Why exactly does Atheism not have burden of proof?

[SteveII]

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?

Yes and yes.

It was equal to all of reality. Everything else is contingent.

[Paleophyte]

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

The universe exists.
 - Theists claim that a Creator Created the universe.
 - Atheists (some of them) claim that the universe arose from natural processes.

The fact that the universe exists supports and negates both options equally. If the universe didn't exist then the hypothesis that it had arisen naturally would be patently silly. Your fact doesn't favour either side. It's about as useful as a fog hammer.

[Thumpalumpacus]

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.

Hence why I wrote this upthread:

I suggest you look up the phrase "necessary but not sufficient". It may -- or may not, more likely -- clarify your thinking.

[Paleophyte]

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.

Fun fact: Claims aren't proven, they're disproven.
 - Evolution isn't proven. It's just that a hundred plus years of actual scientists hammering on it haven't managed to dent it.
 - Gravity isn't proven. In fact, it was disproven by Albert Einstein nearly a century ago. We still use Newton's theory because it's a useful approximation that works for most RL situations and trying to teach relativity to high school students is simply a recipe for a migraine.

Failing to be disproven doesn't strengthen a claim unless the test is also robust. Finding a red sneaker doesn't prove that all plants are green. Finding a single red plant would disprove it though.

The "test" of the universe existing is not robust because it provides equal evidence for all hypotheses, so it isn't even useful.

[SteveII]

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).

I didn't mention the Christian God and I am not willing to hijack this thread (which has already wandered far off topic) for yet another topic. I was commenting on DrewPaul's present endeavors. I am presently interested in the technical aspects of such arguments and error spotting is always fun.

Inference to the best explanation is "explanatory power" in argument form. You have a puzzle like a first cause, God's existence can very legitimately be proposed as an inference to the best explanation. Fine tuning, same thing. The apparent design in life, same thing.

The inference is judged by the criteria such as:

Explanatory Scope: Theism can explain a wide range of diverse phenomena.
Explanatory Depth: It explains phenomena in terms of fundamental purposes or ultimate reasons, rather than mere chance.
Simplicity: Arguably simpler, positing one fundamental cause (God) rather than multiple brute facts or numerous complex assumptions.
Coherence and Consistency: Provides a worldview where various observations harmonize neatly.
Fruitfulness: May offer future explanations or understanding that naturalistic explanations struggle to generate.

[Minimalist]

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

Perhaps show him this?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mu...out_a_body

[color=var(--color-emphasized,#101418)]List of murder convictions without a body[/color]

Nah...he only wants to beleivehis bullshit.

[1Sam15]

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?

Yes and yes.

It was equal to all of reality. Everything else is contingent.

So something or everything from nothing?

Also known as abracadabra

[brewerb]

I wonder if Drew's 'ignore' list and Steve's are the same?

[Paleophyte]

Explanatory Scope: Theism can explain a wide range of diverse phenomena.
Explanatory Depth: It explains phenomena in terms of fundamental purposes or ultimate reasons, rather than mere chance.

Point of Order. Goddunnit has no explanatory power. Invoking the Divine doesn't actually explain anything. It's an epistemological dead end.

Simplicity: Arguably simpler, positing one fundamental cause (God) rather than multiple brute facts or numerous complex assumptions.

Invoking an infinitely infinite Deity that's Beyond Mortal Comprehension isn't simpler.

Coherence and Consistency: Provides a worldview where various observations harmonize neatly.

Will you forgive me if I simply fall over laughing at this point? Nothing that has anything to do with Christian theology should ever use the words coherence or consistency except by way of begging forgiveness for high crimes against both.

Fruitfulness: May offer future explanations or understanding that naturalistic explanations struggle to generate.

I eagerly await the first faith-based space program.

[Paleophyte]

I wonder if Drew's 'ignore' list and Steve's are the same?

