seebs

The point is, though, that different people may find different proofs convincing, or accept different standards of evidence.

Thus, I may be convinced that there's a God, and my friend Bob may be convinced that there's a pretty listenable Country album, and my friend Steve can believe there's a viable way to run an effective welfare system, and we don't have to convince each other.

But if I wanted to advance a claim such as "no welfare system could ever work properly", it would be up to me to support my claim.

Then show that there is no substance! I can prove that there's no largest prime. I can prove that there's no even numbers whose only prime factors are five and three. I can prove (within reason) that there's no elephant in my bedroom.

The "default" position has to stay passive to get its special privileges. As soon as it moves from a mere assumption to a claim other people are expected to accept, it needs support.

Only they've offered a fair amount of evidence. See my standing offer of a debate on whether or not personal experience can be a rational basis for theism... To people with such experiences, the evidence is present.

You can certainly consider their claims unpersuasive, but so what? They can consider yours unpersuasive. Nothing you've ever said has given me any reason to change my position on EoG, or on any of the other moral issues the OP hints at.

In fact, I have never seen any suffering caused by belief in God; I have seen suffering caused by people who feel the need to pick sides and declare "victory", whether theist or atheist. I see the picking of sides as the essential problem, and religion as at most an excuse for it.

seebs

Hmm.

Okay, how about this: Let's see you produce "joy". Is there any? Let's say I'm an ajoyist. I do not believe that anyone experiences "joy". Can you produce it? Can you demonstrate it?

Not all things which are real are physical objects that can be trotted out on command.

For that matter, consider theoretical physics involving black holes. Much of this is outside our ability to "produce", even if some of the hypothesized objects exist. Can you show me a quantum black hole?

I do not think it is a good idea to take the very narrow segment of reality that is stable, physical, and near us, and use it as the sole defining standard of what existence should be.

Biff the unclean

[QUOTE=fast]One really has to wonder how much bullshit must be entertained if the subject is religion. I can think of no other subject where anyone feels the necessity to bend so far backwards.

It wasn’t a challenge, merely a standard requirement of every standard experiment.

Well it wouldn’t be except the thing we are testing has as a defining attribute “omnipresent.� When you are omnipresent it’s not like you can be somewhere else. If you aren’t here then you aren’t.

No, he isn’t. He’s assuming it without proof

The point was conceded before I could run my test.
It’s a good test too. Similar to the self-recognition in mirrors test we run on primates by putting a sticker on their fur and seeing if they pick it off when they see their own reflection. Of course scale and transcendence must be factored in.

You keep forgetting omnipresence

He assumed the claim. Precious little difference. No counter claim makes any sense if the initial claim has never been made.

Omnipresence again.

When you are everywhere there is no place else to go.

I offered. I’d even take care of the funding for the experiment myself.
It’s not my fault if the point is conceded.

Failure to exist equates with impossibility to produce. That’s why nonexistent things present such a small storage problem.

Because it shows that the initial claim of existence is without merit.

I accepted it. My experiment would show that whatever the attributes of God were being attributed to was or was not an actual God. What we have are free floating attributes that are attributed to nothing, because nothing is what has been presented for the experiment. So the point is conceded. I’m saying that there is no God and no God is what we’ve been presented with.


I can prove it just fine, but I no longer need to. No God has been presented to do the tests on. How much more nothing than nothing do you want?

Minnesota Joe

'Joy' is a word that we agree on to describe a certain set of behaviors that we observe from time to time in other people and feel ourselves. It has no existence "out there"; that is Platonic bullshit.

To recap...'joy' is what I feel in addition to the similar behaviors (to those I display) that I see exhibited in others. You want me to produce it? Easy--watch the winning baseball team at the end of the World Series. That is 'joy'.

So yes, we can produce joy. Please do the same for 'God'.

The existence of small black holes has not been established (probably they evaporate too quickly) and so we don't accept them. But there is evidence for large black holes--evidence of PLP's kind as well as the fact that a physical theory with many other verified predictions under its belt also predicts them.

But screw that. I think you should shoulder the burden you inherit by the argument implicit in your disanalogy to black holes. Why is 'God' possible just like black holes? Where is the evidence and predictively powerful theory for that?

While you are at it, please demonstrate that any being can be disembodied and intelligent (esp. self-aware). Just produce one such being and it doesn't have to be 'God'.

