The God Delusion - Richard Dawkins

[Reaper]

We're saying the same thing Reaper. Whoever enacts the exercise of "claim" owns the burden of proof. That is keeping with the scientific method and you are agreeing with this here. You're just not recognizing that by saying "Civilization X does not exist" - THAT is a claim.

 

Well, no, saying "Civilization X does not exist" would be a conclusion, based on lack of evidence, in this particular scenario. Granted, it is not the ONLY conclusion one can come up with (one can easily argue that no conclusions can be drawn for this case), but regardless this does in no way shift the burden of proof to the person who concludes this. The burden of proof rests entirely on the person making the claim that "Civilization X exists", it is therefore up to them to come up with a convincing argument.

 

No it's not since you cannot search the area of space that contains the civilization. This is how the god thing works too. God is defined in such a way that the entire possible area of existence cannot be searched for evidence, therefore cannot be disproved. You cannot make claims without supporting evidence.

 

Actually, that's a weak analogy, because you can search the area of space that contains this civilization. In fact, the existence of this civilization can actually be verified, unlike God, no matter how vague you wish to make your description of it. Evidence for a civilization can be defined, unlike deities. Specific predictions can be made from it. We can even make falsifiable hypothesis from this idea (e.g. a civilization from this corner of the universe will be emitting x, y, and z). Omnipotence, on the other hand...

 

 

And yes, anyone can make any claims they wish. However, the burden of proof lies with the person making the claims. There is no need for the other side to have to provide evidence to disprove such a claim; that's called shifting the burden of proof.

 

 

I don't see how this disagrees with a thing I said. You're repeating the same points - "the burden of proof is on the person making the claims" - yes that's right. Glad we agree. This includes ALL claims. Claims that things don't exist, as well as claims that things DO exist.

 

Nope, wrong. Proving God exists certainly isn't my problem . What I have is a conclusion based on various things (such as lack of evidence), not a proof.

 

It is not necessary for their to be an argument that something DOES exist in order to make a claim that it DOESN'T.

 

But no one is arguing over that though. The main problem here is, is that we are not even sure if God really does exist. And if lucaspa and YT is to be believed, then there is no way to ever be sure. The point that I'm making is that, as I said before, there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever for any of their claims. Anecdotes don't count. The conclusion that God doesn't exist is a perfectly logical conclusion in this case, in fact it is the only conclusion that really makes any sense (hint: Occam's razor).

 

Think about that first. I can't say "Fairies that eat brains do not exist in the next galaxy". NO ONE has ever purported that fairies exist in the next galaxy that eat brains. But I still can't claim they don't exist and pass of the burden of proof to...uh...no one. See, a claim is a claim. No matter if it's claiming a negative, a positive, an existence, a non-existence...

 

That's a strawman.

[Rev Blair]

No, Reaper, it up to the people claiming that there is a god to provide valid evidence of its existence. We can then falsify that evidence.

 

Consider the purported writings of the Roman historian (can't remember his name, sorry) that allegedly provided third-party evidence of Jesus' existence. The papers were falsified, however, shown to be a fraud.

 

It is the religious who are making the claim, the burden is on them to provide the supporting evidence. They have failed to do so.

[lucaspa]

I'm beginning to fully understand the term 'flock'.

No, this isn't about a group. This is individual help. It is what is reported by those who claim personal experience of deity.

 

It's not a statement of faith, it's parsimony.

 

We then have another bit of bad science here. Parsimony is not used to evaluate theories. The simplest theory is not the correct one. Just look at signal transduction and transcription control, where parsimony has been thrown out the window for decades. I expect we will have to go over that in more detail because it is an established atheist dogma. Ockham's Razor was about the description of phenomena, not evaluating hypotheses. The example Ockham used was "An object moves because of an impetus". Notice that "because of an impetus" is an hypothesis to explain why the object moves. Ockham noted that movement is just change in space over time. Therefore the statement should be "an object moves".

 

Same thing for god, why would we believe in the existence of god in the universe, it explains nothing.

 

It explains people's personal experience. It explains why there is a Christian religion. In science, there are still 2 questions where direct action by deity is a possible explanation:

1. Why does the universe exist at all.

2. Why does the universe have the order it does instead of some other order.

 

Beyond that, there is the untested hypothesis of whether deity is needed for any of the processes studied by science to happen. Darwin knew this and included that hypothesis in the Fontispiece to Origin:

"The only distinct meaning of the word 'natural' is stated, fixed, or settled; since what is natural as much requires and presupposes an intelligent agent to render it so, i.e., to effect it continually or at stated times, as what is supernatural or miraculous does to effect it for once." Butler: Analogy of Revealed Religion.

 

Methodological Materialism makes it impossible for science to test this hypothesis. If you've got away around MM, then don't waste your time here: the Nobel Committee is waiting.

 

We can't even say it explains religious beliefs/experiences, as people from different regions of the world believe in different things. If you were born in Japan, you would probably bash the concept of god and believe in Kami.

 

There are different theories about deity, but when you get down to people's experiences, they are remarkably similar. Let's face it, Lamarck and Darwin looked at the same data but came up with very different theories about how species change, didn't they?

 

Why would science produce peer-reviewed scientific papers about a hypothesis based on no reliable evidences ?

 

Because hypotheses come first and then comes the evidence. Look, the problem here is that you are not representing science correctly. And that is the danger of militant atheism: it wants to change the basic nature of science for faith purposes.

 

Karl Popper did an accurate job of describing how science works. "I thought that scientific theories were not the digest of observations, but that they were inventions -- conjectures boldly put forward for trial, to be eliminated if they clashed with observations, with observations which were rarely accidental but as a rule undertaken with the definite intention of testing a theory by obtaining, if possible, a decisive refutation." Karl Popper, Conjectures and Refutations, 1963 p 38.