I'm rather doubting it. I had him pegged as a theist too at first, but certain negative comments that he's made about theists and the way that he refers to them in the third person make me think otherwise. I suspect that what we're dealing with here is an Evangelical Agnostic. And yes, that's every bit as silly as it sounds. They're a rare breed but we get them every few years. They're unspeakably proud that they don't know shit about shit and only too happy to prove it. They're oddly focused on converting both atheists and theists to their peculiar worldview and will eagerly tell you how agnosticism is The Way and The Light. On a Christian board Steve and Drew would be hissing and spitting at one another. That may yet happen here.

[Cavebear]

The A in atheism means not or without God. Theists claim the universe was caused by God, atheists claim it wasn't the result of a Creator because one doesn't exist.

(my bold)

Yet another christer chuckle-fuck who doesn't understand what atheism is. Most atheists make no claim about the existence of any gods, yours or anyone else's. We simply do not believe your claims about them. Not believing in something is not the same as claiming it doesn't exist. You should inform yourself on a topic before speaking on it. It make you look less pig-ignorant.

Yes, so many theists think that atheists are making a positive claim that there are no deities. We are not, of course. When, in fact, all we are saying is that the theists have made a positive clain they cannot back up with any evidence. Good post!

[Cavebear]

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.

You apparently don't understand the difference between a "claim" and evidence. Anyone can make an unsupported claim. It is evidence to demonstrate that claim that matters.

And as many people do, you misunderstand what a "hypothesis" is. Hypothesis (in my understanding) is a statement that is testable, has some evidence to support an explanation of a question or event, is more factually-based than a personal opinion, and can be advanced to a "theory" with more independently-reviewed evidence (or fail from a lack of further evidence).

The claim you make that there must be a deity because you can't image any other way the universe could have come to exist is not a hypothesis. It is merely an opinion.

[Cavebear]

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...

You wrote previously that "Theism is an explanation for the existence of the universe and intelligent beings." It certainly is. But "explanations" are not necessarily correct. At one time the older civilizations "explained" lightening, tidal waves, and volcanic eruptions as caused by deities and we know now that those "explanations" are not correct. So, you can't just get by claiming that "God did it".

Regarding "out of context"... It really means "Quoting out of context is an informal fallacy in which a passage is removed from its surrounding matter in such a way as to distort its intended meaning. A "half a sentence" could well encompass the important part of that sentence. You would have to show that the unquoted part would have added factual information to the part that was quoted.

If I felt quoted out of context, I would requote the entire sentence and explain why the replier misunderstood me. A simple "I don't bother responding to half a sentence pulled out of context" is not really a sufficient answer.

Personally, I most often see "out of context" objections to mean "What I wish I hadn't said, what I wish I had said better, or damn, you got me and I'm trying to escape what I said.

[TheGentlemanBastard]

(my bold)

Yet another christer chuckle-fuck who doesn't understand what atheism is.

Yet another lovely person who will be summarily ignored. I don't tolerate fools. A word to anyone if you can't be civilized our discussion is over.

Yet you dodge the point.

No more that I expected. Feel free to use the ignore feature. It's the best way of signaling your surrender.

[Cavebear]

I wonder if Drew's 'ignore' list and Steve's are the same?

I'm rather doubting it. I had him pegged as a theist too at first, but certain negative comments that he's made about theists and the way that he refers to them in the third person make me think otherwise. I suspect that what we're dealing with here is an Evangelical Agnostic. And yes, that's every bit as silly as it sounds. They're a rare breed but we get them every few years. They're unspeakably proud that they don't know shit about shit and only too happy to prove it. They're oddly focused on converting both atheists and theists to their peculiar worldview and will eagerly tell you how agnosticism is The Way and The Light. On a Christian board Steve and Drew would be hissing and spitting at one another. That may yet happen here.

I like your thoughts on Steve. He has confused me about his seemingly-contradictory thoughts several times. I don't think I've ever heard the term "Evangelical Agnostic" before, but I suppose there are some. Maybe that explains my occasional uncertainty about him. Thank you!

