rate, I've got a very simple and straight-forward example of an instance where the claim, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" can easily be shown false.
A Trip To The Hypothetical Fish Farm: Proof of God’s Existence, Ijim at RvA has blessed us with a new series titled Proof of God’s Existence, and I intend to respond to each installment of his series, which seems designed to corral the believer’s claims into the confines of what jim calls “common sense inquiry.” I suppose we’ll see just what that means as time unfolds.
He begins with words likely all too familiar to veterans in this game, centered around the question of what constitutes adequate proof of God’s existence:
It’s a common question on the tip of many a Christian’s tongue when confronted with skepticism regarding their theistic worldview, yes? Responses from skeptics generally revolve around some kind of convincing display(s) of ‘miraculous’ interventions, or other manifestations i.e. events beyond the generally accepted, deterministic norms of the most current naturalistic paradigm, and supported by scientific methodology such as observation, controlled testing, repeatability and the like. –jim, reason vs. apologetics
Public Challenge To Atheists: Present Your Best Evidence For God"Now wait just a minute, cl – atheists don't believe in God(s), so how could you expect them to present the evidence? Isn't that the believer's job?!?!"
If we're talking burden of proof, yes, it does fall on the positive claimant. The whole point of this challenge is to demonstrate the absurdity of the atheist's request in this regard. Many atheists and unbelieving skeptics are fond of hiding behind what I call "the evidence trope," which comes in several forms but always rests upon the assertion of an evidentiary vacuum as its main supporting claim. "There's simply no evidence for God," so goes the trope, while the peculiarity of the ability to even assert such apparently goes unquestioned.
For every reason Kayla Knight's case cannot constitute acceptable proof of a miracle, humans cannot acceptably prove God(s). In order to demonstrate this point, I invite anybody (not just atheists) to present any hypothetical data point they wish. For the sake of argument, I'll grant all data points as true, no questions asked. That's a pretty generous advantage, if you ask me.
So, especially if you are an atheist, feel free to share the evidence that would convince you that any particular God exists – and I'll do my best to show exactly why it shouldn't.
MiracleQuest Continues: Another Response To jimWhile doing some "fall cleaning" around here, I found today's post in the "drafts" folder.
Although the original exchange occurred over a month ago, and I'm unsure why I'm responding to a guy who banned me from his blog for an unspecified "breach of honesty" while he apparently has no problem calling me names like "mealy-mouthed prick" all over the internet, but dedication to the arguments must overlook the uglier sides of debate. Granted, I know what one or two of you might be thinking: "Ah cl, we hate it when you rehash these 'he said this, I said that' arguments. Why burden us with your own online social difficulties??" It's not that. Rather, I feel there are some cogent rebuttals here on my part, and I thought it would be a waste to just trash the post.
So, let's get to it. Comments welcomed.
False Arguments #31 & #32: My Response To A Ghost In The Machine, IVIn light of recent discussion at SI’s, now seems like the perfect time to continue addressing Ebonmuse’s oft-trumpeted essay A Ghost In The Machine (AGITM) along with similar claims from SI’s. Before continuing, it might be helpful to briefly summarize my responses thus far.
Read More →
On Evidence & Proof, Pt. III: Questions From Ubiquitous CheI have an open mind (I think) so I am willing to be convinced. I’ll even say that if you show me good evidence, I’ll bow down and worship your god, whoever he may be. But I want evidence. -SI, The Existence of God
MiracleQuest is alive and well again, this time at SI's. So far, it's went more or less exactly as every other discussion of this nature I've seen: hundreds of comments, plenty of insults and not much to mention in terms of reasonable resolution.
SI asks believers to present their "good evidence" for God. Sounds innocent enough, right?
On Evidence & Proof, Pt. IIf you've spent more than a passing moment listening to contemporary debates between atheists and believers, you're likely to have heard the claim that there is no evidence for God. I've heard this claim countless times, and I believe that many, most or possibly all who make the claim conflate the two related but distinct concepts of evidence and proof.
I also believe that attempts to resolve the matter are futile without firmly cementing the goalposts before beginning. Whether the responses are single or list, I've not once had an atheist accept anything I've ever suggested or heard suggested as evidence for God, and IMO there's nothing more annoying than, "Here is good evidence," followed by some variant of, "No it's not you douche," only to be repeated ad nauseum.