Ambiguity of Atheism

[cottage]

What is so "brutal" about that? I am perfectly aware of that fact.

You seem to be tying yourself up in logical knots to try to defend an indefensible position. If someone asks you why you think Santa Claus does not exist, then the reply that he his a "fictional character" is non-responsive. It is merely repeating your conviction that he does not exist. If you can explain why you think he does not exist (or is fictional), then you have addressed the question rather than begged it.

OK. Let's take a close look at it.

It looks like you are going for a reductio ad absurdum here, but you never actually carry it off.

However, you have just assumed his existence. So you have produced a contradiction by asserting that assumption is false.

Huh? You've completely lost me at this point. If you assume he exists, then denying his existence yields a contradiction. You aren't making any sense.

Yes, I'll go along with material implication. Its logic is not in dispute here.

One might quibble over your use of 'entails' here, but it is certainly the case that 'Santa Claus exists' and 'It is not the case that Santa Claus does not exist' are logically equivalent. I don't see any argument here for or against the existence of Santa Claus, since you are only talking about the implications of jumping to conclusions. The question we started out with still remains: "Does Santa Claus exist?" You have not provided an answer to that, although you seem to have logic-chopped your foot off.

True, but you haven't given any reason to believe that he does or does not exist. Can you defend either side of the argument? At this point, I see no answer to the question, which is why I accused you of begging the question.

I'll agree to that. Now, why is it that you think Santa Claus does not exist (i.e. is a fictional character)?

Mon Dieu! With respect, I gave you a perfectly valid argument, presented in the clearest possible terms, to which you have not offered one sound objection. There is no cohesion in the series of remarks you’ve made and I get the overwhelming impression that you are attempting to bully or browbeat me in lieu of proper argument (I hope that’s a misconception on my part).

I said: Santa is a fictional character (no contradiction). You said it begged the question. I then gave you the full argument that demonstrates that conclusion. You are still saying it begs the question! My understanding of a circular argument is where the premise and the conclusion are the same, or very close. My opening premise and conclusion were distinct, opposite in fact. You said: ‘”The logical response is "How do you know that God is a fictional character?"’ As I treat both concepts in the same logical manner (God and Santa) I replied because he doesn’t exist, and I then gave you my answer in the form you requested. If I’m wrong in my conclusion then I invite you to demonstrate otherwise.

 

[cottage]

Red part: The only issue? Isn't that a little presumptuous? Atheists can have a myriad of issues with theism, resulting in their atheism. Besides, lack of evidence, while likely the atheist's strongest card, still isn't all that overwhelming. What of the time honored example of black swans? Absence of evidence is certainly evidence of absence, but it is not proof, and it has been shown to be wrong. It really doesn't hurt to have supporting arguments.

Green part: By definition? Really? Where in the definition of atheism does it say "lack of evidence"? Again, isn't that a bit presumptuous to be speaking for all atheists?

What I’m saying is no theism then no atheism. The myriad issues necessarily involve not believing in, or not seeing any need for gods. No matter what issues atheists discuss, and there are many possible subjects and many varieties of atheism, it is nevertheless their non-belief that defines them. There is nothing in the term ‘Swan’ to denote its colour; therefore swans of any colour are possible. But the term ‘atheist’ is analytic, its meaning is apparent simply by seeing the word.

I still don't follow your argument. My belief is that any position you hold, and particularly those you actively support, should have arguments and reasons to back them up. Otherwise, they are no better than the simple faith of the theists.
Just because someone else's belief is not well supported, doesn't give your alternate belief the license to be poorly supported as well.

Yes of course, if we’re making assertions then we should back them up. But to have no beliefs in mystical beings from faith simply means there is nothing sufficiently compelling to establish a belief in those terms. We know instinctively, without having to identify any specific objections, whether we should believe in other-worldly claims that are predicated upon beliefs dogmatically held from faith alone. Contrast that with mystics who are making fantastic claims, despite the fact that they cannot be falsified.

Your skeptisim is probably apparent. That's not what I'm getting at. You are having this discussion with a believer, and he gets frustrated and gives the classic "Well, prove god doesn't exist then!" The burden of proof response is not helpful in moving the discussion forward. It's a discussion killer, making the believer feel that atheists are just weasely jerks. My question is, at the point the believer asks you to "prove" your atheism, why not give your reasons, while acknowledging that it is impossible to prove the non-existence of something? In other words, this is the time to elaborate upon your skepticism.

I’m astonished that you think proof should be a no-go area! Every argument is about proof in some form or another: sceptics trying to prove propositions and disprove empirical claims, and theists attempting proofs from revelation, from prophesy, from Bible inerrancy, from causal or teleological arguments, from moral standpoints, from transcendental arguments etc, etc. If the controversy isn’t about proof or the quality of the proofs, then I’m at a loss as to what all the fuss is about!
And how can my sceptical views only be ‘probably apparent’ when I’m actively arguing from that position? How on earth am I to ‘elaborate further’ on my scepticism, when I’m already arguing the case for it?

It seems you are still stuck on the idea that "majority belief" doesn't provide a good indicator of the truth of theism. You are correct, but that is completely besides the point. It doesn't matter whether people "should" or "should not" believe god exists based upon majority belief. The point is that people do believe god exists, partly due to majority belief. (Because majorities make a belief more credible, regardless of whether it should or not.)

