The Presumption of Atheism

Should we believe God does not exist until evidence for God turns up, believe God exists until evidence against God turns up, or neither?

NOTE: I think I made one incorrect remark here, saying (around 3:40) that Flew would have us believe that the theory that God exists is not correct until we have good evidence for it. In fact Flew, so far as I can understand him, merely says we should not believe that that theory is correct.

ALSO NOTE: I stated it more clearly and correctly at other points in this video!

[trippingjune]

Evidence for God is overwhelming for anyone who honestly desires to see it. The atheist however will refuse to believe regardless of the evidence. Belief is a choice that has little or nothing to do with the evidence. The reality is that in a court of law as you mentioned, there is a prosecutor and a defense. Both sides look at the same evidence, and yet both sides are full convinced that the evidence supports their position. However, their positions are in complete opposition to one another. This is exactly what happens in any debate between a believer and an atheist. The believer looks at the evidence and says it points to God. the atheist looks at the evidence and says it points to no God. Yet the evidence they are looking at is the same. Which means, their conclusions are not based on the evidence, but rather their interpretation of the evidence. And just like a defense team is arguing innocence, whereas the prosecution is arguing guilt, the believer and the atheist have entered the battle with preconceived notions that they are ready to defend tooth and nail. So it really comes down to a person's world view and what they want to believe. The atheist will look at dinosaur fossils and say they got there when an asteroid hit earth some 65 million years ago. The creationist will look at the same fossils and say they were buried quickly in a worldwide flood some 4000 years ago. The evidence hasn't changed, only the interpretation of the evidence has changed. The evidence at the OJ trial didn't change per the prosecution or defense, only the interpretation did. Therefore, an atheist can presume there is no God, and have the bar of evidence set so high that nothing could ever possibly change his mind. No matter what evidence you show him, he won't acknowledge it as sufficient. Jesus put it this way, "And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead." - Luke 16:31

[acarouselofantics]

This is quite a video. I mean that dealing with anything surrounding atheism, whether from philosophical thinking or some scientific point, it is bound to bring out all kinds of views, especially from brothers and sisters who lack belief in God or a god.

[TeacherOfPhilosophy]

Thanks for the comments, everyone! Please consider subscribing, watching the rest of the Topics in Philosophy playlist, or both!

If this keeps going I cannot promise to keep up with the reading, thumbs-ups, replies, and approving worthy comments accidentally held as possible spam! (I sure didn't keep up with the metaphysics discussions on the Berkeley video!)

But I hope I can keep up!

[Max_Doubt]

This is the tail wagging the dog. The language here is imprecise, as is the language employed by many an apologist. Are we talking about "God" or "a god?" And, when approaching this question, avoid the terms "evidence" and "proof." The question is whether atheism or theism or neither or both are rationally justified. Proof and evidence for gods is non-existent, so we must wager. How should we bet? Considering that none of the thousands of gods have ever been verified?

[Damascene]

Not only is it that God exists, but it’s not a generic impersonal deity. Only the Trinity, the God of Orthodox Christianity of the East, can aptly explain reality without going into modalism and other contradiction that are found in every other worldview

[gondorsboromir]

I don't have a "presumption of atheism".
I have a position on holding a reaosnable position. And that is: Something is reasonable to believe, if there is evidence. If there is no evidence, I won't believe it. That doesn't only concern the god-claim. That applies to almost everything.
My atheism is the result of this position. It's not a "presumption" itself.

I also don't chose my believes. I simply don't.
I can't chose to believe in a god, absent of any evidence. I simply couldn't.
And you know that! Everybody knows that! We CAN'T just chose what to believe! And I can prove it:

Step 1: Chose right now to believe that you can fly.
Step 2: Climb up to the top of a your building, jump out and fly away.

Many people claim that they can do step 1, but they won't follow through with Step 2... because they actually CAN'T do step 1! You cannot just make you believe something of which you are not convinced.
So, if you understand how you cannot just make yourself believe that you can fly, you should understand how I cannot just chose to believe in the existence of a god.

It also really bothers me that, even though at some points in this video you seem to understand that NOT BELIEVING X is not the same thing as CLAIMING THAT X IS FALSE...
And yet, at other points, you set up this false dichotomy of either having to believe that there is a god, or having to believe that there is no god.
This is just no true. You can reject the claim that there is a god, without necessarily having to claim that there is no god.
"I believe there is no god" and "I believe there is a god" are not the two mutually exclusive options here!
"I believe there is a god" and "I DON'T believe there is a god"... THAT's the true dichotomy here.
In the same way that "I believe there is no god" and "I don't believe there is no god" is a mutually exclusive dichotomy here.

