Depends upon if you’re psychotic or not. The problem is you can unplug “God” and insert “Santa Claus” and get the same effect. Would a sane person require proof that Santa doesn’t exist? I should think the exact opposite would be true- in the absence of some pretty compelling evidence we would assume Santa doesn’t exist. That’s how I veiw God. It seems a little silly and frivolous to me that you could keep a straight face and state that such an arguement is necessary.
Don’t get me wrong- I have no problem with those who believe in God. It’s just that from a logical point of view, the only arguement religious people tend to make is something like “well, if there’s no God then how come so many people think there is?” An appeal to popularity is hardly compelling evidence. While I’m trotting out tired cliches, “people used to think the Earth was flat, too” but that didn’t make it so.
So I guess if they “fail,” it’s inasmuch as you should never argue with idiots- they drag you down to their level and beat you with experience. To even concede that God needs to be disproven is to accept a fallacious premise which puts the cart before the horse.
But none of this addresses the real point of the thread. I’m curious just how Thirst is coming in his quest for religious answers.
BTW, the quote is slightly out of context. In context, I’m not really referring so much to the possiblity of God so much as a specific JC concept.
I’ll readily concede that there could be a God. Just like there could be a little green martian floating two inches behind my head that’s invisible to everyone but me, and that won’t show up in a mirror or in photos. Impossible to disprove, yet there’s no evidence to show it’s anything but a product of a fertile imagination. Just like the Bible, Koran, etc etc.
Then we’re in agreement about the limitations of rationality, then. Yes, requiring or expecting rational proof for the existence of God is irrelevant for just this reason. All rationality can provide is coherence.
You're welcome to do so, but it's a huge leap. Speaking in terms of sanity, what you would expect to find turns out to be false- the vast majority of sane people [i]do [/i] believe in God (especially if you look throughout history), even at the same time as they would demand compelling evidence for the existence of Santa. The situations [i]are not [/i] the same at all- unless what you mean to say is that all theists are psychotic just by virtue of being theists, in which case you've really butchered the word.
Actually, an appeal to popularity is very good evidence. It’s just a very poor argument. You need to distinguish between the two. There’s all sorts of things I believe simply because as far as I know, most people believe them (or, most ‘experts’ believe them, if you prefer), because I haven’t had the time to research the matters myself. Also, you’ll get many appeals to popularity if you keep on trotting out that Santa Clause reference- the fact that almost everyone has believed in God, and almost no adult believes in Santa Clause is something YOU have to explain, if you want to say they are at all similar. The only similarity you’ve made clear so far is that apparently you believe in neither of them.
"Needs"? No, I was just asking if you [i]could[/i]. A simple 'no' would have sufficed. You're the one that has said that repudiations of the possibility of God are based on rigorous logic- if anyone has introduced atheism's need for conclusive argument, it hasn't been me. All I've said is that rational argument cannot prove OR disprove the existence of God, because it isn't suffecient. It's an evidentiary matter.
No, it’s not evidence at all. It’s mere opinion. Popularity has absolutely zero bearing on whether it’s truel. To suggest otherwise is absurd. And in what way is God any different than Santa? I think the %-age of people who believe in both are probably about the same, although those with faith in the latter tend to be a bit younger.
I think we greatly disagree in the utility of reason. I tend to think things that have no rational basis probably don’t exist, or at least aren’t much worth getting worked up about (note- this is a generalization not applicable to all situations). You seem to start with a conclusion you desperately want to be true and reject reason out of hand if it doesn’t support your preconceived notion. Or did you adopt Christianity because of the overwhelming logical necessity of doing so?
You seem to be more in “I gotta win an arguement” mode, and not particularly interested in discussion. That’s okay- that thinking is epidemic here, and I’m often guilty of it myself. But at the end of the day, I don’t think you or anyone else has ever provided a logical case for the JC God that holds water. That’s all I’m saying- there’s no burden of proof on someone doubting a fantastic claim; that’s ass backwards. JMOHO.
What's so special about popularity, that makes it inadmissable as evidence? Everything else in the universe is considerable, why is this the magic exception? We've had this conversation before- if I'm considering whether or not black holes exist, are you saying the fact that nearly all astromomers believe in them is something I should [i]not[/i] take into consideration? [i]That[/i] certainly seems absurd.
Now, if I'm making a case to convince the skeptic that God exists, I'm not going to include "most people believe in God" as part of my argument. Why? Well for one, they probably already know that, so I'm not bringing anything new to the table. For another, they are right in pointing out that the masses could be wrong. For a third, it would be a logical fallacy to try to build a deductive argument from popularity. However, if I am looking at a matter, and trying to decide what I should believe myself, of course the popularity of each belief plays. That most people believe in God is evidence. That most philosophers [i]don't[/i] is counter-evidence. Of course, neither is conclusive.
Maybe we don’t disagree about that. What do you mean by ‘rational basis’?
Where have I [i]rejected[/i] reason? I asked you first thing if there was some rational argument for why I ought not believe in God, and you instantly shied away and offered the usual excuses for why there is no such thing. Simply show me where reason doesn't support my 'preconcieved notion'.
I don’t disagree with you, if by logical case you mean an analytical argument. My point isn’t that there is such thing, it’s that it’s silly to expect that there would be, and even sillier to pretend that things for which successfully analytical arguments exist are the only things you should believe in, or the only things you do believe in.
The problem is you can unplug “God” and insert “Santa Claus” and get the same effect. Would a sane person require proof that Santa doesn’t exist? I should think the exact opposite would be true- in the absence of some pretty compelling evidence we would assume Santa doesn’t exist. That’s how I veiw God. It seems a little silly and frivolous to me that you could keep a straight face and state that such an arguement is necessary.
To even concede that God needs to be disproven is to accept a fallacious premise which puts the cart before the horse.