Gratuitous Common Sense

…apparently.

I happened across a post by one Frank Walton on his blog, Atheism Sucks. I found the link to his blog on the Passionate Atheist. The post, entitled “TXAtheist won’t share the burden of proof”, by Frank is an email exchange between himself and an atheist, in which Frank tries to argue that a god exists based on “the impossibility of the contrary”. And tries to get the atheist to make the same kind of argument for his opposing position.

As any of you intelligent beings might recognize, such an argument is a fallacy of ignorance. I was interested in how Frank would reconcile this problem within his argument against the atheist, so I read on.

I ended up responding to his post by leaving a comment, under the username ccannizz11. I don’t want to link to his blog, but feel free to get there through the Passionate Atheist link on his sidebar. The exchange is currently posted in the comments section, however, all my comments must be approved by the owner, so I’ll be tracking the exchange in a separate post and will make it known if Frank doesn’t follow through.

Also, I would encourage you to respond, if you have the time.

UPDATE:
Awww, maaan, Frank quitted.

I’m going to post his final comments here, so everyone may witness the idiocy without going to his blog. My responses to his previous arguments are in bold, while his responses are blockquoted, and I have added a few comments in italics. The rest of the exchange is available on his blog. Not riveting stuff, but enjoy…

LOL, you’re taking my statement outside of the context of the argument and applying it to all atheists and calling that statement an absolute, while I’m talking about what an atheist (and the theist) would say in response the question at hand. See the difference?
Here Frank tries to put forward the idea that my claim that atheists don’t talk about the answers to such questions as the existence of a deity in absolutes as an absolute. In the process he refuses to recognize that I’m talking about answers to questions that for which he (or anybody for that matter) has not presented sufficient evidence.

Yes, but I wasn’t applying it to all atheists. I was just applying your own premise to you. You said you “don’t claim absolute truth”. Sorry, but you can’t avoid the fact that you assumed an absolute.

No, it’s not and saying it over and over again doesn’t make it so.
Notice that I did more than just repeat myself

Then you should have done more than just repeat yourself here.

Maybe you could demonstrate how a Theory is absolute?
Here Frank tries to use the basic definition of a FACT, and hold it as a theory to demonstrate how a theory can be absolute.

Ok. I have the theory that something exists. Something certainly exists. As far as I can tell nothing doesn’t exist otherwise I wouldn’t be able to say or do something. See, the theory that something exists is certainly absolute. That was easy.

I thought I explained how this wasn’t a presupposition in my original post, and should be recognized as a hypothesis.
Here Frank refuses to understand that in order to arrive at a worldview you must first form a hypothesis that can be tested, a process that he seems to have reversed.

A hypothesis and worldview are two different things. Your explanation was false.

Or are you saying that the idea that we should ‘define the question, form an idea, gather data, test it, analyze it, and form a conclusion’ in that order is somehow a presupposition?
Here is where Frank says the exact opposite of what he implied in his comment right above this one.

No.

You said objectivity is possible, then went on to define subjectivity. You’re a hoot!
This is where Frank presents something that doesn’t depend on your worldview, the fact that “something” exists, as being objective. And holds that subjectivity still plays a role because facts are dependent on your worldview, but again offering no evidence of that claim.

Uh, yes, defining something subjectively is a great way of making a distinction of objectivity. What we interpret can be objective. For instance, something exists. Interpret that anyway you want but the fact remains: something objectively exists.

Necessary in order to do what? To answer the question?
This is where Frank said his presupposition of a god was not arbitrary, but rather necessary with regard to the question of the existence of a god.

To make sense of human experience. Depends what the nature of the question is being asked.

how can you say that, if you form the presupposition - by definition - before the question is asked?
Here Frank fails to understand that a presupposition is, by definition, formed before the question is asked. Instead he chooses to interpret it as a comment on how he comes to his presupposition and thus grazes right past the question.

I didn’t form my presupposition simply by definition.

So you’re reasoning differently than the atheist and that justifies your conclusion?
This is where Frank reverts back to his tried, untrue argument of trying to get the atheist to make an absolute declaration about something for which there is not enough evidence.

Not necessarily. But if the atheist actually provides a worldview that can makes sense of the uniformity of nature I’m all ears.

Read a math book recently?
Not exactly sure what Frank is saying, perhaps that math is subjective. Or, by his definiton, both subjective and objective.

Yes. But how can you even make sense of that given your worldview?

Now that is an interesting philosophical question! And much more pertinent than the question regarding the existence of a god. As for making sense of human intelligibility, I would offer that, if our minds were so simple that we could understand them then we would be so simple that we couldn’t. But that’s a different subject altogether.
This is where Frank asked “Can you really know anything?” I responded with the above, and really nothing new was offered here except a voyage into a different subject.

LOL! That is the subject. But since you think that “if our minds were so simple that we could understand them then we would be so simple that we couldn’t.” So why are we even arguing then if you don’t understand human experience?

