“I can’t see how it would be possible for a god to exist”

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I’d like to get your opinion on a position:

I can’t see how it would be possible for a god to exist.

My take on it:

- it's technically a subset of the position "I make no claims about the existence of gods."
- it makes no positive claim, so it has no burden of proof.
- it frames the discussion around the issue of whether gods are even possible, which seems to me to be a logical first step to answer before asking whether a particular god exists on not.
- even though the position makes no claims, in a rhetorical sense; it comes across as less accommodating of god-claims than just saying "I make no claims about the existence of gods."

Thoughts?

 

[joe1776]

To me, that claim implies that you have reasons to support it. To avoid that obligation, I wouldn't use it.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

To me, that claim implies that you have reasons to support it.

How so? The only factual claim it makes is about the speaker's own thoughts.

Edit: I see the statement as functionally equivalent to "I fail to see how a god could be possible," and "if a god is possible, it's by sone way I'm not seeing." Are you taking it in the same sense?

To avoid that obligation, I wouldn't use it.

What obligation?

 

[joe1776]

How so? The only factual claim it makes is about the speaker's own thoughts. What obligation?

It's not a factual claim, so you are not burdened to provide evidence. However, you have stated an opinion that implies you have reasons. If you can't supply those reasons, what's the point?

As your debate opponent, I'd ask you Why do you think that? If you have no reasons to offer, your position would be made to look weak.

 

[stvdv]

I’d like to get your opinion on a position:

I can’t see how it would be possible for a god to exist.

My take on it:

- it's technically a subset of the position "I make no claims about the existence of gods."
- it makes no positive claim, so it has no burden of proof.
- it frames the discussion around the issue of whether gods are even possible, which seems to me to be a logical first step to answer before asking whether a particular god exists on not.
- even though the position makes no claims, in a rhetorical sense; it comes across as less accommodating of god-claims than just saying "I make no claims about the existence of gods."
Thoughts?

Talking about "possibility for God to exist" is a bit talking out of thin air.
Give a definition of God to start with. From there it's much easier to determine if "God" exists

 

[LuisDantas]

I mostly agree, except for this.

I’d like to get your opinion on a position:

I can’t see how it would be possible for a god to exist.

My take on it:

- it's technically a subset of the position "I make no claims about the existence of gods."

Yet it strongly hints that gods are unlikely. It is ultimately a confusing, non-commited statement.

IMO it suffers from a crippling failure to specify what should be understood by "god".

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Talking about "possibility for God to exist" is a bit talking out of thin air.

I didn't say "God;" I said "god." I wasn't restricting this to gods named God.

Give a definition of God to start with. From there it's much easier to determine if "God" exists

The definition would come from context. The position in the OP is a response that may or may not be appropriate depending on how the terms are defined.

But in general, I think it's reasonable to say that if a thing is impossible, then it can't exist and therefore doesn't exist, so as long as the question "is this thing possible?" isn't resolved with a solid "yes," there will always be the potential for the thing not to exist. Don't you agree?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I mostly agree, except for this.



Yet it strongly hints that gods are unlikely.

It suggests that:
- the possibility of gods is an open question.
- the speaker doesn't see a path to the conclusion that they are (while not rejecting that such a path might exist).

Do these two things suggest that gods are unlikely?

It is ultimately a confusing, non-commited statement.

How is it confusing?

IMO it suffers from a crippling failure to specify what should be understood by "god".

Right: it doesn't define the term. As I mentioned in my last post, I see this as a potential response in the context of a conversation where "god" is defined.

 

[joe1776]

Edit: I see the statement as functionally equivalent to "I fail to see how a god could be possible," and "if a god is possible, it's by sone way I'm not seeing." Are you taking it in the same sense?

From a tactical debate perspective, I still don't like either of those statements since they both, to me, would obligate you to explain why you think that by offering reasons.

 

[HonestJoe]

I’d like to get your opinion on a position:

I can’t see how it would be possible for a god to exist.

If you’re making the assertion that it is not possible for god to exist (and just wrapping it in softer language), you’re obviously making a positive claim.

If you’re not making that positive claim, you’re not really establishing a position at all, more asking the question “How could it be possible for god to exist?”.

Either way I’m not sure it’s very helpful. “god” is too generic a term to be of much use and anything is possible.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

From a tactical debate perspective, I still don't like either of those statements since they both, to me, would obligate you to explain why you think that by offering reasons.

