The best in arts & entertainment, news, pop culture, and your mom since 2002.

[Total: 40    Average: 3.6/5]
147 Comments - View/Add
Hits: 9482
Rating: 3.6
Category: Misc
Date: 04/26/12 03:00 PM

147 Responses to The Burden Of Proof – Who Has It?

  1. Profile photo of kitteh9lives
    kitteh9lives Female 70 & Over
    8044 posts
    April 26, 2012 at 12:03 pm
    Link: The Burden Of Proof - Who Has It? - Do the people who claim divine entities and/or god exists or the skeptics of those claims bear the burden of proof?
  2. Profile photo of DrProfessor
    DrProfessor Male 18-29
    3894 posts
    April 26, 2012 at 3:14 pm
    This isn`t even a question. If you try to make a claim, the burden of proof is on you. You can`t prove a negative, you can`t prove that something doesn`t exist unless you have access to every situation ever forever.

    Damn you non-science-types.
  3. Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    32796 posts
    April 26, 2012 at 3:18 pm
    Me:


    A sleeping catgirl (or furry):


    My arguement is invulnerable!
  4. Profile photo of uatme
    uatme Male 18-29
    1074 posts
    April 26, 2012 at 3:38 pm
    God did create the universe, we just haven`t defined `God`entirely yet...
  5. Profile photo of InTheNameOf
    InTheNameOf Male 30-39
    335 posts
    April 26, 2012 at 3:45 pm
    Ya, that was obvious. But stated very clearly.
  6. Profile photo of Blatto
    Blatto Male 18-29
    358 posts
    April 26, 2012 at 3:49 pm
    Why is everyone in this video a cyclops? It`s freaking me out.
  7. Profile photo of dudeman1st
    dudeman1st Male 30-39
    1354 posts
    April 26, 2012 at 4:12 pm
    booooooooooooooooooooooooring
  8. Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    32796 posts
    April 26, 2012 at 4:12 pm
    @uatme: Change the "religion" in your profile to "Deist"... lolz!

    This was thurough! But one minor detail that I disagree with:
    When I say "God created the universe" and you say "No, He doesn`t exist", I think it IS VALID to ask: "Then where did the universe come from?"

    I forget the name for that, dang it!

    So: if you have a better explaination of HOW the universe got here, that`s fine! I`ve yet to hear one.

    @Blatto: It said in the credits: Origional art by Pablo Picasso... ;-)
  9. Profile photo of faustsshadow
    faustsshadow Male 30-39
    433 posts
    April 26, 2012 at 4:23 pm
    Belief that a god created the universe is not in any way contradictory to trying to find out how that was accomplished. I don`t demand proof from God that he exists, though I have felt that I have received confirmation of this. I don`t offer anyone proof that God exists, though they are welcome to read what he wrote and to try and ask him themselves. If they do that and don`t feel he exists, I will continue to disagree with him. If they feel they receive confirmation that he exists, the burden of acting in accordance with that confirmation is fully on them.
  10. Profile photo of LandoGriffin
    LandoGriffin Male 30-39
    3844 posts
    April 26, 2012 at 4:30 pm
    Too long, didn`t watch. I got as far as the claim that we can`t disprove the existence of a psychic walrus under the surface of pluto and already realized the video was wrong. Walruses and any living things require oxygen and a certain range of temperatures to live, and pluto has neither of those requirements, so I can, in fact, "Prove Him Wrong" and I would say so if he tried to say "You Can`t Prove Me Wrong" is equal to evidence. Because I can prove him wrong with factual observation.

    Sort of a dumb argument even though I agree with the conclusions.
  11. Profile photo of LandoGriffin
    LandoGriffin Male 30-39
    3844 posts
    April 26, 2012 at 4:33 pm
    I forget the name for that, dang it!

    Rule of Parsimony, or "Occam`s Razor" - the simplest explanation is the best explanation. So, if I say there is a magic invisible being that created all the universe, but someone else can explain the universe in terms of known, observable laws of physics, the known laws of physics are simpler and more parsimonious than the need to assume a magic invisible being. So the known laws of physics are a better explanation.
  12. Profile photo of Gerry1of1
    Gerry1of1 Male 50-59
    36665 posts
    April 26, 2012 at 4:46 pm

    Margaret Rutherford

  13. Profile photo of hwkiller
    hwkiller Male 18-29
    490 posts
    April 26, 2012 at 4:51 pm
    Those who claim there is and those who claim there isn`t a god both have the burden of proof.

    If science is to be truly objective and evidence-driven, then it cannot claim that god does or doesn`t exist, because there is 0 evidence for either claim. There can`t really be solid evidence for it either, because it`s not truly testable, and there will always be confounds. Science should be agnostic on the issue, because it`s not a scientific inquiry and there is not even a theoretically acceptable manner to explore the question.
  14. Profile photo of turdburglar
    turdburglar Male 30-39
    4896 posts
    April 26, 2012 at 4:53 pm
    It is arrogant for anyone to say their IS or IS NOT a god for sure. Having faith and CHOOSEING to believe or not is one thing, as long as it is understood that it is faith and not fact. See how simple that is. Didn`t take 11 and a half min. Now let the IAB religous s41t storm begin!
  15. Profile photo of x13purplesta
    x13purplesta Female 30-39
    235 posts
    April 26, 2012 at 5:01 pm
    Can`t watch this for some reason but in answer to the question: if YOU claim something you must prove it, so if you claim a god created everything, you have the burden of proof. I can just sit and spend my time doing something worthwhile while you try.
  16. Profile photo of Scuzoid
    Scuzoid Male 30-39
    1268 posts
    April 26, 2012 at 5:07 pm
    "Walruses and any living things require ect..."

    And `god` is generally portrayed as an aged bearded white male. A living thing requiring the same things a `psychic walrus` would require. End result of your attempt to disprove the existence of said `psychic walrus` is the same as any athiest experiences. "Well, clearly it`s a magical omnipotent omniscient pyschic walrus." Clearly to whom? On what merit?

    I`ve never once asked a woman her religious stance. I don`t particularly care until/unless it clashes with my expectations of her, and as it turns out, I`ve never actually been told to my face I should believe in `god` or that I needed `god` in my life. Internet and TV are one thing, but for the most part, normal theist`s are perfectly complacent keeping that part of themselves to themselves in my experience.

    Of course, I`m not gay, in destitute, confrontational, or flighty.
  17. Profile photo of mon360
    mon360 Male 13-17
    735 posts
    April 26, 2012 at 5:17 pm
    Arguing does nothing. Wutever, i`m staying a christian, i have my raisins. (i did that on poipose (that too))
  18. Profile photo of 8BitHero
    8BitHero Male 18-29
    5414 posts
    April 26, 2012 at 5:31 pm
    Love videos like this. They ALWAYS show thinking from different angles and how to present an argument with evidence and facts. yet religion is like...this book told me so, so I am right.
    Soon as we git rid of the plague that is religion he better.
  19. Profile photo of Angilion
    Angilion Male 40-49
    12387 posts
    April 26, 2012 at 5:35 pm
    When I say "God created the universe" and you say "No, He doesn`t exist", I think it IS VALID to ask: "Then where did the universe come from?"

    I forget the name for that, dang it!

    So: if you have a better explaination of HOW the universe got here, that`s fine! I`ve yet to hear one.

    I have two:

    i) I don`t know. Neither do you. Neither does anyone else.

    The truth is always valid. There`s nothing wrong in admitting ignorance when you are ignorant of something. There`s no need to make up an explanation to fill the gap.

    ii) If you really want one, here`s one: time is an attribute of the universe, therefore the universe has existed since the beginning of time and any talk of how the universe got here is meaningless.
  20. Profile photo of markust123
    markust123 Male 40-49
    3889 posts
    April 26, 2012 at 5:57 pm
    Those who claim there is a God are full of sh*t. And those who claim there is not a god are full of sh*t. No one knows one way or the other. If there is a god I really doubt I will be punished because I did not worship him or sit in a building on a sunny day. If there is a god I believe he is in the mountains or down at the beach.
  21. Profile photo of Rick_S
    Rick_S Male 40-49
    3282 posts
    April 26, 2012 at 7:07 pm
    Why does anyone have to prove anything? Can`t I just let you go on believing there is a God, and can`t you just let me go on believing there isn`t? Sure, if you want to convince me that there is a god, you have to prove it to me somehow. But if, on the other hand, I want to convince you there isn`t a God, I have to prove to you that I am right. Even if that means shooting down all the evidence that you have that there is a God, as he states in his debate argument.

    But again, I don`t have any reason to convince you you`re wrong, and I don`t want you to convince me I`m wrong.
  22. Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    32796 posts
    April 26, 2012 at 7:20 pm
    @LandoGriffin: Not Occam`s Razor, I mean the name for "the theory of creation". I thought it was "epigenisis" but that`s not it... and someone just mentioned it the other day to boot...

    @Angilion: 1) True, we don`t "know" but we`re free to form theories. If you (try to) discredit my theory I can legitimately ask "well, what theory do you have that`s better".
    2)We humans don`t even have clue #1 what time IS! LOLZ! Never mind where it came from, how long it`s been around & etc.

    We cannot even explain MAGNETS! ffs.

    Zeno`s `Arrow` paradox is poorly `explained` by Wiki, and most others. It`s not about motion, it`s about time, or `the indivisible now` (Aristotle). It remains unsolved in that regard, eh?
  23. Profile photo of OpsAss13
    OpsAss13 Male 30-39
    514 posts
    April 26, 2012 at 7:36 pm
    TL;DW
  24. Profile photo of lawlcats
    lawlcats Male 18-29
    14 posts
    April 26, 2012 at 7:40 pm
    Burden of Proof -- David Mitchell
  25. Profile photo of Otto67
    Otto67 Male 40-49
    438 posts
    April 26, 2012 at 7:42 pm
    "But if, on the other hand, I want to convince you there isn`t a God, I have to prove to you that I am right."