That a majority thinks something is credible doesn’t make a thing credible. Those who shout the loudest may have the biggest voice, but majorities aren’t synonymous with credibility. Democracy for example gives people an equal say in decisions that affect their lives, rightly or wrongly. There is no implication or presumption that, because of the greater number, any majority decision will be correct. Some of the worst regimes in history have had overwhelming support from their people.

Debate between the two parties is usually about what the theist believes and why it is wrong, rather than specifically, what the atheist believes and why. It's a fine nuance, but one that directly leads to the theist asking for the atheist to prove his position (whereupon the burden of proof argument is given in reply.)


But, atheists-not-supporting-their-position was not the thrust of that statement: "My argument is NOT that majority belief provides evidence of the truth of theism, but that it provides an explanation of why it is reasonable for theists to ask atheists to support their position."

The ‘reasonable’ request you speak of assumes that unbelievers are taking a position that needs to be defended against subjective beliefs concerning other worlds, a premise which is both foolish and preposterous. And since religious belief is inextricably related to a question of truth it is for the advocates to argue the proposition, not for unbelievers to guess what it is.

The bolded portion is my whole original point in this entire god-forsaken debate. In your original post you stated that there was "an element of sophistry and mischief in the ploy of failing to make a proper case and demanding of the doubters that they make theirs instead."

That was what I objected to in your original post-- the idea that it is unreasonable for theists to ask atheists to make their case. Which is what I said in my response to you: "While I agree that theists should be held accountable, I was merely pointing out that it is not unreasonable to desire an explanation of an atheist's stance as well."

In respect of that part you say you objected to, I never said it was ‘unreasonable for theists to ask atheists to make their case’. I said it was unreasonable for theists to fail to make a proper case for what they claim while demanding that atheists make theirs instead, a common ploy.

In other words, theists aren't being sophistic or mischevious when they ask for atheists to support their stance: they are making a reasonable demand. That is the root of this debate. Do you still find it unreasonable of theists to demand that atheists make their case?

When did you stop beating your wife? So what’s with the ‘still’? You put the question as if I’ve said somewhere that sceptics don’t have to make a case! In every instance it is for the advocates of any supposed truths to state their claims and make their argument, and for the sceptics to respond in turn. For example, if a theist states that his God is omnipotent and ‘all loving’ I would point out that the inconsistent triad makes one or more of those attributes logically impossible. It is nonsensical to imply that when I’m in a full-flight argument with a believer I’m not ‘supporting my stance’. As I pointed out in my OP, atheism isn’t a state or condition that exists of itself but is only a response to theism. If a theist desires reasons for my questioning his beliefs (assuming for some reason they are not already made abundantly obvious in the discussion) then let him give me an indication of his beliefs and he will have my objections, in detail, by return.

Oh really. I guess that means that the claim of atheism is impossible too, since proof is impossible.

Yes, really, and no it doesn’t, respectively. Theism makes claims to the truth while atheists may be wrong.

No, it doesn't. Again, say Galileo couldn't come up with some good proof that the Earth revolves around the sun. Does that mean the geocentric model is correct and they were justified in believing it?

The difference is that argument you’re using above assumes that ‘The earth revolves round the sun’ is a truth. But while the earth revolving round the sun does not logically have to obtain, theists argue that God’s existence is certain. Thus it follows that if proof is impossible then so is the truth of what is claimed.

One side doesn't "win" simply because the arguments for the other side suck.

I personally don’t like the term ‘win’. It makes discussions sound as if they’re some kind of juvenile competition, rather than ultimately a search for the truth.

 

[cottage]

[/font]
Nevertheless, people are united in their belief of some higher power, in contrast to those who don't believe in one. That is all that is needed for a majority to exist.


The concept of god is intelligible despite all the variation in form. It is a distinct concept, one that is distinguishable from other concepts, regardless of any shortcoming of definition. It unites all those who hold a belief in a type of one in contrast to those who don't believe in any types. I simply do not see how you can minimize the fact that the majority of people believe in the existence of some god or another. It doesn't matter what type of god you believe in, as long as it's a god, you're part of the majority group. And if you don't believe in any, you're a part of a minority group.

The term ‘majority’ only refers to a (questionable) statistical truth and is no different from saying ‘Floods made eight out of ten people in a town homeless’ or ‘Eighty out of every hundred women prefer white bread.’ From a true fact that the majority of people believe something, it doesn’t follow that their beliefs are in fact true or credible. So faith in the existence of ‘some god or other’ isn’t an argument for the credibility or potential truth-value of a majority belief; since the only element of truth linking them all is only their superstition. And the concept of god will be the same concept that all superstitious beliefs share, that is to say an idea or conception held from faith. Spiritualism, gods, or mysticism, all come under the same faith umbrella and many are interchangeable, one into the other, or even seamlessly into all three. There is no aspect or attribute awarded to gods (or any of the aforementioned) that cannot be denied, thus inviting a contradiction, in the case of gods to include that of a supreme power or higher authority. To sum up, the object of the belief isn’t demonstrably true, or factually evident, which is to say the concept is not an a priori or an innate truth but is inconsistent and open to almost infinite interpretation. The potential for truth, then, is not realised simply by being a majority belief in mystical notions. However a majority believing in supposed mystical truths is significant, not due to their credibility but from the point of view that those in a majority are in a position to affect the lives of the rest of us. And that is a further reason why they, not the minority, must bear the onus of proof.

