Why exactly does Atheism not have burden of proof?

[Thumpalumpacus]

@DrewPaul
What is the actual point of your argument?

To reinforce his own beliefs by hoping to convince someone, anyone, that there's reasonable doubt for his Abrahamic god.

If he had faith, he wouldn't appeal to evidence. The fact he appeals to evidence reveals that his faith is sagging and he wants support from non-believers saying, "You know, maybe wot" ...

Religious insecurity, not a new thing. He's afraid his faith is not enough.

[Paleophyte]

I'm rather doubting that you can describe a Creator without invoking paradox, special pleading, or similarly absurdities, so the probability of an unintentional universe is unity. You look at the universe and see intent because that's what you're evolved to see.

What does unintentional universe is unity mean?

It means that you needed to read the entire sentence.

I don't know of any naturalistic explanation that avoids conundrums or paradoxes.

Your lack of knowledge isn't evidence of anything other than scientific illiteracy.

Paradoxes exist in quantum mechanics and black holes and certainly in the singularity that is theorized to have expanded into the universe. I do see intent in the laws of physics that caused all the conditions that allowed for our existence. I don't see serendipity as a better explanation. Or multiverse for that matter.

So that's a nice demonstration that you don't understand quantum mechanics or Big Bang cosmology. For a start, there is no singulairty. That's just the error that the cosmological model produces when you try to extrapolate it too far and Einstein's theories of Relativity break down. If you use quantum mechanics you get a very different wrong answer, because it fails in different, even more interesting ways.

Regardless, none of that has anything to do with your god. That's the syncretic trainwreck that was made when El, head of the Canaanite pantheon, fused with Yahweh, an imported god of storms and raiding before feeding it to a Roman mystery cult and then letting church politics have its way with it for a few millennia. Your god gets fucked up by iron chariots. It wouldn't know quantum if you beat it about the head and shoulders with it and would stare blankly if you mentioned space-time. We know where your god came from and it's as embarrassingly ignorant as all the other deities that humans have concocted over the ages. As explanations go, you might as well believe that Osiris horked up the stars and the sea, because it's every bit as silly.

[KingEric]

@DrewPaul
What is the actual point of your argument?

To reinforce his own beliefs by hoping to convince someone, anyone, that there's reasonable doubt for his Abrahamic god.

If he had faith, he wouldn't appeal to evidence. The fact he appeals to evidence reveals that his faith is sagging and he wants support from non-believers saying, "You know, maybe wot" ...

Religious insecurity, not a new thing. He's afraid his faith is not enough.

I don't understand what the point in that is even if all of us agreed with him.

Unless of course he's going to attempt to describe his god and what it expects from us which I don't think he will judging by past posts.

[KingEric]

To quote from his intro:

"I believe the universe and our existence was intentionally caused if for no other reason than I don't believe it was the result of mindless lifeless natural forces that serendipitously caused all the conditions for life to exist."

I don't find that statement particularly offensive, there's no mention of holy books, demon pigs, flying horses etc...

[Deesse23]

To quote from his intro:

"I believe the universe and our existence was intentionally caused if for no other reason than I don't believe it was the result of mindless lifeless natural forces that serendipitously caused all the conditions for life to exist."

I don't find that statement particularly offensive, there's no mention of holy books, demon pigs, flying horses etc...

And i believe my microwave is magic because i dont believe it can heat up things without fire by natural ways. He is combining shifting the burden of proof with an argument from ignorance. He also is poisoning the well by inserting "mindless lifeless". Three fallacies in one statement. Very impressive.

[Dexta]

Maybe atheism doesn't have burden of proof because it's impossible to prove an invisible, silent, utterly undetectable thing doesn't exist. That sounds so...erm...yeah.

This really nails it actually, I think. Signature!

[KingEric]

To quote from his intro:

"I believe the universe and our existence was intentionally caused if for no other reason than I don't believe it was the result of mindless lifeless natural forces that serendipitously caused all the conditions for life to exist."