[TheGentlemanBastard]

I wonder if Drew's 'ignore' list and Steve's are the same?

Nah, Stevie has had me on ignore for ages, as of this writing, Drew hasn't, yet.

Check that. He's ignored me. Much like Stevie, he's too big a coward to attempt addressing a point he has no argument for, and hides behind the excuse of effrontery.

[Cavebear]

Explanatory Scope: Theism can explain a wide range of diverse phenomena.
Explanatory Depth: It explains phenomena in terms of fundamental purposes or ultimate reasons, rather than mere chance.

Point of Order. Goddunnit has no explanatory power. Invoking the Divine doesn't actually explain anything. It's an epistemological dead end.

Simplicity: Arguably simpler, positing one fundamental cause (God) rather than multiple brute facts or numerous complex assumptions.

Invoking an infinitely infinite Deity that's Beyond Mortal Comprehension isn't simpler.

Coherence and Consistency: Provides a worldview where various observations harmonize neatly.

Will you forgive me if I simply fall over laughing at this point? Nothing that has anything to do with Christian theology should ever use the words coherence or consistency except by way of begging forgiveness for high crimes against both.

Fruitfulness: May offer future explanations or understanding that naturalistic explanations struggle to generate.

I eagerly await the first faith-based space program.

"Invoking an infinitely infinite Deity that's Beyond Mortal Comprehension isn't simpler." Yeah, as hard as it is to comprehend a singularity expanding from (nearly) infinite density to create the universe, a Self-Created Being of infinite intelligence and power seems much weirder!

"Will you forgive me if I simply fall over laughing at this point?" When you fall over laughing, I will probably be doing the same.

"I eagerly await the first faith-based space program". I can just imagine the attempt. Theists will just build some sort of space capsule and then "pray" it into space. A modern day version of the Tower of Babel reaching toward The Guy In The Sky. If there was a company that tried that, I would sure short-sell their stock.

[Minimalist]

Don't be panicked by the 31 minute length of the  whole video.  The section on the universe being "hospitable to life" is in the first 6 and a half minutes.  After that it is all Paul horseshit and gospel nonsense!

[Deesse23]

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.

Fun fact: Claims aren't proven, they're disproven.
 - Evolution isn't proven. It's just that a hundred plus years of actual scientists hammering on it haven't managed to dent it.
 - Gravity isn't proven. In fact, it was disproven by Albert Einstein nearly a century ago. We still use Newton's theory because it's a useful approximation that works for most RL situations and trying to teach relativity to high school students is simply a recipe for a migraine.

Failing to be disproven doesn't strengthen a claim unless the test is also robust. Finding a red sneaker doesn't prove that all plants are green. Finding a single red plant would disprove it though.

The "test" of the universe existing is not robust because it provides equal evidence for all hypotheses, so it isn't even useful.

It is so painfully obvious that the existence of the universe supports EACH AND EVERY claim about the reason for its existence, why did this fool had to make so much of a fuzz about it?

I too got immediately bored when he started to tell us what  "most atheists" believe and tried to debuk it. Why didn't he bother "most atheists" forum then instead of AD?

[Cavebear]

Fun fact: Claims aren't proven, they're disproven.
 - Evolution isn't proven. It's just that a hundred plus years of actual scientists hammering on it haven't managed to dent it.
 - Gravity isn't proven. In fact, it was disproven by Albert Einstein nearly a century ago. We still use Newton's theory because it's a useful approximation that works for most RL situations and trying to teach relativity to high school students is simply a recipe for a migraine.

Failing to be disproven doesn't strengthen a claim unless the test is also robust. Finding a red sneaker doesn't prove that all plants are green. Finding a single red plant would disprove it though.

The "test" of the universe existing is not robust because it provides equal evidence for all hypotheses, so it isn't even useful.

It is so painfully obvious that the existence of the universe supports EACH AND EVERY claim about the reason for its existence, why did this fool had to make so much of a fuzz about it?

