Why exactly does Atheism not have burden of proof?

[KingEric]

Just Six Numbers by Martin Rees.

Oh shit.

My apologies everyone.

Does it not seem odd that the universe should be exactly right for us? No, because we are here to see it, so it would look that way, wouldn't it? And if the machinery for fashioning universes out of nothing, or almost nothing, made enough of them – this is the multiverse argument – then of course one would pop up with exactly the conditions for stars, planets, water, life and even a House of Lords.

[DrewPaul]

[quote="DrewPaul" pid='455139' dateline='1741404969']

What does unintentional universe is unity mean?

It means that you needed to read the entire sentence.

Obviously you're not interested in a discussion or a debate, just chest beating like a neanderthal.

[DrewPaul]

Just Six Numbers by Martin Rees.

Oh shit.

My apologies everyone.

Does it not seem odd that the universe should be exactly right for us? No, because we are here to see it, so it would look that way, wouldn't it? And if the machinery for fashioning universes out of nothing, or almost nothing, made enough of them – this is the multiverse argument – then of course one would pop up with exactly the conditions for stars, planets, water, life and even a House of Lords.

If you take the logic of infinitude far enough, a universe in which someone figures out how to create universes is bound to happen and its inevitable that universes that cause life will be created in that manner. We mere humans have already caused a virtual universe to exist how long before we cause virtual beings to exist who experience life just as we do?

[CapriMark1]

I am just besides myself in bewilderment. I just got through reading the exchange with @DrewPaul. How can anyone think that the existence of the universe is evidence of a creator. Here let me explain it this way:

a) The universe exists because it was caused to exist by god.

b) The universe exists because it was caused to exist by somebody else.

c) The universe exists because it was caused to exist by natural processes.

d) The universe exists because it has always existed.

To determine which it is would require some evidence that points to at least one of those.

If you presuppose that universes can only exist because they are created by god, then that is the only way the existence of the universe is evidence of something other than the universe existing.

[1Sam15]

@Thumpalumpacus


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.

 

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


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.

Do you believe it can only be one transcendent being?

I know it’s pointless to ask but what created these transcendent being/beings?

[DrewPaul]

I believe that this is the only reality that current humanity will ever know, as I doubt that we can access any other one.  Things may change as we make further discoveries, but till then other realities are just hypotheses and of no demonstrated relevance to our lives.

It is what's called a limited information puzzle. Although for all the chest pounding and banging of drums you'd think it was obvious the universe was inadvertently created or its painfully obvious it was intentionally caused to exist. The best either side can do is point to the established facts they believe supports their point of view. There is a lot of emotion involved in this issue...
 

Highly unlikely that I would ask a theologian any questions at all, as I don't find theologians credible

No, but they always have an answer.

[DrewPaul]

I am just besides myself in bewilderment.  I just got through reading the exchange with @DrewPaul.  How can anyone think that the existence of the universe is evidence of a creator.  Here let me explain it this way:

a)  The universe exists because it was caused to exist by god.

b)  The universe exists because it was caused to exist by somebody else.

c)  The universe exists because it was caused to exist by natural processes.

d)  The universe exists because it has always existed.

To determine which it is would require some evidence that points to at least one of those. A and B are the same as far as theism is concerned. 

If you predispose that universes can only exist because they are created by god, then that is the only way the existence of the universe is evidence of something other than the universe existing.

You can forget about D the evidence against that is overwhelming. I don't discount the universe could have been the result of natural unguided forces. I don't deny there is evidence in favor of that belief. You should include multiverse as a potential explanation. If multiverse is true it provides an explanation for why a life causing universe should occur.

[epronovost]

Although for all the chest pounding and banging of drums you'd think it was obvious the universe was inadvertently created or its painfully obvious it was intentionally caused to exist.

You avoid a few other hypothesis here. For example, the universe always was there; it's eternal. Another one could be the that the universe was created by unknown physical mechanism/materials that no longer exists a bit like an spermatozoid and ovules combine to create a new human and yet nothing remains of the ovule and spermatozoid themselves once this is accomplished. Another one would be to consider the questions of the origin of the universe to be "not even wrong" as in these questions are as nonsensical due to logic error inherent in them a bit like what color is music. There might even be more. It would be foolish to assume that there is only two option conceivable.

[epronovost]

You can forget about D the evidence against that is overwhelming.