The reason the burden is still on the theists at this point--sort of the gist of the OP--is that they have never made any headway in lifting it. To the contrary, their ideas have been pushed into smaller and smaller gaps. That is the mark of a 'theory' without promise ('degenerate' if you will).

Biff the unclean

The point is that religious people suspend their own standards of proof when it comes to religion.

Sure you can, by stimulating different areas of the brain.
Are you claiming that God is an emotion?

What a meaningless thing to say. It’s not something you would consider if you were going shopping. You have standards of proof that you use at the supermarket and suspend for religion. You’d squeeze and smell a silly little cantaloupe before buying into it. Why have higher standards for a melon than for God?

And I don’t think it’s a good idea to reject reality in favor of superstition.

fast

I have failed to consider this. I'm not sure to what extent it will make a difference, but it's something I haven't considered.

Plus, I'm going to strongly reconsider my stance--or at least the presentation of my argument--what little of one there is. It's just going to take some time. You've caught me off guard with a couple of your responses, so I need to learn more before I can be more of a challenge.

breathilizer

Yes it is.

The phrase should be, "Absense of proof is not proof of absense." But, speaking strictly of evidence, your post is wrong.

MrWhy

When a new significant claim is made it needs adequate evidence before it is an accepted theory or truth. After that, a counter claim would need adequate evidence to displace the first.

When the god idea was first introduced, in many forms, at many different times, in many cultures, it was not accompanied by good evidence. Until that evidence is produced it should not be accepted as anything but speculation or myth. I don't think it even qualifies as a hypotheses. It's the lack of adequate evidence that has kept this debate running for centuries. If there were decent evidence there would be little debate. We can think of many significant claims about which there's little or no debate. That's because there is evidence.

It is not the responsibility of the atheist position to prove that a god does not exist. It is the responsibility of theist, after centuries of unfounded claims, to finally provide some solid evidence. After that any "god does not exist" claim would shift the burden of evidence to the "god does not exist" group.

The word "proof" as in "burden of proof" probably should not be used at all. I n this case I don't think anyone is going to prove or disprove existence, and that should tell us something about the debate. We should accept the god idea only if concrete evidence is available. A single unquestionable supernatural act or appearance would suffice. Ancient second hand stories, giant assumptions about first cause, emotional experiences, prophecy “interpretations�, and large numbers of believers do not qualify as evidence.

Jobar

Fast, if it's any help, this subject is one that's taken me years to get sorted out to my own satisfaction. But I'm as sure as I can be that Biff has the correct view of this.



Seebs, what am I to show to prove that there's nothing to show? How can I substantiate a lack of substance? Why should I? The unrefuted assertion of nonexistence is all the proof needed; until you can offer evidence that isn't just doubletalk, I can just claim that I have instinctive knowledge that no gods exist. And the presumption of nonexistence will prevail, because you can't meet the utterly simple criteria to refute it!

If god(s) or God is real, then they or He must be in some way concrete, demonstrable. (Or do you want to claim God is an abstract, or subjective, reality? If so, we'll have a much shorter discussion; but as you choose.) Oh, abstract concepts like primes can be demonstrated with equally abstract mathematical methods, derived from a self-consistent set of abstract axioms; and abstract emotions like 'joy' can be shown to have meaning by simple operational definitions. (Joe's "watch the winning team at the end of the World Series" is a most excellent one. :thumbs: )

Which I've offered to take you up on, depending on how discussions go on what precise definitions of terms we'd use. Perhaps you didn't see it; somewhere in the Peanut Gallery thread for the KL vs PLP debate, IIRC. (added- nope, it was here. Fuckindamn, that initial "I" in "IIRC" gets larger and larger... ) I've never done a formal debate here, but you and I have been dancing around this subject for years, in numerous threads; maybe it's time we do it one on one. Are you really sure about doing this, though? Although you claim your faith isn't being challenged, I have to say that the fig leaf of rationality you seem to want to cover your fideism with is getting frayed to the point of uselessness. You should review that Gallery thread (added more- actually I mean this thread. Hell, not only am I getting old and forgetful, it's way past my bedtime, too.) If you are still interested in doing it, PM me for further discussions, or start up a Debate Challenge thread and let me know here.

ELECTROGOD

Sure, a counter claim from an Atheist against a "god" would need to be proven...............BUT ONLY AFTER ASSUMING THAT THE CLAIMED "gOD" EXISTS ALREADY!
Without claims of gods first there would be no Atheists. With real evidence of any god there would be no Atheists.