Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Hoosier Daddy · 11-06-2005, 04:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fast

I can go around saying anything I want to. To do so, is to make claims or assertions. We can look at these claims as premises to arguments if they are intended to be apart of an argument. Example propositional claim:

P1: God X does not exist.

Who ever says this is the one doing the asserting. If this proposition is a premise in an argument that is not accepted, then this proposition needs to be the conclusion whereby additional premises are pulled in to support it.

What's important here is that it's incumbent upon the individual doing the asserting to substantiate their claims.

Absolutely. If he does it, then it's expected that he substantiate HIS claim.

4 scenarios:
1) theist believes there is a God
2) theist claims there is a God

3) atheist lacks belief there is a God
4) atheist asserts there is no God

Scenario 1 and 3 are not burdened with having to provide any proof whatsoever, for no claims or assertions are being announced for potential acceptance.

Scenario 2 and 4, on the other hand, are making statements about the world that's in question. If they can assert it as if true, then their accusations (wild or otherwise) is in need of substantiating.

Well, it depends. Anyone can say what they want, but if it's going to be used in an argument, then it's expected that if it's challenged that support is incumbent upon who's doing the asserting.

I don't know. Again, it depends. If you and I agree between us that there are no monsters, then we are free to use it as an agreed upon premise in an argument. However, if someone else comes along and does not agree in regards to monsters, then whoever does the asserting needs to support their case.

I don't believe in monsters, and neither do you, so we can agree, and If I assert there are no monsters and you agree, then I still don't have to prove my case, but if I assert there are monsters and you disagree, then it's I who needs to support my assertion; likewise, if you say there are not monsters and if I disagree, then you need to support your assertion. Now, whether or not I assert no monsters is whether or not I have to support an assertion.

It could be the case that you assert there are monsters and I simply don't believe you; in this situation, it's your burden of proof--not mine.

Putting this back in perspective: Seebs didn’t claim there to be a God; therefore, he is not burdened with the need to provide proof. If an atheist simply does as atheists do (lack belief in God), then they have no burden of proof either. However, if either party starts making declarations, then whoever does the yabbin’ is expected to back up their yappin’.

PS: Welcome to IIDB, and may your stay prove enlightening.

Thanks, fast. I don't think the nonexistence of the supernatural can be "proven" with a deductive argument. How did Jagella come to understand the concept of god so he could claim "god does not exist"? How did you come to understand the concept of monsters in order to be able to claim they don't exist?

Dryhad · 11-06-2005, 04:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hoosier Daddy

Does this mean evolutionary theory, the theory of electricity, the theory of gravity, and germ theory are not right since there is a ridiculously small chance they could be wrong? It's a matter of confidence.

Well for a start there's a whole lot of empyrical evidence for them, while the evidence against God's existance is largely logical and based on assumptions about his/her/its/their nature. Considering this is about declaring victory when one has no evidence to support such a victory, there are rather bad analogues.

Hoosier Daddy · 11-06-2005, 04:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dryhad

Well for a start there's a whole lot of empyrical evidence for them, while the evidence against God's existance is largely logical and based on assumptions about his/her/its/their nature. Considering this is about declaring victory when one has no evidence to support such a victory, there are rather bad analogues.

Yes, you're right, there is a whole lot of empirical evidence for natural phenomenon. And none for the supernatural. Jagella doesn't have to prove the negative to say the Christian God does not exist.

fast · 11-06-2005, 05:06 PM

A recap of what Seebs said in reference to the OP: "If you have a specific disproof of the existence of God, feel free to go ahead and present it. So far, the ones I've seen have been pretty weak."

A recap of what you (Hoosier Daddy) said in reference to my comment: "I don't think the nonexistence of the supernatural can be "proven" with a deductive argument."

So, as it pertains to the OP, any such claimed victory is bitter sweet.

fast · 11-06-2005, 05:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hoosier Daddy

Jagella doesn't have to prove the negative to say the Christian God does not exist.

How correct you are :thumbs:

Jobar · 11-06-2005, 05:42 PM

This is definitely an EoG thread.