    I really don`t know of many people who make the claim "there is no god". If that claim is made then they do have a burden of proof. Most atheists say the various god claims have not met their burden so they reserve judgement and belief until the burden is met. I would change my mind if I find sufficient reason to change it, most believers would not change their mind because their belief is not rooted in reason, it is rooted in faith and that type of faith is by definition unreasonable. Nobody wants to be unreasonable which is why many believers try to `prove` their faith is reasonable.
  26. Profile photo of HiEv
    HiEv Male 40-49
    621 posts
    April 26, 2012 at 8:07 pm
    5Cats: "When I say `God created the universe` and you say `No, He doesn`t exist`, I think it IS VALID to ask: `Then where did the universe come from?`"

    A) I don`t say, "No, He doesn`t exist," I say, "I haven`t seen any evidence for that, so I don`t believe it." Most atheists are implicit atheists ("I don`t believe gods exist"), rather than explicit atheists ("Gods don`t exist").

    B) No, it`s not valid to ask a completely unrelated question with a built-in assumption that a creator is required. One could equally ask you, "Where does God come from?", but in either case it`s irrelevant to the claims you`re making that God exists and He created the universe.

    C) The existence of the universe is not proof of any gods, unless you redefine "gods" as things that create universes, regardless of whether they possess sentience or not.
  27. Profile photo of wake_n_bake
    wake_n_bake Male 18-29
    663 posts
    April 26, 2012 at 8:45 pm
    @5cats

    No we don`t know what time is, but we do know that time isn`t really linear, so any argument of the universe existing on a time line which we can comprehend (i.e not existing at one point) is meaningless.
  28. Profile photo of OldOllie
    OldOllie Male 60-69
    15841 posts
    April 26, 2012 at 9:47 pm
    The burden of proof lies in the affirmative.
  29. Profile photo of lawndartsftw
    lawndartsftw Male 40-49
    1811 posts
    April 26, 2012 at 9:57 pm
    ...... *sigh* .....
  30. Profile photo of MattPrince
    MattPrince Male 40-49
    2220 posts
    April 26, 2012 at 11:59 pm
    We actually know quite a bit about time, because people have taken a cold hard analytical look at it. Rather than just say that`s gods doing.


    Burden of proof is always on the proposer.
  31. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17514 posts
    April 27, 2012 at 12:25 am
    "Proof" is in the eye of the beholder. One person`s `proof` is not proof to everyone. The act of merely observing atomic particles changes them. Personal experience makes us all different as well. There is only one constant in science, uncertainty.

    Faith gives people certainty, gives them peace and hope. Our brains are wired to believe in the spiritual, So if there is no God then nature/evolution has played a cruel trick on us.
  32. Profile photo of clockwork208
    clockwork208 Male 30-39
    835 posts
    April 27, 2012 at 12:42 am
    @Mattprince - Burden of proof is always on the proposer. UNLESS, of course, you are religious. This absolves you of reason or accountability and therefore allows you to make sh*t up to explain anything you want while being a smug and judgmental prick about it.

    Get it right.
  33. Profile photo of carmium
    carmium Female 50-59
    6381 posts
    April 27, 2012 at 12:44 am
    This excellent little piece covers and explains the issue completely, yet in response there are people here who immediately jump to contradict him and argue their myth as fact! LISTEN, you people! PAY ATTENTION! It`s all there and you don`t have a leg to stand on! You CANNOT shift the burden to those who say "Prove your god exists!"
  34. Profile photo of IrishJesus
    IrishJesus Male 18-29
    483 posts
    April 27, 2012 at 12:58 am
    Crakr: I don`t believe people are hard-wired in believing the supernatural.

    People ARE, however, inclined to fill in the blank. When we encounter an unknown, we experience fear of some degree ("What happens to me when I die? Is there other forms of life in our universe? Magnets?"). We therefor naturally look for an answer. The supernatural, in this case god or gods, fills in a number of blanks - blanks that we currently do not have the capacity to fill as a race with any certainty. You are correct that a god or gods gives people hope and peace, because it provides an answer to scary questions such as the afterlife and where we as humans come from.

    The very thought of "We don`t know" can be completely crippling to many.
  35. Profile photo of Kain1
    Kain1 Male 18-29
    1473 posts
    April 27, 2012 at 1:16 am
    @Cracrjak: No. To science, evidence is evidence, no matter the beholder. That`s the genious behind the scientific method. It eliminates the fallacy of human minds.

    Uncertainty is a good thing. It stops scientists from making claims that are wrong.

    Faith gives people the guilt of being perpetually sinful, and the fear that they or their loved ones will go to hell for all eternity.

    Our brains are not wired to believe in the spiritual.

    Nature isn`t cruel. It simply doesn`t care about us humans. Because we are not as special as we like to think.
  36. Profile photo of martinrandle
    martinrandle Male 40-49
    25 posts
    April 27, 2012 at 1:39 am
    Let me explain...
    Our whole universe was in a hot dense state,
    Then nearly fourteen billion years ago expansion started. Wait...
    The Earth began to cool,
    The autotrophs began to drool,
    Neanderthals developed tools,
    We built a wall (we built the pyramids),
    Math, science, history, unraveling the mysteries,
    That all started with the big bang!
  37. Profile photo of bataleon27
    bataleon27 Male 18-29
    1178 posts
    April 27, 2012 at 2:40 am
    interesting, but creepy as well with the people with only 1 eye.

    Personally, I don`t think there is or ever was a god. I think people have just been swept off their feet with charismatic people (like Jesus) and quaint notions of a higher power. I think it makes them feel better about their lives to think that they are there for a purpose, or that someone somewhere has a plan for them.

    And that`s fine, they can believe that if they wish. But I do wish people would stop trying to make me believe in their frankly delusional fairy tale world.

    Go ahead, believe, and devote your life to the worship of God. But please leave me out of it.

    If I am wrong, and there is a God. Frankly, I`ll be glad I didn`t worship him/her/it - they sound like a complete douche. Who the hell demands that people worship him and constantly give him thanks for everything that he has done. If he was the great being that everyone claims, he would be a lot more humble and less like a
  38. Profile photo of jendrian
    jendrian Male 18-29
    2516 posts
    April 27, 2012 at 2:58 am
    I really can`t believe all of the stuff I read on this thread. I don`t even know where to start, but I think I will with 5Cats` several mistakes:

    1 - Explanations of the origins of the universe that are better than "god did" don`t abound, but there is one in particular that even has proof which is predicted independently of the measurements. Anyone who takes the trouble of understanding elementary cosmology can see how the big bang theory is a much better explanation to the origins of the universe than "god did it".

    2 - I felt like I was listening to Bill O`Reilly talking to Dawkins: " waves come in, they come out, you can`t explain that". Well as it turns out, we know exactly what magnets are, and even where it comes from (basically: motion from a charged particle).

    Truly, if you don`t believe in the proofs you read about, all it takes is some effort to learn and experiment yourself, ignorance is a choice.
  39. Profile photo of jendrian
    jendrian Male 18-29
    2516 posts
    April 27, 2012 at 3:08 am
    And I do think the existence of god is a provable endeavour, in terms that everybody can agree on:

    1 - If god is sentient and has an influence in the universe distinct from nature, this influence must be measurable, regardless of whether we right now have the technology for it or not.
    2 - If god is sentient and has no influence different than nature, then his existence is irrelevant, as we already explain nature without his existence, so the point is moot.
    3 - If god is not sentient, then his influence must be what we are describing as nature, and in that god must be nature, and the whole debate is again rendered moot.
    4 - Finally, if god is sentient and has an influence distinct from nature, but chooses not to reveal it, then once again his existence is irrelevant for us, and the point is rendered moot again.

    Either point could be correct, but only 1 of them is of true importance to mankind: no 1 ... (cont)
  40. Profile photo of jendrian
    jendrian Male 18-29
    2516 posts
    April 27, 2012 at 3:12 am
    (cont) ... and verifiable history (both human and cosmological) shows no evidence of influence in the universe distinct from that explainable without the need of a god that can change nature on command.

    Finally, and to stay on topic, I believe the burden of proof (as OldOllie said) lies in the assertion. If you say there`s a pizza in the oven, you need to prove it. If you say there is none, you need to prove that too. But if you say there`s a pizza in the oven, none of the people listening to your claim need to prove whether there is or is not.
  41. Profile photo of jendrian
    jendrian Male 18-29
    2516 posts
    April 27, 2012 at 3:18 am
    oh my, I forgot one thing, the nature of time.

    Time is a strange thing in the universe, and it takes a great deal of work to even begin to understand what it is. But just like space, time, in physics, is accurately measured in units of length (meters, usually) for a reason.

    In physics we can accurately predict the behaviour of time by making the assumption that time is another coordinate of a 4-dimensional space, and such predictions are so perfect that every experiment done for the last 100 years has come out positive with this ideology, which is again, independent of initial measurements.

    Time is hard to understand, no question about that, but to say that we don`t know what it is is understating the state of science 100 years ago
  42. Profile photo of Fancysucksss
    Fancysucksss Male 18-29
    1048 posts
    April 27, 2012 at 3:43 am
    If it expects or demands worship, it is not divine
  43. Profile photo of almightybob1
    almightybob1 Male 18-29
    4290 posts
    April 27, 2012 at 4:18 am
    5Cats: Two ways of solving Zeno`s Arrow paradox spring to mind.
    One is through the concept of Planck time, the smallest possible amount of time. It means time is not infinitely divisible, which the paradox relies upon.
    The other is through the mathematics of limits of series. The time increments in the paradox describe a geometric series with ratio 0.5, which has limit 1.
  44. Profile photo of Musuko42
    Musuko42 Male 18-29
    2850 posts
    April 27, 2012 at 4:26 am
    @CrakrJak.

