Dr. William Lane Craig refutes Dawkins on the Presumption of Atheism and Russell's Tea Pot

But what about things like the Tooth Fairy, leprechauns, and Santa Claus? Atheists claim they don't need to disprove God for the same reason they don't need to disprove the existence of Tooth Fairies, leprechauns, and Santa Claus. The problem with the comparison with the last two items is that, while our epistemic situation regarding God doesn't always satisfy the Evidence Expectation and Knowledge Expectation Criteria, our epistemic situation regarding leprechauns and Santa Claus does — we can, and do, disprove them all the time; it's just that there are few, if any, people arguing for their existence so we're never called upon to give those reasons. If Santa existed we should expect to see, but don't, lots of evidence of that fact, including warehouses at the North Pole, a large sleigh, and so forth; similarly, were there biologically tiny human beings on this planet we should expect to see, but don't, their evidence: miniature villages, waste products, the bones of their deceased — evidence similar to what we have for mice, hamsters and other small critters. If there were more people today who made a case for leprechauns and Santa Claus then it would be entirely appropriate for us to enter into dialogue with them, giving reasons for their non-existence.

At this point an atheist might object that the Tooth Fairy is different from leprechauns and Santa Claus because she's invisible. (Is she invisible in the story?) Suppose she is invisible. According to the tale she collects teeth left under children's pillows leaving behind a reward (usually money). Evidence we should expect to see if she existed then would be money left behind, stolen teeth, etc. Do we find such evidence? Well, no we don't, but we would expect to if she existed. So, even the Tooth Fairy satisfies the Evidence Expectation and Knowledge Expectation Criteria. So because we lack evidence of her, we say she doesn't exist (sorry kids!).

Suppose the atheist agrees that the reason why we deny Tooth Fairies, leprechauns and Santa Claus is because we do have evidence for their absence. He might nonetheless insist that the situation is significantly different for other objects which are causally isolated from us. A case in point is Russell's famous teapot which circles about the sun, an object which is (for the most part) causally isolated from us. Do we need to be agnostic about it? Can we say it doesn't exist? I think we know it doesn't exist because it wasn't put there by the Russian or American astronauts; and we know that matter in the universe does not self-organize into teapot shapes. So really, we have a great deal of evidence that Russell's teacup doesn't exist; and since our discussion is confined to cases where we infer the non-existence of something simply on the basis of absence of evidence for it, the example is irrelevant.

Category:

Education

Tags:

• russells
• teapot
• richard
• dawkins
• presumption
• of
• atheism
• william
• lane
• craig

[brainiac256]

"matter in the universe does not self-organize into teapot shapes."

Matter in the universe does not self-organize into God shapes either.

[Imperativism]

@FeignofCordor The absence of evidence means an ontologically neutral position. Absence of evidence in a things existence means that evidence for or against the position may surface in the future, which is why it's irrational to interpret that such an absence of evidence as necessarily evidence of absence.

For a concrete example, in 10,000 b.c there existed no evidence to primitive man to affirm the existence of quantum fluctuations. This absence wasn't proof of its absence to him, however.

[FeignofCordor]

@Thoughtitorium

Is Dr. Craig correct when he says " Absence of Evidence is not evidence of absence"? and if you agree that this statement is true. Explain your problem with his use of this statement if you have one?

[FeignofCordor]

@kyral210

At no point has Dr. Craig ever stated or even inferred that his reasons for belief in God`s existence are " Divorced from reality" as you claim. His arguments are based on sound logic from what we know. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.

[MrAudacious21]

@kyral210 It seems as if you're attempting to define the application of demonstrated actuality with some sort of empirical implication.. As if empiricism or naturalism is the absolute method in which we determine the authenticity of "reality", etc.. There is a plethora of philosophers & scientists that have debunked this method of thought.. Hume, Kant, Descartes to name just a few..

[kyral210]

@FeignofCordor Because his arguments do not rely on the application of demonstrated actuality, but rather asserting a view point eloquently based on ideas which he agrees with. In short, it is divorced from reality

[drfoxcourt]

@FeignofCordor What misquote? Did he not state that we had "good evidence" in the case of an absence?

Please don't be fooled by Dr Craig's misdirections and usage of faith as evidence. Evidence, like facts, are stubborn things. Evidence is not subject to our desires. Craig implies that evidence is.

[drfoxcourt]

@FeignofCordor We have evidence of Jesus existence? Outside the Bible? Please don't show your ignorance by claiming Josephus (That is almost certainly an inserted edit). We have plenty of evidence of objects orbiting the Earth and evidence of teapots.

Furthermore, evidence of a man called Jesus does not include evidence of his divinity, redemptive ability or any other part of the Christian mythos.

[FeignofCordor]

@drfoxcourt

Yet more misquoting Dr.Craig? Really is that the best you can do.

[FeignofCordor]

@kyral210

Explain where he failed logically?