Evidentiary argument
(Difference between revisions)
m (→We should believe in propositions without evidence: typo; removed duplicate links) |
m (→There is evidence for the existence of God) |
||
| Line 19: | Line 19: | ||
*[[Arguments for the existence of God]] | *[[Arguments for the existence of God]] | ||
*[[Argument from design|Complexity of biological life]]. | *[[Argument from design|Complexity of biological life]]. | ||
| − | *[[Fine tuning argument|The universe is | + | *[[Fine tuning argument|The universe is perfectly suited for humans]]. |
*[[prayer|Efficacy of prayer]]. | *[[prayer|Efficacy of prayer]]. | ||
*[[Bible|The Bible supports God]]. | *[[Bible|The Bible supports God]]. | ||
Revision as of 19:58, 3 August 2010
An evidentiary argument is an argument based on evidence. In apologetics and counter-apologetics the argument usually goes as follows:
Contents |
Argument
- There is no evidence for the existence of God.
- There are good reasons for not believing in the existence of God.
- We should not believe in a proposition for which there is no evidence.
- We should not believe in the existence of God.
- We should not believe in a proposition for which there are good reasons for not believing it.
- We should not believe in the existence of God.
We should believe in propositions without evidence
This branch of defense arguments usually concern the idea of faith and the defenses thereof.
- Faith is a good within itself.
- God wants us to have faith.
- Faith is a virtue.
- We have faith in other things: wind, love, trust, quantum mechanics, Gödel's incompleteness theorem
There is evidence for the existence of God
- Arguments for the existence of God
- Complexity of biological life.
- The universe is perfectly suited for humans.
- Efficacy of prayer.
- The Bible supports God.
- Personal revelations.
- Jesus fulfilled prophecy
Good reasons for not believing in the existence of God
- Problem of evil
- Argument from nonbelief
- Argument from inconsistent revelations
- Argument from locality
- Argument from apologetics
- Omnipotence paradox
- Argument from improbability
This is, much like Pascal's Wager, is an argument for belief rather than the existence of God. The thrust of the argument is that we shouldn't believe in God, not that there are not god(s).
