LinuxPup

"no one on the entire planet is making a positive claim requiring evidence other than theists!" Heh, that sounds like a positive claim in itself... give me evidence.


"Those who will not reason, are bigots, those who cannot, are fools, and those who dare not, are slaves." -- Lord Byron

If I ask you "Is it true God does not exist?", would you not respond with a yes? You are indeed making a positive claim. And in the tradition of science, it must be substantiated with evidence.

If it was self-evident, you wouldn't be posting to this web page, and neither would I.

[ March 29, 2002: Message edited by: LinuxPup ]</p>

Pomp

LinuxPup,

If I ask you "Is it true God does not exist?", would you not respond with a yes? You are indeed making a positive claim. And in the tradition of science, it must be substantiated with evidence.

This is something of a semantic shuffle to disguise the fact that the theist is making the psitive claim. Id I ask you "Is it true that there is not an invisible dragon in Carl Sagan's garage?" would you not respond in the affirmative? In the tradition of science, is it then up to you to provide evidence for the non-existence of Sagan's dragon?

Existence, in any case, is a positive claim requiring evidence. If we allow sematic devices, such as the one you've employed, to shift the burden of proof, we may as well discard the notion of a burden of proof and simply accept any and all claims as true.

LinuxPup

I am not denying the burden of evidence a theist has. Yes, the theist has a burden of proof. What I am saying, is the atheist has an equal one.

Pomp

LinuxPup,

I am not denying the burden of evidence a theist has. Yes, the theist has a burden of proof. What I am saying, is the atheist has an equal one.

From a bare epistemic perspective, I agree. Agnosticism with regards to X is the appropriate response when there is no evidence for X or ~X. From a methodological perspective, however, we need to have a way to decide all propotisions, at least temporarily. The way that seems to work the best is to assume that, where X is a positive claim, ~X is true unless and until evidence for the truth of X is seen. You will, I am sure, agree that this is the sensible way to handle claims such as the dragon in Sagan's garage, the sprites that inhabit each blade of grass in the park, the aliens currently building an invasion fleet on Juipter, etc.

Malaclypse the Younger

Whatever. I claim that I believe no gods exist. Since I can authoritatively state my own beliefs, I can easily satisfy that burden of proof.

Koyaanisqatsi

This is precisely the pointless rejoinder all theist's use as if it were an answer of some fashion, when it is not.

You have said nothing. Pointing out who elese may or may not have a burden serves no other purpose but evasion.

Fulfill your burden.

[ March 30, 2002: Message edited by: Koyaanisqatsi ]</p>

LinuxPup

So you stating your belief satisfies your burden of proof? What kind of logic is that? I could authoritatively state "I have the ability to jump three miles"... if that satisfies my burden of proof, then there's a serious problem here. Likewise I can authoritatively state "God exists", so now who's right? Belief doesn't create reality, it merely has the potential for reflection of reality.

Ok, I'll grant you that on extreme cases like fairies and dragons. I am often skeptical when people make claims, so I see where you're coming from, and I respect that. So where we go from here is: do we have evidence that substantiates the case for the existance of God? And here is where I say yes, we do. One great field of science which is showing immense examples of design is astronomy. The fine-tuning of the cosmological constant goes over 120 magnitutudes for example. I believe one astrophysicist put it this way: imagine aiming and shooting an arrow at a target one square-inch in area, only the target is 15 billion light years away.... now imagine hitting it dead on. I recommend <a href="http://www.reasons.org," target="_blank">www.reasons.org,</a> as they provide a very plausable creation model. As far as the fine-tuning example I wrote earlier of, check out:
<a href="http://www.reasons.org/resources/faf/98q3faf/98q3fine.html" target="_blank">http://www.reasons.org/resources/faf/98q3faf/98q3fine.html</a>

Malaclypse the Younger

LinuxPup

Pay attention, Pup. It helps if you read the words actually written. I made a fact claim about my beliefs, not about a god. It is unequivocally true that I believe no god exists.

And why is a supernatural deity not an "extreme case"?

It is impossible in principle to evidentially substantiate supernaturalism. Evidential substantiation requires the a priori assumption of naturalism.

Astronomy? You're about to make the FTA and you don't even know the difference between astronomy, cosmology and theoretical physics? Way to up your credibility there, Pup.

Good grief! You don't even understand the case for the FTA. Someone's so obviously pulled this statement right out of his ass it stinks over the internet.

• The FTA references a number of constants, not just the cosmological constant (which itself is poorly understood).
• It's orders of magnitude, not "magnitudes".
• The number is not known to be 120 orders of magnitude. It is merely conjectured to be rather small.
• Probabilities of 10^-120 are not particularly exceptional or astonishing.

Regardless, the FTA is one of the most thoroughly debunked arguments. If you believe this argument is "great" and "immense" you're already in a deep deep hole.

You've already destroyed our confidence in your ability to accurately represent facts; we're certainly not going to take your word for it.

Who said this? Where did he say it? And who cares? It's just an obviously fallacious argument for authority anyway.

Plausible perhaps to the cult-deluded who can't tell the difference between logical fallacy and sound rational argumentation.

Check out <a href="http://quasar.as.utexas.edu/anthropic.html" target="_blank">The Anthropic Principle Does Not Support Supernaturalism</a>.

[ March 30, 2002: Message edited by: Malaclypse the Younger ]</p>

Malaclypse the Younger

I was going to check out and rebut the argument at <a href="http://www.reasons.org/resources/faf/98q3faf/98q3fine.html" target="_blank">Fine-Tuning the Case for Fine-Tuning: a Cosmic Breakthrough</a> but I'm hampered by the fact that there is no argument, merely the assertions that no matter how the universe appears, it is probably fine-tuned.

LinuxPup

If you mean to say that something that is one chance in 10^120 is not exceptional, you've got to be kidding.

Keep the ad hominems out and focus on the issue at hand.

I see you brought up the WAP (Weak Anthropic Principle). I'm going to quote from William Lane Craig here:

"Let us concede that it follows from WAP that

3. We should not be surprised that we do not observe features of the universe which are incompatible with our own existence.
For if the features of the universe were incompatible with our existence, we should not be here to notice it. Hence, it is not surprising that we do not observe such features. But it follows neither from WAP nor (3) that

4. We should not be surprised that we do observe features of the universe which are compatible with our existence.
For although the object of surprise in (4) might at first blush appear to be simply the contrapositive of the object of surprise in (3), this is mistaken. This can be clearly seen by means of an illustration (borrowed from John Leslie): suppose you are dragged before a firing squad of 100 trained marksmen, all of them with rifles aimed at your heart, to be executed. The command is given; you hear the deafening sound of the guns. And you observe that you are still alive, that all of the 100 marksmen missed! Now while it is true that

5. You should not be surprised that you do not observe that you are dead,
nonetheless it is equally true that

6. You should be surprised that you do observe that you are alive.
Since the firing squad's missing you altogether is extremely improbable, the surprise expressed in (6) is wholly appropriate, though you are not surprised that you do not observe that you are dead, since if you were dead you could not observe it. Similarly, while we should not be surprised that we do not observe features of the universe which are incompatible with our existence, it is nevertheless true that

7. We should he surprised that we do observe features of the universe which are compatible with our existence,"

The common atheist argument against fine-tuning is a slight-of-hand move, but misses the point.


Because unlike the tooth fairy, atheism, and santa claus, theism has objective data to back its case.