When it comes to existence claims, the assumption of nonexistence is the default.

I don't have to claim that werekoalas don't exist. There are a vast, perhaps infinite, number of imaginary critters that certainly don't exist; it's simply not necessary to offer separate disproofs of each and every one.

A nonexistence claim does not have to be substantiated, because the very point being asserted is that there is no substance.

The only reason that there's a "debate" here at all is the millenia of claims by theists that god(s) *do* exist. Since they have failed to offer any evidence- since they have failed to substantiate their claim- we can consider their claims invalid.

As others have pointed out though, this fact doesn't really help. Until many, many more people realize the truth of this fact, we'll still see all the manifold sufferings caused by believing in unreal things. Our task is to get through to the many who are ignorant of all this, to break through the neglect and denial. Declaring "victory" doesn't help us do that, I don't think, and it may actively hurt us. Honey, vinegar, flies, etc.

Dryhad · 11-06-2005, 05:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hoosier Daddy

Yes, you're right, there is a whole lot of empirical evidence for natural phenomenon. And none for the supernatural. Jagella doesn't have to prove the negative to say the Christian God does not exist.

But absense of evidence is not evidence of absense, and Occam's Razor is not evidence. You are perfectly justified in believing the Christian God does not exist. It is even a rational belief. It is not justification for declaring victory over those who disagree. You need proof to do that.

Biff the unclean · 11-06-2005, 05:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fast

This is my perspective. If one is to make a claim, then the burden of proof is on who makes the claim.

Which, as I’ve said, I’m more than happy to do.

Quote:

Not all atheists make the claim that no god exists.

I didn’t say I was representing all Atheists. I said I was happy to convince him by use of a simple and elegant experiment.

Quote:

Those that do make the claim, do in fact need to support their claim if they ever hope to prove it true.

Great, I’m more than happy to do so.

Quote:

Again, if one is to disclaim, then one needs substantiation. There was a burden of proof shift. Seebs is correct.

The burden didn’t shift. I said I would prove that God didn’t exist. All that happened was that the argument was conceded. I’m more than happy to prove beyond a doubt that this thing you kids are calling a God does not exist. But since you are calling “nothing�? God … because you have produced nothing … then there is no need for my simple and elegant experiment as the point has been conceded without my having to actually conduct it.

From your perspective this should be an embarrassment. If you can rectify it by all means do and we will proceed with the experiment.

Jobar · 11-06-2005, 06:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Biff the Unclean

The burden didn’t shift. I said I would prove that God didn’t exist. All that happened was that the argument was conceded. I’m more than happy to prove beyond a doubt that this thing you kids are calling a God does not exist. But since you are calling “nothing�? God … because you have produced nothing … then there is no need for my simple and elegant experiment as the point has been conceded without my having to actually conduct it.

Precisely. Any nonexistence claim is easily refuted by the simple production of the (dis)claimed entity. If that can't be done, the argument is over- until and unless the entity turns up.

But until that time, there's no argument, no debate. By silence is nonexistence conceded.

added- and to fend off the objections I just *know* are coming, when I say "production of the (dis)claimed entity" I also mean "production of any evidence of the (dis)claimed entity". We can't produce any dark matter, at the moment; but we can certainly produce evidence that dark matter is a viable probability, by the large-scale motions of galaxies. Our theories about dark matter may be incorrect, but there's definitely something there.

fast · 11-06-2005, 06:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Biff the unclean

The burden didn’t shift. I said I would prove that God didn’t exist. All that happened was that the argument was conceded. I’m more than happy to prove beyond a doubt that this thing you kids are calling a God does not exist. But since you are calling “nothing�? God … because you have produced nothing … then there is no need for my simple and elegant experiment as the point has been conceded without my having to actually conduct it.

From your perspective this should be an embarrassment. If you can rectify it by all means do and we will proceed with the experiment.

First, I'm no kid. Second, I'm not a theist. Third, I understand your point. Forth, I disagree.

