The Evidentialist Argument for atheism also fails. The reason the Evidentialist Argument, viz. “There is no evidence or insufficient evidence for God” fails, is that it smuggles in the presupposition that “there is no God,” which it needs to prove to work: lastedenblog.wordpress.com/2016/06/05/ath…
Please remember that atheists HAD TO SHIFT to the Evidentialist Argument, because ALL the actual arguments for atheism, viz. the Argument from Evil, Argument from Self-Contradiction, the appeal to Ockham’s Razor—these all FAIL.
Since atheism proper turns out to be a total failure, rationally speaking, atheism in the 1970s RETREATED FROM th claim “There is no God,” that is, from atheism, to the the AGNOSTIC claim, “there is insufficient evidence for God.”
This was, historically, a philosophical admission of TOTAL DEFEAT on the primary question, concerning whether God is.
It made it MUCH EASIER (seemingly) to defend atheism—but you aren’t winning when you retreat from the field into a fortress, giving up the territory.
It made it MUCH EASIER (seemingly) to defend atheism—but you aren’t winning when you retreat from the field into a fortress, giving up the territory.
But let me explain WHY the “there is no/insufficient evidence for God” argument fails as a compelling justification for atheism.
In brief, THIS CLAIM about lack of evidence WORKS ONLY IF the atheist is able to discount all the theistic evidence, by taking it as SOMETHING ELSE.
In brief, THIS CLAIM about lack of evidence WORKS ONLY IF the atheist is able to discount all the theistic evidence, by taking it as SOMETHING ELSE.
That is to say, the atheist uses his “faith belief” that e.g. encounters with God are non-veridical to support his “no evidence” claim.
Usually the atheist will CLAIM to claim nothing, and then CLAIM THINGS, like “theism is absurd”, as in this specimen I just got:
Usually the atheist will CLAIM to claim nothing, and then CLAIM THINGS, like “theism is absurd”, as in this specimen I just got:
Here’s my brief summation of WHY the Evidentialist Argument actually rests on the presupposition of the atheist proposition proper, that is, that there is no God:
TL;DR
IF there is a God, THEN it is rational to hold that God would have created human beings with rational faculties capable of discerning this. The cognitive processes that lead ALMOST ALL human beings to form a belief on God are UNRELIABLE ONLY IF there is no God.
IF there is a God, THEN it is rational to hold that God would have created human beings with rational faculties capable of discerning this. The cognitive processes that lead ALMOST ALL human beings to form a belief on God are UNRELIABLE ONLY IF there is no God.
Here is a better presentation of the argument, albeit a more technical one, courtesy of Alvin Plantinga:
THEISTS NEED TO UNDERSTAND THIS:
The atheistic claim of insufficient evidence for God HAS WEIGHT IF AND ONLY IF THERE IS NO GOD.
So the atheist needs to establish THAT presupposition for his atheology to work. But he can’t. He ran away from it to the evidence claim, in fact.
The atheistic claim of insufficient evidence for God HAS WEIGHT IF AND ONLY IF THERE IS NO GOD.
So the atheist needs to establish THAT presupposition for his atheology to work. But he can’t. He ran away from it to the evidence claim, in fact.
How this happened:
1 Atheists began saying there isn’t enough evidence for God.
2 Theists began presenting evidence.
3 Atheists then said either the evidence presented was not evidence or to dismiss it as of little weight.
4 To do this, they needed to PRESUPPOSE a secular lens.
1 Atheists began saying there isn’t enough evidence for God.
2 Theists began presenting evidence.
3 Atheists then said either the evidence presented was not evidence or to dismiss it as of little weight.
4 To do this, they needed to PRESUPPOSE a secular lens.
UNSURPRISINGLY, if you PRESUPPOSE a secular, that is atheistic LENS, the evidence is going to LOOK INSUFFICIENT TO YOU, because of your PRESUPPOSITION.
But is your secular presupposition itself WARRANTED? It is if there’s no God.
But THAT is what it would be necessary to PROVE.
But is your secular presupposition itself WARRANTED? It is if there’s no God.
But THAT is what it would be necessary to PROVE.
Some say absence of belief in God is “the default something,” but this is nonsense. If you trust your own cognitive faculties, and these tell you you have experienced God, directly or indirectly, it is completely rational for you to believe it. You can know it, in many cases.
