you need evidence guys.
Offline Now, as we all know, the system of law which we are part of consists of the basic premise (or one of the basic premises) that you are innocent until proven guilty. How does this pertain to religious faith, and proof? That is where it is interesting....
The reason you have to prove someone’s guilt, instead of someone’s innocence in a court is because of a few crucial things.
Let’s take the example of a murder. Around the corpse there will be evidence that you can use to prove the guilt of the accused. This evidence can be refuted by the defense, but, assuming an impartial jury, if there is enough evidence the person will be found guilty (thus afferming the reality of the claim). If there isn’t enough, and the defense does a good enough job refuting it, he will not be punished, and will be exonerated. Now, I am not equating religion with murder (in this case) I am just using this example to make a point.
the reason the persecutor (or the person claiming to know the truth, or in other words, the person claiming the positive) is the one who has the burden of finding proof is because finding proof for a positive, for something that is real, or true, is much easier and more abounds than evidence for a negative (indeed many times evidence for a negative is none existent, as in the case of a murder. often times the persecuted would not have any people to witness his location at the time of the murder, but still not be guilty of the crime. if it was the defense who had to gather evidence of his innocence the person would likely be in jail, because they have no evidence for a negative, even though he’s not guilty.) because edvadince for a negative, is usualy nonexistant, which neither proves nor disproves anything.... which is the point. not being anble to disprove something is different than not being able to prove something.
So, the fundamental principal in finding truth is someone providing evidence for their claim, and then other people trying to either find evidence for the contrary, or to discredit the evidence presented by the claim maker. Here is where we start applying it to religion...
The typical argument between theists and atheists go something like this:
“You have no proof" (atheist)
Then the theist replies "neither do you".
While, both are right (well kind of, but that’s for another debate) only one is in the right during this circular argument. How did I determine this? By the thought pattern I just discussed. The initial (if not total) need to provide evidence should be done by the theist. Why? Because the theist is the one who is advocating the reality of something (i.e. the god). Since something is real there should be empirical, undeniable evidence for its existence (in the case of a murder, fingerprints, and blood samples would be such forms of evidence). The reason that the burden of proof shouldn’t rest initially (if at all) on the atheist because they are not advocating a positive as the theist is (they are advocating a NEGATIVE, which weve already established doesnt need to be proven, it needs to be disproven, just as your innocence needs to be disproven and not proven in a court). The atheist is much harder pressed to find contradicting evidence because; oftentimes the universe doesn’t give evidence to the contrary of something nonexistent. It’s like trying to find evidence against the flying invisible shark above your head which you can’t feel or hear. You can’t find any evidence against it, because there won’t be any, because it isn’t real. If it was real there would have to be evidence.
Some theists do present evidence, however not the kind which is needed. Mostly it is hearsay (god came to me in a vision), an improvable thought (I prayed for my cancer to go away and it did… of course the chemo had nothing to do with it….) or misinterpreting information (a great example is http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y4yBvvGi_2A”). All of which are easily refuted, and aren’t the hard (or even reliable) evadince which would be used to convict people in court. in court they require reliable physical evadince, and we need the same standered applyd to debating/proving/disproving god.
However, theists don’t often accept evidence atheists can scrounge up! It is only because of the amazing, and baffling claims of theists that atheists can get any scientific evidence against them. If they would have stuck to things that aren’t disprovable(all of Jesus’ death and resurrection happening in the way which john describes, instead of the way Mathew and Luke described it) than even what evidence atheist can come up with would be null and void because it would be happening outside our realm. However this wasn’t the case, therefore atheists have some (if minute) irrevocable facts contradicting theists. In the history of the world, no one else has ever been believed when they claim they turned water into wine, except for Jesus(and the other gods, however that is irrelevent to the train of thought here). Atheists say that is impossible because of the laws of the universe (I won’t go into specifics here). Even this though theists often shrug it off as “a matter of faith”. Essentially theists are saying, “I want you to present evidence that my god is fake, so that when you do I can say I don’t care”.
My point is that, theists need to present evidence for their argument much more than atheists do, because it should be the theists who
A) Need to present irrevocable evidence, because of the argument already stated in the “innocent untill proven guilty” bit (in recap, the theist is preposing a positive, which needs to be proven to be believed, while the atheist is preposng a negative, and therefore needs to be disproven.
essentially, a negative is believed untill disproven (ie i am innocent/there is no god) and a posotive is only believed once proven (ie you are guilty based on the evadince/based on the evadince, god has been determind to be true))
B) Should have the most evidence (if they are right) since they are proposing something does exist (which would mean there would have to be evidence of it)
Lilrascal3336
I need no warrant for being, and no word of sanction upon my being. I am the warrant and the sanction. ayn rand
- Login to post comments
Offline I may be totally off base here but... anyway.