 

If I cannot put forward a hypothesis until I have "evidence", then nothing I have ever published would have been done. Your view of science -- if you could enforce it -- would stop science in its tracks.

 

We have a lot of work then, because there's an awful lot of mythological creatures out there, and most of us don't believe in them so we need to provide evidences.

 

Here you have finally hit upon something, but haven't thought it thru. Yes, we have shared beliefs that all of us accept as "fact". But in terms of science they are not. As I stated previously, science is just as agnostic about Zeus as Yahweh. Theists are not. They have decided that this particular theory of deity is wrong. What you haven't asked is: how did they do that?

 

atheists don't say; god doesn't exist, they say; god's existence is highly improbable ('weak atheism').

 

And weak atheism won't stand to critical scrutiny. It must either become agnostism or go to what you call "strong atheism". What you are describing is why some atheists say they believe as they do. But it doesn't answer the question we really want to know: does deity exist?

 

I find this situation quite annoying, it's nearly impossible to have a civil discussion about the concept of God because theists won't accept the burden of the proof

 

Actually, the annoyance goes the other way: it is atheists who refuse to accept the burden of proof. I saw with iNow and now with others the Shifting the Burden of Proof Fallacy. Theists (of whatever theory) proffer evidence in the form of experiences that have been written down. Atheists deny the validity of the evidence but never provide any evidence that deity does not exist. If we were simply discussing in a faith situation, I would accept that. BUT, Dawkins and others -- like you -- claim to use science to say that deity does not exist. But then can't find the scientific evidence and so try shifting the burden.

 

How can I prove the inexistence of the christian god ? I can't,

Do you mean you don't have evidence or that there is no possible evidence? I've already given you 3 possible evidences that, if true, would falsify Yahweh and Judeo-Christianity.

 

I'll give you another: if you can find an authentic writing from one or more of the disciples that they made the whole Resurrection up, that would falsify the christian god, wouldn't it?

 

So, there is evidence that, if it existed, would falsify the christian god. But this applies to every good scientific theory, doesn't it? That's the whole point about being falsifiable. That you can't falsify Yahweh is just too bad. You are in the position of any scientific theory without evidence to falsify it: you must consider it possible. That means your choice to believe deity does not exist is a matter of faith. That's fine. I've no quarrel with you having that faith. The problems arise when you try to present that faith as "fact" and/or part of science.

 

and christians can't prove the inexistence of the gods from other mythologies, they can't prove the inexistence of Kami and spirits, et cetera...

This is where you need to read into the literature of theology. Theists have decided that hundreds/thousands of theories about deity are wrong. How did they do that?

 

Actually, it's not true at all. I think science has made the belief in the supernatural unnecessary, but I certainly don't believe science has shown that god doesn't exist. It's a very important distinction, we can reject a hypothesis because we don't need it anymore, even if we can't disprove it.

 

What science has done is shown that belief in god-of-the-gaps does not work. It emphatically has not shown god is not necessary. Back up to Darwin quoting Butler in the Fontispiece of Origin. Deity may be necessary for any of the processes studied by science to work at all. That's where the limitations of how we do experiments called Methodological Materialism (or Naturalism) comes in. For you to say that the supernatural is unnecessary means that you don't understand the limitations of science.

 

Again, you are doing bad and inaccurate science. As I said, it's not your belief I'm objecting to. Be atheist if you wish by all means. But don't use misrepresentations of science to rationalize your belief.

 

It's up to the theists to prove the existence of their god.

 

No, it's not. That's the Shifting the Burden of Proof fallacy. As I posted, both sides have a "burden of proof".

 

Until they provide such proof, their claim has no validity.

 

Define "proof".

 

At this point there is more evidence of Sasquatch than there is of the Judeo/Christian/Muslim deity,

 

That is inaccurate. There are far more people with personal experience of deity than there are people who claim to have seen Sasquatch. Just because you have not had such experience does not make their experience invalid.

 

The Sasquatch lobby is not trying to interfere with a woman's right to choose, fundamentalist Sasquatch believers are not being appointed to courts and scientific ethics panels.

 

This is not fair. In terms of abortion, abortion foes start with a different premise than the pro-choice group. Anti-abortionists say that a fertilized ovum is a human being in the ethical/legal sense. If you make that premise, then opposition to abortion logically follows. There are flaws with that premise and some hypocrisies within anti-abortion groups, but the premise itself does not really come from religion. Particularly for Christians, scripture is unclear when human life begins.

 

Fundamentalism is not belief in deity. It is belief in a particular interpretation of a particular scripture. If you look around in Canada, you will find that it is the same as the USA has been: the major opposition to Fundamentalist interference in science via creationism has come from Jews or Christians.

 

As to being appointed to scientific ethics panels, that is proper. Science is not a system of ethics. Ethics come from sources outside science. And all those sources should be represented when ethics are being discussed.

 

BTW, Dawkins made a positive statement in the title of his book, didn't he? The God Delusion Therefore Dawkins has the Burden of Proof (even by the warped view of the burden of proof being used) to "prove" that God is a "delusion". Where is Dawkins' peer-reviewed scientific paper to do that?

[ParanoiA]

Well, no, saying "Civilization X does not exist" would be a conclusion, based on lack of evidence, in this particular scenario. Granted, it is not the ONLY conclusion one can come up with (one can easily argue that no conclusions can be drawn for this case), but regardless this does in no way shift the burden of proof to the person who concludes this. The burden of proof rests entirely on the person making the claim that "Civilization X exists", it is therefore up to them to come up with a convincing argument.

