Why exactly does Atheism not have burden of proof?

[DrewPaul]

@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.

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.

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.

Yes it does...unavoidably so. The facts that have to be true for a claim to be true are the strongest lines of evidence because if they aren't true the claim is falsified. 

Evidence makes no guarantees. Evidence alone isn't proof. As I've explained the bar for what qualifies as evidence is low. To submit something into evidence it must be an established fact. You can't offer speculation into evidence. And it must make the claim in question more probable.

The existence of a corpse minus anything else is evidence it was the result of natural forces or evidence it was intentionally caused. Either claim requires the existence of a corpse, either claim is falsified if a corpse doesn't exist.
 

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.

Exactly. The claim of theism is that the universe and life was intentionally caused to exist by a Creator. The existence of the universe and life makes the claim more probable than if life didn't exist or if the universe didn't exist. Again its called foundational evidence.
 

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

I'll repeat...evidence isn't proof and your conflating the two. The fact he registered for the marathon is evidence he ran in the marathon because its more probable that someone who registered for a race also ran. But its not proof but it is evidence. It's circumstantial evidence where an inference needs to be made.
 

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).

I didn't claim God must exist. I claimed the universe and life are the result of a Creator. The existence of the universe and life are merely foundational claims.
I've also stated the fine-tuning of the universe as evidence it was intentionally caused to exist.
The  fact  the  universe  has  laws  of  nature,  is  knowable,  uniform  and  to  a  large  extent  predictable,  amenable  to  scientific  research  and  the  laws  of  logic  deduction  and  induction  and  is  also  explicable  in  mathematical  terms.

[Deesse23]

Fine tuning......

[DrewPaul]

Why exactly does Atheism not have burden of proof?

No one has any burden to support or defend any belief unless they want to submit their beliefs or claims to the market place of ideas and hope to convince others of the claim.

In a formal debate, a position is declared such as theism. One person will take the affirmative claim, anyone wishing to dispute the claim will take the negative position...that the claim isn't true. They're not on the hook to support any alternative claim. If they think the person making the claim isn't scoring any points or offers facts in support they can stand pat and not say a word. However, they won't win any debates that way. 

Whether atheists are inclined to defend it or not, the claim theism is false results in positive claim. If the universe wasn't intentionally caused then it was unintentionally caused. Defending the claim the universe and life was the result of natural mindless forces minus any plan or intent to do so is a heavy lift.

[DrewPaul]

If anyone wishes to get off my ignore list please send me a PM stating you'll do your utmost to engage in a civil debate.

[Minimalist]

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.

That's nothing to be proud of!

[Minimalist]

If anyone wishes to get off my ignore list please send me a PM stating you'll do your utmost to engage in a civil debate.

How about if we don't give a shit?

[Deesse23]

If anyone wishes to get off my ignore list please send me a PM stating you'll do your utmost to engage in a civil debate.

How about if we don't give a shit?

Whos gonna tell him that you cant send him PMs when you are on ignore?

[brewerb]

Why exactly does Atheism not have burden of proof?

No one has any burden to support or defend any belief unless they want to submit their beliefs or claims to the market place of ideas and hope to convince others of the claim.

In a formal debate, a position is declared such as theism. One person will take the affirmative claim, anyone wishing to dispute the claim will take the negative position...that the claim isn't true. They're not on the hook to support any alternative claim. If they think the person making the claim isn't scoring any points or offers facts in support they can stand pat and not say a word. However, they won't win any debates that way. 

Whether atheists are inclined to defend it or not, the claim theism is false results in positive claim. If the universe wasn't intentionally caused then it was unintentionally caused. Defending the claim the universe and life was the result of natural mindless forces minus any plan or intent to do so is a heavy lift.

No heavy lifting for me, I'm OK with I don't know and neither do you. You (and others that proceeded you) made up a story that makes you feel better about you're existence (before, during, ending). If you want to believe a theism story fine by me, but I'll not validate it as 'existence' other than a concept. AFAIC you could also be debating the stories of supermans existence.

It baffles me that you desire validation from atheists.

Edit: Maybe you should try the flat earthers, they seem to love subjective 'facts'.

[pattylt]

OT question…

If you’ve put a person on ignore, doesn’t that also mean you don’t have the PM button or is that only for the ignoree. IOW, you’d have to un ignore them to get a PM from them.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Well, discussing metaphysical realities is fundamentally a philosophical endeavor. Given your stance, you should not be surprised when the answer is unsatisfactory. See my answer just above.

The problem is, the claim that god(s) exist is a physical, actual claim. You're using the wrong tool for the job.

You may as well be hammering nails with a fish taco. We are talking about reality, not some metaphysical postulate.

[CapriMark1]

I didn't state it was created only that it exists. However type into a search engine when did the universe come into existence and you'll get the same answer.

According to the widely accepted Big Bang theory, the universe began approximately 13.8 billion years ago. 
Explanation: This is based on the idea that the universe originated from a tiny, extremely dense point called a singularity which then rapidly expanded outwards, marking the start of space, time, and matter.

