From Demand to Prove a Negative
P 1 ) The theist makes the demand that
the non-theist prove that his or her deity of choice does not exist (when the non-theist asks for proof of their deity of choice's existence).
P 2 ) The theist is
forced to shift the burden to the non-theist by this demand because he/she implicitly
has neither any empirical proof nor a valid, cogent argument with positive reasons
to demonstrate that their deity of choice exists.
Conclusion: The theists' god therefore does not exist.
[The non-theist might also ask the theist about the extent of their study/research into evidence of their god's existence, because if their study is quite broad, it gives them even less reason to make the demand, since their studies should allow them to be able to reasonably demonstrate their god's existence even if through logical argumentation.]
This argument is similar to the Argument for the Non-Existence of God (No. 1), but is more specific concerning the theists' method of argumentation (asking atheist to prove a negative).
This argument is similar to the Argument for the Non-Existence of God (No. 1), but is more specific concerning the theists' method of argumentation (asking atheist to prove a negative).
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThank you for this - reading it, I was inspired to come up with the following as a way of demonstrating to theists the fallacy of shifting the burden of proof. I'd be interested to know your opinion on whether it holds up, and if so, whether it's too convoluted to be useful:
ReplyDelete(Starts with theist demand that I prove God does not exist)
1) Confirm that, as a principle, they think that things should be believed until disproven (if not, point out special pleading in the case of God). If agreement secured, accept it for sake of argument.
2) Secure agreement that God is eternal and so was never created.
3) If God was not created, God could not have been created for a purpose.
4) If God was not created for a purpose, God could be a random/arbitrary phenomenon. Hence all his attributes, from which the nature of creation flows, could be random.
5) Following the principle that anything that has not been disproved must be believed, the theist must either believe that God is random, or reject said principle and accept the burden of proof in regards to the God claim.
Thank you for your comment. This reminds me of the question when discussing God and the logical absolutes "Can God revoke the law of identity" as it gets to the heart of the matter. My guess is the theist would respond that since God is eternal statement Nos. 3 and 4 are non-sequiturs (simply, "it would not follow that god could not have been created for a purpose since he was always there and there is no "creation").
ReplyDeleteIf I find anything else on this, I will let you know. Cheers, Karen
Thanks for such a thoughtful and speedy reply. I thought my argument sounded too good to be true, and I didn't want to fall into the trap of deploying and argument just because I like the sound of it!
ReplyDelete