 

I don't think you're being consistent with the details here. You're generalizing the context of burden of proof. Yes, the ultimate burden of proof lies on the those who claim deity. But that's not what Mr Skeptic was talking about. He was talking about people "making claims".

 

In the context of an argument, if you were to say "God doesn't exist", then you are now making a claim - the same way deists are claiming there is a god - and have to provide evidence to prove it. As long as you don't make the strong athiest claim that "god doesn't exist", then you are relieved from ANY burden of proof. That's not accepting the god theory, that's simply being consistent with burden of proof and claims. You're not endorsing belief in fairies just because you can't technically say fairies don't exist. Rather you're being consistent with the principle of burden of proof on those who make claims of any kind. Instead you should say, there is no evidence of fairies, nor of god, nor any logical sense in the existence of such things. There's no good reason to believe in them. But you STILL can't falsify their existence.

 

Actually, that's a weak analogy, because you can search the area of space that contains this civilization. In fact, the existence of this civilization can actually be verified, unlike God, no matter how vague you wish to make your description of it. Evidence for a civilization can be defined, unlike deities. Specific predictions can be made from it. We can even make falsifiable hypothesis from this idea (e.g. a civilization from this corner of the universe will be emitting x, y, and z). Omnipotence, on the other hand...

 

Actually it's an appropriate analogy because no, you can't search the area of space my civilization exists in. Not today anyway. A few decades from now, maybe you can look there. But I said my civilization exists in the far reaches of the universe. You can't look there today, so you can't falsify it. However, since I've made the claim that it exists, the burden of proof is on me to provide some evidence.

 

Regardless though, if you say it DOESN'T exist, then that is a claim as well, and you must provide evidence to support it. Even if I haven't provided a shred myself. Think about this. This was the point of my last post that you stated I was strawmanning.

 

The scientific method won't let you make the claim my civilization doesn't exist without evidence either. You'd have to prove you searched the area, or were able to perform testing that is consistent with how I've defined this civilization. (IE...a world that exploits nuclear energy, therefore you can test for emissions or whatever...you get the idea.)

 

Instead, as has been pointed out already, science can just say there's no good reason to believe in my theory. It's not necessary, for one. Science doesn't need to claim my world doesn't exist. Science will keep the burden of proof on me, and not make any claims of its own.

 

Nope, wrong. Proving God exists certainly isn't my problem . What I have is a conclusion based on various things (such as lack of evidence), not a proof.

 

A conclusion is an inference. Just like doubt. A claim is an implication. You're making a statement of fact. You can draw all the conclusions you want without making any claims. Incidentally, I agree with your conclusions. They match mine. But neither of us can declare those conclusions are facts - they are not.

 

But no one is arguing over that though.

That's a strawman.

 

It's not a strawman, it's a point that strengthens my larger point. I'm not debating as much as I'm discussing, so strawmen don't make a lot of sense to me in this context. Instead, see if you understand my point before you go into "counter attack".

 

Your tack, and most in here, has been that because someone says "god exists", the burden of proof is on them - even if you say "god doesn't exist". Your point has been that the burden of proof is always on those who purport god exists, regardless of your response.

 

So, my point was..what if no one previously stated "god exists"? What if not one single human on this planet said "god exists"? Who then, would suffer the burden of proof if someone were then to say "god doesn't exist"? (never mind the fact that we're all going to look at him weird and say...uh..ok dude...what's a "god"?) He's still making a claim. There's no counter-claim out there. Your logic doesn't hold.

 

If I've made any sense, you should realize that you don't get to shift the burden of proof of your claims that "something doesn't exist" automatically on those who claim "something exists". Instead, no matter the claim, the burden of proof is on those who make them. In other words, it is not necessary for there to be "two sides" to a claim, allowing you to push the burden of proof onto one side. Your tack doesn't work on a claim that something doesn't exist, when no one has proposed that it does. If your logic was sound, it wouldn't require the counter-claim.

[iNow]

Actually, the annoyance goes the other way: it is atheists who refuse to accept the burden of proof. I saw with iNow and now with others the Shifting the Burden of Proof Fallacy.

 

I suppose you either missed or ignored my post #45 in this thread. Here it is again since this whole "burden of proof" issue seems to have completely overtaken and come to dominate this discussion about purple unicorns and lock ness monsters:

 

 

While I cannot prove 100% that there is no god, my confidence level is high and I express my position using 99.9% certainty.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It explains people's personal experience. It explains why there is a Christian religion.

Again, god explains nothing. I would say that social psychology and evolutionary theory of group success explains why there is a christian religion far better than an assumed and unprovable creator. God explains NOTHING, an I'm curious to see what kind of semantic dancing you will do to try walking around this.

 

 

Because hypotheses come first and then comes the evidence.

No, not always. As you like to do, I will provide examples which quickly defeat your assertion:

 

Evidence of gravity came before hypotheses.

Evidence of magnetism came before hypotheses.

 

I agree that in certain contexts the hypothesis is proposed and then evidence sought, but your comment was made in the absolute (funny, since this whole burden of proof focus has been discussing EXACTLY that), and since it was absolute, it is wrong.

 

 

And that is the danger of militant atheism: it wants to change the basic nature of science for faith purposes.

That is both a misrepresentation and a blatant generalization.

 

 

If I cannot put forward a hypothesis until I have "evidence", then nothing I have ever published would have been done. Your view of science -- if you could enforce it -- would stop science in its tracks.

I cannot begin to tell you how hypocritical it appears for you to be arguing on the side of faith and belief in god using "good science" as your foundation. Talk about double speak and a complete disconnect mentally.

 

 

There are far more people with personal experience of deity than there are people who claim to have seen Sasquatch. Just because you have not had such experience does not make their experience invalid.