I too got immediately bored when he started to tell us what  "most atheists" believe and tried to debuk it. Why didn't he bother "most atheists" forum then instead of AD?

I've been thinking this, and I'm not quite sure what you mean by "it is so painfully obvious that the existence of the universe supports EACH AND EVERY claim about the reason for its existence". Could you help me understand what you meant?

[KingEric]

It is so painfully obvious that the existence of the universe supports EACH AND EVERY claim about the reason for its existence, why did this fool had to make so much of a fuzz about it?

That's what I can't understand. If you're going to assert that a creator did it, at least give us some of the creators terms and conditions...
If the creator has no terms and conditions or no longer exists or whatever then why bother to try and make a case for it?
A creator that makes people do stuff is worth arguing against.

[brewerb]

I wonder if Drew's 'ignore' list and Steve's are the same?

I'm rather doubting it. I had him pegged as a theist too at first, but certain negative comments that he's made about theists and the way that he refers to them in the third person make me think otherwise. I suspect that what we're dealing with here is an Evangelical Agnostic. And yes, that's every bit as silly as it sounds. They're a rare breed but we get them every few years. They're unspeakably proud that they don't know shit about shit and only too happy to prove it. They're oddly focused on converting both atheists and theists to their peculiar worldview and will eagerly tell you how agnosticism is The Way and The Light. On a Christian board Steve and Drew would be hissing and spitting at one another. That may yet happen here.

I learned something new that I'd like to unlearn please. Now there did I put my 'stop thinkin' rock?

[Rhythmcs]

I suggest you bone up on more serious arguments to make your case.

 
There are none, as professional IDers with credentials felt compelled to acknowledge publicly in a court.

[SteveII]

I'm rather doubting it. I had him pegged as a theist too at first, but certain negative comments that he's made about theists and the way that he refers to them in the third person make me think otherwise. I suspect that what we're dealing with here is an Evangelical Agnostic. And yes, that's every bit as silly as it sounds. They're a rare breed but we get them every few years. They're unspeakably proud that they don't know shit about shit and only too happy to prove it. They're oddly focused on converting both atheists and theists to their peculiar worldview and will eagerly tell you how agnosticism is The Way and The Light. On a Christian board Steve and Drew would be hissing and spitting at one another. That may yet happen here.

I like your thoughts on Steve.  He has confused me about his seemingly-contradictory thoughts several times.  I don't think I've ever heard the term "Evangelical Agnostic" before, but I suppose there are some.  Maybe that explains my occasional uncertainty about him.  Thank you!

He wasn't talking about me. I am a Christian of the 2000 year old classical variety.

[SteveII]

Explanatory Scope: Theism can explain a wide range of diverse phenomena.
Explanatory Depth: It explains phenomena in terms of fundamental purposes or ultimate reasons, rather than mere chance.

Point of Order. Goddunnit has no explanatory power. Invoking the Divine doesn't actually explain anything. It's an epistemological dead end.

Simplicity: Arguably simpler, positing one fundamental cause (God) rather than multiple brute facts or numerous complex assumptions.

Invoking an infinitely infinite Deity that's Beyond Mortal Comprehension isn't simpler.

Coherence and Consistency: Provides a worldview where various observations harmonize neatly.

Will you forgive me if I simply fall over laughing at this point? Nothing that has anything to do with Christian theology should ever use the words coherence or consistency except by way of begging forgiveness for high crimes against both.

Fruitfulness: May offer future explanations or understanding that naturalistic explanations struggle to generate.

I eagerly await the first faith-based space program.

Your style of breaking up a post and answering with your typical dismissive assertions (the rhetorical version of being a bully) is irritating and isn't really productive because it doesn't contain much content. Plus you often end up not addressing the overall context of the post you are responding to and thereby developing any semblance of a conversation. Case in point, your response above amounts to: "uh-uh".

While I can guess at your objections and do have thoughts on them, I'll wait until you explain your points better to respond. But then again, perhaps your goal is to be a rhetorical bully and you don't want a response. We'll see.