Thank you for that frank admission.  Until such time as you do know, I think it best that you not preach about it.

It's because, as I said, our minds can't comprehend what created us.

From the belief that a higher power created our complex universe.

I can't perceive it.  I can have thoughts about its existence, but I can't fully understand it.

Ok, let me back up.  I was being circular, I apologize.  I'll rephrase, my belief that there is a higher power comes from the complexity of nature.  To me, nature itself speaks of some higher power having created it.

Agreed.  We can have thoughts about something no one has seen or fully described or characterized.

What is a "higher power"? Higher than what? What kind of 'power' is it? Electrical? Muscular? Nuclear?

What evidence do you have to support your belief? 

An evolved self replicating factory would be completely different than a factory that was designed. If we found a factory that had evolved then there would be all kinds of evidence that it had evolved just like all the evidence we have that the species evolved on earth. There would be terrible designs, things that did not make any sense at all for a designer to do, terrible waste of resources, indications that things had mutated, We would not have to assume anything - it would be obvious.

 

 We know that a magical being did not magically create the universe because there is no such thing as magic and magical beings do not exist. We have searched for evidence of magic and magical beings for thousands of years and found no evidence of magic or magical beings anywhere.

 

The ad hoc explanation that we have not found them because they are hiding from us does not pass the laugh test.

 For everything that was ever unexplained, there were always two possible types of explanations - magic and something natural. For thousands of years and tens or hundreds of thousands of unexplained things that were eventually explained, the correct explanation was always something natural. Magic was never the right type of explanation. The origin of the Universe is just another unexplained thing - again there are two types of explanations - magic and something natural. Based on our experience, there is no real chance at all that the magical explanation is the correct one.

A "higher power" would be one that is control of everything, one that is able to do anything they wish, and one that is able to create whatever they want. 

Sorry.  I'm using 'they' as a general term instead of writing 'he/she/it' everywhere, since I haven't quite figured out which of the three God is.

Like I have said before numerous times, my mere mortal mind cannot comprehend God.  Evidence?  You are evidence.  I am evidence.  We are both living beings.  Life does not come from non-life.

This is getting fun.  A 'god' would be defined as a creator and ruler of the universe.

Explain to me how life comes from non-life.  Now who's the liar?

We would be forced to assume design if there was no known natural process by hwich such a factory could be shown to have come into existence.  But we would not be forced to assume a supernatural designer, most likely we'd either show that it was secretly built by a human agency, maybe time travelers, or extraterrestrials.  In such an event as such a clearly unnatural factory existed on Mars or the Moon we are suddenly free to speculate on these already unlikely possible causes.  Consequently it wouldn't be too difficult to determine which of these designers were responsible for the factory.

Of course this situation defaults to a designer if we know of no natural process by which the factory could have come into existence.  This isn't to say that no such natural process exists, it is only to say that design becomes more likely.  It is also true that IF a designer can be proven to be necessary at least with a reasonably high degree of certainty then it becomes less important where the designer came from.  But the best way to prove design is to prove that there is no natural process by which something could have come into existence.  Naturally this is not how Intelligent Design advocates like to define their problem.

Why is this a necessary question?  Why is it necessary that this "uncaused cause" have an intelligence?  What reason is there to take as axiomatic that there was an intelligent "uncaused cause" and who really says the Big Bang was completely uncaused?  It is currently unknown what caused the big bang, but many mechanisms of the very rapid expansion of the universe have been proposed, shown possible and remain extremely likely.  This doesn't really explain the source of all the quarks in the universe, but there are theories about even more fundamental particles called Preons, and other theories based on the Preon theories in which what makes the Preons are loops, and in at least one of these theories these Preon-like loops are braids within the fabric of spacetime itself.  So far these are all unproven and untested speculation as to the cause of the "uncaused causer", and eventually we come back to the fact that at least spacetime has always existed, but in what way is this different from saying that God has always existed?  In reality it comes down to creationists removing the unknown an extra level, and a level which no one has shown to be necessary.  Occam's razor requires all unnecessary axioms to be removed from any scientific systems.

Now on this we completely agree.

