ex-xian

It means you don't really mean literally what you're saying, kind of like being facetious.

Anyway, I'll assume (joke) that you really meant what you posted before. In logic, if one wants to prove a statement such as "If S then P" one assumes that truth of S, then goes on to prove that P logically follows.

For example, if I wanted to prove that statement "If it rains outside, the street will be wet." I would first assume that ti rained outside. Since rain liquid water that falls from the sky, the water will be on the street. Since wet street is, by defintion, one with water on it, the proof is finished.

To prove a negative, one assume the opposite of what you want to prove. For example, in a famous proof that the square root of 2 is irrational, one assumes that the number is rational. A logical contradiction follows from this assumption, but the opposite of what is assumed is true.
It's a math pun...I'll let you figure it out.

Jayhawker Soule

But, there are negatives and there are negatives.

I'm perfectly willing to prove that

• [color=sea-green]There is no white raven perched upon a bust of Pallas just above my chamber door"[/color]

but that is not the same as declaring and proving that

• There is No White Raven!

a claim that can be falsified but never verified.

In fact, this less frivolous issue of proving or disproving a negative relates specifically with what Popper calls "universal and individual concepts". Specifically:Popper then procedes to distinguish bewteen:

• strictly universal statements - All ravens are black. - and
• strictly existential statements - There exist nonblack ravens.

The critical difference between these two is that the former can never be confirmed, while the latter ..."There is No God" has the same quality as "There is No White Raven", further complicated by the difficulty is arriving at any consensus to what "God" means. I still consider both claims untenable.

Finally, reductio ad absurdum targets, and thereby assumes, logical contradictions. Are you very sure that all God-constructs are logically impossible?

ex-xian

Don't have time to respond right now...but let me say that good ole Karl is one of top 5 favorite philsophers.

Jayhawker Soule

I vacillate between Popper and Poe. I look forward to your comments.

Infidelettante

xianseeker, I don't doubt your experiance as a Christian or how you changed your beliefs but I doubt that this is the experiance of most Christians and certainly not of most fundamentalists. Faith is on an emotional spectrum not a rational one. It does very little good to go at them logically, as most here already know. It is not untill their religion stops providing the emotional content they need that they begin to see the true nature of what they believe.

JT

Koyaanisqatsi

Let me make this as simple as possible: fictional creatures from ancient mythology do not factually exist (i.e., are non-fictional).

Is that clear enough for you?

Now, where does the burden lie on someone who merely affirms that tautolody? I'll, again, make it as easy as possible; nowhere.

If you are claiming that a creature from ancient mythology is, in fact, a non-fictional creature, then the burden of proof is entirely upon you.

If I comment that a creature from ancient mythology is a fictional creature, then I have no burden of proof, since I have made no positive claim (i.e., I have only made, at best, a tautological statement).

If, however, you were to claim that a fictional creature from ancient mythology were non-fictional, then, you are the only one who shoulders a burden of proof to support your positive claim.

Regardless of who may or may not have a burden of proof, however, is the fact that anyone making a positive claim has a burden of proof.

To raise the point that anyone else may (or may not) have a burden of proof, does not alleviate one's own burden of proof.

Cult members can scream to the high heavens again and again and again that others have a burden of proof, but that will never alleviate their own burden of proof.

So, if a cult member ever turns to you and says, "You can't prove your position either," just turn right back and say, "That's irrelevant. The question is, can you prove your own?"

Whether or not you can "prove" your own position (whatever it may be) has no bearing at all on whether or not they can prove their position.

Cult members love to pretend that "all things are equal" when it comes to evidence in support of their positions, but they always miss the fact that no evidence in support of their positions means no position.

If an atheist and a theist both have no evidence in support of their "position," then the atheist is triumphant, since an atheist requires no evidence in support of their position.

Remember, Atheism is the lack of beliefs in a god or gods, not the positive assertion that a god or gods exist.

There is never a positive assertion on the atheist position, since it is entirely about the lack of "beliefs." But even if a cult member tricks you into thinking that you have made a positive assertion (i.e., that gods don't exist) it doesn't negate their own positive assertion or their subsequent burden of proof.

In other words, if a cult member says, "See? You can't prove that a god doesn't exist." That fallacy has no relevance to the fact that they can't prove their own assertion.

You can easily say, "You know what? I may not be able to prove a god does not exist, but that doesn't have anything at all to do with the fact that you can't prove one does exist."

For some bizzare reason, cult members always think that, because one can't necessarily prove the opposite of their beliefs, that somehow proves the affrimative of their beliefs.

Indeed, due to the nature of atheism, an equal playing field only proves that they, too, are incorrect in their own beliefs.