Again: how so? All three ways that the statement is expressed only make claims about the speaker's personal familiarity with the facts.

 

[joe1776]

Again: how so? All three ways that the statement is expressed only make claims about the speaker's personal familiarity with the facts.

Why would that deny the speaker's burden to explain in a debate?

If, in debate, I state that God exists! isn't that my personal familiarity with the facts? And, if it is, am I relieved of the burden of proof?

 

[LuisDantas]

It suggests that:
- the possibility of gods is an open question.
- the speaker doesn't see a path to the conclusion that they are (while not rejecting that such a path might exist).

Do these two things suggest that gods are unlikely?


How is it confusing?


Right: it doesn't define the term. As I mentioned in my last post, I see this as a potential response in the context of a conversation where "god" is defined.

That is ok, I suppose. But I see that as a serious waste of effort. "god" is simply way too arbitrary a concept for anything else besides explicit, arbitrary, case-by-case definitions to be any good for arguments about their literal existence.

 

[PureX]

I’d like to get your opinion on a position:

I can’t see how it would be possible for a god to exist.

My take on it:

- it's technically a subset of the position "I make no claims about the existence of gods."
- it makes no positive claim, so it has no burden of proof.
- it frames the discussion around the issue of whether gods are even possible, which seems to me to be a logical first step to answer before asking whether a particular god exists on not.
- even though the position makes no claims, in a rhetorical sense; it comes across as less accommodating of god-claims than just saying "I make no claims about the existence of gods."

Thoughts?

It's a position based on what one cannot "see" (know). It's an 'argument from ignorance' if it's posited as an argument, at all.

Stating; "I have encountered no evidence whatever to suggest that little green men live on Mars!", doesn't mean that little green men aren't or can't be living on Mars. In fact, it tells us nothing at all about the existence of little green men on Mars. It tells us only of what the person positing the observation has not encountered.

 

[Shushersbedamned]

I can' see also insinuates I am not interested in seeing...

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

If you’re making the assertion that it is not possible for god to exist (and just wrapping it in softer language), you’re obviously making a positive claim.

I deliberately worded it to not be a positive claim.

If you’re not making that positive claim, you’re not really establishing a position at all, more asking the question “How could it be possible for god to exist?”.

That's right. Along with not implictly conceding that a god could be possible.

Either way I’m not sure it’s very helpful. “god” is too generic a term to be of much use and anything is possible.

I'd disagree with the idea that anything is possible. "We don't know how likely this is" does not imply "this must have a likelihood greater than zero."

My main thoughts behind the thread:

- I think that in theist/atheist debates, it's often the case that a theist will try to trap the atheist into a false dichotomy between either making a positive claim that no gods exist (which the theist would then try to get the atheist to "prove") or agreeing that they have no criticisms of the theist's position. I think that an atheist position of something along the lines of "while I can't say for sure that your position has no merit, I haven't seen any merit in it."

- in other contexts, even most theists would generally accept the idea that if we aren't sure whether a thing is possible, it's reasonable not to practically guard against the potential that the thing actually exists.

- it frames the theist/atheist debate IMO appropriately against other ideas that are demonstrably possible but just very unlikely.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It's a position based on what one cannot "see" (know). It's an 'argument from ignorance' if it's posited as an argument, at all.

For it to be an argument from ignorance, it would have to make a claim.

"I can't see how gods could be possible, therefore gods must not exist." - argument from ignorance.

"I can't see how gods could be possible." - not an argument from ignorance.

Stating; "I have encountered no evidence whatever to suggest that little green men live on Mars!", doesn't mean that little green men aren't or can't be living on Mars. In fact, it tells us nothing at all about the existence of little green men on Mars. It tells us only of what the person positing the observation has not encountered.

How much it tells us depends on how thoroughly the person has investigated the possibility of little green men on Mars.

At the very least, it tells us that the sort of little green men who might exist on Mars are the sort who would elude the notice of the person making the claim. This might not put any constraint on the little green men if the person hasn't investigated the matter at all, or extreme constraints if the person has scoured the whole surface of Mars with rovers.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I can' see also insinuates I am not interested in seeing...

I think that would depend on context, no?

 

[Shushersbedamned]

I think that would depend on context, no?

No.

 

[joe1776]

I can’t see how it would be possible for a god to exist.

Theist: Why do you think it would be impossible for a god to exist?