I don't think its necessary for everyone to provide evidence for what they believe. However, I think the demand for evidence/proof becomes important when those beliefs begin to affect other people. After all, if you're going to attempt to take away the rights of other people based on your belief, you better damn well be able to back up that belief.
I agree.
- Login to post comments
Offline Circular logic is not a logical fallacy. "Begging the question" is a logical fallacy.
Circular reasoning is most certainly a logical fallacy (begging the question and circular reasoning are related). But I said you commited the fallacy of many questions, which is also related.
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/begquest.html
Circular logic can be something as valid as this:4=2+2=1+3=0+4=2+2
Etc.
That's not reasoning, that's a tautology. That's like saying "true".
Circular logic pertains to self sufficient logical models."Begging the question" pertains to circular logic as a means to convince someone in an argument.
In order to convince you of "c" I state:
If c then p.
If p then c.
Suppose p, therefore c.
I think you realize this later on in your post after this one.. which I will address now.
Circular reasoning (or logic) is structurally valid, but it's an informal fallacy.
- Login to post comments
Offline I addressed the circular stuff in the previous post. I don't think we're in any disagreement in your subsequent post except the stuff about believing God exists is assuming God exists. To me, this seems somewhat nonsensical to not be true. Alas, this may be a deeper philosophical issue which I don't have any experience with.
- Login to post comments
Offline Circular reasoning is most certainly a logical fallacy (begging the question and circular reasoning are related). But I said you commited the fallacy of many questions, which is also related.
Unlike most informal fallacies, Begging the Question is a validating form of argument. Moreover, if the premisses of an instance of Begging the Question happen to be true, then the argument is sound. What is wrong, then, with Begging the Question?
First of all, not all circular reasoning is fallacious. Suppose, for instance, that we argue that a number of propositions, p1, p2,…, pn are equivalent by arguing as follows (where "p => q" means that p implies q):
p1 => p2 => … => pn => p1
//
As for the "fallacy of many questions" you're going to have to give a link to that.. because I don't know what you're accusing me of.
//
Yes.. "begging the question" and "circular logic" are related.. does not mean they are the same. Circular logic is a necessary part of "begging the question"-- it is not so the other way around.
That's not reasoning, that's a tautology. That's like saying "true".
Indeed, it is. Tautologies are nothing more than circular bits of logic.
Circular reasoning (or logic) is structurally valid, but it's an informal fallacy.
Informal Fallacy: An informal fallacy is an argument pattern that is wrong due to a mistake in its reasoning.
My point..one of them..as it has always been.. is the presumption that one is making an argument when he says "I believe in God." As you have stated before, the statement itself would seem to be sufficent proof for itself. Therefore, it would not seem that any obligation to prove (as lil_rascal contends) exists.
When someone responds "No you don't"-- an argument is created. Without any bias, the statements suggest that the central issue of the argument is whether you "believe God exists" NOT whether "God exists."
But such an issue would, IMO, be illusionary.
In such a case.. it seems ridiculous.. because as we stated before.. that statement itself seems sufficient for itself. One could "add" to the statement with circular logic-- tautological statements or what not..
However, to say that when someone uses circular logic to an issue assumed to be true ("belief in God"
one cannot then claim "Logical fallacy!".
"I love my dad."
"No you don't."
"Yes I do."
"No you don't. Prove it!"
"Well, logically, I love my dad because I feel I do."
"Logical fallacy!"
"Is it?"
I don't know.. I'm sort of working through these issues.. RRS makes a good place for it. 
- Login to post comments
Offline I addressed the circular stuff in the previous post. I don't think we're in any disagreement in your subsequent post except the stuff about believing God exists is assuming God exists. To me, this seems somewhat nonsensical to not be true. Alas, this may be a deeper philosophical issue which I don't have any experience with.
Or, perhaps, I'm wrong on the issue. I just don't feel the two statements to be the same.. or assuming the same things. Of course, I may be using "assuming" and "presuming" interchangeably here-- there is a small difference that I'm not entirely sure of yet.
I suppose there is room for disagreement. However, let me try something:
Do you assume/presume that God does not exist or do you believe that God does not exist?
An assumption or presumption would place the burden on me to prove to you that he does, in fact, exist.
A belief would place the burden on me to prove that you do not believe he does not exist. (A much more difficult road).
- Login to post comments
Offline Since something is real there should be empirical, undeniable evidence for its existence...
