phlebas

Hi Koy,

But whether Allah is a fictional creature is the very issue on which you're debating.

I understand the point you're making, but when you are arguing with a theist and say "you have not shown me your God exists, therefore your God is fictional, and fictional creatures do not exists," you're falling back to the equivalent of "talk to the hand, 'cause the ears ain't listening."

(Or, worse, the atheist version of the theist's "God works in mysterious ways" non-answer.)

If you are arguing with Crito or anyone else about God's existence, it's a bit harsh to skip right to the end of the argument (i.e. "you have not shown that God exists, so God is fictional") when you're in the middle of that very argument, especially since by doing so you're assuming you will have won that argument.

(BTW, I do think you're spot-on with the burden of proof shifts, though. Man, those are infuriating.)

You can say "until you show me some damn good evidence that Allah exists, Allah will continue to not exist" until you go puce, and you won't have converted a single Muslim.

See my point? If you're arguing whether X exists, claiming that X doesn't exist because X is fictional and fictional things don't exist is awfully circular. And awfully uncompelling. (At least, for standard definitions of "fictional.")

Again, I understand and agree with your point. But it takes a different instrument to get through these tough theist hides.

I hope we're keeping you busy during your retirement

[ December 18, 2002: Message edited by: phlebas ]</p>

Jayhawker Soule

First of all, thanks for the thoughtful answer. I'll take it as a "Yes", and a well reasoned one at that.

What I find lacking is a recognition of the difference between averring the Leprechaun and averring the White Raven. You carefully walk us through a thought process that appears wholly uninterested in the attributes of the thing being claimed. You never ask: "What is this Leprechaun?"

If the claims are to be considered at all, there is a sharp distinction between the Leprechaun and the White Raven. The former is part and parcel of a Fairy Kingdom (the Daoine Sidhe) that functions, not only out of sight, but also outside natural law. Not all existential claims are equal.

Parenthetically, had you asked the question, you would have learned that the Leprechaun is found mostly in Ireland. Unless you've heard 'credible' tales of a mass migration, you could have significantly restricted your search.

[ December 18, 2002: Message edited by: ReasonableDoubt ]</p>

Selsaral

I guess it was a slight exaggeration to imply EVERY SINGLE religion or mystical belief throughout human history is 'ridiculous'. When I wrote that I was describing the trend of human belief, and how no single supernatural belief in human history has ever been substantiated, and how many, many have been debunked. Looking at the trend however, I think it is apparent the vast majority are indeed 'ridiculous'. Claiming the world would end on January 1st, 2000 due to biblical apocalypse with complete seriousness was certainly 'ridiculous'. Also it's a matter of perspective. If I learned that the christian god was indeed real, and the bible complete fact, I'd still call the whole thing 'ridiculous'.

As to the question 'What does "I exist" mean', isn't this a metaphysical question for the philosophy forum? I mean you can counter any argument with that. 'I think Bush is a poor president'. 'Oh yeah, well PROVE he even exists, hah!'. Like I said, if you aren't going to accept that we even exist as a basic assumption, you should be arguing about Kant and Hegel in the philosphy forum.

[ December 18, 2002: Message edited by: Selsaral ]</p>

Selsaral

Good point. To be rather condescending about it, I guess this explains why this theory makes so much sense to myself and my well-educated friends, but doesn't even make it in the ear of many others. It's similar to the phenomena where people think their own religion just makes SO MUCH sense and is perfect, while they scoff at the ridiculous beliefs of other religions. I had a christian friend who when I was describing Rastafarianism to him broke out laughing at the absurdity of it. 'They thought some guy in Ethopia was the son of god?!?!' He was convinced his own christian beliefs made perfect sense and weren't even slightly silly, however.

As far as I'm concerned it's just like any other cultural issue. When I first learned how Chinese people eat I said incredulously 'they eat with STICKS?!?!'. Of course, nothing could show your barbarism more to a Chinese person than to NOT eat with chopsticks, and to not have great skill and agility with chopsticks. When you are indoctrinated with your own culture, you automatically have certain blinders on.