How, when we know the natural processes by which cells reproduce, genes mutate, and protiens and enzyms are synthesized, should we see design in biology?  If you're referring to irreducible complexity, it is an idea far older than Michael Behe, and it is an idea which has been either misunderstood or misrepresented by Michael Behe.  Irreducible Complexity is, in reality the fact that certain complex biological systems are composed of many parts which perform necessary functions and if any part is removed from the system the entire system becomes nonfunctional.  From that Behe makes the leap that such a system could not have evolved.  This is not a logical assumption. 

Each of the parts perform their function in the complex system and can also perform other more or less similar functions in other precursor systems.  It all comes down to the fact that the only way to prove design through irreducible complexity is to show that there is absolutely no sequence of events that could possibly have occurred which would result in the natural evolution of an irreducibly complex system.  Behe never attempts to show this because it would mean he knew every possible sequence of events and that none of them lead to the natural evolution of an irreducibly complex system.  Instead he attempts to equivocate improbable with impossible.  These two things are not even close to the same.  Something that is improbable can still happen.

William Dembski very stupidly claims that there is some magical probabilitic number beyond which certain events are impossible.  What about the formation of the universe?  There were a potentially infinite number of possible configurations for which the universe, of which our bserved configuration is only one.  that's a probability of 1/infinity, almost zero, this is far less probable than Dembski's probability limit beyond which something should be considered impossible,  The only way his argument wins is if you assume design.  That's circular reasoning.  The argument is supposed to prove design, how can the argument prove design if you haven't already taken the fact of design as a premise?  In reality as long as the probability of an event is not 0 it is still possible, even though you definitely shouldn't bet on it.

I'd also like to add that I'm seriously curious as to how Behe calculates his odds to show that the evolution of, take his favorite example the Bacterial Flagellum, is even improbable?  Such a calculation of odds would require a lot of information we just don't have to even approach an accurate number.  Maybe the probability is extremely high, maybe it was extremely high back when it happened and has since become less likely due to different conditions?  Once again we come to a major assumption being made by an Intelligent Design advocate with no justification.

So in reality it's the Intelligent Design claim that requires EXTENSIVE demonstration and search to be valid, because the only way to prove design is to prove that in reality biological processes are NOT natural.  How would you propose we do that?

And this closing statement demonstrates your ignorance of abiogenesis.  The aminoacids and nuclaic acids which eventually became biological life did not result from rain on rocks.  It was most likely the product of a reducing atmosphere, that is an atmosphere with low O2 or O3 content and high carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen content.  This combined with an energy source like the sun, lightning.  Another proposed and viable source of life is deep in the oceans the nickel iron and heat of a hydrothermal deep ocean vents acting as chemical catalysts for the formation of nuclaic acids and amino acids when combined with compounds such as methane or amonium.  Both of these methods have been shown to produce, I believe, 19 out of the 20 amino acids used in all life on earth, and 4 out of the 5 nucleaic acids used in life on Earth (I know you're thinking there are only 4 nucleaic acids moron, actually DNA and RNA each only use 4 nucleaic acids, but RNA substitutes one which is found in DNA).  Basically life did not come from rocks and water, it came from energy and the atmosphere and water, since the water was the perfect medium for these components to come together in the form of the first cells.

 

pwned.

 

After reading George H. Smith, I'm repeatedly shown how totally right he was when he said that most Christians are agnostics and they don't even know it. 

As in I can't fully understand God, no duh.  By comprehend I mean that I know everything about him.

It's called faith dude.  Just because I don't know everything about God doesn't mean I can't believe in him.

Yes, and you know he's not there just like you know what everything in the universe is doing at this moment in time.  We can go on with this point forever.

Back to square one.  Again.  Sheesh. 

Religious faith is just a method of lying to yourself and others. Whenever anyone says they believe something becaue they have faith, then I know that whatever they believe is a lie.

this is just a bad argument. The reason we know a painting did not paint itself or a factory did not create itself is simple. It is made of chemicals that do not replicate themselves. Life, on the other hand, is--and thus the theory that chemicals replicated themselves, experienced mutations, and continued to replicate for billions of years is a very sound one, where the theory that a painting "evolved" is not a good theory. Really, I am sick of these kind of arguments.

 

Oh, and in response to the forum title--Atheists have the burden of proof, since I have seen no good reason not to believe in God, but many good (non-empiricle) reasons too believe in God. 