 

[cottage]

Idav, are you trying to defend Cottage's attempt at a logical argument? If so, be aware that he is not a big fan of arguments from popularity. So he cannot rely on the fact that everyone believes Santa Claus to be a fictional character is sufficient evidence that he is indeed a fictional character. He has to come up with something more than that.

Arguments from other believers are relevant if true: the truth confirms the majority belief. And a belief that Santa is a fictional character is justified if Santa isn’t presented anywhere other than as a fictional character (A=A). The logical argument has already been made, but it may be the case that Santa is presented somewhere as being real and existent, and in that case it for the advocates to make the evidential argument.

 

[Willamena]

Lack of evidence is the atheist's ace in the hole. But it doesn't hurt to have supporting characters.

It's not their "ace in the hole" --that would be information, as you suggest. It's their "god of the gaps."

 

[idav]

It doesn't matter what type of god you believe in, as long as it's a god, you're part of the majority group. And if you don't believe in any, you're a part of a minority group.

From what I've seen the majority of people are just going through the motions cause thats how they were brought up. They certainly don't believe in sky daddy like they used to. Now the claims for theism have become ambiguous to avoid scrutiny like them dern pantheists.

 

[Falvlun]

From a true fact that the majority of people believe something, it doesn’t follow that their beliefs are in fact true or credible. So faith in the existence of ‘some god or other’ isn’t an argument for the credibility or potential truth-value of a majority belief; since the only element of truth linking them all is only their superstition.

You are still arguing the wrong thing. Majority belief is a reason we find certain beliefs credible. We do find things more credible when a majority of people believe them. This is different from saying that we should find it credible, or that this criteria results in a true belief, which is the argument you still seem to think I'm making.

What I am arguing is that humans have built-in mechanisms that allow us to make quick decisions about whether something is credible-- likely to be true-- and therefore something we should believe. These built-in mechanisms, while evolutionarily useful, are often what give rise to logical fallacies. (I mean, why do you think logical fallacies are so prevalent?) They are called cognitive biases, of which appeal to majority is one. I am sure you can think of reasons why this might be a useful bias to have, even though it can result in a person holding an untrue belief. Our brains think these arguments lend credibility to a belief, hence our propensity for falling for them.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

You are still arguing the wrong thing. Majority belief is a reason we find certain beliefs credible. We do find things more credible when a majority of people believe them. This is different from saying that we should find it credible, or that this criteria results in a true belief, which is the argument you still seem to think I'm making.

I tend to question the credibility of things that are popularly believed actually. Experience has taught me thus.

 

[Falvlun]

I tend to question the credibility of things that are popularly believed actually. Experience has taught me thus.

I hate to break it to you, KT, but you're not normal.

Regardless, note how you worded that: Experience has taught you this. Which means you had to learn that it was not the case that majority belief is a good reason to believe something. You had to change your default setting.

 

[Falvlun]

From what I've seen the majority of people are just going through the motions cause thats how they were brought up. They certainly don't believe in sky daddy like they used to. Now the claims for theism have become ambiguous to avoid scrutiny like them dern pantheists.

I agree that traditional religious beliefs are on the wane. Even so, they still hold a large majority.

Also, as noted before, I don't think it matters what sort of god people believe in. As long as they believe in a god, that separates them from those who do not believe in a god.

 

[Falvlun]

It's not their "ace in the hole" --that would be information, as you suggest. It's their "god of the gaps."

Interesting point and a hard one to refute. Nevertheless, lack of evidence, I believe, remains an atheist's strongest argument.

 

[Falvlun]

Yes of course, if we’re making assertions then we should back them up. But to have no beliefs in mystical beings from faith simply means there is nothing sufficiently compelling to establish a belief in those terms. We know instinctively, without having to identify any specific objections, whether we should believe in other-worldly claims that are predicated upon beliefs dogmatically held from faith alone. Contrast that with mystics who are making fantastic claims, despite the fact that they cannot be falsified.

I think I'll just take that first sentence and call it a good day.

I’m astonished that you think proof should be a no-go area! Every argument is about proof in some form or another: sceptics trying to prove propositions and disprove empirical claims, and theists attempting proofs from revelation, from prophesy, from Bible inerrancy, from causal or teleological arguments, from moral standpoints, from transcendental arguments etc, etc. If the controversy isn’t about proof or the quality of the proofs, then I’m at a loss as to what all the fuss is about!

I really don't know how you got the idea that I believe proof is a no-go area (or the relevance of your response to what I had written, for that matter). I specifically stated that when a believer asks you to prove your position, you should make your case. How is that me saying we should avoid proofs? I am saying you should make your case, rather than countering with the "burden of proof" argument.

The ‘reasonable’ request you speak of assumes that unbelievers are taking a position that needs to be defended against subjective beliefs concerning other worlds, a premise which is both foolish and preposterous.

You are claiming that by saying it is reasonable for theists to ask atheists to prove their position, that I therefore am assuming that the theist position "needs to be defended against subjective beliefs concerning other worlds." What the heck does that part in quotes even mean? And why would I necessarily be making that assumption?

Regardless, I am making no such assumption, nor has it factored into any of my arguments. My argument is simply that theists are often unacquainted with atheist arguments and they find their own beliefs to have higher credibility (partly because more people hold their belief than ours), which makes their request reasonable. Not mischevious nor nefarious.