    "The act of merely observing atomic particles changes them"

    It`s a small point, but everyone gets this wrong: it`s INTERACTION, not observation, that causes the change in a quantum state.

    All observation is interaction, but not all interaction is observation. Quantum states can collapse in two colliding particles a thousand light years from here, with nothing observing it. Interaction, not observation.

    Just in case you`re getting anthropocentric thoughts.
  45. Profile photo of MattPrince
    MattPrince Male 40-49
    2220 posts
    April 27, 2012 at 4:29 am
    @jendrian, part of the problem with time is the human perception of it. The physics dimensionality is easier in some ways, though, as with all science, even what we think we know is still open to challenge, thats why science>>religion.

    Talking of time.. the single source of christian truth, the bible, doesn`t contain a lot of timeline spoilers does it?

    Says about what has happened, and what will happen at the end of the world, but doesn`t say anything inbetween, or mention, even in passing, things that only god could know about at the time.

    There`s no `oh wait till you guys see the cool sh*t I did down in Antarctica`, or `I had a right laugh faking evolution in what will be called Cambrian shale` or `watch out for that Hitler bloke` or `I`ve gone and created loads of planets and stars just because I could`.
  46. Profile photo of Musuko42
    Musuko42 Male 18-29
    2850 posts
    April 27, 2012 at 4:33 am
    @CrakrJak

    "Faith gives people certainty"

    But if that certainty is false, it`s far more damaging and dangerous than uncertainty.

    Being certain you can fly if you jump off a building might comfort you...right up until the point where you hit the ground.

    No harm done, right? Well, apart from the innocent pedestrian who happens to be standing underneath.

    People are using their certainty in something they can`t *actually* be certain about to dictate and guide their actions, and this affects and harms other people, leading to annoyances at one end of the scale (Westboro Baptists and Jehovah`s Witnesses at your doorstep), and tragedy at the other end (9/11, suicide bombers).

    I am of the opinion that it`s far wiser to accept uncertainty, than to clutch blindly for the easiest certainty, without caring for its veracity.
  47. Profile photo of MattPrince
    MattPrince Male 40-49
    2220 posts
    April 27, 2012 at 4:44 am
    I agree with IrishJesus about people being inclined to fill in the gaps.

    Maybe we evolved to do that. A human brain is a pretty amazing machine, but we wouldn`t have survived as a species if, having fallen into a river, we spent time contemplating the most efficient swimming stroke, rather than thrash about and go with what worked.
  48. Profile photo of jendrian
    jendrian Male 18-29
    2516 posts
    April 27, 2012 at 5:02 am
    @MattPrince: when It comes to time, physicists are fairly certain about what it is, several independent experiments prove this assumption and like I said, the idea that time is made of the same thing as space is one that yields positive results. What is open to contest right now is what exactly space, matter, and energy are, but we`re working on it.

    Building on Musuko42`s answer, what does it matter if the act of measurement changes a particle, if the theory takes into consideration all possible changes? All of this without the need for a supernatural, and with very accurate results.

    In short, when it comes to the gods described in holy texts, none of them, has been able to stand to the most basic scientific scrutiny, and I personally think that if human logic can explain a pulsar at the edge of the universe, it can explain god.
  49. Profile photo of jkfld
    jkfld Male 30-39
    138 posts
    April 27, 2012 at 6:04 am
    There is a very compelling argument to be made that human beings are vulnerable to the acceptance and generation of supernatural ideas because of certain psychological features that conferred an evolutionary advantage to our ancestors. One of these is hyperactive agency detection, or the tendency to infer the presence of another conscious being (such as a predator) by the presence of related phenomena (such as the sound of a snapping twig nearby) and to respond accordingly (such as by running away) even if lacking supporting evidence of any other kind (such as visual confirmation). Hyperactive agency detection may save your ass in the jungle, but in the cosmos it may have you insisting you see the handiwork of gods and ghosts all around you. Anybody who wants to know more should check out Dr. Andy Thomson`s excellent presentation, Why We Believe in Gods.
  50. Profile photo of Neoptolemos
    Neoptolemos Male 30-39
    625 posts
    April 27, 2012 at 6:26 am
    (2/2)
    "But", says Man, "the Babel fish is a dead give away isn`t it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don`t. QED."

    "Oh dear", says God, "I hadn`t thought of that," and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.

    "Oh that was easy" says Man, and for an encore goes on to prove that black is white and gets himself killed on the next zebra crossing.

    Meanwhile, the poor Babel fish, by effectively removing all barriers to communication between different races and cultures, has caused more and bloodier wars than anything else in the history of creation.
  51. Profile photo of Neoptolemos
    Neoptolemos Male 30-39
    625 posts
    April 27, 2012 at 6:27 am
    (1/2)
    This clip made me remember a quote from Douglas Adams` Hitchhiker`s Guide to the Galaxy, about the Babel Fish:

    The Babel fish is small, yellow and leech-like, and probably the oddest thing in the Universe. It feeds on brainwave energy received not from its own carrier but from those around it, It absorbs all unconscious mental frequencies from this brainwave energy to nourish itself with. the practical upshot of this is that if you stick a Babel fish in your ear you can instantly understand anything said to you in any language.

    Now it is such a bizarrely improbable coincidence that anything so mind-bogglingly useful could have evolved purely by chance that some thinkers have chosen to see as a final and clinching proof of the non-existence of God. The argument goes like this : "I refuse to prove that I exist", says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing."
  52. Profile photo of Essen
    Essen Male 18-29
    110 posts
    April 27, 2012 at 6:45 am
    Yawn!
    Same thing said every single time.
  53. Profile photo of Mikeoxsbiggg
    Mikeoxsbiggg Male 30-39
    1502 posts
    April 27, 2012 at 7:05 am
    You can tell who the thiests are. The ones with only one line. Intelligent people don`t believe god.. its proven true time after time.
  54. Profile photo of Gerry1of1
    Gerry1of1 Male 50-59
    36665 posts
    April 27, 2012 at 7:32 am

    Burdon of Proof is on the person who makes the declarative statment.

    If you say "There is no god" you have to prove it.
    It is more correct to say "I do not believe there is a god." Now your evidence does not have to be as conclusive as you are stating a belief, not a fact.

    If you say "God is Real" .... proove it.
  55. Profile photo of LillianDulci
    LillianDulci Female 18-29
    2674 posts
    April 27, 2012 at 7:41 am
    "Faith gives people certainty, gives them peace and hope. "

    It gives people certainty about things they are probably wrong. Take for example greek/roman mythology. Their explanation for weather was gods. A god causes it to be windy. A god causes lightning out of anger. A god causes rain. If there`s a drought, it`s because a god is mad. We now have actual scientific explanations for weather, so you don`t see people running around praying to the rain gods... well ok some crazy people still pray to gods for certain weather, or say gods are mad that`s why there`s hurricanes. But most intelligent people realize there`s a scientific explanation for weather, so it`s not a huge part of religions anymore. The bible was used to support the universe being earth centric. People realize this is false now, so they try to pretend the bible says the earth revolves around the sun. As society advances, these "comforting explanations" become more meaningless.
  56. Profile photo of DinVen
    DinVen Male 30-39
    390 posts
    April 27, 2012 at 7:47 am
    @Mikeoxsbiggg So these guys were not intelligent according to you? Maxwell, Kepler, Euler, Pascal, Boole, Joule, Faraday all devout Christians who talked about their faith.

    It`s more nuanced than that. These men were, in case you are unfamiliar with them, all intellectual titans who just happened to believe in god.
  57. Profile photo of markust123
    markust123 Male 40-49
    3889 posts
    April 27, 2012 at 8:47 am
    We all need to belong to a tribe. It`s in our nature. That is all church is.
  58. Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    32796 posts
    April 27, 2012 at 9:30 am
    @HiEv: Excellent observations!
    A) Then `implicit atheists` aren`t actually disagreeing, eh? They`re willing to allow that God might exist.
    B) One possible premise for Deism is that the Cration requires a Creator.
    C) AND many Deists would conceed that if `the big bang` is in fact the origin of the Universe (without a sentient God behind it) then yup, that`s God, a brainless ball of primodial matter/energy.
    I prefer the Sentient God.

    @wake_n_bake: It`s true that it`s not `linear` but that doesn`t solve Zeno`s Arrow.

    We actually know quite a bit about time
    @MattPrince: links! Or are you being sarcastic? We cannot even explain magnets, time is very nearly a complete mystery to science!
  59. Profile photo of LordJim
    LordJim Male 60-69
    6944 posts
    April 27, 2012 at 9:34 am
    `Intelligent people don`t believe god.. its proven true time after time.`

    Not really. There is some correlation between non-belief and a higher level of education and, at a societal level, lower levels of social problems. But many highly intelligent people are able to mentally compartmentalise.