No, you are correct. The fact that someone else has not had the same experience does not make their experience invalid. However, their experience is not a valid form of evidence for god.

 

I cite the case which inspired "the man who mistook his wife for a hat" as evidence of why personal experience cannot be used as valid indicators of nature and reality:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Man_Who_Mistook_His_Wife_for_a_Hat

http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/exchange/node/500

 

 

The Man Who Mistook His Wife for a Hat, and Other Clinical Tales is a 1985 book by neurologist Oliver Sacks describing the case histories of some of his patients. The title of the book comes from the case study of a man with visual agnosia[1]. The Man Who Mistook His Wife for a Hat became the basis of an opera of the same name by Michael Nyman, which premiered in 1986.

 

The book comprises 24 essays split into 4 sections which each deal with a particular aspect of brain function such as deficits and excesses in the first two sections (with particular emphasis on the right hemisphere of the brain) while the third and fourth describe phenomenological manifestations with reference to spontaneous reminiscences, altered perceptions, and extraordinary qualities of mind

 

 

BTW, Dawkins made a positive statement in the title of his book, didn't he? The God Delusion Therefore Dawkins has the Burden of Proof (even by the warped view of the burden of proof being used) to "prove" that God is a "delusion". Where is Dawkins' peer-reviewed scientific paper to do that?

 

I take it that you don't venture much outside of the biology literature into the psychological? Also, for someone who argues so much about the proper use of science, you should know that science doesn't "prove" anything.

[Mr Skeptic]

Yes, allowing negative claims to be made without having the burden of proof would be a disaster for science. Then I could claim that there is no life anywhere but our solar system, that element 118 is not poisonous, and that there are no ladybugs with heart-shaped spots. Or does not having the burden of proof only apply when saying that there is no god?

[iNow]

Yes, allowing negative claims to be made without having the burden of proof would be a disaster for science. Then I could claim that there is no life anywhere but our solar system

At least this is falsifiable, as finding one single instance of life proves it moot.

[ParanoiA]

Again, god explains nothing. I would say that social psychology and evolutionary theory of group success explains why there is a christian religion far better than an assumed and unprovable creator. God explains NOTHING, an I'm curious to see what kind of semantic dancing you will do to try walking around this.

 

But it doesn't explain personal experience. Remember, we're not saying it's the ONLY possible reason for the experience, just that it does explain the experience. You can't use the absolute that god explains nothing.

 

Evidence of gravity came before hypotheses.

Evidence of magnetism came before hypotheses.

 

I see your point' date=' here, but I think you're arguing semantics.

 

What was gravity before it was called "gravity"? What was magnetism evidence OF before it was called "magnetism"? There is evidence of hypotheses we haven't even dreamt up yet, but they are not evidence OF something until we define that something. That something, is a hypothesis.

 

Evidence of something may [i']lead[/i] us to form a hypothesis. 'Gee, why does stuff always fall down?' But without a hypothesis, what is the evidence of? What scientific paper do you write that supports your relevance to evidence without referencing what the evidence is for?

 

I cannot begin to tell you how hypocritical it appears for you to be arguing on the side of faith and belief in god using "good science" as your foundation. Talk about double speak and a complete disconnect mentally.

 

I haven't seen him argue on the side of faith and belief in god, I've seen him argue against the misuse of science. Kind of like how we'd like to see Muslims argue against the misue of their religion promoting terrorism.

[iNow]

I see your point, here, but I think you're arguing semantics.

Unfortunately, that's really what this thread has become.

[Reaper]

I don't think you're being consistent with the details here. You're generalizing the context of burden of proof. Yes, the ultimate burden of proof lies on the those who claim deity. But that's not what Mr Skeptic was talking about. He was talking about people "making claims".

 

 

In the context of an argument, if you were to say "God doesn't exist", then you are now making a claim - the same way deists are claiming there is a god - and have to provide evidence to prove it. As long as you don't make the strong athiest claim that "god doesn't exist", then you are relieved from ANY burden of proof. That's not accepting the god theory, that's simply being consistent with burden of proof and claims. You're not endorsing belief in fairies just because you can't technically say fairies don't exist. Rather you're being consistent with the principle of burden of proof on those who make claims of any kind. Instead you should say, there is no evidence of fairies, nor of god, nor any logical sense in the existence of such things. There's no good reason to believe in them. But you STILL can't falsify their existence.

 

If this is what you really mean, then I'm not really sure as to what the hell you are trying to accomplish, because all I really have to say on this is "yeah, so what?" Because, it still doesn't eliminate the burden of proof from the opposition here. Besides which, if you are bringing up the topic of fairies in this context, then you are still the one making the claims (i.e. that fairies actually exist)

 

 

Actually it's an appropriate analogy because no, you can't search the area of space my civilization exists in. Not today anyway. A few decades from now, maybe you can look there. But I said my civilization exists in the far reaches of the universe. You can't look there today, so you can't falsify it. However, since I've made the claim that it exists, the burden of proof is on me to provide some evidence.

 

The scientific method won't let you make the claim my civilization doesn't exist without evidence either. You'd have to prove you searched the area, or were able to perform testing that is consistent with how I've defined this civilization. (IE...a world that exploits nuclear energy, therefore you can test for emissions or whatever...you get the idea.)

 

 

Sure you can. The point is, is that the idea that a civilization resides in some corner of the universe is a testable idea. You can conduct experiments, you can look there, you can make assumptions about what you can find that are specific to a civilization, you can employ the scientific method, and it is verifiable. It doesn't matter if it takes 10 years or a 1000 years to falsify or confirm it. That's why it is a false analogy, because you can't say the same of deities.

 

Regardless though, if you say it DOESN'T exist, then that is a claim as well, and you must provide evidence to support it. Even if I haven't provided a shred myself. Think about this. This was the point of my last post that you stated I was strawmanning.

