I’ve heard statements expressing the viewpoint of Strong Agnosticism, that “God” can not be disproven or proven, implying that truth about the topic subject can not be known.
I disagree.
I can formulate a proof for a positive conclusion of the negative, and suspect, given any evidence, I could do so for the conclusion of the positive. All evidence I’ve seen presented has not actually been evidence, since every one of them have had plausible alternative explanations. I have seen proofs from a priori, as opposed to empirical, reasoning, and all of them have been fallacious and/or uncogent.
Let’s see if I can do better. Of course, I must also use a priori reasoning, but I believe mine is both valid and cogent. However, I also believe that it has weakness, that the premises could be plausibly be attacked. On the other hand, every attack I have seen was fallacious. But, back to the … first (?) hand, that does not mean a refutation is not possible.
So, let’s get to it, by using Modus Tollens. Modus Tollens depends on a given, expected, entailed effect of a particular cause. If the the effect is not there, hasn’t happened, doesn’t exist, etc., then the cause is not there, hasn’t happened, doesn’t exist. Those who claim, “A negative can not be proven.” are ignorant of Modus Tollens, which they could understand from a class in Introduction to Logic, at least at the college level.
Now, Modus Tollens can only prove a negative in cases in which there is an effect expected from a claimed object being a cause. If the claimed object is defined in such a way that there are no expected effects, it is not subject to falsification using this method, this rule. There are other criticisms which apply, though.
So:
1. If a god exists, then there is evidence that a god exists.
2. There is no evidence that a god exists.
3. [1,2,MT] Therefore, a god does not exist.
In the case of Deist claims that a god created the Universe, and initiated the Expansion (e.g. “Big Bang”), it could be possible that no evidence could be expected, because the Expansion could have obliterated any plausibly expected evidence. However, most claims of existence of a god usually includes a description of intrinsic characteristics and behaviors which should leave evidence. So, while Modus Tollens can not disprove the former kind of claim, it can for the latter kind. However, if some creator hid its existence in this way, why should anybody believe this?
It is also possible that evidence may be found, that can not be plausibly explained by any other cause. This is the bigger of the weaknesses, in my opinion. However, while it might not be true that “there is no evidence that a god exists”, in the meantime, it is warranted to believe there is no god.
The salient question is, “why does anybody believe that a god exists?”. I’ve explained this in an account of my experience, but I’m going to continue to work on this, as in trying to learn, specifically, how many people with god beliefs recognize their roots.
Views: 276