Then prove you are really your mother's child.
(1) Birth certificates can be forged...
(2) DNA test is not undeniable...
(3) Becasue mom says so...uh no, a personal account isn't empirical evidence AND if she was doped up, how could she know?
You may have been switched at birth. It has happened in the past.
Can you prove you are truly your mother's child? And leave no doubt or question?
Personally, I don't think there's intelligent life on other planets. Why should other planets be any different from this one? -- Bob Monkhouse
- Login to post comments
Offline I'm going to reply to one of my own statements before anyone else gets around to it.. heh.
Indeed, it is. Tautologies are nothing more than circular bits of logic.
To expand, tautologies are useful in arguments when the other has no choice but to accept one of the premises:
"Ah! You said it was a painting, therefore there needs to be a painter!"
However.. and someone correct me if I'm wrong.. tautologies don't need to be true.. merely circular logic stated in some repetitious way.
"Of course it's a booh, boohs are doohs, and this is a dooh, so it's definitely a booh."
"Of course there is a creator, creations need a creator, and this is a creation, so there is definitely a creator."
Or, as my professor once said:
"It would seem almost tautological to say that a person entering a bargain would think he is getting something from it, otherwise why would he enter into the bargain?"
If bargain then getting something from it.
- Login to post comments
Offline From your link:Unlike most informal fallacies, Begging the Question is a validating form of argument. Moreover, if the premisses of an instance of Begging the Question happen to be true, then the argument is sound. What is wrong, then, with Begging the Question?
First of all, not all circular reasoning is fallacious. Suppose, for instance, that we argue that a number of propositions, p1, p2,…, pn are equivalent by arguing as follows (where "p => q" means that p implies q):
p1 => p2 => … => pn => p1
//
Also from the link immediately after:
"Then we have clearly argued in a circle, but this is a standard form of argument in mathematics to show that a set of propositions are all equivalent to each other. So, when is it fallacious to argue in a circle?
For an argument to have any epistemological or dialectical force, it must start from premisses already known or believed by its audience, and proceed to a conclusion not known or believed. This, of course, rules out the worst cases of Begging the Question, when the conclusion is the very same proposition as the premiss, since one cannot both believe and not believe the same thing. A viciously circular argument is one with a conclusion based ultimately upon that conclusion itself, and such arguments can never advance our knowledge."
As for the "fallacy of many questions" you're going to have to give a link to that.. because I don't know what you're accusing me of.
It's also called loaded question. http://www.fallacyfiles.org/loadques.html, but this doesn't give the definition I'm used to.
Essentially, I'm contending your first premise; "The universe speaks as to the existence of a creator." This is an assumption that isn't agreed upon.
http://www.answers.com/topic/fallacy-of-many-questions This might provide a better explanation of them.
Indeed, it is. Tautologies are nothing more than circular bits of logic.
Yep. And as such they provide no additional information to the discussion.
My point..one of them..as it has always been.. is the presumption that one is making an argument when he says "I believe in God." As you have stated before, the statement itself would seem to be sufficent proof for itself. Therefore, it would not seem that any obligation to prove (as lil_rascal contends) exists.When someone responds "No you don't"-- an argument is created. Without any bias, the statements suggest that the central issue of the argument is whether you "believe God exists" NOT whether "God exists."
But such an issue would, IMO, be illusionary.
In such a case.. it seems ridiculous.. because as we stated before.. that statement itself seems sufficient for itself. One could "add" to the statement with circular logic-- tautological statements or what not..
However, to say that when someone uses circular logic to an issue assumed to be true ("belief in God"
"I love my dad."
"No you don't."
"Yes I do."
"No you don't. Prove it!"
"Well, logically, I love my dad because I feel I do."
"Logical fallacy!"
"Is it?"
I don't know.. I'm sort of working through these issues.. RRS makes a good place for it.
"I love my dad because I feel it" probably isn't a tautology but I'm not sure I understand the statement fully. If you said "I love my dad because I love my dad" then you've done something crazy. You haven't added any information.
As for the belief stuff; "I have a belief that God exists" doesn't need any additional proof beyond your statement, assuming fair standards of rigor. The point is, you have a belief about something. What that something is is irrelevant.
Now, "I believe God exists" isn't saying the same thing (I think you agreed). IMO, by saying as much, you are saying that God exists. That's where I challenge you with proof. Admittedly, I may be wrong that "I believe God exists" = "God exists".