I don't find that statement particularly offensive, there's no mention of holy books, demon pigs, flying horses etc...

And i believe my microwave is magic because i dont believe it can heat up things without fire by natural ways. He is combining shifting the burden of proof with an argument from ignorance. He also is poisoning the well by inserting "mindless lifeless". Three fallacies in one statement. Very impressive.

I don't think that the argument is impressive, I think it's pointless. There's nothing to be gained by being correct on either side.
If he'd gone on to say "The creator that I believe in wants circumcisions, he wants laws to ban abortion and assisted dying." Then there would be a point engaging in discussion.

As it is, I couldn't care less.

[brewerb]

Why does someone who is not an atheist feel the need to come to an atheist forum and tell the community that his belief is better than an atheist position, and do it from his first post? Didn't even make an attempt to learn something about the community. Very similar to the christians that wander in. 

Drew, are you on christian forums telling them your belief of the universe/creation is correct?

[SteveII]

@Thumpalumpacus

A corpse is not evidence of a murder. It is evidence of a death. You will need to ascertain the cause of death in order to say it was caused by someone else.

To prove it was murder yes, I would need a lot more evidence than a dead body. See how your mixing up what is evidence and what is proof? The existence of a dead body is a fact that makes the claim of a murder vastly more probable than minus a corpse.

So, god of the gaps, okay. You don't know what I did yesterday. Does that mean your god did it?

 

No, I argue the existence of a Creator from facts only...no gaps needed.

Their existence supports neither your theistic "explanation" of our beginning, nor a materialistic explanation, ipso facto. There's nothing in our Universe's existence that you can point to and say, "See? This is the evidence for my god!" Simply pointing to the Universe itself and calling it evidence for your god does not make it so, because there is nothing inherently godly about this Universe.

If I claimed an artist made the painting I'm holding in my hand wouldn't the painting be evidence of the artist? Of course it would. If I claimed a painter existed the first thing you'd ask for evidence is a painting I claimed was made by the painter.

I agree the universe alone is paltry evidence because its just as valid evidence it was the result of natural mindless forces. However the second line of evidence is more telling.

F2. The fact life exists

For theism to be true (the belief our existence was intentionally caused) life must exist. Life doesn't have to exist for your counter claim to be true. Those are two conditions that if not true would falsify theism.

I agree with you in principle, that the universe is evidence of a transcendent being. But in your attempt to keep it simple, you have made several errors.

You are missing a critical piece: the contingent nature of evidence. A painting is evidence of a painter because we know that paintings, based on all available experience, exist contingently on painters. So the fact that a painting exists is not what makes it evidence, it is the knowledge of what a painting is: a work of a painter. The 'evidence' label requires a further step in reasoning and it is an implicit claim that that reasoning is sound.

In the same way, the fact of a universe existing does not make it evidence of anything per se. A universe is evidence of a transcendent being if universes can be reasonably be thought of as contingent, teleological, or some other characteristic relating to dependency. By saying that the universe is evidence, you are implicitly making an argument, since labeling something as evidence presupposes reasoning about its nature and implications. That's why you now have given reasons for your conclusion for 3 pages and counting.

The same goes for dead bodies and the existence of life. Those facts require arguments before they become evidence.

[Rhythmcs]

We see impersonal processes create life all day every day. It's called organic chemistry. The passive world creator explicitly invokes this in it's own premise. Ala a god having "created the conditions" at some (indefinite)point in the (novel)past. What conditions? Why, those conditions which evidently allow life to proceed in the absence of sentient direction....the very thing they hope to argue against.

[KingEric]

I agree with you in principle, that the universe is evidence of a transcendent being. But in your attempt to keep it simple, you have made several errors.

He didn't mention Jesus the Bible or eternal bliss.

Schoolboy errors.

[Rhythmcs]

I think IDers (of any kind) have it backwards. Natural things don't look designed because they were. Designed things look natural because they are. Nature is where we get our technological ideas from, it's the source of materials to build them of, and the environment they exist in.