Note that they have provided many good reasons not to believe in religion, but this is beside the point. 

I understand your objections magilum and thank you for your concern.

just because religion uses the human desire for a God to gain power and create systems whereby they can control their followers (i.e. by claiming absolute value to the word of the pope, etc.) doesn't mean that everything they say is without value.  Many good ideas are exploited, such as aids relief in Africa.  Bribery, extortion, and stealing funds from such programs happen all the time, but this doesn't mean that aids relief is bad on principle.

 

Wait, are you answering your own question?  Because I agree that that is one very good idea for the sources of god/s. 

(I apologize for the length of this post. I felt it was necessary to adequately address the issue raised by the topic-starter.)

Those who propose an answer to the question of how the universe came to exist have a burden of supporting their proposition. To illustrate the concept of the burden of proof, it's useful to place this discussion in the context of a court trial. In a court trial there are prosecutors who say, "This entity [John Doe] existed at this time [2007] and caused this event [of murder] through some means [such as strangulation]." The prosecutor has the burden of supporting their proposition to a degree that would justify the jury's acceptance of that proposition.

The theists are prosecutors in the theology trial. They say, "This entity [called God] existed at this time [before the planck time of the universe] and caused this event [of the spatiotemporal fabric of the universe beginning to exist and subsequently inflating outwards in all directions] through some means [such as divine decree or whatever the case may be]." The prosecutor--the theist--has the burden of supporting their proposition to a degree that would justify the jury's acceptance of that proposition. The jury is comprised of negative atheists, also known as agnostic atheists, who haven't accepted the prosecutor's proposition or the counter-proposition a-priori. If the prosecutor doesn't make a strong enough case for his or her proposition's truth, the jury is justified in continuing to not accept it.

The positive atheists, or strong atheists, would also be considered prosecutors in the theology trial. They are saying, "This entity [vacuum / components of multiverse / etc.] existed at this time [before the planck time of the universe] and caused some event [the formation of our universe and subsequently inflating outwards in all directions] through some means [vacuum fluctuation / collision of membranes in eleven-dimensional space]." The prosecutor--the positive atheist--has the burden of supporting their proposition to a degree that would justify the jury's acceptance of that proposition. The jury is comprised of negative atheists, also known as agnostic atheists, who haven't accepted the prosecutor's position or the counter-proposition a-priori. If the prosecutor doesn't make a strong enough case for his or her proposition's truth, the jury is justified in continuing to not accept it.

I'm an agnostic atheist. I'm a jury member on this theological trial. The theists (Christians, Islamists, Judaists, Deists, Pantheists, and so on) have yet to make their case strong enough to justify my acceptance of their proposition and the strong atheists have also not made their case strong enough to justify my acceptance of their proposition. I do not bear a burden of proof or disproof. I'm not obligated to disprove Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Deism, Pantheism, vacuum flunctions, collisions of membranes in eleven-dimensional space, or anything else to maintain my nonacceptance of those propositions.

The burden of proof is a very useful notion because it brings order to epistemology where there would be chaos if there wasn't such a notion. Some construe the burden of proof as meaning the same thing as a burden of disproof but epistemologically there is no such thing as a burden of disproof. The acceptance of a notion of a burden of disproof implies that people can make up whatever claims they want and insist on their truthfulness until they're shown to be false, which causes epistemological chaos in the form of invisible fire-breathing dragons in my basement that you can't disprove. There is no such thing as a burden of disproof.

With that said, most of the atheists on this forum are, as far as I'm aware, negative atheists. Very few atheists here, if any at all, would claim to know how the (post-planck time) universe came to be in the way that it is. As such, it is improper to try placing the burden of proof on them, as I've sufficiently demonstrated in my courtroom analogy.

(Antony Flew has received a lot of attention lately because of his recent conversion to Deism because of his hasty prejudgment of the validity of Intelligent Design arguments, which he later threw in the trash, and "his" new book that wasn't even written by him. It really is saddening to watch him in his mental plight being taken advantage of by fraudulent Christians [who are actually anti-Christianity and pro-Money in my honest opinion]. Disregarding this for the sake of the conversion, though, I would like to direct peoples' attention to the article he wrote when he was an atheist that presents essentially the same argument that I've presented above but in a more thorough-going and rigorous form, titled "The Presumption of Atheism," which is used in the same sense as the presumption of innocense in courtrooms. This is a must-read for theists and atheists alike, in my opinion.)