[ December 18, 2002: Message edited by: Selsaral ]

[ December 18, 2002: Message edited by: Selsaral ]</p>

Koyaanisqatsi

First, I was responding to the substance of your posts and not necessarily accusing you of being a theist (at least not intentionally), so I apologize if that's how you took it. I wouldn't wish that on my worst enemy .

As yours and diana's responses to me demonstrate, I have been misunderstood (a common problem that is usually my own damn fault, which is, parenthetically, another reason why I retired), so please accept this apology for any misunderstandings.

It is the argument and the deconstruction of the argument that I am interested in, no matter how ham-fisted my approach.

Unfortunately, I also have to wade through a lot of misleading "shrapnel" such as the following:

If you take a look at what you write, it is hard not to see certain contradictions, such as saying that you are not a theist and that you "don't know" if he exists and that you hope he doesn't exist, because that's the most "severe snub possible, for I'm telling him..."

It assumes he exists.

How can it be a "severe snub" and how can you be "telling him" anything when there is no confirmation one way or the other (according to you) of a "him" there? As you said, "I don't know." Unfortunately, there is quite clearly a "but" there, which betrays, IMHO, an evident (albeit subconscious) bias on your part that such a creature actually does exist and that your "I don't know," is more probably just the preamble to your own Pascal's wager.

If not, my mistake, but the reason I feel it is warranted to point that out goes directly to the issue at hand. Cult indoctrination is insidious and exceedingly difficult to shed entirely (especially when living within cult controlled nations, such as the US) and cult thinking is what allows someone to state, "I don't know whether or not a fictional creature from ancient mythology factually exists or not, but I hope he doesn't so that I can snub him by saying so to his face!"

See what I mean? Cognitive dissonance turns black into white and without the speaker ever aware they are actually saying, "I own a black white horse."

Then you know that only the theist has a burden of proof. Your posts (so far anyway) have not exactly demonstrated this understanding.

As I pointed out previously, if someone claims )*$W)*@@@ is the creator of all the universe, then they and they alone have the burden of proof.

There is no burden of proof upon the person who hears this proclamation and says, ")*$W)*@@@ does not exist, you just made it up!"

That is nothing more than an observation of extant fact; a state of status quo, since the person to claim that )*$W)*@@@ exists has yet to meet their burden of proof.

So, perhaps diana I owe you another apology, because I think I get what you were alluding to previously now (sorry, retirement has made me sloppy ).

This is the way it breaks down; this is the chronology of the burden of proof:

<ol type="1">[*] What is extant.[*] Claim that in some way counters or challenges what is extant.[*] Evidence provided that supports this claim.[*] Evidence reviewed by all parties concerned regarding the claim.[*] Consensus regarding that evidence arrived at.[*] Expansion of understanding about what is extant.[/list=a]

The theist, however, goes about it thus:

<ol type="1">[*] What is extant.[*] Claim that in some way counters or challenges what is extant.[*] Forced or otherwise manipulated acceptance of claim without evidence.[*] Cognitive dissonance resulting in accepting what is not extant for what is extant.[*] Cult.[/list=a]

That's what is actually going on whenever and wherever claims of deity are concerned in this world, from Allah to Zeus and that's why I get so angry with this non-argument.

For you to say, for example, "I hope he doesn't exist, because if he did...," therefore, makes no sense at all. There is nothing there to exist or not; it is nothing more than a figment of a cult's imagination just as Holden Caulfield is a figment of J.D. Salinger's imagination.

What I just wrote is not a matter of my personal opinion, by the way. That is what is extant. Why? Because the burden of proof from the initial claimant (the cult authors) has never been met (and can never be met, according to their very own character parameters; i.e., "God's" attributes).

See what I mean? )*$W)*@@@, for example, remains a fictional creature of my own imagination until such time as I provide evidence supporting my claim.

