Why exactly does Atheism not have burden of proof?

[DrewPaul]

Primarily I was attempting to disabuse atheists of their favorite claim, that there is no evidence, not one single fact that makes theism more probable than not. That's an absurd claim. Of course there are facts that make the claim more probable. The claim of theism is that the universe was intentionally caused to exist for the purpose of causing intelligent life to exist. The two things the claim states are facts. Any fact that is necessary for a claim to be true is evidence it is true. If the universe or life didn't exist, theism would be falsified.

-and yet you've offered none, preferring arguments instead.

No I offered facts that favor my hypothesis which is evidence.

[Rhythmcs]

Arguments are not evidence...and your claim is defective even as an argument. That's not a great spot to be in.

[DrewPaul]

Theism is an explanation for the existence of the universe and intelligent beings. 

It certainly isn't.  It's a belief about divinity and the nature of divinity.  As an explanation of the universe and intelligent beings it's a non entity.  A non explanation.  "A theistic god did it" explains nothing.

If you want to understand life, perhaps biology would be more productive?  Ostensibly, it's "how god did it" even if a god did it.  The actual explanation of the item in question.  In a world with or without gods, if x and y and z conditions are met - then..etc etc etc.

I don't bother responding to half a sentence pulled out of context...

[Rhythmcs]

That's unfortunate..because what you have is an argument, not evidence, and it is patently untrue that the existence of life is a logical necessity of a personal and intervening gods existence.

Put simply, there are theistic gods which are not creator gods, and people who do not have children. Personally, I'm not the kind of guy that demands people have evidence for any old belief they hold - that's not how people work - but if we're talking about an argument there are standards. Defective claims must be repaired if we are to maintain our logical insistence.

Your particular beliefs may be falsified in the case that life didn't exist (or was natural, as it evidently seems even in your own description....) - but that would not disprove theism...because your particular beliefs are not a requirement of theism. For example..say we were able to prove that a god never spoke to Big Mo. That would prove islam false.....but not christianity. Say we were able to prove that life was a natural phenomena. That would disprove the existence of Yahweh and Quetzacoatl but not Bricta.

[DrewPaul]

Arguments are not evidence...and your claim is defective even as an argument.  That's not a great spot to be in.

Facts that make a claim more probable than minus stated fact is evidence. It's what evidence is. Are fossils evidence of evolution? Of course. If there were no fossils evolution would be falsified. This is how everyone in the world supports a claim, they state facts which make the claim more probable than minus said facts. 

Most atheists I talk to are in total denial there is any evidence our universe was intentionally caused.

[Rhythmcs]

If you plug true facts into a bad argument you will still get garbage out the other side. I see a pattern, though. It's also not true that if there were no fossils evolution would be falsified.

Is it possible that you believe the existence of fossils is the best argument -for- evolution..and so you see it's antithesis as defeating..just as you think the best argument for your particular god existing is the existence of life..and so assume it's antithesis would likewise disprove any theistic god?

[DrewPaul]

[quote] ="Rhythmcs" pid='455299' dateline='1741543722']
That's unfortunate..because what you have is an argument, not evidence, and it is patently untrue that the existence of life is a logical necessity of a personal and intervening gods existence.

Put simply, there are theistic gods which are not creator gods, and people who do not have children.  Personally, I'm not the kind of guy that demands people have evidence for any old belief they hold - that's not how people work - but if we're talking about an argument there are standards.  Defective claims must be repaired if we are to maintain our logical insistence.

Your particular beliefs may be falsified in the case that life didn't exist (or was natural, as it evidently seems even in your own description....) - but that would not disprove theism...because your particular beliefs are not a requirement of theism.

Theism
belief in the existence of a god or gods, especially belief in one god as creator of the universe, intervening in it and sustaining a personal relation to his creatures.

Standard definition. As I mentioned in my introduction I'm a philosophical theist. 

Philosophical theism is the belief that the Supreme Being exists (or must exist) independent of the teaching or revelation of any particular religion.[1] It represents belief in God entirely without doctrine, except for that which can be discerned by reason and the contemplation of natural laws. Some philosophical theists are persuaded of God's existence by philosophical arguments, while others consider themselves to have a religious faith that need not be, or could not be, supported by rational argument. 

Are you trying to say the belief that a Creator intentionally caused the universe and life to exist could be true even if no universe or life existed? Theism isn't merely the belief in God's existence. It's a belief regarding basic questions. Why is there something rather than nothing? Why does a universe exist? Why does life exist? Isn't it a fair question to ask if our existence was intentional or inadvertently caused? Can't we use any fact at our disposal which makes one claim more probable over another? If we were arguing about who is the greatest quarterback we'd do the exact same thing, you offered facts that support your QB and I offer ones that support my QB. Why should this argument be different? 

