The GOD debate

Thanks, Con, for instigating. Note that I myself am an atheist -- I agree with Con's conclusions, but for different reasons. His argument is seriously flawed on several counts. 1. Con is guilty of an argument from ignorance Con's asserts that because we can't prove or disprove the existence of God, we must assume that he does not exist. Clearly, this statement is self contradictory. If we can't prove or disprove the existence of God, we are left with agnosticism, not atheism. Con himself admits in the comments that "just because one may be ignorant to something does not suppose it's existence or nonexistence." 2. Logical positivism is inherently flawed Logical positivism is the thesis that propositions can only have meaning and belief can only be justified if there is some way to empirically verify them. However, this notion is logically incoherent: such a proposition fails its own litmus test. There is no way to prove empirically that empiricism is a sound epistemological stance! Any attempt to do so would have to be self-referential. Moreover, such radical skepticism goes completely against our everyday intuitions. It's impossible to scientifically prove the existence of other minds. David Chalmers famously pointed out that other people may be "philosophical zombies" with absent qualia. There is no way to empirically verify the existence of history, the existence of an external world, or the reliability of one's memory without arguing in a circle. 3. Belief in God could be considered properly basic There are three basic approaches to tackling the problem of radical skepticism: coherentism, infinitism, and foundationalism.[1] I'll be defending foundationalism, which holds that in order for knowledge to be possible, our inferences must ultimately rest on certain basic beliefs that cannot themselves be proven, but are accepted as self-evident. Foundational beliefs require warrant, which separates knowledge from mere true belief. For example, on a multiple choice test, I may guess from several options that Sacramento is the capitol of California. I may also believe that my answer is true, but such belief does not have proper warrant inasmuch as guessing is not a sound epistemic means of attaining knowledge. Reformed epistemology is an externalist form of reliabilism that holds beliefs have warrant just in case they are produced by properly functioning cognitive faculties.[2] We know that on naturalism, unguided evolution shaped our brains *not* for the purpose of producing true beliefs, but as a mere tool to aid survival and reproduction. By contrast, on theism there is good reason to think that our minds *were* designed to produce sound understanding. Moreover, the most people take the existence of God as self-evident. Thus, *if* Christianity is true, it probably has warrant even in absence of a good argument or conclusive evidence. Note that this isn't an argument for the existence of God, but a defense of the inherent rationality and plausibility of Christian belief. Conclusion: Con contradicted himself right off the bat. Moreover, his epistemological view lacks internal consistency and leads to absurd conclusions. Therefore, my alternative, foundationalism, should be preferred. References: 1. http://www.iep.utm.edu... 2. http://www.iep.utm.edu...