 

Read the above.

 

Instead, as has been pointed out already, science can just say there's no good reason to believe in my theory. It's not necessary, for one. Science doesn't need to claim my world doesn't exist. Science will keep the burden of proof on me, and not make any claims of its own.

 

Which was pretty much my point .

 

A conclusion is an inference. Just like doubt. A claim is an implication. You're making a statement of fact. You can draw all the conclusions you want without making any claims. Incidentally, I agree with your conclusions. They match mine. But neither of us can declare those conclusions are facts - they are not.

 

The point is that you can use known facts to draw conclusions, such as whether or not a deity exists. I can assert, with confidence, that there is no such thing as God, given the complete lack of evidence of His existence at hand and even the logical impossibility of such an entity. That's what I wanted to get across.

 

It's not a strawman, it's a point that strengthens my larger point. I'm not debating as much as I'm discussing, so strawmen don't make a lot of sense to me in this context. Instead, see if you understand my point before you go into "counter attack".

 

I said it was a strawman because I felt that you were misrepresenting my position. Sorry if that wasn't what you meant. But then, you aren't being consistent with what you mean, because none of this removes any of the burden of proof on the side of the theists.

 

Your tack, and most in here, has been that because someone says "god exists", the burden of proof is on them - even if you say "god doesn't exist". Your point has been that the burden of proof is always on those who purport god exists, regardless of your response.

 

Well, no, I originally said that the burden of proof is primarily on the theists, not that it was always on them. So this is another strawman.

 

So, my point was..what if no one previously stated "god exists"? What if not one single human on this planet said "god exists"? Who then, would suffer the burden of proof if someone were then to say "god doesn't exist"? (never mind the fact that we're all going to look at him weird and say...uh..ok dude...what's a "god"?) He's still making a claim. There's no counter-claim out there. Your logic doesn't hold.

 

Well, 1) so what if nobody ever thought of a god? It doesn't make the idea any more valid. In which case 2) you have to be more specific, because I would imagine in that strict scenario God would probably be shown to be imaginary (never mind the fact that there isn't a single instance in human history in which humans did not have some ideas about supernatural entities/events/things). In fact, I doubt the idea would ever occur to them to disprove the idea of God simply because no one ever made the claim that He existed in any shape, way, or form. This doesn't really help your position at all (in fact you really are evading the issue at this point unintentional or not), what ever that may be at this point.

 

 

If I've made any sense, you should realize that you don't get to shift the burden of proof of your claims that "something doesn't exist" automatically on those who claim "something exists". Instead, no matter the claim, the burden of proof is on those who make them. In other words, it is not necessary for there to be "two sides" to a claim, allowing you to push the burden of proof onto one side. Your tack doesn't work on a claim that something doesn't exist, when no one has proposed that it does. If your logic was sound, it wouldn't require the counter-claim.

 

Well, yes it does work because I can poke holes into the idea of God. The burden of proof was never shifted, so I don't know where you got that from. In fact, if you read carefully rather than strawmanning my position, you would have taken note that the burden of proof really does rest on the theists. Because, they are the ones making all the claims about the supposed existence of God, that He is omnipotent, that He has revealed himself in some way, shape or form, that He has intervened in human affairs at some time in the past, that He had a son, that you can even verify his presence and find examples of Him all over the place "if only you keep an open mind", that scripture can be used as a credible source of spirituality, etc.

 

The notion that there is no God, or any of the above, is pretty much the null hypothesis. The burden of proof is therefore primarily on the theists. Strong atheists do have a burden of proof too, but in this case their position is far less shaky, even if their arguments aren't always sound.

 

 

 

 

 

 

ParanoiA, I really don't know what you are trying to do here. On the one hand, you seem to be confirming and agreeing with my position. And then, on the other hand, you seem to want to give the other side a fighting chance, even though there really isn't one. If you certainly agree with my position, then what is all the fuss about; there has been nothing wrong with my argument as you have admitted. Regardless, the theists and those who are religious do have a heavy burden of proof on them, which is one of the things that Dawkins brings up in his book, and is most certainly the issue that is being talked about in this thread.

 

Or does not having the burden of proof only apply when saying that there is no god?

 

No, it does not.

 

Unfortunately, that's really what this thread has become.

 

 

Indeed. Let's bring this thread back on topic now. There is no need to be strawmanning each other here.

[ParanoiA]

If this is what you really mean, then I'm not really sure as to what the hell you are trying to accomplish, because all I really have to say on this is "yeah, so what?"

 

So you can't make claims without proof. Remember? That's all we've been talking about here.

 

Sure you can. The point is, is that the idea that a civilization resides in some corner of the universe is a testable idea. You can conduct experiments, you can look there, you can make assumptions about what you can find that are specific to a civilization, you can employ the scientific method, and it is verifiable. It doesn't matter if it takes 10 years or a 1000 years to falsify or confirm it. That's why it is a false analogy, because you can't say the same of deities.

 

Ah, but you CAN say the same of deities. You just opened the possibility when you said it could take 10 years or a 1000 years. I said my civilization can't be falsified today, since you can't search there. Your reply circumvented time and suggested an evolved set of tools can eventually falsify it. Well, given another 1000 years we may evolve to finally detect deity. You just arbitrarily chose to believe that we, and our tools, won't evolve to that point, which, ironically, is a statement of faith.

 

Nevertheless, until you can follow through with the testing in 10 or 1000 years, you can't make the claim my civilization doesn't exist. And, likewise, I can't claim that it does.

 

The point is that you can use known facts to draw conclusions, such as whether or not a deity exists. I can assert, with confidence, that there is no such thing as God, given the complete lack of evidence of His existence at hand and even the logical impossibility of such an entity. That's what I wanted to get across.