The only burden of proof one could (within your epistemic rights) place on the negative atheist is to say they must meet the burden of proof in justifying their nonacceptance of your proposition. Meeting that burden of proof could involve various approaches to the arguments or propositions presented, such as: (1) showing that the notions of supernatural, god, spirit, soul, pre-time creation, and so on are broken concepts; (2) showing whatever flaws may exist in your argument that make it a non-proof; (3) and/or showing that the counter-proposition is true or more probable or, in other words, showing that your proposition is false or improbable.

Many atheists here, such as Deluded God and Hambydammit, have taken route (1). They might have succeeded in meeting their burden of proof in this manner--I haven't personally evaluated that line of argument in any thorough manner so I don't know. I have given similar arguments a quick look-over in the past, such as "The Argument from Noncognitivism" and they do seem quite persuasive.

I don't recall any atheists here taking the extreme version of route (3) in trying to show the universe was created by something other than a being called God, or even putting forward such a proposition. Any atheist that has must meet a burden of proof regarding that proposition, and I'll leave it to them to defend their position.

I shall only take route (2). I intend to show that flaws exist in the argument as presented by the topic-starter that are significant enough to justify my nonacceptance of the conclusion the topic-starter derived from his argument or intended his argument to support. By doing so I shall have met the only burden of proof that can (within your epistemic rights) be placed upon me concerning this matter.

The argument is that it's reasonable to conclude that a fully automated factory on another celestial body was the product of intelligent design and seeing as how there are similarities between automated factories and autonomous organisms justifies the conclusion that because they things under question resemble one another that the causes will resemble one another, hence the conclusion that both were intelligently designed. The argument is essentially one of analogy and such arguments rely on inductive inference. I intend to show that they are disanalogous enough that the inference in the argument is unjustified.

It could be shown that it's extremely improbable that a factory would arise due to known natural processes unaided by intelligence. In the case of a factory, the gist of the "tornado in a junkyard" argument would be valid. After all, the components of the factory do not replicate and consequently the replicated parts (which don't exist) would not have small changes that can approach greater fitness in accordance with the context of whatever fitness landscape you're using. (For example, one imaginable fitness landscape is increased energy efficiency to make better use of whatever coal happens to be placed into the factory and another imaginable fitness landscape is increased efficiency in gathering coal.)

It very well could be shown that the most plausible explanation for the existence of such a factory would be the placement of parts by intelligence or the placement of parts by the nonintelligent that happen to be guided by something intelligent. (People who build factories are generally intelligent folk but some are downright stupid. I think we can all agree on that.)

Your argument is in the form of an argument from analogy in which the conclusion is a tentative inductive inference. (Some people will argue against induction, as illustrated in the philosophy forum here, but I think it's an extremely valuable way of finding truth and won't argue against it.) A proper analysis of an analogical argument consists of ascertaining: (1) the truth of the similarities between the two things being compared; (2) the relevance of those similarities; (3) the number of relevant similarities; (4) the diversity of the relevant similarities; and (5) the relevant dissimilarities.

Suppose we are making an argument from analogy that because two restaurants are analogous then the one restaurant we haven't ate at will probably serve good food just as the other restaurant did. The similarities presented include: (1) they are both Italian restaurants; (2) they use the same quality olive oil; (3) pasta sauce; (4) meat products; (5) and vegetables. Let's go ahead and grant the truthfulness of the presented similarities. Those similarities are certainly relevant in deciding whether we would want to eat at the second restaurant. That is also a data set of similarities large enough to build our confidence in this restaurant. This satisifies factors one through three.

The diversity of the similarities aren't that impressive, they're all concerned with the style of ingredients. That doesn't build our confidence much, considering the fact that we would be more confident in the restaurant if the known similarities were more diverse, such as including the expertise of the chefs, the sanitation protocols, and so on. If they were the same in that respect, or better, we would certainly be much more confident in the restaurant. That covers factor four.