- Login to post comments
Offline Or, perhaps, I'm wrong on the issue. I just don't feel the two statements to be the same.. or assuming the same things. Of course, I may be using "assuming" and "presuming" interchangeably here-- there is a small difference that I'm not entirely sure of yet.I suppose there is room for disagreement. However, let me try something:
Do you assume/presume that God does not exist or do you believe that God does not exist?
An assumption or presumption would place the burden on me to prove to you that he does, in fact, exist.
A belief would place the burden on me to prove that you do not believe he does not exist. (A much more difficult road).
I don't have a belief in the existence of God (common parlance, weak atheist). I do think it's a possibility, (albeit unfalsifiable) but I have seen no evidence to suggest that it's true.
- Login to post comments
Offline I'm going to reply to one of my own statements before anyone else gets around to it.. heh.
Quote:Indeed, it is. Tautologies are nothing more than circular bits of logic.To expand, tautologies are useful in arguments when the other has no choice but to accept one of the premises:
"Ah! You said it was a painting, therefore there needs to be a painter!"
However.. and someone correct me if I'm wrong.. tautologies don't need to be true.. merely circular logic stated in some repetitious way.
"Of course it's a booh, boohs are doohs, and this is a dooh, so it's definitely a booh."
"Of course there is a creator, creations need a creator, and this is a creation, so there is definitely a creator."
Or, as my professor once said:
"It would seem almost tautological to say that a person entering a bargain would think he is getting something from it, otherwise why would he enter into the bargain?"
If bargain then getting something from it.
For the record, the logical tautology is a bit different from the rhetoric tautology. I'm taking a standpoint from the rhetoric tautology which means no information has been added or just saying "true".
If the definition of a painting requires that there be a painter, then yes, you've given a rhetoric tautology. IE you haven't added any information. I would just say "duh".
And I think you're right, tautologies are always true.
- Login to post comments
'prosecuter' not 'persecutor'
honestly im a terrible speller. if thats all i got wrong than im lucky. however nomatter what ive spelled wrong, my point is still valid... just harder to read
I need no warrant for being, and no word of sanction upon my being. I am the warrant and the sanction. ayn rand
determind = determined
Nice
Ummm. It's 'prosecutor', Cpt_Pineapple.
Very well-written regardless of spelling, lil_rascal. Unfortunately, the excuse that negates the logic is 'faith' and arguments from ignorance.
Believe me or not, there are even some people that declare that 'god' is contained within zero fields. We're spending billions to prove them incorrect instead of them spending the billions to prove it.
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists.
Um.. no.. not necessarily Josh. Even the legal arena, as a rule, flips the burden of proof every so often.
e.g. Tort Law: Res Ipsa Loquitur.
If we're applying legal concepts into our philosphical realm.. then I could argue that the vast majority of individuals, both historically and today, believe "the thing (god or God's existence) speaks for itself."
In such a situation.. it would be on the individuals trying to establish otherwise to present sufficent proof.
Whether that sufficiency has been reached, however, is another matter.
Heh.. I just wanted to suggest another way of looking at it. 
Simple answer: It doesn't. Legal decisions are based upon jurisprudence where the assumption that guilt must be proved is a cardinal point. Religious 'proof' is an entirely arbitrary concept since there are no recognised criteria to determine if a divine being does or doesn't exist.
Since that point hass just cabbaged your post I think I'll leave it there.
Freedom of religious belief is an inalienable right. Stuffing that belief down other people's throats is not.
But as a matter of law, the opposite burden can, in certain class of cases, be presented to the jury.
Is that the judges who create the arbitrary rules don't wear white collars on their black attire.
True, but these are very few and far between and only really used where the probability of guilt is overwhelming - your example of res ipsa loquitir is a demonstration of this with the classic example being the 'object left behind' - a pateint complains of pains post operation and an x-ray shows a clamp left in the wound site thus 'speaking for itself' and showing the guilt of the surgeon. As the possibility of the clamp being there for an other reason than negligence on the surgeon's behalf is vanishingly small then he would have to prove why he wasn't guilty of negligence.
But generally it's prove the guilt.
Of course, if we were to apply legal principles to whether God existed then we would have to start with the position that he doesn't precisely because there is no strong evidence for his existence.
Freedom of religious belief is an inalienable right. Stuffing that belief down other people's throats is not.
Your case is interesting.. but a more liberal application of doctrine has also turned up.
The other case is the barrel of flour falling on someones head from out of a window next to a flour mill.
The company may have had no evidence to prove that it was not due to negligence that the barrel fell out of a window (e.g. a person intentionally through the barrel out the window on the person's head).. and the person harmed had no evidence to prove that they were.
Yet the court assumed there to be negligence.
This is my point.. applying legal principles.. the policy underlying res ipsa might lead to the alternative conclusion.