It doesn't matter that millions of people over thousand of years all believe )*$W)*@@@ exists since the initial truth claim was never established as true, through the burden of proof requirement. Indeed, in the case of the Hebrew God, the burden of proof requirement was carefully and insidiously avoided with deliberate calculation precisely because such a burden could not be met and the cult leaders knew that!

Fictional creatures do not factually exist, so if you are going to create a cult, you must get around the burden of proof requirement, which, lo and behold, was exactly what happened.

The proof is right there in plain sight. It's called "apologetics."

This is the slippery slope. NOT just on anybody who makes a claim. Well, perhaps in a trivial manner, yes, but you should know what I'm getting at by now.

The theist is the one who initiated a claim that counters or in other words augments what is extant. Let us call them the First Claimants.

The First Claimants are the ones who shoulder the only pertinent burden of proof.

Which means, until such time as the First Claimants provide their evidence (following the chronology I spoke of earlier) what is extant remains.

It is therefore not a pertinent positive claim to point out what is extant.

I would also like to add, BTW, another ancillary problem to this burden, which is of course the fact that even if there are other non-pertinent claimants, that does not alleviate the burden of proof of the First Claimants, an all too often evasion tactic of the FC's.

Asserting that others may (or may not) also have a burden of proof does not equal stalemate on the issue at hand, though many theists I have encountered seem to think this is the case.

The first burden of proof, shall we say, so that the chronology does not get muddled. Until such time as that burden is met, fictional creatures remain fictional creatures, which is the point.

Thank god.

Indeed.

The end result is that both the theist and the atheist have been engaging in syllogism; an irrelevant, but entertaining exercise of cognition having little to no bearing on the factual existence of an extant being.

Logic is nothing more than a tool of cognition. Perhaps this is where the root of my frustration is coming from regarding your posts. Why are you bringing logic into the discussion at all?

A "logical proof" (aka, "syllogism") is not the same as providing evidence in support of one's claim that a being factually exists.

You can't prove existence through syllogism; you can only "prove" non-existence through syllogism .

Sorry. Having fun with semantics.

I think I finally have spotted the problem. You're confusing a logical proof (syllogism) with physical proof, which is what would be required to establish (to a reasonable degree of certainty) that a being factually exists.

Go back to diana's pot problem ( ).

If the pot is visible (i.e., physically present in the room for all concerned to independently observe it), then her claim can readily and easily be verified.

If the pot is invisible (i.e., not physically present in the room for all concerned to independently observe it), then her claim can not be readily and easily verified and a "higher" (for lack of a better term) burden of proof is automatically invoked.

Syllogism, however, would be an irrelevant tool for her to use to establish her truth claim. She certainly could employ it, if she wished, but what would be the point?

Her truth claim involved a physical pot and whether or not that pot was actually full of water or not. Reducing that to syllogism would be a pointless exercise that may signify everything, but resolve nothing.

See what I'm talking about? You're confusing two disparate tools of cognition and misapplying the wrong one to the issue.

If a god factually exists, then modal logic would not be the proper cognitive tool to employ in establishing that factual existence.

Proof not proof.

Yes, I remember and it is off the mark for the reasons I posted.

Yes, they often are. This is relevant how?

Sorry, I'm hard of reading...

Careful...

I didn't say you denied this construct, I pointed out that your posts betrayed a misunderstanding of the concept.

Amply provided here, I should hope.

Yes, there certainly is and all of that is entirely irrelevant to the question of whether or not the burden of proof has been met.

Once again, Proof not proof.

Again, you are misapplying modal logic to a question that is not adequately served by applying modal logic.

The question is not a philosophical one. Turning once again to the Bible as an example to illustrate my point, a truth claim has been made thousands of years ago, whose burden of proof has never been met.

Modal logic cannot meet that burden, was never meant to meet such a burden and has no pertinent place in regard to the burden.

Precisely. End of story.