Your continual beating of the drum, “show me a worldview that makes human experience make sense, give me one,” is only an extension of your fallacious thesis statement.
This is where Frank proposes that his statement is only an extension of his fallacious ‘impossibility of the contrary’ argument in the context of my worldview. you decide…

So says your worldview! LOL!

You’re holding your worldview up to be true, because you claim the impossibility of the contrary without showing evidence in support of either claim.
Frank blatantly contradicts himself by claiming that he has not held his worldview up to be true based on his own ‘impossibility of the contrary’ argument. Then he misinterprets my points about using restraint when looking at the evidence, as thinking that my conclusion is absolutely true, which I, of course, have not done.

No, I’m not. Because you can’t prove a worlview via scientific evidence. The only thing you can do is see if it comports to reality. But then again, you have a radically skeptical view that you think is absolutely true. But then say it isn’t absolutely true.

How quaint. You know your reasoning is circular so must bring all reasoning down to your level.
This statement is on par with Heaven’s Gate rationale…

It’s not fallaciously circular though since I’m reasoning transcendentally.

This is a tactic usually reserved for the ID folk, I wonder why you’re so fond of it?
The tactic that I’m referring to is in the comment just above. Here Frank wonders aloud why I’m not fond of making such a blatant bastardization of the other side’s argument.

I wonder why you’re not.

Have you noticed the circular reasoning feeling following you around most your life? Ever think that perhaps it’s you, and not the inherent properties of all arguments, that’s at fault?
Apparently the light bulb has yet to turn on…

Yes.

So there’s no point in even asking the question, or exploring possible answers. The answer is presupposed! woot!!!
Here is where Frank turns another blind eye to his fallacy of burden of proof by putting the onus on someone else to prove his assertion false without offering anything (other than an argument from ignorance) to prove his claim to be true.

Yes. But you have to see if my presupposition is false. I find it amazing you can’t see that distinction. Either way, I’ve proven how you were wrong.

Or for that matter, the relevant part that I posted: “A claim’s truth or falsity depends upon supporting or refuting evidence to the claim, not the lack of support for a contrary or contradictory claim”
Here I reposted a part that he seemed to have ignored because this statement is included in the fallacy of ignorance, yet he chose a different statement to address and tried to show how it did not apply to his argument. It seemed to need repeating.

I read that too. Well, Jiminy Jillickers! “saying it over and over again doesn’t make it so.”

maybe a different link will help you understand better: Fallacy of Burden of Proof, which includes the fallacy of ignorance.
Here, Frank fails to understand that I’m simply offering a second source to backup my first one, not revising it, but adding to it, as I point out in my statements below this one. He also blatantly ignores the very first note in the link I offered, which stated that fallacy of ignorace is included, which would tip someone off that it’s not a revision of the fallacy of ignorance point.

So what you’re doing now is revising what you said in the past because you knew I dealt with it by adding the now “fallacy of burden of proof.” The burden of proof when it comes the uniformity of nature belongs to everybody.

Let me help you with this. With regard to your argument, read the first sentence in the link. You are side B in that example. And for good measure, read the whole thing.
Here is the sentence that is in the link I asked him to read: “Burden of Proof is a fallacy in which the burden of proof is placed on the wrong side. Another version occurs when a lack of evidence for side A is taken to be evidence for side B in cases in which the burden of proof actually rests on side B.” Yet he states below that his premise that ‘the contrary is impossible’ is still true without offering any supporting evidence.

Ok. Read it. My premise still stands.

Look, what you’re doing is claiming that you’re correct because the opposing view is impossible. You offer no evidence for proving that the opposing view is impossible, yet you expect people to accept it as a condition.
Here I try to explain it to him so I don’t get the responses that I got above when he parsed my comment on this issue. Then he goes on to admit that his belief is only his personal belief and cannot be applied to everyone since he, alone, chooses not to subscribe to this evidentialism, thereby admitting that his belief is only a theory and confirming the statement of TXAtheist when he said, “I am making a prequalifier in saying if you believe god exists I can’t prove that you don’t believe that. Proving god exists to me is the topic I wish to discuss but not that you believe in god. I acknowlege you believe that.”

They can if they want. But evidentialism is not my worldivew like yours. Realize you said we need evidence before we can accept something. But I don’t believe that something should only be believed on the basis of evidence. Not even the most skeptical scholar of epistemology thinks that evidence is the only means of truth-gathering. In your worldview, everything must have evidence. If everything must have evidence prior to acceptance, then we will never be able to establish anything as true since anything trotted out as evidence would itself need to be proven, and so on ad infinitum!

Given that condition, you propose your conclusion. In other words, the proposition that you are holding to be true just because it cannot be proven false is that the contrary is impossible (fallacy of ignorance).
Don’t know what else to say here, he holds that the contrary position to his belief is impossible simply because no one has supposedly proven it to be possible. He offers no supporting evidence for the claim, just states that it is impossible. Thus committing the fallacy of ignorance.

