Evidentiary argument

Revision as of 20:59, 23 November 2007

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 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 there of.

• 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 perfect 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

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).