I'm well aware that in order for there to be an existent, there must be a physical cause. I have identified no such physical cause, but that does not negate the theoretical existence of one. Even if we were to prove that belief in a God is derivative of a mental manifestation, that still does not prove a negative in the absolute of terms. Even if a God were to appear tomorrow, that wouldn't mean that there is a God today. There simply is no proving a negative unequivocally.

Seebs will not meet your challenge because no God will appear, and though I believe there is no God, that does not mean there isn't.

This is evidence of absence, but it is not unequivocal proof of absence.

I'll take your points one by one.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Biff the unclean

The burden didn’t shift.

Yes, it did. He's not attempting to prove the existence of God. YOU are attempting to prove the nonexistence of a God. Your test has failed. Have you shown that he's on vacation? How about, "he's shy". I realize it's absurd, but it matters not one bit. YOU haven't PROVED anything, though I admired your attempt.

Again, a little differently, he's didn't make a claim of existence--you are making a claim of nonexistence. You can support your claim with the evidence of no-show, but you cannot PROVE your claim.

Quote:

I said I would prove that God didn’t exist.

And we still don't know whether this God that's spoken of is on a sabbatical or not.

Quote:

All that happened was that the argument was conceded.

What argument? Your experiment suggests to me there is no God, but what have you proved?

Quote:

I’m more than happy to prove beyond a doubt that this thing you kids are calling a God does not exist.

Then YOU do it. I can't make imaginary or real Gods do anything. I can't prove a negative, but you seem to claim YOU can.

Quote:

But since you are calling “nothing�? God … because you have produced nothing … then there is no need for my simple and elegant experiment as the point has been conceded without my having to actually conduct it.

Failure to produce equates to failure to exist?

Quote:

From your perspective this should be an embarrassment.

My perspective? Hell, there is no God! I believe this. I hold this as true. I have gobs of circumstantial evidence that suggests I'm correct. I don't even think it's plausible that there's a God. But, dang-it, I CANNOT prove it.

Quote:

If you can rectify it by all means do and we will proceed with the experiment.

Your experiment suggest an inability to demonstrate there's a God. Exactly at what point in the interpretation does this all of a sudden become PROOF on nonexistence?

Also, not a darn bit of this is the point I originally was making. It was only my intention to demonstrate that the burden of proof was on you! You are attempting to shift the burden to Seebs for a claim that he wasn't even making. You are the one saying that God doesn't exist with the purported ability to prove it, yet you are pretending that he made the claim of existence, and even if he did make the claim and didn't substantiate it, then that still doesn't absolve you of YOUR burden of proving your claim of nonexistence.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

11-06-2005, 05:06 PM	#34
fast Contributor Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: South Carolina, USA Posts: 14,025	A recap of what Seebs said in reference to the OP: "If you have a specific disproof of the existence of God, feel free to go ahead and present it. So far, the ones I've seen have been pretty weak." A recap of what you (Hoosier Daddy) said in reference to my comment: "I don't think the nonexistence of the supernatural can be "proven" with a deductive argument." So, as it pertains to the OP, any such claimed victory is bitter sweet.

11-06-2005, 05:42 PM	#36
Jobar Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: secularcafe.org Posts: 9,525	This is definitely an EoG thread. When it comes to existence claims, the assumption of nonexistence is the default. I don't have to claim that werekoalas don't exist. There are a vast, perhaps infinite, number of imaginary critters that certainly don't exist; it's simply not necessary to offer separate disproofs of each and every one. A nonexistence claim does not have to be substantiated, because the very point being asserted is that there is no substance. The only reason that there's a "debate" here at all is the millenia of claims by theists that god(s) do exist. Since they have failed to offer any evidence- since they have failed to substantiate their claim- we can consider their claims invalid. As others have pointed out though, this fact doesn't really help. Until many, many more people realize the truth of this fact, we'll still see all the manifold sufferings caused by believing in unreal things. Our task is to get through to the many who are ignorant of all this, to break through the neglect and denial. Declaring "victory" doesn't help us do that, I don't think, and it may actively hurt us. Honey, vinegar, flies, etc.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.