 

Asserting with confidence is not the same as stating something as fact. This whole sub-discussion is about splitting hairs between claims and doubts. "Asserting with confidence" and "declaring a fact".

 

But then, you aren't being consistent with what you mean, because none of this removes any of the burden of proof on the side of the theists.

 

No one said that it did. I've consistently said that when you make a "claim" then the burden of proof is on you. Whether that claim is a counter-claim against something else, or a brand new claim without a countering side. Doesn't matter. A claim is a claim is a claim. The burden of proof is on theists and strong atheists - both.

 

ParanoiA, I really don't know what you are trying to do here.

 

You totally missed my point by a country mile in those last two replies. I really don't know how else to word it. I'll try to go back and grab quotes of yours to make my point, but I'm apparently not being clear because your replies are way out of range. I'll give it another try when I get a bit more time.

 

________________________________________________________________________

 

Edit: Ok, here's where I concluded that you were shifting the burden of proof to those that are making the claim that something exists, regardless of your claims that something doesn't exist.

 

Well, no, saying "Civilization X does not exist" would be a conclusion, based on lack of evidence[/b'], in this particular scenario. Granted, it is not the ONLY conclusion one can come up with (one can easily argue that no conclusions can be drawn for this case), but regardless this does in no way shift the burden of proof to the person who concludes this. The burden of proof rests entirely on the person making the claim that "Civilization X exists", it is therefore up to them to come up with a convincing argument.

 

Saying it doesn't exist is a claim. Saying "I believe Civilization X does not exist" wouldn't carry any burden of proof. The former does.

 

Keep in mind, I'm only being pedantic about it since that's the point Skeptic was making. Technically speaking, it's a claim.

 

Further, what I thought you were doing, was pushing the burden of proof onto those that make "positive" claims of existence, and saying that those that make "negative" claims of existence don't own any burden of proof. That was why I went into the bit about "what if no one ever made the claim of god" yet someone DID make the claim "there is no god". I don't know if that clears anything up, but that's my story and I'm sticking to it!

[PhDP]

The burden of proof is on theists and strong atheists - both.

 

I agree, and Mr Skeptic said about the same thing, but is there even one of these mythical 'strong' atheists here ?

[Reaper]

So you can't make claims without proof. Remember? That's all we've been talking about here.

 

Yes, I remember. I don't think you are getting it though.

 

Ah, but you CAN say the same of deities. You just opened the possibility when you said it could take 10 years or a 1000 years. I said my civilization can't be falsified today, since you can't search there. Your reply circumvented time and suggested an evolved set of tools can eventually falsify it. Well, given another 1000 years we may evolve to finally detect deity. You just arbitrarily chose to believe that we, and our tools, won't evolve to that point, which, ironically, is a statement of faith. Nevertheless, until you can follow through with the testing in 10 or 1000 years, you can't make the claim my civilization doesn't exist. And, likewise, I can't claim that it does.

 

Which by the way is a nice strawman of my position. Otherwise, with this statement you have just admitted that it IS possible to falsify religious beliefs (of which there can be no possible justification for them anyways, logical or evidence based). Congrats!

 

Of course, if you have been following along, a deity and all things supernatural are by definition unobservable or outside the realm of scientific analysis (as they say anyways), while a civilization is not. I don't know why you insist on holding onto this analogy.

 

 

 

Asserting with confidence is not the same as stating something as fact. This whole sub-discussion is about splitting hairs between claims and doubts. "Asserting with confidence" and "declaring a fact".

 

Since when have I ever stated my assertions as fact? You are the one strawmanning here.

 

 

No one said that it did. I've consistently said that when you make a "claim" then the burden of proof is on you. Whether that claim is a counter-claim against something else, or a brand new claim without a countering side. Doesn't matter. A claim is a claim is a claim. The burden of proof is on theists and strong atheists - both.

 

To which I still say, so what? First off, that's has been my argument, that the burden of proof is on the one making the claims. Also, the person who first makes the claims in any argument usually (but not always) bears a heavier burden of proof on them simply because they are introducing some idea, as in your civilization example (a part I didn't add earlier, but oh well). That's why the onus to provide evidence is on the one making the claim that this supposed civilization exists, and not so much the side who rejects that notion. You are basically trying to evade the issue here, and you are trying to change the definitions.

 

All this, however, still doesn't remove the rather heavy burden of proof on the side of the theists. Accept it.

 

 

You totally missed my point by a country mile in those last two replies. I really don't know how else to word it. I'll try to go back and grab quotes of yours to make my point, but I'm apparently not being clear because your replies are way out of range. I'll give it another try when I get a bit more time.

 

No, I followed you quite well. You just seem intent on trying to distract all of us from the real issue here.

[ParanoiA]

Which by the way is a nice strawman of my position. Otherwise, with this statement you have just admitted that it IS possible to falsify religious beliefs (of which there can be no possible justification for them anyways, logical or evidence based). Congrats!

 

Sure it's possible. I never said it would never be possible - that mankind will never evolve to the point to interact with deity, or even become deity. I was merely discussing within the context of the present. Presently, it is utterly impossible by any stretch of the imagination.

 

Since when have I ever stated my assertions as fact? You are the one strawmanning here

 

You sure love that word. But it never stopped me from replying to your points or allowing a discussion to expand. I don't even bother classifying what's a strawman and what isn't, I just reply to folks - I discuss. I don't bother trying to police their thoughts. Not sure what the point is. Strawman seems to be used to win ego battles, not logical ones. But feel free to keep throwing it out there.

