The Theist Position

[LateCatholic]

If I claimed Abraham Lincoln never existed or the Moon Landing never happened, I would be expected to justify my LACK of belief.

You would be expected to justify your disbelief ONLY in the context of prior evidence being provided. We are all familiar with evidence for Abraham Lincoln or the moon landings. But if I claimed that the manned landings on planet Mercury never happened, I would not be REQUIRED to prove the negative. I win by default until you provide evidence or reasoning to dispute, if you even cared.

 

[LateCatholic]

There is also such a thing as presuppositional atheism.

There is no such thing as “presuppositional atheism”. What I think you are trying to say is that the theistic concept of “God” (a single supreme, all-powerful, timeless entity that interacts with humans) is mainstream enough that there is “de facto” evidence. As such, you expect atheists to refute this without being clear as to what the ‘evidence’ is.

This usually proceeds where ‘existence itself’ is the evidence. This has been refuted but it is a worthwhile place to start. For example, the cosmological argument and the five ways progress from here.

 

[catholicray]

You are not making any progress with the argument. Consider the possible worlds the above statement outlines:

I understand the possible conclusions but I would say you’re reading the possible conclusions back into the initial position. I really don’t have to defend the 1st Premise unless you offer evidence that confirms one of the possible conclusions you have shared. Mind you I can still logically conclude 2a and 1a from any position.

 

[niceatheist]

God not likely

 

[catholicray]

God not likely

This is merely your position going into Pascal’s Wager (inversed). You’re approaching the wager with 99.9 % odds that God does not exist and 0.1% odds that he does. The wager is applicable to every position though. I’ll explain this if you like.

 

[LateCatholic]

My 1st Premise is I do not believe in the nonexistence of God

Right, I get that. My point is that all the above is giving us is that you are not sure you are an atheist.
You have not moved the discussion forward. How is the above supposed to convince others that God exists? It seems weaker than just flat out saying “I’m a theist”.

 

[catholicray]

Right, I get that. My point is that all the above is giving us is that you are not sure you are an atheist.
You have not moved the discussion forward. How is the above supposed to convince others that God exists? It seems weaker than just flat out saying “I’m a theist”.

The above is not supposed to convince anyone of anything. It’s the 1st Premise. I’ve just wanted to clarify that the 1st premise is viable before moving to the 2nd Premise. To answer your question the argument as a whole is sound and shows that no matter where you start in your first premise as concerns God you will necessarily logically or reasonably conclude that God exists.

The only thing I have to say about the first premise is that it is viable and starts my argument from a position that does not shoulder the burden of proof.

 

[JosephJohn]

My friend I was a skeptic too- I’m not a tremendous writer and my proof above admittedly a bit hard to follow writing wise but it convinced me to come back to the faith. Please talk to a priest or at least engage debate with theists. If you aren’t sure you can defeat our position you should offer it a chance to convince you.

 

[LateCatholic]

Pascal’s Wager

I don’t want to get into a tangent, but the premise of Pascal’s Wager is void. “Belief” in anything is not free. It takes energy. Once you acknowledge that, the wager is invalid - not wrong, but invalid.

For example, what if I told you there is a boogieman that will kill you in 10 years unless you hide under the covers and yell “I do not believe in monsters” before you fall asleep tonight. Do you do it? Why not? It costs you ‘nothing’. But in actuality, it does - whether that be your own integrity or the energy and time to yell. It is NOT “free”.

You ever get those emails or text messages saying you have to forward this to ten people or you will be cursed? That IS Pascal’s Wager. It is not different. But you don’t send the emails, right? Of course not.

 

[LateCatholic]

The above is not supposed to convince anyone of anything. It’s the 1st Premise. I’ve just wanted to clarify that the 1st premise is viable before moving to the 2nd Premise.

Can you provide the full argument again? I just joined this thread and I tried to find your post where you say more, but I can’t. Your original post seems to say that “unbelief” is not a reasonable position, but it doesn’t give any reason why. To even have a discussion, both sides must agree that each position is ‘reasonable’. “Reasonable” meaning that the position is logically consistent and is defined, not necessarily that it is correct or even valid.

 

[catholicray]

I understand what you’re saying but the fact is we go into an inverse Pascal’s Wager regardless. When you come out on the other side you should believe God hypothetically exists. After the wager it is time to look at the world you live in. Turns out there is a claim that a God exists and not believing in him results in eternal punishment and it’s overwhelmingly suggested that this is true. Now your hypothetical God just got a lot more real.