If you believe something without evidence, then you are simply irrational. Because that's what being rational and reasonable is about: Follwoing the evidence. NOT taking positions for which you have no ground to stand on.

[NeoDemocedes]

This is more a question of values than it is of truth. What is more important to you? That your beliefs are rational, or that you suffer no ill consequences for your beliefs? If you value rational belief, the consequences of those beliefs are immaterial to the question.

[mark]

There is one more thing to consider: what evidence do we have, and what idea does this evidence support? For me, there isn't enough evidence to support a belief in a god, and the evidence we have supports naturalism, such as evolution. Even if evidence is uncovered to suggest the existence of a god, an explanation is required for the evidence supporting naturalism. I am an atheist, not just because of the lack of evidence for a god, but also because of what the evidence we have suggests.

[mattsmith]

James was wrong: I don't think you can merely _choose_ to believe in the existence of something. You can hope for it, desire it, want it to be the case, but actually believe it? No.

In the case of the Christian God, it's quite clear that the defendant is not guilty of existing, outside of a concept within our minds. We know this because that God is ascribed certain characteristics in the Bible that do not comport with reality. For example: answered prayer. Prayer has no effect on external reality, therefore the God to whom you can pray and expect results as described in the Bible does not exist.

[CaffeinatedDebate]

Absence of evidence is evidence of absence if we should reasonably expect to see evidence. This is the case in Judism, Christianity and Islam. That is why I can dismiss these religions claims. I rarely find any theists arguing for a god that we should not find any evidence for.

[smokert]

That's the problem with a lot of philosophical arguments. They are a "what if" scenario with nothing more than philosophical argument to support the scenario. Philosophical arguments are nothing more than a tool used in seeking what's true or not about our reality by discussing possibilities. It's then that you take the philosophical argument and see if you can field test it for reliability. Just on it's own, a philosophical argument is not evidence for anything. Any specific definition of a god can be disproved. It doesn't help when you have different beliefs using the same argument (that has no supporting evidence) being used as "proof" of their gods existence.

[TheFranzzzNL]

the atheist state that untill there is quantifiable proof of a realm that coexists next to our universe where a diety resides with a direct influence to our universe/earth/lives is considered an idle thought process that has no merit and is fruitless

[Pyladin]

I do not choose what I believe. If that was the case, then I could one day choose to believe in God and the next day, not believe in it. The brain does not work that way.
You see the car coming towards you, but you choose to believe it is not there and acts after that...try to do that, I bet you will fail and jump out of the way.

[fankrys]

vampires, werewolf, dragons, undead, monsters, gods ... there are litterally millions of thing that have not been proven to not exist but not be proven to exist either.

so i made for myself a rule of thumb.

if something is supernatural in nature, if it defies the biological and physical laws of nature as we know them, then it has to be proven to exist, otherwise i assume it does not exist.

so vampires, i never met one but that doesn't prove they don't exist. But because of their supernatural nature, i assume they don't exist until proven otherwise.

gods fall in the same category.

[nevanderson]

"You have no proof I do not have a gun - Give me your money!"

#facepalm - No proof does not default to "Therefore god"

[sandysutherland]

There is no presumption of atheism! All the presumption is on the part of the theist. The atheist is the null hypothesis position. I did see some where that you claimed to follow the theist position of the Baptist tradition that believes in biblical inerrancy? Straight away you are placing yourself in a losing position where you committing the debating error 'argument from authority' and probably other invidious positions as well.
B Sto. Challenged me provide a reference to a point that I was making about a quote by Milton. Well, the best that I can do is:
Milton, John. Aeopagitica: "Let Her (Truth) and falsehood grapple; whoever knew Truth put to the worse in a free and open encounter? Her confuting is the best and surest suppressing.". As I have argued before, I have seen and heard the arguments for theism and against (yes, I am aware that there are more than two positions) and my intellect (such as it is) still finds for something akin to the athiest position. I am a keen follower of people such as Matt Dillahunty; SethAndrews; AronRa; Richard Dawkins and many others. I find their arguments compelling'

[sandysutherland]

I will leave you with this site that is already cited in another comment: www.kyroot.com/