And since religious belief is inextricably related to a question of truth it is for the advocates to argue the proposition, not for unbelievers to guess what it is.

I thought we put this one to bed already. Why bring it up again? Yes, of course believers have a responsibility to present their arguments.

In respect of that part you say you objected to, I never said it was ‘unreasonable for theists to ask atheists to make their case’. I said it was unreasonable for theists to fail to make a proper case for what they claim while demanding that atheists make theirs instead, a common ploy.

You never stated that it was unreasonable, but you did use perjorative words, and ascribe dishonest intentions, to a believer who asked for proof.

What would you label a "proper case"? Many theists go through great lengths to make their case. But, of course, they all fail to seal the deal. Does this mean they "failed to make a proper case" and therefore do not deserve to hear your reasons for being an atheist? Or should we not give credit for the attempt?

Yes, really, and no it doesn’t, respectively. Theism makes claims to the truth while atheists may be wrong.

So, according to you, all theists are "strong" and all atheists are "weak"?

Thus it follows that if proof is impossible then so is the truth of what is claimed.

That does not follow. Just because absolute proof of something is impossible to obtain, that doesn't automatically mean that the claim is false.

For example, what if God purposefully denies proof of his existence? That would make proof impossible. And yet the claim that God exists would be true.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

I hate to break it to you, KT, but you're not normal.

Thank you, that's the best compliment I've had all week.

Regardless, note how you worded that: Experience has taught you this. Which means you had to learn that it was not the case that majority belief is a good reason to believe something. You had to change your default setting.

Yeah, many of our default settings are wrong.

 

[Copernicus]

Mon Dieu! With respect, I gave you a perfectly valid argument, presented in the clearest possible terms, to which you have not offered one sound objection. There is no cohesion in the series of remarks you’ve made and I get the overwhelming impression that you are attempting to bully or browbeat me in lieu of proper argument (I hope that’s a misconception on my part).

You gave me an argument that I went through line by line and refuted in detail. You did not address my detailed response. Instead, you quote the content without addressing any specific point I made and merely repeated your claim as if I had not addressed it. That is classic argumentum ad nauseam.

I said: Santa is a fictional character (no contradiction). You said it begged the question. I then gave you the full argument that demonstrates that conclusion.

And I went through it line by line and pointed out its flaws.

You are still saying it begs the question! My understanding of a circular argument is where the premise and the conclusion are the same, or very close. My opening premise and conclusion were distinct, opposite in fact...

Go back and reread my detailed comments. To your first premise, I said that it looked like you were going for a reductio ad absurdum, but you never carried it off. No comment from you.

You said: ‘”The logical response is "How do you know that God is a fictional character?"’ As I treat both concepts in the same logical manner (God and Santa) I replied because he doesn’t exist, and I then gave you my answer in the form you requested. If I’m wrong in my conclusion then I invite you to demonstrate otherwise.

I believe that I did, but you clearly disagree. Perhaps you left some steps out of your argument. Again, calling someone a "fictional character" is tantamount to restating the conclusion that the person is not real, does not exist, is imaginary, and so forth. You do understand that, don't you? If your conclusion is based on that assumption, then you have begged the question by including it as a premise. What you need to do is explain what leads you to the conclusion that he is fictional. What I'm looking for here is an empirical argument--facts that lead you to that conclusion. The same kind of argument can be made for rejecting belief in the existence of God.

Arguments from other believers are relevant if true: the truth confirms the majority belief. And a belief that Santa is a fictional character is justified if Santa isn’t presented anywhere other than as a fictional character (A=A).

OK, that's a start. Put it into a conditional statement: "If Santa is never presented anywhere as a real person, then Santa likely does not exist." You could follow it with the false claim that "Santa is never presented anywhere as a real person." It happens to be a false claim, as many children could point out to you. (And it smacks of argumentum ad populum, which I thought was unpopular with you.) But you are at least beginning to look for evidence to support the conclusion that he doesn't exist. I feel like I am pulling teeth to get you to come up with something that looks like a bona fide valid argument. I'm a bit uncomfortable with the soundness of your argument, however. His existence does not really depend on whether people assert he exists or doesn't exist.

...The logical argument has already been made, but it may be the case that Santa is presented somewhere as being real and existent, and in that case it for the advocates to make the evidential argument.

Your appeal to the beliefs of others is probably not the strongest argument you could come up with. But it is at least a prima facie case for rejecting belief in Santa. Logic is not the only issue here, because arguments about existence are usually empirical claims (unless you can come up with an argument that Santa Claus is a logically impossible being). Logic does not guarantee truth, only consistency with premises. It is trivially true that Santa does not exist if you start out with the premise that he is fictional, but that follows from the meaning of "fictional". That is what made your argument circular.

 

[cottage]

I think I'll just take that first sentence and call it a good day.

Would you please give me your argument or expand on that remark, because I do not consider disbelief an assertion.

I really don't know how you got the idea that I believe proof is a no-go area (or the relevance of your response to what I had written, for that matter). I specifically stated that when a believer asks you to prove your position, you should make your case. How is that me saying we should avoid proofs? I am saying you should make your case, rather than countering with the "burden of proof" argument.