So the question is now apparent: What evidence does the claimant present to contravene that basic fact?

Syllogism is not evidence (or shall I say, not pertinent "evidence") in regard to this question.

No, I am merely upholding what is extant at the same time pointing out that the theist has yet to meet their initial burden of proof.

In other words, in the above scenario, I am what is extant and the theist is what is attempting to contravene (or otherwise alter) that base construct. Get it?

I am the default that the theist is attempting to augment and reset according to his or her own as yet unsubstantiated claims of what is actually the default. It is therefore incumbent upon the theist to provide compelling evidence in support of that claim.

The default, however, remains the default until that claim has been substantiated.

Again, just to bury the horse, in this instance, modal logic offers little to nothing substantive to the question at hand.

Irrelevant reductionism will get you nowhere.

By me typing it out. It is not relevant to you or to your argument (or to anything, for that matter) how I do or do not calculate my certainty.

If you do not accept the "reasonable" standard and wish to pointlessly engage in a reductionism spiral that will only ultimately lead to solipsism, let me know now and we can instantly end this, since to argue solipsism is to automatically end all discussion.

If you don't accept an "outsideness" then all of this is your own mental masturbation anyway and our interchange pointless, so let me know.

I have already provided my reasons, number one being the literary form and function as compared to the world's libraries as well as all of the thousands of arguments, observations and analysis I have personally engaged in and read from others here on this website alone.

MY burden of proof to establish the fictional extant qualities of the Bible has been readily met beyond a reasonable degree of certainty.

Again, it doesn't have to be specifically quantified; indeed, the standard of reasonableness is one that deliberately shuns such unnecessary pedantic reduction.

Sophistry holds even less weight with me. Once again, it is not necessary for anyone to have "complete knowledge" to employ a standard of reasonableness, especially in regard to the question at hand and the fact that I have no pertinent burden of proof to fulfill.

My degrees of certainty and upon what I base my standards of reasonableness are entirely irrelevant to whether or not a claimant has fulfilled their burden of proof requirement, but in this instance, the degree of certainty and the standard of reasonableness from my end of things is easily and readily met for all of the reasons and comparative analysis already presented.

You would do better to question me about the standards I have already provided, instead of merely attempting to marginalize that which has already been addressed and, at least to this point, superficially substantiated.

If you wish, ask me what I meant by comparing the literary style and function of the Bible myths with the world's literature for a serious deconstruction of the basis of my standard of reasonableness, yes?

Hawkingfan

Nice to meet you. I notice this is your first post. Welcome. I think that we can rule out the doings of an unobservable god because the physically observable effects are believed to be produced by other means. Scientific means.
Science and faith in god were once hand-in-hand. This was because reasoning a long time ago was very weak and in its infancy. But over hundreds of years, with the growth of science and reasoning, the two split further and further each day. I believe that science and reasoning will overcome faith in a made-up god someday. It has to because of their dueling nature.

This could be done if both parties agree on what constitutes evidence and proof in order to positively conclude your existence.

Koyaanisqatsi

Hey phleb!

No, it is not and that's the point. A claim has been made (in this case by whoever initially formed the Muslim cult) that carries with it a burden of proof that has never been fulfilled (and, as I keep pointing out and no one seems to address, necessarily so as part of the Allah construct).

Allah, therefore remains a fictional creation (for all intents and purposes) until such time as that burden has been met, at which time the further debate over the evidence presented can begin.

Again, there is a chronology that must be followed. Theists, however, short-circuit that chronology (deliberately), thereby betraying the fraud, IMO.

No, I'm not, because I would never commit such a fallacy . I would never state, "You have not shown me your God exists, therefore your God is fictional," for example.

What I would say is simply, "What is the evidence to support your claim?"

If the answer is "faith" or "the Bible" (as it almost always is), then my response would be the only one available: "Then you have failed to meet your burden and have not establish the veracity of your claim."

