Evidentiary argument

(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
(There are good reasons to disbelieve in God.)
Line 1: Line 1:
 
An evidentiary argument is an argument based on evidence. In apologetics and counter-apologetics the argument usually goes as follows:
 
An evidentiary argument is an argument based on evidence. In apologetics and counter-apologetics the argument usually goes as follows:
  
 +
==Argument==
 
*There is no evidence for the existence of God.
 
*There is no evidence for the existence of God.
 
*We should not believe in a proposition for which there is no evidence.
 
*We should not believe in a proposition for which there is no evidence.

Revision as of 23:15, 21 November 2007

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.
  • We should not believe in a proposition for which there is no evidence.
    • We should not believe in the existence of God.

The objections can be grouped into objections to specific premises:

We should believe in propositions without evidence

This branch of defense arguments usually concern the idea of faith and the defenses there of.

There is evidence for the existence of God


Alternatively

  • There are good reasons to not believe in the existence of God.
  • We should not believe in a proposition for which there are good reasons to not believe.
    • We should not believe in the existence of God.

There are good reasons to disbelieve in God.


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).

Personal tools
Namespaces
Variants
Actions
wiki navigation
IronChariots.Org
Toolbox