  60. Profile photo of drworm2002
    drworm2002 Male 30-39
    662 posts
    April 27, 2012 at 9:38 am
    I love the ones that say, the proof is in the Bible. Really? Why is that proof? It’s the word of god. Wait, first you have to prove god before you can say he wrote something. Well, it was inspired by god. I wrote a poem about a three breasted hooker from Iceland…I had a dream, it was nice. Doesn’t mean she is real.
    If you honestly step back and look at facts, look at history; look at where we are now. If it makes you feel better to believe in some cloud-sweeper in the sky, then by all means do it. But do force your fantasies into the lives of people that don’t want it. Don’t think that because your imaginary friend makes you sleep better at night doesn’t give you the right to use it to tell others how to live. We have religious nuts in the government saying that life begins two weeks before a women’s menstrual cycle. BEFORE THE SPERM EVEN TOUCHES THE EGG! That is going a bit too far.
  61. Profile photo of drworm2002
    drworm2002 Male 30-39
    662 posts
    April 27, 2012 at 9:38 am
    Everyone is entitled to their own believes, not their own facts. You are not allowed to introduce your beliefs as facts. Stories in a book do not trump decades of scientific research. Really stop and think about what you are saying. Sure is would be nice to think that all the people that we loved went to a nice place after they died, but it’s more likely that they just don’t exist anymore.
  62. Profile photo of drworm2002
    drworm2002 Male 30-39
    662 posts
    April 27, 2012 at 9:44 am
    "then yup, that`s God, a brainless ball of primodial matter/energy.
    I prefer the Sentient God. "

    That is the stupidest thing I have ever heard. If god is just “a brainless ball of primodial matter/energy” then IT’S NOT GOD! That is not the god for the billions of people that live on this planet. That is not even what the definition of god is. That would just go against every major religion in the world.
  63. Profile photo of whodat6484
    whodat6484 Male 30-39
    3908 posts
    April 27, 2012 at 9:45 am
    The burden of proof is on the believers, not the scientists. If you claim something is real (God) you have to prove it.
  64. Profile photo of birdawg68
    birdawg68 Male 40-49
    133 posts
    April 27, 2012 at 9:45 am
    I don`t actually have to prove anything to anybody. I believe what I believe, don`t like it? Don`t care.
  65. Profile photo of Phosphoreign
    Phosphoreign Male 30-39
    308 posts
    April 27, 2012 at 9:55 am
    While I will not comment on whether or not "God" exists, I will say that this person`s argument is flawed... isn`t "There is no God" just as much a claim as "There is a God"? So on one side, you have the monotheist, and on the other you have the atheist... monotheist CLAIMS there is a God... atheist CLAIMS there is not... two claims... equally shared burden of proof.
  66. Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    32796 posts
    April 27, 2012 at 9:59 am
    My Mistakes @jendrian? lolz, your feeble `explainations` have no backing, you`ll have to do much better than that!
    "we know exactly what magnets are"
    Richard Feynman Disagrees and he has a Nobel Prize iirc...
    "this influence must be measurable, regardless of whether we right now have the technology for it or not."
    It`s called "miracles" ok? And if we don`t have the technology to measure it, what "proof" is that? First you say we cannot currently detect it, then you say "because we can`t detect it that`s proof He doesn`t exist"? (paraphrase)

    "is accurately measured in units of length"
    LOLZ! You so funny!
    "Time is not accurate, time is an estimate" - Talking Heads
  67. Profile photo of SilverThread
    SilverThread Male 30-39
    3431 posts
    April 27, 2012 at 10:00 am
    There is no concrete proof of extraterrestrials, yet the argument for their existence can regularly be heard from atheists. Qualify it however you want to, there is no proof only faith. If I am willing to accept that within the Universe or without it, aliens exist then to declare that Allah/Yahweh/God does not seems hypocritical.
  68. Profile photo of whodat6484
    whodat6484 Male 30-39
    3908 posts
    April 27, 2012 at 10:06 am
    @Phosphoreign - "equally shared burden of proof"

    Not quite... If something does not exist there`s no reason to try and prove it doesn`t exist because, well... IT DOESN`T EXIST!!! However, if something does exist then there has to be some kind evidence somewhere that would definitively prove it exists.
  69. Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    32796 posts
    April 27, 2012 at 10:17 am
    @almightybob1: Excellent effort!
    Aristotle tried the Plank Time to solve it (he didn`t call it that, obviously!) but that misses the point of the arrow: how can it move if points of time = zero? Because Zero is the only indivisible number, eh?
    Points of time could equal zero btw, the `boxcar` theory of time where the train is moving but time in each boxcar is not...

    Limit theory explains the motion successfully, but not the nature of Time.

    "what does it matter if the act of measurement changes a particle" - @jendrian
    Spooky Actions At A Distance Einstein predicted it, and it`s been measured. So it matters a great deal actually!

    @DinVen: Nice observation!
  70. Profile photo of Musuko42
    Musuko42 Male 18-29
    2850 posts
    April 27, 2012 at 10:24 am
    @5Cats

    "I prefer the Sentient God."

    And I would prefer to have ten million in the bank, a ferrari in my garage, and a ten mile long queue of sexy guys wanting to sleep with me.

    But rather than base my view of reality on what I would like it to be, I base it on what it actually IS.

    And much of the time, what it actually IS sucks. But being cognizant of reality is better than living in a delusion of wishful thinking.

    Sadly, the real queue is only nine miles long. :(
  71. Profile photo of OutWest
    OutWest Male 50-59
    546 posts
    April 27, 2012 at 10:30 am
    lol... another Religion topic. Same discussion different day.
  72. Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    32796 posts
    April 27, 2012 at 10:40 am
    @OutWest: Actually this `conversation` has been more polite than others. Perhaps because there`s a specific topic involved?

    @Musuko: Sorry, how about: I prefer a sentient Creator. lolz! I doubt that`s any better in your eyes. Or @drworm2002`s either. I`m saying (as a Deist) we all came from somewhere, where exactly is a mystery.
    @drworm: Hey, if the Big Bang IS the origin or the Universe, then yes by golly, ALL the religions, major or minor, are wrong.

    @musuko: Nine mile line-up? Doesn`t that disrupt traffic?
  73. Profile photo of Scuzoid
    Scuzoid Male 30-39
    1268 posts
    April 27, 2012 at 10:59 am
    Not interested enough to know whether this is an internet wide meme, but I was amused but the continuation of the running gag in this thread, "How do magnets work?!!!"

    That is all.
  74. Profile photo of Otto67
    Otto67 Male 40-49
    438 posts
    April 27, 2012 at 11:15 am
    "well ok some crazy people still pray to gods for certain weather"

    @LillianDulci,

    Yeah like Rick Perry the Gov. and former Pres. hopeful. This is why belief is a big deal, we have leaders making decisions based on prayer and the bible. One gov`t official believes God won`t destroy the earth again so global warming is a non-issue, it makes no difference which side of the global warming issue you are on that type of willfull ignorance is alarming from one of our leaders.
  75. Profile photo of Otto67
    Otto67 Male 40-49
    438 posts
    April 27, 2012 at 11:22 am
    "There is no concrete proof of extraterrestrials, yet the argument for their existence can regularly be heard from atheists."

    @SilverThread,

    You are correct, many atheists hold all kinds of wacky beliefs, and as an atheist skeptic I call bs on them as well when they make baseless claims. I think alien intelligent life is possible and quite likely probable, though there is no proof and I will not believe it until there is.
  76. Profile photo of Canoas
    Canoas Male 18-29
    427 posts
    April 27, 2012 at 12:28 pm
    @Otto67
    Life formed in about 400 million years in our planet, so we can safely assume that if a planet has the right ingredients and characteristics then it`s likely it will have formed life by now. The ingredients for life are mainly oxygen, carbon and nitrogen, coincidently they`re the most abundant atoms in the universe. The characteristics needed for a planet to harbour life as we know are simply water in liquid form. Knowing that the universe is insanely vast, with millions of clusters of galaxies, it is safe to assume that there`s a 100% chance for life to exist elsewhere.
    It is not likely probably, it`s a 100% chance. Any astrophysicist will say the same.
  77. Profile photo of Canoas
    Canoas Male 18-29
    427 posts
    April 27, 2012 at 12:35 pm
    "There is no concrete proof of extraterrestrials, yet the argument for their existence can regularly be heard from atheists."

    Every piece of scientific evidence we know point to life existing in other planets a sure thing. It`s not blind faith, it can be explained how and why with logic and facts. We know how life works, we know what it needs to be created, we also know how the universe works and whether it has what`s needed for life. It`s complete asinine to say otherwise.
    We don`t believe aliens exist out of faith, we believe aliens exist out of reason, logic and our understanding of physics. We don`t have proof that the sky was blue 50 thousand years ago either, but we know that for a fact for the same reasons we know aliens exist: our knowledge of physics.

    You, however, believe in God out of faith, because there is no single argument you can make that proves the veracity of god.
  78. Profile photo of Otto67
    Otto67 Male 40-49
    438 posts
    April 27, 2012 at 12:43 pm
    " it is safe to assume that there`s a 100% chance for life to exist elsewhere."

    @Canoas,

    Until there is proof it is still an assumption and therefore not 100%. I said it was highly probable, I am well aware of how vast the universe is known to be now and with further understanding we may find it to be larger. Knowing this I would be much more surprised if there was not life elsewhere. That being said until life is found outside of this planet it is still an `assertion` not `fact`. Until somewhat recently we fully expected other solar systems to have planets, but we did not have proof, so it was not fact (100%) until we actually obtained the evidence for planets.
  79. Profile photo of MattPrince
    MattPrince Male 40-49
    2220 posts
    April 27, 2012 at 1:04 pm
    @5cats. Im not going to post links as there is plenty of easy to find stuff about time as a dimension from Newtonian equations through to the relativistic time dilation affects.
    what the f are you on about with the magnets? The invisible force is down to electromagnetism. god not included.
    if there are unanswered questions, thats fine. Science is a constant quest for perfection. Religion is a lazy opt out.
  80. Profile photo of Phanthom_
    Phanthom_ Female 18-29
    64 posts
    April 27, 2012 at 1:16 pm
    What if the advanced extraterrestials believes in a higher power?
  81. Profile photo of jendrian
    jendrian Male 18-29
    2516 posts
    April 27, 2012 at 1:29 pm
    @5Cats, Richard Feynman is the man who helped explain what magnetism (not magnets) are, magnets are very easily explained, I don`t need to link you to a book to read, here it is:

    Every atom inside a clump of mass has negative charges moving around, usually electrons. As these charges move, their motion generates a magnetic moment. When a lot of these magnetic moments coincide in direction, you get regions of strong magnetic force.