I'm affraid you are making a big mistake. The "Big Bang" theory doesn't posit the creation of the universe; only the creation of the universe as it can be observed now and even then, it only posits that at some point all matter and energy of the universe was condensed into a single place from which the universe in unfolding. As of now, physics can offer us no insight

In other words D is very much in contention depending on how someone conceptualize and define "the universe". Is it the way matter and energy is organized and distributed as we are observing it right now? In that case, yes there is an overwhelming amount of evidence showing a beginning to it. Is it defined by the laws of physics in which case it possibly has a beginning, but it's hard to tell since we don't have a full understanding of said laws. Is it defined broadly as everything that is and ever was? In that case the Big Bang might be considered a simple modification to the universe akin to a butterfly emerging from a chrysalis and not a whole new thing. This goes on and on.

[DrewPaul]

That's nice. But let's face it, your evidentiary standards are wanting. You think a corpse is evidence of murder even if you cannot describe the cause of death. You think the Universe existing at all is evidence of your god, when you cannot disallow a material explanation.

Its not my fault you don't comprehend what evidence is. Its a fact that makes a claim more probable than minus the fact. If I try someone for murder, its not optional I produce evidence a death occurred. Its mandatory because it sets the foundation for any subsequent evidence.

[DrewPaul]

You can forget about D the evidence against that is overwhelming.

I'm affraid you are making a big mistake. The "Big Bang" theory doesn't posit the creation of the universe; only the creation of the universe as it can be observed now and even then, it only posits that at some point all matter and energy of the universe was condensed into a single place from which the universe in unfolding. As of now, physics can offer us no insight

Then for the sake of argument you're calling the singularity the universe. If the singularity exists outside of spacetime that can be called the universe as well. Big bang theory posits the beginning of spacetime and the laws of physics we observe. Something different from what may have preceded it. 

In other words D is very much in contention depending on how someone conceptualize and define "the universe". Is it the way matter and energy is organized and distributed as we are observing it right now? In that case, yes there is an overwhelming amount of evidence showing a beginning to it. Is it defined by the laws of physics in which case it possibly has a beginning, but it's hard to tell since we don't have a full understanding of said laws. Is it defined broadly as everything that is and ever was? In that case the Big Bang might be considered a simple modification to the universe akin to a butterfly emerging from a chrysalis and not a whole new thing. This goes on and on.

People can redefine words to mean something the don't mean. I agree that reality as we experience it isn't base reality. Its created reality. In one sense just as computer simulations are created reality.

[epronovost]

Then for the sake of argument you're calling the singularity the universe. If the singularity exists outside of spacetime that can be called the universe as well. Big bang theory posits the beginning of spacetime and the laws of physics we observe. Something different from what may have preceded it.

There is a big and pretty obvious logical fallacy in your statement above; specifically the fallacy of the smuggled/stolen concept. If the universe is defined as being something that includes spacetime than nothing can precede it nor can it begin since there can be no prior to spacetime. Spacetime is what allows us to conceive things like after, prior, before and for two different things to exist. Without spacetime there is no such thing as temporality and separate identity. That's unless you want to posit multi-temporal phenomenon where spacetime exist a bit like a Russian doll with multiple layers of it within each other like our bubble of spacetime is within a bigger bubble of spacetime sort of thing.

People can redefine words to mean something the don't mean.

I don't understand that sentence; is its grammar correct, is the formulation a bit poor or am I just stupid.

[KingEric]

Typo?

[SteveII]

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.

Do you believe it can only be one transcendent being?

I know it’s pointless to ask but what created these transcendent being/beings?

I believe it is only one, but not because of the evidence of the universe.

If everything had to be created, then you have an infinite regress of causes (a logical impossibility). Something has to be uncaused--something has to necessarily exist.

[KingEric]

Do you believe it can only be one transcendent being?

I know it’s pointless to ask but what created these transcendent being/beings?

I believe it is only one, but not because of the evidence of the universe.

If everything had to be created, then you have an infinite regress of causes (a logical impossibility). Something has to be uncaused--something has to necessarily exist.

Why? Couldn't it have been a joint effort? There could have been more than one working on the project?
Why can't there be somethings that had to necessarily exist?

[Rhythmcs]

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. 

It seems to me like you're using the word theism as shorthand for your own particular and specific beliefs.  Entire pantheons of theistic gods have been constructed which explicitly lack that attribute, which you consider logically necessary to the truth of the whole belief set.  As stated, your belief seems to me to be premised on transactional claims - rather than existential claims - which isn't uncommon for theism but is also not completely uniform across theism.