By the way, "incorrect" means that their beliefs have no evidence to support.

So, considering the fact that atheism means the lack of belief in theism and theism means the belief that a god or gods exist, for any of them to say, "Neither of us has any evidence to support our positions," is to ipso facto grant that their own beliefs are unsupportable.

Atheism, as the default position, always wins.

Asha'man

Koy,

You and I agree on a vast number of topics, but I'm afraid this is one of those few places where we don't.

Suppose I made a positive claim: My mother exists. Do I really have the burden of proof for such a positive claim?

Suppose you made a negative claim: My mother does not exist unless I prove that she does. Does that really strengthen the position?

How about you making your claim even stronger: My mother is a fictional creature, and therefore does not exist by definition. Have you really improved the strength of your position, or just fallen prey to presupposition?

The definition of “positive” vs. “negative” claim is flawed. It really needs to be based on the accepted worldview that provides the context for the conversation. In this day and time, everybody must have a mother, we accept that as part of our worldview. Therefore, the “positive” claim is one that goes against the accepted. The “negative” claim is the one that agrees with accepted knowledge/tradition.

Stating that God is a fictional and mythological creature doesn’t help. You and I both accept that statement as true. But the theist doesn’t live in that world. To them, acceptance of God is normal and commonplace. They assume there must be a God with the same strength that they assume that all people have mothers. While they may be mistaken, you won’t convince them of their error by presupposing that you are right and giving them the burden of proof.

We (atheists) don’t share an accepted worldview with theists, so making claims about the difference between those worldviews isn’t productive.


I think the real burden of proof belongs to the advocate for change. If you want me to change my mind, you must provide convincing proof. If I want you to change your mind, I must provide convincing proof.

You and I will probably always remain atheists, because no proof seems to exist that will change our minds. However, most theists will also remain theists, because we haven’t offered any proof to them that changes their minds. And changing minds is the only test that counts.

ex-xian

CA:
OK, first of all,
No, I don't believe that, in fact I am still vacilating between agnosticim and panentheism, a theistic position expounded by Whitehead. But I do believe that the God of traditional christianity and islam, and any God that is supposed to have infinite attributes, is logically contradictory.
I agree with everything you posted that quoted Popper, however, I don't believe that the statements "There is no white raven" and "There is no God" are of the same quality. To consider the nonexistence of the white raven is only weakly confirmable, obviously because one can never be sure that all ravens have been observed. In the case of the white raven, the only attribute in question is whiteness. But in the case of God, there are many attributes in question. The omni-attributes are in themselves contradictory. It is the contradictions inherent in the supernaturalist understanding of God that the reductio ad aburdum is useful.

To Koyaanisqatsi:
I don't disagree that theists have the burden of proof concerning the existence of God, but I think this is useless in argumentation. That's the whole point of my OP. I believe that Asha'mans comments about advocates of change is essentially what I was trying to say. Those people who wish to see a change happen are obligated to give good reasons for the change.

Kvalhion

Of course, all that goes out the window when even the very definition of the word "proof" is not agreed upon by both sides.

I think both Asha'man and Koy have good points. The reason Koy is stating that xstians have the burden of proof is because he is refusing to depart the "real world"; the one defined by science through logic and reason. I agree wholeheartedly; there is no "middle ground" when it comes to our shared reality. It is either real or it is not.

I also see Asha'mans point but I believe the entire process is futile. Once you accept the premises of logic and reason, you cannot really "go over" to the side that equates reality to faith. Even trying to talk to them using their own terms seems rather useless. In a theists worldview, literally anything that happens in reality can be twisted into evidence of their faith.

The only real chance of convincing a theist that their beliefs are irrational happens then the theist is willing to accept the established definitions of logic, reason, and proof. Once this happens, it is only a matter of time before they begin to understand the irrationality and unreason in faith. Unfortunately, theists taking that step into "our" worldview is entirely voluntary. There is nothing we can do to make that happen. They must take that first step themselves.

Kvalhion

We have given good reasons to change: the freedom of living your own life based upon that which has been shown to be real. I do not accept that it is my burden to convince people to use their brains. Instead I live my life as an example of someone who does live freely and someone who does use their brain. If others learn from this, great. If they do not, it is their problem, not mine.

Other than appealing to what which is real, what "good reasons" can an atheist offer a theist to reject the ideas of eternal life and that some magical sky faery is out there looking out for them? What ideas, other than reality, can we offer that would not make us hypocrites ourselves?

Other than preserving our freedom to believe whatever we wish to believe, I could care less if others waste their lives believing in mythical fantasies. It may disgust me, but it is their choice, just as it is my choice to be an atheist.

If only xstians would leave the rest of the world alone.