[KingEric]

I think IDers (of any kind) have it backwards.  Natural things don't look designed because they were.  Designed things look natural because they are.  Nature is where we get our technological ideas from, the source of the materials to build them of, and the environment they exist in.

True but there's IDers who cause no commotion in the world and IDers who cause all sorts of shit.

[KingEric]

Why does someone who is not an atheist feel the need to come to an atheist forum and tell the community that his belief is better than an atheist position, and do it from his first post? Didn't even make an attempt to learn something about the community. Very similar to the christians that wander in. 

Drew, are you on christian forums telling them your belief of the universe/creation is correct?

I'm guessing that y'all think that he's going to try and slip the J word in at some point?

[Thumpalumpacus]

And i believe my microwave is magic because i dont believe it can heat up things without fire by natural ways. He is combining shifting the burden of proof with an argument from ignorance. He also is poisoning the well by inserting "mindless lifeless". Three fallacies in one statement. Very impressive.

I don't think that the argument is impressive, I think it's pointless. There's nothing to be gained by being correct on either side.
If he'd gone on to say "The creator that I believe in wants circumcisions, he wants laws to ban abortion and assisted dying." Then there would be a point engaging in discussion.

As it is, I couldn't care less.

Great, there's other threads you might be interested in. Enjoy!

[KingEric]

I don't think that the argument is impressive, I think it's pointless. There's nothing to be gained by being correct on either side.
If he'd gone on to say "The creator that I believe in wants circumcisions, he wants laws to ban abortion and assisted dying." Then there would be a point engaging in discussion.

As it is, I couldn't care less.

Great, there's other threads you might be interested in. Enjoy!

Nah, I might stick around to point out misrepresentations.

[brewerb]

Why does someone who is not an atheist feel the need to come to an atheist forum and tell the community that his belief is better than an atheist position, and do it from his first post? Didn't even make an attempt to learn something about the community. Very similar to the christians that wander in. 

Drew, are you on christian forums telling them your belief of the universe/creation is correct?

I'm guessing that y'all think that he's going to try and slip the J word in at some point?

I'm fairly certain he (like me) has been indoctrinated beginning in his youth.

What say you Drew? Are you attempting to reject/reshape the beliefs of your youth and yet not totally abandoning them? If you can't tell I'm on team abandon.

[KingEric]

I'm guessing that y'all think that he's going to try and slip the J word in at some point?

I'm fairly certain he (like me) has been indoctrinated beginning in his youth.

What say you Drew? Are you  attempting to reject/reshape the beliefs of your youth and yet not totally abandoning them? If you can't tell I'm on team abandon.

As far as I can see there's been no mention of any specific god.
I don't read every post by every poster so I'm happy to be corrected.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Great, there's other threads you might be interested in. Enjoy!

Nah, I might stick around to point out misrepresentations.

So apparently you do care somewhat. Great.

I wrote what I wrote because I've seen this often enough that I'm cynical about it.

[KingEric]

Nah, I might stick around to point out misrepresentations.

So apparently you do care somewhat. Great.

I wrote what I wrote because I've seen this often enough that I'm cynical about it.

I never said that I didn't care about the topic.
In fact I do care about the topic and how religious people use god to justify bigotry.

I really don't care about a vague notion of god.

[Thumpalumpacus]

I never said that I didn't care about the topic.
In fact I do care about the topic and how religious people use god to justify bigotry.

I really don't care about a vague notion of god.

[DrewPaul]

@Thumpalumpacus

F2. The fact life exists

For theism to be true (the belief our existence was intentionally caused) life must exist. Life doesn't have to exist for your counter claim to be true. Those are two conditions that if not true would falsify theism.


I agree with you in principle, that the universe is evidence of a transcendent being. But in your attempt to keep it simple, you have made several errors.