I was and still am struggling to understand what you meant by ‘the burden of proof argument is not helpful to moving the discussion forward’, or what it is you meant by ‘countering with the burden of proof argument’, or it being a ‘discussion killer’. Discussions between believers and non-believers concern the question of proof and the quality of the proofs, and any and every argument that makes a claim to certain or absolute truth must necessarily carry that burden. I remember a thread ‘Prove God exists!’ that ran for nearly a year, hugely interesting and with an equal contribution by theists and atheists. So what exactly is this singularly devastating Burden of Proof Argument that drives theists from the boards? I’m sorry but it seems to me that this argument, as you’re using it, is something of a white elephant.

You are claiming that by saying it is reasonable for theists to ask atheists to prove their position, that I therefore am assuming that the theist position "needs to be defended against subjective beliefs concerning other worlds." What the heck does that part in quotes even mean? And why would I necessarily be making that assumption?

You have been pleading on behalf of a theist majority that atheists need to explain their minority unbelief ‘because they [the theists] find their own beliefs to have a higher credibility’. My reply to that is to say it is the subjective belief in other worlds that needs explaining, to show why unbelief is false or misplaced.

Regardless, I am making no such assumption, nor has it factored into any of my arguments. My argument is simply that theists are often unacquainted with atheist arguments and they find their own beliefs to have higher credibility (partly because more people hold their belief than ours), which makes their request reasonable. Not mischevious nor nefarious.

I’m sorry but I don’t find that explanation in the least convincing. In my experience the request is usually made in a cynical way, expressing feigned incredulity: it isn’t being asked ‘Why do you not believe in god’ as if to elicit a genuine response, but with an underlying meaning of ‘But you ought to believe in god’. Now, when I’m asked ‘Why don’t you believe in Jehova?’ (such as when J Ws knock on my door), my reply is that there is no cause for me to think that 'Jehova’ is something true. The J W proceeds to tell me why I ought to believe such. We then have a discussion and I give my objections.

You never stated that it was unreasonable, but you did use perjorative words, and ascribe dishonest intentions, to a believer who asked for proof.

Mischievous or ‘unreasonable’, I’m not bothered by which of those two words you prefer. And just to make it perfectly clear, what I described was the situation where believers refuse the opportunity to argue their claims by demanding of sceptics that they prove theirs instead (classically by using the ‘Prove God does not exist’ fallacy, which is an argument from ignorance).

What would you label a "proper case"? Many theists go through great lengths to make their case. But, of course, they all fail to seal the deal. Does this mean they "failed to make a proper case" and therefore do not deserve to hear your reasons for being an atheist? Or should we not give credit for the attempt?

Let’s be clear that I’ve only ever spoken of theists ‘not making a proper case’ where they’ve used the diversionary ploy outlined in my OP and in the passage above. It has never been any part of my argument that theists, per se, do not articulate their beliefs in a proper or formal way. Throughout history there have been an untold number of creative attempts to prove theism, not all of them specious, and we’ve seen some very good stuff here on this forum.

So, according to you, all theists are "strong" and all atheists are "weak"?

No! Both theism and atheism are subject to error, but only theism makes claims to certainty, a claim that is never demonstrated.

That does not follow. Just because absolute proof of something is impossible to obtain, that doesn't automatically mean that the claim is false.

For example, what if God purposefully denies proof of his existence? That would make proof impossible. And yet the claim that God exists would be true.

Actually it wouldn’t. The statement ‘God exists’ is either true or false, irrespective of God’s supposed machinations. If ‘God exists’ is impossible then self-evidently so is proof for the truth of what is claimed for God.

 

[cottage]

It looks like you are going for a reductio ad absurdum here, but you never actually carry it off.

But what is your argument? Mine is where the negation of the conclusion is assumed and then demonstrated that its opposite (to the conclusion) leads to some absurdity or a contradiction. If x can be deduced from proposition x then x cannot be true and x can therefore be asserted.

However, you have just assumed his existence. So you have produced a contradiction by asserting that assumption is false.

Yes, that’s correct! The contradiction demonstrates the conclusion: ‘Santa Claus exists’ false. So what's the problem?

Huh? You've completely lost me at this point. If you assume he exists, then denying his existence yields a contradiction. You aren't making any sense.

But what’s not to understand? If the term ‘assume’ worries you then ignore the convention it because it isn’t necessary to test a proposition.

One might quibble over your use of 'entails' here, but it is certainly the case that 'Santa Claus exists' and 'It is not the case that Santa Claus does not exist' are logically equivalent. I don't see any argument here for or against the existence of Santa Claus, since you are only talking about the implications of jumping to conclusions. The question we started out with still remains: "Does Santa Claus exist?" You have not provided an answer to that, although you seem to have logic-chopped your foot off.

I have not jumped to conclusions! I’ve built the argument around existing assertions and then reduced (or deconstructed?) them to find for the conclusion. The question was does Santa Claus exist? I’ve stated the answer to that question in the simplest and clearest possible terms: ‘No, he does not!’ But if he does exist then the conclusion is false (the same test applies). Now over to you.

True, but you haven't given any reason to believe that he does or does not exist. Can you defend either side of the argument? At this point, I see no answer to the question, which is why I accused you of begging the question.