    Now I feel like you`re inclined to say: "but what is a magnetic moment, why does an electric charge generate it, we don`t know that", and the answer to that is that we have known that electric charges generate magnetic moments since Oersted observed it in class, Maxwell famously described it, and later Einstein and Dirac and Feynman explained it.

    If you need any "links" to believe me, here`s one I think you desper
  82. Profile photo of jendrian
    jendrian Male 18-29
    2516 posts
    April 27, 2012 at 1:35 pm
    ....that I think you desperately need.

    5Cats: Again, directed at your commentary, time is measured in units of length in physics, because it is supposed to be part of an entity called "space-time" that, just like its space counter-part, can bend and distort in the presence of energy, such distortions are measurable and are why your GPS works.

    Seriously, this is not so hard to understand, read a book.

    And are you honestly implying that a miracle would not be measurable? Like you know, having water once, and then wine? That is exactly my point, if a sentient god is able to distinguish its influence from nature, this influence is something that can be measured as different from nature.

    And if we don`t yet have the technology, his influence must be either minute or non-existent, because we are currently able to measure just about everything on earth
  83. Profile photo of jendrian
    jendrian Male 18-29
    2516 posts
    April 27, 2012 at 1:44 pm
    "what does it matter if the act of measurement changes a particle" - @jendrian
    Spooky Actions At A Distance Einstein predicted it, and it`s been measured. So it matters a great deal actually!

    I love how you deliberately missed the exact following of my sentence: "if all possible changes are predicted by the theory". If all possible changes are accounted by the theory (one that lacks a god in an way at that), then that "spooky action at a distance" from the theory is exactly what you`re looking for.

    Man, you should wear a helmet when you go outside. I hope you realize you`re arguing like Bill O`Reilly, it may get you ratings, but it`ll only show more people just how dumb you are.
  84. Profile photo of kangoala
    kangoala Male 18-29
    702 posts
    April 27, 2012 at 1:46 pm
    Unusually objective analysis. I quite enjoyed that :D
  85. Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    32796 posts
    April 27, 2012 at 2:18 pm
    Well it WAS mostly polite, now the name calling is starting though, for shame! How nasty folks get when their precious BELIEFS are challenged.

    @MattPrince: Oh poo-poo! I said "magnets" insted of "magnetism" sue me! Anyhow it still applies, did you watch my linked video? Because it`s a `fundamental force` we currently have no idea WHY it does what it does.

    @jendrian: blah blah blah off topic...
    Ah, miracles! YES if we cannot (currently) explain something with science it is a Miracle! IF you believe in God that is.
    We obviously DO NOT `know everything` OK? Your complete mis-understanding of "non-locality` is appaling.
    The whole point of it is: it VIOLATES ALL CURRENT LAWS OF PHYSICS!!!! But there it is! Replicated, duplicated, proven to exist... even thought it`s impossible!
    GET IT?
    I need a tinfoil hat? You need to learn how to think.

  86. Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    32796 posts
    April 27, 2012 at 2:28 pm
    IAB: Where else can you argue about religion AND physics at the same website?
    LOLZ!

    Now with more CATGIRLS! Thanks to me!
  87. Profile photo of jendrian
    jendrian Male 18-29
    2516 posts
    April 27, 2012 at 2:37 pm
    5Cats, I don`t even know how to continue talking to you, when you go "blah blah blah off topic" at the explanations of some off-topic subject you brought up.

    Like I said before, Feynman was troubled by magnetism, so he explained it (without god); so that 30 years from then we don`t have to quibble as to why it happens.

    I`m sorry if I lose posture and start calling you an ignorant fool, but if you`ve chosen not to inform yourself that a video done 30 years ago by the guy who subsequently explained the very thing that`s being debated in it, then you have willfully chosen to remain ignorant, and that is a foolish mistake. So forgive me if I mistake you for one, when you wear the tag with pride.

    Yeah, I assume me, having studied physics for years and read the current trends on non-locality, is really at fault here at not understanding the concept, instead of you, who doesn`t even understand magnetism.
  88. Profile photo of MattPrince
    MattPrince Male 40-49
    2220 posts
    April 27, 2012 at 2:48 pm
    At 5cats, the force at work in magnets is.. electromagnetism. Duh.

    I think you found the following and misunderstood it.. Maybe you need to work on your interpretation of the written word?

    "it`s a very good question, but the truth, according to none other than Richard Feynman, is that it`s also a very hard question to give non-scientists an answer on. The trouble: Magnetism is one of those things that`s just damn difficult to understand in terms of analogy to stuff the average person already knows. The only way to answer this kind of reductive "why" question, Feynman says, is to put the questioner through an elaborate education in physics, at which point they will emerge—like a hobbled butterfly—equally unable to answer the question in a simple way."
  89. Profile photo of Otto67
    Otto67 Male 40-49
    438 posts
    April 27, 2012 at 2:48 pm
    5cats:

    Science doesn`t even know completely how gravity works either. I don`t understand how you are saying that things that science can`t yet explain are miracles. You keep touching on what science does not know as if that will give your assertion of an intelligent god more credibility.
  90. Profile photo of MattPrince
    MattPrince Male 40-49
    2220 posts
    April 27, 2012 at 2:54 pm
    Doesn`t mean it can`t be (mostly) explained, but that it can`t easily be explained to someone who doesn`t understand a bit about electromagnetic forces, something that doesn`t get a look in in the bible, despite being fundamental to how the universe works.
  91. Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    32796 posts
    April 27, 2012 at 2:55 pm
    @otto: @jendrian claimed as "proof" that miracles do not exist is because science has never measured them.
    But science does NOT `know everything`, so how can one claim nothing exists outside of science?

    I say that poeple regularly report `miracles` and show things happen that are otherwise impossible to explain.

    @jendrian: So, you can explain non-locality? I`m all ears! Just how does information move faster than the speed of light, eh?
  92. Profile photo of MattPrince
    MattPrince Male 40-49
    2220 posts
    April 27, 2012 at 3:08 pm
    Science is a system of gaining knowledge. If god really did exist, then he/it would be well within science`s remit. Nothing worth knowing exists outside of sciences scope.

    How can something exist outside of the universe if the universe is everything?

    Its a miracle my arse.

    Which bit of "science doesn`t have to be able to explain everything *right now*, may never be able to", but this does not mean god exists, do you not get?

    No a scientist can not prove that your god does not exist, but then they don`t need to, because you can`t show *any* evidence that your god impacts on anything at all.
  93. Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    32796 posts
    April 27, 2012 at 3:20 pm
    If god really did exist, then he/it would be well within science`s remit
    And you know this through your circular logic? Oh very nice!

    Oh, I `get it` I do! @MattPrince, but I contend that the mere existance of the Universe proves God`s existance. Not the "Christian God" mind you! THE God (who created the universe, that one). WHo might be the Big Bang after all is said & done...

    @MP: Has scince explained where the BB came from yet? No? Didn`t think so...
  94. Profile photo of MattPrince
    MattPrince Male 40-49
    2220 posts
    April 27, 2012 at 3:41 pm
    Science is out to explain how stuff works, if god is part of that, he`s in scope. How is that circular logic?

    OK - the only way your BB god works for me, is if God IS the universe. That works, but also abstracts God pretty much out of the equation.

    I`ll contemplate this over a glass of Hibiki...
  95. Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    32796 posts
    April 27, 2012 at 3:50 pm
    Correct @MattPrince: The BB God would be non-sentient, and everything just happenes by accident. Nothing would be `outside science` in this case, since God = The Universe.

    I think science studies the Universe, not `everything` ie: there can be things which exist outside the understanding of science.

    Now, if there is a sentient God, does he or does he not interact with the Universe? Another kettle of worms entirely!
  96. Profile photo of tstyblucryns
    tstyblucryns Male 18-29
    496 posts
    April 27, 2012 at 4:16 pm
    I know I`m gonna get flamed for this, but here goes:
    I`m agnostic. I`m not making a claim that god does exist, however I`m not making a claim that god doesn`t exist either. If someone wants to convince me that there is no god then explain how that is not a claim. If history has taught us anything it is that we shouldn`t make definite statements (God does exist/God does NOT exist) without the means to measure it. I mean, physical evidence of an incorporeal existence doesn`t make sense. It cannot be fulfilled. We as humans cannot perceive that realm of existence so to say that you expect evidence is not fully considering the weight of that statement. The logic is `I am right unless I can be proven wrong` yet the proof required to do so is inherently impossible to obtain. Flawed logic.
    The only statement that can be made with no burden of proof is "we are incapable of perceiving or understanding the existence of god so no definite claim can be made either way."
  • Profile photo of BrimstoneOne
    BrimstoneOne Male 30-39
    2229 posts
    April 27, 2012 at 5:16 pm
    Why assume that GOD is even human? Is it because some old dude writing a book said so? And what of the other belief systems that are "different"? They came from a human mind. It is mankind`s arrogance that we must hold ego in a high embrace of "belief".