In this case your 'guy' is nature did it. Mine is God did it.

[Rhythmcs]

You think theism is all of those things, but it plainly and simply isn't and hasn't been for other theists. The only thing that binds you all together as a group in your positions about gods is the belief in a personal and intervening deity. Your belief..and the belief expressed above..is one of a number of ideas about the nature and contents of that intervention and personality. I agree that there must be all kinds of defeating conditions for your particular beliefs...but you must understand that those statements would not effect all existent or possible equivalent beliefs? That your particular beliefs being in error would not disprove theism.

Why is there something rather than nothing? Why does a universe exist? Why does life exist?

These are good questions. I've already invited you and steve to answer them or literally any question by way of gods. Don't tell us god is an explanation for a thing, show us that godsplanation for the thing which you believe is a fact in evidence and makes your specific god beliefs more probable....... ?

I wouldn't argue with you over who the greatest quarterback of all time is. Dan Marino. This is known.

In this case your 'guy' is nature did it. Mine is God did it.

Is it, though? I recall you mentioning that your particular god isn't necessarily a sustainer. It "set the conditions" - quite possibly from "before" the universe. Correct me if I've misremembered, ofc...but...if not (or hypothetically)..... which conditions might those be, that allow for life without a gods active and sustaining intervention? Did god do us, properly speaking....or did nature do us, and god did nature? Conversely, if a god -is- an active sustainer..then would it not be true that no particular conditions allow for life? That it is god's intervention itself which effects that...and in that case, how could any particular conditions of life be informative as to a gods existence - being irrelevant to the existence of life themselves?

[KingEric]

If you try to give a god a personality you're backing a loser.
A force/god that has the vision to cause a solar system where life can exist definitely doesn't care about what you do with your time here.
It definitely doesn't care about casting demons into pigs and it definitely wouldn't make tax free money a priority.

[DrewPaul]

Arguments are not evidence...and your claim is defective even as an argument.  That's not a great spot to be in.

If facts aren't evidence what would you use to convince people evolution is true? Wouldn't it be ridiculous if I called the facts you cite to support evolution arguments? Using accepted facts to support a conclusion is a wonderful spot to be in...if you have the facts.

[Rhythmcs]

I don't convince people evolution is true Drew. I'm not a high school biology teacher, thank god.

As before, the form of your argument is invalid. I think that rather than arguing over facts we could repair your claim. So that it carries the same meaning, but more accurately - and less prone to accidental defeat.

Maybe some context. Atheists and theists both make claims about atheism and theism that are not strictly true. As assumptions (say an argument over evidence), this would be unsound - but as the underlying premise(say..the logical necessity of)..it is invalid. Further, any valid argument against a thing x cannot assume in it's own premise the truth of said thing x. One cannot logically invoke a concept while denying the validity of the concepts upon which it depends.

[brewerb]

In my world facts are objective (not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts/Oxford). Drew's facts are subjective
(relating to, or arising within one's self or mind : personal. a subjective point of view/Webster), (subjective facts are facts based on personal feelings, beliefs, or perceptions, rather than on external evidence. They are different from objective facts, which are based on verifiable facts/AI)

He'd like his facts to accepted as objective when they are not. Maybe he should stop using the word fact or preface fact with subjective each time he uses it.

Yet we're the one's Drew considered fools, subjectively petulant. AFAIC he can say his goodbyes at any time.

[epronovost]

The claim of theism is that the universe was intentionally caused to exist for the purpose of causing intelligent life to exist. The two things the claim states are facts. Any fact that is necessary for a claim to be true is evidence it is true. If the universe or life didn't exist, theism would be falsified.

The existence of the universe and life is not evidence that the universe and life were intentionally caused to exist by a divine entity though. The theistic claim that atheists reject is not the existence of the universe and of life. These are not claims in contentions. What is in contention and what atheists mean when they say "there is no verifiable and valid evidence for theism" is that there is no evidence for the universe and life to have been created on purpose by a supernatural agent using unknowable processes and means. Theism doesn't distinguish itself by claiming that the universe and life exists, but by providing a specific causal explanation for this state of being. 

It would be akin to claiming that because John is dead that he was murdered with premeditation by Paul for the purpose of revenge. The presence of a corpse is not evidence of premeditated murder. Even the presence of a corpse whose cause of death has been found to be "not natural" is not evidence of premeditated murder either. In fact, it's even worst because when a corpse is found, it opens the possibility for the death to be caused by a premeditated murder because we have, for a fact, found corpse whose cause of death was premeditated murder. We have never seen the birth of another universe filled with life in it so we can't even claim that universes could possibly be created by supernatural divine agents on purpose. It's not something that has been established as possible, but only something that we can conceive in our mind and even then we fall short on the process and mechanism. We have never observed supernatural divine agents either so cannot discuss about what they can possibly do or not.

[Minimalist]

https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/...ty-threat/

Most Americans believe in intelligent life beyond Earth; few see UFOs as a major national security threat

But most Americans seem to think that the president controls egg prices so that is hardly an informed opinion, is it?


Let's be clear here.  These notions were formed by ignorant primitives who knew of only earth-based life forms.  And they are largely ignorant of how those formed also.  But if there are other life forms in the universe then we run into the Fermi Paradox.  Where the hell are they?

[Deesse23]

I suspected his arguments to be bad, but Jebus, they are really bad. As per usual, the worse the arguments, the more verbose the fool is.

[KingEric]

Arguments are not evidence...and your claim is defective even as an argument.  That's not a great spot to be in.

If facts aren't evidence what would you use to convince people evolution is true? Wouldn't it be ridiculous if I called the facts you cite to support evolution arguments? Using accepted facts to support a conclusion is a wonderful spot to be in...if you have the facts.

The fossil record supports the fact that sea dwelling creatures were once land dwelling creatures. That's what I'd use.
The universe exists is a fact but you can't demonstrate that it needed a cause to exist. The fact that you and I exist is a byproduct of the universe existing, nothing special or noteworthy.

[DrewPaul]

The existence of the universe and life is not evidence that the universe and life were intentionally caused to exist by a divine entity though.

Yes it is. Its foundational evidence to the claim the universe and life were intentionally caused to exist. If either didn't exist theism is obviously false. Do you claim the universe was caused by natural forces? Then the existence of the universe is foundation evidence to your claim. 

The theistic claim that atheists reject is not the existence of the universe and of life. These are not claims in contentions. What is in contention and what atheists mean when they say "there is no verifiable and valid evidence for theism" is that there is no evidence for the universe and life to have been created on purpose by a supernatural agent using unknowable processes and means. Theism doesn't distinguish itself by claiming that the universe and life exists, but by providing a specific causal explanation for this state of being. 

And atheists would disabuse us of this notion it was intentionally caused and designed by a Creator by coughing up some better idea that explains why a universe exists and why it is specifically configured for intelligent life to exist. You never do. That's why so few people subscribe to atheism. Did it ever occur to you you don't have a better explanation?

It would be akin to claiming that because John is dead that he was murdered with premeditation by Paul for the purpose of revenge. The presence of a corpse is not evidence of premeditated murder. Even the presence of a corpse whose cause of death has been found to be "not natural" is not evidence of premeditated murder either. In fact, it's even worst because when a corpse is found, it opens the possibility for the death to be caused by a premeditated murder because we have, for a fact, found corpse whose cause of death was premeditated murder.

That's the point, no one would make the claim Paul premeditatedly murdered John unless they had far more evidence than just the fact John is dead. They would also have evidence is was murder and not natural causes. Regardless, I can tell you the first thing they will establish in a court is the fact John is dead. Its foundational to any claim that follows it. If John isn't dead no amount of evidence is going to help.

The fact the universe exists alone is enough reason to query whether it was intentionally caused or the result of mindless natural forces. Because its existence raises the question. 

We have never seen the birth of another universe filled with life in it so we can't even claim that universes could possibly be created by supernatural divine agents on purpose.

Can we claim it was the result of unknown forces that unintentionally caused universe and intelligent life to exist? What would make us think that causing a universe with the properties and laws of physics is a simple task mindless natural forces are up to?  I can and do claim the universe was intentionally caused to exist by an intelligent transcendent being. I say its a better explanation. What's yours?

[KingEric]

No. Atheists would question what James was doing at the time.

[KingEric]

Can we claim it was the result of unknown forces that unintentionally caused universe and intelligent life to exist? What would make us think that causing a universe with the properties and laws of physics is a simple task mindless natural forces are up to?  I can and do claim the universe was intentionally caused to exist by an intelligent transcendent being. I say its a better explanation. What's yours?

Then the burden of proof lies with you and your better explanation. You are the one that's making the claim.
Please explain how the creator came to be in the first place and what it's mathematically perfect brain consists of.

[Thumpalumpacus]

I stand corrected. Losing the gullibility involves a lot more than just losing one more god.

