Radcliffe Emerson

I agree also.
Although I argue about the Christian god in particular, my main stance as an atheist also is, there is just no evidence at all. None.

Koyaanisqatsi

Ok.

Ok. Great. Absolute evidence of a fictional creature as well as the confession of the creator of that fictional creature as to its fictional nature.

I say, "No, dear, it does not," of course and then do exactly what I've done with you here and explain repeatedly what such terminology means and what the differences are between an imaginary creature that he or she has just made up and a physical creature that exists independently of my child's existence.

I then start up the espresso machine and force my child to read the complete works of Schopenhauer, spark up a joint and get into the reasons why solipsism is to be instantly dismissed, since to argue it means masturbation.

Nor would I need to, since he's made no positive truth claim.

What's your point? That theists are innocent little children painting pictures and asking me whether or not creatures they just drew and told me they just made up factually exist?

Yes, there absolutely is, regardless of how cute and innocent my dear little child is, but that is irrelevant, since the scenario you've painted has no bearing on what we're discussing.

Theists do not wander around the globe asking people whether or not the creatures they just drew factually exist; they go around telling people that the creatures they just drew factually exist.

We're discussing positive truth claims and whether or not the burden of proof inherent in those claims has been met.

No, I'm not claiming anything at all. I am informing my child that the imaginary creature he or she just drew and admitted he or she just made up is what would be called by us grown ups a "fictional" creature, not a "factual" creature because he or she just made it up.

In other words, I am doing nothing more than confirming the fictional nature of the imaginary creature my child just admitted was "made up" and explaining that distinction to my child, who, being my child, would immediately understand the pertinent distinctions between the two and never question it again.

It's a valiant try, but it won't wash; there simply never will be a scenario in which the atheist shoulders any pertinent burden of proof in regard to the theist's truth claims.

Indeed, this strawman demonstrates that perfectly. This isn't a matter for clever word play or manufacturing scenarios.

This is not abstract or in question. The authors of the Hebrew Bible made a positive truth claim regarding the factual existence of a being they wrote about. They therefore shoulder the burden of proof.

It's not rocket science and it is (one last time) completely irrelevant to any other possible claims and/or burdens of proof that may or may not exsit in any other fashion anywhere else on the globe.

No.

Not in the slightest to either. The evidence of fiction is both the drawing itself and the admittance of my child that he or she just made it up.

I think you're laboring under another misconception; namely, what is a positive claim?

You mean we weren't already?

Great. Now give me the definition of "imaginary" and we have a relevant term.

Here, allow me (emphasis mine): Capisca?

Who cares?

Let me make it painfully clear for you: discard modal logic as inherently irrelevant to the burden of proof standard in regard to the theist's truth claim.

This discussion has nothing to do with whether or not someone can concoct a valid syllogism. That kind of proof is not the right kind of proof, got it?

My child would not resort to syllogism to "prove" the factual existence of the Plofdasan, versteh?

Proving something according to modal logic is not the same as proving something factually exists.

Koyaanisqatsi

Oh, cool, then you can disregard most of what I responded to in the previous response...

All right.

Ok, to do this we have to set the way back machine and select an example (anyone want to guess which one?).

Go back before Judaism sprang into existence. Hell, let's make it even simpler; go back before Homo Sapiens first became self aware.

That would be the default state of humanity. Now go forward to the point when one of those self-aware Sapiens first said, "Burning ball in sky is God," and you've got the first claimant.

What is extant is the star we orbit; what is the first claimant regarding that star is stating "The sun is God."

Clear now? Star=extant. Claiming star is God=first claimant, requiring burden of proof.

If burden is not met to establish claim that star is God, then star remains what it is; i.e., a star.

Is that clear now?

My answer is no, of course.

You've just asked me, "Does Humbert Humbert (factually) exist?"

There can be any answer anyone wants to give. The pertinent question is, are there any legitimate answers to give and how are they supported?

I don't understand why this is continuing to evade your intelligence (and I don't mean that as a slight).

When I point out that "Frankenstein does not factually exist," what about that statement is giving your pause?

The fact that it is not possible to know "to an absolute certainty;" a standard that is not necessary or even warranted?