 

Now, to your point. When you said "saying Civilization X does not exist", I interpret that as a claim. A claim is a declaration of fact. Again, I'm only being overly literal since that's the whole point of this part of the discussion. Those who make claims get the burden of proof. You personally didn't make the claim, rather your argument supposed a claim.

 

This is also what makes it difficult to discuss with you. You have a tendency to forget the context of points. You read each post as if it's brand new, without scrolling back to remember what got us there. Sorry if that insults you, I really don't mean to, but I feel it necessary to point out since it's causing problems here.

 

Of course, if you have been following along, a deity and all things supernatural are by definition unobservable or outside the realm of scientific analysis (as they say anyways), while a civilization is not. I don't know why you insist on holding onto this analogy.

 

Because my analogy is just as unobservable, presently. I don't need deity to make the point. Deity invites the supernatural and whole bunch of juicy anti-science to evade points with. I'd rather stick with an analogy that doesn't allow you to use the supernatural to ridicule and use as a red herring.

 

Also, the person who first makes the claims in any argument usually (but not always) bears a heavier burden of proof on them simply because they are introducing some idea, as in your civilization example (a part I didn't add earlier, but oh well). That's why the onus is on the one to provide the evidence that this supposed civilization exists, and not so much the side who rejects that notion.[/b']

 

Thanks for confirming my suspicion. You still haven't accepted that claims are claims, whether positive or negative, they are equal in the eyes of scientific methodology, and carry equal burden of proof in terms of fact declaration. Accept it.

 

All this, however, still doesn't remove the rather heavy burden of proof on the side of the theists. Accept it.

 

You forgot the strong atheists.

 

No, I followed you quite well. You just seem intent on trying to distract all of us from the real issue here.

 

No distractions. Rather keeping you honest by pointing out that the context of the claim makes no difference as to the burden of proof.

 

I would suggest re-reading my last post, since I've edited it and added your argument that contains the "statement of fact" that you don't think requires any burden of proof.

[john5746]

Guy 1: Hey man, there's a civilization in the NGC 4151 galaxy.

 

Guy 2: Maybe there is.

 

 

Guy 1: No, I mean there is a civilization very much like the Romans, dude.

 

Guy 2: I doubt that. How do you know this?

 

 

Guy 1: This book by L. R. Hubbard says so.

 

Guy 2: <thinking> "What a Dumbass"

<responds> "Well ain't that special. I guess I can't disprove that, so I better sit on the fence."

 

 

Give me a break people.

[ParanoiA]

No breaks John. Claims are statements of fact.

 

By the way, I didn't see any claims in that post except from Guy 1. Guy 2 seems like a real dumbass too. He could have supporting evidence from the fiction book the civilization came from. I would have made the claim.

[john5746]

OK, let's just say the guy believes there are Romans in some far away galaxy, because his grandfather believed it. No evidence, just a feeling.

 

That is BS and not worth a millisecond of thought. I have no proof it doesn't exist, but I have proof that this guy has no evidence. Lot's of evidence that would render it improbable as well. It is a specific claim that warrents knowledge, not some wild guess.

 

So, we can never be sure of anything might work on a forum, but I don't really operate that way.

[Sayonara]

Pishtosh.

 

Everyone knows the Romulans are in this galaxy, and they don't yet have the technology to reach distant galaxies.

[ParanoiA]

OK, let's just say the guy believes there are Romans in some far away galaxy, because his grandfather believed it. No evidence, just a feeling.

 

That is BS and not worth a millisecond of thought. I have no proof it doesn't exist, but I have proof that this guy has no evidence. Lot's of evidence that would render it improbable as well. It is a specific claim that warrents knowledge, not some wild guess.

 

So, we can never be sure of anything might work on a forum, but I don't really operate that way.

 

I don't know anyone that actually polices conversation to the point that every specific claim they make is taken to task, or even assumed a statement of fact, even though it really is. Hell, all of our posts are filled with repeated claims that most of us would probably not be able to support, far from "statements of fact". We don't need that kind of precision to have a typical discussion and would destroy most communication.

 

But that doesn't mean that precise language doesn't have its moments. Skeptic's point was valid. Strong atheists have the same burden of proof as theists.

 

Pishtosh.

 

Everyone knows the Romulans are in this galaxy, and they don't yet have the technology to reach distant galaxies.

 

But the Cylons do. And they will totally eff up the Romulans before they figure it out.

[Mr Skeptic]

Looks like things go from misunderstanding to misunderstanding. I'll try to summarize what I'm saying. I think it is the same thing that ParanoiA and lucaspa are saying, but don't quote me on that. I'll also add a bit extra to make it more clear. Anyhow, here goes:

 

1) Anyone who makes a claim must provide evidence to back it up if it is to be considered science. To rephrase that, whoever makes a claim has the burden of proof for that claim.

1a) This applies to all claims, reasonable or unreasonable, that something exists or that something doesn't exitst, initial claim or counterclaim; no claim is exempt.

2) If no evidence, not enough evidence, ambiguous evidence, or faulty evidence is given in support of a claim, you are free to reject the claim.

2a) Rejecting a claim is not the same as making the opposite claim; it is simply refusing to accept the claim. You don't reject a claim by saying "you're wrong" but rather by saying "I don't believe you" or "You don't have enough evidence."

2b) Rejecting a claim does not entitle you to make the opposite claim without providing evidence (see #1a and #2a).

 

So for example, if I claim there is a mammal with a bill and lays eggs, but don't provide evidence, you can reject my claim. But that doesn't entitle you to say that the opposite is true, you can't turn around and say that there is no mammal with a bill that lays eggs unless you have some evidence.

[PhDP]

...in short; 'weak atheism' = no burden because they don't accept as true the proposition "god doesn't exist" (your #2). 'strong atheism' = burden because they make the claim "god doesn't exist" (#2a & #2b).