    Why do you believe?
  • Profile photo of jendrian
    jendrian Male 18-29
    2516 posts
    April 27, 2012 at 6:06 pm
    5Cats, non-locality is not simple, but from what I understand there are a number of hypothesis that remain half-true and non-exclusive of each other:

    1. Because of the entanglement of the quantum states, there`s a link between the subatomic particles that communicates changes, whether this communication happens faster than the speed of light remains unknown, but that brings us to
    2. Because nothing in the known universe has verifiably travelled faster than the speed of light, confirmation of non-locality being instantaneous is subject to the sensitivity of the measurements and from what I`ve read, no experiment has yet been conclusive.
    3. My favourite on the other hand, is siding with Einstein that non-locality experiments cannot work because they are in a universe that requires non-instant transmission, like gravitational waves.

    So there you go, as "lay" as I can lay it, inconclusive, but explained.
  • Profile photo of Xprez
    Xprez Male 30-39
    676 posts
    April 27, 2012 at 7:58 pm
    The hard part is not discounting a belief in God, it`s the fact that almost every civilization has written record and/or stories of a supreme being.
    Within some cultures oldest writings, there are references to a supreme/all-knowing being. It is strange that they would have similar stories and written documents without having known about any of the others. It`s easy to say it`s not true. We accept a lot of things from science, without having seen it for ourselves.
  • Profile photo of Xprez
    Xprez Male 30-39
    676 posts
    April 27, 2012 at 8:02 pm
    @tstyblucryns Well said. The real answer is noone has the burden because it can`t be proven either way.
  • Profile photo of HiEv
    HiEv Male 40-49
    621 posts
    April 27, 2012 at 9:48 pm
    5Cats: "Then `implicit atheists` aren`t actually disagreeing, eh? They`re willing to allow that God might exist."

    Yes, if shown sufficient strong objective evidence for the existence of a god/goddess/gods most atheists would be willing to change their position. But extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

    And *this* is the part where implicit atheists actually are disagreeing. The claims made by theists for the existence of their god/dess/e/s are filled with logical fallacies, untestable claims, or are simply explainable by natural means.

    When theists bring up arguments that have been shot down long ago (like Pascal`s wager) or evidence with more holes in it than Swiss cheese (creationist claims), we disagree and have to explain to them the flaws in their arguments, like where the burden of proof lies.
  • Profile photo of HiEv
    HiEv Male 40-49
    621 posts
    April 27, 2012 at 9:59 pm
    Phosphoreign: "monotheist CLAIMS there is a God... atheist CLAIMS there is not"

    Congratulations! You are the 1 millionth theist to make this error! ;-)

    Most atheists do not say/literally mean "there is no God", they actually say/mean "there is no evidence for any gods, so I see no reason to believe they exist". That latter version is a bit wordy, so some shorten it up a bit, which leads to much confusion by theists.

    Simply put, atheist literally means "without god belief" (from a-the-ist). It doesn`t mean "god denier", so it includes anyone who has no belief in gods, including people that have never heard of gods.

    So, implying that all atheists claim that there is no god is false and demonstrates an all too common ignorance of the meaning of the word "atheist". (I don`t mean that in a harsh way, I was ignorant of what it meant myself for a while.)
  • Profile photo of jkfld
    jkfld Male 30-39
    138 posts
    April 27, 2012 at 10:01 pm
    The physical expression of every living being is the result of the environmental circumstances its ancestors faced. Our ancestors are unique in that they faced not only the challenges of the natural world, but the challenges of one extremely sophisticated "environment" no other creature ever came close to mastering: the social world of other humans. Successfully navigating that social world is greatly assisted by the ability to build conceptual models of other abstract thinkers, (imagining your boss, for example) to run conceptual simulations using those models, (imagining how your boss might react to your demand for a raise) and to decide on behavior based on those simulations (imagining your boss`s angry reaction and deciding to ask politely rather than demand). This kind of cognition (by now intuitive for our species and implicit in the design of our brains) spontaneously generates imaginary friends in childhood and reinforces ideas of a personal god in adulthood.
  • Profile photo of HiEv
    HiEv Male 40-49
    621 posts
    April 27, 2012 at 10:17 pm
    @5Cats: Cutting to the heart of things, what does it matter whether science has currently explained everything or not? There isn`t anyone here claiming that science currently knows everything.

    Trying to say that "we don`t know how this works" means "we do know how it works: God" is a nonsensical argument. That is the "God of the gaps" argument which was discussed in this video.

    Not only is it absurd to equate the current absence of knowledge with evidence of God, but doing so also creates an ever-shrinking God that does less and less as science explains more and more.

    We once thought that thunder and lightning was caused by gods. We now know it`s caused by the buildup and discharging of charged particles which causes a sonic shock wave and a flash of light.

    You can discuss physics you barely understand all you want, but that`s not evidence of God.
  • Profile photo of HiEv
    HiEv Male 40-49
    621 posts
    April 27, 2012 at 10:28 pm
    Xprez: "The real answer is noone has the burden because it can`t be proven either way."

    (facepalm) So what you`re basically saying is that you didn`t bother to watch the video, since it clearly explains why that is not the case.

    The atheists aren`t making a claim, they`re asking the theists to prove their claim, thus the burden of proof lies with the theists.

    Your argument works just as well for Santa Claus, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, and the Tooth Fairy as it does for God, so why don`t you believe in all of them? The simple answer is that you shouldn`t believe in *any* of them without sufficient evidence, because the burden of proof lies on the people who claim they exist to prove their case. Your default position should be nonbelief, because believing in everything is absurd and impossible.

    Please, try watching the video and you`ll see that this was all explained there.
  • Profile photo of HiEv
    HiEv Male 40-49
    621 posts
    April 27, 2012 at 10:50 pm
    tstyblucryns: "The logic is `I am right unless I can be proven wrong`"

    No, the logic is "it`s absurd to treat everything as though it might be true when there is no good evidence for it, the default position should be disbelief until sufficient evidence is provided."

    It`s this kind of logic that keeps you from being afraid of the monster under the bed. One could offer up innumerable reasons why you can`t detect the supernatural creature under your bed, but is it really reasonable to go about your life as though it *might* be there just because someone said it is? Of course not.

    Atheism isn`t about making definite statements about gods, it`s about making *reasonable* statements about gods based on the complete absence of good evidence for them.

    You can be agnostic about the monster under the bed, but I think it`s reasonable to assume it isn`t real. The same logic applies to gods.
  • Profile photo of tstyblucryns
    tstyblucryns Male 18-29
    496 posts
    April 27, 2012 at 11:25 pm
    @HiEv "it`s absurd to treat everything as though it might be true when there is no good evidence for it, the default position should be disbelief until sufficient evidence is provided."

    So according to this logic the world was flat until sufficient evidence proved otherwise? No, I`m putting words in your mouth. But it was reasonable to assume that it was flat until proven otherwise even though there was no sufficient evidence to support that.

    No, the default belief should be to have no preconceived notions of how things are. From there you gather evidence and rule out what is wrong and eventually get to the truth. The problem here is that there is no way to provide physical evidence for something that exists in a non-physical capacity. Any effects of this realm could very well be explained with our current understanding of the universe. The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence. So, my initial point is still valid.
  • Profile photo of ryanwi
    ryanwi Male 30-39
    73 posts
    April 27, 2012 at 11:34 pm
    (Most atheists do not say/literally mean "there is no God", they actually say/mean "there is no evidence for any gods, so I see no reason to believe they exist".)

    Definition of ATHEISM
    1
    archaic : ungodliness, wickedness
    2
    a : a disbelief in the existence of deity
    b : the doctrine that there is no deity

    You seem to be confused about the terminology. Atheism is the opposite of Theism. Theism is any belief in one or more gods. Atheism is the absolute belief in the non-existence of gods. What you are trying to describe is "agnosticism."

    In Greek, "A" means "without." "gnosis" means "knowledge." A person who says "there is no evidence for any gods, so I see no reason to believe they exist" isn`t fully atheist. They are agnostic atheists. There are also agnostic theists. In fact, most christians are agnostic theists.
  • Profile photo of jendrian
    jendrian Male 18-29
    2516 posts
    April 27, 2012 at 11:44 pm
    @HiEv, yeah! all that, I agree
  • Profile photo of jendrian
    jendrian Male 18-29
    2516 posts
    April 27, 2012 at 11:53 pm
    @ryanwl (and HIEv), actually if we`re being strict the word literally translates from greek to "godless", implying that there`s an absolute disbelief is adding into the definition, as the word doesn`t imply definitiveness or belief, simply no affiliation.

    For example, if you were in ancient Greece you would be an atheist if you recognized the gods of the Olympus, but follow none of them.

    Just saying, if we`re gonna be strict, get it from the source (ancient Greece)
  • Profile photo of ryanwi
    ryanwi Male 30-39
    73 posts
    April 28, 2012 at 2:58 am
    You can`t take it from ancient Greece and then use it to define modern atheist beliefs. The definition you are using is the ancient one. The word "atheism" is derived from ancient Greek. But it isn`t itself the same as the Greek word. The actual Greek word you are using, translated to English, would be "atheos." In fact, as your own link acknowledges, the English term is actually based on a French term, not directly on the Greek one.

    An atheist isn`t neutral on the existence of a deity. An atheist actively believes in the non-existence of deities. A pure agnostic, (if such a thing exists,) would be neutral on the subject.

    I honestly can`t find one prominent atheist who`s ever said anything remotely like "I acknowledge a deity might exist, I just haven`t seen proof of it."

    I could be wrong though.
  • Profile photo of ryanwi
    ryanwi Male 30-39
    73 posts
    April 28, 2012 at 3:29 am
    Anyway, in regards to the video:

    The author of the video is making the same mistake that the "intelligent design" folks make, but in the reverse. The author uses the scientific definition of "burden of proof." But in a discussion of a philosophic topic, the scientific burden of proof isn`t valid.

    Philosophy has it`s own burden of proof. The burden is normally borne by the person who`s position contravenes commonly held beliefs.

    Criminal lawyers have their own burden of proof too. In their case, the burden lies with the prosecution.