For thousands of years people have assumed there to be a God because "it (the universe) speaks for itself." It is a belief, as strongly held, historically, as a belief that barrels of flower don't fall onto peoples head without negligence. So.. arguably.. perhaps.. the burden of proof would be shifted it observed by some atemporal court.
In anycase.. just fun to talk about. Heh.. not even sure if I'm right.. but it sort of works through some of the issues.
Point of contention however.. "strong evidence" is a purely subjective statement-- strong evidence to you? or to the world? to the majority? to the minority?
"Strong evidence" would seem to imply that there is at least "evidence".. which I would agree with-- some people however view it as compelling.. and other don't-- which brings rise so many arguments regarding it.
True, the chances of a barrel of flour falling on someone's head - given health and safety law - without there being negligence are so remote as to render it almost impossible for the act to happen without gross negligence on behalf of the flour mill.
These cases are almost always so cut and dried - whether by physical fact or by interpretation of another legal principle - that they really do speak for themselves.
But that's the difference. In the case of the clamp or the flour a clear and definitive cause and effect can be demonstrated, there is no unsubstantiated assumption to be made. In the case of God there is no clear evidence to suggest that he was the only possible cause - other equally or more likely possibilities exist.
Yup, tis fun to think about it.
Strong evidence in the legal sense which implies there is a cogent case based upon evidence that is strong enough to withstand scrutiny. Generally this would be physical evidence or a strong theoretical probability that something happened.
That's the difference in definitions I guess.
Freedom of religious belief is an inalienable right. Stuffing that belief down other people's throats is not.
Blip.
Alright.. I started writing a response-- and then, someway into it, I realized I may have been doing it for the sake of arguing and, therefore, probably wasn't a good reason to be neglecting my homework.
Interesting interesting nonetheless. Thanks.
as to the rest of your arguments (both of you) they are also pointless because they have been refuted so many times its hilarious people still bring them up
I need no warrant for being, and no word of sanction upon my being. I am the warrant and the sanction. ayn rand
I need no warrant for being, and no word of sanction upon my being. I am the warrant and the sanction. ayn rand
Not to mention the fact that atheists have no claim on the subject. The closest thing to a claim that atheists have is "I don't know what's "outside" our universe, if anything, but you sound like you're full of shit to me". Now that CAN be proven, just see the rest of the forums.
In the court cases that Rhad talks about, they have a claim, which is that the evidence is not what it appears to be. They start with the proof, and then try to show that the evidence is incomplete, showing the missing evidence that shows how the full story. It's not the same as trying to prove a negative, as it only adds to the existing evidence (even if it's to prove the evidence as faked).
A mock trial of the subject would be a lot of fun. Find a truely agnostic (for lack of better term) or perhaps Unitarian judge, hire real lawyers, and get expert "witnesses" from both sides. If I was rich, I totally would.
What?
Well.. and I know that the patrician will argue this, but-- if we are starting from a point that says, "The universe speaks to the existence of a God"-- which many earlier generations have stated-- then it would merely be on you to prove an alternative theory-- not necessarily disprove the existence of God.. merely give sufficient proof for an alternative theory.
Res ipsa does not require that one disprove negligence.. merely give sufficient evidence for an another explanation.
That seems rather circular.
Um.. I'm not sure that is correctly stated either.
Um.. what arguments were we making exactly? I was making an argument regarding the application of legal principles directly to the philosphical realm.. I was arguing for the existence of God-- merely taking off with your original points.
Geez.
Would be pretty cool.
What?
find some sort of evadince that i cannot logically refute. that would be evadince
Well.. and I know that the patrician will argue this, but-- if we are starting from a point that says, "The universe speaks to the existence of a God"-- which many earlier generations have stated-- then it would merely be on you to prove an alternative theory-- not necessarily disprove the existence of God.. merely give sufficient proof for an alternative theory.
- this argument is rediculus. it has been debunked to the point of being funny, which was what i said later in a post.
That seems rather circular.
- and it will be that way untill you can prove to me the laws of the universe arnt laws, just contemporary aplications which can be replaced at any time. obviously you cannot prove this because proof assums an objective reality in which it is based. you say that the earth spinns because god says so, and untill he says otherwise. you will never be able to prove that the laws of the universe dont exist, therefore you cannot have evadince of a god.
