Evaluate This Argument, Please
Offline NOTE: I've been testing this argument on another forum for a while and it's doing pretty well. I'd like to see if anyone here can find a flaw in it. Thanks ahead of time.
Many Christians argue that atheists should assume the burden of proof. They argue this from the premise that a statement must be disproven before it can reasonably be disbelieved. In other words, they hold that until a disproof of a statement is constructed, the only viable positions toward it are agnosticism or belief. In this thread, I will reapply that premise to a different argument.
Let's assume that it is proper not to disbelieve a statement until it is refuted. Now, let's assume I make the assertion that there exists, somewhere in the universe, a book containing successful refutations of all arguments for God, and a successful disproof of the existence of God. It would follow that the Christian should not disbelieve this assertion.
The Christian, it appears, is now either an agnostic toward the existence of the book, or a believer in the book. If he chooses to become an agnostic toward the book, he is a fortiori an agnostic toward God as well, since the existence of the book would entail the nonexistence of God. If he chooses to become a believer in the book, he is obviously no longer a Christian.
Conclusion: The idea that a statement must be refuted before it can rationally be disbelieved is incompatible with Christianity.
- Login to post comments
An even bigger problem is by that logic you'd have to believe in "or at least 'not disbelieve' in" every single god ever invented - and any that anyone makes up - including the Flying Spaghetti Monster. There are plenty of other ridiculous ideas you could come up with that couldn't be disproven. That's why the burden of proof is on the positive claim.
Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team
haha, copied and pasted. i love this argument.
i personally don't see a hole in it, because to make the very least exception for this book would obviously violate the believer's own rule. but the excuses for dismissing it are kinda predictable:
faith, and the 'effects' of god as opposed to the absence of the book's effects. maybe even followed up by some crap like 'it can't exist if god exists, so ha, i just disproved your book.'
out of curiosity, i'd like to see where else you've tested this argument if that's okay.
That's extremely clever. Can I steal it for my writing?
It's self-reinforcing, too. I like that. I think you would just call this a reductio ad absurdum. Begin with the burden of disproof as a given, and then demonstrate that it forces Christians to either disbelieve or be agnostic about God.
This is also great because it denies them faith, since faith is belief (positive belief), which is the one position denied them by the burden of disproof.
Simply brilliant.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
Your argument is a reductio ad absurdum. You're showing how absurd their argument is by using it in a different context. However, remember that it's a sort of weaker argument in that the person you're arguing with could simply accept your absurd conclusion unless you can show without doubt that the conclusion is indeed absurd, and therefore false.
The book of God refutations could indeed exist and, therefore, it is not absurd to think such a book exists. In fact, one could say that such books are in existence on Earth already. It's a sort of dangerous path to take, in my opinion.
Well, that's fine. If such a book does exist, then god doesn't exist. That's the whole point. There is a sticker, though. If disproof is necessary, all a theist has to do is assert that it is possible for such a book to exist and for God to exist, too. You can't disprove that because if you mention the law of non-contradiction, the theist will simply postulate that everything you believe about logic is wrong, and there is an exception to the law of non-contradiction, namely god. Since you can't disprove that everything you think is wrong without relying on the correctness of at least one of your statements, you can't argue with it. Of course, the theist is in exactly the same boat, and a good debater would do well to point this out.
You're right, of course, that Christians will simply assert their belief anyway. That's the beauty of the meme. It's completely insulated against any and all logic. Jesus himself could come to earth and tell everybody he doesn't exist, and it wouldn't change a damn thing.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism