From: sdoe@nmsu.edu (Stephen Doe)
Subject: Re: Evidence for God
Organization: New Mexico State University
Distribution: world,public
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 00:25:59 GMT

In article <n0e8ct@ofa123.fidonet.org> David.Rice@ofa123.fidonet.org writes:
>Who1: sdoe@nmsu.edu (Stephen Doe)
>ID: 1992Nov11.114355.14940@nmsu.edu
>With: <MVS104@psuvm.psu.edu> Martin Schulte
>And: David.Rice@ofa123.fidonet.org says:
> 
>DR> "I don't care if I have no evidence that God does not exist,
>DR> though I assert God does not exist. I assert the negative,
>DR> and it is up to the theist, whom asserts the positive, to
>DR> produce the evidence.
> 
>MS> "Where do you get this? Does no one understand that there are
>MS> more than two sides to this? Anyone who asserts something had
>MS> better be prepared to back it up. I don't understand why you
>MS> think that the other side has to prove you wrong. As if you
>MS> can assert a belief and get away with it. Both sides, since
>MS> they are asserting something, need to prove their assertions.
>MS> Otherwise, I'm left with nothing at all--my present stance.
>MS> Martin Schulte
> 
>SD> "It's like this:
>SD> 
>SD> Weak atheism: 'I do not believe that a God exists.'
>SD> Strong atheism: 'There is no God.'
>SD> 
>SD> The strong atheist is making a positive assertion and needs to
>SD> prove it. The weak atheist is merely noting that the evidence
>SD> presented by theists for God's existence is unconvincing."
> 
>Hi!
> 
>No, I do NOT "need to prove it." What do I care about the non-
>existance of God? Conversely, theists care A GREAT DEAL about
>proving the existance of their Gods, but they never have, and
>since God does not exist, they never will.
> 
>My point, such as it was, is that my asserting a negative does
>not lend itself to proof, but the theists, whom assert the
>positive, DOES lend itself to prove--- they need only present
>their Gods for evaluation.

If I assert that "square circles do not exist," I can prove this
assertion, because these entities are well-defined.  Your position is
more like saying "Parallel Universes do not exist":  since these
universes would exist outside our own, you can't prove or disprove
their existence.  You only have access to information in our universe.
You may be able to disprove the existence of a specific God (for
example, I regard Christ's failure of a "speedy return" to be strong
evidence against Christianity).  If God is so defined as to have no
falsifiable information about him, then we can't prove or disprove its
existence.  

>SD> The theist is making a positive assertion that God exists.
>SD> The weak atheist finds fault with the theist's proof and so
>SD> remains unconvinced.  Where do you see a weak atheist making
>SD> any positive assertion for or against God's existence in this
>SD> scenario?
>SD> 
>SD> Why in the world should I "sit on the fence" if I cannot, in
>SD> the most rigorous sense, disprove the existence of God, Santa,
>SD> Elvis, UFOs, Bigfoot etc. etc.?  Isn't it enough to note that
>SD> evidence that would compel one to believe in said entities is
>SD> sadly lacking in *all* of the above cases?  It's one thing to
>SD> have an open mind, it's another to have a *weak* mind."
> 
>Blame it on my lack of scientific education (SMILE!), but I am quite
>comfortable saying "There is no God(s)." Humans have deduced a
>MASSIVE amount of information--- physics, chemistry, evolution,
>biology---- all proven to be valid. Yet in 8 or 9 thousand years
>not a single shread of evidence for Gods' existance. . . . and
>there are hundreds of millions of theists who hold it as their
>sacred duty to convince people, yet they haven't evidence to help
>them out. Surely if God existed theists would have SOME kind of
>evidence? But they do not.

Many argue that science can have no bearing on the question of God's
existence, since the scientific method assumes non-interference from
spiritual entities.  That is my own view.  
 
>Ergo, God does not exist. It's all smoke and mirrors by cult
>leaders to keep the ignorant masses mailing in their socual
>security checks.

Would you take the fact that no convincing evidence exists with
regards to UFOs, as evidence extra-terrestrial life does not exist?
No, you would just conclude that to date no convincing evidence exists
to validate the thesis that aliens have visited us.  It doesn't mean
that there aren't ET's out there who are unable or who are disinclined
to visit us.  In this case, you have absolutely no grounds for
positively stating "Et's exist" *or* "ET's don't exist."  What you can
do is to conclude that it is either reasonable or unreasonable to
expect that ET's exist.  I expect that they do, because out of the
vast number of stars in the universe, it seems unlikely to conclude
that the sun is the only star with a life-bearing planet.  This seems
like a reasonable argument to me, but I could be wrong; I have no
proof I am right.  

I do not have proof that God does not exist.  On the other hand, the
theists have no proof--not even a reasonable argument--that God exists.
I feel justified in disbelief, but not in positively exclaiming,
"There is no God, and that statement is 100% guaranteed."

>I can see Martin's point--- "since I have no evidence that God does
>not exist, how can I say God doesn't exist? Am I not doing the same
>thing as theists asserting God does exist?" Martin said I should
>not expect theists "prove me wrong." Perhaps he fails to understand
>the concept of falsifiability?
> 
>SD> Martin Schulte
>SD> Stephen Doe
>
>--- Maximus 2.00

SD