As we’ve seen that’s not the case because it’s not a fallacy of ignorance. Sorry.

Then you go on to apply the burden of proof fallacy on top of that, putting the onus on someone else to provide proof against your extraordinary claims (both, that a god exists and that the contrary is impossible), when the onus actually lies with you.
Here, Frank simply states the opposite of the fallacy and expects everyone to accept his statement over basic logic. In the link I provided to him, it states: “As another example, in debate the burden of proof is placed on the affirmative team.” He offers an example that has an affirmative position that has undoubtedly fulfilled its burden of proof, which makes the argument for the negative that he presents an exercise that would only be pursued by the ignorant.

Yes. Even if someone makes a negative claim they share a burden. For instance, if someone said that death doesn’t exist, well, there’s a burden for ya there.

How can I be committing a fallacy of ignorance when I have yet to offer an sort of conclusion or statement in one way or another on the question at hand?
Here, Frank says that I have somehow created an oxymoron by holding a theory to be absolutely true. And fails to recognize that I am simply trying to get him to offer something that supports his claim without making blanket statements that have nothing to back them up.

Because you don’t know. You’re taking your whole theory here for granted as if though it’s true. Otherwise, why are you arguing with me?

Anyway, the uniformity of nature is most definitely awe-inspiring. And it’s a question that we don’t have the answer to yet.
Apparently Frank is unfamiliar with the TOE (Theory of Everything) which is the end goal of the search for a unifying theory that explains the “uniformity of nature” that he is so apt to suppose.

I gave an answer you and TXatheist dodged it and won’t offer one yourself except to say it’s awe-inspiring and has yet to be answered.

Here’s where the restraint comes in that I talked about.
Note that earlier, Frank said that he understood and accepted the concept when I explained restraint to him. Here, he contradicts that statement.

You mean the dodge?

This is where you make the leap to a god without any evidence FOR making that leap, while the atheist simply refrains from doing so. You are proposing that since we don’t know right now, it is impossible to know without a god.
Apparently, Frank “knows” through his belief alone, while failing to recognize that we can assume uniformity without yet knowing how or why, as long as we admit that it is an assumption which could turn out to be false, and thus, as repeatedly demonstrated, fails to understand the concept of what a theory is.

I didn’t say that. I said we do know right now that nature is uniform. In fact, you’re assuming the uniformity of nature as we speak.

Now tell me, please, how can the burden of proof lie with an atheist who is simply refraining from making the assumption (and refraining from committing the fallacy) that you are.
Apparently, we can’t ignore what he knows to be true, even though he has offered nothing in support except for his theoretical statements that don’t include anything to back them up.

Because you can’t ignore that nature is uniform like what you’ve done so far?
Dude, *SIGH* You don’t know what the uniformity of nature is, do you?

The existence of a god is the hypothesis. If you’re going to explore the question of whether or not a god exists, you cannot start with a precondition that a god exists.
Frank wonders aloud where there is evidence for the non-existence of something :dunno:, like that invisible pink unicorn in my closet. Also this is where Frank contradicts an earlier assumption that I made which he called false at the time. I said, “it is likely that you think of the atheist’s worldview as starting with the “presupposition” of the non-existence of a god”. He said he wouldn’t agree with that, and then he offers this…

You are starting with a precondition that we can’t. I wonder where the evidence is for that. And then the evidence for that and then the evidence for that, etc. ad infinitum.

Here’s where you (should) get your objectivity. I’m not saying that “mathematics just is”. I am saying that it is a system that we use to help us understand what is going on, for it is the logical deduction of consequences from the premises of all rationale and reason. It is used because it doesn’t “depend on your worldview”, as you are so inclined to define objectivity.
Here Frank equates the idea that math is not dependent on a worldview with the idea that something just exists. In other words, if it’s objective, then it just is. But that’s not the same as his definition of subjective objectivism.

So it needs no worldview. So it just is. Thank you.

I haven’t ignored the problem, I have simply refrained making the assumptions, fallacies, and conclusions that you have.
Here, he is okay with my assessment of his argument as fallacious, and then wonders why I won’t engage his argument that bases its conclusion on these fallacious statements.

*SHRUGS* Ok. But you still dodged the problem of induction.

the justification is an omniscient part of my continual search for learning and knowledge.
Frank takes my statement out of context again and holds it to say that I’m claiming such knowledge can never exist.

Knowledge? What knowledge? You said, you “don’t claim absolute truth, knowledge, or righteousness.”

Here is where Frank does the same thing he did with the last atheist he “debated”. Either that or takes my statement to be true: “You were right to end the debate, because there is no debate to be had when one starts with presuppositions that eliminate the need for data.” All that is left to do is merely repeat yourself in an endless bout of circular reasoning. I wonder why….

Look, I’m going to stop here because reading what you’ve written so far, well, you’re just repeating yourself. But, thanks, it was fun. I would hope though that you would look up the problem of induction more thoroughly though.

Share This