An argument from circularity (begging the question) is where the major or opening premise and the conclusion of the argument are the same, very close, or similar in some other way, the most famous example being the Cartesian Circle. Descartes said whatever he understood clearly and distinctly must be true (of necessity). And he understood clearly and distinctly that God exists. And he knows this is true, how? Because God is not a deceiver and would not deceive D in whatever he understands clearly and distinctly! In my case I have merely used existing premises and I haven’t introduced any extraneous or fallacious elements into the simple logical structure. I begin from the proposition ‘Santa exists/is not fictional’, and then subject the premises to the test of non-contradiction, finding for the conclusion: Santa does not exist, ergo Santa is fictional. But if a thing exists then it exists, and we have only to produce Santa to prove the conclusion false.

I'll agree to that. Now, why is it that you think Santa Claus does not exist (i.e. is a fictional character)?

Nothing in experience exists necessarily, and so whatever exists can be conceived not to exist. For example, President Obama doesn’t have to exist and we can conceive of him as never existing. Nevertheless, President Obama does exist! So to say President Obama doesn’t exist is self-contradictory. Now we can legitimately conceive or imagine almost anything to be possible by compounding images and ideas from experience, but whatever we can conceive to be existent we can conceive to be non-existent, and unlike President Obama, whose existence cannot logically be denied, we can conceive of Santa to be non-existent without inviting self-contradiction or involving some other absurdity. In sum, President Obama need not exist, but does exist (contradiction), and Santa may exist, but doesn’t exist (no contradiction). So where is Santa? See now?

 

[cottage]

You gave me an argument that I went through line by line and refuted in detail. You did not address my detailed response. Instead, you quote the content without addressing any specific point I made and merely repeated your claim as if I had not addressed it. That is classic argumentum ad nauseam.

You certainly did not refute my argument in detail; in fact you didn’t refute it at all. I’m sorry but most of your replies were not relevant or they misunderstood my argument, and two were saying nothing at all, which is why I ignored the quoted parts and summarised the argument for you again underneath. And I never shy away from giving a proper response; so if you don’t get the reply you were looking for, please ask again or put your argument in different words.

And I went through it line by line and pointed out its flaws.

Your first and fifth line were saying nothing at all, and your second, third, and fourth lines showed that you didn’t seem to understand my argument. Please see my specific remarks regarding this on the other post.

Go back and reread my detailed comments. To your first premise, I said that it looked like you were going for a reductio ad absurdum, but you never carried it off. No comment from you.

I made no comment because you weren’t saying anything – and you still aren’t. What is your argument with my opening premise? What was it that I didn’t carry off? (!) (See my other post in this respect)

I believe that I did, but you clearly disagree. Perhaps you left some steps out of your argument. Again, calling someone a "fictional character" is tantamount to restating the conclusion that the person is not real, does not exist, is imaginary, and so forth. You do understand that, don't you?

Please don’t patronise me by misrepresenting my argument. A ‘fictional character’ is equivalent to ‘not existing’ and I’ve never said or implied otherwise.

If your conclusion is based on that assumption, then you have begged the question by including it as a premise. What you need to do is explain what leads you to the conclusion that he is fictional. What I'm looking for here is an empirical argument--facts that lead you to that conclusion. The same kind of argument can be made for rejecting belief in the existence of God.

The conclusion is not based on an assumption but on the test of non-contradiction, applied to the proposition ‘Santa exists’ or ‘Santa is fictional’. I shall be giving an example of circular arguments (ie question begging) as a comparison with my argument in my response to your other post.
I too am looking for an empirical conclusion - from you - since that would settle the matter!

OK, that's a start. Put it into a conditional statement: "If Santa is never presented anywhere as a real person, then Santa likely does not exist." You could follow it with the false claim that "Santa is never presented anywhere as a real person." It happens to be a false claim, as many children could point out to you. (And it smacks of argumentum ad populum, which I thought was unpopular with you.) But you are at least beginning to look for evidence to support the conclusion that he doesn't exist. I feel like I am pulling teeth to get you to come up with something that looks like a bona fide valid argument. I'm a bit uncomfortable with the soundness of your argument, however. His existence does not really depend on whether people assert he exists or doesn't exist.

You misunderstand me. The words I used were ‘a belief that Santa is a fictional character is justified if Santa isn’t presented anywhere other than as a fictional character.’ It isn’t an argument from popularity, as you seem to think, but a logical statement: if no x then y. As with God, Santa’s existence doesn’t as you say depend upon whether people assert his existence; it is dependent upon questions of logical necessity and factual evidence, but God and Santa are not concepts that exist of necessity, and factual evidence is absent in both cases – unless you have a bona fide argument to the contrary?

Your appeal to the beliefs of others is probably not the strongest argument you could come up with. But it is at least a prima facie case for rejecting belief in Santa. Logic is not the only issue here, because arguments about existence are usually empirical claims (unless you can come up with an argument that Santa Claus is a logically impossible being). Logic does not guarantee truth, only consistency with premises. It is trivially true that Santa does not exist if you start out with the premise that he is fictional, but that follows from the meaning of "fictional". That is what made your argument circular.

I’m not arguing from the beliefs of others. I’ve given you my logical demonstration that Santa doesn’t exist, and I’m saying if some believe otherwise it is for them to make that particular argument (N.B The reduction argument I’ve given doesn’t exclude or discount proof of factual evidence).