 

But again, most of the time when we say something doesn't exist, we're saying so because not enough evidences is given, not because we're actually making the opposite claim.

[iNow]

For the purpose of this discussion, can we please move on and all agree that, unless openly stated otherwise, all claims against the existence of a supernatural celestial dictator are to be framed in the foundation of minimal, yet present, doubt?

 

Basically, of course we can't be certain, but we're more or less as close to certain as we're going to get?

 

I am not 100% certain that purple unicorns don't exist, but my confidence level is high for the EXACT same reasons they are about the nonexistence of a deity.

 

Can we move on already?

[john5746]

But the Cylons do. And they will totally eff up the Romulans before they figure it out.

 

Yeah, but then they populated a blue planet in a simple solar system with a small star and lost their technology.

[Reaper]

Oh good grief! I'm not going to bother responding to any more of these idiotic posts, especially ParanoiA's as he is clearly not interested in an honest debate.

 

Here's the bottom line: the stupidity on most of this thread was entertaining a while back, and so was playing around with you guys for a little bit. But now it's starting to get real annoying. So, iNow, lucespa, and ParanoiA, unless you want this thread to meet the same fate as this one over here, you have until the count of five to get your act together, to get back on topic, to stop strawmanning, to stop the evasions, red herrings, desperate false analogies, etc. Understand?

 

 

 

On the side note I really do feel that it's long past time that this thread should be locked....

[Rev Blair]

No, it's not. That's the Shifting the Burden of Proof fallacy. As I posted, both sides have a "burden of proof".

 

No. There is no burden on me to prove that god doesn't exist, just as there is no burden on me to prove that giant inter-dimensional lizard people aren't running the world's government.

 

There is a burden on believers to provide evidence and a burden on non-believers to refute that evidence.

 

For instance you can claim that Moses talked to god, but I can refute that by pointing out that there is no physical evidence of Moses' existence, no third party evidence of Moses' existence, and a high probability that shaman/priests/seers during the era when Moses allegedly existed were very likely gobbling plants that made them hallucinate.

 

There is still a very remote possibility that your god exists, of course, and there is a slightly better possibility that Moses existed. There's also a possibility that this smoke in my mouth is magic and will make me healthy and even immortal.

 

The same can be done for claims of Jesus. There is no physical evidence of his existence, the bone box having been shown to be a fraud. There is no third party confirmation of his existence, the only such record brought forth having been shown to be a fraud. There is no reason to think that, even if he did exist, he was the son of god, there being no evidence of virgin birth, miracles, or the resurrection.

 

Again, there is still a remote possibility that your Yaweh dude exists and hired the Holy Ghost to boff Mary and the result was Jesus, but it isn't any greater a possibility than the ghost of Hunter Thompson showing up in my living room to drink Wild Turkey and help me recover the rhythm I misplaced six hours ago, leaving me stuck on the same damned paragraph for most of the day.

 

We've found no evidence of talking snakes, trumpets loud enough to destroy walls, or even a significant Jewish contribution to the building of pyramids. We have no evidence of a worldwide flood, people being turned into pillars of salt, or giants walking the earth.

 

In short, the Bible...the only evidence you have of a Judeo/Christian/Muslim god...the religious writings of those faiths...seems to make less sense and have less facts in it than the average Stephen King novel.

 

Does that prove there is no god? Nope. It shows that there is no solid evidence of your god though...that the entire story is extremely unlikely at best.

 

Define "proof".

 

Since this isn't math, a proof would be falsifiable evidence solid enough not to be easily falsified.

 

Show me a video of god. Show me evidence of a miracle. Show me why a god has to exist at all.

 

That is inaccurate. There are far more people with personal experience of deity than there are people who claim to have seen Sasquatch. Just because you have not had such experience does not make their experience invalid.

 

There are casts of Sasquatch's footprints. There are hair samples that don't match existing DNA records. There are recordings of weird screams...in fact that alone could be construed of evidence that Tom Waits is a Sasquatch.

 

There are no casts of god's footprints though, no odd hair samples, and I've never heard anybody claim that Tom Waits is god...although listening to "Sixteen Shells" really loud can give one visions.

 

This is not fair. In terms of abortion, abortion foes start with a different premise than the pro-choice group. Anti-abortionists say that a fertilized ovum is a human being in the ethical/legal sense. If you make that premise, then opposition to abortion logically follows. There are flaws with that premise and some hypocrisies within anti-abortion groups, but the premise itself does not really come from religion. Particularly for Christians, scripture is unclear when human life begins.

 

Fundamentalism is not belief in deity. It is belief in a particular interpretation of a particular scripture. If you look around in Canada, you will find that it is the same as the USA has been: the major opposition to Fundamentalist interference in science via creationism has come from Jews or Christians.

 

How many anti-choice agnostics have you met? Anti-choice atheists?

 

The main opposition to to fundamentalist interference in political and scientific matters has come from those who believe in separation of church and state. Their faith, or lack thereof, is irrelevant.

 

As to being appointed to scientific ethics panels, that is proper. Science is not a system of ethics. Ethics come from sources outside science. And all those sources should be represented when ethics are being discussed.

 

Nonsense. There are scientific ethicists. Some have religious beliefs, others don't. The appointment of fundamentalists, who reject much of science and treat science with suspicion or outright derision, to judge ethical considerations within is science is ridiculous.

 

BTW, Dawkins made a positive statement in the title of his book, didn't he? The God Delusion Therefore Dawkins has the Burden of Proof (even by the warped view of the burden of proof being used) to "prove" that God is a "delusion". Where is Dawkins' peer-reviewed scientific paper to do that?

 

I suggest you read the book. If you think you have already done so, then I suggest you try again because you obviously missed a lot of it.