What about factor five though? Suppose we knew they had less extensive sanitation protocols. That would devastate our confidence in the second restaurant being nearly as good as the one we've already experienced. I don't want to eat at a restaurant where the chef was more likely to pick his nose while making my food. Our confidence in the place would be further devastated if we learned that the employees were newly hired and without much experience, in contrast to the other restaurant. If those two dissimilarites weren't there, we'd probably check out the restaurant but because those dissimilarities are real, we'd probably avoid the restaurant.

Let us use the same criterion to evaluate your argument from analogy between {factories and/or the constituent parts that comprise the factory} and {life forms and/or the constituent parts that comprise the life forms}.

The topic-starter did not list any similarities between factories and life forms. As such, I'm left with the task of filling in the blanks. I think it's safe to say that some of the similarities you intended to bright to light include: (1) they are comprised of complex parts and (2) the organization of the parts are a means to an end, such as the organization of the factory parts is a means to the end of gathering or combusting coal for the production of energy and the organization of the life form's parts is a means to a similar end of gathering or "combusting" food for the production of energy.

I will grant the "successfully passed this criterion" status for factors (1) and (2) because the similarities are truthful and they are relevant to the matter. Factor (3) involves the number of relevant similarities, which is fairly small. However, factor (4) involves the diversity of the similarities, of which the two that immediately came to my mind were fairly diverse as it's not frequently the case that complexity and apparent purpose would be found together in two objects. The confidence level for the argument is good so far, but what about factor (5), the dissimilarities?

One very substantial distinction to be made factories and life forms is that life forms create near-copies of themselves while factories do not. Those near-copies are important because they are not exact copies. In other words, undesigned changes can be introduced into the blueprint for life forms. Because those changes are undesigned and there's apparently nothing intelligent choosing the changes, there is a range of possibilities: beneficial, neutral, and detrimental changes. If there is a large group of life forms creating near-copies of themselves with possibly beneficial, neutral, or detrimental changes, there is a large potential for change.

If there's an eliminative process that removes many of the detrimental changes, that's not guided by intelligence and leaves only the beneficial and neutral changes, it would follow that beneficial and neutral changes would accumulate. An accumulation of beneficial and neutral changes would represent needless changes and beneficial changes to the blueprint of the life forms.

We know life reproduces and creates near-copies of itself with small but important beneficial, neutral, and negative changes. We also know that if various life forms have beneficial, neutral, and detrimental changes then their odds of surviving, and thus creating more near-copies of itself, are not equiprobable. It follows, then, that life forms with detrimental changes are less probable to create near-copies of themselves, in which case the detrimental changes are less probable of making it into the blueprint of other life forms. If the detrimental changes are less probable then the accumulation of neutral and beneficial changes is more probable, thus making it more probable that future blueprints would consist of neutral and beneficial changes rather than detrimental ones.

If it is detrimental to a life form to be more simplistic--more rudimentary--then it follows that the accumulation of neutral and beneficial changes would result in being less simplistic--less rudimentary--more complex and intricately ordered.

This line of thought illustrates an unthoughtful process that can give rise to the two features--complex parts and an orderly arrangement of parts for means to an end--that are analogous between factories and life forms. If there is sufficient evidence in nature to suggest that such an unthoughtful process is at work, there is no justification for saying factories and life forms have causes that resemble one another in the matter of intelligence.

There is sufficient evidence in nature to suggest that such an unthoughtful process is at work. In fact, there's a mountain of evidence for such a process--or should I say a planet of evidence? We can see in cells that the blueprints are replicated with beneficial, neutral, and detrimental changes and we see that the success of each blueprint in replicating is not equiprobable. Those blueprints are the genes of DNA. Many such genes have been sequenced and there is such a divergence of change found in the genes as predicted by the existence of such an unthoughtful process.

In fact, there are characteristics found in the genes that make much more sense under the unthoughtful process than a process of intelligent design. One such characteristic is the blueprint portions that produce vestigial structures. The coccyx (tail bone) of humans is one prediction of the unthoughtful process that makes no sense at all under the viewpoint of an intelligently guided process. In the unthoughtful process it makes sense that once-useful features would slowly disappear instead of quickly disappear because the accumulation of those small beneficial changes requires many thousands of reproduction events, whereas intelligent design would predict the elimination of such characteristics. Why create life forms that can fall on their butt and break a bone, causing extreme pain, when a bone isn't even useful there? In order, why would a thoughtful creation result in extremely stupid design decisions?