 

[JosephJohn]

I think anyone would agree it costs something to believe. You have to believe at the expense of not believing in its opposite. The problem is that you can’t help but pick a side. Either there are forces which are external to the physical universe which cause things to happen or their aren’t. There is truth or there isn’t. There are souls or there arent. There is love or there isn’t. If you think you can convince yourself you can avoid picking a side, I think you are kidding yourself… and I think the fact that we can’t help but engage with a question which should have no evolutionary utility confirms the question is interesting … I digress. If we are right atheists are blinding themselves to the only fullfillmwnt in life, if atheists are wrong… so what. Even if we were wrong- and we certainly aren’t - this is the better bet if you have to make a bet. Yeah if you could be truly agnostic and not align your actions and philosophy with one side it would let you wait for more evidence before you decide- but I just don’t believe that you can. You gotta put your heart somewhere- put it here.

For what it’s worth I think Pascal’s wager is one of the weaker arguments because it mostly convinced people we believe out of fearful uncertainty not strong loving certainty. It’s better than nothing to help you in a moment of doubt but I’m glad to have other reason.

 

[catholicray]

Can you provide the full argument again?

Sure but this takes time so give me a bit. Mind you my original post was just to say that the whole concept that a theist shoulders the burden of proof is false depending on where you start.

 

[LateCatholic]

Turns out there is a claim that a God exists and not believing in him results in eternal punishment and it’s overwhelmingly suggested that this is true.

Why is this any different from an email I get telling me to forward to ten people or I will be cursed?

There is no difference.

not believing in him results in eternal punishment and it’s overwhelmingly suggested that this is true.

But 80% of the world’s population (actually much greater considering the multiple Christian denominations) would dispute that assertion. “Overwhelmingly” is not a fair word to use. Even so, why does it matter how many people believe it? If 2 billion people forward the curse email as instructed, why does that make it more legitimate?

 

[LateCatholic]

my original post was just to say that the whole concept that a theist shoulders the burden of proof is false depending on where you start.

One of my points (not sure if you read it) was that such a position seems counter-productive. Even if you don;t think you need to justify your faith (which is fine), telling people you won’t, can’t, or have no interest in doing so seems to weaken the position, not strengthen it.

 

[JosephJohn]

I think generally the philosophical principal is the the burden of proof is upon the claim maker. The default position is “I don’t know” on any question. If you insist on not being a nihilist then that turns into “I don’t know but there is an answer to be had”. So we do have to prove that there is a God philosophically speaking (some people are convinced just by love or revelation God bless them and protect them) and true atheists have to prove that their isn’t one. That’s fair and consistent and it’s an argument we will win every single time.

 

[LateCatholic]

Pascal’s wager is one of the weaker arguments

We can agree on that. If you find yourself in front of St Peter at the golden gate and he asks you why he should let you in and you start off with “Well, there was this guy named Pascal…”

I think you are in trouble.

 

[JosephJohn]

My post was typotastic I hope you managed to get my point- i fixed a bunch of typos

 

[catholicray]

The Theist Position
Someone should let me have a diploma after this lol.

Imagine you exist in an empty room with a closed box in the middle of it. What’s in the box? Can God or God/s be in that box?
Premise 1
I do not believe in the nonexistence of God
Definition of God: Omnipotence, Omniscience, Omnibenevolence, etc…
Premise 2
I do not believe in the nonexistence of Paradoxes (This is in conjunction with taking the absolute stance on the meaning of each part of the definition)
Utilizes the principle of explosion
Odds going into the Wager
99.9% God exists
0.1% God does not exist
Hybrid Pascal’s Wager
Conclusion
I believe God exists.

There is literally a book to unpack here
This time around I want you to understand that the burden of proof is equal up until the conclusion is made.

If we start with the premise from each position we see they are equal:
Atheist Position
I do not believe God exists
I do not believe paradoxes exist
Utilizes the law of non-contradiction
Odds going into the wager
99.9% God does not exist
0.1% God exists
Hybrid Pascal’s Wager
Conclusion
I believe God exists

This will certainly not be what an Atheist says but this is the strongest position an atheist has and the conclusion is reasonable. Imagine that!

Neutral Position
I lack belief concerning God
I lack belief concerning Contradictions
Neutral
Odds going into the wager
50% God Exists
50% God Does not Exist
Hybrid Pascal’s Wager
I believe God exists

Anywhere you start leads to the same place

 

[JosephJohn]

I don’t understand mate, I thought we were talking only about the philosophical existence of A god. This is a logical question. Your right that there are questions about who if anyone to listen to about him. But those are different questions and I was under the impression we were only defending the theist position not the Christian subset of that position here. You’ve essentially laid out the position of like an agnostic or a subscriber to non religious theism. We can engage with that too but it has little bearing on this question I think.