As to the question of logical impossibility, Santa can only be what he is (and not what he isn’t); and if Santa (the patron saint of children) is a timeless, wholly benevolent person who magically brings gifts to every child on Christmas Eve, then that is what he is. Now if, for example, it is said that Santa brings a piece of coal or a bundle of sticks as a punishment for children who have been naughty, or withholds visiting them for the same reason, then Santa’s beneficent nature is contradicted. In this case the belief concept has been proved logically impossible not just by the utterance of a single historical premise but also by his factual non-appearance (since instances of Santa’s non-appearance are apparent all over the world), from which it follows that either that Santa is punishing children, which contradicts Santa’s essentially beneficent nature, or Santa isn’t the magical being with knowledge of all children, a further contradiction that proves the concept as defined as an impossible one. But all this is really beside the point. Santa exists or he doesn’t exist, and to ask why he doesn’t exist is to imply that he does exist or may exist. And if it is said that he does exist or may exist then it is for the advocate to make the argument instead of inviting empirical proof of non-existence (an evident absurdity). My logical argument still stands (Post 271): Santa doesn’t exist.

It is trivially true that Santa does not exist if you start out with the premise that he is fictional, but that follows from the meaning of "fictional". That is what made your argument circular.

That is nonsense! If a thing is only fictional then it doesn't exist in reality; that's not a circular argument' it is a simple tautology! It's just like saying something white is not black. Fictional means non-factual. It is unavoidable to say Santa is the one thing without necessarily implying the other.

 

[atanu]

It's not their "ace in the hole" --that would be information, as you suggest. It's their "god of the gaps."

And this eternal debate suggests to me the eternity of the gap between mind and its source.

 

[Copernicus]

But what is your argument? Mine is where the negation of the conclusion is assumed and then demonstrated that its opposite (to the conclusion) leads to some absurdity or a contradiction. If x can be deduced from proposition x then x cannot be true and x can therefore be asserted.

Indeed, that is exactly what I said you were going for. I pointed out where and why it failed. You seem to think that a reductio ad absurdum argument is just assuming two premises that lead to a contradiction, but it isn't. It is showing that two premises accepted as true by your opponent lead to a contradiction. You did not do that. I do not accept both premises that Santa exists and is a fictional character.

Yes, that’s correct! The contradiction demonstrates the conclusion: ‘Santa Claus exists’ false. So what's the problem?

You start with the gratuitous assumption that God exists. Then you assert a contradictory assumption that he does not exist. I do not accept both of those premises as true in the same argument. In other words, I don't buy your contradiction.

But what’s not to understand? If the term ‘assume’ worries you then ignore the convention it because it isn’t necessary to test a proposition.

If you are constructing an argument, you need to use 'assume' to introduce premises.

I have not jumped to conclusions! I’ve built the argument around existing assertions and then reduced (or deconstructed?) them to find for the conclusion. The question was does Santa Claus exist? I’ve stated the answer to that question in the simplest and clearest possible terms: ‘No, he does not!’ But if he does exist then the conclusion is false (the same test applies). Now over to you.

There is a problem with your "existing assertions". You asked me to accept the proposition that "Santa Claus exists." For the sake of argument, no problem. Then you asserted: "If there is no contradiction in denying ‘Santa Claus exists’ then ‘Santa Claus exists’ isn’t true." Big problem. There is a contradiction in denying 'Santa Claus exists' in the context where you have just asserted he exists. Do you honestly not see that? It is pretty glaringly obvious.

An argument from circularity (begging the question) is where the major or opening premise and the conclusion of the argument are the same, very close, or similar in some other way, the most famous example being the Cartesian Circle. Descartes said whatever he understood clearly and distinctly must be true (of necessity). And he understood clearly and distinctly that God exists. And he knows this is true, how? Because God is not a deceiver and would not deceive D in whatever he understands clearly and distinctly! In my case I have merely used existing premises and I haven’t introduced any extraneous or fallacious elements into the simple logical structure. I begin from the proposition ‘Santa exists/is not fictional’, and then subject the premises to the test of non-contradiction, finding for the conclusion: Santa does not exist, ergo Santa is fictional. But if a thing exists then it exists, and we have only to produce Santa to prove the conclusion false.

Well, then, you cannot begin the argument with the assumption that "Santa exists", can you? Your "test of non-contradiction" fails the moment you start the argument out that way. You don't get the contradiction for free. Look at your very last sentence in the above paragraph. That is where you introduce the circularity. If you assume he exists, you cannot then say that his existence needs to be demonstrated. You are arguing in circles.

Nothing in experience exists necessarily, and so whatever exists can be conceived not to exist. For example, President Obama doesn’t have to exist and we can conceive of him as never existing. Nevertheless, President Obama does exist! So to say President Obama doesn’t exist is self-contradictory...

I see that you have been trying too hard to make sense of Plantinga's neo-Anselmian nonsense about "necessary beings". Anselm made the mistake of taking existence to be a property that could be "perfected". Plantinga just swapped in the concept of "necessity" to add an extra dollop of fudge. You cannot define God in such a way that he necessarily exists, especially if your conclusion is going to be that he exists. You just end up asserting a gratuitous assumption and declaring in your conclusion that your assumption was not gratuitous. I now can sort of understand where you were coming from.

Now we can legitimately conceive or imagine almost anything to be possible by compounding images and ideas from experience, but whatever we can conceive to be existent we can conceive to be non-existent, and unlike President Obama, whose existence cannot logically be denied, we can conceive of Santa to be non-existent without inviting self-contradiction or involving some other absurdity. In sum, President Obama need not exist, but does exist (contradiction), and Santa may exist, but doesn’t exist (no contradiction). So where is Santa? See now?