Even if prior to the big bang it was a singularity that expanded into a universe it would still mark the beginning of the universe.

Either way the universe exists and its either the result of intentionally causes or the result of natural forces.

I am unclear on what you are saying.  So I hope you'll forgive me if I go over territory we've already traversed.

First, it is common for people to talk about the age of the universe as if there was and will be only one.  For those of us trying to puzzle out the whole truth, we know that there might be more than one - that the so-called singularity is just a placeholder as not only is it supposed to be infinitely dense (There's that word again!), but our physics falls apart before we actually get to explaining its nature.  It just might be that this universe is the only one, but it's also possible that it's not.  Some cosmologists have suggested that the universe could be in the middle of an expansion that ultimately leads to a contraction and that leads to another "singularity" followed by another expansion, with the cycle being endless.  We just don't know enough to tell which of these is true.

So I think there are 3 possibilities:  A caused universe, a natural universe that doesn't repeat or a natural universe that repeats.  I tend to favor the last, and I base that on my experience trying to figure out why we find such weird things in the universe - dark matter and dark energy being the latest.  I can easily imagine that a "singularity" isn't very singular at all.

[DrewPaul]

@brewerb

No heavy lifting for me, I'm OK with I don't know and neither do you. You (and others that proceeded you) made up a story that makes you feel better about you're existence (before, during, ending). If you want to believe a theism story fine by me, but I'll not validate it as 'existence' other than a concept. AFAIC you could also be debating the stories of supermans existence.

It baffles me that you desire validation from atheists.

Evidently you're not okay with claiming you don't know how the universe or life came about because you immediately criticize my position by claiming its a made up story. If you don't know how the universe came about how do you know I'm making a story and and not revealing the truth?

I would suggest you don't know for sure...but you certainly suspect it wasn't the result of a Creator. You just don't have the courage to support that position.

I don't seek validation I just enjoy a good debate.

[Rhythmcs]

You don't need to tell me that.  I know there isn't evidence in the cell, or the physics, or the probabilities.  That creationists are not actually making a scientific argument.

As philosophy, though, invoking scientific premises for a god explanation that rejects those scientific premises is a non starter.

First, ID does not technically argue for any conception of God--it argues for its name. But since you mention it, why does a "god explanation...reject...scientific premises?" Do you mean in the ID argument or in all arguments?  It seems "scientific premises" might be a stand-in for Naturalism--in which case you are question begging.

Why ask me why IDiots argue the way they do?  I obviously think they need to repair their claims.  In general, though, stolen concepts are most likely to occur when a person or community has ancillary reasons to argue against something they value very much.  So, for example, christian creationists in the 90's thought that god was a biologist ...even as they argued biology was false.  Plenty have moved on from that to god the quantum physicist, as they argue physics is false.  The short version of a long story is that the contemporary secular world has compromised the faith, just as their shamans and witchdoctors are always telling us (and them).

[SteveII]

Well, discussing metaphysical realities is fundamentally a philosophical endeavor. Given your stance, you should not be surprised when the answer is unsatisfactory. See my answer just above.

The problem is, the claim that god(s) exist is a physical, actual claim. You're using the wrong tool for the job.

You may as well be hammering nails with a fish taco. We are talking about reality, not some metaphysical postulate.

I think you are making a category mistake. There are physical and metaphysical claims. God's existence falls completely in the metaphysical department because if he exists, he transcends the physical world. Metaphysics is a deeper and more fundamental layer of reality than the physical.

My description should make that clear (every single category is completely nonphysical):

A necessary being, timeless, changeless, immaterial, and capable of causing and sustaining the universe would be definitionally, ultimate reality. What could be more foundational than having an explanation that is ultimate reality? Literally the most foundational explanation possible.

If you deny there is a deeper layer than the physical, that's just question-begging because you are defining reality to be something that cannot contain God.

met·a·phys·ics
/ˈmedəˌfiziks/
noun
noun: metaphysics
the branch of philosophy that deals with the first principles of things, including abstract concepts such as being, knowing, substance, cause, identity, time, and space.

[Rhythmcs]

I see your deeper reality and raise you a mega reality, then I see that mega reality and raise you an ultra reality - but at least we now know that no matter what a creationist says, there not arguing about this reality. In sum, that we're dealing with a-scientific claims of non natural events in alternate dimensions.

These are the sorts of things I call accidental defeaters.

[DrewPaul]

@CapriMark1

I am unclear on what you are saying.  So I hope you'll forgive me if I go over territory we've already traversed.

First, it is common for people to talk about the age of the universe as if there was and will be only one.  

Its far more common for astronomers and physicists to think we exist in a multiverse. 