    Intelligent design seems laughable to the scientific mind because it attempts to shoehorn a philosophical belief into a method of inquiry that would easily reject it. In the same way challenging someone to prove the existence of a deity using scientific rules of evidence, when the question is not scientific to begin with, is just as laughable.
  • Profile photo of Musuko42
    Musuko42 Male 18-29
    2850 posts
    April 28, 2012 at 4:33 am
    @5Cats

    "But science does NOT `know everything`, so how can one claim nothing exists outside of science?"

    Science is a process of rational thinking and experimentation. It is not a book of answers.

    If you can think rationally about it and test it, then it`s not outside of science. This applies even for things we don`t yet have an explanation for. Because, again, it is a process of obtaining answers, not the list of answers itself.

    You don`t know what science is, so how can you justly criticise it?

  • Profile photo of jkfld
    jkfld Male 30-39
    138 posts
    April 28, 2012 at 5:24 am
    "I honestly can`t find one prominent atheist who`s ever said anything remotely like `I acknowledge a deity might exist, I just haven`t seen proof of it.`"

    Isn`t that essentially the position of the most prominent atheist?
  • Profile photo of patchgrabber
    patchgrabber Male 30-39
    5812 posts
    April 28, 2012 at 7:35 am
    tstyblucryns:If someone wants to convince me that there is no god then explain how that is not a claim.
    It`s not a claim because it`s simply a rejection of the antecedent claim that there is. It concerns what us scientists call the null hypothesis. Whenever I`m trying to find out something, I form a hypothesis e.g. How was the universe created? Hypothesis: God did it. Now the null hypothesis is always simply the opposite of that hypothesis, and as a scientist regarding this hypothesis I just mentioned, I would say that there is insufficient evidence to reject the null hypothesis. Until proven otherwise, the null hypothesis is the standard, it`s not a claim, just good scientific method.
  • Profile photo of patchgrabber
    patchgrabber Male 30-39
    5812 posts
    April 28, 2012 at 7:39 am
    ou seem to be confused about the terminology. Atheism is the opposite of Theism. Theism is any belief in one or more gods. Atheism is the absolute belief in the non-existence of gods. What you are trying to describe is "agnosticism."
    I know 5cats disagrees with everyone on this (oh and btw 5cats the word you were looking for pages back is "abiogenesis"), but no, the quality of being agnostic simply refers to certainty of knowledge. You don`t have to be certain God exists to believe in Him or disbelieve in him. And atheism is a "disbelief", see my last comment on null hypothesis.
  • Profile photo of patchgrabber
    patchgrabber Male 30-39
    5812 posts
    April 28, 2012 at 7:43 am
    Criminal lawyers have their own burden of proof too. In their case, the burden lies with the prosecution.

    Some laws place burden of proof on the defendant.

    Intelligent design seems laughable to the scientific mind because it attempts to shoehorn a philosophical belief into a method of inquiry that would easily reject it. In the same way challenging someone to prove the existence of a deity using scientific rules of evidence, when the question is not scientific to begin with, is just as laughable.
    Since when is the question not scientific? People are attempting to explain the physical world and associated events. This is inherently scientific. Your logic is what`s laughable.
  • Profile photo of Otto67
    Otto67 Male 40-49
    438 posts
    April 28, 2012 at 8:28 am
    "Philosophy has it`s own burden of proof. The burden is normally borne by the person who`s position contravenes commonly held beliefs."

    @ryanwi,

    What you are decribing is a fallacy in logic, philosophy.


    In logic, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for "appeal to the people") is a fallacious argument that concludes a proposition to be true because many or most people believe it. In other words, the basic idea of the argument is: "If many believe so, it is so."



  • Profile photo of Otto67
    Otto67 Male 40-49
    438 posts
    April 28, 2012 at 8:56 am
    "An atheist isn`t neutral on the existence of a deity. An atheist actively believes in the non-existence of deities. A pure agnostic, (if such a thing exists,) would be neutral on the subject."

    Atheism/theism refers to belief.

    Gnostic/Agnostic refers to knowledge.

    Agnosticism is not the middle ground between Atheism/theism. I can believe there is not god (atheism) but not claim that I KNOW there is no god (agnostic atheist).

    My wiife on the other hand believes there is a higher power in the universe (theist) but does not claim know (agnostic theist).

    And that is why you are right, there is not a `pure agnostic`.
  • Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    32796 posts
    April 28, 2012 at 10:49 am
    @jendrain: Good effort on the Non-Locality explaination! But #1 is wrong, since both particles move at the speed of light, and they`re moving away from each other, any `communication` between them has to be faster than light. Or via something currently undetectable.

    @patchy: "abiogenisis" Thanks! I`ll remember it this time!!!
  • Profile photo of jendrian
    jendrian Male 18-29
    2516 posts
    April 28, 2012 at 12:56 pm
    @ryanwi, I was just saying there`s no need to be so strict in the definition of atheism, everyone knows that we either don`t like or don`t care for god(s). Unlike with the definition of christian, where they don`t even agree on whether they believe on the bible, and even when they do on what the passages are supposed to say.

    @5Cats, yeah, because we can measure stuff faster than the speed of transmission, which is notoriously smaller than the speed of light. I`m sorry to bust your bubble of "I read this on a watered down science magazine once", but unless mankind figures out how to relay and process information at speeds faster than the speed of light, we`ll never be able to measure differences in non-locality.

    Here`s an experiment for you, try to measure the temperature of a fully heated baking oven with an alcohol thermometer, see if it gives you a strange reading.
  • Profile photo of ryanwi
    ryanwi Male 30-39
    73 posts
    April 28, 2012 at 1:49 pm
    "In logic, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for "appeal to the people") is a fallacious argument that concludes a proposition to be true because many or most people believe it. In other words, the basic idea of the argument is: "If many believe so, it is so." "

    You are misusing that fallacy. I never said that the position that the majority holds is right simply because the majority holds it. What I said is that if a philosophical argument contravenes the majority holding, that the person making the new argument bears the burden.

    The majority holding doesn`t imply correctness. It does, however, shift the burden in philosophy.
  • Profile photo of ryanwi
    ryanwi Male 30-39
    73 posts
    April 28, 2012 at 2:03 pm
    "Since when is the question not scientific? People are attempting to explain the physical world and associated events. This is inherently scientific. Your logic is what`s laughable."

    I think you agree with me, but don`t realize that you do. You are correct that the intelligent design folks are trying to explain the physical world and associated events. You are correct that the argument they are making is a scientific argument. But the theory they propose is not scientific at all. A scientific theory must be disprovable. There is no possible way to prove intelligent design to be incorrect using the scientific method. That`s why intelligent design is not, or at least should not, be taught inside a science curriculum.

    Intelligent design is simply an attempt to put a scientific dress on creationism. You are welcome to believe anything you want. But creationism and it`s offspring, intelligent design, are not science.
  • Profile photo of tstyblucryns
    tstyblucryns Male 18-29
    496 posts
    April 28, 2012 at 2:15 pm
    @patchgrabber

    Saying that you are using the scientific method does not make it so. Not trying to be mean but this is the flaw in logic I`ve been talking about. This requires falsifiable data, and I`m feeling like a broken record here but you cannot honestly expect physical evidence of a non-physical existence. We can agree on this, right? I mean if someone is not willing to admit this fact then that`s a deal breaker. There is no reason to really discuss if you cannot admit this fact. If we could address the fact that making an assumption based on a requirement for evidence that cannot logically be provided then I`d be happy. I know better, this will be avoided and something out of context will be addressed or my comment will be ignored completely. And do you know why? Because there is no way to address this other than to admit it is true. Our scope of understanding does not allow us to measure therefore an expectation for evidence is flawed logic.
  • Profile photo of Otto67
    Otto67 Male 40-49
    438 posts
    April 28, 2012 at 2:30 pm
    "What I said is that if a philosophical argument contravenes the majority holding, that the person making the new argument bears the burden."

    You are also equating religious belief as if it is philosophy, it`s not.

  • Profile photo of Otto67
    Otto67 Male 40-49
    438 posts
    April 28, 2012 at 2:38 pm
    "Our scope of understanding does not allow us to measure therefore an expectation for evidence is flawed logic."

    And claiming something is true and at the same time saying there is no evidence for it and by definition that "truth" can`t have evidence is also flawed logic.
  • Profile photo of tstyblucryns
    tstyblucryns Male 18-29
    496 posts
    April 28, 2012 at 3:18 pm
    @Otto Ahh, but I never claimed anything to be truth. Try to keep up.
  • Profile photo of tstyblucryns
    tstyblucryns Male 18-29
    496 posts
    April 28, 2012 at 3:21 pm
    true*
  • Profile photo of jendrian
    jendrian Male 18-29
    2516 posts
    April 28, 2012 at 3:24 pm
    @tstyblucryns, I see a flaw in your logic, in that the only kind of evidence of non-physical beings is non-physical, as the whole idea of god is it being a non-physical entity with influence in the physical world (otherwise his/her existence is irrelevant).

    Therefore, I am not willing to admit the fact that it is illogical to request the scientific method to apply to the philosophy of religion, but I am willing to discuss why it is a valid, scientific question.

    And I believe that`s what everybody else is talking about.
  • Profile photo of tstyblucryns
    tstyblucryns Male 18-29
    496 posts
    April 28, 2012 at 3:31 pm
    I`m sorry. I`m being a peen, now. The only point I`m trying to make is that atheism cannot be a default position based on this burden of proof logic fail. I honestly have no beef with atheism, everyone can be atheists for all I care. It`s just arrogant to act like your position is somehow more scientific based on flawed logic.
  • Profile photo of jendrian
    jendrian Male 18-29
    2516 posts
    April 28, 2012 at 3:41 pm
    but it`s not, we`re asking a valid question: if there`s a god that is somehow relevant to us evolved apes, then where is the proof of it?