Um.. I'm not sure that is correctly stated either.
no it was stated very well. if god were real evadince would be irrelevent, because evadince would be null and void because it would be baseless. if there is a god there is no reason to have evadince, because god can change the laws of the universe whenever the hell he wants. therfore if god were real evadince would be irrelevent.
answered this earlier
id love to see the outcome (only because i already know it)
I need no warrant for being, and no word of sanction upon my being. I am the warrant and the sanction. ayn rand
Anybody ever see the movie "Oh God" with George Burns and John Denver?
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0076489
It's already been thought of 30 years ago.
The almighty himself would have to stroll into the courtroom.
Personally, I would have him/her/it arrested on sight. But anyway...
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists.
Hmmmm. Tort law. Suing all of christendom for personal damages.
OOOOOPS! Can't be done due to breach of contract. YET!
Atheist class action suit?
REPARATIONS!!!
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists.
Um.. no.. evidence is not something that cannot be logically refuted. The only thing that can be "logically refuted" are the conclusions one makes with evidence.
Evidence: a rock.
Conclusion: it's made of jello.
"Logical refutation": A rock is a word whose prescriptive definitions suggests that it includes certain properties, jello not being one of them.
You don't "logically refute" evidence and the existence of that evidence does not depend on your inability to do so.
The rock still exists as evidence whether you "logically refute" the conclusion or not.
Um.. no-- it hasn't-- perhaps one might contend that the particular person acts inconsistently on the basis of his premise-- but one has not "debunked" the premise that "the universe speaks as to the existence of a creator."
If I'm wrong, please show me how I am-- here is the logical argument as simply as I can put it:
The universe speaks as to the existence of a creator.
There is a universe.
Therefore there is a creator.
It is circular.. yes.. but.. logical... merely lacking in the ability to convince anyone. Yet, the only way that you can "debunk" the argument is to the contend the validity of the premise. How would you do this? Who knows.. perhaps ask the person offering the argument to "prove" the premise. But.. my point still remains.. I a person does not need to "prove" a premise. He only need to "prove" it if he is trying to convince someone of it's validity.
The fact that he posits it suggests that he is already convinced of it... locked within the circular logic, you will have a tough time "debunking" it on his terms or even "debunking" it on purely logical ones. Perhaps, the only debunking that is possible are based upon that all not to convincing structure of the argument.. say.. if he comes up to someone who doesn't accept his premise and try's to use his argument to PROVE that that person is incorrect in his beliefs.
But STILL, this doesn't "debunk" the premise.
Isn't this asking me to prove a negative?
Yup.. I thought so.. that is exactly what you're asking me to prove.
Evidence is a word which defines a human concept. It's usually used in sentences, such as X suggests Y, X is therefore evidence, or X is evidence for Y.
Whether God changes the laws at his whim or not.. probably wouldn't change a humans wanting to create a relationship between X and Y and a concept of "evidentiary implication."
Yet.. on another point... the existence of God does not preclude the validity of what we view as valid evidence today.. perhaps that's what God wanted? Logically.. if God is omnipotent.. he could easily say "I will make X so that man will have a reference from which to make inferences from."
Or something of the like..
Heh.
Um.. no.. evidence is not something that cannot be logically refuted. The only thing that can be "logically refuted" are the conclusions one makes with evidence.
Evidence: a rock.
Conclusion: it's made of jello.
"Logical refutation": A rock is a word whose prescriptive definitions suggests that it includes certain properties, jello not being one of them.
You don't "logically refute" evidence and the existence of that evidence does not depend on your inability to do so.
The rock still exists as evidence whether you "logically refute" the conclusion or not.
- if you call a tree a rock i can logicaly refute that.
Um.. no-- it hasn't-- perhaps one might contend that the particular person acts inconsistently on the basis of his premise-- but one has not "debunked" the premise that "the universe speaks as to the existence of a creator."
If I'm wrong, please show me how I am-- here is the logical argument as simply as I can put it:
The universe speaks as to the existence of a creator.
There is a universe.
Therefore there is a creator.
this has been debunked, all over the rrs. hell, nightline debunked the argument.
Isn't this asking me to prove a negative?
no i am showing you how it is impossible to prove gods existance.
Yup.. I thought so.. that is exactly what you're asking me to prove.
-no, im showing you how you cant prove gods existance. im not asking you to prove anything, im showing you how you cannot prove something, therefore it is pointless to be an advocate of god unless you invoke faith.
Evidence is a word which defines a human concept. It's usually used in sentences, such as X suggests Y, X is therefore evidence, or X is evidence for Y.
- so we are to look outside the human relm to fnd evadince we cannot see?
Whether God changes the laws at his whim or not.. probably wouldn't change a humans wanting to create a relationship between X and Y and a concept of "evidentiary implication."
-wouldnt mater if we wanted to or not, only that it would be pointless becasue nothing would be defenet.