No. Go back to your original argument and read your first assumption: "Santa Claus exists". You did not assume "Santa Claus may exist". Do you understand the difference in meaning when you include the modal "may" (= "is possible")? The statement "Santa Claus may or may not exist" is true. It is a tautology, not a contradiction. You cannot conclude that he does or does not exist from that kind of a premise. If you want to argue that the existence of Santa Claus is not "plausible", as opposed to not "possible", then you will be making the kind of argument I was looking for.

I will have to cut this short for now. I'll reply to your subsequent post later.

 

[Copernicus]

Continuing the discussion...

Your first and fifth line were saying nothing at all, and your second, third, and fourth lines showed that you didn"t seem to understand my argument. Please see my specific remarks regarding this on the other post.

I think that I've already addressed this. That first argument did not have modal verbs like "must" and "may". So I wasn't able to make the sense of it that you intended. I think I have a better understanding of what you were trying to do now.

The conclusion is not based on an assumption but on the test of non-contradiction, applied to the proposition "Santa exists" or "Santa is fictional". I shall be giving an example of circular arguments (ie question begging) as a comparison with my argument in my response to your other post.

I do not think that the law of noncontradiction applies here, since there is no contradiction inherent in asserting that Santa Claus exists unless you simultaneously assert that he doesn't. I've already explained to you why your formulation of the argument just doesn't work. In an argument with someone who claims that Santa exists, that person is not also claiming that he is fictional (unless you count the metaphorical "Yes, Virginia..." argument).

I too am looking for an empirical conclusion - from you - since that would settle the matter!

The entire point here that started the whole conversation was that NOBODY seriously argues for the existence of Santa Claus, so you don't have to work very hard to mount an empirical argument against his existence. That people claim he is a fictional character (as opposed to the bare assertion that he is) is a start to listing empirical reasons to reject belief in his existence. However, that evidence is just an argument from popularity. A more powerful argument would consider other data, e.g. the fact that people engage in Christmas shopping for toys. (Why would they do this if Santa manufactured and delivered the gifts?) Etc.

You misunderstand me. The words I used were "a belief that Santa is a fictional character is justified if Santa isn't presented anywhere other than as a fictional character." It isn't an argument from popularity, as you seem to think, but a logical statement: if no x then y.

Let's analyze your statement, which I merely paraphrased in simpler language. First of all, it is false. People do present Santa Claus as real all the time to children. Not everyone approves of the practice, but that is what they do. So, if you tell a child that Santa does not exist, you had better come up with a different argument. But I get the point you are trying to make--that such claims by adults are not made in good faith. However, what you said is still an argument from popularity. Just who is the agent of the passive verb "isn't presented anywhere"? It is "by any person". In other words, you are referring to what people "popularly" believe about Santa Claus--that he is a fictional character.

As with God, Santa"s existence doesn't as you say depend upon whether people assert his existence; it is dependent upon questions of logical necessity and factual evidence, but God and Santa are not concepts that exist of necessity, and factual evidence is absent in both cases - unless you have a bona fide argument to the contrary?

I don't, but Plantinga thinks that he does. And there are lots of people who believe in miracles as evidence of the supernatural. You are missing the point (and it does not look like you are receptive to it after pages of debate): believers argue all the time that widespread belief in God is evidence that there must be something to the belief. It isn't logical, but there you have it. You are correct that they haven't met their burden of proof, but pointing that out to them does little good if they believe that they have met their burden of proof. Even so, many simply do not accept that they have a burden of proof, because they think that popularity of belief somehow puts the burden on the denier of the popular belief. So what else have you got? There are actually evidential reasons to reject belief in gods that do not depend on disputes over who owns the burden of proof.

I'm not arguing from the beliefs of others. I've given you my logical demonstration that Santa doesn't exist, and I'm saying if some believe otherwise it is for them to make that particular argument (N.B The reduction argument I've given doesn't exclude or discount proof of factual evidence).

Exactly, and nobody is going to argue with you about Santa, because popularity of belief is on your side. About God, not so much.

As to the question of logical impossibility, Santa can only be what he is (and not what he isn't); and if Santa (the patron saint of children) is a timeless, wholly benevolent person who magically brings gifts to every child on Christmas Eve, then that is what he is. Now if, for example, it is said that Santa brings a piece of coal or a bundle of sticks as a punishment for children who have been naughty, or withholds visiting them for the same reason, then Santa"s beneficent nature is contradicted. In this case the belief concept has been proved logically impossible not just by the utterance of a single historical premise but also by his factual non-appearance (since instances of Santa's non-appearance are apparent all over the world), from which it follows that either that Santa is punishing children, which contradicts Santa"s essentially beneficent nature, or Santa isn't the magical being with knowledge of all children, a further contradiction that proves the concept as defined as an impossible one. But all this is really beside the point. Santa exists or he doesn't exist, and to ask why he doesn't exist is to imply that he does exist or may exist. And if it is said that he does exist or may exist then it is for the advocate to make the argument instead of inviting empirical proof of non-existence (an evident absurdity). My logical argument still stands (Post 271): Santa doesn't exist.

You are mixing logical arguments, which have to do with the definition of Santa, and empirical arguments, which have to do with facts about the world. It is not logical to argue that Santa does not exist because he does not appear, especially if one can come up with "logical" explanations for that--e.g. that he uses his magical powers to erase memories of his visits.