    In that respect, in that we`re asking for it in a logical way (that unnatural influences on nature should be able to be measured as distinct from nature), the position of default skepticism is a scientifically sound one.

    I don`t think it`s arrogant to request evidence for claims, I think it`s arrogant to assume you don`t need to provide any.
  • Profile photo of tstyblucryns
    tstyblucryns Male 18-29
    496 posts
    April 28, 2012 at 3:52 pm
    @jendrian

    I never said that there wouldn`t be an influence on our world. But even an influence couldn`t be explained by our current perception. Imagine a 2 dimensional sentient being pondering the existence of the 3rd dimension. They would certainly see an influence of the 3rd dimension however they would only be able to explain it with 2d science. Or let`s assume that there is a god. God says, "Let`s make some rain." Now the process of rain being formed we can observe and measure and it`s science! But there is no way that we as humans would even be able to measure the influence that started the process.

    I don`t think that it is flawed to assume any evidence or influence of an incorporeal existence would be incorporeal itself. That makes sense, actually.
  • Profile photo of tstyblucryns
    tstyblucryns Male 18-29
    496 posts
    April 28, 2012 at 4:06 pm
    "I don`t think it`s arrogant to request evidence for claims, I think it`s arrogant to assume you don`t need to provide any."

    That`s just it, though. I`m not saying that theists don`t have to provide proof. I`m not even claiming there is a god.

    This is my thought process:
    There different types of atheist.
    1)100%=absolutely no possibility of a god
    2)not 100%=lack of evidence means the logical assumption is that there is no god but it is a possibility if proven.

    So, I think we can agree the more "scientific" approach is to not rule out the possibility completely. I`m gonna repeat myself a little here, and I`m sorry. OK, assume there is a god who directly influences our reality. We could not possibly measure or perceive this existence so there is no way to fulfill this request. The logic is that if it were real then we would be able to prove it but we couldn`t by its very nature. That`s all I`m saying. The logic is flawed.
  • Profile photo of jendrian
    jendrian Male 18-29
    2516 posts
    April 28, 2012 at 4:11 pm
    @tstyblucryns, but you just said that the incorporeal god created rain, that`s not incorporeal.

    If you were a 2D person trying to understand the influences of a 3D dimension on you, you would be able to do that by measuring changes in shadows, as we already do that in higher dimensional physics (specially when it comes to time), very accurately.

    If god was to create rain, in a way that is distinct from what nature would do without his influence, then we would be able to tell, because we can predict (with a certain degree of accuracy) the conditions for rain to occur naturally, so any rain happening outside of that realm of our predictive power could be considered god`s work, and again, it`s not incorporeal evidence.

    As always, incorporeal forms, acting on our physical world, have physical consequences that we are able to measure. It is however, unreasonable to assume that all incorporeal evidence is incorporeal.
  • Profile photo of jendrian
    jendrian Male 18-29
    2516 posts
    April 28, 2012 at 4:18 pm
    So, I think we can agree the more "scientific" approach is to not rule out the possibility completely.
    yes, we agree, and I have not really ever heard any atheist saying that without a doubt there`s no god, only that there`s no evidence for it, which brings us to:

    OK, assume there is a god who directly influences our reality. We could not possibly measure or perceive this existence so there is no way to fulfill this request.

    I`m gonna repeat myself too, if it directly influences our reality outside of what we consider nature, that influence is measurable, because we understand nature, and unless you dilute the concept of god to mean nature, the request for evidence of it is valid.

    So no, the logic is not flawed, the position of default (but uncertain) skepticism is logically the best one
  • Profile photo of tstyblucryns
    tstyblucryns Male 18-29
    496 posts
    April 28, 2012 at 4:22 pm
    @jendrian

    You`re making the assumption that rain created by a supernatural power would be "distinct from what nature would do without his influence". I don`t think that`s true. Who`s to say that every cycle in nature isn`t influenced by a higher power. If science is calibrated from a position that god is actively a part of then we would not perceive a difference as you describe.
  • Profile photo of tstyblucryns
    tstyblucryns Male 18-29
    496 posts
    April 28, 2012 at 4:29 pm
    @jendrain

    I don`t see how that is diluting the concept of god. I approach it as a honest possibility and to me it makes sense that all things would be directly connected to an incorporeal existence. I think we might be at an impasse here. I guess if you don`t think that is a plausible scenario then I could see how the logic works.

    PS I have to say I rarely get reasonable responses on here so it is much appreciated.
  • Profile photo of jendrian
    jendrian Male 18-29
    2516 posts
    April 28, 2012 at 5:00 pm
    @tstyblucryns; thank you, I appreciate arguing in a reasonable, logical way.

    However I do think that if you include god into the function of nature, that is diluting the concept to the point where god = nature and the question is moot because then the whole of science is a description of god. That`s why I always make sure to say that his influence must be distinct from that of nature`s, because only then do we have a supernatural being, which is the most generally accepted concept of "god".
  • Profile photo of tstyblucryns
    tstyblucryns Male 18-29
    496 posts
    April 28, 2012 at 5:20 pm
    @jendrian

    You know, I can see your point. TBH I think I might have derailed myself a little, lol. I think this video (and thread) is targeted at people who claim the existence of god and I kinda wormed myself in, even though I don`t really fit that mold. I guess I`m always going to cringe a little when I hear someone say atheism is a more logical approach, but that`s based off my own views. It`s starting to feel a bit like arguing what we`re having for lunch but we all brought our own. :D

    *fixed it, didn`t really make sense the first time
  • Profile photo of jendrian
    jendrian Male 18-29
    2516 posts
    April 28, 2012 at 5:31 pm
    glad to see we`re on the same page, cheers! and have a fun day
  • Profile photo of tstyblucryns
    tstyblucryns Male 18-29
    496 posts
    April 28, 2012 at 5:39 pm
    You, too. Hope your lunch is as good as mine.
  • Profile photo of HiEv
    HiEv Male 40-49
    621 posts
    April 28, 2012 at 10:40 pm
    tstyblucryns: "So according to this logic the world was flat until sufficient evidence proved otherwise? No, I`m putting words in your mouth. But it was reasonable to assume that it was flat until proven otherwise even though there was no sufficient evidence to support that."

    No, that`s wrong. The default assumption would be that you have no idea what shape the world is. Anyone claiming that it was flat would have to provide evidence.

    However, since the world did not appear to loop up into the sky or have holes in it, and simple shapes are more likely, that the world was flat would have been a reasonable early conclusion to come to. However, once another explanation that better fits the facts (e.g. ships disappearing over the horizon) then that explanation should be accepted instead.

    It`s the basic scientific method, but note that minor claims require less evidence than extraordinary ones.
  • Profile photo of HiEv
    HiEv Male 40-49
    621 posts
    April 28, 2012 at 11:02 pm
    ryanwi: "The author uses the scientific definition of `burden of proof.` But in a discussion of a philosophic topic, the scientific burden of proof isn`t valid."

    I disagree. There isn`t this magic "other set of rules for logic" that applies to philosophy. Burden of proof is a fundamental of logic and it applies the same way in all contexts.

    What you are trying to do is shift the burden of proof, which in any logical system lies upon the claimant, by claiming that the context somehow matters.

    It does not.

    I took four philosophy classes in college (intro, philosophy of mind, philosophy of science, and as a portion of my AI/Cognitive Science senior seminar) and I`ve never heard anyone claim that that was true, much less make a reasonable defense of such a claim.

    In any case, I dispute the context and say that this is an argument of science and logic, not merely philosophy.
  • Profile photo of Otto67
    Otto67 Male 40-49
    438 posts
    April 29, 2012 at 8:34 pm
    "It`s just arrogant to act like your position is somehow more scientific based on flawed logic."

    tstyblucryns,

    You are of course right, it is equally logical to believe in Santa Clause and the Tooth Fairy as it is to not believe in them.


  • Profile photo of tstyblucryns
    tstyblucryns Male 18-29
    496 posts
    April 30, 2012 at 9:41 pm
    Thought there would be good reason to come back. Well, I can say if you`re arguing against the sole claim "God is real", then I am not your man. I do still say that atheism is no more logical than theism but I have come to terms with the fact that people aren`t going to agree with me unless they already do, and that everyone is bringing their own views to the table.

    It makes sense (to me, at least) that IF god were real THEN we would not be able to observe his presence so any logical assumptions built from this absence of evidence are flawed. Accepting this if/then statement seems to be the impasse. (Note that Santa and the Tooth Fairy don`t apply as they would be physical beings) I believe this would apply to an intelligent deity, also. If you don`t see it that way well then I can see how it would be entirely logical to assume there is no God given there is no evidence.

    PS However ridiculous a claim may seem, its absurdity does not give weight to the logic
  • Profile photo of tstyblucryns
    tstyblucryns Male 18-29
    496 posts
    April 30, 2012 at 9:52 pm
    I tried so hard to fit that comment into the char limit but I feel like I need to clarify that last bit. Of course, in terms or relative argument, specifically in terms of logic, then yes a ridiculous claim is arguably less logical. I was just trying to curb any argument about a spaghetti monster. It`s probably better just to say that I personally do not make any claim of any god/gods/unicorns/spaghetti monsters. Only voicing my personal irritation to what I see as a flawed logical requirement for evidence. A battle I`m really starting to regret.
  • Profile photo of tstyblucryns
    tstyblucryns Male 18-29
    496 posts
    April 30, 2012 at 9:54 pm
    End of the first post was supposed to be *logic of the opposing view* BTW
  • Leave a Reply