You are missing a critical piece: the contingent nature of evidence. A painting is evidence of a painter because we know that paintings, based on all available experience, exist contingently on painters. So the fact that a painting exists is not what makes it evidence, it is the knowledge of what a painting is: a work of a painter. The 'evidence' label requires a further step in reasoning and it is an implicit claim that that reasoning is sound.

In the same way, the fact of a universe existing does not make it evidence of anything per se. A universe is evidence of a transcendent being if universes can be reasonably be thought of as contingent, teleological, or some other characteristic relating to dependency. By saying that the universe is evidence, you are implicitly making an argument, since labeling something as evidence presupposes reasoning about its nature and implications. That's why you now have given reasons for your conclusion for 3 pages and counting.

The same goes for dead bodies and the existence of life. Those facts require arguments before they become evidence.

Theism is the claim that the universe was intentionally caused to exist for the purpose of causing life to exist. The fact the universe and life exist is simply foundational evidence. 

In law, a foundation is the preliminary evidence that establishes the authenticity and relevance of evidence. It's a necessary step to admit evidence into court.

In the case of someone being tried for murder, even though its obvious someone must be dead, they would still submit the existence of a corpse as evidence a death occurred. A dead person is foundational to the crime of murder. Although the existence of a corpse is essential to the claim of murder, it doesn't come close to proving murder. Likewise if someone claims a death was natural causes they have to submit a corpse as evidence. You can't sustain a claim of murder or natural causes without a corpse. 

Anything offered as evidence has to be an accepted fact and it has to have probative value, meaning the evidence makes the claim more probable than minus the evidence. The existence of the universe is a well established fact. The claim the universe was intentionally caused requires a universe to exist just as the claim the universe was unintentionally caused requires a universe exist. The existence of the universe is critical to either claim if no universe existed either claim would be rejected.

The secondary claim of theism is that the universe was intentionally designed for the purpose of causing intelligent beings to exist. Again foundational evidence in favor of that claim is the fact intelligent beings exist. This is where we come to a crossroads between the claim the universe was the result of unintended natural causes and theism. For theism to be true, intelligent life has to exist. The belief the universe was unintentionally caused to exist doesn't require any life to exist. It certainly doesn't require the myriad of things necessary for life to exist. A natural universe doesn't have to come with laws of physics or gravity. Doesn't have to have stars, galaxies, planets, dark matter or the ability to produce the ingredients necessary for life to exist. For humans to exist all those things are necessary and each one would be submitted as evidence in favor of the belief our existence was intended. The paradox of naturalism is that forces that could care less if humans existed caused, without plan or intent all the conditions necessary for intelligent life to exist.

[KingEric]

If he comes back and says "I'm looking forward to the afterlife." I'll have a chat with him.

[epronovost]

A natural universe doesn't have to come with laws of physics or gravity. Doesn't have to have stars, galaxies, planets, dark matter or the ability to produce the ingredients necessary for life to exist.

How the hell did you arrive to such a conclusion? How is this a fact? How can we have "nature" without "nature"? We don't even know all the elements that compose physical matters let alone all that could be considered as "part of nature" and we have no knowledge of what other universes look like or could look like if there are any others than our own.

[DrewPaul]

[quote="DrewPaul" pid='455133' dateline='1741401777']Cosmology and biochemistry mean nothing without seemingly inviolable laws of physics. Oddly enough the rest of your argument is theological. Its about how if you were God you would do things differently. That doesn't cause the universe to exist or the laws of physics that make life possible.    


There is an extremely narrow path in which humans come into existence and there a gazillions of off ramps that would result in no life.

Kindly show your work. 

It seems you're only interested in venting. You don't know if my claim is true or false. You believe its false but nothing more. Can't you tolerate anyone disagreeing with you? Have you cornered the market on truth? I'll point you to the work of an atheist scientist. You won't agree with him either. Let me say I'm very quick with the ignore button, I won't engage with people who make it personal.

Just Six Numbers by Martin Rees.