For those of us trying to puzzle out the whole truth, we know that there might be more than one - that the so-called singularity is just a placeholder as not only is it supposed to be infinitely dense (There's that word again!), but our physics falls apart before we actually get to explaining its nature.  It just might be that this universe is the only one, but it's also possible that it's not. Some cosmologists have suggested that the universe could be in the middle of an expansion that ultimately leads to a contraction and that leads to another "singularity" followed by another expansion, with the cycle being endless.  We just don't know enough to tell which of these is true.

We've reached a stage in scientific exploration of the universe that has hit a brick wall. The theory the universe came into existence from an infinitely dense singularity smaller than an electron is an inference from the observed fact the universe is now expanding and logically if we played in reverse it would collapse into a singularity. Its also a mystery as to what caused an asymmetry in the universe so that there was more positive matter than anti-matter. If it didn't happen that way you'd hear the most often said phrase in any documentary or paper...'if it weren't so...we wouldn't be here'. Our existence is like a car navigating a 10 mile street of 90% pot holes with a blind driver somehow avoiding every pot hole. This does nothing but confirm to me, we don't exist in base reality. This is an artificial reality just as virtual reality is artificial reality. This is why we end up with intractable conundrums is because we apply the rules of our existence to all existence.
 

So I think there are 3 possibilities:  A caused universe, a natural universe that doesn't repeat or a natural universe that repeats.  I tend to favor the last, and I base that on my experience trying to figure out why we find such weird things in the universe - dark matter and dark energy being the latest.  I can easily imagine that a "singularity" isn't very singular at all.

This shatters the notion the universe is all there is, was or ever will be. If singularities exist, they do so outside spacetime and the laws of physics.

[DrewPaul]

If anyone wishes to get off my ignore list please send me a PM stating you'll do your utmost to engage in a civil debate.

You can send an email to my junk mail box...

drew1957x@gmail.com

[DrewPaul]

OT question…

If you’ve put a person on ignore, doesn’t that also mean you don’t have the PM button or is that only for the ignoree. IOW, you’d have to un ignore them to get a PM from them.

Good point. My junk mail box is Drew1957X@gmail.com

[1Sam15]

So something or everything from nothing?

Also known as abracadabra

Well...no, there was something, and then more something of a different variety. There was never nothing from which something came.

I've been answering your questions in good faith. Resist the temptation to end it in what you think is a clever put-down.

So the creator was never alone with no thing\nothing?

Thought you said different earlier?


Are you now saying the creator and things/stuff also coexisted for ever?

The creator never had a very first thing to create?

[KingEric]

Don't all rush at once.

[Szuchow]

Don't all rush at once.

It takes believer arrogance to think that someone would care about his poor proselytizing to the point of sending e-mails.

[DrewPaul]

It's amazing how many people are afraid of three simple words -- "i don't know."

Worse is how many people think that having any explanation - even a bad one - is superior to "I don't know."

A lot of people who say they don't know how the universe or our existence came to be, are just virtue signaling because in the next sentence they'll indicate they don't believe it was intentionally caused to exist. Which suggests they do know something. 

Secondly the explanation it was intentionally caused to exist or it was unintentionally caused to exist are excellent theories because one or the other is true.

[Rhythmcs]

Sure, I don't have to know how the universe started, if it started, to know that a god we cooked up in the last few k isn't what started it.

[Thumpalumpacus]

I think you are making a category mistake. There are physical and metaphysical claims. God's existence falls completely in the metaphysical department because if he exists, he transcends the physical world. Metaphysics is a deeper and more fundamental layer of reality than the physical.

My description should make that clear (every single category is completely nonphysical):

A necessary being, timeless, changeless, immaterial, and capable of causing and sustaining the universe would be definitionally, ultimate reality. What could be more foundational than having an explanation that is ultimate reality? Literally the most foundational explanation possible.

If you deny there is a deeper layer than the physical, that's just question-begging because you are defining reality to be something that cannot contain God.

met·a·phys·ics
/ˈmedəˌfiziks/
noun
noun: metaphysics
the branch of philosophy that deals with the first principles of things, including abstract concepts such as being, knowing, substance, cause, identity, time, and space.

We are talking about evidence for gods. Any evidence for gods will be found in the physical world. Philosophical arguments aren't evidence.

Are you actually arguing that gods cannot exist in the material world?

[brewerb]

@brewerb

No heavy lifting for me, I'm OK with I don't know and neither do you. You (and others that proceeded you) made up a story that makes you feel better about you're existence (before, during, ending). If you want to believe a theism story fine by me, but I'll not validate it as 'existence' other than a concept. AFAIC you could also be debating the stories of supermans existence.

It baffles me that you desire validation from atheists.

Evidently you're not okay with claiming you don't know how the universe or life came about because you immediately criticize my position by claiming its a made up story. If you don't know how the universe came about how do you know I'm making a story and and not revealing the truth?

I would suggest you don't know for sure...but you certainly suspect it wasn't the result of a Creator. You just don't have the courage to support that position.

I don't seek validation I just enjoy a good debate.

I believe it's a story because you've provided nothing concrete to back it up, all you have are abstractions, mostly wish fulfillment.

A creator that just IS, how convenient.