Yet.. on another point... the existence of God does not preclude the validity of what we view as valid evidence today.. perhaps that's what God wanted? Logically.. if God is omnipotent.. he could easily say "I will make X so that man will have a reference from which to make inferences from."
Or something of the like..
-and then the next day he says screw it... they
dont need reality.
Heh
you know its true
I need no warrant for being, and no word of sanction upon my being. I am the warrant and the sanction. ayn rand
This is a logical refutation of a conclusion.. not of the evidence. The evidence is still a rock. My conclusion is that it's a tree.
I've been here a long time. It hasn't. RRS has proved how silly it is to consider this particular argument convincing.. but they have not "debunked" the premise. For the very reason that you stated earlier.. impossible to prove a negative.
Asking me to "prove the laws of the universe are not laws" IS asking me to prove a negative.
To try and change the wording around and saying that you are not doing this.. only showing how it's "impossible to do something else".. doesn't change the fact that you are asking me to prove a negative.
Yes.. I agree.. to prove a negative is impossible.
No you're not.. you're specifically starting from square one.. asking me FIRST to prove that the laws of the universe are not laws or that they are not constant-- as if somehow this is a requirement to prove God exists (as if he could be).
I won't even touch on the issue of faith.. because that will open up a whole nother pandora's box.
If your argument in this is "If there is a God then to consider things evidence is pointless because God could change it all tomorrow!"
Then I have this to say in response.
If you determine what you do NOW based upon what might happen TOMORROW, then stop right now doing everything! Because you will surely die and the universe will surely collapse at some point... maybe tomorrow!
Because X might possibily change tomorrow does not affect the practical uses of X today.
If evidence was consistant for 1000 years, If God existed, would I say "Well.. because God might change it tomorrow I won't use this concept of evidence even though it might have some benefitial applications?"
That would be silly.
Heh. I know nothing of the sort.
Except in legal terms a case has to be proven beyond reasonable doubt, not absolutley.
Nope. 'It speaks for itself' aside, the onus is on the prosecutor to prove the case byond reasonable doubt so I'm asking theists to prove God exists according to this criterion. I'm not asking atheists to prove he doesn't.
Evreryoen has the right to present a case. It's for the judge and/or the jury to decide on the evidence presented.
How do you know?
No, the criterion is quite simple: Theists need to prove to me beyond any reasonable doubt that a supernatural, divine being exists. Hey, I didn't say it was easy, just possible.
Really, recognised legal arguments are pointless are they? Priceless.
Freedom of religious belief is an inalienable right. Stuffing that belief down other people's throats is not.
Except you're comparing a philosophical question to legal principles which are a totally different kettle of fish. The main point being that legal points don't have to be absolutely proven.
Freedom of religious belief is an inalienable right. Stuffing that belief down other people's throats is not.
Surely a philosophical question must have the same reasons based on evidence for proof as legal ones do. Surely if beyond reasonable doubt is good enough for the courts then the same must apply to evidence of god. Now I know there are differences in civil and criminal law in the UK with regards to levels of proof (let alone other countries), but I would love to see the theist's "rational or argument or logic" argued in a court of law. (See another post of mine regarding this and a theist who believes that lack of disproof is proof with regard to god and his trial for murder)
well, actually if a cristian or any other thiest is going to assert "god exists and you must accept my views!" then the burden of proof DOES in fact fall on the thiest to prove it. however if the assertion is "i 'believe' a god exists" i dont think there is even an implied need for eveidence. it is simply a belief, all you need for a belief is a reason TO believe, doesnt even have to be a 'good' reason. now if an athiest asserts "your Belief is false and you are a an imbicile for entertaining the idea" then i think the athiest is accountable to prove his/her assertion.
iranu i agree
the atheist doesnt have to prove the theists god isnt true, he cannot. it again is the theists busness to prove a positive. all you did by rearanging the atheist statement was make it sound like a positive (which would mean that he would have to prove it) HOWEVER THATS ALL YOU DID. MAKE IT SOUND LIKE A POSITIVE. he is still stating a negative, just in a different way.
I need no warrant for being, and no word of sanction upon my being. I am the warrant and the sanction. ayn rand
Ridiculous.
If I said:
"I love my dog."
I don't have to prove anything-- I have no obligation to whatsoever.
If I said:
"I love my dog, you better believe it!"
I do have an obligation, because I am stating a claim which pertains to things independent of myself, specifically: That you should believe something.
This, I believe, was his point.
If I said:
"I love my dog."
And you say:
"No you don't."