Again, I can think of only one logical reason for you to continue to pursue what should by now be a dead horse rotting on the ground; some variation of Pascal's wager.

You can't know to an absolute certainty, so, you'll hedge your bets. The problem is, of course, that you'd then have to place your bets on every deity ever conceived.

No, not really. Default existence=no imaginary creatures factually existing. Theist claim=imaginary creatures factually exist.

Theist burden: support that claim.

There is nothing else to any of this. Nothing. That's it. The theist has made a claim that contravenes nature (i.e., a claim of super nature overriding nature). Prove that claim.

Period.

For anyone to point out that this claim has never been proved and that therefore the claim is vacated is in no way, shape, or form a positive claim requiring an equal burden of proof.

Those are the rules. I didn't make them up. I just point them out again and again and again and again...

Koyaanisqatsi

Well, this question certainly is, yes.

A claim has been made that a being factually exists (i.e., non fictional). If that is true, then what is the factual evidence of his existence (i.e., non fictional).

Simple, yes?

Agreed, with reiteration of the qualifier "the necessary evidence" to establish existence.

I'm all for masturbation (mental or otherwise), but when discussing the burden of proof in regard to the theist truth claim, it's Proof we need, not proof.

Incorrectly...

In essence, yes.

Sure, in a nut, but I don't say "There is no god," for precisely these reasons. I simply point out that "God" is a fictional creature.

I enjoy sneering...

Yes....but, tripe is real and the pot is real, so I'm not sure if this is necessarily analogous, but...

You had me at hello.

Yes, regardless of our inadvertant lapse in proper terminology, the theist is the only one with a burden of proof.

Our burden is to never use lazy or otherwise imprecise terminology around pedantic evangelists who just can't wait to build strawmen to hide their burdens behind.

[ December 19, 2002: Message edited by: Koyaanisqatsi-Still Retired ]</p>

Jayhawker Soule

If the existance of the Daoine Sidhe is no less plausible than its nonexistance, why the skepticism? Or are you suggesting that your response should be viewed as unreasonable bias?
I find it to be fully sufficient for a tentative and contingent disbelief in the Faerie Kingdom.

Red Expendable

Koyaanisqatsi-Still Retired - you had mentioned the original or first claimant making a claim about the SUN being a 'god'.

But the claimant doesn't know what a sun (star) is to begin with. And probably neither do any of his companions. Also, how did he come up with this concept of god anyway?

Why would someone just point up at something that they had no clue what it is and come to some conclusion that this mysterious bright object in the sky is an all-powerful entity?


If someone is claiming something is a god, godlike, or something supernatural - has it not always been because it could not be explained scientifically?

Just because it can't be explained to be within the laws of nature at the moment, doesn't mean it won't be in the future.

From this, I know that god is fiction. It's a creation of formed entirely in the brains of human beings to describe what is beyond their comprehension. Because of science we don't point at the sky and say 'god' - we say, that's the sun. And if you are knowlegable in such areas can begin to explain how it formed. It's not an unknown.

However, if you and believe that the sun is a creation of some all powerful, unseen entity of which no proof exists - then you are discarding all evidence that science has to offer - and saying, nope - this is what the deal is.
God created this sun and the earth and everything else. It IS fiction because it is based on something made up in the brains of human beings.

This is no different than a child drawing a mysterious 8 legged green figure on paper. No different at all. Both are made up in the brain of a human being. Never been seen, touched, smelled, heard, etc.

Ever speak to an imaginary friend when you were a kid? Well, mnaybe some kids would have imaginary playmates. They BELIEVE these playmates into 'existence'. They are fictional. Just like the god(s) that are rammed down the throats of unsuspecting children before they are old enough to defend themselves. And so we end up having discussions like this one. Trying to determine what is fact and what is fiction.

Human beings will cling to anything that resembles hope and goodness. Most people anyway. If that means turning your fictional playmate into a god, so be it. If it makes you feel comfortable, then that's probably where it will lead.

RedEx

Jayhawker Soule

This seems anachronistic to me. Early man held no distinction between science and religion, the natural and the supernatural. What early man noted was that a whole set of phenomena seemed to be driven by, or correlate to, the activities of the sun and moon. Deification was, in some sense, a first attempt at explanation.