IE, an existent god which did not create the universe for life is, by virtue of that particular demand of yours and not based on facts of said gods existence, not a god despite existing..and theism is false even though a or even many theistic gods do exist.

[Thumpalumpacus]

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. 

This is factually incorrect. See this wiki article for a list of murder cases successfully prosecuted without a corpse.

[Paleophyte]

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.

So what's the probative value of evidence with respect to the infinitely improbable? Don't forget to carry the zero.

The existence of the universe is critical to either claim if no universe existed either claim would be rejected.

Actually, no. I the universe didn't exist then neither claim could be made. Funny old Weak Anthropic Principle.

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.

Can you demonstrate that? All I see is baseless speculation that the universe could have been otherwise. It's fun to imagine that the universe could have come into being with a speed of light that was 100 km/h, but actually demonstrating that such a universe could ever exist is an entirely different matter. Short of that you're little more than a circle marvelling at the unlikely precision of pi, without which your ends would not join so perfectly, all the while missing the point that pi couldn't be anything else.

[Dexta]

It strikes me that saying that the purpose of the universe is to create life is...narcissistic at best - what makes life so special? A star, nebula, volcano or black hole is surely far more spectacular.

[Paleophyte]

What does unintentional universe is unity mean?

It means that you needed to read the entire sentence.

Obviously you're not interested in a discussion or a debate, just chest beating like a neanderthal.

If you can't even be bothered to read it even after I've highlighted the important parts that you clearly missed then I have little sympathy for you.

[Paleophyte]

It seems you're only interested in venting.

...he said while venting.

You don't know if my claim is true or false.

Strictly speaking, it's neither. Invoking a deity isn't an explanation, it's an epistemological roadblock, an excuse to cease thinking. The soggy lump of meat that you use to do your thinking can't comprehend the Divine, so any claim that includes it is neither true nor false, but rather impossible to evaluate. The claim has no meaning and is most aptly described by the phrase "So bad it isn't even wrong."

Can't you tolerate anyone disagreeing with you?

...he asked because I disagreed with him. You really don't get the irony, do you?

Let me say I'm very quick with the ignore button, I won't engage with people who make it personal.

 Oh noes, whatever will I do? Perhaps you might want to look in the mirror first. To date I haven't done anything worse to you than mention the embarrassingly barbaric origins of your imaginary friend. BTW, why did you think that comparing me to a Neanderthal was an insult?

[DrewPaul]

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. 

It seems to me like you're using the word theism as shorthand for your own particular and specific beliefs.  Entire pantheons of theistic gods have been constructed which explicitly lack that attribute, which you consider logically necessary to the truth of the whole belief set.  As stated, your belief seems to me to be premised on transactional claims - rather than existential claims - which isn't uncommon for theism but is also not completely uniform across theism.

IE, an existent god which did not create the universe for life is, by virtue of that particular demand of yours and not based on facts of said gods existence, not a god despite existing..and theism is false even though a or even many theistic gods do exist.

My theistic belief arises from the question is the universe and our existence intentionally caused or the result of mechanistic forces that inadvertently caused all the conditions necessary for a planet like earth to exist and life to arise. I lack belief in the ability of mindless natural forces without plan or intent to cause intelligent life to exist. A lot of atheists criticize theism fiercely but few explain how nature got so many things right.

[Paleophyte]

It strikes me that saying that the purpose of the universe is to create life is...narcissistic at best - what makes life so special? A star, nebula, volcano or black hole is surely far more spectacular.

The universe, 95% dark matter or dark energy by mass, almost exclusively hard vacuum or stellar plasma by volume, and populated exclusively by black holes over all but the briefest fraction of its duration. One little backwater planet has an embarrassing skin infection that's convinced that it's all about them. No wonder they have to invoke superstition.

[Minimalist]

 what makes life so special?

The humans who invented this horseshit were "alive" and they think that makes them oh-so-special!

[DrewPaul]

[quote="1Sam15" pid='455197' dateline='1741458485']
[quote="SteveII" pid='455097' dateline='1741436929']

Do you believe it can only be one transcendent being?

No, if there's one there's probably more.
 

I know it’s pointless to ask but what created these transcendent being/beings?

Its not that its pointless it's just out of theism's wheelhouse. Theism is an explanation for the existence of the universe and intelligent beings. It makes no claims how transcendent beings came into existence. However if you ask a theologian they'll come up with some answer. They have answers for everything.