You are making a positive claim about my sentiment towards the dog as well as a negative claim about the existence of "love" in that equation.
It's all semantics..
Nevertheless.
A person does not need to defend that he has a belief... "I believe God exists," does not need to be defended. "God exists", on the other hand, might need to.
One is a statement regarding objective fact, the other regarding subjective feelings or perception.
So stop talking in absolutes and pay attention to the point he was trying to make.. he wasn't necessarily in disagreement with you-- you just seem to have made a controversy where none would otherwise exist.
If half the world believed in God yet felt no obligation to convince other people of that belief or to kill them if they didn't-- then from where would any obligation come to demand that they need to convince other people of that belief?
It's ridiculous, IMO.
Wait, what? You've admitted a fallacy in your argument but you expect it to stand? More specifically, you've committed a "fallacy of many questions" (some may prefer begging the question) error by presupposing that the universe speaks to the existence of a creator.
In this line of reasoning, that's the statement that needs proving, not "there is a creator".
As for the burden of proof, to the best of my knowledge it works the same philosophically as it does legally (unless you're in a British civil court, another topic for another day).
Well that depends on the standards of rigor we want to apply to the case. Your testimony that you love your dog could be sufficient enough evidence that you do, in fact, love your dog. If we wanted to up the standards of rigor, we could ask for proper care of the dog. The "you better believe it" part is somewhat irrelevant, as both statements are statements of fact. "You better believe it" is in fact another statement that I should believe what you say, regardless of what statement preceded it.
For example, I could say the moon is made of cheese, and you better believe it. I have to prove that the moon is made of cheese, and you should believe what I say.
Also, using emotions as examples can complicate matters.
Saying "no you don't" is different than saying "prove it". You are correct (but for the wrong reasons) in that it is upon the person who says "no you don't" has to prove the statement, assuming the standards of rigor allow your testimony that you love your dog to be sufficient to declare that you do, in fact, love your dog. Since you know your own mind better than the other person, the other person must provide other evidence to counter your claim (maybe you beat your dog).
Again, as above, saying "I have a belief that God exists" is usually sufficient evidence that you do actually, in fact, believe that God exists. However, you have that belief based on an assumption that God exists (otherwise you'd believe he exists without assuming he exists, which seems nonsensical). So when someone challenges your statement, they're challenging that God exists which is upon you to prove.
Of course, when I say prove, I mean provide sufficient evidence for.
I may be totally off base here but... anyway.
I don't think its necessary for everyone to provide evidence for what they believe. However, I think the demand for evidence/proof becomes important when those beliefs begin to affect other people. After all, if you're going to attempt to take away the rights of other people based on your belief, you better damn well be able to back up that belief.
If god takes life he's an indian giver
Circular logic is not a logical fallacy. "Begging the question" is a logical fallacy.
Circular logic can be something as valid as this:
4=2+2=1+3=0+4=2+2
Etc. Circular logic pertains to self sufficient logical models.
"Begging the question" pertains to circular logic as a means to convince someone in an argument.
In order to convince you of "c" I state:
If c then p.
If p then c.
Suppose p, therefore c.
I think you realize this later on in your post after this one.. which I will address now.
Point agreed, to some extent. While "you better believe it" does merely state a subjective opinion.. one which, in and of itself, perhaps needs no proof-- however, since it does address another person.. the other person would be completely warranted in asking for reason "why?"-- and that reason must be in line with the other person's beliefs.
Of course they are different.. my point was not to say that they are the same.. my point was to suggest where the burden of proof belongs.
Indeed. Where does the obligation to prove a claim belong? was my point. It doesn't ALWAYS have to do with "positive" or "negative" claims per se, since these labels can, at times, be moved around by simple rearrangment of the sentence.
False. A statement "I believe God exists" does not "assume" that "God exists" it merely assumes there to be reason for the belief.
For instance:
"I believe in pencils." This would be a strange sentence indeed, for the very reason that I assume that pencils exist-- there is no need to believe.
You cannot assert that "God exists" and "I believe God exists" make equivalent assumptions.. because they, in practice, do not.
"Pencils are real" and "I believe pencils are real" are very different statements-- not even close to implying the same thing.
Of course, when I say prove, I mean provide sufficient evidence for.
Sufficent evidence is necessary to support the assumption "there is sufficient evidence for my belief that God exists."
This.. would be more accurate, IMO.
And.. if that is all that is necessary.. then a completely acceptable response, logically, would be "Because I feel it"-- or something of the sort.
Circular logic.. not "Begging the Question". Not trying to convince you, merely explaining an internal process.
(Not mine personally... just stating some issues.)