I'm not going to go through all of the evidence--I've grown tired of writing on this subject for now. I think that any intellectually honest person who objectively considers the genetic, embryological, biogeographical, and fossil evidence of such divergence or branching of organisms will ultimately come to the conclusion that between the two choices of thoughtful design and unthoughtful processes that lead to apparent design that the second choice is extremely more probable than the first choice. (Look on the internet for arguments against creationism or articles that seek to present evidence for evolution and you'll find tons of genetic, embryological, biogeographical, and fossil evidence. The user Deluded God might have some good resources on this matter, considering his field of expertise is molecular biology.) As such, I'll go ahead and conclude that there is a substantial amount of evidence in favor of the unthoughtful process and a substantial amount of evidence against the notion of intelligent design.

The dissimilarity between factories and life forms that I've illustrated--the well-evidenced potentiality of an unthoughtful process giving rise to complex parts and intricate, purposeful, arrangements of those complex parts and the well-evidenced nonpotentiality of the other process--in consideration of factor (5) in evaluating arguments from analogy is so substantial that it not only leaves your inference from the analogous features of life forms invalid, but almost certainly wrong. (But don't worry, I do agree with you about such a factory.)

By showing that I am justified in my nonacceptance of your inference, I have met the only burden of proof that can (within epistemic rights) be placed on me with regard to this topic.

Archeopteryx, a delightful read. Very good, thank you for that.

Like God keeping someone from commiting suicide three different times?  I think not...

If God "keeps" somebody from commiting suicide doesn't that violate their free will ?

Why didn't he then "keep" all other suicide victims from killing themselves as well?

Why is the God whom scripture describes as " no respecter of persons" playing favorites ?

God's compassion seems awfully arbitrary to me. Cry out to God in your moment of need and maybe he'll show up...and maybe he won't.

No, you see, the important thing is it was  "three different times" - which indicates the trinity. 

That has nothing to do with it, there is no symbolism in the "three times", that's just how many times it has happened.

1. The person almost commits suicide because they believe that there is no one out there who loves them.  While they are on the floor with a knife held to their neck, God tells them to wait, and two weeks later I come into the picture and start helping them get through life.

2. This person and I have an argument about God/the Bible (I was still an agnostic atheist at this time).  That night I have this strange feeling that God is telling me he exists.  I post my commitment to deism on my blog, the person reads it and decides not to commit suicide, they were going to "go home to God" because he and I were pulling her apart.

3. This person and I have an argument (again, haha) about the end times preacher Harold Camping.  They think that I have deserted them because of something I posted on my blog and pass out.  Somehow a kid she is babysitting at her house finds her phone and calls me (I have never met this person), telling me that she is suicidal because of what she read on my blog.  I manage to call her and explain to her what is going on, and we resolve the issue.

So there are my three events so far, you can choose to believe them or not.  The first one is probably my strongest point, but again, you can choose to discredit them, I have chosen to believe in divine intervention. 

Ungrateful, eh?

 

I wouldn't think to make light of this individual's plight, but your reasoning is quite the special plea.  This person read your blog and decided not to kill herself?  Perhaps you've heard recently  how a girl hung herself after being rejected by a fabricated myspace persona.  If failed suicides count as proof of god, successful ones should count as disproof.  

Of course.  Who needs burden of proof when you can simply choose to believe? 

 

Couple questions to clarify...

1) This girl is your girlfriend?

2) In example 1, did you start dating this person 2 weeks later?  Is this the point you entered said persons life?

3) In example 2, said "This person and I have an argument about God/the Bible".  Was this argument about your lack of belief in her belief?

 

On a side note...

 

If this person actually exists, and you care about them, they need to see a mental health professional.  What you have said so far is a very disturbing way for someone to handle things.

http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/sapient/kill_em_with_kindness/8026? 

It saved him because he realized that since this is the only life one has to live "dieing" isn't going to make things better except by removing every possible problem ever. Which as someone who was close to suicide a few times i can understand, thats basically what kept me form doing it.