However, the bon mot of "when you understand why you don't believe in Zeus, you'll understand why I don't believe in God" is still pretty apt. Of course, that relies upon empathy as well as reason.

Except (and related the current conversation with DrewPaul) Zeus has absolutely no explanatory power to answer the big questions that are typically answered by even a deistic conception of God. In fact, Zeus brings up a thousand more questions then he answers.

Although he is struggling, DrewPaul's basic argument is that some transcendent idea of God has vastly more explanatory power for the universe's fine tuning and for the existence of complex life--basically a Intelligent Design argument--which brings up a lot of good points--not the least of which is that Naturalism is lacking in explanatory power when it comes to the these questions.

Except the Christian god explains nothing. It only kicks the can up to a god you cannot explain. "God did it" is not an explanation if you cannot explain god(s).

[Rhythmcs]

And atheists would disabuse us of this notion it was intentionally caused and designed by a Creator by coughing up some better idea that explains why a universe exists and why it is specifically configured for intelligent life to exist. You never do. That's why so few people subscribe to atheism. Did it ever occur to you you don't have a better explanation?

Haven't they, though?  What are those "conditions" for life, after all?

[Thumpalumpacus]

@DrewPaul still hasn't answered my pointing out that his claim that a murder conviction requires a body is false. I wonder why.

[1Sam15]

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.

Do you believe the creator, at some point, was alone with nothing existing around it?

It had to create its first creation from nothing, right?

[pattylt]

Why is there something rather than nothing?

Nothing is unstable.

How do we know?

Because there’s something.

While we know what conditions are needed for life to exist on earth, we have no knowledge of what other conditions may also develop life or what that life even would look like. You are using an example of n=1.

Personally, your facts are just observations. I, too, observe a universe and life. Your conclusion has no different probability from mine at this point in time. Both are unfalsifiable and thus useless.

[SteveII]

Primarily I was attempting to disabuse atheists of their favorite claim, that there is no evidence, not one single fact that makes theism more probable than not. That's an absurd claim. Of course there are facts that make the claim more probable. The claim of theism is that the universe was intentionally caused to exist for the purpose of causing intelligent life to exist. The two things the claim states are facts. Any fact that is necessary for a claim to be true is evidence it is true. If the universe or life didn't exist, theism would be falsified.

-and yet you've offered none, preferring arguments instead.

No I offered facts that favor my hypothesis which is evidence.

Note the bold. You are wrong and it is creating problems with your broader argument. I agree with your conclusions, (if not your reasoning) but this mistake about what is evidence is leading you to create a confused argument where you think you have presented evidence and you have not. In other words, I am a theist (of the Christian variety) and I am trying to help you.

You skipped right over my last post where I took the time to explain. You should have engages with that idea and perhaps you could have saved some time and effort instead of marching on with misplaced confidence. I will try one more time.

You are confusing the concept of a necessary condition with what is evidence.

Necessary conditions are prerequisites or preconditions, meaning the claim cannot be true without them. However, a necessary condition does not guarantee or even increase the likelihood by itself that the claim actually is true.

Evidence, by contrast, supports or strengthens belief in the truth of the claim, directly or indirectly suggesting it is true. Evidence needs to increase the likelihood or probability of a claim’s truth.

An example would be the claim: "John won the Boston Marathon yesterday."

Necessary condition: John must have been entered and registered to run the Boston Marathon. Is it also evidence?

Scenario 1: Suppose John actually was officially registered and entered in the Boston Marathon, but he did not run (he got sick). Clearly, John having registered is a necessary condition for winning—he couldn't possibly win without entering the race. However, the fact that he was registered (the necessary condition) does not mean he actually won. Indeed, it's entirely possible—and here clearly true—that John never ran and did not win. His registration cannot be evidence

Scenario 2: John did win the Boston Marathon yesterday. So, now are we to say that his registration is evidence that he won? If we say that, then we are saying that if he won, it is evidence and if he did not even run, it is not evidence. If you insist that it is evidence, then you are committing the fallacy of Affirming the Consequent. Here is the form of the argument:

If A (winning the race) then B (being registered).
B is true (John is registered).
Therefore, A must be true (John won).

Or to put a finer point on it:

If A (God exists) then B (the universe/life needs explanation).
B is true (the universe/life needs explanation).
Therefore, A must be true (God exists).

Both fallacious arguments.

I suggest you bone up on more serious arguments to make your case. The links are introductions. Pay attention to the structure of each. They are carefully made. If you veer from the structure, the argument often ends up being fallacious.



(the formal Intelligent Design Argument)