My ancillary comment (or corollary, if you prefer) would be to then point out, "Since you claimed that a fictional character from a book of ancient cult mythologies was not a fictioinal character from a book of ancient cult mythologies and you failed to substantiate that claim, then all that is left over is a fictional character from a book of ancient cult mythologies."

In other words, my ancillary comment would be to simply reiterate the bleeding obvious.

Again, that is not the argument and part of the problem I thought I was correcting here.

The correct sequence is: "You are claiming that a fictional character from a book of ancient cult mythologies is, in fact not a fictional character."

The character is fictional until proved non-fictional. That burden has never been met, which ipso facto means that the character remains a fictional character.

There is no other argument and there is no other question.

Prove your claim. If you cannot, the claim is vacated.

It is not an "argument" in the slightest and that's the point; it is a burden of proof that has never been fulfilled.

It's not my fault that the theist claim is a demonstrably (and necessarily) vacant one, nor is it incumbent upon me to meet any burden of proof beyond that extant observation to effectively dismiss the theist claim as vacant.

Don't cry for me, Argentina...

Indeed, which is why I vehemently clamp down on them like a two thousand pound jack-hammer whenever I see them (as I did here).

Conversion has nothing to do with it. My posts here have been in response to what I saw to be errant thinking in crito's posts.

See my point? I'm not arguing that in the slightest and have no need to argue that since I'm not the one making the claim. It is incumbent upon the theist to prove that X exists, not me to prove that X does not exist.

That is the central point that seems to be missing here.

Again, you're missing the central point. X is fictional until such time as the theist can prove that X is non-fictional; i.e., their claim.

My pointing out the fact they have not met their burden and can therefore not legitimately discuss the issue is merely stating the obvious.

That's because you worded it improperly.

Again, it is not incumbent upon me to get through to them; it is incumbent upon them to prove their claim to me.

Or just go off merily on their way, whichever.

Let's put it this way; atheists are the comfortably sleeping mothers and fathers who constantly get pestered awake at odd hours by noisy little theists petulantly demanding that they are right and it is we who are wrong, nyah, nyah, nyah!

Indeed . But it won't last too much longer, though this time for purely pragmatic reasons. I'm changing jobs soon and will (it is to be hoped) have no abundant free time to waste here .

Unum

Is there anything people would agree on as to what constitutes evidence and proof of God? What characteristics constitute God? Is there a definition that we can all agree upon? Would our definition of God have to have traits such as being all-powerful or all-knowing? Would our definition of God have to include the traits such as consciousness or omnipresence? Would our definition of God have to agree with previous writings, such as the Bible, Koran, or other scriptures? I would be curious to see if poeple could even agree upon a valid definition of God.

Peace,

Unum

Red Expendable

I know 'leprechauns' are being used as an example, and you could use any other shady creature for an example. But where did the idea or original theory of leprechauns come from? Maybe that would help track down this ever-elusive creature. Could this not also help to prove beyond a doubt (except those who are mentally ill) that they do not exist, the same for god(s)?

I've never seen one, no one has ever seen a leprechaun. No proof from anyone, yet SOMEONE had to come up with the idea, somewhere. The same with the idea of god or gods. Where did these ideas come from?

Unicorns - a horse with a horn is not so far from reality, even though I've never seen one, the IDEA is that it's a horse with a horn coming out of it's head - There are other animals with horns coming out of it's head, so it's not hard to imagine a creature such as this, someone with an imagination could put together such a creature in together in their brain and tell people about it.
Make up stories, and you know a lot of people love to hear a good story, whether it's true or not.

It keeps people entertained, and depending on the story/information being passed on - it can make people feel safe and comfortable (warm and fuzzy if you will .

Could not a god, leprechauns, elves and other creatures who have not been proven to exist fall under the same category?

RedEx

[ December 18, 2002: Message edited by: Red Expendable ]</p>

Koyaanisqatsi

They certainly could (reasonably ) Red, but that wouldn't alter the burden of proof requirement for anyone who claimed they did, in fact exist.